CHAPTER X

THE QUESTE VERSIONS

We now reach a very important point in our investigation. The _Lancelot_ section of Malory is not only so much condensed, but also so fragmentary in character, and, apparently, so capricious in choice of incident that a critical comparison between the version there offered and other forms of the _Lancelot_ story can never be productive of a completely satisfactory result. It is one of those cases in which we must be content with probability, and renounce the hope of arriving at certainty. We have evidence enough to enable us to form an hypothesis as to the _original_ character of the MS. used by Malory; of its actual condition, whether complete or incomplete, and, if the former, of the reasons which determined the compiler in his choice of incident, we cannot yet speak positively. I doubt if we shall ever be able to do so.

But with the _Queste_ section it is different. As I remarked before, this part of the _Lancelot_ cycle is far more homogeneous in structure than the sections preceding or following it: it is a romance within a romance, complete and rounded off in itself. Malory appears to have felt this; he condenses still, it is true, but it is condensation, not omission; he follows the sequence of incident accurately, begins with the beginning, ends with the end, consequently we are in a far better position for comparing his version with that of the other texts, and can hope to arrive at a really satisfactory result.

The first noticeable variant is in the passage 'for of a more worthyer mans hande may he not receive the order of knyghthode,' words spoken by the abbess to Lancelot. These are not in =Q.= but are in =D. L.=:

'_Ende ic soude gerne sien dathi Van uwer hant ridder werde, wildi; Bedie van beteren man, sonder waen, En mocht i ridderscap niet ontfaen._'--Book III. 61-64.

Also in =1533=: 'car de plus preudhomme que de vous ne pourrait il recevoir l'ordre de chevalerie sicomme il nous est advis,' vol. iii. fo. 67. Here then =M.=, =D. L.= and =1533= agree together against =Q.= =W.= has 'for we think that a better than he could not receive that dignity,' thus referring the phrase to Galahad--a probable misreading of the original French.

In the account of the arming of Galahad, omitted in =M.=, =Q.= and =D. L.= agree in saying that _Lancelot_ buckles on one spur, _Bohort_ the other, whereas =1533= gives _Lionel_ and _Bohort_. This latter is, I think, the right version, otherwise Lionel, though present, would have no share in the ceremony. =W.= also omits Lionel, and makes Bohort only bestow a kiss on the youth, Lancelot buckling on the spur, in this case one only.

In the adventure of the sword in the stone we again find =M.=, =D. L.= and =1533= in accord against =Q.= All three relate that Gawain attempts to draw the sword and fails. This must be correct, as =Q.=, though not saying that he makes the attempt, represents Arthur as telling him to _laissies ester_ the moment he touches the hilt, words which both =D. L.= and =1533= place in Arthur's mouth after the attempt:

'_Nu laet staen Gi hebet wel min bevelen gedaen._'--ll. 231-2.

This latter phrase is evidently represented by =M.=: 'I thanke yow (s)aid the kynge to (s)yre Gawayne /' =W.= records Gawain's (Gwalchmei's) attempt, but not the king's speech.

According to =1533= no other knight makes the attempt. =D. L.= records Perceval's failure, and says that after that none would essay the venture.

'_Soe datmen vord daer niemanne vant, Die daer an wilde doen die hant._'--ll. 255-56.

I suspect that =M.=, 'Thenne were there _moo_ that dur(s)te be (s)oo hardy to (s)ette theire handes thereto /,' should be corrected by the substitution or insertion of a negative (_no_ before _moo_ or _none_), it would read more coherently. =W.= relates no attempt after Perceval, but does not say definitely that no one essays the feat.

The result here is clearly, =M.=, =D. L.=, =1533= against =Q.=, with special agreement of =M.= and =D. L.=, =1533= and =W.=[174]

In the case of Galahad's message to his relations at Corbenic, every one of the versions gives a different rendering.

=M.= My graunt sir Kynge Pelles / and my lord Petchere / (a manifest error).

=Q.= Mon oncle le roi Pelles / mon aioul le riche pescheoure.

=D. L.= Min here den Coninc Pelles--enten Coninc Vischere min ouder vader.

=1533.= Mon oncle le roy pescheur--et mon aieul le roi Pelles.

The greeting is omitted in =W.=

It is difficult to know what to make of such confusion, but of the four variants I prefer the last as possessing a certain _raison d'être_. The Fisher King was certainly the uncle of the original Grail Winner, and King Pelles is as certainly the grandfather of Galahad. It looks to me as if the compiler of this version had made an effort to combine the Perceval and Galahad stories, though his version as it stands is in contradiction to his text.[175]

=D. L.= text should be noted as compared with the statement of the earlier section, that the Maimed King and Fisher King are one, and that the personage thus named is _not_ King Pelles but his father. The manifest uncertainty of the Galahad _Queste_ as to the identity of this personage, and his relationship to the Grail Winner, as compared with the much clearer statements of the early Perceval story appear to me a proof of the lateness of the former. As to which of the four versions given represents the real view of the author of the _Queste_, I should not like to hazard an opinion--probably copyists altered according to their own particular view of the matter!

