Students of folk-lore will note that the tale in this form includes features not found in the majority of the versions, but representing well-recognised folk-taleformulæ. Thus theLife Tokenis here—incomplete—the maiden gives the fisherman ‘something’ to be given to his wife, his horse, and his dog (obviously afishermandoes not need a horse and a dog—these two features do not belong to each other); the wife has three sons, the horse three foals, and the dog three pups. Horse and dog ought rightly to play a part in the story, but in this special variant they do not appear, though in another they are mentioned in a subordinate rôle. TheGrateful Beastsand theExternal Soulare equally well known in folk-tale, though again, as a rule, in a different connection. But the tournament is lacking; and after examining many variants of the tale, I have come to the conclusion that this feature belongs exclusively to the continental versions. Horses and dresses are found in the insular forms, but, so far, I have not found a single instance of the tournament. On the other hand, no continental variant appears to contain the sea-maiden episodes.
If we now summarise the leading incidents of the various groups, we shall find them somewhat as follows:—
1. Hero—King’s son. Herdsman or shepherd. Fisherman’s son turned herdsman.2. Slays three giants and wins three castles in which he finds three steeds of different colours with dresses or armour to correspond. The horses are occasionally winged.3. Appears at a Three Days’ Tournament inthese dresses, and thus wins the hand of a princess.(Incidents 1, 2, 3, which combined correspond toLe Petit Berger, form the shortest version of our story, but probably not the most primitive.)4. Rescues the princess from an ‘Otherworld’ prison. Form of imprisonment varies, but the ‘rescue’ is most generally found in company with the tournament.5. Rescues princess from a monster. Here the conflict generally lasts three days, the three disguises are employed, and the tournament is often absent.6. Is robbed of the credit of his deed by a cowardly rival. This, which is most generally found in combination with 5, is also sometimes found in a modified form combined with 4, and is often lacking altogether.7. Is carried off by a mermaid, to whom he had been promised before his birth. This appears to be confined to the Celtic group collected by Mr. Campbell.
1. Hero—King’s son. Herdsman or shepherd. Fisherman’s son turned herdsman.
2. Slays three giants and wins three castles in which he finds three steeds of different colours with dresses or armour to correspond. The horses are occasionally winged.
3. Appears at a Three Days’ Tournament inthese dresses, and thus wins the hand of a princess.
(Incidents 1, 2, 3, which combined correspond toLe Petit Berger, form the shortest version of our story, but probably not the most primitive.)
4. Rescues the princess from an ‘Otherworld’ prison. Form of imprisonment varies, but the ‘rescue’ is most generally found in company with the tournament.
5. Rescues princess from a monster. Here the conflict generally lasts three days, the three disguises are employed, and the tournament is often absent.
6. Is robbed of the credit of his deed by a cowardly rival. This, which is most generally found in combination with 5, is also sometimes found in a modified form combined with 4, and is often lacking altogether.
7. Is carried off by a mermaid, to whom he had been promised before his birth. This appears to be confined to the Celtic group collected by Mr. Campbell.
If the reader will refer to the various examples I have given above, he will see that these seven incidents represent what we may call the perfect skeleton of our story (to use a simile often applied by Mr. Campbell), though the bones are differently placed in different versions.
But, having summarised them, we also become aware of a very curious coincidence. Out of these seven incidents, six are found, and found more than once, in the earlier forms of theLancelotstory. Thus droppingout incident 2, the winning of the armour, to which I know no good parallel, we find that Lancelot was a king’s son (incident 1), which, in itself, of course counts for little, but is of value in combination with other features (Lanzelet—Prose Lancelot); that he appears at a tournament, three days running, in different armour, the colours of which correspond with the prevailing colours of the folk-tale—green, red, white, or black, red, white (incident 3) (Lanzelet—Prose Lancelot); that he frees a princess (queen) from an Otherworld prison (incident 4) (Charrette—Prose Lancelot—Lanzelet, modified form); that he slays a monster (apparently a dragon), and is robbed by a cowardly rival (incidents 5 and 6) (Morien). A second version of theFalse Claimantstory is found inLe cerf au pied blanc. Finally, when a child, he was carried off by a water maiden,meer-wîb(incident 7) (Lanzelet—Prose Lancelot).
