CONTENTS
| CHAPTER I | |
| PAGE | |
| Introductory Remarks | [1-4] |
| Lancelot not a character of primitive Arthurian tradition | [4] |
| First recorded mention by Chrétien de Troyes and suddengrowth in popularity | [5-7] |
| CHAPTER II | |
| THE 'LANZELET' OF ULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN | |
| Lancelot—Theories as to origin of name—M. de la Villemarqué—ProfessorRhys—M. Gaston Paris—Professor Zimmer—ProfessorFoerster—Proposed Celtic derivation unsatisfactory | [8-10] |
| Summary of poem | [11-17] |
| Discussion of poem—Contradictory character of contents; notnecessarily proof of late origin | [18-21] |
| Process of evolution sketched | [23-25] |
| Connection between Lanzelet and Parzival of Wolfram vonEschenbach—Not merely a superficial borrowing of names—Necessityfor critical edition of the Lanzelet, and carefulcomparison of the two poems | [25-29] |
| CHAPTER III | |
| LANCELOT ET LE CERF AU PIED BLANC | |
| Summary of poem | [30-32] |
| Lai de Tyolet—Older variant, but real nature of story even thenobscured | [32-34] |
| 'False Claimant' motif foreign to original Lai | [34-35] |
| Influence of Tristan noticeable in the Morien variant—Possibleconnection with Lai | [35-38] |
| Reasons for omission of adventure in later versions | [38-39] |
| CHAPTER IV | |
| LE CHEVALIER DE LA CHARRETTE | |
| Summary of poem | [40-42] |
| Structure of poem confused and unsatisfactory—Probablereasons for this | [42-46] |
| Versions of Guinevere's imprisonment—Comparison withSiegfried-Brynhild story—Legend primitive and in earliestform unlocalised—Localisation points to an insularredaction | [46-49] |
| Relation between Chrétien's poem and other versions—Malory'sversion cannot be proved to be drawn from prose Lancelot—Iweincertainly independent of Charrette—Parzivaldoubtful—Two latter possibly represent earlier version,imperfectly known by Chrétien | [49-53] |
| CHAPTER V | |
| THE POSITION OF CHRÉTIEN DE TROYES IN THEARTHURIAN CYCLE | |
| Source of Chrétien's poems an important problem | [54] |
| Professor Foerster's views summarised—The Arthurian legendpartly historic, partly romantic—Latter of exclusively continentalorigin | [55-56] |
| Reply to Professor Foerster—Arthurian tradition of greaterextent and of wider diffusion than supposed—Evidence forearly diffusion of romantic tradition | [56] |
| Necessity of distinguishing between mythic and romantic tradition—Formerof strongly marked Celtic-Irish character,and mainly preserved in insular tradition | [56-61] |
| Condition of Arthurian tradition when Chrétien wrote—Nolonger purely oral—Necessity for understanding what isinvolved in oral transmission—Mr. Hartland's evidenceon this point—The Breton lais folk-lore in character—Gradualprocess of Arthurisation—Evidence of Yvain—Theprocess well advanced at the time Chrétien wrote | [61-68] |
| Necessity for determining original character of story beforecriticising, i.e. tales of folk-lore origin demand a differentmethod of criticism from that applicable to tales of purelyliterary invention—Professor Foerster's theory of origin ofYvain examined and rejected as not consonant with archaiccharacter of tale | [68-77] |
| Proposed origin of Perceval also unsatisfactory, not in harmonywith statements made elsewhere by Chrétien—Strong probabilitythat the tale, in its completed form, is older thanhas hitherto been supposed | [78-80] |
| Folk-lore character of Erec, Yvain, and Perceval probably animportant element in their popularity | [81] |
| The varying geography of Chrétien's poems evidence of varyingsource | [82-83] |
| Probable relation between Chrétien's poems and the Welshversions—Resemblance does not necessarily postulate dependence | [85] |
| General summary of principles resulting from present investigation,and their bearing upon position ultimately to beassigned to Chrétien | [86-88] |
| CHAPTER VI | |
| THE PROSE LANCELOT—THE 'ENFANCES' OF THE HERO | |
| Necessity of examining all the existing MSS. before a criticalstudy of the legend can be attempted—Present studies concernedonly with leading points of story, and certainvariants in printed texts | [89-90] |
| Arthurian cycle in present form redacted under influence of completedLancelot story | [91-93] |
| Enfances of hero in prose Lancelot a modified form of storyrelated by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven—Points of contactbetween prose Lancelot and Parzival of Wolfram vonEschenbach | [93-96] |
| MS. evidence of contact with Perceval story | [96-97] |
| Parallel with Bel Inconnu poems—The Lancelot later thaneither Perceval or Bel Inconnu—Connection with Lady ofthe Lake alone of the essence of the story—Necessity forstudying character of fairy protectress before decidingoriginal form of Enfances | [97-99] |
