Such a legend is surely more likely to have been shaped by Welsh or Breton

monks than by North French _trouvères_. And when we notice the Celtic

names of the personages, and their connection with the Celtic paradise,

Avalon, there can remain little, if any, doubt respecting the first home

of the story. We may thus look upon Brons, owner of a mystic vessel,

fisher of a mystic fish, as the hero of an early conversion legend. But

the name Brons has at once suggested to most students of the cycle that of

Bran. The latter is, as we saw in the last Chapter, the representative of

an old Celtic god of the otherworld. He is the owner of the cauldron of

renovation. He is also the hero in Welsh tradition of a conversion legend,

and is commonly known as Bran the Blessed. Unfortunately the only

explanation we have of this epithet occurs in a late triad, to which it is

not safe to assign an earlier date than the fourteenth century. He is

described therein as son of Llyr Llediath, "as one of the three blissful

Rulers of the Island of Britain, who first brought the faith of Christ to

the nation of the Cymry from Rome, where he was seven years a hostage for

his son Caradawc."[138] But if late in form this triad may well embody an

old tradition. It gives the significant descent of Bran from Llyr, and

thereby equates him with Mannanan Mac Lir, with whom he presents otherwise

so many points of contact. It is quite true that the Bran legend, as is

pointed out to me by Professor Rhys, is mentioned neither in the earliest

genealogies nor in Geoffrey. But it should be noted that the Grand St.

Graal does bring one member of the Brons group, Petrus, into contact with

King Luces, the Lucius to whom Geoffrey ascribes the conversion. Again,

the epithet "blessed" is applied to Bran in the Mabinogi of Branwen,

daughter of Llyr. I have placed this tale as a whole as far back as the

eleventh-tenth centuries, and my arguments have met with no opposition,

and have won the approval of such authorities as Professor Windisch and

Monsieur Gaidoz. But the Mabinogi, as we have it, was written down in the

fourteenth century; the last transcriber abridged it, and at times did not

apparently understand what he was transcribing. By his time the full-blown

Bran legend of the triad was in existence, and it may be contended that

the epithet was due to him and did not figure in his model. On the other

hand, Stephens (Lit. of the Cymry, p. 425) quotes a triad of Kynddelw, a

poet of the twelfth century, referring to the three blessed families of

the Isle of Britain, one of which is declared by a later tradition to be

that of Bran.[139] Again, the triads of Arthur and his Warriors, printed

by Mr. Skene, Four Ancient Books, Vol. II., p. 457, from MS. Hengwrt, 566,

of the beginning of the fourteenth century, and probably at least fifty

years older, mentions the "blessed head of Bran."[140] On the whole, in

spite of the silence of older sources, I look upon the epithet and the

legend which it presupposes as old, and I see in a confusion between Bran,

Lord of the Cauldron, and Bran the Blessed, the first step of the

transformation of the Peredur _sage_ into the Quest of the Holy Grail. In

the first capacity Bran corresponds to the Lord of the Castle of

Talismans. From the way in which the fish is dwelt upon in his legend, it

may, indeed, be conjectured that he stood to Peredur in some such relation

as Finn-eges to Fionn. As hero of a conversion legend he came into contact

with Joseph. We do not know how or at what date the legend of the

conversion of Britain by Joseph originated. It is found enjoying wide

popularity in the latter half of the twelfth century, the very time in

which the romances were assuming their present shape. Wülcker (Das

Evangelium Nicodemi in der abendländischen Literatur, Paderborn, 1872)

shows that the legend is not met with before William of Malmesbury; and

Zarncke, as already stated (_supra_, p. 107), has argued that the passage

in William is a late interpolation due to the popularity of the

romances.[141] But to accept Zarncke's contention merely shifts back the

difficulty. If William did not first note and give currency to the

tradition, the unknown predecessor of Robert de Borron and of the authors

of the Queste and Grand St. Graal did so; and the question still remains

how did he come by the tradition, and what led him to associate it with

Glastonbury. Birch-Hirschfeld, it is true, makes short work of this

difficulty. The fact that there is no earlier legend in which Joseph

figures as the Apostle of Britain is to him proof that Borron evolved the

conception of the Grail out of the canonical and apocryphal writings in

which Joseph appears, and then devised the passage to Britain in order to

incorporate the Arthurian romances with the legend he had invented. It is

needless to repeat that this theory, unacceptable on _a priori_ grounds,

is still more so when tested by facts.

But Joseph under other aspects than that of Apostle of Britain is worthy

of notice. The main source whence the legend writers drew their knowledge

of him was the Evangelium Nicodemi, the history of which has been

investigated by Wülcker. The earliest allusion in western literature to

this apocryphal gospel is that of Gregory of Tours (Wülcker, p. 23), but

no other trace of its influence is to be met with in France until we come

to the Grail romances, and to mystery-plays which relate Christ's

Harrowing of Hell. In Provence, Italy, and Germany the thirteenth and

twelfth centuries are the earliest to which this gospel can be traced. In

England, on the contrary, it was known as far back as the latter quarter

of the eighth century; Cynewulf based upon it a poem on the Harrowing of

Hell, and alludes to it in the Crist; the ninth century poem, "Christ and

Satan," likewise shows knowledge of it, and there is a West-Saxon

translation dating from the early eleventh century.

