and the group of persons whom he converts in the East are made the means
of bringing Christianity to Britain. The Grail is dwelt upon almost solely
in its most material aspect. This form is closely connected with the
Galahad Quest, and its chronology has been elaborately framed to correctly
bridge over the difference in time between the Apostolic and Arthurian
ages. It has also affected, as remarked above, the later versions of the
Perceval Quest. The second or Brons form knows nothing of the companions
of Joseph, who is only indirectly the means of the conversion of Britain,
the real evangelists being kinsmen of his who bear decided Celtic names.
These kinsmen are related as grandfather and father (or simply father or
uncle), to a hero whose exploits are to be dealt with in a sequel. There
is strong insistence upon the spiritual character of the Grail, which is
obviously intended to play an important part in the promised sequel. No
traces of this form are to be found in any version (saving always the
above-mentioned fragment of Gautier), until we come to the Grand St.
Graal, with which such portions as do not conflict with the Joseph form
are embodied.
The Didot-Perceval, although formally in contact with the Brons Early
History, is not really the sequel announced in that work. It differs
profoundly from it in the most essential feature of the story, the nature
of the task laid upon the hero. Upon examination this appears to be of the
same nature as that of the Conte du Graal, with a seasoning of the
Christian mystic element. It was, however, _intended_ for a sequel to the
Metrical Joseph, a fact which may be taken as a proof that Borron never
completed his plan of a Joseph-Merlin-Grail trilogy of which we possess
the first two parts.
The first of the two points marked for investigation at the outset of this
chapter may thus be considered settled. The Quest is originally
independent of and older than the Early History. And although in no
instance can the versions of the former be said to be entirely free from
the influence of the latter, yet in the older forms the traces are such as
to be easily separated from the primitive elements of the story.
The versions which have been examined may now be arranged in the following
order:--
(1) Chrestien's portion of the Conte du Graal. The oldest form of the
Perceval Quest, but presupposing an Early History.
(2) Gautier de Doulens followed Chrestien, in all probability, almost
immediately. Even less can be gathered from him than from Chrestien
respecting the earliest form of the Early History, but this is
probably represented by
(3) Pseudo-Gautier, which in all likelihood gives the outline of the
work made use of by Queste and Grand St. Graal. Pseudo-Gautier is
almost certainly some years later than Gautier, as the Berne MS.
scribe found it necessary to seek for information in
(4) Borron's poem, probably written towards the end of the twelfth
century, but which for some reason remained unknown for a time,
although it afterwards, as evidenced by the number of MSS., became
popular. There is every reason to believe that Borron knew nothing of
any other Early History. His work, as we have it, is abridged and
arranged. Meanwhile
(5) Queste had appeared. The author probably used the same Early
History as Pseudo-Gautier. He knew the Conte du Graal, and wrote in
opposition to it with a view to edification. He certainly knew nothing
of Borron's poem, or he could not have failed, with his strong
mystical tendencies, to dwell upon the spiritual and symbolic
character of the Grail.
(6) The Grand St. Graal, an earlier draft of the work, now known under
that title. Probably an enlarged version of the hypothetical original
Early History; wanting all the latter portions relating to Brons and
his group, which were added to it when Borron's poem became known.
This work must have appeared before 1204 (in which year it is referred
to by Helinandus), and, as Chrestien wrote his poem about 1189-90, it
follows that at least half-a-dozen works belonging to the Grail cycle
came out in the last twelve years of the twelfth century.
(7) Manessier and
(8) Gerbert brought out independent endings to the Conte du Graal from
1216 to 1225. It was probably shortly after this time that Borron's
poem became known, and that it was incorporated with the Grand St.
Graal, which assumed the shape under which it has come down to us.
(9) The Didot-Perceval is probably the latest in date of all the
members of the cycle.
Before proceeding to examine our second point, which is whether the Grail
itself really belongs to the original form of the Quest, or has been
introduced into the Quest versions from the Early History, it will be
advisable to summarise the opinions and researches of previous
investigators. Light will thus be thrown upon many points of interest
which have not received special examination in these pages. A theory of
the origin and development of the cycle, which is in many respects
directly opposed to the conclusions we have reached, will also be fully
set forth, and an opportunity will thus be given for testing by adverse
criticism the soundness of our method of investigation, and of the results
to which it has led us.
CHAPTER IV.
SKETCH OF THE LITERATURE CONNECTED WITH THE GRAIL CYCLE.
Villemarqué--Halliwell--San Marte (A. Schulz)--Simrock--Rochat--
Furnivall's reprint of the Grand St. Graal and of Borron--J. F.
Campbell--Furnivall's Queste--Paulin Paris--Potvin's Conte du
Graal--Bergmann--Skeat's Joseph of Arimathea--Hucher: Grail Celtic,
date of Borron--Zarncke, Zur Geschichte der Gralsage; Grail belongs
to Christian legend--Birch-Hirschfeld develops Zarncke's views: Grand
St. Graal younger than Queste, both presuppose Chrestien and an
earlier Queste, the Didot-Perceval, which forms integral part of
Borron's trilogy; Mabinogi later than Chrestien; various members of
the cycle dated--Martin combats Birch-Hirschfeld: Borron later than
Chrestien, whose poem represents oldest stage of the romance, which
has its roots in Celtic tradition--Hertz--Criticism of
Birch-Hirschfeld.
Monsieur Th. de la Villemarqué's researches form a convenient starting
point, both on account of the influence they exercised upon later
investigation, and because he was the first to state with fulness and
method the arguments for the Celtic origin of the legend. They appeared
originally in the volume entitled "Contes populaires des anciens Bretons
précédés d'un essai sur l'origine des épopées chevaleresques de la Table
Ronde" (Paris, 1842), and comprising a French translation of the
Mabinogion of Geraint and Peredur, with introductory essays and detailed
explanatory notes. The translation of Peredur is preceded by a study of
Chrestien's poem, in which the following conclusions are stated: The Grail
is Celtic in origin, the French term being equivalent to the Welsh _per_,
and having a like meaning, basin. It is the Druidic basin alluded to by
Taliessin, the same which figures in the Mabinogi of Branwen, which
appears in the oldest folk-tales of Brittany, and which is sought for in
the twelfth century Mabinogi by Peredur, _i.e._, the Basin-Seeker. The
original occult character of the Druidic basin, and of the lance, the
bardic symbol of undying hatred to the Saxon, disappears in the Mabinogi,
the tone and character of which are purely romantic. Composed among a
people comparatively unused to the chivalrous ideal, it breathes, however,
a rude and harsh spirit. But such as it is, it forms the groundwork of
Chrestien's poem. Comparison between the two demonstrates the simple
character of the Welsh romance, and shows how the French poet sought to
transform it by an infusion of feudal courtliness and religious mysticism.
In its last stage of development the story reverts to its pristine,
occult, and mystic character.
Much of what M. de la Villemarqué says is sound and telling; but,
unfortunately, although well aware that the French poem is the work of
three men and not of one, he yet treats it as an organic whole, and thus
deprives the larger part of his comparison of all value. Moreover, he
supports his thesis by arguments based upon a Breton poem (the story of
which is similar to that of Perceval's youth), ascribed without the shadow
of evidence to the end of the tenth century.
In 1861 M. de la Villemarqué reprinted his work with extensive additions,
under the title of "Les Romans de la Table Ronde et les Contes des Anciens
Bretons." The section summarised above remained substantially unaltered,
but considerable extension was given to the author's views concerning the
mode of development of the romances. The points chiefly insisted upon are:
the similarity of metre between the Welsh poem and the French metrical
romances; the delight of the Plantagenet kings in the Welsh traditions and
the favour showed them; and the early popularity of the Welsh and Breton
singers. Villemarqué's last word upon the subject is that the Welsh
storytellers received from the ancient bards a pagan tradition, which,
changed in character and confounded with the Mystery of the Sacrament,
they handed on to the romance writers of Northern France and Germany, who
gave it a fresh and undying life.
Villemarqué's views were worked up by Mr. Baring Gould in his essay on the
Sangreal ("Curious Myths of the Middle Ages," 1867) and in this form or in
their original presentment won wide acceptance as the authoritative
exposition of the Celtic origin of the cycle.
In England, Mr. Halliwell, when editing, in 1844, the Thornton Sir
Perceval, derived it from Chrestien and his continuators, in spite of the
omission of Lance and Grail, on account of the sequence of incidents being
the same. The Mabinogi is alluded to as an adaptation of Chrestien. The
supposition that Perceval's nick-name, "le Gallois," implies the Welsh
origin of the story is rejected as absurd.
In Germany the Grail-cycle formed the subject of careful investigation on
the part of San Marte (A. Schulz) for some years prior to 1840. From 1836
to 1842 he brought out a modern German translation of Wolfram von
Eschenbach's Parzival, accompanied by an elaborate essay on the genesis of
the legend, and in 1841, "Die Arthur-Sage und die Mährchen des rothen
Buchs von Hergest." In the latter work a careful analysis of the Mabinogi
leads to the following conclusions:--Locale and persons are purely Welsh;
tone and character are older than the age of the Crusades and Knighthood;
it may be looked upon with confidence as the oldest known source of the
Perceval _sage_. In comparing the Mabinogi with Kiot's (_i.e._, Wolfram's)
version, stress is laid upon the task imposed upon Peredur, which is held
to be different in character and independent in origin from the Grail
Quest in Kiot. The Thornton Sir Perceval is claimed as the representative
of an early Breton _jongleur_ poem which knew nothing of the Grail story.
In the former work Wolfram von Eschenbach's poem is accepted, so far as
its framework is concerned, as a faithful echo of Kiot's, the Provencal
origin of which is proved by its Oriental and Southern allusions. The
Provencals may have obtained the Peredur _sage_ direct from Brittany, they
at any rate fused it with the Grail legend. Their version is an artistic
whole, whereas the North French one is a confused string of adventures.
Chrestien's share in the latter is rightly distinguished from that of his
continuators, and these are dated with fair accuracy. Robert de Borron is
mentioned, but as a thirteenth century adapter of earlier prose versions;
the Grand St. Graal is placed towards the middle of the thirteenth
century. In analysing the Joseph of Arimathea form of the legend, the
silence of the earlier British historians concerning Joseph's
evangelisation of Britain is noted, and 1140 is given as the earliest
date of this part of the legend. The captivity of Joseph arises probably
from a confusion between him and Josephus. There is no real connection
between the Joseph legend and that of the Grail. Wolfram's Templeisen
agree closely with the Templars, one of the main charges against whom was
their alleged worship of a head from which they expected riches and
victuals, and to which they ascribed the power of making trees and flowers
to bloom.[59]
San Marte's translation of Wolfram was immediately (1842) followed by
Simrock's, whose notes are mainly directed against his predecessor's views
on the origin and development of the Grail legend. The existence of Kiot
is contested; the _differentia_ between Wolfram and Chrestien are unknown
to Provençal, but familiar to German, poetry. The Grail myth in its oldest
form is connected with John the Baptist. Thus in the Mabinogi the Grail is
represented by a head in a platter; the head the Templars were accused of
worshipping has probably the same origin; the Genoese preserved the Sacro
Catino, identified by them with the Grail, in the chapel of St. John the
Baptist; Chrestien mentions with especial significance, St. John's Eve
(Midsummer Eve). The head of St. John the Baptist, found, according to the
legend, in the fourth century, was carried later to Constantinople, where
in the eleventh century it is apparently used to keep an emperor from
dying (even as of the Grail, it is told, no one could die the day he saw
it). If Wolfram cuts out the references to the Baptist, _en revanche_ he
brings Prester John into the story. The essential element in the Grail is
the blood in the bowl, symbol of creative power as is the Baptist's head,
both being referable to the summer equinox. Associated with John the
Baptist is Herodias, who takes the place of an old Germanic goddess,
Abundia, as John does of Odin or Baldur.[60] The essence of the myth is
the reproductive power of the blood of the slain god (Odin-Hackelberend,
Baldur, Adonis, Osiris). As the Grail may only be seen by those to whom
God's grace is granted, so in the German folk-tale the entrance to the
hollow mounds wherein lies treasure or live elves is only visible to
Sunday children or pure youths. Thus, too, no man may find the grave of
Hackelberg (Odin). Such caves, when entered, close upon the outgoing
mortal as the Grail Castle portcullis closes upon Parzival. Many of
Gauvain's adventures appear in German folk-tradition. As to Parzival's
youth "it cannot be doubted that we have here a variation of the Great
Fool folk-tale (Dummling's Märchen) found among all people. It is hard to
say what people possessing this tale brought it into contact, either by
tradition or in writing, with the Grail story, but that people would have
the first claim among whom it is found in an independent form." The
Mabinogi explanation of the Grail incident is unacceptable, and the
Mabinogi itself is later than Chrestien, as is shown by its foolish
invention of the witches of Gloucester, and by its misrendering the
incident of the dwarves greeting Peredur. In the original folk-tale the
ungainly hero was _laughed at_, not greeted. The Thornton Sir Perceval may
possibly contain an older version of Perceval's youth than any found
elsewhere. Wolfram's poem represents, however, the oldest and purest form
of the Grail myth, which, originally pagan, only became fully
Christianised in the hands of the later North French poets.
Simrock's speculations, though marred by his standing tendency to claim
over much for German tradition, are full of his usual acute and ingenious,
if somewhat fanciful, learning. His ignorance of Celtic tradition
unfortunately prevented his following up the hint given in the passage
quoted above which I have adopted as one of the mottoes of the present
work.
