Part 4

But is it not as clear as daylight that all this immense body of evidence absolutely and finally disposes of any claim on the part of Chrétien to be first in the field? The _four_ days of _Cligés_ rule that romance, as a source, out of court at once and for ever. Further, not only is that version demonstrably secondary in itself, but definitely secondary to and dependent upon the _Lancelot_ versions. These correspond with the prevailing colours of the folk-tale—black, red, and white, or green, red, and white.[57] The one is the version of the _Prose Lancelot_, the other of the _Lanzelet_. Chrétien not only gives one day too many, but manifestly does so in order to combine the two versions which he, in common with us, knew, and gives _both_ green and black—two colours which are found together in no single version of all the dozens I have read.

There is a possible ‘clerical’ explanation of the existence of two versions of the _Lancelot_ tale. _Noir_ in the manuscript may have been read _vair_, and a copyist writing from oral dictation may thus have substituted _vert_. But in the face of the green, red, and white of the very primitive Celtic variant given by Mr. Campbell, and confirmed by the Greek parallel, I think it more likely that the three colours of the _Lanzelet_ represent the older form. But inasmuch as in romances, which, like the Arthurian, were supposed to correspond in some measure to the conditions of real life, a green _horse_ would be an impossibility, while yet horse and armour should correspond, black—perhaps under the influence of the _Perceval_ story—would take its place. Both were represented in the folk-tale, and it may be that the version of the _Prose Lancelot_ and of the _Ipomedon_ simply represents ‘the survival of the fittest.’

That there were _two_ versions a closer study will, I think, make evident. Probably those who have followed the argument and illustrations closely will have already detected what hitherto I have left unnoted, that the version of the _Ipomedon_ stands in a much closer relation with certain forms of the folk-tale, _i.e._ the _Petit Berger_ or _a_ group, than is the case with either the _Cligés_ or the two _Lancelot_ versions. In the _Ipomedon_ alone the prize of the Three Days’ Tournament is the hand of the princess. And not only is there agreement in this, the leading, feature, but there is also a curious correspondence in minor details. Thus, both in the poem and in the folk-tale, the hero, in the character of a servant, has already won the princess’s love. In both she is bitterly disappointed at his apparent failure to compete. In the folk-tale she sends each evening to ask why the shepherd-lad has taken no part in the tourney, receiving each time the answer that he was unwell, but would do his best to appear on the morrow. In the poem, each evening Ipomedon sends word to the princess that it is he who has gained the tourney, but that he is leaving the country immediately, and will not be present on the next day. Thus the heroine, in each case, is kept in uncertainty as to the intentions of her lover.

If we add to this the correspondence with the Odenwald variant already pointed out,[58] and the fact that in the _Ipomedon_ alone the hero is wounded on the third day—a feature found not only in the Odenwald story but in several variants of _Le Prince et son Cheval_—it becomes clear that if there be a doubt as to the source of the _Cligés_ or the _Lanzelet_, the _Ipomedon_ version must repose, directly or indirectly, upon the folk-tale.

But, as we have seen, it is precisely the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ which leads us to connect the story with Walter Map, and the romance ascribed to him, the _Lancelot_. What, then, are we to conclude? I think the only satisfactory interpretation is that which I have suggested above, that there were two versions of the story; in one of which the hero was represented as winning, and probably wedding, the princess; in the other the incident, whatever its original form, had already been so far modified as simply to provide an effective setting for his first appearance at Arthur’s court. This is indeed what we find in the _Lanzelet_; and the general tone of that poem, wherein the hero wins the hand of no fewer than four ladies, and certainly weds three of them, shows that there would be no initial improbability in postulating another and more primitive form of the story.

To return to _Cligés_. The _dramatis personæ_ of the tournament episode should be considered. The hero of the adventure does not compete with any number of knights, but is each day confronted with a chosen champion. These are, as I have already shown, Segramor, Lancelot, Perceval, and Gawain; and so far as the first three are concerned they appear here, and here only, their names, even, being otherwise unmentioned throughout the six thousand seven hundred and eighty lines of the poem.

To any one thoroughly familiar with the Arthurian romances, the juxtaposition of these three names is extremely significant. The adventure itself is elsewhere assigned to Lancelot. The hero with whom the _Lancelot_ story in its earlier stages is most closely associated is Perceval; Chrétien himself here introduces Perceval as a famous knight, with whose renown Cligés was already familiar, and ranks him above Lancelot. One of the best-known adventures ascribed to Perceval is, as we have already shown, one in which the three colours, black, red, and white, figure, and in which he overthrows Kay in a manner curiously akin to other versions of the tournament episode. But previous to overthrowing Kay he had vanquished Segramor, who was the first to attack him. Is it not evident that Chrétien, like the authors of the _Ipomedon_ and the original _Lanzelet_, was here reminded of the blood-drops adventure? If it be asked why introduce Segramor instead of Kay, we may recall the fact that while Cligés is represented as nephew to the Emperor of Constantinople, Segramor, as the _Merlin_ tells us, was son to that potentate. Chrétien _may_ have introduced him as less known in connection with this than Kay, who is never once named in _Cligés_; but I think it more likely that it was his parallelism to the hero, as well as his connection with Perceval, which determined his appearance.

