Jessie Weston - The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac

In connection with which we may note that both Chrétien and Hartmann von Aue spell the name of Gurnemanz with o , not with u , as does Wolfram. Other names, some of them peculiar to Wolfram's version, occur in the Lanzelet , such as Galagandreiss (Galogandres), also found in Hartmann's Erec though not in Chrétien; Iwân de Nonel, l. 2935 ( Parzival , v. 312); Iblîs, l. 4060 ( Parzival , xiii. 895). Ulrich's Iblîs is connected with the cloister jaemerlichen urbor , Wolfram's with Terra de Lâbur ; Kailet, l. 6032 ( Parzival , ii. 737); Maurîn, whose name in each case is similarly qualified, mit den lichten schenkeln her Maurîn , l. 3052, Mit den schœnen schenkeln Maurîn ( Parzival , xiii. 1069). 32 32 Layamon ' Brut ' knows Maurin of Winchester as a kinsman of Arthur's, ll. 20238 and 24336. I have not found the name elsewhere. In the description of Iweret we read, einen wâfen roc fuort er und guldîn schellen dran er schein ein engel niht ein man , ll. 4428-30, which should be compared with the description of Karnachkarnanz.

Now how are all these points of contact to be explained? Scholars are agreed in placing the date of Ulrich's poem in the opening years of the thirteenth century, therefore anterior to the Parzival . Did Wolfram borrow from Ulrich? If it were a mere question of a name here and there we might think so, but the points of contact amount to more than this. We have the characteristics of Perceval postulated of Lancelot; we have correspondence in details, even verbal identity; further, the prose Lancelot , as we shall see, presents other points of contact with Wolfram's poem in details where he differs notably from Chrétien. It is not probable that Wolfram, who never alludes to any adventures related in the Lanzelet , and to all appearance knows nothing of the hero save the Charrette adventure, should have borrowed from two such widely different versions of his story. The fact that where Lancelot appears to have borrowed from the Perceval legend, the borrowed matter is marked by characteristics special to one version of the story is, to say the least, curious. If the Lanzelet really preceded the Parzival —a philological question upon which I am not qualified to pronounce an opinion—and Ulrich, as is generally supposed, closely followed his source, only one conclusion seems possible, i.e. that that source knew, and quoted, the poem of Kiot. It is significant that in the mention of Gurnemanz he is spoken of as den fürsten wîs , which shows that to the writer he was not a mere name, but a well-known character, distinguished by the qualities which mark him in the Parzival

My own impression is, however, that Ulrich knew Wolfram's poem, or at least part of it (between the Lanzelet and the last three books of the Parzival there do not appear to be any points of contact). There are numberless small coincidences in language and phrase, trifling in themselves, but which as a whole seem to argue a familiarity with the words of the Parzival . Such a correspondence is more likely on the part of Ulrich than on that of Wolfram, who by his own confession could not read or write, and must have become orally familiar with his source. But it is quite clear that a critical comparison of the two works is urgently needed, both in the interests of Arthurian tradition and of German literature. The popular impression, i.e. that Wolfram merely borrowed a few names from the Lanzelet , will not stand the test of investigation. Two conclusions alone are open, from which we must make our choice: either to admit the existence, beyond any doubt, of the French poem, other than Chrétien's, which Wolfram declared to be his source; 33 33 It appears to me that, in view of Herr P. Hagen's excellent demonstration of the correctness of the many curious Oriental references with which the Parzival abounds, and his remarkable identification of Wolfram's Grail with a sacred Bætylus stone, it is impossible any longer to deny the possession, by Wolfram, of a source other than Chrétien's poem. But whether the Lanzelet offers another proof or not I should hesitate to say. If it does, the evidence, extending as it does over so much of the Parzival , is of the greatest value as an indication of the extent of Kiot's work. or to place the date of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven some few years later than that usually assigned to him. We await the aid of some one of the many competent scholars Germany possesses to solve this puzzle for us.

Before examining Chrétien's poem of the Charrette , which, whatever the date of composition, belongs by the nature of its contents to the later stages of Arthurian tradition, it will be well to direct our attention to a short episodic poem, undoubtedly French in origin, but, so far as we at present know, only to be found in a translation incorporated in the vast compilation known as the Dutch Lancelot . 34 34 Lancelot , ed. Jonckbloet, vol. ii. ll. 22271-23126. The summaries in this chapter, and all subsequent references to the Dutch Lancelot , are taken direct from the text. A summary of the romance here discussed is given by M. Gaston Paris, Histoire Littéraire de la France , vol. xxx. p. 113. The contents of the poem are as follows: A maiden arrives at Arthur's court, attended by a brachet. She is the messenger of a queen who demands a champion to accomplish the following feat: in her land is a stag with one white foot, guarded by seven lions; she promises her hand to whoever will slay the lions, and present her with the white foot of the stag. The brachet will be guide to any knight who may undertake the adventure. Kay announces his intention of being the first to try his fortune, and sets out, guided by the dog. After riding some distance he comes to a deep and swiftly flowing river, which the dog promptly swims. Kay's courage, however, fails him at the sight of the water, and he turns back, feigning a sudden illness, which had prevented him from pursuing the quest. Lancelot then determines to try his fortune: he sets out, passes the river in safety, and is attacked by the seven lions. After a fierce conflict, in which he is desperately wounded, he succeeds in slaying them, and secures the white foot. At this moment a stranger knight appears, and Lancelot, exhausted by the fight, gives him the foot, bidding him carry it to the queen, and say that the knight who has achieved the adventure lies sorely wounded, and prays her aid. The knight promises this, but having received the foot, deals Lancelot a treacherous blow with his sword, and leaving him for dead rides off to the castle, and claims the reward due to the slayer of the lions.

The queen is much distressed, as the knight is both ugly and cowardly, and summons her lords and vassals to ask their advice. They recommend that the marriage be postponed for fifteen days, greatly to the disappointment of the knight.

Meanwhile Gawain has become anxious at the non-return of Lancelot, and sets forth to seek him. He finds him apparently dead, revives him, and conveys him to the dwelling of a physician, whom he instructs as to the proper treatment, 35 35 Throughout the Dutch Lancelot we have constant references to Gawain's skill in healing. Cf. Parzival , x. 104. Chrétien does not appear to know this trait in Gawain's character. and then rides himself to the court to punish the treacherous knight.