It has been said already that the Saint’s Life, as it seems most probable to the present writer, started the romance in France; but of course we must allow considerable reinforcement of one kind or another from local, traditional, and literary sources.  The time-honoured distribution, also given already, of the “matter” of this romance does not concern us so much here as it would in a history of French literature, but it concerns us.  We shall indeed probably find that the home-grown or home-fed Chanson de Geste did least for the novel in the wide sense ­that the “Matter of Rome” chiefly gave it variety, change of atmosphere to some extent, and an invaluable connection with older literatures, but that the central division or “Matter of Britain,” with the immense fringes of miscellaneous romans d’aventures ­which are sometimes more or less directly connected with it, and are always moulded more or less on its patterns ­gave most of all.

Of these, however, what has been called the family or patriotic part was undoubtedly the earliest and for a long time the most influential.  There is, fortunately, not the least need here to fight out the old battle of the cantilenae or supposed ballad-originals.  I see no reason to alter the doubt with which I have always regarded their existence; but it really does not matter, to us, whether they existed or not, especially since we have not got them now.  What we have got is a vast mass of narrative poetry, which latterly took actual prose form, and which ­as early certainly as the eleventh century and perhaps earlier ­turns the French faculty for narrative (whether it was actually or entirely fictitious narrative or not does not again matter) into channels of a very promising kind.

The novel-reader who has his wits and his memory about him may perhaps say, “Promising perhaps; but paying?” The answer must be that the promise may have taken some time to be fully liquidated, but that the immediate or short-dated payment was great.  The fault of the Chansons de Geste ­a fault which in some degree is to be found in French literature as a whole, and to a greater extent in all mediaeval literature ­is that the class and the type are rather too prominent.  The central conception of Charlemagne as a generally dignified but too frequently irascible and rather petulant monarch, surrounded by valiant and in a way faithful but exceedingly touchy or ticklish paladins, is no doubt true enough to the early stages of feudalism ­in fact, to adapt the tag, there is too much human nature in it for it to be false.  But it communicates a certain sameness to the chansons which stick closest to the model.

The exact relation of the Chansons de Geste to the subsequent history of French fiction is thus an extremely important one, and one that requires, not only a good deal of reading on which to base any opinion that shall not be worthless, but a considerable exercise of critical discretion in order to form that opinion competently.  The present writer can at least plead no small acquaintance with the subject, and a full if possibly over-generous acknowledgment of his dealings with it on the part of some French authorities, living and dead, of the highest competence.  But the attractions of the vast and strangely long ignored body of chanson literature are curiously various in kind, and they cannot be indiscriminately drawn upon as evidence of an early mastery of tale-telling proper on the part of the French as a nation.

There is indeed one solid fact, the importance of which can hardly be exaggerated in some ways, though it may be wrongly estimated in others.  Here is not merely the largest part proportionately, but a very large bulk positively, of the very earliest part of a literature, devoted to a kind of narrative which, though some of it may be historic originally, is pretty certainly worked up into its concrete and extant state by fiction.  The comparison with the two literatures which on the whole bear such comparison with French best ­English and Greek ­is here very striking.  People say that there “must have been” many Beowulfs:  it can hardly be said that we have so much as a positive assertion of the existence of even one other, though we have allusions and glances which have been amplified in the usual fashion.  We have positive and not reasonably doubtful assertion of the existence of a very large body of more or less early Greek epic; but we have nothing existing except the Iliad and the Odyssey.

On this fact, be it repeated, if we observe the canons of sound criticism in the process, too much stress in general cannot be laid.  There must have been some more than ordinary nisus towards story-telling in a people and a language which produced, and for three or four centuries cherished, something like a hundred legends, sometimes of great length, on the single general subject of the exploits, sufferings, and what not of the great half-historical, half-legendary emperor a la barbe florie, of his son, and of the more legendary than historical peers, rebels, subjects, descendants, and “those about both” generally.  And though the assertion requires a little more justification and allowance, there must have been some extraordinary gifts for more or less fictitious composition when such a vast body of spirited fictitious, or even half-fictitious, narrative is turned out.

But in this justification as to the last part of the contention a good deal of care has to be observed.  It will not necessarily follow, because the metal is attractive, that its attractiveness is always of the kind purely belonging to fiction; and, as a matter of fact, a large part of it is not.  Much is due to the singular sonority and splendour of the language, which is much more like Spanish than modern French, and which only a few poets of exceptional power have been able to reproduce in modern French itself.  Much more is imparted by the equally peculiar character of the metre ­the long tirades or laisses, assonanced or mono-rhymed paragraphs in decasyllables or alexandrines, which, to those who have once caught their harmony, have an indescribable and unparalleled charm.  Yet further, these attractions come from the strange unfamiliar world of life and character described and displayed; from the brilliant stock epithets and phrases that stud the style as if with a stiff but glittering embroidery; and from other sources too many to mention here.

Yet one must draw attention to the fact that all the named sources of the attraction, and may perhaps ask the reader to take it on trust that most of the unnamed, are not essentially or exclusively attractions of fiction ­that they are attractions of poetry.  And, on the other hand, while the weaving of so vast a web of actual fiction remains “to credit,” there are not a few things to be set on the other side of the account.  The sameness of the chanson story, the almost invariable recurrence of the stock motives and frameworks ­of rebellion, treason, paynim invasion, petulance of a King’s son, somewhat too “coming” affection of a King’s daughter, tyrannical and Lear-like impotentia of the King himself, etc. ­may be exaggerated, but cannot be denied.  In the greatest of all by general acknowledgment, the far-famed Roland, the economy of pure story interest is pushed to a point which in a less unsophisticated age ­say the twentieth instead of the twelfth or eleventh century ­might be put down to deliberate theory or crotchet.  The very incidents, stirring as they are, are put as it were in skeleton argument or summary rather than amplified into full story-flesh and blood; we see such heroine as there is only to see her die; even the great moment of the horn is given as if it had been “censored” by somebody.  People, I believe, have called this brevity Homeric; but that is not how I read Homer.

In fact, so jealous are some of those who well and wisely love the chansons, that I have known objections taken to ranking as pure examples, despite their undoubted age and merit, such pieces as Amis et Amiles (for passion and pathos and that just averted tragedy which is so difficult to manage, one of the finest of all) and the Voyage a Constantinoble, the single early specimen of mainly or purely comic donnee. This seems to me, I confess, mere prudery or else mistaken logic, starting from the quite unjustifiable proposition that nothing that is not found in the Chanson de Roland ought to be found in any chanson.  But we may admit that the “bones” ­the simplest terms of the chanson-formula ­hardly include varied interests, though they allow such interests to be clothed upon and added to them.

Despite this admission, however, and despite the further one that it is to the “romances” proper ­Arthurian, classical, and adventurous ­rather than to the chansons that one must look for the first satisfactory examples of such clothing and addition, it is not to be denied that the chansons themselves provide a great deal of it ­whether because of adulteration with strictly “romance” matter is a question for debate in another place and not here.  But it would be a singularly ungrateful memory which should, in this place, leave the reader with the idea that the Chanson de Geste as such is merely monotonous and dull.  The intensity of the appeal of Roland is no doubt helped by that approach to bareness ­even by a certain tautology ­which has been mentioned. Aliscans, which few could reject as faithless to the type, contains, even without the family of dependent poems which cluster round it, a vivid picture of the valiant insubordinate warrior in William of Orange, with touches of comedy or at least horse-play.

The striking, and to all but unusually dull or hopelessly “modern” imaginations as unusually beautiful, centre-point of Amis et Amiles, ­where one of the heroes, who has sworn a “white” perjury to save his friend and is punished for it by the terror, “white” in the other sense, of leprosy, is abandoned by his wife, and only healed by the blood of the friend’s children, is the crowning instance of another set of appeals.  The catholicity of a man’s literary taste, and his more special capacity of appreciating things mediaeval, may perhaps be better estimated by his opinion of Amis et Amiles than by any other touchstone; for it has more appeals than this almost tragic one ­a much greater development of the love-motive than either Roland or Aliscans, and a more varied interest generally.  Its continuation, Jourdains de Blaivies, takes the hero abroad, as do many other chansons, especially two of the most famous, Huon de Bordeaux and Ogier de Danemarche.  These two are also good ­perhaps the best ­examples of a process very much practised in the Middle Ages and leaving its mark on future fiction ­that of expansion and continuation.  In the case of Ogier, indeed, this process was carried so far that enquiring students have been known to be sadly disappointed in the almost total disconnection between William Morris’s beautiful section of The Earthly Paradise and the original French, as edited by Barrois in the first attempt to collect the chansons seventy or eighty years ago.  The great “Orange” subcycle, of which Aliscans is the most famous, extends in many directions, but is apt in all its branches to cling more to “war and politics.”  William of Orange is in this respect partly matched by Garin of Lorraine.  No chanson retained its popularity, in every sense of that word, better than the Quatre Fils d’Aymon ­the history of Renaut de Montauban and his brothers and cousin, the famous enchanter-knight Maugis.  As a “boy’s book” there is perhaps none better, and the present writer remembers an extensive and apparently modern English translation which was a favourite “sixty years since.” Berte aux grands Pies, the earliest form of a well-known legend, has the extrinsic charm of being mentioned by Villon; while there is no more agreeable love-story, on a small scale and in a simple tone, than that of Doon and Nicolette in Doon de Mayence.  And not to make a mere catalogue which, if supported by full abstracts of all the pieces, would be inordinately bulky and would otherwise convey little idea to readers, it may be said that the general chanson practice of grouping together or branching out the poems (whichever metaphor be preferred) after the fashion of a family-tree involves of itself no inconsiderable call on the tale-telling faculties.  That the writers pay little or no attention to chronological and other possibilities is hardly much to say against them; if this be an unforgivable sin it is not clear how either Dickens or Thackeray is to escape damnation, with Sir Walter to greet them in their uncomfortable sojourn.

