Now, as noted above (see GUENEVERE) , Arthur's queen was certainly the heroine of such an other-world adventure, and it seems probable that when the process of literary evolution, and the social taste of the time, demanded a love-story in the Arthur ian cycle which should parallel that of Tristan and Iseult, the hero of this immensely popular story was pressed into the service of Arthurian tradition, and assigned this leading role. We cannot ignore the fact that his first appearance (in the Charrette) is pre cisely in connection with this adventure. The name of Lancelot is certainly Continental (see Dr. Brugger's discussion of the proper names in Marie de France, Zeitschrift fur Franz. Sprache, xlix.), and any attempt to claim him as an original Celtic hero must be dismissed as ungrounded. It is certainly curious that Lancelot, as a figure of romance, possesses none of the characteristic traits which make Gawain, Perceval and Tristan all genuine figures of Celtic tradition, well-marked individuals. Compared with these heroes Lancelot is a peg on which to hang romantic adventures, nothing more. The story of the loves of Lancelot and Guenevere i has about it nothing spontaneous and genuine; in no way can it be compared with that of Tristan and Iseult. The language of the prose Lancelot is good, easy and graceful, but the adventures lack originality and interest, and the situations repeat themselves in the most wearisome manner. Those readers who know the story only through the mediam of Malory's noble prose and Ten nyson's melodious verse carry away an impression entirely foreign to that produced by the original literature. The Lancelot story, in its rise and development, belongs exclusively to the later stage of Arthurian romance; it was a story for the court, not for the folk, and it lacks alike the dramatic force, and human appeal, of the genuine "popular" tale.
prose Lancelot was frequently printed; Brunet chronicles editions of 1488, 1494, 1513, 1520 and 1533—of this last date there are two, one published by Jehan Petit, the other by Philippe Lenoire. The latter is by far the better, being printed from a much fuller ms. There is, so far, no critical edition. Dr. H. 0. Sommer, The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances (1908-16), has included the text of the Lancelot. A Dutch verse translation of the 13th century was published by M. Jonckbloet in 1850, under the title of Roman van Lanceloet. This is not complete, all the part previous to Guenevere's abduction by Meleagant being lost, but the text is an excellent one, agreeing closely with Lenoire's 1533 edition. The books devoted by Malory to the story of Lancelot also belong to the latter section of the romance, and there is no sign of familiarity with the earlier incidents. His version of the Charrette adventure also differs from any extant form, and there are adventures which are found in no other Lancelot text. The precise character of Malory's Lancelot source is an interesting problem. Le Chevalier de in Charrette was published by Wendelin Foerster in his edition of Chretien's works (Der Karrenritter, 5899). A Dutch version of a short episodic poem, Lancelot et le Cerf au pied blanc, will be found in Jonckbloet's volume, and a discussion of this and other Lancelot poems in vol. xxx. of Histoire Litteraire de la France. For critical studies on the subject see Gaston Paris, articles in Romania, vols. x. and xii.; E. Wechssler, Ober die verschiedenen Redaktionen des Graal-Lancelot Cyklus (1895) ; J. L. Weston, The Legend of Sir Lancelot du Lac (190I) and The Three Days Tournament (1902), an appendix to the previous volume; F. Lot, Etudes sur le Lancelot en prose (1918).
(J. L. W.)