ckwood's _Periods of
European Literature_ (Edinburgh and London, 1897), and another in his
_Short History of French Literature_ (Oxford, 7th ed. at press).

[19] It is scarcely rash to say that Cressid is the first representative
of this dread and delightful entity, and the ancestress of all its
embodiments since in fiction, as Cleopatra seems to have been in
history. No doubt "it" was of the beginning, but it lacked its _vates_.
Helen was different.

[20] _Faerie Queene_, v. iv. 1-20.

[21] I hope I may be allowed to emphasise the disclaimer, which I have
already made more than once elsewhere, of the very slightest disrespect
to this admirable scholar. The presumption and folly of such disrespect
would be only inferior to its ingratitude, for the indulgence with which
M. Paris consistently treated my own somewhat rash adventures in Old
French was extraordinary. But as one's word is one's word so one's
opinion is one's opinion.

[22] Sometimes _de_, but _a_ seems more analogical.

[23] Chrestien was rather like Chaucer in being apt not to finish. Even
the _Charette_ owes its completion (in an extent not exactly
determinable) to a certain Godfrey de Lagny (Laigny, etc.).

[24] Of course it is easy enough to assign explanations of it, from the
vehicle of criminals to the scaffold downwards; but it remains a
convention--very much of the same kind as that which ordains (or used to
ordain) that a gentleman may not carry a parcel done up in newspaper,
though no other form of wrapping really stains his honour.

[25] Neither he nor Malory gives one of the most gracious parts of
it--the interview between Lancelot and King Bagdemagus, _v. inf._ p. 54.

[26] Material (chamois skin)? or garment? Not common in O.F., I think,
for _camisia_; but Spenser (_Faerie Queene_, II. iii. xxvi.) has (as
Prof. Gregory Smith reminds me) "a silken _camus_ lilly whight."

[27] As does Pyramus's--or Bottom's--objection to the wall.

[28] This part of the matter has received too little attention in modern
studies of the subject: partly because it was clumsily handled by some
of the probably innumerable and certainly undiscoverable meddlers with
the Vulgate. The unpopularity of Lancelot and his kin is not due merely
to his invincibility and their not always discreet partisanship. The
older "Queen's knights" must have naturally felt her devotion to him;
his "undependableness"--in consequence not merely of his fits of madness
but of his chiv