Chapter XIX: Conclusion

We have now reached the final stage of our _Lancelot_ studies, and it only remains for us to gather up the threads of the previous investigation, and to endeavour to formulate the results at which we have arrived. We have seen that the _Lancelot_ legend was one of remarkably speedy growth. We find no mention of the hero's name before the latter half of the twelfth century, yet within ten years of that first mention he is the most famous of Arthur's knights, and the lover of the queen.[207]

We have examined the legend (_a_) in the form of a loosely constructed biographical romance, composed of episodes originally foreign to each other; (_b_) in detached episodic poems; (_c_) in its final form as the most important member of a great prose cycle; and we have found that in all this mass of literature the only really distinctive and individual trait on which we could lay our finger was the story of the hero being stolen as a child and brought up by the mistress of a water kingdom.[208]

Into the question of the character of the Lady of the Lake we have not entered deeply; we have seen that she touches on the one side the mysterious queen of the Other World, on the other the scarcely less enigmatic Morgain le Fay, King Arthur's sister. The subject was too wide in extent to be adequately treated in this series; it demands separate study, but the result, so far as the _Lancelot_ legend is concerned, was to lead us to believe that the root of that legend was a _lai_, presumably Breton, dealing with the theft of a king's son by a water fairy; a theme which afterwards underwent considerable expansion, in the course of which the characters of the hero and of his patroness alike became greatly modified from the original conception.

The final and best known form of the story was mainly influenced by the introduction of a _motif_ foreign to the earlier and tentative development, _i.e._ that of Lancelot's love for the wife of his lord. This _motif_, however, we saw reason to believe, did not really represent the earlier tradition of Guinevere's infidelity, but was a practically new development introduced under the dual influences of a special social condition and the high popularity of the earlier _Tristan_ story. As to the reasons which determined the choice of Lancelot as the queen's lover, we found ourselves unable to express any decided opinion.[209]

But from its very earliest stages the _Lancelot_ story came into contact with another and highly popular tale, the legend of _Perceval_. The earlier and later biographical forms (_Lanzelet_ and the prose _Lancelot_) and the episodic romances (_Le cerf au pied blanc_ and _Morien_) show traces of contact, direct or indirect, with this story; while the precise statements of certain MSS.[210] make it quite clear that even at an advanced stage of its evolution the _Lancelot_ legend formed part of a cycle of which the most important member was the story of _Perceval and the Grail_.

This continued contact with the _Perceval_ story, with the resulting developments, appears to be the most important factor in the evolution of the _Lancelot_ legend, and one which has hitherto been overlooked.

So far as the evidence at our disposal permits us to trace it, the course of development seems to have been the following. Gradually the legend of the _Grail_,[211] originally foreign to the _Perceval_ story, completely dominated that story and changed the character of the hero, who became transformed into an ascetic celibate; while, on the other hand, the growing popularity of the _Lancelot_ story had reacted prejudicially on the position alike of Perceval and the still earlier hero Gawain as knights of King Arthur's court. Eventually the two competing centres of romantic interest were _Lancelot_ and the _Grail_, and it became necessary to combine them in such a manner that the latter, while still retaining its sacrosanct character, should yet contribute to heighten the fame of the popular 'secular' hero.

Such a combination was possible, under certain conditions, and an ingenious writer, perceiving this possibility, turned it to account by inventing the Galahad _Queste_, which, poor and inadequate as a _Grail_ romance, yet as a contribution to the _Lancelot_ cycle had a very certain and decided value. It put the final touch to the evolution of the hero by enabling him to take part, under circumstances which should vicariously increase his fame, in the great adventure of the Arthurian cycle, the Grail Quest; it also restored superficially the unity of the cycle, which had been injured by the cleavage between the _Grail_ and the other sections, caused by the growing popularity of Lancelot as compared with Perceval.