| CHAPTER VII | |
| THE PROSE LANCELOT—THE LOVES OF LANCELOTAND GUINEVERE | |
| Short notice of incidents of frequent repetition in the romance—Impossibilityof deciding, with our present knowledge,which belong to original redaction | [100-103] |
| Do the mutual relations of Lancelot and Guinevere represent anoriginal feature of the Arthurian story, or are we to considerthem a later addition? | [103] |
| Early evidence of Guinevere's infidelity—Testimony of thechroniclers—Wace—Layamon | [104-107] |
| Mordred not the original lover, but his representative | [107-108] |
| Original lover possibly Gawain | [108-111] |
| Lancelot story a later development and independent of earliertradition—Influence of the Tristan legend—Motive determiningchoice of lover | [111-117] |
| Suggested evolution of Lancelot—Guinevere story | [117-118] |
| CHAPTER VIII | |
| THE PROSE LANCELOT—LANCELOT AND THE GRAIL | |
| Intricacy of questions involved—Grail problem, so far, has notbeen solved—Possibility that mutual relation betweenLancelot and Grail romances may yield us the key to bothproblems | [119-120] |
| Necessity of distinguishing three distinct Questes—Later GrailQueste combination of Grail (Perceval) and Château Merveil(Gawain) adventures | [121] |
| Dr. Wechssler's theory of Grail-Lancelot cycle examined—Resultsas deduced by author unsatisfactory | [121-124] |
| Evidence of MS. 751 key to truth—Original Borron Queste aPerceval, not a Galahad, Queste—Didot Perceval representsan early, Perceval li Gallois a later, form of Perceval-Lancelot—GrailQueste evidence for this discussed | [124-132] |
| Origin of the Galahad Queste—Dependent upon the Lancelot,but by another hand—Contradiction between presentmentof characters and essential motif of story | [133-140] |
| Motives determining evolution of Galahad Queste—Necessity ofconnecting two main branches of tradition, Lancelot andthe Grail—This only possible under certain conditionswhich we find fulfilled in the Queste | [140-146] |
| CHAPTER IX | |
| THE DUTCH LANCELOT | |
| Importance of this text as a faithful translation of an excellentoriginal | [147-149] |
| Contents summarised | [149-151] |
| Close connection with edition 1533, Philippe Lenoire—Importanceof these two versions for criticism of Malory's compilation | [151] |
| Detailed comparison of texts with Dr. Sommer's summary ofprose Lancelot and with original text of Malory | [152-164] |
| CHAPTER X | |
| THE QUESTE VERSIONS | |
| Comparison of texts continued—Dutch Lancelot—French1533—Malory—Welsh Queste—Dr. Furnivall's Queste—Dr.Sommer's summary | [165-185] |
| Conclusion—General agreement of the first four against the lasttwo—The former representing a superior family of texts—Malory'ssource an Agravain-Queste MS. belonging tosame family as 1533 and Dutch translation—No proof thatMalory knew earlier section of Lancelot | [185-188] |
| Variations of Queste MSS. apparently due to copyist rather thanto compiler—The romance a Lancelot, rather than a Grail,romance | [188-193] |
| CHAPTER XI | |
| THE MORT ARTUR | |
| Comparison of texts continued | [194-205] |
| Results confirm previous conclusion, showing continued agreementof 1533 and Dutch translation, and strengthen theorythat text used by Malory belonged to same family | [205] |
| CHAPTER XII | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| Summary of investigation—Results arrived at | [206-212] |
| The mutual relations of Perceval and Lancelot stories of primaryimportance in evolution of Arthurian romantic cycle—Necessityfor critical editions of these texts | [212-214] |
| APPENDIX | |
| The Lancelot section of D.L. | [215-247] |
| Index | [248] |
THE LEGEND OF
SIR LANCELOT DU LAC
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
To the great majority of English readers, those who are familiar with the Arthurian legend through the pages of Malory and Tennyson, the name which occurs most readily to their minds in connection with the court and Table of King Arthur is that of Lancelot du Lac, at once the most gallant servant of the king, and the secret lover of the queen. To many the story of Lancelot and Guinevere is the most famous of all stories of unlawful love.
True, of late years the popularity of Wagner's music has made their ears, at least, familiar with the names of Tristan and Iseult. Still, that Tristan and Iseult were ever as famous as Lancelot and Guinevere, few outside the ranks of professed students of mediæval literature would believe; still fewer admit that the loves of Arthur's queen and Arthur's knight were suggested by, if not imitated from, the older, more poetic, and infinitely more convincing, Celtic love-tale; that Lancelot, as Arthur's knight and Guinevere's lover, is a comparatively late addition to the Arthurian legend.