Part 5

But on which side of the Channel was the final and most important step, the incorporation with the Arthurian cycle, taken? Of the various versions of Guinevere’s abduction, the Melwas story exists only in an insular text, the _Vita Gildæ_, and this is apparently connected with a partly lost and entirely confused Welsh tradition. The Meleagant version is by locality directly connected with Melwas; and the only extant version of the Falerîn abduction tale came from England. I submit that here again we have reasonable ground for the hypothesis that the identification of Lancelot as Guinevere’s rescuer, and subsequently as her lover, may be due to insular rather than continental development. The question is, as will be seen, by no means an easy one, and I should prefer to express no definite opinion as to the real bearing of the evidence here adduced. There are, as I have shown, indications pointing in opposite directions. The precise value and relation of these indications will be better realised as we become more familiar with what is at present a somewhat novel interpretation of the facts. In any case it will be seen that the theory here advanced only affects the earlier stages of the _Lancelot_ story, leaving untouched the question of its development as part of the Arthurian romantic cycle. It affords us a working hypothesis which may enable us to bridge the gulf between Lancelot the independent hero (_Lanzelet_) and Lancelot the queen’s lover (_Charrette_), a gulf which has hitherto presented a problem baffling to the Arthurian student.

But is it not also apparent that, in the light of the evidence here collected, the theory of an Anglo-Norman Arthurian tradition, independent of, and anterior to, Chrétien’s poems should no longer be contemptuously derided? Whatever may be the eventual verdict on the evolution of the _Lancelot_ story, the examination of the various romantic versions of the Tournament story, in the light of folk-lore evidence, has, I think, made absolutely clear to any unprejudiced critic that the _Cligés_ version cannot possibly be the source of either the _Lanzelet_ or the _Ipomedon_, but represents a version further removed from the original form, and in all probability dependent upon some variant, or variants, of the _Lancelot_. And if this be the case in one poem, and that the very poem in which the admirers of Chrétien assert roundly that his independence is most clearly shown, are we not justified in our hesitation as regards his other works?

In my _Lancelot_ ‘Studies’ I showed that Professor Foerster’s theory as to the origin of the _Yvain_ would not bear the test of strict examination; that evidence, both internal and external, could be adduced in favour of the view that the tale was but a collection of _lais_, put together and worked over by others before Chrétien gave the final touch which converted them into a literary whole. Before long I hope to show, what I have recently recognised as a fact capable of demonstration, that the _Perceval_ ‘_Enfances_,’ so far from being the source of the other versions, is but an incomplete and inferior version of a story, which in its original and perfect form no longer exists, but is better preserved elsewhere. _Erec_, so far, I have not examined, but I have little doubt that the result of careful investigation will here be the same; certain it is that the initial adventure, the chase of a fairy stag, represents a superstition alive in these islands to this day. The trackers on Dartmoor claim to be able to distinguish the ‘slot’ of the fairy deer from among all others, and will solemnly warn the huntsmen of the futility of following such a trail.

Those of us, and they are many, who entertain a profound respect, not merely for M. Gaston Paris’ learning, but also for his keen critical instinct, and what I can best express as ‘sense of atmosphere,’ have hesitated, even though little evidence appeared to be forthcoming, to dismiss lightly, not to say discourteously, a theory which had the support of his authority; the foregoing pages will, I hope, show grounds for believing that an investigation, conducted perhaps on somewhat different lines to those hitherto in favour, will fully justify this hesitation.

We are only on the threshold of Arthurian criticism, and till we have thoroughly familiarised ourselves with the elementary conditions of the problem before us, it is both premature and unscientific to expect to obtain in any section of this wide field a result which can be claimed as permanent. Thoroughness is an admirable quality; but the thoroughness which consists in carefully and microscopically surveying a single part, before we have ascertained the relation of that part to the whole, is only too apt to result in throwing that whole hopelessly out of focus. The time has not yet come when a final study of any part of the Arthurian legend, based upon a comparison of all the texts, is possible or indeed desirable. The different threads that form the shifting pattern of the fabric are so interwoven that no one can as yet be disentangled _beyond a certain point_ without injury to the whole.