But it is undoubtedly true that the almost exclusive concentration of the attention on war prevents the attainment of much detailed novel-interest.  Love affairs ­some glanced at above ­do indeed make, in some of the chansons, a fuller appearance than the flashlight view of lost tragedy which we have in Roland.  But until the reflex influence of the Arthurian romance begins to work, they are, though not always disagreeable or ungraceful, of a very simple and primitive kind, as indeed are the delineations of manners generally.

The “matter of Rome the Great,” as the original text has it (though, in fact, Rome proper has little to do with the most important examples of the class), adds very importantly to the development of romance, and through that, of novel.  Its bulk is considerable, and its examples have interest of various kinds.  But for us this interest is concentrated upon, if not exclusively confined to, the two great groups (undertaken by, and illustrated in, the three great literary languages of the earlier Middle Ages, and, as usual, most remarkably and originally in French) of the Siege of Troy and the life of Alexander.  It should be almost enough to say of the former that it introduced, with practically nothing but the faintest suggestion from really classical sources, the great romance-novel of the loves of Troilus and Cressida to the world’s literature; and of the second, that it gives us the first instance of the infusion of Oriental mystery and marvel that we can discern in the literature of the West.  For details about the books which contain these things, their authors and their probable sources and development, the reader must, as in other cases, look elsewhere. It is only our business here to say something about the general nature of the things themselves and about the additions that they made to the capital, and in some cases almost to the “plant,” of fiction.

That the Troilus and Cressida romance, with its large provision and its more large suggestion of the accomplished love-story, evolved from older tale-tellers by Boccaccio and Chaucer and Henryson and Shakespeare, is not a pure creation of the earlier Middle Ages, few people who patiently attend to evidence can now believe.  Even in the wretched summaries of the Tale of Troy by Dictys and Dares (which again no such person as the one just described can put very early), the real novel-interest ­even the most slender romance-interest ­is hardly present at all.  Benoit de Sainte-More in the twelfth century may not have actually invented this; it is one of the principles of this book, as of all that its writer has written, that the quest of the inventor of a story is itself the vainest of inventions.  But it is certain that nobody hitherto has been able to “get behind him,” and it is still more certain that he has given enough base for the greater men who followed to build upon.  If he cannot be credited with the position of the pseudo-Callisthenes (see below) in reference to the Alexander story, he may fairly share that of his contemporary Geoffrey of Monmouth, if not even of Nennius, as regards that of Arthur.  The situation, or rather the group of situations, is of the most promising and suggestive kind, negatively and positively.  In the first place the hero and heroine are persons about whom the great old poets of the subject have said little or nothing; and what an immense advantage this is all students of the historical novel of the last hundred years know.  In the second, the way in which they are put in action (or ready for action) is equally satisfactory, or let us say stimulating.  In a great war a prince loves a noble lady, who by birth and connections belongs to the enemy, and after vicissitudes, which can be elaborated according to the taste and powers of the romancer, gains her love.  But the course of this love is interrupted by her surrender or exchange to the enemy themselves; her beauty attracts, nay has already attracted, the fancy of one of the enemy’s leaders, and being not merely a coquette but a light-o’-love she admits his addresses.  Her punishment follows or does not follow, is accomplished during the life of her true lover or not, according again to the taste and fancy of the person who handles the story.  But the scheme, even at its simplest, is novel-soil:  marked out, matured, manured, and ready for cultivation, and the crops which can be grown on it depend entirely upon the skill of the cultivator.

For all this some would, as has been said above, see sufficient suggestion in the Greek Romance.  I have myself known the examples of that Romance for a very long time and have always had a high opinion of it; but except what has been already noticed ­the prominence of the heroine ­I can see little or nothing that the Mediaeval romance could possibly owe to it, and as a matter of fact hardly anything else in common between the two.  In the last, and to some extent the most remarkable (though very far from the best if not nearly the worst), of the Greek Romances, the Hysminias and Hysmine of Eustathius, we have indeed got to a point in advance, taking that word in a peculiar sense, even of Troilus at its most accomplished, that is to say, the Marinism or Marivaudage, if not even the Meredithese, of language and sentiment.  But Hysminias and Hysmine is probably not older than Benoit de Sainte-More’s story, and as has just been said, Renaissance, nay post-Renaissance, not Mediaeval in character.  We must, of course, abstain from “reading back” Chaucer or even Boccaccio into Benoit or into his probable plagiarist Guido de Columnis; but there is nothing uncritical or wrong in “reading forward” from these to the later writers.  The hedge-rose is there, which will develop into, and serve as a support for, the hybrid perpetual ­a term which could itself be developed in application, after the fashion of a mediaeval moralitas.  And when we have actually come to Pandaro and Deiphobus, to the “verse of society,” as it may be called in a new sense, of the happier part of Chaucer and to the intense tragedy of the later part of Henryson, then we are in the workshop, if not in the actual show-room, of the completed novel.  It would be easy, as it was not in the case of the chansons, to illustrate directly by a translation, either here from Benoit or later from the shortened prose version of the fourteenth century, which we also possess; but it is not perhaps necessary, and would require much space.

The influence of the Alexander story, though scarcely less, is of a widely different kind.  In Troilus, as has been said, the Middle Age is working on scarcely more than the barest hints of antiquity, which it amplifies and supplements out of its own head and its own heart ­a head which can dream dream-webs of subtlest texture unknown to the ancients, and a heart which can throb and bleed in a fashion hardly shown by any ancient except Sappho.  With the Alexander group we find it much more passively recipient, though here also exercising its talent for varying and amplification.  The controversies over the pseudo-Callisthenes, “Julius Valerius,” the Historia de Praeliis, etc., are once more not for us; but results of them, which have almost or quite emerged from the state of controversy, are.  It is certain that the appearance, in the classical languages, of the wilder legends about Alexander was as early at least as the third century after Christ ­that is to say, long before even “Dark” let alone “Middle” Ages were thought of ­and perhaps earlier.  There seems to be very little doubt that these legends were of Egyptian or Asiatic origin, and so what we vaguely call “Oriental.”  They long anticipated the importing afresh of such influences by the Crusades, and they must, with all except Christians and Jews (that is to say, with the majority), have actually forestalled the Oriental influence of the Scriptures.  Furthermore, when Mediaeval France began to create a new body of European literature, the Crusades had taken place; the appetite for things Oriental and perhaps we should say the half-imaginative power of appreciating them, had become active; and a considerable amount of literature in the vernacular had already been composed.  It was not wonderful, therefore, that the trouvères should fly upon this spoil.  By not the least notable of the curiosities of literature in its own class, they picked out a historical but not very important episode ­the siege of Gaza and Alexander’s disgraceful cruelty to its brave defender ­and made of this a regular Chanson de Geste (in all but “Family” connection), the Fuerres de Gadres, a poem of several thousand lines.  But the most generally popular (though sometimes squabbled over) parts of the story, were the supposed perversion of Olympias, not by the God Ammon but by the magician-king Nectanabus personating the God and becoming thereby father of the Hero; the Indian and some other real campaigns (the actual conquest of Persia was very slightly treated), and, far above all, the pure Oriental wonder-tales of the descent into the sea, the march to the Fountain of Youth, and other myths of the kind.

Few things can be more different than the story-means used in these two legends; yet it must be personal taste rather than strict critical evaluation which pronounces one more important to the development of the novel than the other.  There is a little love interest in the Alexander poems ­the heroine of this part being Queen Candace ­but it is slight, episodic, and rudimentary beside the complex and all-absorbing passions which, when genius took the matter in hand, were wrought out of the truth of Troilus and the faithlessness of Cressid.  The joys of fighting or roaming, of adventure and quest, and above all those of marvel, are the attractions which the Alexander legend offers, and who shall say that they are insufficient?  At any rate no one can deny that they have been made the seasoning, if not the stuff and substance, of an enormous slice of the romance interest, and of a very large part of that of the novel.