Whence this knowledge and popularity of the gospel in England several

centuries before it entered prominently into the literature of any other

European people? Wülcker can only point by way of answer to the early

spread of Christianity in these Islands, and to the possibility of this

gospel having reached England before it did France or Germany. He also

insists upon the early development of Anglo-Saxon literature.

Whether the fact that the apocryphal writings which told of Joseph were

known here when they were unknown on the Continent be held to warrant or

no the existence of a specifically British Joseph legend, they at all

events prove that he was a familiar and favourite legendary figure on

British soil. It would be rash to go any farther, and to argue from the

inadequacy of the reasons by which Wülcker seeks to account for the early

knowledge of the Evangelium Nicodemi in England, that Joseph enjoyed

particular favour among the British Christians, and that it was from them

the tidings of him spread among their Saxon conquerors.

The legendary popularity of Joseph in these islands, though not in any

special capacity of Apostle of Britain, is thus attested. Let us admit for

argument's sake that the conversion legend did first take shape in the

twelfth century, is it not more likely to have done so here, where the

apocryphal writings about him were widely spread, than in France, where

they were practically unknown? And why if Borron, or any other French

poet, wanted to connect the Holy Vessel legend which he had imagined with

Arthur, should he go out of his way to invent the personages of Brons and

Alain? The story as found in the Queste would surely have been a far more

natural one for him. And why the insistence upon Avalon? We have plain

proof that Borron did not understand the word, as he explains it by a

ridiculous pun (_supra_, p. 78).[142]

These difficulties are met in a large measure if we look upon Bran

(Brons) as the starting point of the Christian transformation of the

legend. In any case we may say that a conversion legend, whether

associated with Joseph or anyone else, would almost inevitably have

gravitated towards Glastonbury, but there are special reasons why this

should be the case with a Bran legend. Avalon is certainly the Welsh

equivalent of the Irish Tír na n-Og, the land of youth, the land beyond

the waves, the Celtic paradise. When or how this Cymric myth was localised

at Glastonbury we know not.[143] We only know that Glastonbury was one of

the first places in the island to be devoted to Christian worship. Is it

too rash a conjecture that the Christian church may have taken the place

of some Celtic temple or holy spot specially dedicated to the cult of the

dead, and of that Lord of the Shades from which the Celts feigned their

descent? The position of Glastonbury, not far from that western sea beyond

which lie the happy isles of the dead, would favour such an hypothesis.

Although direct proof is wanting, I believe that the localisation is old

and genuine: Bran, ruler of the otherworld, of Avalon, would thus come

into natural contact with Glastonbury; and if, as I assume, Joseph took

his place in the conversion legend the association would extend to him.

The after development of the legend would then be almost a matter of

course. Bran, the ruler in Avalon, would pass on his magic gear (cauldron,

spear, and sword, as in the case of the Tuatha de Dannan) to Bran the

Blessed, who would in his turn transfer them to Joseph. And once the

latter had entered into the legend, he would not fail to recall that last

scene of the Lord's life with which he was so closely associated, not by

any pseudo-gospel but by the canonical writings themselves, and thus the

gear of the old Celtic gods became transformed into such objects as were

most prominent in the story of the Passion and of the scene that

immediately preceded it. The spear became that one wherewith Christ's side

was pierced. As for the vessel, the sacramental nature is the last stage

of its Christian development; its original object was merely to explain

the sustenance of Joseph in prison, and to provide a miraculous

refreshment for the Grail host, as is shown by the Early History portion

of the Conte du Graal and by the Queste. In a dim and confused way the

circumstances of the Resurrection helped to effect the change of the pagan

resuscitation-cauldron into a symbol of the risen Lord. And some now lost

feature of the original legend--some insistence upon the _contents_ of the

vessel, some assimilation of them to blood--may have suggested the use to

which the vessel was first put.

This hypothesis assumes many things. It assumes a Bran conversion legend,

of which the only evidence of anything like the same date as the romances

is a single epithet; it assumes that the hero of this legend was

originally an old Celtic divinity; it assumes a Joseph conversion legend,

for which there is really no other evidence than that of the romances; it

assumes the amalgamation of the two legends, and that Joseph took over in

a large measure the _rôle_ and characteristics of Brons. And when it is

recollected that the primary assumption, the identification of the two

Brans, rests in a large measure upon the appearance of the fish in the

Brons legend, that this fish is nowhere in Celtic tradition associated

with Bran, that it is associated on the other hand with a being, Fionn,

whom we have compared with Peredur, but that it is absent from the

Peredur-saga, the hypothesis must be admitted to be of a tentative nature.