Now these are characteristics which, in theirensemble, he shares with no other Arthurian hero. True, Gawain visits the Otherworld, but he does so rather in the character of lover of the queen of that world than as rescuer of one confined within its precincts. In the DutchWaleweinalone, so far as I know, is his rôle definitely that of the deliverer. But none of the other incidents belong to his story. So, too, Tristan is the hero of a very fine version of theDragon SlayerandFalse Claimantstory, and it is moreover probable that theMorienversion has borrowed certain details from theTristan, but he too can claim no share in the other incidents. The close correspondence, point by point, with a folk-tale of so widespread and representative a character, is, I submit, a peculiarity of the earlierLancelotstory, which is of extraordinary interest asthrowing light upon the genesis and growth of Arthurian legend.
In this connection I have by no means forgotten the energetic protests which, in certain quarters, were evoked by Mr. Nutt’s attempt to show that the story ofPercevalmight in this way be connected with popular tales; and I am quite prepared to be told that tales collected in the nineteenth century are not to be trusted as indications of the sources of twelfth century romance. But in the instance before us the evidence, while of precisely the same nature as in the case ofPerceval, exceeds it, both in bulk and extent. The story is not one story, but a large and well-marked group of tales; the folk-lore parallels affect not one, but many incidents of the romance. How large and how widely diffused is that story-group can only be appreciated by those who will examine the lists of variants appended by M. Cosquin to the four stories I have named above and those cited by Mr. Campbell under the heading of theSea Maiden, and then compare these stories with the numerous examples given by Mr. Hartland in his exhaustive study of thePerseuslegend. The incidents are, as I have shown, six out of a possible list of seven. If, further, we remember that the group, with all its varying forms, is connected with such pre-historic heroes as Perseus and Cuchullin, we have, I think, a sufficient answer to those critics who would reject the evidenceen masseon the ground of modernity.
But supposing, for the sake of argument, that we accept the possible priority of the romantic over the popular form, what, with regard to the criticism of the Arthurian literary cycle, is the logical result? This:if the folk-tale be dependent upon a romance, that romance must of necessity be theLancelot, as no other hero offers the same combination of incident. But a version of theLancelotstory, from whichallthese incidents could have been borrowed, must have been older than any form of the story we now possess. As we have seen above, the correspondence is sometimes with one, sometimes with another version; and a very famous incident of the tale, theFalse Claimant, only exists now in two romances, each of them preserved in an isolated and unique form. Therefore, if this be not a fully proven instance of the conversion of a popular folk-tale into an Arthurian romance, it must be a case of the development of a folk-tale from a fully organised and coherentLancelotstory in a form anterior to Chrétien. The adherents of the theory which ascribes independent invention to Chrétien de Troyes, and a literary origin to the Arthurian stories, can make their choice between these two solutions of the problem—one or the other it must be.
For myself, I unreservedly accept the verdict pronounced by Mr. Campbell upon theSea Maidenas representative of the entire story-group. ‘Is it possible that a Minglay peasant and Straparola[47](or we may add Hue de Rotelande and the peasants of the Odenwald and Lorraine)—neither of whom can have seen a giant, or a flying horse, or a dragon, or a mermaid—could separately imagine all these impossible things, and, having imagined them simultaneously, invent the incidents of the story and arrange so many of them in the same order?
‘Is it on the other hand possible that all these barefooted, bareheaded, simple men, who cannot read, should yet learn the contents of one class of rare books and of no other? I cannot think so.
‘I have gone through the wholeSea Maidenstory, and all its Gaelic versions, and marked and numbered each separate incident, and divided the whole into its parts, and then set the result beside the fruit of a similar dissection of Straparola’sFortunio, and I find nearly the whole of the bones of the Italian story, and a great many bones which seem to belong to some original antediluvian Aryan tale. The Scotch (insular) is far wilder and more mythical than the Italian (continental).[48]The one savours of tournaments, kings’ palaces, and the manners of Italy long ago; the other of flocks and herds, fishermen and pastoral life; but the Highland imaginary beings are further from reality and nearer to creatures of the brain. The horses of Straparola are very material and walk the earth; those of old John MacPhie are closely related to Pegasus and the horses of the Veda, and fly and soar through grimy peat-reek to the clouds.’[49]
Mr. Campbell continues: ‘What is true of the Gaelic and Italian versions is equally true of all others which I know. If examined, they will be found to consist of a bare tree of branching incidents common to all, and so elaborate that no minds could possibly have invented the whole seven or eight timesover[50]without some common model, and yet no one of these is the model, for the tree is defective in all, and its foliage has something peculiar to each country in which it grows. They are specimens of the same plant, but their common stock is nowhere to be found.’[51]Were Mr. Campbell living now, may we not feel sure that to these closing words he would add:Assuredly it is not to be sought in an Arthurian romance of the twelfth century?