Thus neither the _Gawain_, the _Perceval_, nor the _Lancelot_ stories can at the present moment receive satisfactory and _final_ treatment. In the advanced stages of Arthurian legendary development these three main lines of tradition have become so entangled, have crossed and complicated each other to such an extent, that it is only by following what we may call a parallel method of study that we can hope to determine their exact relationship to each other; while until that exact relationship be accurately determined, a scientific study of the cycle, as a whole, is impossible. There appear to me to be three possible lines of investigation, any one of which will probably throw light on the other two; while the results to be obtained from all three would go far towards providing a sound and scientific basis for future inquiries. These three are (_a_) The various versions of the Gawain Grail quest; absolutely necessary if we desire to understand the development of the Grail section of the cycle. (_b_) The _Perceval_ continuations; which contain sections belonging to early and non-cyclic versions of the stories affected, combined with sections drawn from later and cyclic redactions. These texts will also throw light upon the small and interesting cycle of the _Bel Inconnu_, which is connected with all the three lines of tradition, and is important for all. (_c_) A comparative study of the various _Lancelot_ versions, which will enable us to disentangle the earlier _Perceval-Lancelot_ redactions from the later _Galahad_ development.

But in this investigation there are certain principles which must be kept clearly in view. We must remember that a cycle like the Arthurian cycle, compounded largely of what we may call mythical and imaginative elements, and largely devoid of historical basis, cannot be examined and criticised on the same principles and by the same methods as can the Charlemagne cycle, where historic conditions, though modified for romantic purposes, have controlled and shaped the process of development.[67]

In this latter case an appeal to documentary evidence, and a criticism conducted largely on literary lines, is, by nature of the material to be dealt with, entirely in its place; in the former, inasmuch as the material of which it is composed belongs far less to history than to that indefinable body we call popular tradition, which never finds more than partial expression in literature, and yet maintains its character practically unchanged throughout the centuries, we must follow a different method.

Not that the historic element is to be neglected; far from it. On the contrary, I would urge that greater attention be bestowed on certain historic factors than has hitherto been the case. The Arthurian romances do not, as do the Charlemagne, reflect more or less correctly certain facts, or periods of history, but the circumstances and surroundings of their origin may nevertheless have been more or less determined by historic conditions, _i.e._ the influence exercised by the court and policy of Henry II.

We are perfectly well aware that a feature of that monarch’s domestic policy was his desire to conciliate the Welsh by a clever use of their popular traditions. The alleged discovery of King Arthur’s tomb at Glastonbury was, as most historians now recognise, merely an ingenious move in the political game. To what extent he carried his encouragement and adoption of Arthurian tradition we have perhaps hardly yet realised. The fact that it was possible to publish in 1167 a correspondence purporting to be between the King and Arthur in Avalon shows that if Henry did not directly encourage the forgery, he at least saw no ground for discouraging it, and was willing to play into the hands of any one furthering this special line of conciliation. We know, as a matter of literary evidence, that the manuscripts of a very large section of Arthurian prose romance attribute their composition to the direct command of the king; but so far we have not attempted to ascertain the precise value to be placed on this recurring testimony. I believe myself that a careful investigation into the literary patronage exercised by Henry, and his interest in Arthurian traditions, would yield results somewhat disconcerting to the adherents of the Continental School.

Of the value of folk-lore and folk-tale as witnesses in the case of a group of stories based largely upon popular tradition, and in their earlier stages of evolution the property of popular story-tellers, we are only slowly becoming aware. But the study of story-transmission has in these last years made immense strides, and may now claim to be fairly based upon sound scientific principles. The extent to which such a study, accurately and carefully carried on, may reflect light upon allied subjects, such as the Arthurian cycle, has yet to be realised. It may be hoped that these pages will lend encouragement to the following up of this special line of investigation.

But there is a danger in our path. Admiration for the learning and indefatigable industry of German scholars has, I fear, caused too many of us to erect into a fetich the result of their labours, and to hold ourselves thereby absolved from the toil of first-hand investigation. This is to render no true service to the cause of scholarship; no one man, no group of men, may claim to be infallible. The result of recent investigation into the value and correctness of Dr. Sommer’s _Studies on the Sources of Malory_,[68] a book which for ten years past has been unhesitatingly accepted in scholarly circles as a reliable authority, should be an object lesson to all of us in the necessity of caution, and the individual responsibility which rests upon each to ascertain independently, so far as it be possible, the correctness and solidity of the ground upon which we found our arguments and our conclusions.

Careful and systematic work, with, from time to time, the revision and comparison of results, only to be attained by publication, will, I believe, before very long, enable us to place the criticism of the Arthurian cycle upon a really satisfactory basis. At present it is vain to hope that any one of us can produce, in this particular line of literary investigation, a _magnum opus_ that shall be beyond the necessity of revision, and sealed with the stamp of permanent and enduring value.

Footnotes

[1]Professor Foerster’s edition of the poems of Chrétien de Troyes are probably the most satisfactory critical texts we at present possess, but the value of these is greatly impaired by the controversial use made of the prefaces attached to them.