It is scarcely necessary to speak of other classical romances, and it is of course very desirable to keep in mind that the Alexander story, in no form in which we have it, attempts any strictly novel interest; while though that interest is rife in some forms of “Troilus,” those forms are not exactly of the period, and are in no case of the language, with which we are dealing.  It was an Italian, an Englishman, and a Scot who each in his own speech ­one in the admirable vulgar tongue, of which at that time and as a finished thing, Italian was alone in Europe as possessor; the others in the very best of Middle English, and, as some think, almost the best of Middle Scots verse ­displayed the full possibilities of Benoit’s story.  But the third “matter,” the matter of Britain or (in words better understanded of most people) the Arthurian Legend, after starting in Latin, was, as far as language went, for some time almost wholly French, though it is exceedingly possible that at least one, if not more, of its main authors was no Frenchman.  And in this “matter” the exhibition of the powers of fiction ­prose as well as verse ­was carried to a point almost out of sight of that reached by the Chansons, and very far ahead of any contemporary treatment even of the Troilus story.

Before, however, dealing with this great Arthurian story as a stage in the history of the Novel-Romance in and by itself, we must come to a figure which, though we have very little substantial knowledge of it, there is some reason for admitting as one of the first named and “coted” figures in French literature, at least as regards fiction in verse.  It is well known that the action of modern criticism is in some respects strikingly like that of the sea in one of the most famous and vivid passages of Spenser’s unequalled scene-painting in words with musical accompaniment of them.  It delights in nothing so much as in stripping one part of the shore of its belongings, and hurrying them off to heap upon another part.  Chrestien de Troyes is one of the lucky personages who have benefited, not least and most recently, by this fancy.  It is true that the actual works attributed to him have remained the same ­his part of the shore has not been actually extended like part of that of the Humber.  But it has had new riches, honours, and decorations heaped upon it till it has become, in the actual Spenserian language of another but somewhat similar passage (111. i, a “rich strond” indeed.  Until a comparatively recent period, the opinion entertained of Chrestien, by most if not all competent students of him, was pretty uniform, and, though quite favourable, not extraordinarily high.  He was recognised as a past-master of the verse roman d’aventures in octosyllabic couplet, who probably took his heterogeneous materials wherever he found them; “did not invent much” (as Thackeray says of Smollett), but treated whatever he did treat in a singularly light and pleasant manner, not indeed free from the somewhat undistinguished fluency to which this “light and lewed” couplet, as Chaucer calls it, is liable, and showing no strong grasp either of character or of plot, but on the whole a very agreeable writer, and a quite capital example of the better class of trouvère, far above the improvisatore on the one hand and the dull compiler on the other; but below, if not quite so far below, the definitely poetic poet.

To an opinion something like this the present writer, who formed it long ago, not at second hand but from independent study of originals, and who has kept up and extended his acquaintance with Chrestien, still adheres.

Of late, however, as above suggested, “Chrestiens” have gone up in the market to a surprising extent.  Some twenty years ago the late M. Gaston Paris announced and, with all his distinguished ability and his great knowledge elaborately supported, his conclusions, that the great French prose Arthurian romances (which had hitherto been considered by the best authorities, including his own no less admirable father, M. Paulin Paris, slightly anterior to the poet of Troyes, and in all probability the source of part at least of his work) were posterior and probably derivative.  Now this, of itself, would of course to some extent put up Chrestien’s value.  But it, and the necessary corollaries from it, as originality and so forth, by no means exhaust the additional honours and achievements which have been heaped upon Chrestien by M. Paris and by others who have followed, more or less accepted, and in some cases bettered his ascriptions.  In the first and principal place, there has been a tendency, almost general, to dethrone Walter Map from his old position as the real begetter of the completed Arthurian romance, and to substitute the Troyan.  Then, partly in support, but also to some extent, I think, independently of this immense ennoblement, discoveries have been made of gifts and graces in Chrestien himself, which had entirely escaped the eyes of so excellent a critic, so erudite a scholar, and so passionate a lover of Old French literature as the elder M. Paris, and which continue to be invisible to the far inferior gifts and knowledge, but if I may dare to say so, the equal good will and the not inconsiderable critical experience, of the present historian.

Now with large parts of this matter we have, fortunately enough, nothing to do, and the actual authorship of the great Arthurian conception, namely, the interweaving of the Graal story on the one hand and the loves of Lancelot and Guinevere on the other, with the Geoffrey of Monmouth matter, concerns us hardly at all.  But some have gone even further than has been yet hinted in the exaltation of Chrestien.  They have discovered in him ­“him-by-himself-him” ­as the author of his actual extant works and not as putative author of the real Arthuriad, not merely a pattern example of the court trouvère ­as much as this, or nearly as much, has been admitted here ­but almost the inventor of romance and even of something very like novel, a kind of mediaeval Scott-Bulwer-Meredith, equally great at adventure, fashion, and character-analysis; subject only, and that not much, to the limitations of the time.  In fact, if I do not do some of these panegyrists injustice, we ought to have a fancy bust of Chrestien, with the titles of his works gracefully inscribed on the pedestal, as a frontispiece to this book, if not even a full-length statue, robed like a small St. Ursula, and like her in Memling’s presentation at Bruges, sheltering in its ample folds the child-like figures of future French novelists and romancers, from the author of Aucassin et Nicolette to M. Anatole France.

Again, some fifty years of more or less critical reading of novels of all ages and more than one or two languages, combined with nearly forty years reading of Chrestien himself and a passion for Old French, leave the present writer quite unable to rise to this beatific vision.  But let us, before saying any more what Chrestien could or could not do, see, in the usual cold-blooded way, what he did.

The works attributed to this very differently, though never unfavourably, estimated tale-teller ­at least those which concern us ­are Percevale lé Gallois, Le Chevalier a la Charette, Le Chevalier au Lyon, Erec et Enide, Cliges, and a much shorter Guillaume d’Angleterre.  This last has nothing to do with the Conqueror (though the title has naturally deceived some), and is a semi-mystical romance of the group derived from the above-mentioned legend of St. Eustace, and represented in English by the beautiful story of Sir Isumbras.  It is very doubtfully Chrestien’s, and in any case very unlike his other work; but those who think him the Arthurian magician might make something of it, as being nearer the tone of the older Graal stories than the rest of his compositions, even Percevale itself.  Of these, all, except the Charette, deal with what may be called outliers of the Arthurian story. Percevale is the longest, but its immense length required, by common confession, several continuators; the others have a rather uniform allowance of some six or seven thousand lines. Cliges is one of the most “outside” of all, for the hero, though knighted by Arthur, is the disinherited heir of Constantinople, and the story is that of the recovery of his kingdom. Erec, as the second part of the title will truly suggest, though the first may disguise it, gives us the story of the first of Tennyson’s original Idylls.  The Chevalier au Lyon is a delightful romance of the Gawain group, better represented by its English adaptation, Ywain, than any other French example. Percevale and the Charette touch closest on the central Arthurian story, and the latter has been the chief battlefield as to Chrestien’s connection therewith, some even begging the question to the extent of adopting for it the title Lancelot.

The subject is the episode, well known to English readers from Malory, of the abduction of Guinevere by Meleagraunce, the son of King Bagdemagus; of the inability of all knights but Lancelot (who has been absent from Court in one of the lovers’ quarrels) to rescue her; and of his undertaking the task, though hampered in various ways, one of the earliest of which compelled him to ride in a cart ­a thing regarded, by one of the odd conventions of chivalry, as disgraceful to a knight.  Meleagraunce, though no coward, is treacherous and “felon,” and all sorts of mishaps befall Lancelot before he is able for the second time to conquer his antagonist, and finally to take his over and over again forfeited life.  But long before this he has arrived at the castle where Guinevere is imprisoned; and has been enabled to arrange a meeting with her at night, which is accomplished by wrenching out the bars of her window.  The ill chances and quiproquos which result from his having cut his hands in the proceeding (though the actual visit is not discovered), and the arts by which Meleagraunce ensnares the destined avenger for a time, lengthen out the story till, by the final contest, Meleagraunce goes to his own place and the Queen is restored to hers.

Unfortunately the blots of constant tautology and verbiage, with not infrequent flatness, are on all this gracious story as told by Chrestien. Among the traps and temptations which are thrown in Lancelot’s way to the Queen is one of a highly “sensational” nature.  In the night Lancelot hears a damsel, who is his hostess, though he has refused her most thorough hospitality, shrieking for assistance; and on coming to the spot finds her in a situation demanding instant help, which she begs, if the irreparable is not to happen.  But the poet not only gives us a heavily figured description of the men-at-arms who bar the way to rescue, but puts into the mouth of the intending rescuer a speech (let us be exact) of twenty-eight lines and a quarter, during which the just mentioned irreparable, if it had been seriously meant, might have happened with plenty of time to spare.  So, in the crowning scene (excellently told in Malory), where the lover forces his way through iron bars to his love, reckless of the tell-tale witness of his bleeding hands, the circumlocutions are plusquam Richardsonian ­and do not fall far short of a serious anticipation of Shakespeare’s burlesque in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  The mainly gracious description is spoilt by terrible bathetics from time to time.  Guinevere in her white nightdress and mantle of scarlet and camus on one side of the bars, Lancelot outside, exchanging sweet salutes, “for much was he fain of her and she of him,” are excellent.  The next couplet, or quatrain, almost approaches the best poetry.  “Of villainy or annoy make they no parley or complaint; but draw near each other so much at least that they hold each other hand by hand.”  But what follows?  That they cannot come together vexes them so immeasurably that ­what?  They blame the iron work for it.  This certainly shows an acute understanding and a very creditable sense of the facts of the situation on the part of both lovers; but it might surely have been taken for granted.  Also, it takes Lancelot forty lines to convince his lady that when bars are in your way there is nothing like pulling them out of it.  So in the actual pulling-out there is the idlest exaggeration and surplusage; the first bar splits one of Lancelot’s fingers to the sinews and cuts off the top joint of the next.  The actual embraces are prettily and gracefully told (though again with otiose observations about silence), and the whole, from the knight’s coming to the window to his leaving it, takes 150 lines.  Now hear the prose of the so-called “Vulgate Lancelot.”

