[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 RomanceEdinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable
