gend was
doubtless to some extent associated with the discussions which
continually came up anew respecting the meaning of the doctrine of the
Eucharist; for it was not until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that the
doctrine was finally and authoritatively defined. In the mean time there
was interminable discussion respecting the nature of this "real
presence," respecting _tran_substantiation and _con_substantiation and
impanation, respecting the actual presence of the body and blood of
Christ under the _appearance_ of the bread and wine, or the presence of
the body and blood _together with_ the bread and wine. The professor of
philosophy in the University of Oxford, who passes daily through Logic
Lane, has said that there the followers of Duns Scotus and Thomas
Aquinas were wont to come to blows in the eagerness of their discussion
respecting the proper definition of the doctrine. Nor was the doctrine
without interest to the Reformers. Luther and Zwingli held opposing
views, and Calvin was involved in a long dispute concerning the
doctrine, which resulted in the division of the evangelical body into
the two parties of the Lutherans and the Reformed. Doubtless the
connection between the Arthurian legend and the doctrine of the Divine
Presence was not without influence on the unparalleled spread of the
legend in the closing decades of the twelfth century, and on its
prominence in the centuries following.

A suggestion has already been given of the vast development of the
Arthurian legends during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth
centuries, and of the importance of the labors of the specialists, who
are endeavoring to fix a date for these versions in order to infer
therefrom the spiritual ideals of the people among whom they arose. To
perceive clearly to what extent ideals do change, it is but necessary to
compare various versions of the same incident as given in various
periods of time. To go no farther back than Malory, for example, we
observe a signal difference between his treatment of the sin of
Guinevere and Launcelot, and the treatment of the theme by Tennyson.
Malory's Arthur is not so much wounded by the treachery of Launcelot, of
whose relations to Guinevere he had long been aware, as he is angered at
Sir Modred for making public those disclosures which made it necessary
for him and Sir Launcelot to "bee at debate." "Ah! Agravaine,
Agravaine," cries the King, "Jesu forgive it thy soule! for thine evill
w