But with regard to the latter, there is another point which deserves mention. In that section of the _Peredur_ which does not correspond to any section of the _Conte del Graal_ we find the hero, released from prison by the daughter of his jailer, attending a warlike tournament, in which each day he carries off the prizes; but there is no change of armour, and the days appear to be four instead of three. Previously to this he has also appeared three successive days at a tournament; but overcome by the beauty of the empress, of whom he is enamoured, he remains gazing at her, instead of taking part in the contest, until the third and final day. These passages are deserving of note, as they appear to me to show direct contact between the _Perceval_ and _Lancelot_ stories, and in this instance the borrowing appears to be on the part of the earlier story. Not only is Lancelot released from the prison of the Lady of Malehault to attend a tournament, thus corresponding with the one instance, but when he arrives on the spot he behaves in precisely the same manner at the sight of Guinevere as is recorded of Peredur with the empress. I do not feel able to accept the tournament as a real part of the _Perceval_ story, no other feature of any version of the Perceval ‘_Enfances_’ corresponding with the _formulæ_ of the group in question; yet the correspondence of detail between the two stories is so undeniable that contact of some sort, direct or indirect, there must be, and I think in this case we must hold that the _Peredur_ has been influenced by a version of the _Lancelot_ akin to that preserved in the prose redaction.

To return to _Cligés_. Taking into consideration all the evidence, the importance and widespread character of the folk-tale, the closer correspondence of both the _Ipomedon_ and the _Lanzelet_ to the popular form, and the peculiarities of the _Cligés_ version, it becomes, I think, impossible to doubt that this latter, so far from being the _source_ of the _Lanzelet_, is, as submitted above, not merely posterior to, but distinctly dependent upon a form of that story. And if we admit this, must we not also admit that here, at least, Chrétien did _not_ understand the character of the material with which he was dealing, and that in this instance he certainly deserves the epithet which Professor Foerster asserts we would wish to apply to him, that of _ein verschlechternder Ueberarbeiter_? The phrase, be it remembered, is Professor Foerster’s, and not mine; but so admirably does it suit the present question, that I can only say, ‘_I thank thee, friend, for teaching me this word!_’ Chrétien was _not_ dealing directly with popular tradition, but taking it at second-hand after it had already been modified and worked over in romantic form. To put it tersely, in the Three Days’ Tournament we have a folk-tale theme intelligently adapted by the authors of the _Ipomedon_ and the _Lanzelet_, and misunderstood and ‘muddled’ by Chrétien.

THE BEARING ON THE LANCELOT STORY

But the interesting problems connected with this episode are not all solved when we have determined the ultimate source of the story, and the position to be assigned to Chrétien’s version. As we have seen, there is strong ground for believing that the French poet knew two versions of the _Lancelot_ story; is it not possible that one of these versions may have been the lost French source of the _Lanzelet_? The ‘setting’ of the _Cligés_ tournament, in which the hero makes his first appearance at Arthur’s court, corresponds with that of the _Lanzelet_; and, as we have remarked above, in the _Erec_ we find not only the name of Lancelot, but also that of the enchanter Mauduiz, who appears nowhere save in U. von Zatzikhoven’s poem. Professor Foerster’s opinion is that we must consider the German _Lanzelet_ as ‘_die möglichst getreue Wiedergabe eines französischen Originals_’; and on this point at least, I, for one, am quite prepared to agree with him. Whether, after a real study of that poem (with which I strongly suspect he had only a superficial familiarity), the learned professor will desire to maintain his opinion is another question! But, granting that the German version correctly reproduces the French original, the nature of the work—a loosely connected collection of independent tales, of marked folk-lore character—points to a period of evolution anterior to Chrétien’s well-knit and elaborately polished literary productions.