So much for the present as regards our folk-tale as a whole. Let us now see what light the study of it may have thrown upon the special subject of our investigation—the Three Days’ Tournament. And first of all, I think it has definitely settled the correctness of our title. East or west, north or south, wherever we have traced our story, whatever the hero’s feat—whether the rescuing the princess from a devouring dragon, or the winning her hand at a knightly tournament—the days required to complete the task arethree—neither more nor less.
Mr. Hartland, to whom I referred the point, remarks that the unvarying tendency in certain families of folk-tales, notably those of Oriental origin, is to crystallise a small but indefinite number intothree. Now Mr. Campbell, as we have seen, detects a likeness between the flying horses of theSea Maidentales, and the horses of the Veda, and Mr. Joseph Jacobs,in a note appended to another tale,[52]quotes a further remark of the same writer, to the effect that the many-coloured horses of Indian mythology may account for all the magical horses of folk-tales. So if our tale, as a whole, did not come from the east, it seems possible that this particular incident may have done so.[53]
Yet in so far as the tournament form is concerned, it is, of course,possiblethat certain literary versions of the story might have been affected by the ordinary customs of the day. Anyway there seems to be a fairly close correspondence here between fact and fancy. Niedner, in his work onDas Deutsche Turnier,[54]remarks that the tourney proper was generally held on a Monday; the knights assembled on the previous Saturday; Sunday morning was spent in mustering those present and arranging the opposing factions; while the afternoon was devoted to the encounter known as theVesper-spiel, preliminary to the grand struggle of the morrow. Thus the ordinary duration of such a meeting might be reckoned as three days.
But it is clear that there might also be three distinct encounters on as many separate days, as in the folk-tale. Professor Kittredge, in his article, ‘Who was Sir Thomas Malory?[55]’ notes a very remarkable and pertinent instance taken from the life of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. When that nobleman was Governor of Calais, hearing of a great gatheringof knights, to be held in the neighbourhood, ‘he cast in his mynde to do sume newe poynt of chevalry’; and under the several names ofThe Grene Knight,Chevalier Vert, andChevalier Attendant, sent three challenges to the French king’s court. These being accepted, he appeared the first two days in differing armour, the third ‘in face opyn,’ on each occasion overthrowing his antagonist.[56]The days in question are given by Rous as January 6th, 7th, and 8th; the year he does not mention; but Professor Kittredge, by a process of elimination, arrives at the conclusion that it must have been either 1416 or 1417. It is, of course, obvious that this feat must have been suggested by the romances. It is, I think, equally obvious that the three days of the romances were not at variance with actual practice. As to the version of the folk-tale there can be no question. The correct number is three—neither more nor less.
It is, of course, also clear that the occurrence of the tournament in the folk-tale must be subsequent to the institution of tournaments as part of the ordinary chivalric and social conditions; but the tale itself must be earlier, as is witnessed both by the archaic nature of the rescue incident and the magical nature of the horses. Trials of skill in horsemanship are known to all stages of society; and the original form of this special incident was doubtless something of this kind. In the Odenwald variant referred to above, the hero has to perform the feat of carrying off on his spear a ring suspended from a beam, and to hang it up again in returning. This is here supposed to form part of the tournament; but it seems most likelythat in earlier forms the trial of skill by which the hero was tested and identified was simply some such feat of skilled horsemanship.
Nor do I think that we are to see the influence of romance, rather than of custom, in this transformation. Neither of the poems in which the incident approximates most closely to the folk-tale form, theLanzeletand theIpomedon, appear to have been particularly popular (certainly not the former), judging from the number of manuscripts in which they have been preserved, while the ‘Tournament’ form of the folk-tale is found all over Europe. It is much more reasonable, surely, to conclude that the episode has been borrowed, as so many others have been borrowed, from the stores of popular tradition than to hold that in this case popular tradition has been modified by the influences of a literary cycle.