While Gawain and Perceval were the leading heroes of the Arthurian cycle, a Perceval _Queste_ was natural; but as soon as these two were supplanted in the popular favour by Lancelot, the Perceval _Queste_, as an integral part of the cycle, became more and more inharmonious. A change in the interest of the _later_ Lancelot development was inevitable, and that the change took place precisely at the psychological moment is, I think, proved by the practically universal welcome accorded to the Galahad _Queste_. With unanimous consent the Perceval _Queste_ appears to have been discarded _as a part of the cycle_, although in its _independent_ form it still retained its popularity.

Naturally all the branches of the cycle into which the new _Queste_ had been adopted were more or less affected by it; in some cases the references to the coming Grail Winner were more or less vague, and would apply as well to the later as to the earlier hero; in other instances they were amplified but not altered, thus introducing confusion into the text (this is, I suspect, the case with the _Merlin Suite_). The romances that represented the _Early History_, as introduction to the _Queste_, were naturally the most affected, and at the present moment it is extremely difficult to decide whether the _Grand S. Graal_ be a _direct_ amplification of the _Joseph of Arimathea_, constructed with a view to the Galahad _Queste_, or whether, in its existing form, it depends upon an intermediate version the _données_ of which would agree with the cyclic _Perceval_.

In any case the 'net' result was, I believe, the substitution of the name of the supposed author of the _Queste_, Walter Map, for that of the traditional author of the earlier _Perceval-Grail_ story, Robert de Borron; and to ascribe to Map that cyclic redaction of the Arthurian romances which had previously been ascribed to de Borron.

I think that much of the difficulty hitherto experienced in determining the order and date of the various Grail romances has arisen from our very natural tendency to regard these romances as a group apart, and to compare them exclusively with each other; whereas they should be treated as members of the cycle, and compared with the other branches of the cycle. More especially is this the case with the Galahad _Queste_; treated as a _Grail_ romance proper, it is inexplicable, and appears to represent no possible step that can be postulated in the _natural_ evolution of the Grail legend. We could imagine the honour transferred from father to son (as a matter of fact it is _Lohengrin_ and not Galahad who should be the successor to Perceval); but this sudden break in the tradition by which the honour passes to the race of King Ban, no relationship between Perceval and Lancelot being previously hinted at, is, considered in itself, most perplexing. On the other hand, treat the _Queste_ as an integral part of the _Lancelot_ cycle, and it not only explains itself, but gives us valuable assistance in 'placing' the earlier versions.

At the same time it is obvious that the theory here advanced only applies to the _later_ stages of the Grail tradition; it does not touch the problem of the origin of the Grail itself, or its first connection with Perceval.

In the course of our investigation we found it necessary to devote especial attention to the work of Chrétien de Troyes, endeavouring to ascertain the exact position which, in the evolution of the Arthurian romantic cycle, should be ascribed to this famous poet. It became clear that a very considerable portion of the matter with which he dealt belonged by its nature to the domain of what we call folk-lore; and by reason of that nature could not have been _invented_ by the poet, but must have ante-dated, in some instances by many centuries, any possible _literary_ rendering. Judged by the rules laid down by scientific authorities on comparative religion, and story-transmission, Chrétien could not have been an _inventor_, but only a brilliantly successful re-teller of stories long known and popular. Instead of standing at the _source_ of Arthurian romantic tradition, he was swept into the current at a comparatively late period of its evolution. To solve the complex problems of Arthurian romance we must go behind Chrétien: it is the period preceding, not following, his work in which the solution of our puzzles must be sought.

To this Chrétien himself bears witness. The position claimed for him by certain modern scholars is not that which he claimed for himself; he never professed to be telling a story no one had ever heard before, though he may have flattered himself, not without reason, that he was telling it better than it had ever previously been told. He was dealing with heroes and adventures already well known to his public. The manner in which he introduces, or refers to, incidental characters makes it abundantly clear that he expected his readers to understand his allusions. Especially is this noticeable in the case of Perceval, who has been claimed, with more zeal than discretion, as one of his most famous creations. He alludes to the hero in a manner that makes it quite evident that this story was well known, and the name familiar, to the public, some decades before Chrétien himself undertook to tell it.