Then, again, there arises the question, Granting the existence of a _Lancelot_ romance previous to Chrétien, could Walter Map have been the author? On this point it is not easy, with the material at our disposal, to express a decided opinion. Map and Chrétien were certainly contemporaries, but in neither case do we know the date of birth. Map died in 1209, therefore we may suppose he was not born long before 1140; a later date is scarcely probable, as he was a student at Paris in 1154, and at the court of Henry II. before 1162.[59] We do not know when Chrétien wrote the _Erec_, but it was almost certainly some time in the decade 1150-60. That Map should have been the author of a _Lancelot_ poem earlier than the _Erec_ is quite possible, but, perhaps, not very probable; but there would have been ample time for him to write one before the _Cligés_. Thus, while I think it highly probable that Chrétien borrowed from Map in the latter poem, I would reserve my opinion as to the former. Of the probable character of such a work we can gather some idea from Map’s undoubted literary remains; _De Nugis Curialium_ offers abundant proof of the writer’s taste for popular tales and traditions. Had he lived in the nineteenth-twentieth centuries, instead of the twelfth-thirteenth, Map would undoubtedly have been a prominent member of the Folk-Lore Society.[60] His _Lancelot_ poem might have been a short episodic romance of folk-tale character, a Three Days’ Tournament story, or it might have been a collection of such episodes, like the _Lanzelet_, _i.e._ its character would probably be _popular_ rather than _literary_. I should myself have felt inclined to decide for the _Lanzelet_ source, were it not for the evidence of the _Ipomedon_, which appears to presuppose a version closer to the original folk-tale.

Another point to be borne in mind in connection with the _Cligés_, and one to which I have already drawn attention,[61] is the peculiar geography of the poem, which is distinctly Anglo-Norman rather than Arthurian; the tale is obviously composed of originally independent themes; and whatever may have been contained in the book of the Beauvais Library, I think it is at the least possible that part of Chretien’s material came to him from insular sources.

As regards the _Lanzelet_, we know that the source of that poem came from England, and elsewhere[62] I have pointed out that a curious allusion to England (_not_ as is more usual to _Britain_) seems to make it probable that the French original was written in this island. If we couple with this the authorship and evidence of the _Ipomedon_, and the persistent attribution of a _Lancelot_ romance to Walter Map, we have, I think, a strong presumption in favour of an early _insular_ version of that story.

While this study was in the printer’s hands I came across the following allusion to the slaying of a dragon by Lancelot; it occurs in the Auchinleck Manuscript version of _Sir Bevis of Hampton_ (_Cxxx_):—

‘_After Josianis cristing_ _Beves dede a gret fighting—_ _Swich bataile ded never non_ _Cristene man of flesch and bon—_ _Of a dragoun thar beside,_ _That Beves slough ther in that tide;_ _Save Sire Lancelet de Lake_ _He faught with a furdrake_ [fiery dragon], _And Wade dede also_ _And never knightes boute thai to._’[63]

This allusion is the more interesting as, saving in the case of _Morien_, to which I have already referred, I have nowhere found this special feat attributed to Lancelot; certainly it does not occur in the whole extent of the _Prose Lancelot_, nor is it ever alluded to in that romance. Yet, if my theory of the evolution of the Lancelot legend be correct, such a combat ought certainly, at one time, to have formed part of his story. The evidence of this Anglo-Norman romance, supported as it is by the independent testimony of _Morien_, is therefore especially welcome; I am inclined to think that it strongly increases the probability of a definitely _insular_ version of the story, differing in some respects from the _continental_, having existed at the time the ‘_Sir Bevis_’ was written.

Nor would the existence of such a version be, as Professor Foerster asserts, incompatible with the continental _origin_ of the character;[64] to assert as much is really to stultify his own arguments. Does not the whole system of Professor Foerster rest upon the hypothesis that the character of Arthur, indisputably of insular _origin_, underwent development upon continental ground? The fact that what he roundly denies of Arthur he asserts emphatically as natural for Lancelot throws a flood of light upon the _ex parte_ character of this distinguished scholar’s methods!

If we take into consideration the character of the elements composing the early _Lancelot_ story, a character which, be it remembered, is not a question of suggestion but a matter of proof, we shall become clearly aware that the material for development existed on both sides of the Channel. I believe myself that Lancelot was of continental origin, but I recognise clearly that if the source and development of his story were such as I suppose them to have been, that continental origin was a matter of accident, not of necessity; and if some other scholar should bring forward arguments to prove that the story had its rise on insular rather than on continental ground, I shall be quite prepared to reconsider the question.

So far as the evidence I have now collected is concerned, it looks as if the development of the early _Lancelot_ story might thus be sketched:—

_a._ _Lai_ (presumably Breton), relating theft of king’s son by water-fairy, amplified by

_b._ Bringing up of youth in Otherworld kingdom, peopled by women only (source, general Celtic tradition, possibly _Gawain_ legend).

_c._ His entry into the world (_Perceval_ legend).

_d._ Introduction of adventures of _Sea Maiden_ story, _a_ being the point of contact, and suggesting the development, which may have been as follows:—

_d^a._ Winning of magic steeds and armour.

_d^b._ { Rescue of princess from monster, and _False Claimant_ story; or

_d^c._ { Rescue of princess from Otherworld. As we have seen (p. 25), it would be quite possible for these to be combined.