After the appearance of the Grail there is an interesting passage, omitted in =M.=, where Gawain remarks that each has been served with whatever food or drink he desired, which had never happened before save in the court of the _roi mehaignet_ (=Q.=); _roi Perles_ (=1533=, which generally adopts this spelling), _coninc Vischer_ (=D. L.=). Here =Q.= stops, but =D. L.= and =1533= continue Gawain's speech, _nom-pourtant ils ne peuvent onques veoir le sainct vaisseau ainsi comme nous l'avons veu, ainsi leur a este la semblance couverte_ (vol. iii. fo. 69). _Maer si waren bedrogen in dien, Dat sijt niet oppenbare mochten sien_ (687-8). Nevertheless, since he has not seen it as clearly as he might, he will go in quest till it be wholly revealed to him. I think the above passage is the source of =M.= '/ one thynge begyled vs we myght not (s)ee the holy Grayle / it was (s)oo precyou(s)ly couered /.' The compiler omits, as I said above, Gawain's reference to the previous appearance, but adapts the latter part of his speech to the circumstances he is narrating. =W.= gives the passage practically in its entirety, but so freely rendered that we cannot use it for textual comparison. The king is called King Peleur.

Here again I think we may postulate an agreement between =M.=, =D. L.=, =1533= and =W.= in a feature omitted by =Q.=[176]

=D. L.= is alone against the other three in not giving the owner of the castle 'Vagan' the same name as his castle, but simply says: 'Nu was een goet man te Vagan' (l. 1146), which I suspect is the right version. =W.=, on the contrary, does not name the castle, but says it belonged to _Bagan_, 'a good and religious man.'

In the account of the adventure with the shield, both =D. L.= and =1533= give Galahad's remarks to his companions more fully than do =Q.= or =M.=, though the general bearing of the passage is well represented in this latter. In both the first Galahad tells his companions that if they fail in the adventure then he will attempt it; =1533=, 'et se vous ne le pouez emporter ie l'emporteray, aussi n'ay ie point d'escu'; they then offer to leave him the adventure, but he tells them they must essay it first. =D. L.=:

'_Elst nu dat gi falgiert daer an, Ic sal daventure proven dan-- In' brachte genen scilt met mi._'--ll. 1244-54.

With this =W.= agrees.

Here, again, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.= give a much clearer text than =Q.=; and =M.=, though condensing, agrees closely in substance with the two first.[177]

In the adventure with Melians de Lile, =D. L.= and =1533= again all agree against =Q.= in stating that he is son to the King of Denmark (=W.= King of Mars), thus motiving Galahad's lecture on the duties of his high station. It was certainly in =Q.='s original, as he says: '_Puis ke vous estes--de si haute lignie comme de roy_,' though Melians has not told him his parentage.

=M.=, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.= are here superior to =Q.=

In avenging Melians on the knight who has overthrown him, =M.= and =D. L.= agree in saying that Galahad smites off the whole left _arm_, as against the '_poing_ senestre' of =Q.= and =1533=. =W.= says he cuts off his _nose_!

In the symbolic interpretation of Melians' adventure, =1533= gives the fullest and clearest version. The right-hand road represents the Way of Our Lord, wherein His knights 'cheminent de iour et de nuyt la nuyt selon l'arme et le iour selon le corps,' =1533= (vol. iii. fo. 74), which is intelligible. =Q.= exactly reverses this: 'entrent de jours selon l'arme, et de nuis selon le corps.' =M.= gives, 'For the way on the ry[gh]t hand betokeneth the hyghe way of our lord Jhe(s)u Cry(s)te / and the way of a true good lyver /'; =W.=, 'On that road go the souls of the innocent,' thus evading the difficulty. =D. L.= is here very confused, and does not seem to have understood the passage.

In the adventure of the Castle of Maidens, =M.=, =D. L.=, and =1533= again agree in saying that Galahad meets seven maidens, against one in =Q.= =M.='s '/ Soo moche peple in the stretes that he myghte not nombre them /' is evidently a rendering of =1533=: 'tant de gens que il estoit impossible de les scavoir nombrer.' =D. L.= has exactly the same phrase, but gives '_joncfrouwen_' instead of '_gens_,' thus for once agreeing with =Q.=, which gives _puceles_, against the other two. =W.= here gives 'maidens,' but in the first instance has 'a youth.'

