



Produced by Chris Curnow, Stephen Hutcheson, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)







                            _Grimm Library_

                                 No. 15

                       THE THREE DAYS' TOURNAMENT
      (_Appendix to No. 12, 'The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac'_)




                          _The Grimm Library._
                       (_Crown 8vo. Net Prices._)

  I. GEORGIAN FOLK-TALES. Translated by Marjory Wardrop. _Cr. 8vo, pp._
          xii + 175. 5_s._
  II., III., V. THE LEGEND OF PERSEUS. By Edwin Sidney Hartland, F.S.A.
          3 vols. L1, 7_s._ 6_d._
    Vol. I. THE SUPERNATURAL BIRTH. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xxxiv + 228 (_not
          sold separately_).
    Vol. II. THE LIFE-TOKEN. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ viii + 445. 12_s._ 6_d._
    Vol. III. ANDROMEDA. MEDUSA. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xxxvii + 225. 7_s._
          6_d._
  IV., VI. THE VOYAGE OF BRAN, SON OF FEBAL. An Eighth-century Irish
          Saga, now first edited and translated by Kuno Meyer.
    Vol. I. With an Essay upon the Happy Otherworld in Irish Myth, by
          Alfred Nutt. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xvii + 331. 10_s._ 6_d._
    Vol. II. With an Essay on the Celtic Doctrine of Rebirth, by Alfred
          Nutt. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xii + 352.  10_s._ 6_d._
  VII. THE LEGEND OF SIR GAWAIN. Studies upon its Original Scope and
          Significance. By Jessie L. Weston, translator of Wolfram von
          Eschenbach's 'Parzival.' _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xiv + 111. 4_s._
  VIII. THE CUCHULLIN SAGA IN IRISH LITERATURE. Being a Collection of
          Stories relating to the Hero Cuchullin, translated from the
          Irish by various Scholars. Compiled and Edited, with
          Introduction and Notes, by Eleanor Hull. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ lxxix
          + 316. 7_s._ 6_d._
  IX., X. THE PRE- AND PROTO-HISTORIC FINNS, both Eastern and Western,
          with the Magic Songs of the West Finns. By the Hon. John
          Abercromby. I., _pp._ xxiv + 363. II., _pp._ xiii + 400. L1,
          1_s._
  XI. THE HOME OF THE EDDIC POEMS. With Especial Reference to the 'Helgi
          Lays,' by Sophus Bugge, Professor in the University of
          Christiania. Revised Edition, with a new Introduction
          concerning Old Norse Mythology. Translated from the Norwegian
          by William Henry Schofield, Instructor in Harvard University.
          _Cr. 8vo, pp._ lxxix + 408. 12_s._ 6_d._
  XII. THE LEGEND OF SIR LANCELOT DU LAC. Studies upon its Origin,
          Development, and Position in the Arthurian Romantic Cycle. By
          Jessie L. Weston. _Cr. 8vo, pp._ xii + 252. 7_s._ 6_d._
  XIII. THE WIFE OF BATH'S TALE. Its Sources and Analogues. By C. F.
          Maynadier. _Pp._ xii + 222. 6_s._
  XIV. SOHRAB AND RUSTEM. The Epic Theme of a Combat between Father and
          Son. A Study of its Genesis and Use in Literature and Popular
          Tradition. By Murray Anthony Potter, A.M. _Pp._ xii + 235.
          6_s._

                         _All rights reserved_




                                  THE
                         Three Days' Tournament


                    A Study in Romance and Folk-Lore

      _Being an Appendix to the Author's 'Legend of Sir Lancelot'_

                                   By
                            Jessie L. Weston
            AUTHOR OF 'THE LEGEND OF SIR GAWAIN' ETC., ETC.


                                 London
                        Published by David Nutt
                       At the Sign of the Phoenix
                               Long Acre
                                  1902

               Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable




                                PREFACE


The Study comprised in the following pages should, as the title
indicates, be regarded as an Appendix to the Studies on the Lancelot
Legend previously published in the Grimm Library Series. As will be
seen, they not only deal with an adventure ascribed to that hero, but
also provide additional arguments in support of the theory of romantic
evolution there set forth. Should the earlier volume ever attain to the
honour of a second edition, it will probably be found well to include
this Study in the form of an additional chapter; but serious students of
Arthurian romance are unfortunately not so large a body that the speedy
exhaustion of an edition of any work dealing with the subject can be
looked for, and, therefore, as the facts elucidated in the following
pages are of considerable interest and importance to all concerned in
the difficult task of investigating the sources of the Arthurian legend,
it has been thought well to publish them without delay in their present
form.