In 1855 Rochat published ("Ueber einen bisher unbekannten Percheval li
Gallois," Zurich) selections from a Berne MS. containing part of Gautier
de Doulens' continuation of Chrestien (v. 21,930 to end, with thirteen
introductory and fifty-six concluding original lines, _cf._ p. 19), and
entered at some length into the question of the origin and development of
the Grail legend. The Mabinogi, contrary to San Marte's opinion, is placed
after Chrestien. Villemarqué's ballad of Morvan le Breiz is the oldest
form of the Perceval _sage_, then comes the Thornton Sir Perceval, a
genuine popular production derived probably from a Welsh original. In
spite of what San Marte says, the Grail incident is found in the Mabinogi,
and it might seem as if Chrestien had simply amplified the latter. On San
Marte's theory of the (Southern) origin of the Grail myth, this, however,
is impossible, and the fact that the Mabinogi contains this incident is a
proof of its lateness.
Up to 1861 all writers upon the Grail legend were under this disadvantage,
that they had no complete text of any part of the cycle before them,[61]
and were obliged to trust largely to extracts and to more or less
carefully compiled summaries. In that year Mr. Furnivall, by the issue for
the Roxburghe Club of the Grand St. Graal, together with a reprint of
Robert de Borron's poem (first edited in 1841 by M. Franc. Michel),
provided students with materials of first-rate importance. His
introductory words are strongly against the Celtic origin of the story,
and are backed up by a quotation from Mr. D. W. Nash, in which that
"authority who really knows his subject" gives the measure of his critical
acumen by the statement that the Mabinogi of Peredur can have nothing to
do with the earliest form of the legend, because "in Sir T. Malory,
Perceval occupies the second place to Galahad." In fact, neither the
editor nor Mr. Nash seems to have tried to place the different versions,
and their assertions are thus of little value, though they contributed,
nevertheless, to discredit the Celtic hypothesis. San Marte, in an essay
prefixed to the first volume, repeated his well-known views respecting the
source of Wolfram's poems, and, incidentally, protested against the idea
that the Mabinogi is but a Welshified French romance.
In 1862 the accomplished editor of the "Popular Tales of the West
Highlands," Mr. J. F. Campbell, published in his second volume (p. 152)
some remarks on the Story of the Lay of the Great Fool, which ended thus,
"I am inclined ... to consider this 'Lay' as one episode in the adventures
of a Celtic hero, who, in the twelfth century became Perceval le
chercheur du basin. He too, was poor, and the son of a widow, and half
starved, and kept in ignorance by his mother, but, nevertheless ... in the
end he became possessed of that sacred basin, le Saint Graal, and the holy
lance, which, though Christian in the story, are manifestly the same as
the Gaelic talismans which appear so often in Gaelic tales, and which have
relations in all popular lore--the glittering weapon which destroys, and
the sacred medicinal cup which cures." I have taken these words as a motto
for my studies, which are, indeed, but an amplification of Mr. Campbell's
statement. Had the latter received the attention it deserved, had it, for
instance, fallen into the hands of a scholar to whom Simrock's words
quoted on p. 101 were familiar, there would, in all probability, have been
no occasion for the present work.
The publication of texts was continued by Mr. Furnivall's issue, in 1864,
for the Roxburghe Club, of the Quête del Saint Graal from a British Museum
MS. The opening of twelve MSS. from the Bibliothèque Nationale is likewise
given, and shows substantial unity between them and Mr. Furnivall's text.
In 1868 Mons. Paulin Paris published, in the first volume of his "Romans
de la Table Ronde," a general introduction to the Round Table cycle, and a
special study upon the Metrical Joseph and the Grand St. Graal. A large
share of influence is assigned to Celtic traditions through the medium of
Breton _lais_. The Early History of the Grail is a British legend, and
embodies the national and schismatic aspirations of the British Church.
The date given in the prologue to the Grand St. Graal, and repeated by
Helinandus, is accepted as the genuine date of a redaction of the legend
substantially the same as that found later in the Grand St. Graal. The
word "Grail" is connected with the Latin _gradale_, modern gradual, and
designated the book in which the tradition was first written down. The
Grand St. Graal is anterior to Chrestien's poem, and Robert de Borron's
poem in the first draft preceded the Grand St. Graal, and was written
between 1160 and 1170, but he subsequently revised it towards 1214, as is
shown by his alluding, l. 3,490, "O mon seigneur, Gauter _en peis_" (where
the underlined words are equivalent to the Latin _in pace_) to Gautier of
Montbeliard in the past tense. From 1868 to 1870 M. Potvin brought out
his edition of the Conte du Graal, and of the prose Perceval le Gallois
from Mons MSS. In the after-words priority is claimed for the latter
romance over all other members of the cycle, and three stages are
distinguished in the development of the legend--Welsh national--militant
Christian--knightly--the prose romance belonging to the second stage, and
dating substantially from the eleventh century. The lance and basin are
originally pagan British symbols, and between the lines of the Grail
legend may be read a long struggle between heretic Britain and orthodox
Rome. The Perceval form of the Quest is older than the Galahad one. The
Joseph of Arimathea forms are the latest, and among these the Grand St.
Graal the earliest.
Conclusions as paradoxical as some of these appear in Dr. Bergmann's "The
San Grëal, an Enquiry into the Origin and Signification of the Romance of
the S. G.," Edinburgh, 1870. The idea of the Grail is due entirely to
Guyot, as also its connection with the Arthurian cycle. Chrestien followed
Guyot, but alters the character of the work, for which he is reproved by
Wolfram, who may be looked upon as a faithful representative of the
earlier poet. Chrestien's alterations are intended to render the poem more
acceptable in knightly circles. On the other hand Walter Map found Guyot
too secular and heretical, and wrote from a purely ecclesiastical
standpoint the Latin version of the legend in which the Grail is
associated with Joseph of Arimathea. This version forms the basis of
Robert de Borron, author of the Grand St. Graal and of the continuators of
Chrestien. Although Bergmann denies the Celtic origin of the Grail itself,
he incidentally accepts the authenticity of the Mabinogi of Peredur, and
admits that the whole framework of the story is Celtic.
In the endeavour to prove the paradox that one of the latest, most highly
developed, and most mystic of all the versions of the legend (viz.,
Wolfram's) really represents the common source of them all, Bergmann is
compelled to make the most gratuitous assumptions, as a specimen of which
may be quoted the statement that the _roi-pecheur_ is originally the
_sinner_ king, and that it is by mistake that the North French _trouvères_
represent him as a _fisher_.
Bergmann's views passed comparatively unnoticed. They are, indeed,
alluded to with approval in Professor Skeat's edition of Joseph of
Arimathea, a fourteenth century alliterative abridgement of the Grand St.
Graal (E. E. Text Soc., 1871). In the editor's preface the Glastonbury
traditions concerning the evangelisation of Britain by Joseph are taken as
a starting point, two parts being distinguished in them, the one
_legendary_, tallying with William of Malmesbury's account, and, perhaps,
of considerable antiquity, the other _fabulous_, introducing the
personages and incidents of the romances and undoubtedly derived from
them. Some twenty years after the publication of the "Historia Britonum"
Walter Map probably wrote a Latin poem, from which Robert de Borron, the
Grand St. Graal, and, perhaps, the other works of the cycle were derived.
"Grail" is a bowl or dish. Chrestien may have borrowed his Conte du Graal
from Map; the "Quest" is probably an after-thought of the romance writers.
Speculations such as these were little calculated to further the true
criticism of the Grail cycle. Some few years later, in 1875, the then
existing texts were supplemented by M. Hucher's work, so often quoted in
these pages. In an introduction and notes displaying great research and
ingenuity, the following propositions are laid down:--The Grail is Celtic
in origin, and may be seen figured upon pre-Christian Gaulish coins.
Robert de Borron's poem may be called the Petit St. Graal, and its author
was a lord of like-named territory near Fontainebleau, who between 1147
and 1164 made large gifts to the Abbey of Barbeaux, which gifts are
confirmed in 1169 by Simon, son of said Robert. About 1169 Robert came to
England, met Walter Map, and was initiated by him into the knowledge of
the Arthurian romance, and of the legend of the Holy Grail. Between 1170
and 1199 he entered the service of Walter of Montbeliard and wrote (in
prose) the Joseph of Arimathea and the Merlin. At a later period he
returned to England, and wrote, in conjunction with Map, the Grand St.
Graal. This is shown by MS. 2,455 Bibl. Nat. (of the Grand St. Graal): "Or
dist li contes qui est estrais de toutes les ystoires, sî come Robers de
Borons le translatait de latin en romans, à l'ayde de maistre Gautier
Map." But Hélie de Borron, author of the Tristan and of Guiron le
Courtois, calls Robert his friend and kinsman. Hélie has been placed
under Henry III, who has been assumed to be the Henry to whom he dedicates
his work; if so can he be the friend of Robert, who wrote some fifty years
earlier? Hélie should, however, be placed really under Henry II. Robert
wrote originally in prose; the poem contains later etymological and
grammatical forms, though it has occasionally preserved older ones;
besides in v. 2,817 etc. (_supra_, p. 83) it refers to the deliverance of
Moys by the Promised Knight, and thus implies knowledge of the Grand St.
Graal; this passage is omitted by most of the prose versions, thus
obviously older. Then the poem is silent as to the Christianising of
Britain mentioned by one prose version (C.). We may accept Borron's
statement as to his having dealt later with the histories of Moys and
Petrus, and as to his drawing his information from a Latin original.
Merlin is the pivot of Borron's conception. In comparing the third part of
his trilogy (Joseph of Arimathea, Merlin, Perceval) with Chrestien it must
be born in mind that Chrestien reproduces rather the English
(Joseph--Galahad), than the French (Brons--Perceval) form of the Quest,
and this, although the framework of Chrestien and Robert's Perceval is
substantially the same. Chrestien's work was probably preceded by one in
which the Peredur story as found in the Mabinogi was already adapted to
the Christianised Grail legend. There are frequent verbal resemblances
between Robert and Chrestien (_i.e._, Gautier, Hucher never distinguishing
between Chrestien and his continuators) which show a common original for
both. It is remarkable that Chrestien should never mention Brons, and that
there should be such a difference in the stories of the Ford Perillous and
the Ford Amorous. It is also remarkable that Robert, in his Perceval,
should complain that the _trouvères_ had not spoken of the Good Friday
incident which is to be found in Chrestien.
M. Hucher failed in many cases to see the full significance of the facts
he brought to light, owing to his incorrect conception of the development
of the cycle as a whole, and of the relation of its component parts one to
the other. He made, however, an accurate survey of the cycle possible. The
merit of first essaying such a survey belongs to Zarncke in his admittedly
rough sketch, "Zur Geschichte der Gralsage," published in the third
volume (1876) of Paul and Braune's Beitraege.--The various forms may be
grouped as follows: (1) Borron's poem, (2) Grand St. Graal, (3) Quête, (4)
Chrestien, (5 and 6) Chrestien's continuators, (7) Didot MS. Perceval, (8)
Prose Perceval li Gallois. Neither the Spanish-Provencal nor the Celtic
origin of the legend is admissible; it has its source wholly in the
apocryphal legends of Joseph of Arimathea, in which two stages may be
distinguished; the first represented by the Gesta Pilati and the Narratio
Josephi, which tell how Christ appeared to Joseph in prison and released
him therefrom; the second by the Vindicta Salvatoris, which combines the
legends of the healing of Tiberius with that of Titus or Vespasian. Joseph
being thus brought into contact with Titus, the space of time between the
two is accounted for by the forty years captivity, and the first hint was
given of a miraculous sustaining power of the Grail. Borron's poem is
still purely legendary in character; the fish caught by the rich fisher is
the symbol of Christ; the incident of the waiting for the Promised Knight
belongs, however, not to the original tradition but to a later style of
Christian mysticism. The Grand St. Graal and the Quête extend and develop
the _donnée_ of the poem, whilst in Chrestien tone, atmosphere, and
framework are profoundly modified, yet there is no reason to postulate for
Chrestien any other sources than Nos. 1-3, the differences being such as
he was quite capable of deliberately introducing. As for No. 7 (the
Didot-Perceval) it is later than Chrestien and his continuators, and has
used both. Wolfram von Eschenbach had only Chrestien for his model, Kiot's
poem being a feigned source. The legend of the conversion of Britain by
Joseph is no genuine British tradition; William of Malmesbury's account of
Glastonbury is a pamphlet written to order of the Norman Kings, and
incapable of serving as a representative of Celtic tradition. The passages
therein relating to Joseph are late interpolations, disagreeing with the
remainder of his work and disproved by the silence of all contemporary
writers.
Zarncke's acute article was a praiseworthy attempt to construct a working
hypothesis of the growth of the cycle. But it is full of grave
misconceptions, as was, perhaps, inevitable in a hasty survey of such an
immense body of literature. The versions are "placed" most incorrectly.
The argumentation is frequently marred by _a priori_ reasoning, such as
that Chrestien, the acknowledged leading poet of the day, could not have
copied Kiot, and by untenable assertions, such as that Bran, in the
Mabinogi of Branwen, the daughter of Llyr, is perhaps a distant echo of
Hebron in Robert de Borron's poem. He had, however, the great merit of
clearing the ground for his pupil, A. Birch-Hirschfeld, and urging him to
undertake what still remains the most searching and exhaustive survey of
the whole cycle: "Die Sage vom Gral," etc. As Birch-Hirschfeld's analysis
is at present the only basis for sound criticism, I shall give his views
fully:--The Grand St. Graal, as the fullest of the versions dealing with
the Early History of the Grail, is the best starting-point for
investigation. From its pronounced religious tone monkish authorship may
be inferred. Its treatment of the subject is not original as is shown by
(1) the repetition _ad nauseam_ of the same motive (_e.g._, that of the
lance wound four times), (2) the pedigrees, (3) the allusions to
adventures not dealt with in the book, and in especial to the Promised
Knight. The testimony of Helinand (see _supra_, p. 52), which is of
first-rate importance, does not allow of a later date for the Grand St.