“And he came to the window:  and the Queen, who waited for him, slept not, but came thither.  And the one threw to the other their arms, and they felt each other as much as they could reach.  “Lady,” said Lancelot, “if I could enter yonder, would it please you?” “Enter,” said she, “fair sweet friend?  How could this happen?” “Lady,” said he, “if it please you, it could happen lightly.”  “Certainly,” said she, “I should wish it willingly above everything.”  “Then, in God’s name,” said he, “that shall well happen.  For the iron will never hold.”  “Wait, then,” said she, “till I have gone to bed.”  Then he drew the irons from their sockets so softly that no noise was made and no bar broke.”

In this simple prose, sensuous and passionate for all its simplicity, is told the rest of the story.  There are eighteen lines of it altogether in Dr. Sommer’s reprint, but as these are long quarto lines, let us multiply them by some three to get the equivalent of the “skipping octosyllables.”  There will remain fifty to a hundred and fifty, with, in the prose, some extra matter not in the verse.  But the acme of the contrast is reached in these words of the prose, which answer to some forty lines of the poet’s watering-out.  “Great was the joy that they made each other that night, for long had each suffered for the other.  And when the day came, they parted.”  Beat that who can!

Many years ago, and not a few before M. Gaston Paris had published his views, I read these two forms of the story in the valuable joint edition, verse and prose, of M. Jonckbloet, which some ruffian (may Heaven not assoil him!) has since stolen or hidden from me.  And I said then to myself, “There is no doubt which of these is the original.”  Thirty years later, with an unbroken critical experience of imaginative work in prose and verse during the interval, I read them again in Dr. Forster’s edition of the verse and Dr. Sommer’s of the prose, and said, “There is less doubt than ever.”  That the prose should have been prettified and platitudinised, decorated and diluted into the verse is a possibility which we know to be not only possible but likely, from a thousand more unfortunate examples.  That the contrary process should have taken place is practically unexampled and, especially at that time, largely unthinkable.  At any rate, whosoever did it had a much greater genius than Chrestien’s.

This is no place to argue out the whole question, but a single particular may be dealt with.  The curiously silly passage about the bars above given is a characteristic example of unlucky and superfluous amplification of the perfectly natural question and answer of the prose, “May I come to you?” “Yes, but how?” an example to be paralleled by thousands of others at the time and by many more later.  Taken the other way it would be a miracle.  Prose abridgers of poetry did not go to work like that in the twelfth-thirteenth century ­nor, even in the case of Charles Lamb, have they often done so since.

It is, however, very disagreeable to have to speak disrespectfully of a writer so agreeable in himself and so really important in our story as Chrestien.  His own gifts and performances are, as it seems to me, clear enough.  He took from this or that source ­his selection of the Erec and Percivale matters, if not also that of Yvain, suggests others besides the, by that time as I think, concentrated Arthurian story ­and from the Arthuriad itself the substance of the Chevalier a la Charette.  He varied and dressed them up with pleasant etceteras, and in especial, sometimes, though not always, embroidered the already introduced love-motive with courtly fantasies and with a great deal of detail.  I should not be at all disposed to object if somebody says that he, before any one else, set the type of the regular verse Roman d’aventures.  It seems likely, again, from the pieces referred to above, that he may have had originals more definitely connected with Celtic sources, if not actually Celtic themselves, than those which have given us the mighty architectonic of the “Vulgate” Arthur.  In his own way and place he is a great and an attractive figure ­not least in the history of the novel.  But I can see nothing in him that makes me think him likely, and much that makes me think him utterly unlikely, to be the author of what I conceive to be the greatest, the most epoch-making, and almost the originating conception of the novel-romance itself.  Who it was that did conceive this great thing I do not positively know.  All external evidence points to Walter Map; no internal evidence, that I have seen, seems to me really to point away from him.  But if any one likes let us leave him a mere Eidolon, an earlier “Great Unknown.”  Our business is, once more, with what he, whoever he was, did.

The multiplicity of things done, whether by “him” or “them,” is astonishing; and it is quite possible, indeed likely, that they were not all done by the same person.  Mediaeval continuators (as has been seen in the case of Chrestien) worked after and into the work of each other in a rather uncanny fashion; and the present writer frankly confesses that he no more knows where Godfrey de Lagny took up the Charette, or the various other sequelists the Percevale, from Chrestien than he would have known, without confession, the books of the Odyssey done by Mr. Broome and Mr. Fenton from those done by Mr. Pope.  The grand-oeuvre is the combination of Lancelot as (1) lover of the Queen; (2) descendant of the Graalwards; (3) author, in consequence of his sin, of the general failure of the Round Table Graal-Quest; (4) father of its one successful but half-unearthly Seeker; (5) bringer-about (in more ways than one) of the intestine dissension which facilitates the invasion of Mordred and the foreigners and so the Passing of Arthur, of his own rejection by the repentant Queen, and of his death.  As regards minor details of plot and incident there have to be added the bringing in of the pre-Round Table part of the story by Lancelot’s descent from King Ban and his connections with King Bors, both Arthur’s old allies, and both, as we may call them, “Graal-heirs”; the further connection with the Merlin legend by Lancelot’s fostering under the Lady of the Lake; the exaltation, inspiring, and, as it were, unification of the scattered knight-adventures through Lancelot’s constant presence as partaker, rescuer, and avenger; the human interest given to the Graal-Quest (the earlier histories being strikingly lacking in this) by his failure, and a good many more.  But above all there are the general characters of the knight and the Queen to make flesh and blood of the whole.

Not merely the exact author or authors, but even the exact source or sources of this complicated, fateful, and exquisite imagination are, once more, not known.  Years ago it was laid down finally by the most competent of possible authorities (the late Sir John Rhys) that “the love of Lancelot and Guinevere is unknown to Welsh literature.”  Originals for the “greatest knight” have been sought by guesswork, by idle play on words and names, if not also by positive forgery, in that Breton literature which does not exist.  There do exist versions of the story in which Lancelot plays no very prominent part, and there is even one singular version ­certainly late and probably devised by a proper moral man afraid of scandal ­which makes Lancelot outlive the Queen, quite comfortably continuing his adventurous career (this is perhaps the “furthest” of the Unthinkable in literature), and (not, it may be owned, quite inconsistently) hints that the connection was merely Platonic throughout.  These things are explicable, but better negligible.  For my own part I have always thought that the loves of Tristram and Iseult (which, as has been said, were originally un-Arthurian) suggested the main idea to the author of it, being taken together with Guinevere’s falseness with Mordred in the old quasi-chronicle, and perhaps the story of the abduction by Melvas (Meleagraunce), which seems to be possibly a genuine Welsh legend.  There are in the Tristram-Iseult-Mark trio quite sufficient suggestions of Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur; while the far higher plane on which the novice-novelist sets his lovers, and even the very interesting subsequent exaltation of Tristram and Iseult themselves to familiarity and to some extent equality with the other pair, has nothing critically difficult in it.

But this idea, great and promising as it was, required further fertilisation, and got it from another.  The Graal story is (once more, according to authority of the greatest competence, and likely if anything to be biassed the other way) pretty certainly not Welsh in origin, and there is no reason to think that it originally had anything to do with Arthur.  Even after it obeyed the strange “suck” of legends towards this centre whirlpool, or Loadstone Rock, of romance, it yielded nothing intimately connected with the Arthurian Legend itself at first, and such connection as succeeded seems pretty certainly to be that of which Percevale is the hero, and an outlier, not an integral part.  But either the same genius (as one would fain hope) as that which devised the profane romance of Lancelot and Guinevere, or another, further grafted or inarched the sacred romance of the Graal and its Quest with the already combined love-and-chivalry story.  Lancelot, the greatest of knights, and of the true blood of the Graal-guardians, ought to accomplish the mysteries; but he cannot through sin, and that sin is this very love for Guinevere.  The Quest, in which (despite warning and indeed previous experience) he takes part, not merely gives occasion for adventures, half-mystical, half-chivalrous, which far exceed in interest the earlier ones, but directly leads to the dispersion and weakening of the Round Table.  And so the whole draws together to an end identical in part with that of the Chronicle story, but quite infinitely improved upon it.

