The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac / Studies upon its Origin, Development, and Position in the Arthurian Romantic Cycle

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 sudden growth in popularity	5-7
CHAPTER II
THE 'LANZELET' OF ULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN
Lancelot—Theories as to origin of name—M. de la VillemarquÉ—Professor Rhys—M. Gaston Paris—Professor Zimmer—Professor Foerster—Proposed Celtic derivation unsatisfactory	8-10
Summary of poem	11-17
Discussion of poem—Contradictory character of contents; not necessarily proof of late origin	18-21
Process of evolution sketched	23-25
Connection between Lanzelet and Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach—Not merely a superficial borrowing of names—Necessity for critical edition of the Lanzelet, and careful comparison 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 then obscured	32-34
'False Claimant' motif foreign to original Lai	34-35
Influence of Tristan noticeable in the Morien variant—Possible connection 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—Probable reasons for this	42-46
Versions of Guinevere's imprisonment—Comparison with Siegfried-Brynhild story—Legend primitive and in earliest form unlocalised—Localisation points to an insular redaction	46-49
Relation between ChrÉtien's poem and other versions—Malory's version cannot be proved to be drawn from prose Lancelot—Iwein certainly independent of Charrette—Parzival doubtful—Two latter possibly represent earlier version, imperfectly known by ChrÉtien	49-53
CHAPTER V
THE POSITION OF CHRÉTIEN DE TROYES IN THE ARTHURIAN CYCLE
Source of ChrÉtien's poems an important problem	54
Professor Foerster's views summarised—The Arthurian legend partly historic, partly romantic—Latter of exclusively continental origin	55-56
Reply to Professor Foerster—Arthurian tradition of greater extent and of wider diffusion than supposed—Evidence for early diffusion of romantic tradition	56
Necessity of distinguishing between mythic and romantic tradition—Former of strongly marked Celtic-Irish character, and mainly preserved in insular tradition	56-61
Condition of Arthurian tradition when ChrÉtien wrote—No longer purely oral—Necessity for understanding what is involved in oral transmission—Mr. Hartland's evidence on this point—The Breton lais folk-lore in character—Gradual process of Arthurisation—Evidence of Yvain—The process well advanced at the time ChrÉtien wrote	61-68
Necessity for determining original character of story before criticising, i.e. tales of folk-lore origin demand a different method of criticism from that applicable to tales of purely literary invention—Professor Foerster's theory of origin of Yvain examined and rejected as not consonant with archaic character of tale	68-77
Proposed origin of Perceval also unsatisfactory, not in harmony with statements made elsewhere by ChrÉtien—Strong probability that the tale, in its completed form, is older than has hitherto been supposed	78-80
Folk-lore character of Erec, Yvain, and Perceval probably an important element in their popularity	81
The varying geography of ChrÉtien's poems evidence of varying source	82-83
Probable relation between ChrÉtien's poems and the Welsh versions—Resemblance does not necessarily postulate dependence	85
General summary of principles resulting from present investigation, and their bearing upon position ultimately to be assigned to ChrÉtien	86-88
CHAPTER VI
THE PROSE LANCELOT—THE 'ENFANCES' OF THE HERO
Necessity of examining all the existing MSS. before a critical study of the legend can be attempted—Present studies concerned only with leading points of story, and certain variants in printed texts	89-90
Arthurian cycle in present form redacted under influence of completed Lancelot story	91-93
Enfances of hero in prose Lancelot a modified form of story related by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven—Points of contact between prose Lancelot and Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach	93-96
MS. evidence of contact with Perceval story	96-97
Parallel with Bel Inconnu poems—The Lancelot later than either Perceval or Bel Inconnu—Connection with Lady of the Lake alone of the essence of the story—Necessity for studying character of fairy protectress before deciding original form of Enfances	97-99
CHAPTER VII
THE PROSE LANCELOT—THE LOVES OF LANCELOT AND GUINEVERE
Short notice of incidents of frequent repetition in the romance—Impossibility of deciding, with our present knowledge, which belong to original redaction	100-103
Do the mutual relations of Lancelot and Guinevere represent an original feature of the Arthurian story, or are we to consider them a later addition?	103
Early evidence of Guinevere's infidelity—Testimony of the chroniclers—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 earlier tradition—Influence of the Tristan legend—Motive determining choice 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 not been solved—Possibility that mutual relation between Lancelot and Grail romances may yield us the key to both problems	119-120
Necessity of distinguishing three distinct Questes—Later Grail Queste combination of Grail (Perceval) and ChÂteau Merveil (Gawain) adventures	121
Dr. Wechssler's theory of Grail-Lancelot cycle examined—Results as deduced by author unsatisfactory	121-124
Evidence of MS. 751 key to truth—Original Borron Queste a Perceval, not a Galahad, Queste—Didot Perceval represents an early, Perceval li Gallois a later, form of Perceval-Lancelot—Grail Queste evidence for this discussed	124-132
Origin of the Galahad Queste—Dependent upon the Lancelot, but by another hand—Contradiction between presentment of characters and essential motif of story	133-140
Motives determining evolution of Galahad Queste—Necessity of connecting two main branches of tradition, Lancelot and the Grail—This only possible under certain conditions which we find fulfilled in the Queste	140-146
CHAPTER IX
THE DUTCH LANCELOT
Importance of this text as a faithful translation of an excellent original	147-149
Contents summarised	149-151
Close connection with edition 1533, Philippe Lenoire—Importance of these two versions for criticism of Malory's compilation	151
Detailed comparison of texts with Dr. Sommer's summary of prose Lancelot and with original text of Malory	152-164
CHAPTER X
THE QUESTE VERSIONS
Comparison of texts continued—Dutch Lancelot—French 1533—Malory—Welsh Queste—Dr. Furnivall's Queste—Dr. Sommer's summary	165-185
Conclusion—General agreement of the first four against the last two—The former representing a superior family of texts—Malory's source an Agravain-Queste MS. belonging to same family as 1533 and Dutch translation—No proof that Malory knew earlier section of Lancelot	185-188
Variations of Queste MSS. apparently due to copyist rather than to 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 agreement of 1533 and Dutch translation, and strengthen theory that 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 primary importance in evolution of Arthurian romantic cycle—Necessity for 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

Clyx.com