I fully appreciate the force of the objections that can be urged against

it; at the same time it has the merit of accounting for many puzzling

features in the legend. When in the same story two personages can be

distinguished whose _rôle_ is more or less of the same nature, when the

one personage is subordinated in one version and has disappeared

altogether from the other, it is quite legitimate to conclude that two

originally independent accounts have become blended, and that one has

absorbed the other. The hypothesis is on safe ground so far. It thus

explains the presence of Brons in the legend, as well as his absence from

some versions of it; it has something to say in explanation of the

connection with Glastonbury; it explains in what way the Celtic traditions

were started on their path of transformation; and it provides for that

transformation taking the very course it did. There is nothing to be urged

against it on _a priori_ grounds; once admit the premisses, and the rest

follows easily and naturally. Its conjectural character (the main

objection to it) is shared in an even higher degree by the other

hypotheses, which have essayed to account for the growth and origin of the

legend, and _they_ have the disadvantage of being inherently impossible.

In the light of the foregoing investigations and hypotheses we may now

amplify the sketch history of the whole cycle given in Chapter III. The

Peredur-saga probably came into existence in much its later form at an

early date in the Middle Ages. A number of older mythical tales centered

in a, perhaps, historical personage. The circumstances of his life and

adventures may have given them not only cohesion, but may also have

coloured and distorted them; nevertheless they remained, in the main,

mythical tales of the same kind as those found all over the world. One of

these tales was undoubtedly a Cymric variant of the Celtic form of the

Expulsion and Return formula; another dealt with the hero's journey to the

Land of Shades; traces of many others are to be found in the Mabinogi.

Another Celtic worthy, Gwalchmai, was early associated with Peredur, and

the two stood in some such relation to each other as the twin brethren of

a widely spread folk-tale group. Curiously enough, whilst comparatively

few incidents in the Peredur-saga were worked up into the version which

served as immediate model to the North French romances, that version

contained many adventures of Gwalchmai's which have not been preserved in

Welsh. We can trace three main crystallizations of the original saga-mass;

one represented by the Proto-Mabinogi contained the feud quest, and,

probably, some only of the other adventures found in the present Mabinogi;

the second, based more on the lines of the Expulsion and Return formula,

is represented by the Thornton MS. romance; in the third the feud quest

was mixed up with the hero's visit to the Bespelled Castle, and those

portions of the Gwalchmai-saga which told of his visit to Castle Perillous

as well as to the Bespelled Castle. Whilst the Proto-Mabinogi was probably

in prose, the Proto-Conte du Graal was probably in verse, a collection of

short _lais_ like those of Marie de France. Meanwhile, one of the chief

personages of the older mythic world which appear in the Peredur-saga,

Bran, the Lord of the Land of Shades, of the Bespelled Castle, of the

cauldron of healing, increase and wisdom, and of the knowledge-giving

salmon, had become the Apostle of Britain, his pagan attributes thus

suffering a Christian change, which was perfected when Joseph took the

place of Brons, bringing with him his gospel associations and the

apocryphal legends that had clustered round his name. Thus a portion of

the saga was Christianised, whilst the other portion lost its old, fixed

popular character, owing to the fusion of originally distinct elements,

and the consequent unsettling both of the outlines and of the details of

the story. Incidents and features which in the earlier folk-tale stage

were sharply defined and intelligible became vague and mysterious. In this

state, and bearing upon it the peculiarly weird and fantastic impress of

Celtic mythic tradition, the story, or story-mass rather, lay ready to the

hand of courtly poet or of clerical mystic. At first Christian symbolism

was introduced in a slight and meagre way--the Brons-Joseph legend

supplied the Christian meaning of the talismans, and that was all. But the

Joseph legend was soon vigorously developed by the author of the work

which underlies the Queste and the Grand St. Graal. He may either not have

known or have deliberately discarded Brons, the old Celtic hero of the

conversion, as he certainly deliberately thrust down from his place of

pre-eminence Perceval, the Celtic hero of the Quest, substituting for him

a new hero, Galahad, and for the adventures of the Conte du Graal, based

as they were upon no guiding conceptions, fresh adventures intended to

glorify physical chastity. With all his mystic fervour he failed to see

the full capacities of the theme, his presentment of the Grail itself

being in especial either over-material or over-spiritual. But his work

exercised a profound influence, as is seen in the case of Chrestien's

continuators. Robert de Borron, on the other hand, if to him the merit

must be assigned, if he was not simply transcribing an older, forgotten

version, was a more original thinker, if a less gifted writer. Although he

was not able to entirely harmonise the conflicting accounts of which he

made use, he yet succeeded in keeping close to the old lines of the legend

whilst giving a consistent symbolical meaning to all its details. His work

came too late, however, to exercise the influence it should have done upon

the development of the legend; the writers who knew it were mere heapers

together of adventures, and the very man who composed a sequel to it

abandoned Robert's main conception.

The history of the Legend of the Holy Grail is, thus, the history of the

gradual transformation of old Celtic folk-tales into a poem charged with

Christian symbolism and mysticism. This transformation, at first the

inevitable outcome of its pre-Christian development, was hastened later by

the perception that it was a fitting vehicle for certain moral and

spiritual ideas. These have been touched upon incidentally in the course

of these studies, but they and their manifestation in modern as well as in

mediæval literature deserve fuller notice.

CHAPTER X.

Popularity of the Arthurian Romance--Reasons for that

Popularity--Affinities of the Mediæval Romances with early Celtic

Literature; Importance of the Individual Hero; Knighthood; the _rôle_

of Woman; the Celtic Fairy and the Mediæval Lady; the Supernatural--M.