Now not only is there in this the creation of the novel in posse, of the romance in esse, but it is brought about in a curiously noteworthy fashion.  A hundred years and more later the greatest known writer of the Middle Ages, and one of the three or four greatest of the world, defined the subjects of poetry as Love, War, and Religion, or in words which we may not unfairly translate by these.  The earlier master recognised (practically for the first time) that the romance ­that allotropic form (as the chemists might say) of poetry ­must deal with the same.  Now in these forms of the Arthurian legend, which are certainly anterior to the latter part of the twelfth century, there is a great deal of war and a good deal of religion, but these motives are mostly separated from each other, the earlier forms of the Arthur story having nothing to do with the Graal, and the earlier forms of the Graal story ­so far as we can see ­nothing, or extremely little, to do with Arthur.  Nor had Love, in any proper and passionate sense of the word, anything to do with either.  Women and marriage and breaches of marriage appear indeed; but the earlier Graal stories are dominated by the most ascetic virginity-worship, and the earlier Arthur-stories show absolutely nothing of the passion which is the subject of the magnificent overture of Mr. Swinburne’s Tristram.  Even this story of Tristram himself, afterwards fired and coloured by passion, seems at first to have shown nothing but the mixture of animalism, cruelty, and magic which is characteristic of the Celts. Our magician of a very different gramarye, were he Walter or Chrestien or some third ­Norman, Champenois, Breton, or Englishman (Welshman or Irishman he pretty certainly was not) ­had therefore before him, if not exactly dry bones, yet the half-vivified material of a chronicle of events on the one hand and a mystical dream-sermon on the other.  He, or a French or English Pallas for him, had to “think of another thing.”

And so he called in Love to reinforce War and Religion and to do its proper office of uniting, inspiring, and producing Humanity.  He effected, by the union of the three motives, the transformation of a mere dull record of confused fighting into a brilliant pageant of knightly adventure.  He made the long-winded homilies and genealogies of the earlier Graal-legend at once take colour from the amorous and war-like adventures, raise these to a higher and more spiritual plane, and provide the due punishment for the sins of his erring characters.  The whole story ­at least all of it that he chose to touch and all that he chose to add ­became alive.  The bones were clothed with flesh and blood, the “wastable country verament” (as the dullest of the Graal chroniclers says in a phrase that applies capitally to his own work) blossomed with flower and fruit.  Wars of Arthur with unwilling subjects or Saxons and Romans; treachery of his wife and nephew and his own death; miracle-history of the Holy Vessel and pedigree of its custodians; Round Table; these and many other things had lain as mere scraps and orts, united by no real plot, yielding no real characters, satisfying no real interest that could not have been equally satisfied by an actual chronicle or an actual religious-mystical discourse.  And then the whole was suddenly knit into a seamless and shimmering web of romance, from the fancy of Uther for Igerne to the “departing of them all” in Lyonnesse and at Amesbury and at Joyous Gard.  A romance undoubtedly, but also incidentally providing the first real novel-hero and the first real novel-heroine in the persons of the lovers who, as in the passage above translated, sometimes “made great joy of each other for that they had long caused each other much sorrow,” and finally expiated in sorrow what was unlawful in their joy.

Let us pass to these persons themselves.

The first point to note about Lancelot is the singular fashion in which he escapes one of the dangers of the hero.  Aristotle had never said that a hero must be faultless; indeed, he had definitely said exactly the contrary, of at least the tragic hero.  But one of the worst of the many misunderstandings of his dicta brought the wrong notion about, and Virgil ­that exquisite craftsman in verse and phrase, but otherwise, perhaps, not great poet and very dangerous pattern ­had confirmed this notion by his deplorable figurehead.  It is also fair to confess that all except morbid tastes do like to see the hero win.  But if he is to be a hero of Rymer, not merely

    Like Paris handsome and like Hector brave,

but as pious as Aeneas; “a rich fellow enough,” with blood hopelessly blue and morals spotlessly copy-bookish ­in other words, a Sir Charles Grandison ­he will duly meet with the detestation and “conspuing” of the elect.  Almost the only just one of the numerous and generally silly charges latterly brought against Tennyson’s Arthurian handling is that his conception of the blameless king does a little smack of this false idea, does something grow to it.  It is one of the chief points in which he departed, not merely from the older stories (which he probably did not know), but from Malory’s astonishing redaction of them (which he certainly did).

But Lancelot escapes this worst of fates in the Idylls themselves, and much more does he escape it in the originals.  In the first place, though he invariably (or always till the Graal Quest) “wins through,” he constantly does not do so without intermediate hairbreadth escapes, and even not a few adventures which are at first not escapes at all.  And just as his perpetual bafflement in the Quest salts and seasons his triumphs in the saddle, so does the ruling passion of his sin save, from anything approaching mawkishness, his innumerable and yet inoffensive virtues; his chastity, save in this instance, which chastity itself, by a further stroke of art, is saved from niaiserie by the plotted adventures with Elaine; his courtesy, his mercifulness, his wonderfully early notion of a gentleman (v. inf.), his invariable disregard of self, and yet his equally invariable naturalness.  Pious Aeneas had not the least objection to bringing about the death of Dido, as he might have known he was doing (unless he was as great a fool as he is a prig); and he is probably never more disgusting or Pecksniffian than when he looks back on the flames of Dido’s pyre and is really afraid that something unpleasant must have happened, though he can’t think what the matter can be.  But he, one feels sure, would never have lifted up his hand against a woman, unless she had richly deserved it on the strictest patriotic scores, as in the case of Helen, when his mamma fortunately interfered.  On the other hand, Lancelot was “of the Asra who die when they love” and love till they die ­nay, who would die if they did not love.  But it is certain (for there is a very nice miniature of it reproduced from the MS. in M. Paulin Paris’s abstract) that, for a moment, he drew his sword on Elaine to punish the deceit which made him unwittingly false to Guinevere.  It is very shocking, no doubt, but exceedingly natural; and of course he did not kill or even (like Philaster) wound her, though nobody interfered to prevent him.  Many of the incidents which bring out his character are well known to moderns by poem and picture, though others, as well worth knowing, are not.  But the human contrasts of success and failure, of merit and sin, have never, I think, been quite brought out, and to bring them out completely here would take too much room.  We may perhaps leave this other ­quite other ­“First Gentleman in Europe” with the remark that Chrestien de Troyes gives only one side of him, and therefore does not give him at all.  The Lancelot of board and bower, of travel and tournament, he does very fairly.  But of the Lancelot of the woods and the hermitage, of the dream at the foot of the cross, of the mystic voyage and the just failing (if failing) effort of Carbonek, he gives, because he knows, nothing.

Completed as he was, no matter for the moment by whom, he is thus the first hero of romance and nearly the greatest; but his lady is worthy of him, and she is almost more original as an individual.  It is true that she is not the first heroine, as he is, if not altogether, almost the first hero.  Helen was that, though very imperfectly revealed and gingerly handled.  Calypso (hardly Circe) might have been.  Medea is perhaps nearer still, especially in Apollonius.  But the Greek romancers were the first who had really busied themselves with the heroine:  they took her up seriously and gave her a considerable position.  But they did not succeed in giving her much character.  The naughty not-heroine of Achilles Tatius, though she has less than none in Mr. Pope’s supposed innuendo sense, alone has an approach to some in the other.  As for the accomplished Guinevere’s probable contemporary, the Ismene or Hysmine of Eustathius Macrembolites (v. sup. , she is a sort of Greek-mediaeval Henrietta Temple, with Mr. Meredith and Mr. Disraeli by turns holding the pen, though with neither of them supplying the brains.  But Guinevere is a very different person; or rather, she is a person, and the first.  To appreciate her she must be compared with herself in earlier presentations, and then considered fully as she appears in the Vulgate ­for Malory, though he has given much, has not given the whole of her, and Tennyson has painted only the last panel of the polyptych wholly, and has rather over-coloured that.

In what we may call the earliest representations of her, she has hardly any colour at all.  She is a noble Roman lady, and very beautiful.  For a time she is apparently very happy with her husband, and he with her; and if she seems to make not the slightest scruple about “taking up with” her nephew, co-regent and fellow rebel, why, noble Roman ladies thought nothing of divorce and not much of adultery.  The only old Welsh story (the famous Melvas one so often referred to) that we have about her in much detail merely establishes the fact, pleasantly formulated by M. Paulin Paris, that she was “très sujette a être enlevée,” but in itself (unless we admit the Peacockian triad of the “Three Fatal Slaps of the Isle of Britain” as evidence) again says nothing about her character.  If, as seems probable if not certain, the Launfal legend, with its libel on her, is of Breton origin, it makes her an ordinary Celtic princess, a spiritual sister of Iseult when she tried to kill Brengwain, and a cross between Potiphar’s wife and Catherine of Russia, without any of the good nature and “gentlemanliness” of the last named.  The real Guinevere, the Guinevere of the Vulgate and partly of Malory, is freed from the colourlessness and the discreditable end of Geoffrey’s queen, transforms the promiscuous and rather louche Melvas incident into an important episode of her epic or romantic existence, and gives the lie, even in her least creditable or least charming moments, to the Launfal libel.  As before in Lancelot’s case, details of her presentation had in some cases best be either translated in full or omitted, but I cannot refuse myself the pleasure of attempting, with however clumsy a hand, a portrait of our, as I believe, English Helen, who gave in French language to French, and not only French literature, the pattern of a heroine.