Graal than 1204. On turning to the Queste it is remarkable that though
sometimes found in the MSS. in conjunction with the Grand St. Graal it is
also found with the Lancelot, and, when the hero's parentage is
considered, it seems more likely that it was written to supplement the
latter than the former work. This supposition is adverse to any claim it
may lay to being held the earliest treatment of the subject, as it is
highly improbable that the Grail legend occupied at the outset such an
important place in the Arthurian romance as is thus accorded to it. Such a
claim is further negatived by the fact that the Queste has three heroes,
the second of whom is obviously the original one of an older version. In
estimating the relationship between the Grand St. Graal and the Queste it
should be borne in mind that the latter, in so far as it deals with the
Early History, mentions only Joseph, Josephe, Evelach (Mordrain) and
Seraphe (Nascien), from whom descends Galahad; that it brings Joseph to
England, and that it does not give any explanation of the nature of the
Grail itself. It omits Brons, Alain, the explanation of the name "rich
fisherman," the name of Moys, although his story is found in substantially
the same shape as in the Grand St. Graal, and is silent as to the origin
of the bleeding lance. If it were younger than and derived from the Grand
St. Graal alone, these points, all more important for the Early History
than the Mordrain episodes would surely have been dwelt upon. But then if
the Grand St. Graal is the younger work, whence does it derive Brons,
Alain, and Petrus, all of whom are introduced in such a casual way? There
was obviously a previous Early History which knew nothing of Josephe or of
Mordrain and his group, the invention of the author of the Queste, whence
they passed into the Grand St. Graal, and were fused in with the older
form of the legend. There is, moreover, a positive reference on the part
of the Grand St. Graal to the Queste (vol. ii., p. 225). The author of the
Queste introduced his new personages for the following reasons: He had
already substituted Galahad for the original hero, and to enhance his
importance gives him a fictitious descent from a companion of Joseph. From
his model he learnt of Joseph's wanderings in the East, hence the Eastern
origin of the Mordrain group. In the older form the Grail had passed into
the keeping of Joseph's nephew, in the Queste the Promised Knight descends
from the nephew of Mordrain; Brons, as the ancestor of the original Quest
hero necessarily disappears in the Queste, and his place is in large
measure taken by Josephe. The priority of the Queste over the Grand St.
Graal, and the use of the former by the latter may thus be looked upon as
certain. But if Mordrain is the invention of the Queste, what is the
meaning of his illness, of his waiting for the Promised Knight, of the
bleeding lance, and of the lame king whom it heals? These seem to have no
real connection with the Grail, and are apparently derived from an older
work, namely, Chrestien's Conte du Graal.
Chrestien's work, which ended at v. 10,601, may be dated as having been
begun not later than 1189 (_vide_ _supra_, p. 4). Its unfinished state
accounts for its having so little positive information about the Grail, as
Chrestien evidently meant to reserve this information for the end of the
story. But this very freedom with which the subject is handled is a proof
that he had before him a work whence he could extract and adapt as he saw
fit; moreover we have (Prologue, v. 475, etc.) his own words to that
effect. With Chrestien's account of the Grail--a bowl bejewelled, of
wondrous properties, borne by a maiden, preceded by a bleeding lance,
accompanied by a silver plate, guarded by a king wounded through both
ankles (whose only solace is fishing, whence his surname), ministering to
the king's father, sought for by Perceval, nephew to the fisher king, its
fate bound up with a question which the seeker must put concerning it--may
be compared that of the Queste, in which nothing is known of a question by
which the Grail kingship may be obtained (although it relates the same
incident of Lancelot), which knows not of one wounded king, centre of the
action, but of two, both of secondary importance (though possibly
Chrestien's Fisher King's father may have given the hint for Mordrain), in
which the lance is of minor importance instead of being on the same level
as the Grail. Is it not evident that the Queste took over these features
from Chrestien, compelled thereto by the celebrity of the latter's
presentment? The Queste thus presupposes the following works: a Lancelot,
an Early History, a Quest other than that of Chrestien's, and finally
Chrestien as the lame king and lance features show. It thus falls between
1189 (Chrestien begun) and 1204 (Grand St. Graal ended).
With respect to the three continuators of Chrestien it would seem that
Gautier de Doulens' account of the Grail, as found in the Montpellier MS.,
knowing as it does only of Joseph, and making the Fisher King and Perceval
descendants of his, belongs to an older stage of development than that of
Manessier and Gerbert, both of whom are familiar with the Mordrain group,
and follows that of the original version upon which both the Queste and
the Grand St. Graal are based. There is nothing to show that Gautier knew
of the Queste, whilst from Gautier the Queste may have possibly have taken
Perceval's sister and the broken sword. Gautier would thus seem to have
written immediately after Chrestien, and before the Queste, _i.e._, about
1195. As for the date of the other two continuators, the fact of their
having used the Queste is only one proof of the lateness of their
composition (as to the date of which see _supra_, p. 4). It must be noted
that whilst in their account of the Grail Chrestien's continuators are in
substantial accord with the Queste versions, and yet do not contradict
Chrestien himself, they add considerably to his account of the lance. This
is readily explained by the fact that as Chrestien gave no information
respecting the origin of either of the relics, they, the continuators, had
to seek such information elsewhere; they found all they could wish
respecting the Grail, but nothing as to the lance, the latter having been
first introduced by Chrestien, and the Queste versions knowing nothing
respecting it beyond what he told. Thus, thrown upon their own resources,
they hit upon the device of identifying the lance with the spear with
which Jesus was pierced as He hung on the Cross. This idea, a most natural
one, may possibly have been in Chrestien's intent, and _may_ have been
suggested to him by the story of the discovery of the Holy Lance in
Antioch half a century before. It must, however, be admitted that the
connection of the lance with the Grail legend in its earliest form is very
doubtful, and that Celtic legends may possibly have furnished it to
Chrestien, and indicated the use to which he intended putting it. The
analysis, so far, of the romances has resulted in the presupposition of an
earlier form; this earlier form, the source or basis of all the later
versions of the legend, exists in the so-called Petit St. Graal of Robert
de Borron. Of this work, found in two forms, a prose and a poetic one, the
poetic form, _pace_ Hucher, is obviously the older, Hucher's proofs of
lateness going merely to show that the sole existing MS. is a recent one,
and has admitted new speech-forms;[62] moreover the prose versions derive
evidently from one original. The greater simplicity of the poem as
compared with the Grand St. Graal proves its anteriority in that case;
Paulin Paris' hypothesis that the poem in its present state is a second
draft, composed after the author had made acquaintance with the Grand St.
Graal, is untenable, the poem's reference (v. 929 etc.) to the "grant
livre" and to the "grant estoire dou Graal," written by "nul home qui
fust mortal" (v. 3,495-6) not being to the Grand St. Graal, but having,
on the contrary, probably suggested to the writer of the latter his
fiction of Christ's being the real author of his work. The Grand St. Graal
used the poem conjointly with the Queste, piecing out the one version by
help of the other, and thereby entirely missing the sequence of ideas in
the poem, which is as follows: Sin, the cause of want among the people;
the separation of the pure from the impure by means of the fish (symbol of
Christ) caught by Brons, which fish does not feed the people, but, in
conjunction with the Grail, severs the true from the false disciples;
punishment of the self-willed false disciple; reward of Brons by charge of
the Grail. In the Grand St. Graal, on the contrary, the fish is no symbol,
but actual food, a variation which must be laid to the account of the
Queste. In a similar way the two Alains in the Grand St. Graal may be
accounted for, the one as derived from the poem, the second from the
Queste. As far as conception is concerned, the later work is no advance
upon the earlier one. To return to Borron's work, which consists of three
sections; there is no reason to doubt his authorship of the second,
Merlin, or of the third, Perceval, although one MS. only of the former
mentions the fact, and it is, moreover, frequently found in connection
with other romances, in especial with the Lancelot; as for Perceval, the
silence of the unique MS. as to Borron is no argument, as it is equally
silent in the Joseph of Arimathea section. All outward circumstances go to
show that Borron divided his work into three parts, Joseph, Merlin,
Perceval. But, if so, the last part must correspond in a fair measure to
the first one; recollect, however, that we are dealing with a poet of but
little invention or power of giving unity to discordant themes, and must
not expect to find a clearly traced plan carried out in every detail. Thus
the author's promise in Joseph to speak later of Moses and Petrus seems
not to be fulfilled, but this is due to Borron's timidity in the invention
of new details. What _is_ said of Moses does not disagree with the Joseph,
whereas a later writer would probably follow the Grand St. Graal account;
as for Petrus he is to be recognised in the hermit Perceval's uncle. There
may be some inconsistency here, but Borron _can_ be inconsistent, as is
shown by his treatment of Alain, who at first vows to remain virgin, and
afterwards marries. But a graver argument remains to be met; the lance
occurs in Perceval--now _ex hypothesi_ the first introduction of the lance
is due to Chrestien. The lance, however, only occurs in two passages, both
obviously interpolated. The identity of authorship is evident when the
style and phraseology of the two works are compared; in both the Grail is
always _li graaux_ or else _li veissel_, not as with the later versions,
_li saint graaux_; both speak of _la grace dou graal_; in both the Grail
is _bailli_ to its keeper, who has it _en guarde_; the empty seat is _li
liu vit_, not the _siège perilleux_. The central conception, too, is the
same--the Trinity of Grail-keepers symbolising the Divine Trinity. The
secret words given by Christ with the Grail to Joseph in prison, by him
handed on to Brons, are confided at the end of the Perceval by Brons to
the hero--and there is no trace of the Galahad form of the Quest, as would
inevitably have been the case had the Perceval been posterior in date to
the Queste. As the Perceval is connected with the Joseph, so it is equally
with the Merlin; it is remarkable that neither Merlin nor Blaise play a
prominent part in the Queste versions, but in Borron's poem Merlin is the
necessary binding link between the Apostolic and Arthurian ages. Again the
whole character of the Perceval speaks for its being one of the earliest
works of the cycle; either it must have used Chrestien and Gautier or they
it; if the former, is it credible that just those adventures which were
necessary to supply the ending to the Joseph could have been picked out?
But it is easy to follow the way in which Chrestien used the Perceval;
having the three-part poem before him he took the third only for his
canvas, left out all that in it related to the first two parts, all,
moreover, that related to the origin and early history of the Grail; the
story of the childhood is half indicated in the Perceval, and Chrestien
may have had Breton lays with which to help himself out; all relating to
the empty seat is left out as reaching back into the Early History; the
visit to Gurnemanz is introduced to supply a motive for the hero's conduct
at the Grail Castle; the wound of the Fisher King is again only an attempt
of Chrestien's to supply a more telling motive; as for the sword Chrestien
invented it; as he also did the Grail-messenger, whose portrait he copied
from that of Rosette la Blonde. The order of the last episodes is altered
by Chrestien sensibly for the better, as, with him, Perceval's doubt comes
first, then the Good Friday reproof, then the confession to and absolution
by the hermit; whereas in the Perceval the hero after doubt, reproof, and
absolution rides off again a-tourneying, and requires a second reproof at
Merlin's hands. It is easy to see here which is the original, which the
copy. Chrestien thus took with clear insight just what he wanted in the
Perceval to fit out his two heroes with adventures.[63] As for Borron's
guiding conception, his resolve to have nothing to do with the Early
History made him neglect it entirely; he only cared to produce a knightly
poem, and we find, in consequence, that he has materialised all the
spiritual elements of his model. Gautier de Doulens' method of proceeding
was much simpler: he took over all those adventures that Chrestien
purposely left out, and they may be found brought together (verses
22,390-27,390) with but few episodes (Perceval's visit to Blanchefleur,
etc.) entirely foreign to the model amongst them.[64] The Perceval cannot
be later than Gautier, as otherwise it could not stand in such close
relationship to the Joseph and Merlin; it must, therefore, be the source
of the Conte du Graal, and a necessary part of Borron's poem, which in its
entirety is the first attempt to bring the Joseph of Arimathea legend into
connection with the Arthur _sage_. The question as to the origin of the
Grail would thus seem answered, the Christian legendary character of
Borron's conception being evident; but there still remains the possibility
that that conception is but the Christianised form of an older folk-myth.
Such a one has been sought for in Celtic tradition. The part played by
Merlin in the trilogy might seem to lend colour to such an hypothesis, but
his connection with the legend is a purely artificial one. Nor is the
theory of a Celtic origin strengthened by reference to the Mabinogi of
Peredur. This knows nought of Merlin, and is nearer to Chrestien than to
the Didot-Perceval, and may, indeed, be looked upon as simply a clumsy
retelling of the Conte du Graal with numerous additions. A knowledge of
the Didot-Perceval on Chrestien's part must be presupposed, as where could
he have got the Fisher King and Grail Castle save from a poem which dealt
with the Early History of the Grail, a thing the Mabinogi does not do.