Renan's views--The Quest in English Literature, Malory--The earliest

form of the Legend, Chrestien, his continuators--The Queste and its

Ideal--The Sex-Relations in the Middle Ages--Criticism of Mr.

Furnivall's estimate of the moral import of the Queste--The Merits of

the Queste--The Chastity Ideal in the later versions--Modern English

Treatments: Tennyson, Hawker--Possible Source of the Chastity Ideal in

Popular Tradition--The Perceval Quest in Wolfram; his Moral

Conception; the Question; Parzival and Conduiramur--The Parzival Quest

and Faust--Wagner's Parsifal--The Christian element in the

Legend--Ethical Ideas in the folk-tale originals of the Grail

Romances: the Great Fool, the Sleeping Beauty--Conclusion.

Few legends have attained such wide celebrity, or been accepted as so

thoroughly symbolical of one master conception, as that of the Holy Grail.

Poets and thinkers from mediæval times to our own days have used it as a

type of the loftiest goal of man's effort. There must be something in the

romances which first embodied this conception to account for the enduring

favour it has enjoyed. Nor is it that we read into the old legend meanings

and teachings undreamt of before our day. At a comparatively early stage

in the legend's existence its capacities were perceived, and the works

which were the outcome of that perception became the breviary and the

exemplar of their age. There are reasons, both general and special, why

the Celtic mythic tales grew as they did, and had such overwhelming vogue

in their new shapes. In no portion of the vast Arthurian cycle is it more

needful or more instructive to see what these reasons were than in that

which recounts the fortunes of the Grail.

The tales of Peredur and Gwalchmai, bound up with the Arthurian romance,

shared its success, than which nothing in all literary history is more

marvellous. It was in the year 1145 that Geoffrey of Monmouth first made

the legendary history of Britain accessible to the lettered class of

England and Continent. He thereby opened up to the world at large a new

continent of romantic story, and exercised upon the development of

literature an influence comparable in its kind to that of Columbus'

achievement upon the course of geographical discovery and political

effort. Twenty years had not passed before the British heroes were

household names throughout Europe, and by the close of the century nearly

every existing literature had assimilated and reproduced the story of

Arthur and his Knights. Charlemagne and Alexander, the sagas of Teutonic

tribes, the tale of Imperial Rome itself, though still affording subject

matter to the wandering jongleur or monkish annalist, paled before the

fame of the British King. The instinct which led the twelfth and

thirteenth centuries thus to place the Arthurian story above all others

was a true one. It was charged with the spirit of romance, and they were

pre-eminently the ages of the romantic temper. The West had turned back

towards the East, and, although the intent was hostile, the minds of the

western men had been fecundated, their imagination fired by contact with

the mother of all religions and all cultures. The achievements of the

Crusaders became the standard of attainment to the loftiest and boldest

minds of Western Christendom. For these men Alexander himself lacked

courage and Roland daring. The fathers had stormed Jerusalem, and the

sons' youth had been nourished on tales of Araby the Blest and Ophir the

Golden of strife with the Paynim, of the sorceries and devilries of the

East. Nothing seemed impossible to a generation which knew of toils and

quests greater than any minstrel had sung, which had beheld in the East

sights as wondrous and fearful as any the jongleur could tell of.

Moreover, the age was that of Knight Errantry, and of that phase of love

in which every Knight must qualify himself for the reception of his lady's

favours by the performance of some feat of skill and daring. Such an age

and such men demanded a special literature, and they found it in

adaptations of Celtic tales.

The mythic heroic literature of all races is in many respects alike. The

sagas not only of Greek or Persian, of Celt or Hindu, of Slav or Teuton,

but also of Algonquin or Japanese, are largely made up of the same

incidents set in the same framework. But each race shapes this common

material in its own way, sets upon it its own stamp. And no race has done

this more unmistakably than the Celtic. Stories which go back to the first

century, stories taken down from the lips of living peasants, have a

kinship of tone and style, a common ring which no one who has studied this

literature can fail to recognise. What stamps the whole of it is the

prevailing and abiding spirit of romance. To rightly urge the Celtic

character of the Arthurian romances would require the minute analysis of

many hundred passages, and it would only be proving a case admitted by

everyone who knows all the facts. It will be more to the point to dwell

briefly upon those outward features which early (_i.e._, pre-eleventh

century) Celtic heroic literature has in common with the North French

romances of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, especially as we thus

gain a clue to much that is problematic in the formal and moral growth of

the Arthurian cycle in general and of the Grail cycle in particular.

In Celtic tradition, as little as in mediæval romance, do we find a record

of race-struggles such as meets us in the Nibelungenlied, in the Dietrich

saga, or the Carolingian cycle.[144] In its place we have a glorification

of the individual hero. The reason is not far to seek. The Celtic tribes,

whether of Ireland or Britain, were surrounded by men of their own speech,

of like institutions and manners. The shock of opposing nations, of rival

civilisations, could not enter into their race-tradition. The

story-teller had as his chief theme the prowess and skill of the

individual "brave," the part he took in the conflicts which clan

incessantly waged with clan, or his encounters with those powers of an

older mythic world which lived on in the folk-fancy. To borrow Mr.