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? Thefourdays ofCligésrule 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 theLancelotversions. These correspond with the prevailing colours of the folk-tale—black, red, and white, or green, red, and white.[57]Theone is the version of theProse Lancelot, the other of theLanzelet. 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 givesbothgreen 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 theLancelottale.Noirin the manuscript may have been readvair, and a copyist writing from oral dictation may thus have substitutedvert. 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 theLanzeletrepresent 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 greenhorsewould be an impossibility, while yet horse and armour should correspond, black—perhaps under the influence of thePercevalstory—would take its place. Both were represented in the folk-tale, and it may be that the version of theProse Lancelotand of theIpomedonsimply represents ‘the survival of the fittest.’
That there weretwoversions 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 theIpomedonstands in a much closer relation with certain forms of the folk-tale,i.e.thePetit Bergeroragroup, than is the case with either theCligésor the twoLancelotversions. In theIpomedonalone 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 theIpomedonalone the hero is wounded on the third day—a feature found not only in the Odenwald story but in several variants ofLe Prince et son Cheval—it becomes clear that if there be a doubt as to the source of theCligésor theLanzelet, theIpomedonversion must repose, directly or indirectly, upon the folk-tale.
But, as we have seen, it is precisely the evidence oftheIpomedonwhich leads us to connect the story with Walter Map, and the romance ascribed to him, theLancelot. 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 theLanzelet; 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 toCligés. Thedramatis personæof 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 theLancelotstory in its earlier stages is most closely associated is Perceval; Chrétien himself here introduces Perceval as a famous knight, with whose renownCligés 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 theIpomedonand the originalLanzelet, 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 theMerlintells us, was son to that potentate. Chrétienmayhave introduced him as less known in connection with this than Kay, who is never once named inCligés; 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 thePeredurwhich does not correspond to any section of theConte del Graalwe 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 appearto me to show direct contact between thePercevalandLancelotstories, 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 thePercevalstory, no other feature of any version of the Perceval ‘Enfances’ corresponding with theformulæof 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 thePeredurhas been influenced by a version of theLancelotakin to that preserved in the prose redaction.
To return toCligés. Taking into consideration all the evidence, the importance and widespread character of the folk-tale, the closer correspondence of both theIpomedonand theLanzeletto the popular form, and the peculiarities of theCligésversion, it becomes, I think, impossible to doubt that this latter, so far from being thesourceof theLanzelet, 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 didnotunderstand 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 ofein verschlechternder Ueberarbeiter? The phrase, be it remembered, isProfessor 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 wasnotdealing 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 theIpomedonand theLanzelet, and misunderstood and ‘muddled’ by Chrétien.
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 theLancelotstory; is it not possible that one of these versions may have been the lost French source of theLanzelet? The ‘setting’ of theCligéstournament, in which the hero makes his first appearance at Arthur’s court, corresponds with that of theLanzelet; and, as we have remarked above, in theErecwe 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 GermanLanzeletas ‘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 theFrench 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 aLancelotromance 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 HenryII. before 1162.[59]We do not know when Chrétien wrote theErec, but it was almost certainly some time in the decade 1150-60. That Map should have been the author of aLancelotpoem earlier than theErecis quite possible, but, perhaps, not very probable; but there would have been ample time for him to write one before theCligés. 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 Curialiumoffers 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-LoreSociety.[60]HisLancelotpoem 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 theLanzelet,i.e.its character would probably bepopularrather thanliterary. I should myself have felt inclined to decide for theLanzeletsource, were it not for the evidence of theIpomedon, which appears to presuppose a version closer to the original folk-tale.
Another point to be borne in mind in connection with theCligés, 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 theLanzelet, we know that the source of that poem came from England, and elsewhere[62]I have pointed out that a curious allusion to England (notas is more usual toBritain) seems to make it probable that the French original was written in this island. If we couple with this the authorship and evidenceof theIpomedon, and the persistent attribution of aLancelotromance to Walter Map, we have, I think, a strong presumption in favour of an earlyinsularversion 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 ofSir Bevis of Hampton(Cxxx):—
‘After Josianis cristingBeves dede a gret fighting—Swich bataile ded never nonCristene man of flesch and bon—Of a dragoun thar beside,That Beves slough ther in that tide;Save Sire Lancelet de LakeHe faught with a furdrake[fiery dragon],And Wade dede alsoAnd never knightes boute thai to.’[63]
‘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 ofMorien, 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 theProse 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 ofMorien, is therefore especially welcome; I am inclined to think that it strongly increases the probability of a definitelyinsularversion of the story,differing in some respects from thecontinental, 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 continentaloriginof 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 insularorigin, 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 theex partecharacter of this distinguished scholar’s methods!