There is not, I think, any ancient authority for the rather commonplace suggestion, unwisely adopted by Tennyson, that Guinevere fell in love with Lancelot when he was sent as an ambassador to fetch her; thus merely repeating Iseult and Tristram, and anticipating Suffolk and Margaret.  In fact, according to the best evidence, Lancelot could not have been old enough, if he was even born.  On the contrary, nothing could be better than the presentation of her introduction to Arthur and the course of the wooing in the Vulgate ­the other “blessed original.”  She first sees Arthur as a foe from the walls of besieged Carmelide, and admires his valour; she has further occasion to admire it when, as a friend, he rescues her father, showing himself, as what he really was in his youth, his own best knight.  The pair are genuinely in love with each other, and the betrothal and parting for fresh fight are the most gracious passages of the Merlin book, except the better version (v. sup.) of the love of Merlin himself and the afterwards libelled Viviane.  Anyhow, she was married because she fell in love with him, and there is no evidence to show that she and Arthur lived otherwise than happily together.  But, if all tales were true, she had no reason to regard him as a very faithful husband or a blameless man.  She may not have known (for nobody but Merlin apparently did know) the early and unwitting incest of the King and his half-sister Margause; but the extreme ease with which he adopted her own treacherous foster-sister, the “false Guinevere,” and his proceedings with the Saxon enchantress Camilla, were very strong “sets off” to her own conduct.  Also she had a most disagreeable sister-in-law in Morgane-la-Fee.  These are not in the least offered as excuses, but merely as “lights.”  Indeed Guinevere never seems to have hated or disliked her husband, though he often gave her cause; and if, until the great repentance, she thought more lightly of “spouse-breach” than Lancelot did, that is not uncharacteristic of women. In fact, she is a very perfect (not of course in the moral sense) gentlewoman.  She is at once popular with the knights, and loses that popularity rather by Lancelot’s fault than by her own, while Gawain, who remains faithful to her to the bitter end, or at least till the luckless slaughter of his brethren, declares at the beginning that she is the fairest and most gracious, and will be the wisest and best of queens.  She shows something very like humour in the famous and fateful remark (uttered, it would seem, without the slightest ill or double meaning at the time) as to Gawain’s estimate of Lancelot. She seems to have had an agreeable petulance (notice, for instance, the rebuke of Kay at the opening of the Ywain story and elsewhere), which sometimes, as it naturally would, rises to passionate injustice, as Lancelot frequently discovered.  She is, in fact, always passionate in one or other sense of that great and terrible and infinite word, but never tragedy-queenish or vixenish.  She falls in love with Lancelot because he falls in love with her, and because she cannot help it.  False as she is to husband and to lover, to her court and her country, it can hardly be said that any act of hers, except the love itself and its irresistible consequences, is faulty.  She is not capricious, extravagant, or tyrannical; in her very jealousy she is not cruel or revengeful (the original Iseult would certainly have had Elaine poisoned or poniarded, for which there was ample opportunity).  If she torments her lover, that is because she loves him.  If she is unjust to him, that is because she is a woman.  Her last speech to Lancelot after the catastrophe ­Tennyson should have, as has been said, paraphrased this as he paraphrased the passing of her husband, and from the same texts, and we should then have had another of the greatest things of English poetry ­shows a noble nature with the [Greek:  hamartia] present, but repented in a strange and great mixture of classical and Christian tragedy.  There is little told in a trustworthy fashion about her personal appearance.  But if Glastonbury traditions about her bones be true, she was certainly (again like Helen) “divinely tall.”  And if the suggestions of Hawker’s “Queen Gwennyvar’s Round" in the sea round Tintagel be worked out a little, it will follow that her eyes were divinely blue.

When such very high praise is given to the position of the (further) accomplished Arthur-story, it is of course not intended to bestow that praise on any particular MS. or printed version that exists.  It is in the highest degree improbable that, whether the original magician was Map, or Chrestien, or anybody else (to repeat a useful formula), we possess an exact and exclusive copy of the form into which he himself threw the story.  Independently of the fact that no MS., verse or prose, of anything like the complete story seems old enough, independently of the enormous and almost innumerable separable accretions, the so-called Vulgate cycle of “Graal-Merlin-Arthur-Lancelot-Graal-Quest-Arthur’s-Death” has considerable variants ­the most important and remarkable of which by far is the large alteration or sequel of the “Vulgate” Merlin which Malory preferred.  In the “Vulgate” itself, too, there are things which were certainly written either by the great contriver in nodding moods, or by somebody else, ­in fact no one can hope to understand mediaeval literature who forgets that no mediaeval writer could ever “let a thing alone”:  he simply must add or shorten, paraphrase or alter.  I rather doubt whether the Great Unknown himself meant both the amours of Arthur with Camilla and the complete episode of the false Guinevere to stand side by side.  The first is (as such justifications go) a sufficient justification of Guinevere by itself; and the conduct of Arthur in the second is such a combination of folly, cruelty, and all sorts of despicable behaviour that it overdoes the thing.  So, too, Lancelot’s “abscondences,” with or without madness, are too many and too prolonged. The long and totally uninteresting campaign against Claudas, during the greater part of which Lancelot (who is most of all concerned) is absent, and in which he takes no part or interest when present, is another great blot.  Some of these things, but not all, Malory remedied by omission.

To sum up, and even repeat a little, in speaking so highly of this development ­French beyond all doubt as a part of literature, whatever the nationality, domicile, and temper of the person or persons who brought it about ­I do not desire more to emphasise what I believe to be a great and not too well appreciated truth than to guard against that exaggeration which dogs and discredits literary criticism.  Of course no single redaction of the legend in the late twelfth or earliest thirteenth century contains the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story as I have just outlined it.  Of course the words used do not apply fully to Malory’s English redaction of three centuries later ­work of genius as this appears to me to be.  Yet further, I should be fully disposed to allow that it is only by reading the posse into the esse, under the guidance of later developments of the novel itself, that the estimate which I have given can be entirely justified.  But this process seems to me to be perfectly legitimate, and to be, in fact, the only process capable of giving us literary-historical criticism that is worth having.  The writer or writers, known or unknown, whose work we have been discussing, have got the plot, have got the characters, have got the narrative faculty required for a complete novel-romance.  If they do not quite know what to do with these things it is only because the time is not yet.  But how much they did, and of how much more they foreshadowed the doing, the extracts following should show better than any “talk about it.”

     [Lancelot, still under the tutelage of the Lady of the Lake      and ignorant of his own parentage, has met his cousins,      Lionel and Bors, and has been greatly drawn to them.]

Now turns herself the Lady back to the Lake, and takes the children with her.  And when she had gone a good way, she called Lancelot a little way off the road and said to him very kindly, “King’s son, how wast thou so bold as to call Lionel thy cousin? for he is a king’s son, and of not a little more worth and gentry than men think.”  “Lady,” said he, who was right ashamed, “so came the word into my mouth by adventure that I never took any heed of it.”  “Now tell me,” said she, “by the faith thou owest me, which thinkest thou to be the greater gentleman, thyself or him?” “Lady,” said he, “you have adjured me strongly, for I owe no one such faith as I owe you, my lady and my mother:  nor know I how much of a gentleman I am by lineage.  But, by the faith I owe you, I would not myself deign to be abashed at that for which I saw him weep. And they have told me that all men have sprung from one man and one woman:  nor know I for what reason one has more gentry than another, unless he win it by prowess, even as lands and other honours.  But know you for very truth that if greatness of heart made a gentleman I would think yet to be one of the greatest.”  “Verily, fair son,” said the Lady, “it shall appear.  And I say to you that you lose nothing of being one of the best gentlemen in the world, if your heart fail you not.”  “How, Lady!” said he, “say you this truly, as my lady?” And she said, “Yes, without fail.”  “Lady,” said he, “blessed be you of God, that you said it to me so soon [or as soon as you have said it].  For to that will you make me come which I never thought to attain.  Nor had I so much desire of anything as of possessing gentry.”

[The first meeting of Lancelot and Guinevere.  The Lady of the Lake has prevailed upon the King to dub Lancelot on St. John’s Day (Midsummer, not Christmas).  His protectress departing, he is committed to the care of Ywain, and a conversation arises about him.  The Queen asks to see him.]

Then bid he [the King] Monseigneur Ywain that he should go and look for Lancelot.  “And let him be equipped as handsomely as you know is proper:  for well know I that he has plenty.”  Then the King himself told the Queen how the Lady of the Lake had requested that he would not make Lancelot knight save in his own arms and dress.  And the Queen marvelled much at this, and thought long till she saw him.  So Messire Ywain went to the Childe [vallet] and had him clothed and equipped in the best way he could:  and when he saw that nothing could be bettered, he led him to Court on his own horse, which was right fair.  But he brought him not quietly.  For there was so much people about that the whole street was full:  and the news was spread through all the town that the fair Childe who came yester eve should be a knight to-morrow, and was now coming to Court in knightly garb.  Then sprang to the windows they of the town, both men and women.  And when they saw him pass they said that never had they seen so fair a Childe-knight.  So he came to the Court and alighted from his horse:  and the news of him spread through hall and chamber; and knights and dames and damsels hurried forth.  And even the King and the Queen went to the windows.  So when the Childe had dismounted, Messire Ywain took him by the hand, and led him by it up to the Hall.

