



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 to be his own unknown brother, finally marries _La
Fiere_, and, we learn, is eventually slain with his brother before
Thebes.

The author of this poem calls himself Hue de Rotelande, and says that he
lives at Credehulle, which Mr. Ward identifies with Credenhill, near
Hereford. After completing the _Ipomedon_ he wrote a sequel,
_Prothesilaus_, which he dedicated to his patron, Gilbert Fitz-Baderon,
Lord of Monmouth. This Gilbert, the only one of his family so named, was
Lord of Monmouth certainly from 1176 to 1190-91, and may have succeeded
to the dignity earlier, as the last mention of his father is in 1165-66;
but the payment by Gilbert of a fine for trespassing in the royal
forests in 1176 is the first mention we have of him. As in the
_Ipomedon_ Hue refers to the siege of Rouen in 1174, it is clear that
both his poems fall between that date and 1190, the year of Gilbert's
death, but we cannot date them more exactly.[2] It is, however, certain
that he wrote his poems on English ground, consequently it follows as a
matter of course that any incident of Arthurian romances to which he may
allude must have been known in England at that date.

Now what are the indications of familiarity with Arthurian tradition
which we find in the _Ipomedon_? Setting aside for the present the Three
Days' Tournament, the main subject of our study, we may point out
certain other incidents which have attracted the attention of scholars.
Professor Koelbing,[3] in his study of the English versions of the poem,
remarks justly that every reader must be struck with the close
resemblance between the circumstances under which, in the second part of
the poem, Ipomedon undertakes the defence of _La Fiere_ and the opening
of the _Bel Inconnu_ poems.[4] It may be pointed out that while in the
first instance the parallel is with the English rather than with the
French version, _i.e._, Ipomedon, like Libeaus Desconus, demands the
_first combat_ that shall offer, while Bel Inconnu simply asks that the
first request he shall make be granted, the feature that the maiden
leaves the court without waiting for her unwelcome defender agrees with
the French rather than with the English version: in the latter both
depart together. As in all romances of the _Bel Inconnu_ cycle, the
messenger is accompanied by a dwarf, who endeavours to induce a more
gentle treatment of the knight, and as in all she continues to flout the
hero till confuted by his deeds of valour. In the _Ipomedon_, certainly
the conversion is more complete, as she offers the hero her love, if he
will renounce the quest and accompany her to her own land. It is
impossible to read the _Ipomedon_ and to doubt that the author was
familiar with the story of Gawain's unnamed son.[5]

Again, the seneschal of King Meleager, Cananeus, Caymys, or Kaenius, as
his name is variously spelt, with his sharp tongue and overbearing
manner, is strongly reminiscent of Sir Kay; and the parallel is further
brought out in the encounter with Ipomedon, where that hero thrusts him
from his steed, '_tope over tayle_,' breaking in one version his
shoulder-blade, in another his arm.[6] This should be compared with
Lanzelet's joust with Kay, and its result '_er stach hern Keiin so das
im die fueeze harte ho uf ze berge kaften und dem zalehaften daz houbet
gein der erde fuor_;[7] also with _Morien_,[8] where Arthur reminds Kay
of the result of his joust with Perceval--'_Hine stac u dat u wel sceen
dat gi braect u canefbeen, ende dede u oec met onneren beide die vote
opwerd keren_.'

Professor Koelbing also points out that the position held by Cabaneus,
nephew of King Meleager, is analogous to that of Gawain, in the
Arthurian cycle (to which I would also add that the name of _La Fiere_
recalls that of _L'Orgueilleuse de Logres_ in Chretien), and decides
that the romance, as a whole, '_schliesst sich nach tendenz
characterzeichnung und handlung diese klasse (i.e. dem artus-kreise)
unverkennbar an_.'[9] That is, the _genre_ of composition was by 1174-90
so well established that it was freely imitated in romances entirely
unconnected with the cycle by subject-matter.