But, it may be said, Chrestien used the Mabinogi conjointly with Borron's
poem. That the Welsh tale is, on the contrary, only a copy is apparent
from the following considerations:--It mixes up Gurnemanz and the Fisher
King; it puts in the mouth of Peredur's _mother_ an exclamation about the
knights, "Angels they are my son," obviously misread from Perceval's
exclamation to the same effect in Chrestien's poem; _Perceval's_
love-trance over the three blood drops in the snow is explained in
Chrestien by the hero's passion for Blanchefleur, but is quite
inexplicable in the Mabinogi; again, in the Welsh tale, the lance and
basin episode is quite a secondary one, a fact easily explained if it is
looked upon as a vague reminiscence of Chrestien's unfinished work;
moreover the Mabinogi lays great stress upon the lance, which has already
been shown to belong to a secondary stage in the development of the
legend. Again the word Graal occurs frequently in old Welsh literature,
and invariably in its French form, never translated by any equivalent
Welsh term. As for the name Peredur, it is understandable that the Welsh
storyteller should choose the name of a national hero, instead of the
foreign name Perceval; the etymology Basin-Seeker is untenable. There is
no real analogy between the Grail and the magic cauldron of Celtic fable,
which is essentially one of renovation, whereas the Grail in the second
stage only acquires miraculous feeding, and in the third stage healing
powers. It is of course not impossible that such adventures in the
Mabinogi, as cannot be referred directly to Chrestien, may belong to a
genuine Peredur _sage_.
The question then arises--was Robert de Borron a simple copyist, or is the
legend in its present form due to him, _i.e._, did _he_ first join the
Joseph of Arimathea and Grail legends, or had he a predecessor? Now the
older Joseph legends know nothing of his wandering in company of a
miraculous vessel, Zarncke having shown the lateness of the one commonly
ascribed to William of Malmesbury. Nor is it likely Borron had before him
a local French legend as Paulin Paris (Romania, vol. i.) had supposed;
would he in that case have brought the Grail to England, and left Joseph's
fate in uncertainty? The bringing the Grail to England is simply the
logical consequence of his conception of the three Grail-keepers (the
third of British blood), symbolising the Trinity, and of the relation of
the Arthurian group to this central conception; where the third
Grail-keeper and the third of the three wondrous tables were, there the
Grail must also be. What then led Borron to connect the sacramental vessel
with the Joseph legend? In answering this question the later miraculous
properties of the Grail must be forgotten, and it must be remembered that
with Borron it is only a vessel of "grace;" this is shown in the history
of (Moys) the false disciple, which obviously follows in its details the
account of the Last Supper, and of the detection of Judas by means of the
dish into which Jesus dips a sop, bidding the betrayer take and eat.
Borron's first table being an exact copy of the Last Supper one, _his_
holy vessel has the property of that used by Christ. In so far Borron was
led to his conception by the story as told in the canonical books; what
help did he get from the Apocrypha? His mention of the Veronica legend and
certain details in his presentment of Vespasian's vengeance on the Jews
(_e.g._, his selling thirty for a penny) show him to have known the
Vindicta Salvatoris, in which Joseph of Arimathea appears telling of his
former captivity from which Christ Himself had delivered him. Thus Borron
knew of Joseph's living when Vespasian came to Jerusalem. From the Gesta
Pilati he had full information respecting the imprisonment of Joseph; he
combined the accounts of these two apocryphal works, substituting a simple
visit of Christ to Joseph for the deliverance as told in the Gesta Pilati,
and making Vespasian the deliverer, whereto he may have been urged by
Suetonius' account of the freeing of _Josephus_ by Vespasian (Vesp. ch.
v.). But why should Joseph become the Grail-keeper? Because the fortunes
of the vessel used by the Saviour symbolise those of the Saviour's body;
as _that_ was present at the Last Supper, was brought to Pilate, handed
over to Joseph, was buried, and after three days arose, so with the Grail.
Compare, too, Christ's words to Joseph (892, etc.) in which the symbolical
connection of the laying in the grave and the mass is fully worked out.
Thus Joseph who laid Christ's body in the grave is the natural guardian of
the symbol which commemorates that event, thus, too, the Grail is the
natural centre point of all the symbolism of mass and sacrament, and thus
the Grail found its place in the Joseph legend, ultimately becoming its
most important feature. Need Perceval's question detain us? May it not be
explained by the fact that as Joseph had to apply twice for Christ's body,
so his representative, the Grail-seeker, had to apply twice for the symbol
of Christ's body, the Grail? But it is, perhaps, best to consider the
question and the Fisher King's weakness as inventions of Borron's,
possibly derived from Breton sources, the ease with which the hero fulfils
a task explained to him beforehand favouring such a view. Borron, it must
be noticed, had no great inventive power; in the Joseph he is all right so
long as he has the legend to follow; in the Merlin and the Perceval he
clings with equal helplessness to the Breton sagas, confining himself to
weaving clumsily the adventures of the Grail into the regular Arthur
legend.
The question as to the authorship of the Grand St. Graal and the Queste,
the latter so confidently attributed to W. Map, may now profitably be
investigated. Map, who we know flourished 1143-1210 (see _supra_, p. 5),
took part in all the political and social movements of his time. If we
believe the testimony of the MSS. which ascribe to him the authorship of
the following romances: (1) the Lancelot, in three parts; (2) the Queste;
(3) the Mort Artur; (4) the Grand St. Graal, he would seem to have shown a
literary activity quite incompatible with his busy life, when it is
remembered how slow literary composition was in those days. Nor can it be
reconciled with the words of Giraldus Cambrensis,[65] although Paulin
Paris (Rom. i. 472) has attempted such a reconciliation by the theory that
the words _dicere_ and _verba dare_ referred to composition in the
vernacular, and that Map was opposing not his _oratorical_ to Gerald's
_literary_ activity, but his _French_ to Gerald's _Latin_ works. Against
this initial improbability and Gerald's positive testimony must be set, it
is true, the witness of writers of the time and of the MSS. The most
important is that of Hélie de Borron in his prologue to Guiron le
Courtois.[66] After telling how Luces de Gast was the first to translate
from the Latin book into French, and he did part of the story of Tristan,
he goes on: "Apriés s'en entremist maistre Gautiers Map qui fu clers au
roi Henry et devisa cil l'estoire de monseigneur Lancelot du Lac, que
d'autre chose ne parla il mie gramment en son livre. Messiers Robers de
Borron s'en entremist après. Je Helis de Borron, par la prière monseigneur
de Borron, et pour ce que compaignon d'armes fusmes longement, en
commençai mon livre du Bret." Again in the epilogue to the Bret,[67] "Je
croi bien touchier sor les livres que maistres Gautiers Maup fist, qui fit
lou propre livre de monsoingnour Lancelot dou Lac; et des autres granz
livres que messires Robert de Berron fit, voudrai-je prendre aucune flor
de la matière ... en tel meniere que li livres de monsoingnour Luces de
Gant et de maistre Gautier Maapp et ciz de monsoingnour Robert de Berron
qui est mes amis et mes paranz charnex s'acourderont au miens livres--et
je qui sui appelex Helyes de Berron qui fui engendrez dou sanc des gentix
paladins des Barres qui de tous tens ont été commendeour et soingnor
d'Outres en Roménie qui ores est appelée France." Now Hélie cannot
possibly belong to the reign of Henry II (+ 1189) as asserted by Hucher
(p. 59), as he speaks of Map in the past tense (_fu_ clers), and Map
outlived Henry, moreover the mention of Romenie proves the passage to have
been written after the foundation of the Latin Empire in 1304. Hélie's
testimony is thus not that of an immediate contemporary, and it only shows
that shortly after Map's death the Lancelot was ascribed to him. It is,
moreover, in so far tainted, that he speaks with equal assurance
respecting the great Latin book which of course never existed; nor can we
believe him when he says that he was the comrade of Robert de Borron, as
this latter wrote before Chrestien, and must have been at least thirty
years older than Hélie, who in the Guiron (written about 1220) calls
himself a young man. How is it with the testimony of the MSS.? Those of
the Lancelot have unfortunately lost their colophon, owing to the Queste
being almost invariably added; those of the Queste show as a rule a
colophon such as the one quoted by Paulin Paris from the Bibl. Nat., MS.
6,963 (MSS. Franç II., p. 361): "Maistre Gautiers Map les estrait pour son
livre faire dou Saint-Graal, pour l'amor del roy Henri son seignor, qui
fist l'estore translater dou latin en françois." A similar statement
occurs in a MS. of the Mort Artur (Bib. Nat. 6,782.). Both are equally
credible. Now as the King can only be Henry II (+ 1189) and as the Queste
preceded the Mort Artur it must be put about 1185, and Chrestien's Conte
du Graal about 1180, an improbably early date when it is recollected that
the Conte du Graal is Chrestien's last work. The form, too, of these
colophons, expressed as they are in the third person, so different from
the garrulous first person complacency with which Luces de Gast and Hélie
de Borron announce their authorship, excites the suspicion that we have
here not the author's own statement, but that of a copyist following a
traditional ascription. Whether or no Map wrote the Lancelot, it may
safely be assumed that he did not write the Queste, or _a fortiori_ the
Grand St. Graal. The tradition as to his authorship of these romances may
have originated in Geoffrey's mention of the Gualterus archidiaconus
Oxenfordensis, to whom he owed his MS. of the Historia Regum Britanniae. A
similar instance of traditional ascription on the part of the copyist may
be noted in the MSS. of the Grand St. Graal, the author of which is
declared to be Robert de Borron. The ordinary formulæ (quoted _supra_, p.
5) should be compared with Borron's own words in the Joseph (_supra_, p.
5) and the difference in form noted. What proves these passages to be
interpolations is that the author of the Grand St. Graal especially
declares in his prologue that his name must remain a secret. The colophons
in question are simply to be looked upon as taken over from the genuine
ascription of Borron's poem, and there is no positive evidence as to the
authorship of either the Queste or the Grand St. Graal; both works are
probably French in origin, as is shown by the mention of Meaux in the
Grand St. Graal. As for the date of Borron's poem, a _terminus ad quem_ is
fixed by that of the Conte du Graal (1180); and as the poem is dedicated
to Gautier of Montbeliard, who can hardly have been born before 1150, and
who must have attained a certain age before he could become Robert's
patron, it must fall between the years 1170 and 1190.
The results of the investigation may be summed up as follows: the origin
of the Grail romances must be sought for in a Christian legend based
partly upon the canonical, partly upon the uncanonical, writings. This
Christian legend was woven into the Breton sagas by the author of the
oldest Grail romance; the theories of Provençal Spanish, or Celtic origin
are equally untenable, nor is there any need to countenance the fable of a
Latin original. Chronologically, the versions arrange themselves thus:--
(1) Between 1170 and 1190 (probably about 1183) Robert de Borron wrote
his trilogy: Joseph of Arimathea--Merlin--Perceval. Sources: Christian
legend (Acta, Pilati, Descensus Christi, Vindicta Salvatoris) and
Breton sagas (Brut?). Here the Grail is simply a vessel of grace.
(2) About 1189 Chrestien began his Conte du Graal, the main source of
which was the third part of Borron's poem. Marvellous food properties
attributed to the Grail; introduction of the bleeding lance, silver
dish, and magic sword.
(3) Between 1190 and 1200 Gautier de Doulens continued Chrestien's
poem. Main sources, third part of (1) and first part of same for Early
History--introduction of broken sword.
(4) Between 1190 and 1200 (but after Gautier?) the Queste du St. Graal
written as continuation to the Lancelot. Sources (1) and (2) (for
lance) and perhaps (3). New personages, Mordrain, Nascien, etc.,
introduced into Early History.
(5) Before 1204 Grand St. Graal written, mainly resting upon (4) but
with use also of first part of (1).
(6) Between 1214 and 1220. Manessier's continuation of the Conte du
Graal. For the Early History (5) made use of.
(7) Before 1225 Gerbert of Montreuil's additions to Manessier. Both
(4) and (5) used.
(8) About 1225 Perceval li Gallois; compiled from all the previous
versions.[68]
That part of Birch-Hirschfeld's theory which excited the most attention in
Germany bore upon the relationship of Wolfram to Chrestien (see _infra_,
Appendix A). In other respects his theory won very general acceptance. The
commendatory notices were, however, of a slight character, and no new
facts were adduced in support of his thesis. One opponent, however, he
found who did more than rest his opposition upon the view of Wolfram's
relationship to Chrestien. This was E. Martin, who ("Zeitschrift für d.