As practical results arising from these studies I would claim:

_a_ That we, in future, place the evolution of the _Perceval_ story at a much earlier date than we have hitherto been willing to assign to it.

_b_ That we admit the possibility of very important variations in the tale, some of them being anterior to Chrétien's version.

_c_ That we recognise that this story of Perceval was of capital importance in the general evolution of the Arthurian cycle.

_d_ That in the mutual relations between the _Perceval-Grail_ and _Lancelot_ stories we have the key to the final shaping of the entire cycle.

These principles admitted, and I think the evidence adduced goes far to prove their soundness, it is obvious that in order to establish and appraise the above relations at their full value, we must have complete and critical editions of _all_ the principal texts. As matters stand at present, the only texts which can be said to have been in any sense critically treated are the Didot _Perceval_, and the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach for the older story, and the _Charrette_ for the younger. We have been waiting for years for a critical edition of the _Conte del Graal_, and when we get it will the editor have taken into consideration the various additions to Chrétien's text, and the version of the Dutch compiler, or will it be Chrétien's portion of the poem alone? In that case it will not help us very far. We need sorely a critical edition of the curious _Perceval li Gallois_, with its blending of wild, folk-lore features with late proselytising and allegorising tendency, its baffling parallels to the German _Parzival_.

And if we are at a loss for material to adequately criticise the earlier story, what of the later? Considering the highly mythic, prehistoric character of so much of the Arthurian tradition, the disappearance of so many of the intermediate stages, and the consequent difficulty in fixing the _earliest_ form of any characteristic feature, it would seem that our best plan would be to start from the _final_ form assumed by the cycle and work gradually backward, since for a certain period, at least, we might hope to find solid ground beneath our feet. But the most important text for this final form of the Arthurian cycle, the prose _Lancelot_, remains unedited. And indeed it might well seem to be a work beyond the powers of any one scholar; the number alike of MSS. and of printed editions is so large; they are so scattered, no important library but can show one or more _Lancelot_ texts, and we cannot afford to leave even _one_ of all this mass unexamined. The great discrepancy between the printed texts which the foregoing comparison has shown us; the pregnant hints as to earlier redactions, which the passages I have quoted from M. Paulin Paris and Professor Heinzel assure us may be found in the MSS., are all indications of the vast extent of the task which confronts us.

Yet this much is certain, until it is boldly grappled with, and scholars are in possession of a complete critical edition of the _Lancelot_ in which all the varying adventures shall be carefully chronicled, and all the traces of earlier redactions duly noted, any studies such as these in the preceding pages, be they the work of scholars of the very first rank, will always be liable to the necessity of revision, or the risk of subversion, by the accidental discovery of some hitherto unknown factor.[212]

This appears to me to be the great and pressing question which confronts Arthurian scholars; we desire our work to have a permanent value, yet we are leaving undone that which, to all appearance, is the surest means of securing such permanence.

A work of such magnitude can, I think, only be grappled with by a body of scholars, a chief editor, assisted by a group of sub-editors. The great extent and diffusion of the material (the _Lancelot_ MSS. are, as I said before, practically scattered all over Europe), render it impossible for any one man to hope to complete the task within a reasonable term of years. I do not know what may be the principles regarding the choice of publications by the _Sociétié des anciens textes Français_, whether their aim be the introduction to the public of MSS. of which unique copies alone exist, rather than to publish critical editions of more easily accessible texts; but if the latter should lie within their province, I cannot imagine any publication that would be more warmly welcomed by Arthurian scholars, or that would be of greater interest and more enduring benefit to the students of mediæval literature, than a full and complete edition of the prose _Lancelot_.