When, therefore, in direct connection with an adventure of which several
versions are preserved in the Arthurian cycle--the Three Days'
Tournament--we find the author of the poem excusing himself for somewhat
embroidering his tale, and quoting Walter Map as one who practises the
same art, our minds naturally turn to the romances of that cycle, and to
Map's reputed connection with Arthurian story.

As is well known, the question as to the share which may rightly be
assigned to Walter Map in the evolution of the Arthurian legend is one
of the problems of modern criticism. At one time or another, with the
exception of the _Merlin_ and the _Tristan_, all the great prose
romances of the cycle, the _Lancelot_, in its completed form, the _Grand
S. Graal_, _Queste_, and _Mort Artur_, have been assigned to him,[10]
and till quite recently writers on early English literature did not
scruple to accept the tradition. Probably even to-day the majority would
name Walter Map as the populariser, if not the inventor, of the Grail
legend. Those, however, who are familiar at first hand with the romances
in question have long since realised that in their present form they
represent the result of a long period of accretion, and have undergone
many redactions; they cannot possibly, as they now stand, be held to be
the work of any one writer, certainly not of one who took so active and
leading a part in public affairs as did Map. Further, his own statement,
in the famous words recorded by Giraldus Cambrensis, to whom they were
addressed, '_Multa_ _scripsistis et multum adhuc scribitis et nos multa
diximus. Vos scripta dedistis et nos verba_,' with the application that
follows, have been held by Professor Birch-Hirschfeld and other scholars
to be a direct denial on his part of any literary activity.[11] At the
same time we know Map did write, and was interested in romantic and
popular tales, further that he had the reputation of being a poet,[12]
and the persistence of the tradition connecting him with the Arthurian
cycle can hardly be set aside. The question is, do these words of Hue de
Rotelande throw any light upon this disputed point? Can we hope by the
aid of this contemporary of Map's to arrive at a conclusion which may
assist us in determining the real nature of his contribution to the
development of this famous cycle, and will the ascertaining of this fact
help us, as the definite establishment of a single fact often does, to
solve other problems closely connected therewith? Mr. Ward, when he
wrote the article to which I have referred above, expressed a decided
opinion on this point; and it appears to me that by following up the
lines of research there indicated we shall attain results far more
important in themselves, and far more startling in their ultimate effect
than he then suspected.

First, let us see exactly what Hue says. The passage in question (which
will not be found in the translations) occurs at the end of the first
portion of the poem. The author has just been relating how his hero, who
is living at King Meleager's court, in the assumed character of
body-servant to the queen, scouts the idea of attending the tournament
which is to decide who shall wed _La Fiere_ of Calabria, loudly
expressing his preference for the pleasures of the chase. Each morning
he leaves the court before daylight, announcing his departure by loud
blasts of the horn; but having reached the forest, where his servant
awaits him with steed and armour, he sends his 'Master,' Tholomy, to
hunt in his stead; and arming himself each day in a different suit of
armour, white, red, and black, proceeds to the tournament, where he
carries off the prize for valour, unhorsing all the principal knights on
either side, even to the king himself, and his valiant nephew Cabaneus.
Each evening he returns to the forest, reassumes his hunter's garb, and
with the spoils of the chase won by Tholomy takes his way to the court,
where he vaunts the skill of his hounds above that of the unknown
knight, and is roundly mocked for his lack of prowess by the ladies.
After the third day he leaves secretly, to return to his own land,
sending to the king, by the hand of a messenger, the spoils of his three
days' victory. The seneschal, Cananeus, volunteers to bring him back,
and is punished for his officious interference, as related above.[13] At
the conclusion of this episode, Hue states that he is not lying--at
least not more than a little--and if he be ''tis but the custom of the
day, and all the blame should not be laid upon him, Walter Map is just
as bad.'

