The Three Days' Tournament

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 elsewhere⁶² 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.

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.