A little later, =1533= and =D. L.= throw light upon an apparent contradiction between =M.= and =Q.=, noted by Dr. Sommer.[178] The old man of whom Galahad inquires the meaning of the adventure is, as Dr. Sommer remarks, the same who has given him the keys; but =M.= says he asks a '_preest_.' Both =1533= and =D. L.= agree in saying that Galahad asks the old man who brought him the keys, when he comes to him the second time, if he be a priest, and is answered in the affirmative. Again, the three agree in giving seven years as the time the customs have been established, against the two in =Q.= =W.= here agrees in both points with =1533= and =D. L.=

It is plain that we must reckon this entire adventure among the agreements of =M.=, =D. L.=, =1533=, and =W.=, though in one particular =D. L.= and =W.= agree with =Q.=

In the account of the fight of Gawayne, Gareth, and Uwayne, with the seven brethren, both =D. L.= and =1533= give Gariët (Gaheriet) as the equivalent of Gareth.[179]

When Lancelot is sleeping before the Grail chapel, =1533= clearly states that the servant of the knight who has been healed takes Lancelot's sword and helmet, as well as his horse, whereas =Q.= only mentions the horse; but says later that Lancelot finds himself 'tot desgarnis de ses armes et de son cheval.' =D. L.= also only mentions the horse at the moment, but a little later on states that Lancelot is 'sonder scilt ende helm ende part,' thus practically agreeing with =1533=. =M.= differs from both in saying that it is _sword_, helm, and horse of which the squire deprives him. =W.= here agrees with =M.=

=M.= and =D. L.= agree in omitting the parallel between Lancelot and the bad servant, in the Parable of the Talents, which is given by =1533= and =W.= But it is a noticeable feature of both =D. L.= and =1533= that though they give as a rule a fuller account than =M.=, both of them shorten very considerably the improving and 'sermonising' sections which are such a feature of =Q.= On the other hand, both give the adventurous sections in a more accurate and detailed manner.

Perceval's interview with the recluse, in Book XIV., is clearer in =D. L.= than in either of the French versions, and has some special features of interest.[180] Thus in =Q.= Perceval asks, who was the knight who overthrew him. He does not know 'ne se ch'est chil qui vint en armes vermeilles a court' (_when_ he does not say); the recluse answers, 'Yes,' and she will tell him the 'senefianche.' In =D. L.= the passage runs thus: Perceval asks,

'"_Oft gi wet wie die riddere es Dien ic soeke berecht mi des," Si gaf hem antwerde daer of; "Hets die gene die quam int hof In sinxen dage, ende die dan Die rode wapine hadde an." "Nu seldi mi wel berichten des, Wat betokenessen dat was?_"'--ll. 3229-36.

This seems to me a preferable rendering.

=W.= here hovers between the two versions. The aunt tells Perceval who Galahad is in answer to his question, as in =D. L.=, but volunteers the explanation as in =1533=.

Later on Perceval tells her:

'_Hoe hi gevonnen hadde sijn lant, Ende sijn broder daer in es bleven Met sinen liden, mit sinen neven. "Dat wet ic wel," seit si saen, "Die heilegeest deet mi verstaen, Dies ic harde blide was."_'--ll. 3442-47.

There is no parallel to this in the other versions, but it agrees with what we find in _Morien_; and I think it probable that the Dutch compiler, who seems to have been very familiar with the _Perceval_ story, may have introduced it.[181]

The castle at which Perceval is to seek a kinsman is not named in =D. L.=, but =M.= Goothe, =W.= Goth, and =1533= Got, agree against =Q.= there.

In Perceval's adventure with the Fiend Horse, the text of =1533= is again preferable, being clear and detailed throughout, _e.g._ whereas when the lady asks Perceval what he does under the tree, =Q.= makes him answer, 'Qu'il ne _sent_ ni bien ne mal mais s'il eust cheval il se leva d'illuec.' =1533= gives 'qu'il ne _faisoit_ ne bien ne mal' mais si j'avoye ung cheval ie m'en iroye d'icy.' =W.= here agrees with =1533=.

After the fight with the dragon, =M.= tells us that Perceval 'ca(s)te donne his (s)held / _whiche was broken_ /.' =Q.=, agreeing in the first part, omits this feature; but both =D. L.= and =1533= say the shield was not broken, but _burnt_: 'Der verbernt was wech ende wede' (3886); 'Qui estoit tout brulé' (III. fo. 83). As we have previously been told that the dragon was breathing forth flame, this is manifestly correct. =W.=, describing the fight, says, 'his shield and breastplate were burnt all in front of him,' and that he 'threw the shield from him burning.' =M.=, who is condensing here, omits the fiery breath, hence, I suspect, the _broken_ instead of _burnt_ shield.