Alterthumskunde," 1878, pp. 84 etc.) traversed most of Birch-Hirschfeld's
conclusions. Whilst accepting the priority of Queste over Grand St. Graal
he did not see the necessity of fixing 1204 as a _terminus ad quem_ for
the latter work as we now have it, as Helinandus' statement might have
referred to an older version; if the Grand St. Graal could not be dated
neither could the Queste. As for the Didot-Perceval there was nothing to
prove that it was either Borron's work or the source of Chrestien and
Gautier. Birch-Hirschfeld's arguments to show the interpolation of the
lance passages were unsound; it was highly improbable either that
Chrestien should have used the Perceval as alleged, or that Borron, the
purely religious writer of the Joseph, should have changed his style so
entirely in the Perceval. Moreover, Birch-Hirschfeld made Borron dedicate
a work to Gautier of Montbeliard before 1183 when the latter must have
been quite a young man, nor was there any reason to discredit Hélie de
Borron's testimony that he and Robert had been companions in arms, a fact
incredible had the one written forty years before the other. The work of
Chrestien and his continuators must be looked upon as the oldest we had of
the Grail cycle. It was likely that older versions had been lost. A Latin
version might well have existed, forms such as Joseph de Barimaschie
(_i.e._, ab Arimathea) pointed to it. Martin followed up this attack in
his "Zur Gralsage, Untersuchungen," Strasburg, 1880. A first section is
devoted to showing that Wolfram must have had other sources than
Chrestien, and that in consequence such portions of his presentment as
differ from Chrestien's must be taken into account in reconstructing the
original form of the romance. The second and third sections deal with
Heinrich von dem Türlin's "Die Crone," and with the earliest form of the
tradition. Gawain's second visit to the Grail Castle, as told of by
Heinrich (_supra_, p. 26) has features in common with the widely-spread
traditions of aged men slumbering in caves or ruined castles, unable to
die until the right word is uttered which breaks their spell. This
conception differs from the one found in all the other versions inasmuch
as in them the wonder-working question releases, not from unnaturally
prolonged life, but from sore disease. Can a parallel be found in Celtic
tradition to this sufferer awaiting deliverance? Does not Arthur, wounded
well nigh to death by his nephew Modred, pass a charmed life in Avalon,
whither Morgan la Fay carried him for his healing, and shall he not return
thence to free his folk? The original conception is mythic--the summer god
banished by the winter powers, but destined to come back again. The _sage_
of Arthur's waiting, often in some subterranean castle, is widely spread,
two of the earliest notices (those of Gervasius of Tilbury, in the "Otia
Imperialia," p. 12 of Liebrecht's edition, and of Caesarius of
Heisterbach) connect it with Etna--the tradition had followed the Norman
Conquerors of Sicily thither--and from Sicily it would seem to have
penetrated to Germany, being first found in German tradition as told of
Frederick II. Again Gerald (A.D. 1188) in the "Itinerarium Cambriae"
(Frankfort, 1603, p. 827, L. 48) tells of a mountain chain in the
South-East of Wales: "quorum principalis Cadair Arthur dicitur i. Cathedra
Arthuri, propter gemina promontorii cacumina in cathedrae modum se
praeferentia. Et quoniam in alto cathedra et in ardua sita est, summo et
maximo Britonum Regi Arthuro vulgari nuncupatione est assignata." The
Eildon Hills may be noted in the same connection, "in which all the
Arthurian chivalry await, in an enchanted sleep, the bugle blast of the
adventurer who will call them at length to a new life" (Stuart Glennie,
"Arthurian Localities," p. 60). If the Grail King is Arthur, the bleeding
lance is evidently the weapon wherewith he was so sorely wounded. And the
Grail? this is originally a symbol of plenty, of a joyous and bountiful
life, hence of Avalon, that land of everlasting summer beyond the waves,
wherein, as the Vita Merlini has it, they that visit Arthur find
"planitiem omnibus deliciis plenam." Of those versions of the romance in
which the Christian conception of the Grail is predominant, Robert de
Borron's poem (composed about 1200) is the earliest, and in it, _maugre_
the Christianising of the story, the Celtic basis is apparent: the Grail
host go a questing Avalonwards; the first keepers are Brons and Alain,
purely Celtic names, the former of which may be compared with Bran; the
empty seat calls to mind the _Eren stein_ in Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's
Lanzelot, whereof (verse 5,178) _ist gesaget daz er den man niht vertruoc
an dem was valsch oder haz_. Admitting the purely Christian origin of the
Grail leads to this difficulty: the vessel in which Christ's blood was
received was a bowl, not an open or flat dish like that used in
commemoration of the Last Supper. Evidently the identification of the
Grail with the Last Supper cup is the latest of a series of
transformations. Nor can the Christian origin of the legend be held proved
by the surname of Fisher given to the Grail-keeper. True, neither
Chrestien nor Wolfram explains this surname, whilst in Borron's poem there
is at least a fish caught. But if the fish had really the symbolic meaning
ascribed to it would not a far greater stress be laid upon it? In any case
this one point is insufficient to prove the priority of Borron, and it is
simpler to believe that the surname of Fisher had in the original Celtic
tradition a significance now lost. Birch-Hirschfeld's theory supposes,
too, a development contrary to that observed elsewhere in mediæval
tradition. The invariable course is from the racial-heathen to the
Christian legendary stage. Is it likely that in the twelfth century, a
period of such highly developed mystic fancy, an originally Christian
legend should lose its mystic character and become a subject for minstrels
to exercise their fancy upon? In the earlier form of the romance there is
an obvious contrast between the task laid upon the Grail quester and that
laid upon Gawain at Castle Marvellous. The first has suffered change by
its association with Christian legend; but the second, even in those
versions influenced by the legend, has retained its primitive Celtic
character. The trials which Gawain has to undergo may be compared with
those imposed on him who seeks to penetrate into the underworld, as
pictured in the Purgatorium S. Patricii, in the Visio Tnugdali, etc. This
agrees well with the presentment of Castle Marvellous, an underworld realm
where dwell four queens long since vanished from Arthur's court, and
which, according to Chrestien (verse 9,388), Gawain, having once found,
may no longer leave. One of these queens is Arthur's mother, whom a
magician had carried off, a variant it would seem of the tradition which
makes Arthur's father, Uther, win Igerne from her husband by Merlin's
magic aid. Many other reminiscences of Celtic tradition may be found in
the romances--Orgeleuse, whom Gawain finds sitting under a tree by a
spring, is just such a water fairy as may be met with throughout the whole
range of Celtic folk-lore, and differs profoundly from the Germanic
conception of such beings.
W. Hertz, in his "Sage vom Parzival und dem Gral" (Breslau, 1882)
following, in the main, Birch-Hirschfeld, lays stress upon the two
elements, "_legend_" and "_sage_" out of which the romance cycle has
sprung. He does not overlook many of the weak points in Birch-Hirschfeld's
theory, _e.g._, whilst fully accepting the fish caught by Bron as the
symbol of Christ, he notices that the incident as found in Robert de
Borron, whom he accepts as the first in date of the cycle writers, is not
of such importance as to justify the stress laid upon the nickname "rich
fisher," by all the _ex hypothesi_ later writers. The word "rich" must, he
thinks, have originally referred to the abundant power of conversion of
heathen vouchsafed to the Grail-keeper, but even Robert failed to grasp
the full force of the allusion. Against Birch-Hirschfeld he maintains that
the connection of Joseph with the conversion of Britain in all the
versions shows that the legend must have assumed definite shape first on
British soil, and he looks upon the separatist and anti-papal tendencies
of the British Church as supplying the original impulse to such a legend.
The Grail belongs originally wholly to the "Legend;" only in the later
versions and in Wolfram, owing to the latter's ignorance of its real
nature, does it assume a magic and popular character. The lance, on the
other hand, is partly derived from the Celtic _sage_. The boyhood of
Perceval is a genuine folk-story, a great-fool tale, and had originally
nothing to do with the Grail, as may plainly be seen by reference to the
Thornton Sir Perceval, the most primitive form of the story remaining, the
Mabinogi, and the modern Breton tale of Peronnik, deriving directly or
indirectly from Chrestien. As for the question, although it presented much
that seemed to refer it to folk-tradition, as for instance in Heinrich von
dem Türlin's version, where Gawain's putting the question releases the
lord of the castle and his retainers from the enchantment of
life-in-death, yet the form of the question, "Je vos prie que vous me diez
que l'en sert de cest vessel," shows its original connection with the
Grail cultus, and necessitates its reference to the "Legend." Existing
versions fail, however, to give any satisfactory account of the question.
It is a matter of conjecture whether in the earliest form of the legend
(which Hertz assumes to have been lost) it was found in the same shape as
in the Didot-Perceval.
Birch-Hirschfeld's theory has already been implicitly criticised in
Chapter III. The considerations adduced therein, as well as Martin's
criticisms and Hertz's admissions, preclude the necessity of examining it
in further detail. Formally speaking, the theory rests upon the assumption
that we have Borron's work substantially as he wrote it, an assumption
which, as shown by the difference in _motif_ between the Metrical Joseph
and the Didot-Perceval, is inaccurate. Again, the theory does not account
for the silence of all the other versions respecting Brons and that
special conception of the Grail found in Borron's poem. Nor does it offer
any satisfactory explanation of the mysterious question which
Birch-Hirschfeld can only conjecture to have been a meaningless invention,
_eine harmlose Erfindung_, of Borron's. In fact, only such, portions of
the cycle are exhaustively examined as admit of reference to the alleged
originating idea, and a show of rigorous deduction is thus made, the
emptiness of which becomes apparent when the entire legend, and not one
portion only, is taken into account. Despite the learning and acuteness
with which it is urged, Birch-Hirschfeld's theory must be rejected, if it
were only because, as Martin points out, it postulates a development of
the legend which is the very opposite of the normal one. We cannot admit
that this vast body of romance sprang from a simple but lofty spiritual
conception, the full significance of which, unperceived even by its
author, was totally ignored, not only, were that possible, by Chrestien
and his continuators, but by the theologising mystics who wrote the Grand
St. Graal and the Queste--aye, and even by the latest and in some respects
the most theologically minded of all the writers of the cycle, the author
of the Prose Perceval le Gallois and Gerbert. We must say, with Otto Küpp
(Zacher's Zeitschrift, XVII, 1, p. 68), "die jetzt versuchte christliche
Motivierung ist ganz unglücklich geraten und kann in keiner Weise
befriedigen."
The field is thus clear for an examination of the Quest with a view to
determining whether the Grail really belongs to it or not. The first step
is to see what relationship exists between the oldest form of the Quest
and what have been called the non-Grail members of the cycle--_i.e._, the
Mabinogi of Peredur ab Evrawc and the Thornton MS. Sir Perceval. As
preliminary to this inquiry, an attempt must be made to determine more
closely the relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du
Graal--whether it be wholly derived from the latter, or whether it may
have preserved through other sources traces of a different form of the
story than that found in Chrestien.[69]
CHAPTER V.
Relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal--The former
not the source of the latter--Relationship of the Conte du Graal and
the Mabinogi--Instances in which the Mabinogi has copied
Chrestien--Examples of its independence--The incident of the blood
drops in the snow--Differences between the two works--The machinery of
the Mabinogi and the traces of it in the Conte du Graal--The
stag-hunt--The Mabinogi and Manessier--The sources of the Conte du
Graal and the relation of the various parts to a common original--Sir
Perceval--Steinbach's theory--Objections to it--The counsels in the
Conte du Graal--Wolfram and the Mabinogi--Absence of the Grail from
the apparently oldest Celtic form.
In examining the relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal,
the sequence of the incidents is of importance. This is shown in the
subjoined table (where the numbers given are those of the incidents as
summarized, chapter II), in which the Didot-Perceval sequence is taken as
the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIDOT-PERCEVAL. | CHRESTIEN. |
--------------------------------|-----------------------------|
Inc. |Inc. |
2. Perceval sets forth in |11. Only after the reproaches|
quest of the rich fisher. | of the loathly damsel |
| does Perceval first set |
| forth in quest of the |
| Grail. |
| |
3. Finds a damsel weeping over | 8. In so far as finding a |
a knight. Adventure with | damsel weeping over a |
dwarf and the Orgellos | dead knight, and (9) for |
Delande. | overcoming the Orgellous |
| de la Lande. |
| |
4. Arrival at the Chessboard | ... ... ... ... |
Castle. Adventure of the | |
stag hunt and loss of the | |
hound. | |
| |
5. Meeting with sister; | ... ... ... ... |
instruction concerning the | |
Grail; vow to seek it. | |
| |
6. Meeting with, confession |15. _After_ the Good Friday |
to, and exhortation from | incident. |
hermit uncle. | |
| |
7. Disregard of uncle's | ... ... ... ... |
exhortations (slaying a | |
knight), through thinking | |
of damsel of the | |
Chessboard. | |
| |
8. Meeting with Rosette and | ... ... ... ... |
Le Beau Mauvais (the | |
loathly damsel). | |
| |
9. Adventure at the Ford with | ... ... ... ... |
Urbains. | |
| |
10. The two children in the | ... ... ... ... |
tree. | |
| |
11. First arrival at Grail | 7. ... ... ... ... |
Castle. | |
| |
12. Reproaches of the wayside | 8. In so far as in both the |
damsel. | hero is reproached by a |
| wayside damsel. |
| |
13. Meeting with the damsel who | ... ... ... ... |
had carried off the stag's | |
head and hound, and second | |
visit to Castle of the | |
Chessboard. | |
| |
14. Period (7 years) of despair |15. ... ... ... ... |
ended by the Good Friday | |
incident. | |
| |
15. Tournament at Melianz de |13. But told of Gawain not |
Lis. Merlin's reproaches. | of Perceval. |
| |
16. Second arrival at Grail | ... ... ... ... |
Castle Achievement of Quest.| |
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
GAUTIER DE DOULENS.
---------------------------
Inc.
... ... ... ...
9. In so far as a damsel
is foundlamenting over
a knight.
7 and 8.
12.
12.
12. In so far as a knight
is slain, but _before_
the meeting with the
hermit.
11.
9. Ford Amorous; _entirely
different adventure_.
20. _One_ child.
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
13 and 18. Many adventures
being intercalated.
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
22.
---------------------------
The different sequence in the Didot-Perceval and Chrestien may be
explained, as Birch-Hirschfeld explains it, by the freedom which Chrestien
allowed himself in re-casting the work; but why should Gautier, who, _ex
hypothesi_, simply took up from Chrestien's model such adventures as his
predecessor had omitted, have acted in precisely the same way? If the
theory were correct we should expect to find the non-Chrestien incidents
of the Didot-Perceval brought together in at least fairly the same order
in Gautier. A glance at the table shows that this is not the case. In one
incident, moreover, the Didot-Perceval is obviously right and Gautier
obviously wrong, namely, in his incident 12, where the slaying of the
knight before the hero's meeting the hermit takes away all point from the
incident. An absolutely decisive proof that that portion of the Conte du
Graal which goes under Gautier's name (though it is by no means clear that
all of it is of the same age or due to one man), cannot be based upon the
Didot-Perceval as we now possess it, is afforded by the adventure of the
Ford Amorous or Perillous, which in the two versions is quite dissimilar.