Fitzgerald's convenient terminology, the "constants" of this tradition may

be the same as in that of other Aryan races, the "resultants" are not. To

give one instance: the conception of a chief surrounded by a picked band

of warriors is common to all heroic tradition, but nowhere is it of such

marked importance, nowhere does it so mould and shape the story as in the

cycles of Conchobor and the Knights of the Red Branch, of Fionn and the

Fianna, and of Arthur and his Knights. The careers of any of the early

Irish heroes, the single-handed raids of Cét mac Magach or Conall

Cearnach, above all the fortunes of Cuchullain, his hero's training in the

Amazon-isle, his strife with Curoi mac Daire, his expeditions to

fairy-land, his final holding of the ford against all the warriors of

Erinn, breathe the same spirit of adventure for its own sake, manifest the

same subordination of all else in the story to the one hero, that are such

marked characteristics of the Arthurian romance.

Again, in the bands of picked braves who surround Conchobor or Fionn, in

the rules by which they are governed, the trials which precede and

determine admission into them, the duties and privileges which attach to

them, we have, it seems to me, a far closer analogue to the knighthood of

mediæval romance than may be found either in the Peers of Carolingian saga

or in the chosen warriors who throng the halls of Walhalla.

In the present connection the part played by woman in Celtic tradition is

perhaps of most import to us. In no respect is the difference more marked

than in this between the twelfth century romances, whether French or

German, and the earlier heroic literature of either nation. The absence of

feminine interest in the earlier _chansons de geste_ has often been noted.

The case is different with Teutonic heroic literature, in which woman's

_rôle_ is always great, sometimes pre-eminently so. But a comparison of

the two strains of traditions, Celtic and Teutonic, one with the other,

and again with the romances, may help to account for much that is

otherwise inexplicable to us in the mediæval presentment of the

sex-feelings and sex-relations.

The love of man, and immortal, or, if mortal, semi-divine maid is a

"constant" of heroic tradition. Teuton and Celt have handled this theme,

however, in a very different spirit. In the legends of the former the man

plays the chief part; he woos, sometimes he forces the fairy maiden to

become the mistress of his hearth. As a rule, overmastered by the prowess

and beauty of the hero, she is nothing loth. But sometimes, as does

Brunhild, she feels the change a degradation and resents it. It is

otherwise with the fairy mistresses of the Celtic hero; they abide in

their own place, and they allure or compel the mortal lover to resort to

them. Connla and Bran and Oisin must all leave this earth and sail across

ocean or lake before they can rejoin their lady love; even Cuchullain,

mightiest of all the heroes, is constrained, struggle as he may, to go and

dwell with the fairy queen Fand, who has woed him. Throughout, the

immortal mistress retains her superiority; when the mortal tires and

returns to earth she remains, ever wise and fair, ready to welcome and

enchant a new generation of heroes. She chooses whom she will, and is no

man's slave; herself she offers freely, but she abandons neither her

liberty nor her divine nature. This type of womanhood, capricious,

independent, severed from ordinary domestic life, is assuredly the

original of the Vivians, the Orgueilleuses, the Ladies of the Fountain of

the romances; it is also one which must have commended itself to the

knightly devotees of mediæval romantic love. Their "_dame d'amour_" was,

as a rule, another man's wife; she raised in their minds no thought of

home or child. In the tone of their feelings towards her, in the character

of their intercourse with her, they were closer akin to Oisin and Neave,

to Cuchullain and Fand, than to Siegfried and Brunhild, or to Roland and

Aude. Even where the love-story passes wholly among mortals, the woman's

_rôle_ is more accentuated than in the Teutonic sagas. She is no mere

lay-figure upon a fire-bound rock like Brunhild or Menglad, ready, when

the destined hero appears, to fall straightway into his arms. Emer, the

one maiden of Erinn whom Cuchullain condescends to woo, is eager to show

herself in all things worthy of him; she tests his wit as well as his

courage, she makes him accept her conditions.[145] In the great tragic

tale of ancient Ireland, the Fate of the Sons of Usnech, Deirdre--born

like Helen or Gudrun, to be a cause of strife among men, of sorrow and

ruin to whomsoever she loves--Deirdre takes her fate into her own hands,

and woos Noisi with outspoken passionate frankness. The whole story is

conceived and told in a far more "romantic" strain than is the case with

parallel stories from Norse tradition, the loves of Helgi and Sigrun, or

those of Sigurd and Brunhild-Gudrun. And if the lament of Deirdre over her

slain love lacks the grandeur and the intensity with which the Norse

heroines bewail their dead lords, it has, on the other hand, an intimate,

a personal touch we should hardly have looked for in an eleventh century

Irish epic.[146]