I think we may take this again as agreement of =M.=, =D. L.=, =W.=, and =1533= against =Q.=

The 'drois enchanteres vns multeplieres de paroles' of the French versions, with which =M.= closely agrees, is in =D. L.=:

'_Hets een toverare sijt seker des Die can dinen van vele spraken Ende van enen worde hondert maken._'--ll. 4294-6.

An amplification probably due to the exigencies of rhyme;[182] though as =W.= gives, 'He was a necromancer, who of one word would make twelve without ever saying a word of truth,' the original source may have had something similar.

=M.=, =D. L.=, and =W.= again agree against =Q.= and =1533= in giving a shorter version of Perceval's prayer, and omitting all New Testament references.

The adventure of the dead hermit, in Book XV., is, again, better told in =D. L.= and =1533= than in =M.= or =Q.= Thus =Q.= omits to state the nature of the supposed transgression, which is clearly set forth in the other three:

'_Maer hine es niet, donket mi, Na sire ordinen gebode, Noch na onsen herre Gode; Want hi niet heden den dach In sulken abite sterven ne mach, Hine hebbe bi enegen onmaten Sine ordine nu gelaten._'--ll. 4780-87.

This is evidently the source of =M.='s 'this man that is dede oughte not to be in suche clothynge as ye see hym in / for in that he brake the othe of his ordre /.' =W.= gives the same reason at greater length.

Later on =M.= seems to have had before him a reading nearer to =Q.=: in the morning, 'il trouverent sans faille le preudhomme _de vie_,' which =M.= understood as _alive_, since he says, 'he laye all that nygt tyl hit was daye in that fyre and was not dede /,' though immediately afterwards he says that the Hermit came and found him dead. =D. L.= and =1533= say, 'Ende alse dat vier utginc si vonden Den goeden man doet tien stonden,' ll. 4915-16; 'ilz trouverent sans nulle faulte le preudhomme mort.' The miracle consisting in the fact that his garments (_e.g._ the linen shirt) were untouched by fire, so that he evidently had died from the previous ill-usage, not from the burning--a result which he had predicted. =W.=, on the contrary, says that 'when the fire was extinguished the man was as lively as he was before. And then he prayed Jesus Christ to take his soul to Him, and He received him, without injury to the shirt or himself.' The whole adventure should be carefully compared, and the superiority of these three versions will be clearly seen. The two first are, I think, the correct version of the incident, but =W.=, though rendering freely, gives a fuller account than is often the case.

The list of Celidoine's descendants agrees in =D. L.= and =1533=, while =M.=, though varying from the other three, leans rather to these two than to =Q.=:

=D. L.= =1533.= =M.= =Q.=

Marpus. Narpus. Nappus. Warpus.

Nasciens. Nasciens. Nacyen. Chrestiens.

Cham. Ch'm le gros. Hellyas le gro(s)e. Alain li gros.

Helyas. Helyas. Ly(s)ays. Elias.

Jonas. Jonas. Jonas. Jonaaus.

Lancelot. Lancelot. Lancelot. Lancelot.

Bans. Ban. Ban. Ban.

I think here the second name is certainly Nasciens, and that the mysterious _Cham_ of =D. L.= and =1533= (a personage whom we do not know) ought probably to be _Alain_. Such a mistake might easily be made by a copyist, if the MS. before him were not clear and he was unfamiliar with Grail traditions. I think it very likely that =M.='s source was much the same as that of =D. L.= and =1533=, and that he dropped out _Cham_, but the comparison of the four versions is interesting. The list is omitted in =W.=

The black and white knights are treated by =D. L.= as purely visionary and symbolic, and no names are given.

The incident of the black knight, who issues from the lake and kills Lancelot's horse, differs in =1533= from the other four versions. Instead of striking the horse at once he rides past Lancelot without touching him, then returns, striking the horse _en route_ and disappearing in the lake. I suspect that this is the right version; the knight is evidently a water-demon, and having his dwelling in the lake should return there.

At the commencement of Book XVI., when Gawain and Hector meet, they ask if any tidings have been heard of the principal questers. Here there are some interesting variants: =Q.= mentions Lancelot, Galahad, and Bohort, but says these _four_ are the best of the questers; =D. L.= only mentions these, but says rightly these _three_; =1533= first mentions Lancelot alone, then Galahad, Perceval, and Bohort, and reckoning all together, says these _four_, and with this =M.= and =W.= agree.

