Book III. ll. 1001-2, 'nune sûmet mich nicht mêre phleg mîn nâch riters

êre,' and 1158-9, 'i'ne wil niht langer sîn ein kneht, ich sol schildes ambet hân.' The correspondence is striking.

[107] 'En verité ce varlet n'est mye bien sage, ou il a este mal enseigné.' Yvain suggests that a woman has forbidden him to tell his name (which might be compared with _Parzival_, Book III. l. 1464). By his speech he must be _de Gaulle_. Ed. 1533, vol. i. (The 1533 edition has in each volume a summary of chapter contents, thus reference is easy.)

[108] MS. 751, fol. 144 vo., quoted by M. Paulin Paris in vol. iv. of _Romans de la Table Ronde_, p. 87.

[109] This _Dame de Nohan_ is probably the same as the _Dame de Noauz_ mentioned in the _Charrette_, l. 5389.

[110] Cf. _Romania_, vol. xxvi. p. 290.

[111] _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 65.

[112] M. Marillier in a review of the _Voyage of Bran_ and _Legend of Sir Gawain_, contained in _Revue des Religions_ (July-August 1899), is inclined to connect the adventure of the _Fier Baiser_ ascribed to the son with the adventure of the _Marriage of Sir Gawain_ ascribed to the father. Both are disenchantment stories, and both appear to belong to the class of disenchantment by personal contact. The point is an interesting and a suggestive one.

[113] The character of the fairy and the nature of Lancelot's upbringing demand a special study, for which, so far, the materials are not available. The Lady of the Lake touches on the one hand the Queen of the Other-World, on the other, Morgain la Fee. I understand that a study on the characters of Lady of the Lake, Vivienne, and Morgain, is being prepared under the direction of Dr. Schofield. For the details of Lancelot's childhood, we must wait till a critical edition of the prose _Lancelot_ shows us whether we have any variants or traces of early redactions, to bridge the gulf between the poem of Ulrich van Zatzikhoven and the final prose romance.

[114] Cf. Introduction to M. Paulin Paris's _Romans de la Table Ronde_, p. 81 _et seq._, also M. de Villemarqué's _Merlin_, p. 121.

[115] Dr. Wechssler's interesting study on '_die verschiedenen Redaktionen des Graal-Lancelot Cyklus_' will be referred to later on. It is an excellent statement of certain aspects of the problem, but further research shows some of his conclusions to be very doubtful. His judgment with regard to the _Queste_ variants is certainly at fault.

[116] l. 8050 _et seq._

[117] Cf. Rhys, _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_, chap. iii. The author remarks that to this day in some parts of Wales it is held an insult, as implying a reflection on her moral character, to call a girl Guinevere.

[118] 'Arthur gave in charge all that he had to Mordred and the queen. That was evil done that they were born, for the land they destroyed with sorrows enow. And at the end themselves the Worse (devil) began to destroy that they there forfeited (lost) their lives and their souls, and ever since are loathed in every land, that never a man will offer prayer for their souls.'

[119] This line is lacking in the oldest MS., but can be supplied from the later recension: 'Man knew not, in sooth, whether she were dead (and how she hence departed), whether she herself were sunk in the water.'

[120] The _Merlin_ of course deals with a period anterior to this _liaison_, but as we possess it, it has been, as we saw above, redacted under the influence of a tradition of which the amours of Lancelot and Guinevere formed an integral part.

[121] Cf. _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 76 _et seq._

[122] On this point, cf. my _Legend of Sir Gawain_, Mr. Maynadier's _Wife of Bath's Tale_ (both in Grimm Library), and M. Marillier's article in _Revue des religions_ (July-August, 1899), already referred to.

[123] I have purposely omitted Tristan, as, though a Celtic hero, he is only indirectly connected with Irish tradition.

[124] I am glad to find that M. Gaston Paris evidently holds this view, as in a note to his discussion of the tradition that Roland was Charlemagne's son as well as his nephew, in the _Histoire Poétique de Charlemagne_, he refers to Gawain as holding the same position.

[125] The above remarks of course refer to Gawain as connected with Arthur; originally he was probably independent. As our knowledge stands at present, the parallels between Gawain and early Irish tradition appear to belong mainly to the _Ultonian_ cycle; while in the case of Arthur the parallels are rather to the _Ossianic_.