Another link between the Celtic sagas and the romances is their treatment

of the supernatural. Heroic-traditional literature is made up of mythical

elements, of scenes, incidents, and formulas which have done service in

that account of man's dealings with and conceptions of the visible world

which we call mythology. All such literature derives ultimately from an

early, wholly animistic stage of culture. Small marvel, then, if in the

hero-tales of every race there figure wonder-working talismans and

bespelled weapons, if almost every great saga has, as part of its

_dramatis personæ_, objects belonging to what we should now call the

inanimate world. Upon these a species of life is conferred, most often by

power of magic, but at times, it would seem, in virtue of the older

conception which held all things to be endowed with like life. All heroic

literatures do not, however, accentuate equally and similarly this magic

side of their common stock. Celtic tradition is not only rich and varied

beyond all others in this respect, it often thus secures its chief

artistic effects. The talismans of Celtic romance, the fairy branch of

Cormac, the Ga-bulg of Cuchullain, the sounding-hammer of Fionn, the

treasures of the Boar Trwyth after which Prince Kilhwch sought, the

glaives of light of the living folk-tale, have one and all a weird,

fantastic, half-human existence, which haunts and thrills the imagination.

No Celtic story-teller could have "mulled" the Nibelung-hoard as the poet

of the Nibelungenlied has done. How different in this respect the twelfth

century romances are from the earlier German or French sagas, how close to

the Irish tales is apparent to whomsoever reads them with attention.[147]

I do not for one moment imply that the romantic literature of the Middle

Ages was what it was, wholly or even mainly in virtue of its Celtic

affinities. That literature was the outcome of the age, and something akin

to it would have sprung up had Celtic tradition remained unknown to the

Continent. The conception of feudal knighthood as a favoured class, in

which men of different nations met on a common footing; the conception of

knightly love as something altogether disassociated from domestic life,

must in any case have led to the constitution of such a society as we find

portrayed in the romances. What is claimed is that the spirit of the age,

akin to the Celtic, recognised in Celtic tales the food it was hungering

for. It transformed them to suit its own needs and ideas, but it carried

out the transformation on the whole in essential agreement with tradition.

In some cases a radical change is made; such a one is presented to us in

the Grail cycle.

The legend thus started with the advantages of belonging to the popular

literature of the time, and of association through Brons with Christian

tradition. Its incidents were varied, and owing to the blending of diverse

strains of story vague enough to be plastic. The formal development of the

cycle has been traced in the earlier chapters of these studies; that of

its ideal conceptions will be found to follow similar lines. Various

ethical intentions can be distinguished, and there is not more difference

between the versions in the conduct of the story than in the ideals they

set forth.

To some readers it may have seemed well nigh sacrilegious to trace that

... vanished Vase of Heaven

That held like Christ's own Heart an Hin of Blood,

to the magic vessels of pagan deities. In England the Grail-legend is

hardly known save in that form which it has assumed in the Queste. This

French romance was one of those which Malory embodied in his _rifacimento_

of the Arthurian cycle, and, thanks to Malory, it has become a portion of

English speech and thought.[148] In our own days our greatest poet has

expressed the quintessence of what is best and purest in the old romance

in lines of imperishable beauty. As we follow Sir Galahad by secret shrine

and lonely mountain mere until

Ah, blessed vision! Blood of God,

The spirit beats her mortal bars,

As down dark tides the glory slides,

And star-like mingles with the stars.

we are under a spell that may not be resisted. And yet of the two main

paths which the legend has trodden that of Galahad is the least fruitful

and the least beautiful. Compared with the Perceval Quest in its highest

literary embodiment the Galahad Quest is false and antiquated on the

ethical side, lifeless on the æsthetic side.

As it first meets us in literature the legend has barely emerged from its

pure and simple narrative stage. There is a temptation to exaggerate

Chrestien's skill of conception when speculating how he would have

finished his work, but we know enough, probably, to correctly gauge his

intentions. It has been said he meant to portray the ideal knight in

Perceval. As was formerly the wont of authors he presents his hero in a

good light, and he may be credited with a perception of the opportunity

afforded him by his subject for placing that hero in positions wherein a

knight could best distinguish himself. In so far his work may be accepted

as his picture of a worthy knight. But I can discover in it no scheme of a

quest after the highest good to be set forth by means of the incidents at

his command. Perceval is brave as a matter of course, punctual in obeying

the counsels of his mother and of his teachers, Gonemans and the

hermit-uncle, unaffectedly repentant when he is convicted of having

neglected his religious duties. But it cannot be said that the hermit's

exhortations or the hero's repentance, confession, and absolution mark, or

are intended to mark, a definite stage in a progress towards spiritual

perfection. The explanation of the hero's silence as a consequence of his

sin in leaving his mother, shows how little real thought has been bestowed

upon the subject. This explanation, whether wholly Chrestien's, as I am

tempted to think, or complacently reproduced from his model, gives the

measure of his skill in constructing an allegory. Beyond insistence upon

such points (the hero's docility) as were indicated to him by his model,

or, as in the case of his religious opinions, were a matter of course in a

work of the time, Chrestien gives Perceval no higher morality, no loftier

aims than those of the day. The ideal of chastity, soon to become of such

importance in the development of the legend, is nowhere set forth.