There are but few interesting variants in the account of Bohort's adventures; the symbolic interpretations are, as usual, much less insisted upon, indeed =1533= gives no such explanation either of the disinherited lady, or of the 'lily and dry wood' vision, though Bohort is assured of Lionel's safety. The fight between the two brothers is also more briefly told: we do not hear that they lie long unconscious after the flame descends, but Bohort is told at once to join Perceval. Here =W.= agrees with =D. L.= and =1533=.

=D. L.= differs from all the other versions in naming the damsel who warns Bohort of her mistress' suicidal intention. She is called Pallada.

In Book XVII., in all concerning the mysterious ship, the text of =D. L.= and =1533= is far superior to that of =Q.= The inscription in =D. L.= runs thus:

'_Hort man, die wils gaen hier in, Besie di wel, ende oec merc Dattu sijs geloves vol ende sterc. Want ic els niet dan gelove ben Hier bi hoede elkerlijc hem: Falgiert hem eneger maniren Van gelove, ic sal hem falgiren._'--ll. 7910-16.

=1533= says the inscription is in 'langaige dit _Caldeu_,' and says 'si tost q tu guerpiras ta creance ie te guerpiray en telle maniere que tu ne auras de moi ne conseil ne ayde,' and proceeds to explain (which no other text I have consulted does) that if he who enters fail in faith he will fall into the water. This should be compared with the passage in Hucher,[183] where the inscription on the ship agrees closely and is also said to be in Caldiu. The warning as to the nature of the penalty is omitted here, but the penalty is incurred exactly as =1533= foretells.

=M.= evidently had the warning of =D. L.= and =1533= before him when he wrote 'for and thou faile I shal not helpe the /.' =W.= gives the warning in more general terms, due perhaps to the translator.

Perceval's speech on entering the ship is again best given by =1533=. Here, he says, he will enter 'pour ce que se ie suis desloyal que ie y perisse comme desloyal, et se ie suis plain de foy et tel comme bon chevalier doit estre que ie soye sauvé,' _i.e._ he submits to the test in all humility. =Q.= says: 'Car iou sui plain de foi et teus comme chivalers doit estre,' thus omitting the qualifying phrases, and giving the speech quite a different meaning. =W.= closely agrees with =Q.= =D. L.= also, though less abrupt, practically agrees with =Q.=; while =M.= must have had the version of =1533= before him: 'for yf I be a nys creature or an untrue knyghte there shalle I perysshe'--a reading he could not possibly have derived from either of the other two.

In the account of the scabbard of the sword we have a most interesting variety of readings, but, comparing one with the other, it appears certain that here again =1533= is in the right.

One side of the scabbard is said by =D. L.=, =1533= and =M.= to be red as blood, with an inscription in letters black as a coal; while =Q.= says the scabbard is 'black as pitch'--an evident confusion with the inscription. =W.= says the sheath is 'rose-red,' with letters of gold and silver.

The name is given differently in each instance: =Q.=, memoire de _sens_; =D. L.=, Gedinkenesse van _sinne_; =M.=, meuer of _blood_; 1533, memoire de _sang_. =D. L.= and =1533= go on to say that 'none shall look upon that part of the scabbard which is made of the Tree of Life but they shall be reminded of the blood of Abel.' =M.= omits the latter part of this sentence, thus making great confusion.

Now, comparing these versions together, the right reading becomes perfectly clear. The scabbard is red, for it was made (at least one half of it was) of the wood of the Tree of Life, which, as we are distinctly told, turned red at the death of Abel; and the inscription '_memoire de sang_' was intended to keep this event in mind. The confusion, in the case of =Q.= and =D. L.=, clearly arose from the MS. at the root of the first having had the reading san_s_ for san_c_ or san_g_ (a reading often met with); a careless copyist, heedless of the sense of his transcription, wrote _se_ns and this was correctly translated by the compiler of =D. L.= as _sinne_; a reading which, however unintelligible in itself, would probably not strike the compiler (who was certainly an intelligent writer with a very good knowledge of French) as absolute nonsense, inasmuch as it was connected with the 'calling to mind' of the death of Abel. =Q.=, who omits this qualifying passage, does make nonsense of it. In =M.='s case the mistake was in the first word, and probably arose from a confusion between _m_ and _uv_, which may very well be due to Caxton; otherwise =M.= appears to have had the same version as =1533=, which, alone, has preserved it free from error. =W.= omits the inscription altogether.