[126] In some versions eighty.

[127] As far as English opinion goes, the popularity of Tennyson's version of the Arthurian tales has operated disastrously in confusing the question. Not long ago a writer contributed to a review an article on the subject, in which he contended for the essential identity of the _Tristan_ and _Lancelot_ stories, naming among other parallels the fact that in both cases the hero is sent to fetch home his lord's bride--an addition due to Tennyson; Lancelot in the genuine story being unborn at the date of the marriage. As regards the _Idylls_, it can only be said that whereas Malory's juxtaposition of half a dozen different compilations made confusion of a subject already more than sufficiently complex, Tennyson's edifying rearrangement of Malory made that confusion 'worse confounded.' Malory is highly valuable for the Arthurian legend in his proper place, when critically compared with other versions; and has a separate and independent position as an English classic. The _Idylls of the King_ may perhaps also be considered an English classic, but is _entirely_ outside the range of critical Arthurian scholarship, and should _never_ be quoted as evidence for the smallest tittle of Arthurian romance.

[128] I am not quite certain on this point. Certainly the _Perceval_ story is earlier than we commonly suppose, and I think we may find that it had reached the ecclesiastical ascetic stage at quite an early point in the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story.

[129] Cf. Wechssler, _Über die verschiedenen Redaktionen des Graal-Lancelot-Cyklus_, p. 17.

[130] _Merlin_, Sommer's ed., chap. xxvi. p. 343; _Perceval_, l. 9546 _et seq._; _Parzival_, xii. ll. 1306-7, xiii. l. 542 _et seq._; also my _Legend of Sir Gawain_, p. 75 _et seq._

[131] I have purposely excluded the Melwas-Meleagant story from this comparison. I am not clear that it was, in its origin, a tale of conjugal infidelity; it rather appears to me to be a _Pluto-Proserpine_ abduction tale. The abductor _may_ at one period have been Guinevere's lover; but, as we now have it, the queen is the innocent victim of violence. Further, it is evident that the abductor had ceased to be the lover _before_ the introduction of Lancelot into the story (cf. _Lanzelet_). Therefore, if originally an infidelity story, we are met by the same perplexing gap in the tradition as we find in the Mordred version.

[132] Cf. references under heading 'Gawain.' They are scattered throughout the book.

[133] Cf. _Grand S. Graal_, ed. Hucher, pp. 271 and 289-93.

[134] Dr. Wechssler's caution is quite right, nevertheless I think we may eventually find that Borron was really the author of some sort of a cycle.

[135] Dr. Wechssler contends for this, as the correct title, rather than _Grand S. Graal_.

[136] Cf. _supra_, p. 17.

[137] Cf. _supra_, p. 14.

[138] Cf. _supra_, p. 9.

[139] _Die Sage vom Heiligen Gral, in ihrer Entwicklung bis auf Richard Wagner's Parsifal_: Halle, 1898.

[140] Obviously added by M. Paulin Paris.

[141] On this point I need only refer to M. Gaston Paris, Introduction to the Huth _Merlin_, p. viii.

[142] I do not discuss here how far this romance represents the original Borron-Perceval poem. As it stands, it is certainly not Borron's work. The question is, are we to consider it the work of a later writer, or does it represent an early _Perceval_ romance, worked over for cyclic purposes?

[143] Some years ago, when preparing my translation of the _Parzival_, I found in the _Gesta Comites Andegavorum_ a summary of the closing events of Arthur's life closely agreeing with that of the Didot _Perceval_. The connection between Perceval and Angevin tradition has not, in my opinion, received sufficient attention.

[144] We have seen reason to believe that the original _Perceval_ story did early affect the _Lancelot_, and this argument, which we used at first of the independent, becomes strengthened when we examine the cyclic form.

[145] If this be true, it would throw an interesting light on the conjunction of the _Queste_ and _Perceval li Gallois_ in the well-known Welsh MS. translated by the Rev. R. Williams. The compiler of the MS. may have had versions of the two _Lancelot_ cycles before him and have taken the _Queste_ from each, perhaps doubtful which was the right version.

[146] Hucher, vol. i. p. 421.

[147] Quoted by Professor Heinzel: '_Über die französischen Gralromane_,' p. 177. The parallel passage is on p. 279, vol. ii. of Dr. Evans' translation, _The High History of the Holy Grail_; but it is not included in the Welsh translation.

[148] Professor Heinzel's study did not come into my hands till the MS. of this chapter had been sent to the press. The support afforded to my theory by the above expression of opinion was most welcome to me. A point which deserves notice in connection with this romance is the appearance in it of the above-named _Briant des Illes_, and the story of the death of _Lohot_, King Arthur's son. So far as I know, no other prose romance knows either of these characters, but Chrétien refers to both in his _Erec_, ll. 6730 and 1732. I think it is possible that the name given by Wolfram von Eschenbach to Arthur's son, _Ilinot_, may rest upon a misreading of _Lohot_; the story connected with the latter is certainly curiously archaic in detail.

[149] I cannot at all agree with Dr. Wechssler's view that the Galahad _Queste_ has been largely worked over; on the contrary it has been the least tampered with of all the Arthurian romances. I shall show this presently by comparison of texts.

[150] The worst fault of Dr. Wechssler's Grail study is that he predicates the distinctive traits of Perceval as being of Galahad--to whom they never in any sense belonged. Galahad is not Perceval's understudy, much less is he his original: he is an absolutely and entirely independent creation. The only quality they have in common is that of virginity, which is not of them, but of the monkish redactors of the legend. It is certainly no part of the primitive _Perceval_ tale.

[151] The passage which represents Gawain as admitting himself to be the slayer of eighteen out of the twenty-two knights who have lost their lives in the _Queste_, Baudemagus, his dearest friend according to the _Merlin Suite_, among them, should, I think, be printed at the end of the _Queste_, not at the beginning of the _Mort Artur_, where it is now generally found. It is entirely in accordance with the tone of the first named romance, and out of keeping with the latter. Moreover, both the Dutch _Lancelot_ and the 1533 version print it in the former position. The compiler of the _Tristan_ has generally been supposed to be the first to introduce the vilification of Gawain's character; in the light of Dr. Wechssler's suggestion it would be interesting to examine whether this presentment is to be found in the _Tristan before_ its contamination with the later _Lancelot-Map_ cycle. I think there were peculiarities in the original Gawain story, which, misunderstood by later compilers, helped to cast a false light on his character, but it is open to question whether it was the _Tristan_ compiler or the author of the Galahad _Queste_ who was the original propagator of calumny.

[152] The _Queste_ writer dwells upon instances of heroes betrayed through their love of women--Samson, Solomon, etc. If he had known the earlier _Lancelot-Borron_ story, with the instance of Merlin's betrayal by the lady who brought up Lancelot, he would surely have made use of so very _à propos_ an illustration.

[153] I suspect this sword of being the sword of the original Perceval story, for which an edifying legend has been invented. It probably belongs to a very early stage of the tradition. I hope some day to make it the subject of special study.

[154] Cf. the Perceval of Chrétien, and more especially the Parzival of Wolfram, with the hero of the Didot _Perceval_ or _Perceval li Gallois_. I consider the two first represent the independent, the two latter the cyclic form.

[155] It may be noted here that in Wolfram's version of the _Perceval_ story--a version which, as we have seen, has certainly influenced the _Lancelot_ legend--the Grail-bearer, Repanse-de-Schoie eventually becomes the mother of Prester John. The circumstance that the details of the begetting of Galahad are found in the _Lancelot_, and not in the _Queste_, suggests the consideration that the author of this latter romance may have worked over the section of the _Lancelot_ in question, so as to bring it into superficial accord with his story. Or he _may_ have worked in conjunction with one of the later redactors.

[156] Chrétien does not appear to know anything about him: in the _Charrette_, for instance, had he known Bohort as represented in later legend, he would certainly have made him, and not Gawain, undertake the conflict with Meleagant, for which Lancelot threatens to be too late. The role of 'helpful friend,' played by Gawain in the earlier versions of the legend, is passed over to Bohort in the later.

[157] On this point cf. what I have said before as to the development of the _Chansons de Geste_; p. 92 note.

[158] 1. Edited by Dr. Jonckbloet, 2 vols., 1850, will be referred to as =D. L.=

2. Edition in 3 vols., a complete copy is contained in the Douce collection in the Bodleian Library, referred to as =1533=.