In the course of this Study I have, as opportunity afforded, expressed
opinions on certain points upon which Arthurian scholars are at issue.
Here in these few introductory words I should like, if possible, to make
clear my own position with regard to the question of Arthurian criticism
as a whole. I shall probably be deemed presumptuous when I say that, so
far, I very much doubt whether we have any one clearly ascertained and
established fact that will serve as a definite and solid basis for the
construction of a working hypothesis as to the origin and development of
this immense body of romance. We all of us have taken, and are taking,
far too much for granted. We have but very few thoroughly reliable
critical editions, based upon a comparative study of all the extant
manuscripts. Failing a more general existence of such critical editions,
it appears impossible to hope with any prospect of success to 'place'
the various romances.[1]

Further, it may be doubted if the true conditions of the problem, or
problems, involved have even yet been adequately realised. The Arthurian
cycle is not based, as is the Charlemagne cycle, upon a solid substratum
of fact, which though modified for literary purposes is yet more or less
capable of identification and rectification; such basis of historic fact
as exists is extremely small, and for critical purposes may practically
be restricted to certain definite borrowings from the early chronicles.

The great body of Arthurian romance took shape and form in the minds of
a people reminiscent of past, hopeful of future, glory, who interwove
with their dreams of the past, and their hopes for the future, the
current beliefs of the present. To thoroughly understand, and to be able
intelligently and helpfully to criticise the Arthurian Legend, it is
essential that we do not allow ourselves to be led astray by what we may
call the 'accidents' of the problem--the moulding into literary shape
under French influence--but rather fix our attention upon the
'essentials'--the radically Celtic and folk-lore character of the
material of which it is composed.

We need, as it were, to place ourselves _en rapport_ with the mind alike
of the conquered and the conquerors. It is not easy to shake ourselves
free from the traditions and methods of mere textual criticism and treat
a question, which is after all more or less a question of scholarship,
on a wider basis than such questions usually demand. Yet, unless I am
much mistaken, this adherence to traditional methods, and consequent
confusion between what is essential and what merely accidental, has
operated disastrously in retarding the progress of Arthurian criticism;
because we have failed to realise the true character of the material
involved, we have fallen into the error of criticising Arthurian romance
as if its beginnings synchronised more or less exactly with its
appearance in literary form. A more scientific method will, I believe,
before long force us to the conclusion that the majority of the stories
existed in a fully developed, coherent, and what we may fairly call a
romantic form for a considerable period before they found literary
shape. We shall also, probably, find that in their gradual development
they owed infinitely less to independent and individual imagination than
they did to borrowings from that inexhaustible stock of tales in which
all peoples of the world appear to have a common share.

Thus I believe that the first two lessons which the student of Arthurian
romance should take to heart are (_a_) the extreme paucity of any
definite critical result, (_b_) the extreme antiquity of much of the
material with which we are dealing.

But there is also a third point as yet insufficiently realised--the
historic factors of the problem. We hear a great deal of the undying
hatred which is supposed to have existed between the Britons and their
Saxon conquerors; the historical facts, such as they are, have been
worked for all they are worth in the interests of a particular school of
criticism; but so far attention has been but little directed to a series
of at least equally remarkable historic facts--the deliberate attempts
made to conciliate the conquered Britons by a dexterous political use of
their national beliefs and aspirations.

In 1894, when publishing my first essay in Arthurian criticism, the
translation of Wolfram von Eschenbach's _Parzival_, I drew attention to
the very curious Angevin allusions of that poem, and the definite
parallels to be traced between the incidents of the story and those
recorded in the genuine Angevin Chronicles. I then hazarded the
suggestion that many of the peculiarities of this version might be
accounted for by a desire on the part of the author to compliment the
most noted prince of that house by drawing a parallel between the
fortunes of Perceval and his mother, Herzeleide, and those of Henry of
Anjou and his mother, the Empress Maude. Subsequent study has only
confirmed the opinion then tentatively expressed; and I cannot but feel
strongly that the average method of criticism, which contents itself
merely with discussion of those portions of Wolfram's poem which
correspond to other versions of the _Perceval_ story, while it neglects
those sections (_i.e._ the Angevin allusions and the Grail 'Templars')
to which no parallel can be found elsewhere, is a method which entirely
defeats its own object, and one from which only partial results can be
obtained.

For critical purposes, and for determining certain central problems of
the location and growth of the Arthurian Legend in literary form, I
doubt whether the _Parzival_ be not the most important extant text of
the entire cycle: once realise--as if we thoroughly understand the
historic conditions of the time we can scarcely fail to realise--that
those two first introductory books could not possibly be written at the
date of the composition of the German poem, and we shall then begin to
recognise the extreme importance of discovering the when, where, and why
of their original composition. Could we solve the riddle of the date and
authorship of the earlier poem, that containing the Angevin allusions,
the Grail Temple with its knights, and, we may add, the numerous
Oriental references, we should, I believe, hold in our hand the
master-key which would unlock the main problems confronting us. In all
probability that unlocking when it comes will furnish us with more than
one surprise.

The Arthurian problem is one which appeals not only to the literary
critic but also to the historian. Have we not in the past been tempted
to regard it too exclusively as the property of the one, and to hold
that a British chieftain of whose name and exploits such scanty record
survives can scarcely be a worthy subject of serious historic research?
But if the study of history fails to elucidate much concerning the
personality and feats of Arthur, it may yet discover much with regard to
the growth and development of his legend.