_d^d._ Appearance at Three Days’ Tournament.

It would seem not improbable that it was the independent existence of incident _d^c_ in the popular tale that led to its coalescing with the Arthurian legend. As I have elsewhere pointed out,[65] the character of the Guinevere abduction story is in itself so primitive that it may well have formed part of the earliest stratum of Arthurian tradition. The variants are of such a nature as to indicate that they arose at a period when the real meaning of the story was still understood, and carefully retained. The tale must therefore be far older than any extant _literary_ version.

If we admit the suggested hypothesis—that the hero of the Lancelot _lai_ became through the ‘mermaid’ incident identified with the hero of the _Sea Maiden_ story—the character of that story, and the immense popularity to which its wide diffusion testifies, would give us a solid working hypothesis to account for the choice of Lancelot as Guinevere’s lover. The similarity of the stories led to his identification with her rescuer, and that step once taken the recognition of him as her lover was—given the social conditions of the time and the popularity of the _Tristan_ story—a foregone conclusion.[66]

But this evolution, so far as we can tell, took place on _both_ sides of the Channel. Thus, while I have found no single _insular_ version which gives the Tournament episode, I have equally found no _continental_ variant which contains the mermaid. Yet it is the latter (mermaid) which appears to form the point of contact between the folk-tale and the _lai_, while it is the persistent recurrence of the former (the Tournament) which has given us the key to disentangle the complicated evolution of the story.

Here is a point on which I should wish to make my position perfectly clear. I do not think that Lancelot was _ab origine_ the hero of a variant of this popular and widely-spread folk-tale. The persistent element in the _Lancelot_ story is, as I have elsewhere shown, his connection with the beneficent Lady of the Lake. Now the maiden of the folk-tale is a sea, not a lake, maiden, and is, further, consistently represented as of a malicious, rather than a kindly, character. True, she aids the fisher in the first instance, but she belongs to that order of beings whose gifts, apparently desirable, are saddled with conditions which turn to the undoing, rather than to the profit of the receiver. Also, her presence in the story is restricted to a small and well-marked group of variants, which apparently preserve a primitive type of the story, and are never combined with the Tournament, which recurs so frequently in the _Lancelot_ romances.

Again this folk-tale, _quâ_ folk-tale, does not belong to the same group as that which offers parallels to the _Perceval_ story; yet the _Lancelot_ story was certainly affected, and that at an early stage of development, by the _Perceval_. Folk-lore students are well aware of the facility with which one story-type can become contaminated by another originally distinct from it; and while I see in the common ‘folk-tale’ origin of the two legends a satisfactory explanation of the undeniable influence traceable through all the earlier stages of the _Lancelot_ evolution, I would yet distinguish sharply between the two heroes. Perceval is a British (insular) Celt; Lancelot a continental (Breton) Celt, the development of whose story is posterior to that of the insular hero. For all these reasons I think it most probable that Lancelot was the hero of an independent, and originally short, tale, which by an accidental similarity of incident became connected with one of the most popular of known folk-tales, from which it freely borrowed adventures, and which, through the medium of one of these adventures, became later incorporated with the Arthurian tradition and developed upon romantic lines.

EVIDENCE FOR AN INSULAR VERSION OF THE ROMANCE

The whole character of the earlier _Lancelot_ story is strongly reminiscent of a _lai_, and I see no reason to depart from the opinion expressed in my _Lancelot_ ‘Studies,’ that the root of the whole wonderful growth is to be sought in such a _lai_.

Nor do I see reason to doubt that this _lai_ may have been of continental origin, and at the same time have taken this most important step in development upon insular ground. I cannot agree with those scholars who appear to regard the Channel as an impassable barrier to communication previous to the date of Chrétien de Troyes, and the most facile medium of intercourse immediately after that date!

For more than a century previous, _i.e._ from the days of Edward the Confessor, intercourse between the English court and the north of France had been frequent and continuous; for nearly a century the kings of England had also been princes of France. When, therefore, we find, as we do, that the materials for the development of a story existed on both sides of the Channel, and that the story, in its completed form, is akin to both continental and insular variants, forming, as it were, a link between the two, and combining forms which are not known to meet elsewhere, the conclusion that the process of evolution was not confined to one country appears neither illogical nor unfounded.

I would, therefore, now suggest that we have solid grounds for supposing that the story of Lancelot, starting as a Breton _lai_, and brought in that form to England, became in these islands connected with a special variant of a very widely diffused folk-tale. Having borrowed from this tale certain adventures, it found its way back, in this enlarged form, to the Continent, where the story from which it had borrowed being equally well known, it underwent further development on the same lines. I suspect that here the flying horses of the Celtic tale became transformed into the normal steeds of the Three Days’ Tournament, though the colour of the armour—green, red, and white—was at first retained.