3. _Morte Arthur_, edited by Dr. Sommer, vol. iii., _Sources of Malory_, the sections entitled _The Lancelot Proper_, _The Quest of the Holy Grail_, and _La Morte au Arthur_; all three are referred to as =S.=

4. _Queste del Saint Graal_, ed. Furnivall--=Q.=

5. _Morte Arthur_, Sommer (vol. i. text)--=M.=

6. The Welsh _Queste_ (ed. Rev. R. Williams, 1876), which I have also consulted, being, in its available form, the translation of a translation, scarcely affords reliable ground for comparison; it is, moreover, a very free rendering of the text. Nevertheless, as it is well to make use of all available versions, I have, in the cases where the original text appears to be fairly represented, added this reading under the heading =W.=

[159] Cf. Jonckbloet, _Roman van Lancelot_, vol. i. p. lvii.

[160] To speak quite correctly it really begins rather before the _Agravain_ proper. I have noted this further on. M. Paulin Paris remarks (_Romans de la Table Ronde_, vol. v. p. 296), with regard to the _Agravain_, that we find it 'le plus souvent copié isolément, ou bien complétement séparé des autres parties.' One of the useful hints of this scholar which might have earlier been taken into consideration.

[161] In this connection it is amusing to find Dr. Wechssler (_Sage vom Heiligen Gral_, pp. 166-167) remarking complacently that the achievement of the adventures announced by the Grail Messenger '_wird nirgends erzählt_.' The Dutch _Lancelot_ has been edited and available for _fifty_ years. I must own that the result of my examination of this, and of the version of 1533, equally available, has been to seriously shake my belief in the soundness and reliability of foreign criticisms of the Arthurian cycle. It is quite clear that the material at our disposal, limited as it is, has not yet been properly examined.

[162] The romances not being named in the =D. L.=, I have adopted for convenience' sake the names given to them by M. Gaston Paris.

[163] Abstracts of these episodic romances are given by M. Gaston Paris, in vol. xxx. of _Hist. Litt. de la France_.

[164] Dr. Sommer says, and correctly, that the '_pomier_' must be the older version.

[165] This account of Lancelot being found asleep and carried off by three queens should be compared with that of Renouart found sleeping and carried off to Avalon by three 'fays.'

I assume throughout that Dr. Sommer's summary correctly represents his text, but I admit that I have my doubts on this point; certainly in the _Queste_ section he gives some most mistaken readings; indeed, apart from the evidence of =D. L.= and =1533= the whole _Lancelot-Queste_ section needs revision. It is unfortunate that some foreign scholars have been so ready to accept Dr. Sommer's statements without taking the trouble to verify them.

[166] I do not think this is a proper name, but the equivalent of _Grave_=Count.

[167] No other version mentions, as does =M.=, that the ladies won their living by 'al maner of sylke werkes,' but the whole story looks so like a copy of Yvain's adventure at the Château de Pesme Aventure that I think it may have been in his source.

[168] Of course M. Paulin Paris's book, being greatly condensed and modernised, cannot be used for textual criticism; but the compiler was a scholar of very wide learning, and there are numerous notes and hints, which we, of a later generation, make a great mistake in disregarding.

[169] This lady, never mentioned by =M.=, plays an important rôle in the prose _Lancelot_.

[170] Here I take the opportunity of saying that I entirely dissent from Dr. Sommer's assertion that Gareth is the equivalent of the French _Guerresches_ rather than _Gaheret_. It is this latter (in the =D. L.= _Gariëtte_) which =M.= renders by Gareth. I have paid a good deal of attention to this question, and have come to the conclusion that, although in the descriptive summary of King Lot's sons, found in the _Lancelot_, Guerresches (Gurrehes) is said to be the youngest, save Mordred, and Gawain's favourite, yet the adventures ascribed to Gaheret (variants, Gaheriet, Gariëtte, Garhiës) throughout mark him as the original of Gareth; a point which etymology alone would, I think, decide in his favour! This much is certain, wherever =M.= and the French versions can be compared we find Gaheret and _not_ Guerresches. When Dr. Sommer takes it upon himself, as he does in the quotations from the French contained in the _Mort Artur_ section, to arbitrarily change the _Gaheret_ of all the foreign versions into _Guerresches_, because the latter agrees with his preconceived ideas, he is setting what I must consider as a most undesirable precedent; we cannot take these liberties with the texts and hope to arrive at a satisfactory and scientific conclusion. As pointed out in my review of Dr. Wechssler's Grail Study, once allow such a substitution, and what is to prevent us from a series of editions emendated to suit the personal views of each editor? I think myself that Gaheret and Guerresches may originally have been one, but that confusion arose from Mordred being sometimes considered as Lot's, sometimes as Arthur's, son, and that a tradition of _four_ sons of King Lot having been established early in the evolution of the romantic story, the personality of the third was doubled to make up the correct number. This is only a suggestion, but there is certainly a confusion as to identity in the French versions, though there is no confusion as to the original of =M.=

