The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac

or lais, to the vast body of cyclic romance which was its final form. In this task we have restricted ourselves to those features which more intimately concern the personal cha

lable. In this, the concluding section of these studies, I propose, leaving the question of the nature and origin of the legend, to discuss the relation su

ion of 1513, and compared by him with Malory's text; (4) Dr. Furnivall's edition of the Queste; and (5) Malory's Morte Arthur.[158] This gives us practically four different texts for ea

e D. L., but the compilation covers such an extent of ground, and contains texts of such value to the student of A

t was decidedly older than this date, and there are certainly references to the Lancelot story in much earlier Dutch MSS. Probably it is a compilation similar to that of Sir Thomas Malory, intended to combine the various romances of the Arthurian cycle with which the compiler was familiar, or of which MSS. were a

of the Grail messenger, and for about two thousand lines goes on to give an account of the achieving of the adventures mentioned by her. In some points the compiler agrees closely with Chrétien and seems to have followed his version, in others he departs entirely from any known version of the

that contained in a German version of the Perceval preserved at Rome (cf. Jonckbloet, vol. i. p. xxiv.), adventures of Gariette and Griflette, and the fight betw

a curious resemblance to Wolfram's Feirefis. In this romance occurs the episode of Lancel

n; it extends to over 11,000 ll. The remainder of the book is occupied by a group of i

engeance de

ohort, and Dodinel, when the latter

à la Manche (van den

t Kei (Hoe Keye W

au pied blanc (van der jon

6,980. T

he united three books thus compri

s published by M. Gaston Paris, to which I have just referred, it does not appear to have attracted much attention from scholars. It is especially to be regretted that Dr. Sommer did no

bal differences which, however important for a critical edition of the text, do not in themselves definitely prove a divergence of sources. The point I desire to prove is that the versions D. L. and

ed the Agravain section (l. 13,351 in D. L.). That Malory had before him any version of the earlier section of the Lancelot I very much doubt. It must be apparent to any careful reader that, in his view, the Lady of the Lake is connected rather with Arthu

adventure, D. L., 1533, and M. all represent Lancelot and Lionel as sl

sposed and should read XL.). 1533. Forty-five helmets, forty-five swords, and 'more than' forty-five shields. S. Forty swords, forty

do not say, as does S., that the first-named is on her way to Norgales through 'Sorelois,' but that her land 'borders on' these kingdoms. It is not the three but only the two last-named, Morgain le Fay and

es, but by the queen who had been left her guardian (D. L. and 1533). This is much more

g of Galehodyn as the neveu, not the filz of

all variants. Judging from S., who gives a very condensed

six knights (sic) (there were of course seven) shall each ride forth separately and return to the castle 'a la feste de toussainz.' In D. L. and 1533 Lancelot has started accompanied by Bohort, Baudemagus, and Gaheret. En route they meet Mordr

on Gaheret's (they have the correct spelling) horse, and saying that Lancelot rides off on his own. Whereas, later on

ie grave van den Pale (later on Parke, which is I think the correct reading) is rejoiced at the event as his 'neve' was one of the prisoners. He gives all Arthur's knights very good horses. That he receives the castle is not told, though he afterwards appears as the owner. 1533 says that 'Keux[166] du Parc' has a 'brother' prisoner:

with this latter against the other two. Both S. and 1533 agree in saying that Lancelot ties his horse to a tree, M. says 'to a ringe on the

certain adventures of Lancelot, his rescue of Kay, his riding off in Kay's armour, etc., and proceeds from this supposed peculiarity to postulate a lost 'Suite de Lancelot,' of which this is a preci

ment by Morgain; his freeing Lionel from the dungeon of the King of Estrangeloet; winning the hill guarded by Boh

himself to be donning his own, and was unaware of the error till his host detected it, when he refused to change, foreseeing the amusing complications which would result. This, having no bearing on the story, which is concerned with the fact, not with the motive, was probably omitted by M. An

n the company of these four, but being severely wounded on a previous occasion cannot joust (D. L.); has been left at a castle that morning (1533). M. also omits to say that Segramore reveals their names to Lancelot, who, overcome with grief at having so ill-treated his friends, throws away his shield, and rides off weeping. This causes the four knights

t the Poisoned Spring;[169] as they talk a party of knights and ladies ride up, with them a fair child three years old (D. L.); two years old (1533). This is Bohort's son, Hélie le Blank, whom Lancelot is delighted to see. Now, Dr. Sommer tells us that, saving in the record of this infant's birth, the a

court to another, is also in our two versions, but occurs at an earlier point in the story. In both he is to go first to Arthur's court, then to that of Baudemagus, and lastly to the King of Norgales. If

in Perceval li Gallois though not connected with each other. It is noticeable that M. never refers to the 'Perilous Cemetery' of the Lancelot proper, that of the upright swords, but drops out the reference to Galahad's achieving of i

nd the Hawk in chap. xvi. I

ed upon for an account of their doings, Gawain relates how he fought with Gariette, not knowing that he was his brother; which looks as if the story (not related in detail) might represent

533, at this point, after relating the achievement of their adventures, has a curious remark: 'Ainsi prend fin le premier volume des vertus et glorieulx fais et gestes du noble et puissant chevalier Lancelot du Lac et des compaignons de la Table Ronde,' and then continues, without any break of chapter, to relate the succeeding adventure with the Grail and King Pelles' daughte

ted, but it was evidently in the source, as later on the knight arrives at court as vanquished, and his name is then given as Brimol v

yere he (Lancelot) hath ben in pryson with Morgan le fay, kyng Arthurs syster /.' But 1533 gives it: 'il a este en la prison ou il y a une dame plus dung an enti

er Grail tradition. In both the old man tells Bohort that he has seen 'la lance Vengeresse' the 'wrake spere,' he who sits in the Siege Perilous shall know the truth of adventure.'[171] (This, of course, might be Perceval equally as well as Galahad.) Ga

eaving. The knight encountered by Bohort is alone in D. L., thus agreeing with M.; while in 1533 he does not meet him till after he has rejoined Lionel and Hector. The knights who go in search of Lancelot are in D. L. thirty-two in number, and as later on w

y names of Perceval's brothers (save Agloval, who fetches him from his home), nor say how many there were. Lamorak is never mentioned (I believe this charact

te dien.' Nowhere else is there any sign of the simplicity which is a primitive trait of Perceval's character. Later on, after the 'Patrides' adventure (which appears to be differently related from S. as it is from M., Patrides and the lady ha

ntrouwen, d

ergen ver

n ridder

sijt seker das

This certainly points to an earlier stage of tradition, when Perceva

rsions, which agree so closely, represent an earlier pseudo-Borron Lancelot-Perceval redact

ankles fettered, whereas the other three versions give ankles and wrists. Nevertheless here I think D. L. is right, as when Lancelot rushes after the boar both S. and 1533 agree in saying that he breaks the rings on his ankles, and make no mention of those on the wrist. Again D. L. make

tant (and apparently lost) Lancelot redaction. In the remainder of the incidents represented by this book 1533 agrees on the whole with S., with this important difference, that it makes it quite clear throughout that there is a period of some years