The King and the Queen came to meet him:  and both took him by his two hands and went to seat themselves on a couch:  while the Childe seated himself before them on the fresh green grass with which the Hall was spread.  And the King gazed on him right willingly:  for if he had seemed fair at his first coming, it was nothing to the beauty that he now had.  And the King thought he had mightily grown in stature and thews. So the Queen prayed that God might make him a man of worth, “for right plenty of beauty has He given him,” and she looked at the Childe very sweetly:  and so did he at her as often as he could covertly direct his eyes towards her.  Also marvelled he much how such great beauty as he saw appear in her could come:  for neither that of his lady, the Lady of the Lake, nor of any woman that he had ever seen, did he prize aught as compared with hers.  And no wrong had he if he valued no other lady against the Queen:  for she was the Lady of Ladies and the Fountain of Beauty.  But if he had known the great worthiness that was in her he would have been still more fain to gaze on her.  For none, neither poor nor rich, was her equal.

So she asked Monseigneur Ywain what was the Childe’s name, and he answered that he knew not.  “And know you,” said she, “whose son he is and of what birth?” “Lady,” said he, “nay, except I know so much as that he is of the land of Gaul.  For his speech bewrayeth him." Then the Queen took him by the hand and asked him of whom he came.  And when he felt it [the touch] he shuddered as though roused from sleep, and thought of her so hard that he knew not what she said to him.  And she perceived that he was much abashed, and so asked him a second time, “Tell me whence you come.”  So he looked at her very sheepishly and said, with a sigh, that he knew not.  And she asked him what was his name; and he answered that he knew not that.  So now the Queen saw well that he was abashed and overthought. But she dared not think that it was for her:  and nevertheless she had some suspicion of it, and so dropped the talk.  But that she might not make the disorder of his mind worse, she rose from her seat and, in order that no one might think any evil or perceive what she suspected, said that the Childe seemed to her not very wise, and whether wise or not had been ill brought up.  “Lady,” said Messire Ywain, “between you and me, we know nothing about him:  and perchance he is forbidden to tell his name or who he is.”  And she said, “It may well be so,” but she said it so low that the Childe heard her not.

[Here follows (with a very little surplusage removed perhaps) the scene which Dante has made world-famous, but which Malory (I think for reasons) has “cut.”  I trust it is neither Philistinism nor perversity which makes me think of it a little, though only a little, less highly than some have done.  There is (and after all this makes it all the more interesting for us historians) the least little bit of anticipation of Marivaudage about it, and less of the adorable simplicity such as that (a little subsequent to the last extract given) where Lancelot, having forgotten to take leave of the Queen on going to his first adventure, and having returned to do so, kneels to her, receives her hand to raise him from the ground, “and much was his joy to feel it bare in his.”  But the beauty of what follows is incontestable, and that Guinevere was “exceeding wise in love” is certain.]

“Ha!” said she then, “I know who you are ­Lancelot of the Lake is your name.”  And he was silent.  “They know it at court,” said she, “this sometime.  Messire Gawain was the first to bring your name there....”  Then she asked him why he had allowed the worst man in the world to lead him by the bridle.  “Lady,” said he, “as one who had command neither of his heart nor of his body.”  “Now tell me,” said she, “were you at last year’s assembly?” “Yes, Lady,” said he.  “And what arms did you bear?” “Lady, they were all of vermilion.”  “By my head,” said she, “you say true.  And why did you do such deeds at the meeting the day before yesterday?” Then he began to sigh very very deeply.  And the Queen cut him short as well, knowing how it was with him.

“Tell me,” she said, “plainly, how it is.  I will never betray you.  But I know that you did it for some lady.  Now, tell me, by the faith you owe me, who she is.”  “Ah, Lady,” said he, “I see well that it behoves me to speak.  Lady, it is you.”  “I!” said she.  “It was not for me you took the spears that my maiden brought you.  For I took care to put myself out of the commission.”  “Lady,” said he, “I did for others what I ought, and for you what I could.”  “Tell me, then, for whom have you done all the things that you have done?” “Lady,” said he, “for you.”  “How,” said she, “do you love me so much?” “So much, Lady, as I love neither myself nor any other.”  “And since when have you loved me thus?” “Since the hour when I was called knight and yet was not one." “Then, by the faith you owe me, whence came this love that you have set upon me?” Now as the Queen said these words it happened that the Lady of the Puy of Malahault coughed on purpose, and lifted her head, which she had held down.  And he understood her now, having oft heard her before:  and looked at her and knew her, and felt in his heart such fear and anguish that he could not answer the Queen.  Then began he to sigh right deeply, and the tears fell from his eyes so thick, that the garment he wore was wet to the knees.  And the more he looked at the Lady of Malahault the more ill at ease was his heart.  Now the Queen noticed this and saw that he looked sadly towards the place where her ladies were, and she reasoned with him.  “Tell me,” she said, “whence comes this love that I am asking you about?” and he tried as hard as he could to speak, and said, “Lady, from the time I have said.”  “How?” “Lady, you did it, when you made me your friend, if your mouth lied not.”  “My friend?” she said; “and how?” “I came before you when I had taken leave of my Lord the King all armed except my head and my hands.  And then I commended you to God, and said that, wherever I was, I was your knight:  and you said that you would have me to be your knight and your friend.  And then I said, ‘Adieu, Lady,’ and you said, ’Adieu, fair sweet friend.’  And never has that word left my heart, and it is that word that has made me a good knight and valiant ­if I be so:  nor ever have I been so ill-bested as not to remember that word.  That word comforts me in all my annoys.  That word has kept me from all harm, and freed me from all peril, and fills me whenever I hunger.  Never have I been so poor but that word has made me rich.”  “By my faith,” said the Queen, “that word was spoken in a good hour, and God be praised when He made me speak it.  Still, I did not set it as high as you did:  and to many a knight have I said it, when I gave no more thought to the saying.  But your thought was no base one, but gentle and debonair; wherefore joy has come to you of it, and it has made you a good knight.  Yet, nevertheless, this way is not that of knights who make great matter to many a lady of many a thing which they have little at heart.  And your seeming shows me that you love one or other of these ladies better than you love me.  For you wept for fear and dared not look straight at them:  so that I well see that your thought is not so much of me as you pretend.  So, by the faith you owe the thing you love best in the world, tell me which one of the three you love so much?” “Ah!  Lady,” said he, “for the mercy of God, as God shall keep me, never had one of them my heart in her keeping.”  “This will not do,” said the Queen, “you cannot dissemble.  For many another such thing have I seen, and I know that your heart is there as surely as your body is here.”  And this she said that she might well see how she might put him ill at ease.  For she thought surely enough that he meant no love save to her, or ill would it have gone on the day of the Black Arms. And she took a keen delight in seeing and considering his discomfort.  But he was in such anguish that he wanted little of swooning, save that fear of the ladies before him kept him back.  And the Queen herself perceived it at the sight of his changes of colour, and caught him by the shoulder that he might not fall, and called to Galahault.  Then the prince sprang forward and ran to his friend, and saw that he was disturbed thus, and had great pain in his own heart for it, and said, “Ah, Lady! tell me, for God’s sake, what has happened.”  And the Queen told him the conversation.  “Ah, Lady!” said Galahault, “mercy, for God’s sake, or you may lose me him by such wrath, and it would be too great pity.”  “Certes,” said she, “that is true.  But know you why he has done such feats of arms?” “Nay, surely, Lady,” said he.  “Sir,” said she, “if what he tells me is true, it was for me.”  “Lady,” said he, “as God shall keep me, I can believe it.  For just as he is more valiant than other men, so is his heart truer than all theirs.”  “Verily,” said she, “you would say well that he is valiant if you knew what deeds he has done since he was made knight,” and then she told him all the chivalry of Lancelot ... and how he had done it all for a single word of hers [Galahault tells her more, and begs mercy for L.].  “He could ask me nothing,” sighed she, “that I could fairly refuse him, but he will ask me nothing at all."...  “Lady,” said Galahault, “certainly he has no power to do so.  For one loves nothing that one does not fear.” [And then comes the immortal kiss, asked by the Prince, delayed a moment by the Queen’s demur as to time and place, brought on by the “Galeotto"-speech. “Let us three corner close together as if we were talking secrets,” vouchsafed by Guinevere in the words, “Why should I make me longer prayer for what I wish more than you or he?” Lancelot still hangs back, but the Queen “takes him by the chin and kisses him before Galahault with a kiss long enough” so that the Lady of Malahault knows it.] And then said the Queen, who was a right wise and gracious lady, “Fair sweet friend, so much have you done that I am yours, and right great joy have I thereof.  Now see to it that the thing be kept secret, as it should be.  For I am one of the ladies of the world who have the fairest fame, and if my praise grew worse through you, then it would be a foul and shameful thing.”