This incident stands out pre-eminent in the Didot-Perceval for its wild
and fantastic character. It is a genuine Celtic _märchen_, with much of
the weird charm still clinging to it that is the birthright of the Celtic
folk-tale. It is inadmissible that Gautier could have substituted for this
fine incident the commonplace one which he gives.
If, then, it is out of the question that Gautier borrowed directly from
the Didot-Perceval, how are the strong resemblances which exist in part
between the two versions to be accounted for? Some of these resemblances
have already been quoted (_supra_, p. 75), the remainder may be usefully
brought together here.[70]
First arrival at the Castle of the Chessboard--
DIDOT-PERCEVAL. GAUTIER.
Li plus biaux chasteaux del monde Le bel castiel que je vos dis
et vit le pont abeissié et la . . . . .
porte deffermé (p. 439). Et vit si bièles les entrées
Et les grans portes desfremées
(22,395, etc.);
The damsel exhorts him not to throw the chessman into the water--
Votre cors est esmeuz à grant Car çou serait grans vilonie (22,503).
vilainie faire (p. 440).
Perceval having slain the stag, sees its head carried off--
Si vint une veille sor un palestoi Une pucièle de malaire
grant aléure et prist le brachet Vint cevauçant parmi la lande
et s'en ala or tot (p. 442). Voit le braket, plus ne demande
Par le coler d'orfrois le prist
. . . . . .
Si s'en aloit grant aléure
(22,604, etc.).
On Perceval threatening to take it away from her by force she answers--
Sire Chevalier, force n'est mie Force à faire n'est mie drois
droit et force me poez bien Et force me poés vos faire (22,640).
faire (p. 443).
In the subsequent fight with the Knight of the Tomb, he, overcome--
Se torna vers le tonbel grant Que fuiant vait grant aléure
aléure et li tombeaux s'enleva Vers l'arket et la sepouture
contre moultet chevalier s'en Si est entrés plus tost qu'il pot
feri enz (p. 444). (22,723, etc.).
In the description of Rosette (the loathly damsel)--
Ele avoit le col et les mains plus Le col avoit plus noir que fer
noires et le vier, que fer... (25,409).
(p. 453).
When the loathly damsel and her knight come to Arthur's court, Kay jests
as follows:--
Lors pria (_i.e._, Kay) le chevalier Biaus sire,
par la foi que il devoit, le roi, Dites moi, si Dex le vos mire,
qui li déist où il l'avoit prise et Si plus en a en vostre terre,
si en porroit une autre tele avoir, Une autèle en iroie querre
si il l'aloit querre (p. 457). Si jou le quidoie trover
(25,691 etc.).
These similarities are too great to be accidental. It will be noticed,
however, that they bear chiefly upon two adventures: that of the
chessboard and stag hunt, and that of the loathly maiden. As to the
latter, it is only necessary to allude to Birch-Hirschfeld's idea that
Rosette is the original of the damsel who reproaches Perceval before the
court with his conduct at the Grail Castle, a theory to state which is to
refute it. The former adventure will be closely examined in the following
section. There is no need to suppose direct borrowing on the part of one
or the other versions to account for the parallel in these two incidents;
a common original closely followed at times by both would meet the
requirements of the case. It is difficult to admit that the author of the
Didot-Perceval used Gautier's continuation and not Chrestien's original,
especially when the following fact, strangely overlooked by both
Birch-Hirschfeld and Hucher, is taken into account: Perceval on his first
arrival at the Grail Castle keeps silence (as will be seen by a reference
to the summary, _supra_, p. 31), because, "li souvenoit du prodome qui li
avoit deffandu que ne fust trop pallier," etc. As a matter of fact, the
"prodome" had forbidden nothing of the sort, and this casual sentence is
the first allusion to the motive upon which Chrestien lays so much stress
as explaining his hero's mysterious conduct at the Grail Castle. Evidently
the Didot-Perceval, which, to whoever considers it impartially, is an
obvious abridgment and piecing together of material from different
sources, found in one of its sources an episode corresponding to that of
Gonemans in Chrestien. But its author, influenced probably by the Galahad
version of the Quest, substituted for the "childhood" opening of this
hypothetical source the one now found in his version, and the Gonemans
episode went with the remainder of that part of the story. When the hero
comes to the Grail Castle, the author is puzzled; his hero knows
beforehand what he has to do, sets out with the distinct purpose of doing
it, and yet remains silent. To account for this silence the author uses
the motive belonging to a discarded episode, but applies the words to his
hermit, forgetting that he had put no such words into his mouth, and that,
attributed to him, the injunction to keep silence became simply
meaningless. Is the model treated in this way by the Didot-Perceval
Chrestien's poem? Hardly, for this reason. After the Good Friday incident
occurs the remarkable passage, quoted (_supra_, p. 31), as to the silence
of the _trouvères_ respecting it. Chrestien gives the incident in full,
and the author of the Perceval could have had no reason for his stricture,
or could not have ventured it had he been using Chrestien's work. Two
hypotheses then remain; the unknown source may have been a version akin to
that used by Chrestien and Gautier, or it may have been a summary
abridgment of the Conte du Graal, in which, _inter alia_, the Good Friday
incident was left out. In either case the presence of the passage in the
Perceval is equally hard of explanation; but the first hypothesis is
favoured by the primitive character of the incident of the Ford Perillous,
and several other features which will be touched upon in their place. The
Didot-Perceval would thus be an attempt to provide an ending for Borron's
poem by adapting to its central _donnée_ a version of the Perceval _sage_
akin to that which forms the groundwork of the Conte du Graal, its author
being largely influenced by the Galahad form of the Quest as found in the
_Queste_. If this view be correct, the testimony of Perceval (wherever not
influenced by Borron's poem or the _Queste_) is of value in determining
the original form of the story, the more so from the author's evident want
of skill in piecing together his materials. It will, therefore, be used in
the following section, which deals with the relationship of the Conte du
Graal and the Mabinogi of Peredur ab Evrawc.
_Relationship of the Conte du Graal and the Mabinogi._--As was seen in
Chapter IV, opinion began with Monsieur de Villemarqué by accepting the
Mabinogi as the direct source of the Conte du Graal, and has ended with
Zarncke and Birch-Hirschfeld in looking upon it as a more or less direct
copy. The most competent of living scholars in this matter, M. Gaston
Paris, has expressed himself in favour of this opinion in his recent
article on the Lancelot story (Romania, 1886).[71] Before dealing with the
question as presented in this form, Simrock's view, differing as it does
from that of all other investigators, deserves notice. He, too, looks upon
the Mabinogi as derived from Chrestien, and yet bases his interpretation
of the myth underlying the romance upon a feature, the bleeding head in
the dish, found only in it. But if the Mabinogi have really preserved here
the genuine form of the myth, it must represent an older version than
Chrestien's, and if, on the other hand, Chrestien be its only source, the
feature in question cannot belong to the earliest form of the story.
Simrock's theory stands then or falls in this respect by the view taken of
the relationship between the two versions, and need not be discussed until
that view has been stated.
To facilitate comparison, the incidents common to the two stories are
tabulated as under, those of the Mabinogi being taken as the standard:--
MABINOGI. CONTE DU GRAAL.
Inc. Inc. _Chrestien._
1. Encounter with the knights. 1.
2. Adventure with the damsel of 2.
the tent.
3. Avenging of the insult to 3 and 4.
Guinevere; incident of the
dwarves; departure from Court.
5. Arrival at house of first uncle 5. Gonemans.
(found fishing); instruction in
arms.
6. Arrival at house of second uncle 7. Uncle found fishing;
(Grail Castle). First sight of talismans, Grail and lance.
the talismans (head in basin and
lance).
7. Reproaches of foster-sister whom 8. Reproached by his cousin; also
he finds lamenting over a dead instructed by her about the
knight. magic sword.
8. Adventure with the damsel of the 6. Blanchefleur, Gonemant's
besieged castle who offers niece.
herself to hero.
9. Second meeting with the lady of 9.
the tent.
10. First encounter with the
sorceresses of Gloucester, who
are forced to desist from
assailing hero's hostess.
11. Adventure of the drops of blood 10.
in the snow.
20. Reproaching of Peredur before 11.
the Court by the loathly damsel.
21. Gwalchmai's adventure with the 14.
lady whose father he had slain.
22. Peredur's meeting the knight on 15. Hermit, hero's uncle.
Good Friday, and confession to
priest.
_Gautier._
24. Arrival at the Castle of Wonders Inc. 7, 8, and partly 13 and 18.
(Chessboard Castle); stag hunt;
loss of dog; fight with the
black man of the cromlech.
25. Second arrival at the (Grail) 22. In so far as Gautier ends his
castle; achievement of the Quest part of the story here with
by destruction of sorceresses of the hero's second arrival at
Gloucester. "Thus it is related the Grail Castle, but no
concerning the Castle of similarity in the incidents.
Wonders."
The sequence is thus exactly the same in the Mabinogi and in Chrestien,
with the single exception of the Blanchefleur incident, which, in the
French poem precedes, in the Welsh tale follows, the first visit to the
Grail Castle. The similarity of order is sufficient of itself to warrant
the surmise of a relation such as that of copy to original. If the
Mabinogi be examined closely, much will be found to strengthen this
surmise. Thus, Birch-Hirschfeld has pointed out that when Peredur first
sees the knights, and on asking his mother what they may be, receives the
answer, "Angels, my son"; this can only be a distorted reminiscence of
Perceval's own exclamation,
... Ha! sire Dex, Merchi!
Ce sont angle que je voi ci! (1,349-50).
as the hero's mother would be the last person to describe thus the knights
whom she has done her best to guard her son from knowledge of. Again,
Simrock has criticised, and with reason, the incident of Peredur's being
acclaimed by the dwarf on his arrival at Arthur's court as the chief of
warriors and flower of knighthood. In the corresponding incident in
Chrestien, the hero is told laughingly by a damsel that he should become
the best knight in the world, and she had not laughed for ten years, as a
fool had been wont to declare. This is an earlier form than that of the
Mabinogi, and closer to the folk-tale account. Thus, to take one instance
only, in Mr. Kennedy's Giolla na Chroicean Gobhar (Fellow with the
Goat-skin) [Fictions of the Irish Celts, p. 23], the hero comes to the
King of Dublin, as Peredur to Arthur, clad in skins and armed with a club.
"Now, the King's daughter was so melancholy that she didn't laugh for
seven years, but when she saw Tom of the Goat-skin knock over all her
father's best champions, then she let a great sweet laugh out of her," and
of course Tom marries her, but not until he has been through all sorts of
trials, aye, even to Hell itself and back. In Chrestien, the primitive
form is already overlaid; we hear nothing further of the damsel moved to
laughter nor of the prophetic fool; and in the Mabinogi it seems obvious
that the hailing of the hero, added in Chrestien to the older laughter,
has alone subsisted. Birch-Hirschfeld takes exception likewise to the way
in which Peredur's two uncles are brought upon the scene, the first one,
corresponding to Gonemans in Chrestien, being found fishing instead of the
real Fisher King, the lord of the Castle of the Magic Talismans, whilst at
the latter's, Peredur has to undergo trials of his strength belonging
properly to his stay at the first uncle's. Evidently, says
Birch-Hirschfeld, there has been a confusion of the two personages. Again,
when Peredur leaves his second uncle on the morrow of seeing the bleeding
head and spear, it is said, "he rode forth with his uncle's permission."
Can these words be a reminiscence of Chrestien's?
Et trueve le pont abaiscié,
Con li avoit ensi laissié
Por ce que rien nel detenist,
De quele eure qu'il venist
Que il ne passat sans arriest (4,565-69).
We shall see later on that in the most primitive form of the unsuccessful
visit to the Castle of the Talismans the hero finds himself on the morrow
on the bare earth, the castle itself having vanished utterly. The idea of
permission being given to leave is diametrically opposed to this earliest
conception, and its presence in the Mabinogi seems only capable of
explanation by some misunderstanding of the story-teller's model.
The Blanchefleur incident shows some verbal parallels, "The maiden
welcomed Peredur and put her arms around his neck."
Et la damosele le prent
Par le main débonnairement (3,025-26)
Et voit celi ajenouillie
Devant son lit qui le tenoit
Par le col embraciet estroit (3,166-68).
Can, too, the "two nuns," who bring in bread and wine, be due to the "Il
Abéies," which Perceval sees on entering Blanchefleur's town? It may be
noticed that in this scene the Welsh story-teller is not only more chaste,
but shows much greater delicacy of feeling than the French poet. Peredur's
conduct is that of a gentleman according to nineteenth century standards.
Chrestien, however, is probably nearer the historical reality, and the
conduct of his pair--
S'il l'a sor le covertoir mise
* * * *
Ensi giurent tote la nuit.
is so singularly like that of a Welsh _bundling_ couple, that it seems
admissible to refer the colouring given to this incident to Welsh sources.
Another scene presenting marked similarities in the two works is that in
which the hero is upbraided before the court by the loathly damsel. In the
Mabinogi she enters riding upon a _yellow_ mule with _jagged thongs_: in
Chrestien--
Sor une _fauve mule_ et tint
En sa main destre une escorgie (5,991-2).
"Blacker were her face and her two hands than the blackest iron covered
with pitch."
Ains ne véistes si noir fer
Come ele ot les mains et le cor (5,998-99).
"And she greeted Arthur and all his household except Peredur."
Le roi et ses barons salue
Tout ensamble comunalment
Fors ke Perceval seulement (6,020-3).
In the Mabinogi, Peredur is reproached for not having asked about the
streaming spear; in Chrestien "la lance qui saine" is mentioned first
although the Grail is added. Had Peredur asked the meaning and cause of
the wonders, the "King would have been restored to health, and his
dominions to peace."