Perceval, like Gawain, takes full advantage of what _bonnes fortunes_ come

in his way. And if the Quest connotes no spiritual ideal, still less does

it one of temporal sovereignty. Had Chrestien finished his story he would

have made Perceval heal the Maimed King and win his kingdom, but that

kingdom would not have been a type of the highest earthly magnificence. We

have seen reason to hold that Chrestien made one great change in the story

as he found it in his model; he assigns the Fisher-King's illness to a

wound received in battle. This he did, I think, simply with a view to

shortening the story by leaving out the whole of the Partinal episode. No

mystical conception was floating in his mind. Yet, as we shall see, the

shape which he gave to this incident strongly influenced some of the later

versions, and gave the hint for the most philosophical _motif_ to be found

in the whole cycle.

The immediate continuators of Chrestien lift the legend to no higher

level. I incline to think that Gautier, with less skill of narrative and

far greater prolixity, yet trod closely in Chrestien's footsteps. In the

love episodes he is as full of charm as the more celebrated poet. The

second meeting of Perceval and Blanchefleur is told with that graceful

laughing _naïveté_ of which French literature of the period has the

secret. But of a plan, an animating conception even such slight traces as

Chrestien had introduced into the story are lacking. Here, as in

Chrestien, the mysterious talismans themselves in no way help forward the

story. Chrestien certainly had the Christian signification of them in his

mind, but makes no use of it. The Vessel of the Last Supper, the Spear

that pierced Christ's side might be any magic spear or vessel as far as he

is concerned. The original Pagan essence is retained; the name alone is

changed.

Thus far had the legend grown when it came into the hands of the author of

the Queste. The subject matter had been partly shaped and trimmed by a

master of narrative, the connection with Christian tradition had been

somewhat accentuated. It was open to the author of the Queste to take the

story as it stood, and to read into its incidents a deep symbolical

meaning based upon the Christian character of the holy talismans. He

preferred to act otherwise. He broke entirely with the traditional

framework, dispossessed the original hero, and left not an incident of his

model untouched. But his method of proceeding may be likened to a shuffle

rather than to a transformation. The incidents reappear in other

connection, but do not reveal the author's plan any more than is the case

in the Conte du Graal. The Christian character of the talismans is dwelt

upon with almost wearisome iteration, the sacramental act supplies the

matter of many and of the finest scenes, and yet the essence of the

talismans is unchanged. The Holy Grail, the Cup of the Last Supper, the

Sacramental Chalice is still when it appears the magic food-producing

vessel of the old Pagan sagas. What is the author's idea? Undoubtedly to

show that the attainment of the highest spiritual good is not a thing of

this world; only by renouncing every human desire, only by passing into a

land intermediary between this earth and heaven, is the Quest achieved. In

the story of the prosecution of that Quest some attempt may be traced at

portraying the cardinal virtues and deadly sins by means of the adventures

of the questers, and of the innumerable exhortations addressed to them.

But no skill is shown in the conduct of this plan, which is carried out

chiefly by the introduction of numerous allegorical scenes which are made

a peg for lengthy dogmatic and moral expositions. In this respect the

author compares unfavourably with Robert de Borron, who shapes his story

in full accord with his conception of the Grail itself, a conception

deriving directly from the symbolic Christian nature he attributed to it,

and who makes even such unpromising incidents as that of the Magic Fisher

subserve his guiding idea.[149]

If the author's way of carrying out his conception cannot be praised, how

does it stand with the conception itself? The fact that the Quest is

wholly disassociated from this earth at once indicates the standpoint of

the romance. The first effect of the Quest's proclamation is to break up

the Table Round, that type of the noblest human society of the day, and

its final achievement brings cheer or strengthening to no living man. The

successful questers alone in their unhuman realm have any joy of the

Grail. The spirit in which they prosecute their quest is best exemplified

by Sir Bors. When he comes to the magic tower and is tempted of the

maidens, who threaten to cast themselves down and be dashed to pieces

unless he yield them his love, he is sorry for them, but unmoved, thinking

it better "they lose their souls than he his." So little had the Christian

writer apprehended the signification of Christ's most profound saying. The

character of the principal hero is in consonancy with this aim, wholly

remote from the life of man on earth. A shadowy perfection at the outset,

he remains a shadowy perfection throughout, a bloodless and unreal

creature, as fit when he first appears upon the scene as when he quits it,

to accomplish a quest, purposeless, inasmuch as it only removes him from a

world in which he has neither part nor share. Such human interest as there

is in the story is supplied by Lancelot, who takes over many of the

adventures of Perceval or Gawain in the Conte du Graal. In him we note

contrition for past sin, strivings after a higher life with which we can

sympathise. In fine, such moral teaching as the Queste affords is given us

rather by sinful Lancelot than by sinless Galahad.

But the aversion to this world takes a stronger form in the Queste, and

one which is the vital conception of the work, in the insistence upon the

need for physical chastity. To rightly understand the author's position we

must glance at the state of manners revealed by the romances, and in

especial at the sex-relations as they were conceived of by the most

refined and civilised men and women of the day. The French romances are,

as a rule, too entirely narrative to enable a clear realisation of what

these were. Wolfram, with his keener and more sympathetic eye for

individual character--Wolfram, who loves to analyse the sentiments and to

depict the outward manifestations of feeling of his personages--is our

best guide here. The manners and customs of the day can be found in the

French romances; the feelings which underlie them must be sought for in

the German poet.