[2]These and other details will be found in Mr. Ward’s article on ‘Ipomedon,’ _Catalogue of Romances_, vol. i.

[3]_Ipomedon_ in drei englischen Bearbeitungen: Breslau 1889.

[4]_Supra_, p. xxix.

[5]The fact that, as we have pointed out, he sometimes agrees with one, sometimes with the other version, seems to indicate that he knew the common original of both.

[6]_Ipomedon_, A. l. 5500.

[7]_Lanzelet_, Von Zatzikhoven, ll. 2911-15.

[8]_Dutch Lancelot_, vol. i. ll. 42,819 _et seq._

[9]_Ipomedon_, p. xxviii.

[10]For the various epilogues and ascriptions of authorship, cf. _Die Sage vom Gral_, Birch-Hirschfeld, chap. vii.

[11]Cf. Birch-Hirschfeld, _supra_.

[12]_Vide De Nugis Curialium_, ed. Wright, p. viii.

[13]Cf. _supra_, p. 5.

[14]Cf. P. Paris, _Romans de la Table Ronde_, vol. iii.

[15]Cf. _D. L._, vol. i. ll. 19,595 _et seq._; _Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 235.

[16]Cf. _supra_, p. 5.

[17]_The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac_, Grimm Library, vol. xii.

[18]Cf. the reference to this adventure in _Morien_, quoted _supra_, p. 5.

[19]For these three colours in this connection, cf. my translation of _Parzival_, vol. i. p. 317.

[20]P. 5.

[21]Cf. _Lanzelet_, ll. 9309 _et seq._

[22]Hucher, _Le Grand S. Graal_, vol. i. p. 421.

[23]Professor Foerster’s remark (_Charrette_, Introduction, p. xlvi), that Hugo would, not improbably, take with him a copy of the last romance which had created a popular _furore_, is one of those gratuitous assumptions which, to the learned professor, assume the virtue of facts, but which cannot be admitted, by any serious critic, as a contribution to the argument. Professor Foerster seems to imagine a twelfth century ‘Mudie’ with a ‘run’ on the latest novel! If the source of the _Lanzelet_ had created in any sense a _furore_, it would scarcely have disappeared so completely. Considering the slowness of reproduction in those days, it is at least as likely that the book was an old and valued favourite; but as I said above, such hypotheses do not advance the question one way or the other.

[24]Cf. _Cligés_, ll. 4575-4985.

[25]_Charrette_, p. xliii.

[26]P. cxxvi.

[27]P. cxxxviii.

[28]P. xix.

[29]I believe myself that the two works of the greatest importance for determining the evolution of the Arthurian cycle are these lost French sources of the _Lanzelet_ and of the _Parzival_. It is not, I think, impossible that fragments at least may remain entombed in some library. When their importance is more generally recognised there may perhaps be an organised attempt made at their discovery.

[30]I have not seen either of these German fragments. Professor Foerster’s tendency to claim as Chrétien’s undoubted property everything that even remotely resembles the work of the French poet makes caution needful. I give the statement entirely upon his authority. With regard to the passage in the _Parzival_, Book XII. l. 116, _et seq._, at first sight it seems clearly to refer to Chrétien’s poem; but, as Professor Foerster himself admits, the work clearly consists of two sections, and it seems quite possible that the first part, the story of Alexander and Soredamors, may have been known independently. As the testimony of the _Perceval_ poems proves, there was current a love story connected with a sister of Gawain. The weak point in this _Parzival_ allusion is, that the poet is recalling the torments that Gawain and his kin have suffered through ‘_Minne_.’ Now the love story of Cligés and Phenice is far more tragic than that of Cligés’ parents; and it is difficult to understand why, if the writer knew the _whole_ poem, he should refer only to the weaker illustration, as both are equally connected with Gawain. I suspect myself that the allusion was in Wolfram’s source, and refers to the source of the _Cligés_.

[31]Printed in Weber’s _Metrical Romances_, vol. i.

[32]Cf. _Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 81.

[33]_Ibid._ p. 5.

[34]Chaps. ii and iv.

[35]Vol. ii. No. XLIII.

[36]_Tiroler Kinder- und Haus-Märchen._

[37]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. i. No. I.

[38]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. i. No. XII.

[39]_Contes Lorrains_, vol. ii. p. 96.

[40]_Op. cit._, vol. ii. No. LV.

[41]Grimm Library, vols. ii., iii., v.

[42]_Perseus_, vol. iii. p. 4.

[43]_Perseus_, vol. iii. p. 15.

[44]Cf. _The Cuchullin Saga_, Grimm Library, vol. viii. p. 81.

[45]Vol. i. p. 96.