A little more comment on this cento, and especially on the central passage of it, can hardly be, and ought certainly not to be, avoided in such a work as this, even if, like most summaries, it be something of a repetition.  It must surely be obvious to any careful reader that here is something much more than ­unless his reading has been as wide elsewhere as it is careful here ­he expected from Romance in the commoner and half-contemptuous acceptation of that word.  Lancelot he may, though he should not, still class as a mere amoureux transi ­a nobler and pluckier Silvius in an earlier As Yon Like It, and with a greater than Phoebe for idol.  Malory ought to be enough to set him right there:  he need even not go much beyond Tennyson, who has comprehended Lancelot pretty correctly, if not indeed pretty adequately.  But Malory has left out a great deal of the information which would have enabled his readers to comprehend Guinevere; and Tennyson, only presenting her in parts, has allowed those parts, especially the final and only full presentation, great as it is, to be too much influenced by his certainly unfortunate other presentation of Arthur as a blameless king.

I do not say that the actual creator of the Vulgate Guinevere, whoever he was, has wrought her into a novel-character of the first class.  It would have been not merely a miracle (for miracles often happen), but something more, if he had.  If you could take Béatrix Esmond at a better time, Argemone Lavington raised to a higher power, and the spirit of all that is best and strongest and least purely paradoxical in Meredith’s heroines, and work these three graces into one woman, adding the passion of Tennyson’s own Fatima and the queenliness of Helen herself, it might be something like the achieved Guinevere who is still left to the reader’s imagination to achieve.  But the Unknown has given the hints of all this; and curiously enough it is only of English novel-heroines that I can think in comparison and continuation of her.  This book, if it is ever finished, will show, I hope, some knowledge of French ones:  I can remember none possessing any touch of Guineveresque quality.  Dante, if his poetic nature had taken a different bent, and Shakespeare, if he had only chosen, could have been her portrayers singly; no others that I can think of, and certainly no Frenchman.

But here Guinevere’s creator or expounder has done more for her than merely indicate her charm.  Her “fear for name and fame” is not exactly “crescent” ­it is there from the first, and seems to have nothing either cowardly or merely selfish in it, but only that really “last infirmity of noble minds,” the shame of shame even in doing things shameful or shameless.  I have seldom seen justice done to her magnificent fearlessness in all her dangers.  Her graciousness as a Queen has been more generally admitted, but, once again, the composition and complexity of her fits of jealousy have never, I think, been fully rationalised.  Here, once more, we must take into account that difference of age which is so important. He thinks nothing of it; she never forgets it.  And in almost all the circumstances where this rankling kindles into wrath ­whether with no cause at all, as in most cases, or with cause more apparent than real, as in the Elaine business ­study of particulars will show how easily they might be wrought out into the great character scenes of which they already contain the suggestion. This Guinevere would never have “taken up” (to use purposely a vulgar phrase for what would have been a vulgar thing) with Mordred, either for himself or for the kingdom that he was trying to steal.  And I am bound to say again that much as I have read of purely French romance ­that is to say, French not merely in language but in certain origin ­I know nothing and nobody like her in it.

That Guinevere, like Charlotte, was “a married lady,” that, unlike Charlotte, she forgot the fact, and that Lancelot, though somewhat Wertheresque in some of his features, was not quite so “moral” as that very dull young man, are facts which I wish neither to suppress nor to dwell upon.  We may cry “Agreed” here to the indictment, and all its consequences.  They are not the question.

The question is the suggesting of novel-romance elements which forms the aesthetic solace of this ethical sin.  It should be seen at once that the Guinevere of the Vulgate, and her fault or fate, provide a character and career of no small complexity.  It has been already said that to represent her as after a fashion intercepted by love for Lancelot on her way to Arthur, like Iseult of Ireland or Margaret of Anjou, is, so to speak, as unhistorical as it is insufficiently artistic.  We cannot, indeed, borrow Diderot’s speech to Rousseau and say, “C’est lé pont aux ânes,” but it certainly would not have been the way of the Walter whom I favour, though I think it might have been the way of the Chrestien that I know.  Guinevere, when she meets her lover, rescuer, and doomsman, is no longer a girl, and Lancelot is almost a boy.  It is not, in the common and cheap misuse of the term, the most “romantic” arrangement, but some not imperfect in love-lore have held that a woman’s love is never so strong as when she is past girlhood and well approaching age, and that man’s is never stronger than when he is just not a boy.  Lancelot himself has loved no woman (except his quasi-mother, the Lady of the Lake), and will love none after he has fulfilled the Dead Shepherd’s “saw of might.”  She has loved; dispute this and you not only cancel gracious scenes of the text, but spoil the story; but she has, though probably she does not yet know it, ceased to love, and not without some reason.  To say no more about Arthur’s technical “blamelessness,” he has, by the coming of Lancelot, ceased to be altogether heroic.  Though never a mere petulant and ferocious dotard as the Chansons too often represent Charlemagne, he is very far from being a wise ruler or even baron.  He makes rash promises and vows, accepts charges on very slight evidence, and seems to have his knights by no means “in hand.”  So, too, though never a coward or weakling, he seems pretty nearly to have lost the pluck and prowess which had won Guinevere’s love under the walls of Carmelide, and of which the last display is in the great fight with his sister’s lover, Sir Accolon.  All this may not excuse Guinevere’s conduct to the moralist; it certainly makes that conduct artistically probable and legitimate to the critic, as a foundation for novel-character.

Her lover may look less promising, at least at the moment of presentation; and indeed it is true that while “la donna e immobile,” in essentials and possibilities alike, forms of man, though never losing reality and possibility, pass at times out of possible or at least easy recognition.  Anybody who sees in the Lancelot of the foregoing scene only a hobbledehoy and milksop who happens to have a big chest, strong arms, and plenty of mere fighting spirit, will never grasp him.  Hardly better off will be he who takes him ­as the story does give some handles for taking him ­to be merely one of the too common examples of humanity who sin and repent, repent and sin, with a sort of Americanesque notion of spending dollars in this world and laying them up in another.  Malory has on the whole done more justice to the possibilities of the Vulgate Lancelot than he has to Guinevere, and Tennyson has here improved on Malory.  He has, indeed, very nearly “got” Lancelot, but not quite.  To get him wholly would have required Tennyson for form and Browning for analysis of character; while even this mistura mirabilis would have been improved for the purpose by touches not merely of Morris and Swinburne, but of lesser men like Kingsley and even George Macdonald.  To understand Lancelot you must previously understand, or by some kind of intuition divine, the mystical element which his descent from the Graal-Wardens confers; the essential or quintessential chivalric quality which his successive creators agreed in imparting to him; the all-conquering gift so strangely tempered by an entire freedom from the boasting and the rudeness of the chanson hero; the actual checks and disasters which his cross stars bring on him; his utter loyalty in all things save one to the king; and last and mightiest of all, his unquenchable and unchangeable passion for the Queen.

Hence what they said to him in one of his early adventures, with no great ill following, “Fair Knight, thou art unhappy,” was always true in a higher sense.  He may have been Lord of Joyous Gard, in title and fact; but his own heart was always a Garde Douloureuse ­a cor luctificabile ­pillowed on idle triumphs and fearful hopes and poisoned satisfactions, and bafflements where he would most fain have succeeded.  He has almost had to have the first kiss forced on him; he is refused the last on grounds of which he himself cannot deny the validity.  Guinevere is a tragic figure in the truest and deepest sense of the term, and, as we have tried to show, she is amply complex in character and temperament.  But it is questionable whether Lancelot is not more tragic and more complex still.

It may perhaps without impropriety be repeated that these are not mere fancies of the writer, but things reasonably suggested by and solidly based upon “the French books,” when these later are collated and, so to speak, “checked” by Malory and the romances of adventure branching off from them.  But Arthur and Guinevere and Lancelot by no means exhaust the material for advanced and complicated novel-work ­in character as well as incident ­provided by the older forms of the Legend.  There is Gawain, who has to be put together from the sort of first draft of Lancelot which he shows in the earlier versions, and the light-o’-love opposite which he becomes in the later, a contrast continued in the Amadis and Galaor figures of the Spanish romances and their descendants.  There is the already glanced at group of Arthur’s sisters or half-sisters, left mere sketches and hints, but most interesting.  Not to be tedious, we need not dwell on Palomides, a very promising Lancelot unloved; on Lamoracke, left provokingly obscure, but shadowing a most important possibility in the unwritten romance of one of those very sisters; Bors, of whom Tennyson has made something, but not enough, in the later Idylls; and others.  But it is probably unnecessary to carry the discussion of this matter further.  It has been discussed and illustrated at some length, because it shows how early the elements, not merely of romance but of the novel in the fullest sense, existed in French literature.

[Here follows the noble passage above referred to between Lancelot and King Bagdemagus after the death of Meleagraunce, whose cousin Lancelot has just slain in single combat for charging him with treason.  He has kept his helm on, but doffs it at the King’s request.]

And when the King saw him he ran to kiss him, and began to make such joy of him as none could overgo.  But Lancelot said, “Ah, Sir! for God’s sake, make no joy or feast for me.  Certainly you should make none, for if you knew the evil I have done you, you would hate me above all men in the world.”  “Oh!  Lancelot,” said he, “tell it me not, for I understand too well what you would say; but I will know nothing of it, because it might be such a thing” as would part them for ever.