The Arthurian cycle, both in literary value and in intrinsic interest,
forms undoubtedly the most important group in Mediaeval literature. Is it
not a reproach to scholars that to-day, at the beginning of the
twentieth century, there should be such an utter lack of knowledge of
the proper order and relation of the members of that group? The most
brilliant Arthurian scholars can offer us no more than an accurate
acquaintance with certain texts, and, perhaps, an hypothesis as to their
relative order. The result is that a period extending over some fifty
years or more of unusual literary activity, and far-reaching influence,
lies at present outside the area of scientific knowledge, and is, for
teaching purposes, practically non-existent. We cannot write the history
of Arthurian literature, we cannot teach or lecture with confidence upon
any portion of it, until a more determined and systematic attempt at
unravelling its many puzzles be made.

Is it not time to seriously consider the desirability of co-ordinating
the labours of individual scholars? At present each works, as Hal o' the
Wynd fought, for his own hand, and it is only by a happy chance that the
work of one supplements and supports that of another. Is not the time
ripe for the formation of an International Society, composed of those
students, in France, Germany, America and England, who are sincerely
interested in the elucidation of this important section of Mediaeval
literature, and who, working on an organised and predetermined plan,
shall co-operate towards rendering possible the compilation of a really
accurate and scientific history of the Arthurian cycle? Those who took a
share, however small, in such a work would at least have the
satisfaction of knowing that they were contributing, not to the
ephemeral curiosity or pleasure of the passing moment, but to the
enduring profit and permanent intellectual wealth of the world.

  Dulwich, _September 1902_.




                                CONTENTS


  PAGE
  The Evidence of the Ipomedon,                                      1-14
  The Tournament in Cliges,                                         14-21
  The Tournament in Folk-Tale,                                      21-34
  The Tournament in Romance,                                        34-43
  The Bearing on the Lancelot Story,                                43-51
  Evidence for an Insular Version of the Romance,                   51-59




                       THE THREE DAYS' TOURNAMENT




                                   I


  _Sul ne sai pas de mentir lart_
  _Walter Map reset ben sa part._
                                          _Ipomedon_, fo. 82, ll. 29-30.

These words of the author of the _Ipomedon_ were, some years ago,
commented upon by Mr. Ward in his valuable _Catalogue of Romances in the
British Museum_, vol. i. He there remarks that the allusion is
especially valuable as being the direct ascription, by a contemporary,
of the character of romance-writer to Walter Map, and that in apparent
connection with the romance most persistently attributed to him--the
_Prose Lancelot_.

The suggestive remarks of Mr. Ward do not appear hitherto to have
attracted the attention they deserve. Recently, having occasion to write
a brief notice of Walter Map, they came, for the first time, under my
notice, and, taken in connection with certain points of the _Lancelot_
study in which I had for some time been engaged, assumed an unexpected
importance. It became evident to me that the whole question of the
connection of the _Ipomedon_ with Arthurian literature, and the light
which the words of the author might throw upon the relation to each
other of different forms of the same story, was well worth study; and
might eventually be of material assistance in determining the much
debated question of the position of Chretien de Troyes in the Arthurian
cycle.

In the following pages I propose to examine, first, the exact nature and
value of the evidence of the _Ipomedon_ as regards Arthurian tradition;
second, its bearing upon the versions of a popular incident in
romance--the appearance of a knight at a tournament on three consecutive
days, in the disguise of three different suits of armour--especially
with relation to the versions of the _Prose Lancelot_, the _Lanzelet_ of
Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, and the _Cliges_ of Chretien de Troyes.

To begin with the _Ipomedon_. As is probably known to most scholars, the
scene of this story is laid in the south of Europe--Sicily, Calabria,
Apulia--and the names of the characters are largely borrowed from
classical sources. The poem relates at considerable length the wooing of
the Princess of Calabria, known as _La Fiere_, by Ipomedon, son of the
King of Apulia. (In the second part of the poem the hero's father is
dead, and he is, himself, king.) The lady has made a vow to wed none but
the bravest of knights. Ipomedon, disguised as her cup-bearer, wins her
love, and at a three days' tournament, in a varying armour of white,
red, and black, wins her hand, but disappears without claiming it, under
the pretext that he has not won sufficient fame to satisfy her pride. In
the second part of the poem the lady is threatened by an unwelcome
suitor, in the person of a hideous giant. Ipomedon, aware of her plight,
disguises himself as a fool, and goes to her uncle's court, knowing that
she will send thither for aid. He demands from the king the gift of the
first combat that shall offer, which is granted as a mere joke. On the
appearance of the messenger sent by _La Fiere_--the favourite friend of
the princess--Ipomedon claims the fulfilment of the king's pledge, much
to the disgust of the maiden, who will have nothing to do with him at
first, but whose confidence he wins by his valiant deeds on the journey,
defeats and slays the giant; and hindered from evasion by her gallant
cousin, who proves