[171] It seems likely that this was in =M.='s source, as we read that the old man has a spear in his hand, 'and that spere was called the spere of vengeaunce.' But the old man never speaks of it to Bors.

[172] As regards the mention of Galahad and Lancelot in =1533=, I find I have no special note. They are certainly not in =D. L.= and the two versions are in such habitual accord that I think I must have noted it had they differed here. Still, I think it only fair to point out my omission.

[173] On p. 200 of the _Studies_ there is a mistake. Dr. Sommer speaks of the fight between _Bors_ and Perceval and their healing by the Grail. It should, of course, be _Hector_, not _Bors_. We may note here that in this instance the Grail is stated to be the dish out of which Our Lord ate the Paschal lamb in the house of Simon the Leper; there is no mention of its containing the Blood of Christ, or of its being borne by a maiden as in =M.=

[174] There is no mention of Balyn's sword: this is clearly an interpolation of =M.=

[175] This passage throws into strong relief the absolute unreality of the Galahad _Queste_. The hero knows all about the Grail, its keeper, where it is to be found, his own relation to it. He has grown up under its shadow as it were. Nor need he fulfil any test to gain it: in all the records of his adventures there is no temptation such as that undergone by Perceval or Bohort; he is as fit to become keeper of the Grail (for this and not Grail-_King_ he practically becomes) when he leaves Arthur's court as when he finally, after a series of aimless adventures, arrives at Corbenic. Contrast this with the earlier versions: the hero knows nothing of the Grail; not till after he has beheld the Talisman and failed to accomplish the necessary test does he even hear the name; when he would make amends for his negligence he can no longer find the castle, and not till he has proved himself worthy through long-continued trial is the opportunity once lost again offered to him. Neither do the inhabitants of the Grail Castle know their deliverer; they hope that it may be he, since they believe none other might find the way, but they do not know him, whereas Galahad is well known to the dwellers in Corbenic.

[176] Dr. Sommer's description of the swearing of the questers, on p. 210 of the _Studies_, is utterly wrong. In every version Arthur calls on Gawain to swear first, when Baudemagus interposes, saying that he who is to achieve the quest should be the first to swear. Consequently Galahad swears first, and is followed by Lancelot, Gawain, Perceval, Bohort, Lionel and Hélie le Blank. Baudemagus is in no instance the first to swear.

[177] Dr. Sommer's summary is again misleading, and entirely misrepresents the general character of the incident.

[178] _Studies_, p. 212.

[179] Cf. Dr. Sommer's remark on p. 212. I cannot recall a single instance in which the equivalents to =M.= give any other reading.

[180] On p. 212, Dr. Sommer states that =Q.= does not, at this point of the story, say what becomes of Perceval. This is wrong; =Q.= distinctly says he leaves Lancelot _to return to the recluse_.

[181] In his summary of the conversation on p. 213, Dr. Sommer again misrepresents his text--_all_ agree in saying that Perceval asks his aunt about his mother and 'parens,' not that the aunt asks Perceval!

[182] The adventure of Perceval on the rock agrees closely with that of Mordrain in the _Grand S. Graal_. There also are two ships--in one a man who encourages, in the other a woman who tempts, him. In both cases the woman accuses the man of being an enchanter; in both her ship is covered with black silk, and she departs in a tempest. Cf. Hucher, _Le S. Graal_, vol. ii. pp. 354, _et seq._

[183] _S. Graal_, ii. p. 444.

[184] As I said before, this _may_ be due to the influence of _Morien_, but we must not overlook the fact that this poem certainly has some curious points of contact with the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach, which also knows of the hero (or more accurately here, his son) regaining his kingdom, which he also does in _Perceval li Gallois_.