The 'erle Hernox' in =M.=, Ernous in =Q.=, is in =D. L.= and =1533= Arnou_t_ and Arnou_l_. Ernoulf in =W.=

Both =D. L.= and =1533= state that the maiden who shall cure the lady by her blood must be not only a virgin and a king's daughter but _Perceval's sister_. This is neither in =Q.= nor in =M.=, and may perhaps indicate that, as I have suggested, these two versions belonged to an original _Perceval-Lancelot_ redaction, from which they introduced occasional additions to Perceval's share of the _Queste_, as in the previous allusion to his having recovered his kingdom in =D. L.=[184]

In the account of Lancelot's visit to Corbenic, after being struck down at the sight of the Grail, =Q.= says he is discovered seated (seant) before the door, while the other three all represent him as lying (lyinge--licgende--gisant), which is certainly more in harmony with the general situation. =D. L.= says that when Lancelot recovers and knows he has lain unconscious fourteen days he bethinks him:

'_Hoe hi hadde gedient den viant .xiiij. jaer, ende pensede te hant, Dat hem onse here daerti dede Die macht verlisen in sine lede .xiiij. dage._'--ll. 9919-23.

Whereas =Q.= only says 'qu'il avoit servi l'anemi.' A meaningless phrase, as it stands. =M.= agrees with =D. L.= with the exception that he says _twenty-four_ instead of _fourteen_, in which he is certainly correct, as Lancelot's _liaison_ with Guinevere had begun long before the birth of Galahad. The number may have been altered by the compiler of =D. L.= for the exigencies of the rhyme, which would not admit the original form. =1533= omits the passage altogether, condensing considerably at this point.[185] =W.= does not specify whether he were lying or seated, but agrees with =D. L.= in giving fourteen years, which rather looks as if that number may have been in the source of this latter.

In the account of the questers at Castle Corbenic =D. L.= and =1533= alike clear up a passage which, as it stands, is obscure in =M.= and utterly unintelligible in =Q.= Nine stranger knights arrive at the castle,[186] three being of Gaul, three of Ireland, and three of Denmark. When they separate the next day, =Q.= has this unintelligible passage--Galahad has asked the strangers' names--'et tant qu'il trouuerent estrois de gariles, que claudins li fieus le roi claudas, en ert li uns et li autre de quel terre qu'il fuissent, erent asses gentile homme et de haut lignage.'[187] =M.= renders, without any mention of names being asked, 'But the thre knyghtes of Gaule, one of them hyghte Claudyne, kynge Claudas sone / and the other two were grete gentylmen' (which should surely have given Dr. Sommer a clue to the right rendering of the passage).

=D. L.= runs thus:

'_Ende alsi buten den castele quamen Vragede elc oms sanders namen, Soedat si worden geware das, Dat van den drien van Gaule was Claudijn Claudas sone die een, Ende si vonden van den anderen tween Dat si waren van groter machte Ridders, ende van groten geslachte_'--ll. 10601-8.

=1533= has, 'Si trouverent que des trois de Gaulle Claudius le filz au roy Claudas en estoit ung et les autres estoiet assez vaillans.' It seems clear that =M.='s text is that of =D. L.= carelessly abridged.[188]

Both =D. L.= and =1533= conclude the _Queste_ section with the passage relating the death of the twenty-two (twenty-four) questers, eighteen of whom fell by the hand of Gawain; the writing out of the knights' adventures, and the preservation of the record in the abbey of Salisbury where Map found them, this latter item being omitted by =1533=. This passage is, as a rule, now found at the beginning of the _Mort Artur_ section, but, I think, it is clear that its proper place is at the end of the _Queste_; as I have pointed out already, the light in which it represents Gawain is entirely in keeping with that romance, while it does not agree with either the _Mort Artur_ or the _Lancelot_, both of which regard Arthur's gallant nephew with genuine respect. Further, the drawing up of a record of adventures is better placed at the end of the section dealing with the adventures to be recorded than at the beginning of another. =M.='s words, 'alle this was made in grete bookes / and put up in almeryes at Salysbury /' coupled with his total omission of any corresponding passage at the commencement of the next book, seem to prove that in his source, too, it stood at the end of the _Queste_.[189]

What now are the results we may deduce from this examination of four versions of the Galahad _Queste_? First, I think it is clear that the verse translation in =D. L.= and the prose =1533= both offer a text very decidedly superior to that edited by Dr. Furnivall, and, if Dr. Sommer's extracts are to be relied on, that represented by the majority of the printed editions of the _Lancelot_. Second, it is equally clear that the text used by Malory stood in close relation to these two versions. Many variants attributed by Dr. Sommer to the English compiler, are, it is now certain, due to his source, in the treatment of which he shows little sign of intelligence or invention, but rather a tendency to compression at all hazards, sometimes omitting the very part of a phrase which was required to make the whole intelligible. The general tendency of our examination, therefore, goes to establish the practical agreement of =D. L.=, =1533= and =M.=, as against =Q.= and =S.= The version given by =W.= is so free a rendering, and omits so many details, that it is scarcely possible to place it. It seems clear that the _original_ source must have belonged to the same MS. family as the former three, but whether the agreement was with =1533=, rather than with =D. L.= and =M.=, or _vice versa_, it is impossible to say.

