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 Mediæval 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 Mediæval
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_.