[185] The scribe of the original MS. may have had to condense on account of space here, which is contrary to the usual practice of =1533=; but in a printed edition it is not easy to decide the real value and significance of such omissions.

[186] =1533= _ten_, representing the number as thirteen, Galahad taking the place of Our Lord. This is a point on which we might expect to find different readings, according as the compiler held, or did _not_ hold, Judas to have been present at the Institution--a question on which a difference of opinion has always existed.

[187] This is the passage to which I referred in connection with the Yvain sources, p. 76. This son of King Claudas is, no doubt, the same who played such a valiant part in the war between Lancelot and his father, related at great length in the _Lancelot_.

[188] This arrival of the nine knights at the Grail Castle, and their share in the Grail revelation, is a striking proof of the unreality of the Galahad _Queste_ quâ _quest_, on which I have remarked elsewhere. Who are these knights? What claim have they to be admitted to a feast so holy that even King Pelles and his son are excluded? Practically they are as much achievers of the Quest as Galahad himself. The fact is the writer is so taken up with the religious symbolism of the relic that in exaggerating and insisting on symbolic details he loses sight of the real point of his story. I very much doubt whether any one but the Grail Winner himself ought to reach, or was ever contemplated as reaching, the Grail Castle, much less be witness of the full explanation of the relic. To this it may be objected that Gawain reaches it; but Gawain was certainly at one time looked upon as the Grail Winner, and I believe it is only in this character that he ever found the castle. The accessibility of Corbenic is a _very_ weak point of the Galahad _Queste_.

[189] I cannot agree with M. Gaston Paris's suggestion that this passage, which he takes as part of the _Mort Artur_, refers to an earlier _Queste_ redaction. A _Queste_ giving a full account of the fate of so many of the knights engaged would be of portentous length, and there is absolutely no sign of this Galahad _Queste_ having existed in another form. I regard it as a summing up, by the author, of the general results of the expedition, a _postscriptum_ which enabled him to have a final fling at his _bête-noire_ Gawain. The addition of Baudemagus's name may have been his work, or that of a copyist, and designed to give point to his accusation. Whether the tradition that he should be killed by Gawain arose from this passage, or was incorporated in the _Merlin_ from another source we cannot say. The Baudemagus tradition demands study. In the _Merlin_ he is represented as but six years older than Gawain, whose dearest friend he is, but in the _Charrette_ he appears as quite an old man, whose son, Meleagant, is the contemporary of Gawain and Lancelot; while in the prose _Lancelot_ and _Queste_ he appears as the devoted friend of the family of King Ban, sharing the adventures of these young knights on an equal footing. The whole presentment is hopelessly confused. The frequent reference to the Arthurian records, as kept in the 'almeryes' at Salisbury, appears to me to be a parallel case to the allusions in the Charlemagne Romances to the records at S. Denys. I suspect there is as much, or as little, truth in the one ascription as in the other.

[190] Cf. _Studies_, p. 214. Dr. Sommer uses as an argument for this the difference of spelling in the name of _Corbenic_, but this proves nothing. =D. L.= has at least four ways of spelling this word, and sometimes a variant occurs in the space of a few lines. The general character of the name is always preserved, and in MSS. that have been frequently copied, to say nothing of printed, the substitution of one letter for another is too frequent to call for remark.

[191] Dr. Wechssler in his _Lancelot_ study announces solemnly, '_So viel aber steht für uns fest, dass Malorys Quelle für sein sechstes Buch nicht die Branche eines Cyklus, sondern ein selbständiges Originalwerk gewesen ist_' (_Gral-Lancelot_, p. 35). But we now see it was beyond any doubt part of a cyclic work.

[192] Cf. Appendix, p. 237.

[193] I take this opportunity of strongly protesting against the tone assumed by Professor Foerster on the question of Malory. He has not himself examined the question of the sources, but has simply accepted all Dr. Sommer's far too hasty and inadequately founded conclusions. When he says, on p. lxv. of the _Charrette_, '_Der überall seine Quellen und zwar nur seine Quellen und obendrein noch treu wiedergebende Malory ist ein Phantasiegeschöpf der Walliser und Engländer_,' he is simply dogmatising in an unwarrantable manner on a question with regard to which he has no _locus standi_. Exaggerated as the statement is, and is meant to be, it is infinitely nearer the truth than are many of Professor Foerster's own hypotheses.

