=1533= has, 'Si trouverent que des trois de Gaulle Claudius le filz au roy Claudas en estoit ung et les autres estoiet assez vaillans.' It seems clear that =M.='s text is that of =D. L.= carelessly abridged.[188]
Both =D. L.= and =1533= conclude the _Queste_ section with the passage relating the death of the twenty-two (twenty-four) questers, eighteen of whom fell by the hand of Gawain; the writing out of the knights' adventures, and the preservation of the record in the abbey of Salisbury where Map found them, this latter item being omitted by =1533=. This passage is, as a rule, now found at the beginning of the _Mort Artur_ section, but, I think, it is clear that its proper place is at the end of the _Queste_; as I have pointed out already, the light in which it represents Gawain is entirely in keeping with that romance, while it does not agree with either the _Mort Artur_ or the _Lancelot_, both of which regard Arthur's gallant nephew with genuine respect. Further, the drawing up of a record of adventures is better placed at the end of the section dealing with the adventures to be recorded than at the beginning of another. =M.='s words, 'alle this was made in grete bookes / and put up in almeryes at Salysbury /' coupled with his total omission of any corresponding passage at the commencement of the next book, seem to prove that in his source, too, it stood at the end of the _Queste_.[189]
What now are the results we may deduce from this examination of four versions of the Galahad _Queste_? First, I think it is clear that the verse translation in =D. L.= and the prose =1533= both offer a text very decidedly superior to that edited by Dr. Furnivall, and, if Dr. Sommer's extracts are to be relied on, that represented by the majority of the printed editions of the _Lancelot_. Second, it is equally clear that the text used by Malory stood in close relation to these two versions. Many variants attributed by Dr. Sommer to the English compiler, are, it is now certain, due to his source, in the treatment of which he shows little sign of intelligence or invention, but rather a tendency to compression at all hazards, sometimes omitting the very part of a phrase which was required to make the whole intelligible. The general tendency of our examination, therefore, goes to establish the practical agreement of =D. L.=, =1533= and =M.=, as against =Q.= and =S.= The version given by =W.= is so free a rendering, and omits so many details, that it is scarcely possible to place it. It seems clear that the _original_ source must have belonged to the same MS. family as the former three, but whether the agreement was with =1533=, rather than with =D. L.= and =M.=, or _vice versa_, it is impossible to say.