Li rices rois qui moult s'esmaie
Fust or tos garis de sa plaie
Et si tenist sa tière en pais (6,049-51).
Whereas now "his knights will perish, and wives will be widowed, and
maidens will be left portionless"--
Dames en perdront lor maris,
Tières en seront essilies,
Et pucièles desconsellies;
Orfenes, veves en remanront
Et maint chevalier en morront (6,056, etc.).
In the "Stately Castle" where dwells the loathly damsel, are five hundred
and sixty-six knights, and "the lady whom he loves best with each," in
"Castle Orguellos" five hundred and seventy, and not one "qui n'ait s'amie
avoeques lui." "And whoever would acquire fame in arms and encounters and
conflicts, he will gain it there if he desire it."
Que la ne faut nus ki i alle,
Qui la ne truist joste u batalle;
Qui viout faire chevalerie,
Si là le quiert, n'i faura mie (6,075, etc.).
"And whoso would reach the summit of fame and honour, I know where he may
find it. There is a castle on a lofty mountain, and there is a maiden
therein, and she is detained a prisoner there, and whoever shall set her
free will attain the summit of the fame of the world."
Mais ki vorroit le pris avoir
De tout le mont, je quie savoir
Le liu et la pièce de terre
U on le porroit mius conquerre;
* * * *
A une damoisièle assise;
Moult grant honor aroit conquise,
Qui le siège en poroit oster
Et la pucièle délivrer (6,080, etc.).
In this last case certainly, in the other cases probably, a direct
influence, to the extent at least of the passages quoted, must be
admitted. But before concluding hastily that the Welsh story-teller is the
copyist, some facts must be mentioned on the other side. Thus the incident
of the blood drops in the snow, which Birch-Hirschfeld sets down as one of
those taken over by the Mabinogi, with the remark that the Welsh story
contains no trace of a passion as strong as Perceval's for Blanchefleur,
has been dealt with by Professor H. Zimmer in his "Keltische Studien,"
vol. ii, pp. 200. He refers to the awakening of Deirdre's love to Noisi by
similar means, as found in the Irish saga of the Sons of Usnech (oldest
MS. authority, Book of Leinster, copied before 1164 from older MSS.) as
evidence of the early importance of this _motif_ in Celtic tradition. The
passage runs thus in English: "As her foster-father was busy in winter
time skinning a calf out in the snow, she beheld a raven which drank up
the blood in the snow; and she exclaimed, 'Such a man could I love, and
him only, having the three colours, his hair like the raven, his cheeks
like the blood, his body like the snow.'"
Now the Mabinogi says, almost in the same words--the blackness of the
raven and the whiteness of the snow, and the redness of the blood he
compared to the hair and the skin and the two red spots upon the cheek of
the lady that best he loved. In Chrestien there is no raven, and the whole
stress is laid upon the _three_ drops of blood on the snow, which put the
hero in mind of the red and white of his lady's face. As Zimmer justly
points out, the version of the Mabinogi is decidedly the more primitive
of the two; and that, moreover, as the incident does not figure at all in
what Birch-Hirschfeld presumes to be Chrestien's source, the
Didot-Perceval, the following development of this incident must, _ex
hypothesi_, have taken place. In the Didot-Perceval the hero is once upon
a time lost in thought. To explain this, Chrestien invents the incident of
the three drops of blood in the snow; the Mabinogi, copying Chrestien,
presents the incident in almost as primitive a form as the oldest known
one! Here, then, the Mabinogi has preserved an older form than Chrestien,
alleged to have been its source in all those parts common to both. Nor is
it certain that the fact of Peredur's undergoing the sword-test in the
Talisman Castle _does_ show, as Birch-Hirschfeld maintains, that the Welsh
story-teller confused the two personages whom he took over from Chrestien,
Gonemans and the Fisher King. The sword incident will be examined later
on; suffice here to say that no explanation is given in the Conte du Graal
of the broken weapon; whereas the Mabinogi does give a simple and natural
one. But these two instances cannot weaken the force of the parallels
adduced above. In determining, however, whether these may not be due to
Chrestien's being the borrower, the differences between the two versions
are of even more importance than the similarities.
What are these? The French romances belonging to the Perceval type of the
Grail quest give two versions of the search for the magic talismans, that
of the Conte du Graal and that of the Didot-Perceval. The latter
pre-supposes an early history which, as already shown, cannot be looked
upon as the starting point of the legend without postulating such a
development of the latter as is inadmissible on _a priori_ grounds, and as
runs counter to many well-ascertained facts. The former is not consistent
with itself, Manessier's finish contradicting Chrestien's opening on such
an essential point as the cause of the maimed king's suffering. Still the
following outline of a story, much overlaid by apparently disconnected
adventures, may be gathered from it. A hero has to seek for magic
talismans wherewith to heal an uncle wounded by his brother, and at the
same time to avenge him on that brother. What, on the other hand, is the
story as told in the Mabinogi? A hero is minded by talismans to avenge
the death of a cousin (and the harming of an uncle); it is not stated that
the talismans pass into his possession. It is difficult to admit that
either of these forms can have served as direct model to the other. If the
Mabinogi be a simple copy of the Conte du Graal, whence the altered
significance of the talismans? whence also the machinery by means of which
the hero is at last brought to his goal, and which is, briefly, as
follows? The woe which has befallen Peredur's kindred is caused by
supernatural beings, the sorceresses of Gloucester; his ultimate
achievement of the task is brought about by his cousin, who, to urge him
on, assumes the form (1) of the black and loathly damsel; (2) of the
damsel of the chessboard, who incites him to the Ysbydinongyl adventure,
reproves him for not slaying the black man at once, and then urges him
into the stag hunt; (3) of the lady who carries off the hound and sends
him to fight against the black man of the cromlech; "and the cousin it was
who came in the hall with the bloody head in the salver and the lance
dripping blood." The whole of the incidents connected with the Castle of
the Chessboard, which appear at such length in both the Conte du Graal and
the Didot-Perceval, but without being in any way connected with the main
thread of the story, thus form in the Mabinogi an integral portion of that
main thread. Would the authors of the Conte du Graal have neglected the
straight-forward version of the Welsh tale had they known it, or could, on
the other hand, the author of the Mabinogi have worked up the disconnected
incidents of his alleged model into an organic whole? Neither hypothesis
is likely. Moreover the Conte du Graal and the Didot-Perceval, if examined
with care, show distinct traces of a machinery similar to that of the
Welsh story. Thus in Chrestien, Perceval, on arriving at the Fisher
King's, sees a squire bringing into the room a sword of such good steel
that it might break in but one peril, and this the King's niece (_i.e._,
Perceval's cousin) had sent her uncle to bestow it as he pleased; and the
King gives it to the hero for--
... biaus frère ceste espée
Vous fu jugie et destineé (4,345-6).
After Perceval's first adventure at the Grail Castle it is his "germaine
cousine" (4,776) who assails him with her reproaches; she knows all about
the sword (4,835-38) and tells him, how, if it be broken he may have it
mended (4,847-59). So far Chrestien, who furthermore, be it noted, makes
Blanchefleur Perceval's lady-love, likewise his cousin, she being niece to
Gonemans (3,805-95). A cousin is thus beloved of him, a cousin procures
for him the magic sword, a cousin, as in the Mabinogi, incites him to the
fulfilment of the quest, and gives him advice which we cannot doubt would
have been turned to account by Chrestien had he finished his poem. Turning
now to Gautier, in whose section of the poem are to be found the various
adventures growing out of the chessboard incident, this difference between
the Mabinogi and himself may be noted. In the former, these adventures
caused by Peredur's cousin serve apparently as tests of the hero's
strength and courage. The loss of the chessboard is the starting-point of
the task, and the cousin reappears as the black maiden. Nothing of the
sort is found in Gautier. True, the damsel who reproaches Perceval is in
so far supernatural, as she is a kind of water-nix, but it is love for her
which induces the hero to perform the task; she it is, too, who lends him
the dog, and she is not identified with the "pucelle de malaire" who
carries it off (22,604, etc.). But later on Perceval meets a knight who
tells him that a daughter of the Fisher King's (thus also a cousin of
Perceval) had related to him how a knight had carried off a stag's head
and hound to anger another good knight who had been at her father's court,
and had not asked as he should concerning the Grail, for which reason she
had taken his hound and had refused him help to follow the robber knight
(23,163, etc.). This makes the "pucelle de malaire" to be Perceval's
cousin, and she plays the same _rôle_ as in the Mabinogi. True, when later
on (Incident 13) Perceval finds the damsel, nothing is said as to her
being the Fisher King's daughter; on the contrary, as will be seen by the
summary, a long story is told about the Knight of the Tomb, brother to her
knight, Garalas, and how he lived ten years with a fay. She is here quite
distinct from the lady of the chessboard to whom Perceval returns later.
The version found in the Didot-Perceval agrees with the Mabinogi as
against Gautier in so far that the hero is in love with the mistress of
the castle, and not with the damsel who reproaches him for throwing away
the chessmen. This reproaching damsel is not in any way identified with
the lady who carries off the hound, who is described as "une vieille," and
of whom it is afterwards told "elle estoit quand elle voloit une des plus
belles damoiselles du monde. Et est cele meismes que mon frère (the
brother of the Knight of the Tomb, who here, as in Gautier, is the lover
of a fay) amena à la forest," _i.e._, she is the fay herself, sister to
the lady of the Chessboard Castle, who hated her and wished to diminish
her and her knight's pride (p. 469). Here, again, a connection can be
pieced out between the various personages of the adventure; and it appears
that the hero is driven to his fight against the Knight of the Tomb by a
fair damsel transformed into a mysterious hag.[72] The Mabinogi thus gives
one consistently worked-out conception--transformed hag = Peredur's
cousin--which may be recovered partly from that one of the two discordant
versions found in Gautier which makes the pucelle de malaire to be the
Fisher King's daughter, hence Perceval's cousin, and connects the stag
hunt with the Grail incident, partly from the Didot-Perceval, which tells
how the same pucelle de malaire is but playing a part, being when she
wills one of the fairest maids of the world. Now we have seen that the
stag hunt is just one of those portions of the story in which are found
the closest verbal similarities between Gautier de Doulens and the
Didot-Perceval. It is, therefore, perplexing to find that there is not
more likeness in the details of the incident. But the similarities pointed
out concern chiefly the first part of the incident, and are less prominent
in the latter part (the hero's encounter with the Knight of the Tomb).
This, taken together with the difference in the details of the incident
just pointed out, strengthens the opinion expressed above, that the
Didot-Perceval and Gautier are not connected directly but through the
medium of a common source, the influence of which can be seen distinctly
in certain portions of either story, and that when this source fails they
go widely asunder in their accounts. That such an hypothesis is not
unreasonable is shown by the fact that Gautier has two contradictory forms
of this very story, one of which, that which makes the hound-stealing
damsel a daughter of the Fisher King, is on all fours with the Mabinogi,
whilst the other is more akin to, though differing in important respects
from, that of the Didot-Perceval. In this case, at least, Gautier must
have had two sources, and if two why not more?
It may be urged in explanation of the similarities between Gautier and the
Mabinogi, that the author of the latter used Gautier in the same free way
that he did Chrestien, but that getting tired towards the close of his
work he abridged in a much more summary fashion than at first. If the
comparison of the versions of the stag hunt found in either work be not
sufficient to refute this theory, the following consideration may be
advanced against it: if the Mabinogi derives entirely from the Conte du
Graal, how can the different form given to the Grail episode be accounted
for?--if it only knew Chrestien, where did it get the chessboard adventure
from, and if it knew Gautier as well as Chrestien why did it not finish
the Grail adventure upon the same lines as it began, _i.e._, partly in
conformity with its alleged model?
Is Manessier any nearer than Gautier to the Mabinogi in the later portion
of the tale? The chief points of the story told by him may be
recapitulated thus:--The Grail damsel is daughter of the Fisher King, the
damsel of the salver, daughter of King Goon Desert, his brother (_i.e._,
both are cousins to Perceval); Goon Desert, besieged by Espinogre, defeats
him, but is treacherously slain by his nephew Partinal, the latter's sword
breaking in the blow. Goon's body is brought to the Fisher King's castle,
whither the broken sword is likewise brought by Goon's daughter to be kept
until a knight should come, join together the pieces, and avenge Goon's
death. In receiving the sword the Fisher King wounds himself through the
thighs, and may not be healed until he be avenged on Partinal. Perceval
asks how he may find the murderer, the blood vengeance (faide = O.H.G.
Fehde) being on him. Perceval fights with Partinal, slays him, cuts off
his head as token of his victory, returns to the Fisher King's castle,
lighting upon it by chance, heals the Fisher King by the mere sight of the
head, which is fixed on a pike on the highest battlements. At the death of
his uncle Perceval succeeds him as King of the Grail Castle. Here, then,
as in the Mabinogi, the story turns definitely upon a blood feud; the same
act which brings about the death of one relative of the hero, also causes,
indirectly, it is true, the laming of another, even as in the Mabinogi the
same supernatural beings kill Peredur's cousin and lame his uncle; the
cousin reappears again, bringing the magic sword by whose aid alone the
hero can accomplish the vengeance, and uttering the prediction the
fulfilment of which will point out the destined avenger. Finally, if the
Mabinogi seems to lay special stress upon the head of the murdered man,
Manessier lays special stress upon the head of the murderer. Now it is
quite evident that the Mabinogi cannot have copied Manessier. It has been
alleged that the Welsh story-teller, adapting Chrestien to the taste of
his fellow countrymen, substituted a blood feud for the Grail Quest, but
what reason would he have had for thus dealing with Manessier? He had
simply to leave out the Christian legendary details, which in Manessier
are, one can hardly say, adapted to the older form of the story, to find
in that older form a clear and straightforward account with no admixture
of mystical elements. It is impossible to explain the strong general
similarity of outline with the equally marked divergences of detail
(Sorceresses of Gloucester instead of Partinal, etc.,) except by saying
that both, though going back to a common legendary source, are unconnected
one with another.