  _'Ore entendez seignurs mut ben_
  _Hue dit ke il ni ment de ren_
  _Fors aukune feiz neent mut_
  _Nuls ne se pot garder par tut_
  _En mendre afere mut suvent_
  _Un bon renable hom mesprent_
  _El mund nen ad un sul si sage_
  _Ki tuz iurz seit en un curage_
  _Kar cist secles lad ore en sei_
  _Nel metez mie tut sur mei_
  _Sul ne sai pas de mentir lart_
  _Walter Map reset ben sa part.'_
                                                     --P. 82, ll. 19-30.

Now shall we understand this merely as a general allusion, without any
special significance, or was there anything in the story which Hue had
just been relating which might reasonably be supposed to have brought
Map to his mind? Mr. Ward very pertinently draws attention to the fact
that this appearance at a tournament on successive days, in different
armour, is precisely an adventure attributed to Lancelot, and the
_Lancelot_ is the romance most persistently attributed to Map. The
parallel to which Mr. Ward refers is that contained in the earlier part
of the _Prose Lancelot_.[14]

Lancelot first appears at Arthur's court in white armour: he is known as
'le Blanc Chevalier.' On his first absence after receiving knighthood he
is taken prisoner by the Lady of Malehaut, who detains him in her
castle. A tournament, of a very warlike nature, taking place between
Arthur and Galehault, the lady releases Lancelot, who, disguised in red
armour, performs deeds of surpassing valour. He returns to prison, and
on the encounter between the kings being renewed, again appears, this
time in black. Finally, he reveals himself to the queen, and tells her
that all the feats of arms he has achieved in the characters of white,
red, and black knight were undertaken in her honour.

The general resemblance is, as Mr. Ward remarks, too striking to be
overlooked; though, as he does _not_ remark, there are certain
differences which seem to indicate that the version of the _Prose
Lancelot_ has undergone some modification. Thus, there are not three
consecutive days, but Lancelot's appearance in the three characters
occurs at widely separated intervals. Further, Mr. Ward does not seem to
be aware that this is but one instance out of three in which the same,
or a similar, adventure is attributed to Lancelot.

In the latter part of the _Prose Lancelot_, the section represented by
the Dutch translation, we find Arthur holding a tournament, which has
been suggested by Guinevere with the view of recalling Lancelot, who has
long been absent, to court, and heightening his fame. Lancelot returns
secretly, unknown to all but the queen, who sends him a message to come
and discomfit the knights who are jealous of him. Lancelot appears in
_red_ armour and overthrows them all. The queen demands another
tournament in three days' time, when Lancelot appears as a _white_
knight, with the same result. After this he reveals himself to
Arthur.[15]

But the best parallel is that contained in the _Lanzelet_ of Ulrich von
Zatzikhoven. Here Lanzelet makes his first appearance at court at a
three days' tournament; the first day dressed in _green_, the second in
_white_, the third in _red_; overthrows all opposed to him, including
Kay,[16] and takes his departure, without revealing himself.

With these repeated parallels before us, it seems impossible to doubt
that when Hue de Rotelande referred to Walter Map, in connection with
the tournament episode of _Ipomedon_, he had in his mind a version of
the _Lancelot_, which also contained such a story, and which was
attributed to the latter writer.

But what could this version have been? Certainly not the _Prose
Lancelot_ in its present form. As we remarked before, this romance is
the result of slow growth and successive redactions, and the two
parallels contained in it bear marks of modification and dislocation. In
my recent studies on the Lancelot legend[17] I have pointed out that in
the process of evolution it certainly passed through a stage in which it
was closely connected with, and affected by, the _Perceval_ story.
Gradually the popularity of the hero of the younger tale obscured that
of the elder; and in the _Lancelot_, as we now have it, the traces of
_Perceval_ influence have almost disappeared from the majority of the
printed versions, though interesting survivals are still to be found in
certain manuscripts and in the Dutch translation. Now one of the best
known adventures attributed to Perceval is that in which the sight of
blood-drops on new-fallen snow--caused by a bird having been wounded, or
slain, by a hawk--recalls to his mind the lady of his love, and plunges