If we take into consideration the character of the elements composing the earlyLancelotstory, 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 earlyLancelotstory might thus be sketched:—
a.Lai(presumably Breton), relating theft of king’s son by water-fairy, amplified byb.Bringing up of youth in Otherworld kingdom, peopled by women only (source, general Celtic tradition, possiblyGawainlegend).c.His entry into the world (Percevallegend).d.Introduction of adventures ofSea Maidenstory,abeing the point of contact, and suggesting the development, which may have been as follows:—da.Winning of magic steeds and armour.db.{ Rescue of princess from monster, andFalse Claimantstory; ordc.{ Rescue of princess from Otherworld. As we have seen (p. 25), it would be quite possible for these to be combined.dd.Appearance at Three Days’ Tournament.
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, possiblyGawainlegend).
c.His entry into the world (Percevallegend).
d.Introduction of adventures ofSea Maidenstory,abeing the point of contact, and suggesting the development, which may have been as follows:—
da.Winning of magic steeds and armour.
da.Winning of magic steeds and armour.
db.{ Rescue of princess from monster, andFalse Claimantstory; or
db.{ Rescue of princess from monster, andFalse Claimantstory; or
dc.{ Rescue of princess from Otherworld. As we have seen (p. 25), it would be quite possible for these to be combined.
dc.{ Rescue of princess from Otherworld. As we have seen (p. 25), it would be quite possible for these to be combined.
dd.Appearance at Three Days’ Tournament.
dd.Appearance at Three Days’ Tournament.
It would seem not improbable that it was the independent existence of incidentdcin 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 extantliteraryversion.
If we admit the suggested hypothesis—that the hero of the Lancelotlaibecame through the ‘mermaid’ incident identified with the hero of theSea Maidenstory—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 thechoice 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 theTristanstory—a foregone conclusion.[66]
But this evolution, so far as we can tell, took place onbothsides of the Channel. Thus, while I have found no singleinsularversion which gives the Tournament episode, I have equally found nocontinentalvariant which contains the mermaid. Yet it is the latter (mermaid) which appears to form the point of contact between the folk-tale and thelai, 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 wasab originethe hero of a variant of this popular andwidely-spread folk-tale. The persistent element in theLancelotstory 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 theLancelotromances.
Again this folk-tale,quâfolk-tale, does not belong to the same group as that which offers parallels to thePercevalstory; yet theLancelotstory was certainly affected, and that at an early stage of development, by thePerceval. 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 theLancelotevolution, 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 becameconnected 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.
The whole character of the earlierLancelotstory is strongly reminiscent of alai, and I see no reason to depart from the opinion expressed in myLancelot‘Studies,’ that the root of the whole wonderful growth is to be sought in such alai.
Nor do I see reason to doubt that thislaimay 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 solidgrounds for supposing that the story of Lancelot, starting as a Bretonlai, 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.
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, theVita 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 presenta somewhat novel interpretation of the facts. In any case it will be seen that the theory here advanced only affects the earlier stages of theLancelotstory, 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 theLancelotstory, 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 theCligésversion cannot possibly be the source of either theLanzeletor theIpomedon, but represents a version further removed from the original form, and in all probability dependent upon some variant, or variants, of theLancelot. 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 myLancelot‘Studies’ I showed that Professor Foerster’s theory as to the origin of theYvainwould not bear the test of strict examination; that evidence, both internal and external, could be adduced in favourof the view that the tale was but a collection oflais, 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 thePerceval‘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 toobtain 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 disentangledbeyond a certain pointwithout injury to the whole.
Thus neither theGawain, thePerceval, nor theLancelotstories can at the present moment receive satisfactory andfinaltreatment. 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) ThePercevalcontinuations; 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 theBel Inconnu, which is connected with all the three lines of tradition, and is important for all. (c) A comparative study of the variousLancelotversions, which will enable us to disentangle the earlierPerceval-Lancelotredactions from the laterGalahaddevelopment.
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.