But how do these three stand as regards each other? On the whole =1533= appears to represent the better text, and it also appears to have preserved signs of an earlier redaction, yet I do not think it is the direct source of the other two. We often find =D. L.= and =M.= agreeing in details of numbers and names, as against the other version; certainly in the case of such a name as Brimol van Pleîche, Bromel la Pleche, the agreement must be due to a French source common to both. I should be inclined to postulate some such scheme as this.

=A.= (Original French Version). | +-----------+---------------+ | | =1533.= =B.= French. | / \ / \ =D. L.= =M.=

As will be seen from the summary of =D. L.= appended to these studies, both this version and =M.= show, in the _Lancelot_ section, a certain _plus_ of incident as against =1533=, though these incidents vary in each case. The relation cannot, therefore, be exactly determined, but I think there can be no reasonable doubt that for the _Lancelot-Queste_ section of his compilation Malory used an _Agravain-Queste_ MS.

That he had _two_ MSS., one for the _Lancelot_, another for the _Queste_, as Dr. Sommer[190] suggests, is highly unlikely. It would be too curious a chance that he should in each case hit on a version so closely corresponding to that of the two with which we have compared his reading.

This appears to me practically to dispose of the argument, that Malory had before him a number of episodic romances, an argument often brought forward;[191] the 'Turquine' episode in Book VI., the whole of Book VII., and the adventure with the damsel of Escalot being instances in point. Turquine certainly came out of the _Lancelot_, as did the lady of Escalot; Book VII. may have been an episodic romance, as also the handling of Urre of Hungary; though this latter, as we shall see, may equally well be an amplification of an adventure found in the prose _Lancelot_.[192]

Again, it very greatly limits the probability of Malory's having elsewhere worked with a free hand, inventing and rearranging, when we find, as we have done, that numerous small details, hitherto ascribed to him, are faithful reproductions of his source. We are justified in cherishing very serious doubts as to the originality of any marked deviation from the traditional version of an adventure which we may find in his compilation.

These arguments, of course, apply most strongly to his version of the _Charrette_ adventure, the problem of source of which, so far as Malory is concerned, is absolutely unaffected by the evidence we have collected. This alone is certain, there is _no proof whatever_ that he knew anything of the first part of the _Lancelot_ romance, his treatment of the Lady of the Lake seems to show that he was absolutely ignorant of it. He was _not_ in the habit of departing unnecessarily from his source, his variations as a rule are slight, and their motive can generally be detected; when, therefore, we find him giving an entirely different account of the abduction of Guinevere from that given elsewhere, the probabilities are all in favour of his reproducing a separate source, and all against his original invention. So far as the matter stands in the light of the latest evidence, the question remains unsolved, with a decided balance in favour of the theory advanced by M. Gaston Paris, and against that advocated by Professor Foerster.[193]

Leaving the question of Malory, what may we hold to be the result of this examination on the problem of the _Queste_ itself? Is the form in which we possess it practically the original form, or are we to postulate a series of successive redactions? I think that every one who has carefully studied the variants given above must have been struck by the fact that in no case is the question one involving a variety of incident or even an alteration in sequence. It is the same story in every case, told in the same order, in the same words, only certain copies give a fuller and more coherent version than others. In fact, as I said above, the variations are the variations of the copyist, not of the compiler. The one point in which we may postulate either omission or addition, _i.e._ the greater or less fulness, the presence or absence, of the 'improving' sections, is precisely a point in which we might expect a copyist of a more or less didactic turn of mind to assert himself; it was so easy to expand or to contract such passages. And it is a curious feature that precisely in those versions in which the _story_, as a whole, is the best told (=D. L.=, =1533=, and in a minor degree =M.=), we find the edifying passages in their shortest forms; while =Q.=, the text of which as compared with the others is decidedly poor, gives them at the greatest length.

Of any previous redaction of Galahad's adventures there is no trace; there are no lengthy interpolations as in the _Conte del Graal_ MSS.; there is no conflict, such as we find in other romances, between an earlier and later form; in sundry passages we have allusions to unrelated adventures: we are told that the heroes ride so many days, weeks, or years, and meet with many and strange adventures, but in no copy do we find any hint of what these adventures may have been; yet had there existed an earlier and fuller form, some fragments of it must surely have been preserved.