The facts thus dealt with may be recapitulated as follows:--There is
marked similarity in general outline between the Mabinogi and the Conte du
Graal in the adventures common to both; in that portion of the Conte du
Graal due to Chrestien there occur, moreover, many and close verbal
parallels, and the corresponding part of the Mabinogi is told at greater
length than the remainder of the incidents common to both works. That
which answers in the Mabinogi to the Grail Quest forms a clear and
straightforward whole, the main features of which may be recovered from
the Conte du Graal, but in varying proportions from the various sections
of that work. Thus the indications of this Mabinogi talisman quest, the
central intrigue, as it may be called, of the tale, are in Chrestien of
the slightest nature, being confined to passing hints; in Gautier they are
fuller and more precise, though pointing to a version of the central
intrigue different, not only in details but in conception, from that of
the Mabinogi; in Manessier alone is there agreement of conception,
although the details still vary. Finally, those portions of the Mabinogi
which are in closest verbal agreement with Chrestien contain statements
which cannot easily be reconciled with this central intrigue.
These facts seem to warrant some such deductions as these. Bearing in mind
that the Mabinogi is an obvious piecing together of all sorts of incidents
relating to its hero, the only connecting link being that of his
personality, its author may be supposed, when compiling his work, to have
stretched out his hand in all directions for material. Now a portion of
the Peredur _sage_ consisted of adventures often found elsewhere in the
folk-tale cycles of the Great Fool and the Avenging Kinsman--cycles which,
in Celtic tradition, at least, cover almost the same ground as the one
described by J. G. von Hahn under the title, "Die Arische Aussetzung und
Rückkehr-Formel." In the original of the Mabinogi this portion probably
comprised the childhood and forest up-bringing, the visit to Arthur with
the accompanying incidents, the training by the uncle (who _may_ have been
the Fisher King), the arrival at the (bespelled) castle, where the hero is
to be minded of his task by the sight of certain talismans and of his
cousin's head, the reproaches of the loathly damsel, her subsequent
testing of the hero by the adventures of the chessboard, stag hunt, etc.,
the hero's final accomplishment of the task, vengeance on his kindred's
enemies, and removal of the spells. There would seem to have been no such
love story as that frequently found in stories of the Great Fool class,
_e.g._, in the Irish one (_supra_, p. 134). This original was probably
some steps removed from being a genuine popular version; the incidents
were presented in a way at once over-concise and confused, and some which,
as will be seen in the next chapter, the living folk-tale has preserved
were left out or their significance was not recognized. What more natural
than that the author of the Mabinogi in its present form, knowing
Chrestien, should piece out his bare, bald narrative with shreds and
patches from the Frenchman's poem? The moment Chrestien fails him, he
falls back into the hurried concision of his original. His adaptation of
Chrestien is done with singularly little skill, and at times he seems to
have misunderstood his model. He confines his borrowing to matters of
detail, not allowing, for instance, Chrestien's presentment of the Grail
incident to supersede that of his Welsh original. In one point he may,
following Chrestien, have made a vital change. It seems doubtful whether
the Welsh source of the Mabinogi knew of a maimed king, an uncle to be
healed through the hero's agency; the sole task may have been the avenging
the cousin's death. True the "lame uncle" appears at the end, but this may
be due to some sudden desire for consistency on the arranger's part. But
whether or no he was found in the Welsh story preserved in the Mabinogi,
he certainly played no such leading part as in the Conte du Graal. The two
stories deal with the same cycle of adventures, but the object of the hero
is not the same in both, and, consequently, the machinery employed is not
quite the same. The present Mabinogi is an unskilful fusion of these two
variations upon the one theme.[73]
Light is also thrown by this investigation upon the question of
Chrestien's relationship to his continuators. Birch-Hirschfeld's theory
that the Didot-Perceval was the source of Chrestien and Gautier has
already been set aside. Apart from the reasons already adduced, the fact
that it does not explain from whence Manessier got his ending of the story
would alone condemn it. It must now be evident that Chrestien and two of
his continuators drew from one source, and this a poem of no great length
probably, the main outlines of which were nearly the same as those of the
Welsh proto-Mabinogi given above, with this difference, that the story
turned upon the healing of the uncle and not the avenging the cousin's
death. This poem, which seems also to have served, directly or indirectly,
as one of the sources of the Didot-Perceval, had probably departed from
popular lines in many respects, and _may_, though this would be an
exceedingly difficult question to determine, have begun the incorporation
of the Joseph of Arimathea legend with its consequent wresting to purposes
of Christian symbolisms of the objects and incidents of the old folk-tale.
Such an incorporation had almost certainly begun before Chrestien's time,
and was continued by him. There can be little doubt that he dealt with his
model in a free and daring spirit, altering and adding as seemed best to
him. This alone explains how Manessier, slavishly following the common
original, tells differently the cause of the lame king's wound. Gautier,
who lacked Chrestien's creative power, though he often equals him in the
grace and vivacity of his narrative, seems to have had no conception of a
plan; the section of Conte du Graal which goes under his name is a mere
disorderly heap of disconnected adventures brought together without care
for consistency. But for this very reason he is of more value in restoring
the original form of the story than Chrestien, who, striving after
consistency, harmony, and artistic development of his tale, alters, adds
to, or retrenches from the older version. Gautier had doubtless other
sources besides the one made use of by Chrestien. This does not seem to be
the case with Manessier, who, for this portion of the story, confined
himself to Chrestien's original, without taking note of the differences in
_motif_ introduced by his predecessor. What is foreign to it he drew from
sources familiar to us, the Queste and Grand S. Graal, from which more
than two-thirds of his section are derived.
In working back to the earliest form of the Perceval-_sage_, Mabinogi and
Conte du Graal are thus of equal value and mutually complementary. Both
are second-hand sources, and their testimony is at times sadly corrupt,
but it is from them chiefly that information must be sought as to the
earlier stages of development of this legendary cycle. They do not by
themselves give any satisfactory explanation of the more mysterious
features of the full-blown legend, but they do present the facts in such a
way as to put out of court the hypothesis of a solely Christian legendary
origin. Before proceeding further it will be well to see if the English
Sir Perceval has likewise claims to be considered one of the versions
which yield trustworthy indications as to the older form of the story.
This poem, described by Halliwell as simply an abridged English version of
the Conte du Graal, has, as may be seen by reference to Ch. IV, been
treated with more respect by other investigators, several of whom, struck
by its archaic look, have pronounced it one of the earliest versions of
the Perceval _sage_. It has quite lately been the object of elaborate
study by Paul Steinbach in his dissertation: "Uber dem Einfluss des
Crestien de Troies auf die altenglische literatur," Leipzig, 1885. The
results of his researches may be stated somewhat as follows: the two works
correspond incident for incident down to the death of the Red Knight, the
chief differences being that Perceval is made a nephew of King Arthur,
that the death of his father at the hands of the Red Knight is explained
as an act of revenge on the part of the latter, that Arthur recognizes his
nephew at once, and tells him concerning the Red Knight, and that the
burning of the Red Knight, only hinted at in Chrestien's lines--
Ains auroie par carbonees.
Trestout escarbellié le mort, etc. (2,328-9).
is fully told in the English poem. After the Red Knight incident the
parallelism is much less close. The English poem has incidents to itself:
the slaying of the witch, the meeting with the uncle and nine cousins, the
fight with the giant for the ring, the meeting with and restoring to
health the mother. Of the remaining incidents, those connected with
Lufamour are more or less parallel to what Chrestien relates of his hero's
adventure with Blanchefleur, and that of the Black Knight, with that of
the Orgellous de la Lande in Chrestien. Of the 2,288 verses of the English
poem the greater part may be paralleled from Chrestien, thus:--
P. of G. Cr.
1-160 485-940
161-188 941-1,206
189-256 1,207-82
257-320 1,283-1,554
321-432 1,555-1,828
433-80 1,829-1,970
481-600 2,091-2,170
{2,055-90
601-56 {2,135-59
{2,171-2,225
657-740 2,268-2,312
741-820 2,313-2,398
1,061-1,108 4,000-4,060
1,109-1,124 5,511-553
1,381-1,540 5,600-5,891
953-1,012}
1,125-1,380} {2,900-3,960
1,541-1,760} {4,088-94
1,761-1,808 4,095-4,150
1,809-1,951 4,865-5,375
the incidents comprised v. 821-952 and 1,953-2,288, being the only one
entirely unconnected with Chrestien. This general agreement between the
two works shows the dependence of the one on the other. But while
evidently dependent, the English poem, as is shown by the differences
between it and its French original, belongs at once to a less and to a
more highly developed stage of the Perceval _sage_. The differences are
thus of two kinds, those testifying to the writer's adherence to older,
probably Breton, popular traditions and those due to himself, and
testifying to the skill with which he has worked up his materials and
fitted portions of Chrestien's poem into an older framework. Of the first
kind are: the statement that Perceval meets with three knights instead of
five as in Chrestien, the English poem agreeing here with the Mabinogi;
the mention of his riding on a _mare_ and of his being clad in goat-skins,
the English poem again agreeing rather with the Mabinogi than with
Chrestien, and showing likewise points of contact with the Breton ballads
about Morvan lez Breiz, printed by Villemarqué in the Barzaz Breiz. The
combat with the giant may likewise be paralleled from the Lez Breiz cycle
in that hero's fight with the Moorish giant. These points would seem to
indicate knowledge on the author's part of popular traditions concerning
Perceval forming a small cycle, of which the departure from, and return to
the mother were the opening and closing incidents respectively. This form
of the story must have been widely spread and popular to induce the author
to leave out as much as he has done of Chrestien's poem in order to bring
it within the traditional framework. He accomplished his task with much
skill, removing every trace of whatever did not bear directly upon the
march of the story as he told it. In view of this skill differences which
tend to make the story more consequent and logical may fairly be ascribed
to him. Such are: the making Perceval a nephew of Arthur, the mention of a
feud between the Red Knight and Perceval's father, the combat with the
witch arising out of Perceval's wearing the Red Knight's armour, and the
other adventures which follow eventually from the same cause, the feature
that the ring taken by Perceval from the lady in the tent is a magic one,
endowing its wearer with supernatural strength, the change made between
this ring and his mother's which prepares the final recognition, etc. The
original poem probably ended with the reunion of mother and son, the last
verse, briefly mentioning the hero's death, being a later addition. To sum
up, Sir Perceval may be looked upon as the work of a folk-singer who
fitted into the old Breton framework a series of adventures taken partly
from Chrestien, partly from the same Breton traditions which were
Chrestien's main source, and with remarkable skill avoided all such
incidents as would not have accorded with the limits he had imposed upon
himself.
Against this view of Steinbach's it might be urged that a writer as
skilful as the author of Sir Perceval is assumed to be could easily have
worked Chrestien's Grail episode into his traditional framework. A more
plausible explanation, assuming the theory to be in the main correct,
might be found in the great popularity in this country of the Galahad form
of the Quest, and the consequent unwillingness on the author's part to
bring in what may have seemed to him like a rival version. Steinbach has
not noticed one curious bit of testimony to the poem's being an abridgment
of an older work, more archaic in some respects than Chrestien. When the
hero has slain the Red Knight he knows not how to rid him of his armour,
but he bethinks him--
... "My moder bad me
Whenne my dart solde brokene be,
Owte of the irene brenne the tree,
Now es me fyre gnede" (749-52).
Now the mother's counsel, given in verses xxv-vi are solely that he should
be "of mesure," and be courteous to knights; nothing is said about burning
the tree out of the iron, nor does any such counsel figure either in
Chrestien or in the Mabinogi, which in this passage has copied, with
misunderstandings, the French poet.[74] The use of Chrestien by the author
of Sir Perceval seems, however, uncontestable; and, such being the case,
Steinbach's views meet the difficulties of the case fairly well. It will
be shown farther on, however, that several of the points in which the
German critic detects a post-Chrestien development, are, on the contrary,
remains of as old and popular a form of the story as we can work back to.
Accepting, then, the hypothesis that Sir Perceval, like the Mabinogi, has
been influenced by Chrestien, what is the apparent conclusion to be drawn
from the fact that the former omits the Grail episode altogether, whilst
the latter joins Chrestien's version to its own, presumably older one, so
clumsily as to betray the join at once? May it not be urged that
Chrestien's account is obviously at variance with the older story as he
found it? may not the fact be accounted for by the introduction of a
strange element into the thread of the romance? This element would,
according to Birch-Hirschfeld, be the Christian holy-vessel legend, and it
would thus appear that the Grail is really foreign to the Celtic
tradition. Let me recapitulate briefly the reasons already urged against
such a view. The early history of the Grail, that part in which the
Christian element prevails, must certainly be regarded as later than the
Quest, to which it could not have given rise without assuming such a
development of the romance as is well nigh incredible--the Quest versions,
moreover, all hang together in certain respects, and point unmistakably to
Celtic traditions as their source. These traditions must then be examined
further to see if they contain such traces of the mystic vessel as are
wanting in the Mabinogi and the English poem, and as may have given rise
to the episode as found in the French romances. As Perceval is the oldest
hero of the Quest, and as the boyhood of Perceval, forming an integral
part of all the oldest Quest versions presents the strongest analogies
with the folk-tale of the Great Fool, it is this tale which must now be
examined.
CHAPTER VI.