[46]Cf. _supra_, p. 23.

[47]A reference to _Fortunio_, one of the tales of our group, included in the fifteenth century collection of Straparola.

[48]The additions in italics are mine.—J. L. W.

[49]To this our present investigation enables us to add that while M. Cosquin’s shepherd lad unites the pastoral features with the courtly tournament, the Greek variant retains the flying steeds and gives us the tournament to boot.

[50]The number is of course far greater, but Mr. Campbell unfortunately did not live to know the _Contes Lorrains_ or the _Perseus_.

[51]_Popular Tales of the West Highlands_, vol. iv. pp. 277, 278.

[52]‘The Black Horse,’ _More Celtic Fairy Tales_, p. 226.

[53]Mr. Hartland also draws attention to the parallel between the three disguises of the hero and the three dresses of the heroine in certain variants of the _Cinderella_ story. In the _Aschenbrödel_ the robes are woven of sun, moon, and stars.

[54]Berlin, 1881.

[55]_Harvard Studies and Notes_, vol. v. pp. 94, 95.

[56]John Rous, _Life of Richard, Earl of Warwick_.

[57]I should like to draw the attention of readers to the fact that these two ‘triplets’ of colours are also to be met with elsewhere. Thus black, white, and red are found, as we have seen, in a famous incident of the _Perceval_; and that curious book, _Durandus on Symbolism_, gives them as the colours of the three veils covering the altar at Passiontide. White, green, and red are found in the legend of the Tree of Life, and Solomon’s Ship, preserved in the _Queste_ and _Grand Saint Graal_. A friend, learned in such matters, has informed me that these sets of colours represent certain alchemical processes, and in that connection were well known in mediæval times. It seems possible that there may have been some hidden and mystical significance attached to their earliest use; we have not fathomed all the secrets of folk-lore.

[58]P. 25.

[59]For details of Map’s life, cf. _Dictionary of National Biography_, and the Introduction to Wright’s edition of _De Nugis Curialium_.

[60]I would draw the attention of students of the _Lais_ of Marie de France to the fact that Map gives several versions of the wedding of a knight with a fairy, or Otherworld, mistress. Also a version of a visit to the Otherworld kingdom with an ending closely corresponding with that of the _Voyage of Bran_, and _Guingamor_, and in each case he locates the story in Wales. It is perfectly clear that tales, such as we find in the _Lais_, were at least as well known in these islands as on the Continent.

[61]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 83.

[62]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 11. The folk-lore allusions in the _Lanzelet_ are worth following up.

[63]I am indebted to Mr. W. B. Blaikie for kindly verifying the quotation for me.

[64]Cf. _Charrette_, p. lxxvii.

[65]_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 46 _et seq._

[66]The theory which I advanced in chap. vii. of the _Legend of Sir Lancelot_ with regard to the temporary disappearance of the tradition of Guinevere’s infidelity is, I think, strengthened by the evidence of the various ‘chastity-test’ _Lais_, Horn, Mantle, Glove. We might reasonably expect Guinevere to come but poorly out of such an ordeal; as a rule, however, she escapes very easily, far more easily, indeed, than the majority of the ladies of the court. In one case we are clearly given to understand that her sole error, a trivial one, has been one of thought. Now the _lais_ represent, as is generally admitted, an early stage of romantic evolution, and taken into consideration with the evidence of the earlier poems, they certainly appear to strengthen the argument tentatively put forward in my _Lancelot_, _e.g._ that the tradition of the queen’s faithlessness to her husband belonged to the _historic_ legend and was, as such, preserved in the pseudo-chronicles; it had no existence in the _romantic_ legend till introduced under the influence of a special social condition, and in this its later form, it is not to be regarded as a survival of the historic Modred story, but as a later and independent development.

[67]Cf. _Popular Studies_, No. 10 (Nutt), _The Romance Cycle of Charlemagne and his Peers_, where I have pointed out the fundamental differences between the cycles.

[68]On this point, cf. Mr. Greg’s review of my _Lancelot_ studies, _Folk-Lore_, December 1901.

Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable

Transcriber’s Notes

--Copyright notice provided as in the original—this e-text is public domain in the country of publication.

--Silently corrected palpable typos; left non-standard spellings and dialect unchanged.

--Compared text section headings to the Table of Contents; inserted additional headings (but did not reword existing headings) to match the Table of Contents.

--Only in the text versions, delimited italicized or blackletter text in _underscores_ (the HTML version reproduces the font form of the printed book.)

--Only in the text versions, preceded superscript characters by a caret (as in d^a).

End of Project Gutenberg's The Three Days' Tournament, by Jessie L. Weston