And this argument becomes more convincing the more closely we look into it. Above we have compared _four_ versions of the _Queste_ (_five_ if we include =W.=), but one of these, Dr. Furnivall's edition, does not represent one MS. only, but is founded on a critical collation of two, and contains a specimen of the opening columns of twelve MSS. of the _Bibliothèque Nationale_; while Dr. Sommer states that he has examined four other versions and found that, saving details of style, all agree in incident and sequence. We may therefore take it as certain that one of the four variants represents at least _five_ MSS., while scholars of standing assure us of the practical identity of sixteen more!

Now, side by side with these _Queste_ versions, we have compared four versions of the prose _Lancelot_, and of these four no two agree perfectly throughout, and all differ from the summary given by M. Paulin Paris.

=D. L.= and =1533=, which on the whole correspond well with each other, yet have their distinctive differences, _i.e._ =D. L.= contains adventures not related by =1533=; =M.=, while on one side condensing arbitrarily, on the other gives two adventures known to neither of the first; and =S.= omits an important section altogether. The summary in _Romans de la Table Ronde_, while agreeing on the whole with the two first, deviates from both in the later sections.[194]

The practical identity of _all_ the versions of a romance transmitted in so large a number of MSS. as the _Queste_ is, I believe, unique in the Arthurian cycle. Such a phenomenon, for it is nothing less, can, I think, only be explained in one way: there was but one version of the story, and that version took shape, _not_ at a period when _oral_ transmission was the rule, but at a later date, when the story could at once find expression in literary form. I do not believe that any story, the earlier stages of which were developed _orally_, is ever, when committed to writing, found so entirely free from variants.[195]

Can we decide what special form of the Perceval _Queste_ the Galahad variant was intended to supersede? I think not: it is noticeable that the writer never gives any adventure which finds an exact parallel in the older romances, yet he not only knew the Perceval story, but knew it in various forms. The allusions in Book XIV., though slight, are remarkably instructive: he knew that Perceval was the son of a widow, and that his mother died of grief at his departure (Chrétien, Wolfram, Didot _Perceval_); that in his wanderings in search of the Grail he came to the dwelling of a female recluse, who proved to be a near relative (only related by Wolfram); that he has a sister (Didot _Perceval_, and _Perceval li Gallois_). Thus in these few allusions he is in touch with the whole cycle of Perceval romance! When, therefore, we find that he never elsewhere assigns to Perceval any of the adventures traditionally connected with him, but gives him a new series which are duplicated elsewhere, one can only conclude that it is done of set purpose.

Of the parallels given above, the existence of the sister appears to me to be the most important, judging from the prominence of the rôle here assigned to her. She only appears in the two forms of the Perceval _Queste_ which show traces of having formed part of a cycle; and inasmuch as _Perceval li Gallois_ represents the mother as living to see her son return, and regain his kingdom, the correspondence is closer with the Didot _Perceval_, but the question can hardly be settled.

As a _Grail_ romance the _Queste_ is extremely poor. The utter confusion of the writer as to the identity of the Fisher King and Maimed King; the inter-relation of Grail Winner, owner of Grail Castle, Fisher King and Maimed King; the neglect of the most obvious conditions of the quest, such as ignorance on the part of the predestined Grail Winner; his giving proof of identity by fulfilment of a test; the inaccessibility of the Grail castle to all but the elect knight--all show a most extraordinary carelessness on his part, were he intending to write a Grail romance pure and simple. Ignorance we cannot postulate. He knows too much about Perceval not to know more about the Grail! It is evident throughout that the main anxiety of the author is to keep himself in touch with the _Lancelot_ rather than with the _Grail_ tradition. He is extremely careful to introduce references to that portion of the _Lancelot_ story with which he is familiar; to explain that the adventures foreshadowed in _Grand S. Graal_ and _Lancelot_ have been really fulfilled, and so long as he can demonstrate his hero to be a worthy upholder of the glories of the race of King Ban, he cares very little if he fails to fulfil the necessary conditions of the original Grail Winner. This latter may know from the first what the Grail is, where it is, his own predestined relation to it, his final winning it may be reduced to an absurdity by the presence of eleven or twelve others all equally worthy of beholding the sacred talisman, but that matters nothing to the author; he has contrived to bring the Grail into more or less harmony with the _Lancelot_ legend; he has crowned the most popular of Arthur's knights with reflected glory as father of the Grail Winner, he has put the last touch to the evolution of the _Lancelot_ legend, and in so doing he has achieved the task which he set himself to perform. The _Queste_ is in all essential features not a _Grail_ but a _Lancelot_ romance, and as such primarily it should be judged.