[194] Cf. Appendix, p. 241.

[195] The passage quoted by Dr. Wechssler (_Gral-Lancelot_, p. 60, _et seq._), and which he considers belongs to an earlier version of the _Queste_, is manifestly only a condensed variant of the ordinary _Queste_ into which an allusion to Tristan and Pallamedes has been clumsily introduced.

[196] This seems to point to the fact that the _Agravain_ section of the _Lancelot_ is that which offers the most important variants, and is the most likely to reward the careful critic. The final section is practically based upon a romance foreign to the original _Lancelot_ story, and which has been incorporated into it; consequently we may expect to find all the versions in pretty general agreement as regards the _Mort Artur_ proper.

[197] Cf. _Studies_, p. 220.

[198] Cf. Appendix, p. 237.

[199] Referred to in future as =M. A.=

[200] As I have said before, there can be no doubt which of the two is the prototype of Gareth; also, subsequent study has shown me that, outside the _Lancelot_ proper and the romances which have been modified for cyclic purposes, we rarely find any mention of Guerresches, whereas we often meet with Gariët. I am strongly of opinion that originally the two characters were one, and that in that earlier form the knight was Gaheriet or Gariët.

[201] _Studies_, p. 254.

[202] Throughout this section it must be borne in mind that =S.= systematically replaces the _Guerresches_ of his text by _Gaheriet_. This latter sides throughout with Gawain.

[203] It is of course possible that a negative may have dropped out here.

[204] On p. 260, Dr. Sommer makes a strange mistake. We are told that Bohort fights against Ywain; to this Dr. Sommer appends a note of exclamation, and a footnote to the effect that Ywain has already been killed by Gawain, as related in the _Queste_. Of course it was not the '_Chevalier au Lion_,' but his bastard half-brother, '_Yvain li avoutres_,' who was slain on that occasion. The text of =Q.= is quite clear.

[205] On p. 261, Dr. Sommer again falls into a curious error of identity. We are told that King Karados assists at the council between Arthur, Lancelot, and Gawain, when the fight is determined upon. Dr. Sommer reminds us in a note that Karados had been previously slain by Lancelot! That was, of course, the giant of that name, brother to Turquine; _this_ is the famous Karados '_Brief-bras_,' sometimes regarded as Arthur's nephew. Dr. Sommer's apparent lack of familiarity with the minor characters of the Arthurian cycle is inexplicable.

[206] On p. 263 the parallel passages quoted from =M.= and the English =M. A.= make mention of _Baudemagus_ as one of Lancelot's councillors, whereas at the end of the _Queste_ his death at the hand of Gawain is recorded. Cf. this with my remarks on the Baudemagus legend, p. 184. I do not think this story of his death was a genuine part of the cyclic _Lancelot_, but belonged to another line of tradition known to the author of =Q.= from the Merlin _Suite_, and unintelligently quoted by him. This, which is a real discrepancy, as there is but one Baudemagus, Dr. Sommer does not remark upon!

[207] Cf. chap. i. p. 5.

[208] (_a_) chap. ii., the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven; (_b_) chaps. iii. and iv., _Le cerf au pied blanc, Le Chevalier de la Charrette_; (_c_) chaps. vi., vii., and viii., the prose _Lancelot_.

[209] Cf. chap. vii., _The loves of Lancelot and Guinevere_.

[210] Cf. pp. 97, 124, 129.

[211] I do not here intend to imply any opinion as to the _original_ nature of the Grail, only to refer to the undoubted fact that _as connected with Perceval_ it is more or less religious in character.

[212] Dr. Sommer's study on Malory is a case in point. It is a work of great extent, carried out with the most painstaking perseverance, yet because he omitted to consult such accessible texts as the Dutch translation and the Bodleian _Lancelot_, and assumed the general unanimity of the printed versions, a very important section of his work is largely deprived of value, and urgently requires revision.

[213] The parallel with the edition of 1533 begins vol. ii. fo. xxxix.; with the abstract of M. Paulin Paris, vol. v. chap. cxxii. That is, somewhat earlier than the beginning of the _Agravain_ section proper.

[214] Is this perhaps the Sir Marrok of the were-wolf story?--=M.=,