The marked feature of the sex-relations in the days of chivalry was the

institution of _minnedienst_ (love-service). The knight bound himself to

serve a particular lady, matron or maid. To approve himself brave, hardy,

daring, patient, and discreet was his part of the bargain, and when

fulfilled the lady must fulfil hers and pay her servant. The relation must

not for one moment be looked upon as platonic; the last favours were in

every case exacted, or rather were freely granted, as the lady, whether

maid or wedded wife, thought it no wrong thus to reward her knight. It

would have been "bad form" to deny payment when the service had been

rendered, and the offender guilty of such conduct would have been scouted

by her fellow-women as well as by all men. Nothing is more instructive in

this connection than the delightfully told episode of Gawain and

Orgueilleuse. The latter is unwedded, a great and noble lady, but she has

already had several favoured lovers, as indeed she frankly tells Gawain.

He proffers his service, which she hardly accepts, but heaps upon him all

manner of indignity and insult, which he bears with the patient and

resourceful courtesy, his characteristic in mediæval romance. Whilst the

time of probation lasts, no harsh word, no impatient gesture, escapes him.

But when he has accomplished the feat of the Ford Perillous he feels that

he has done enough, and taking his lady-love to task he lectures her, as a

grave middle-aged man might some headstrong girl, upon the duties of a

well-bred woman and upon the wrong she has done knighthood in his person.

To point the moral he winds up, at mid-day in the open forest, with a

proposition which the repentant scornful one can only parry by the naïve

remark, "Seldom she had found it warm in the embrace of a mail-clad arm."

Not only was it the lady's duty to yield after a proper delay, but at

times she might even make the first advances and be none the worse thought

of. Blanchefleur comes to Perceval's bed with scarce an apology.[150]

Orgueilleuse, overcome with admiration at the Red Knight's prowess, offers

him her love. True, she has doubts as to the propriety of her conduct, but

when she submits them to Gawain, the favoured lover for the time being, he

unhesitatingly approves her--Perceval's fame was such that had he accepted

her proffered love she could have suffered naught in honour.

Customs such as these, and a state of feelings such as they imply, are so

remote from us, that it is difficult to realise them, particularly in view

of the many false statements respecting the nature of chivalrous love

which have obtained currency. But we must bear in mind that the age was

pre-eminently one of individual prowess. The warlike virtues were all in

all. That a man should be brave, hardy, and skilful in the use of his

weapons was the essential in a time when the single hero was almost of as

much account as in the days of Achilles, Siegfried, or Cuchullain. That

_minnedienst_ tended to this end, as did other institutions of the day

which we find equally blamable, is its historical excuse. Even then many

felt its evils and perceived its anti-social character. Some, too, there

were who saw how deeply it degraded the ideal of love.

A protest against this morality was indeed desirable. Such a one the

Queste does supply. But it is not enough to protest in a matter so

profoundly affecting mankind as the moral ideas which govern the

sex-relations. Not only must the protest be made in a right spirit, and on

the right lines, but a truer and loftier ideal must be set up in place of

the one attacked. In how far the Queste fulfils these conditions we shall

see. Meanwhile, as a sample of the feelings with which many Englishmen

have regarded it, and as an attempt to explain its historical and ethical

_raison d'être_, I cannot do better than quote Mr. Furnivall's

enthusiastic words: "What is the lesson of it all? Is the example of

Galahad and his unwavering pursuit of the highest spiritual object set

before him, nothing to us? Is that of Perceval, pure and tempted, on the

point of yielding, yet saved by the sight of the symbol of his Faith, to

be of no avail to us? Is the tale of Bohors, who has once sinned, but by a

faithful life ... at last tasting spiritual food, and returning to devote

his days to God and Good--is this no lesson to us?... On another point,

too, this whole Arthur story may teach us. Monkish, to some extent, the

exaltation of bodily chastity above almost every other earthly virtue is;

but the feeling is a true one; it is founded on a deep reverence for

woman, which is the most refining and one of the noblest sentiments of

man's nature, one which no man can break through without suffering harm to

his spiritual life."

It would be hard to find a more striking instance of how the "editorial

idol" may override perception and judgment. He who draws such lofty and

noble teachings from the Queste del Saint Graal, must first bring them

himself. He must read modern religion, modern morality into the mediæval

allegory, and on one point he must entirely falsify the mediæval

conception. Whether this is desirable is a question we can have no

hesitation in deciding negatively. It is better to find out what the

author really meant than to interpret his symbolism in our own fashion.

The author of the Queste places the object and conditions of his mystic

quest wholly outside the sphere of human action or interest; in a similar

spirit he insists, as an indispensable requirement in the successful

quester, upon a qualification necessarily denied to the vast majority of

mankind. His work is a glorification of physical chastity. "Blessed are

the pure--in body--for they shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven," is the

text upon which he preaches. In such a case everything depends upon the

spirit of the preacher, and good intent is not enough to win praise. His

conception, says Mr. Furnivall, is founded upon a deep reverence for

woman. This is, indeed, such a precious thing that had the mediæval

ascetic really felt it we could have forgiven the stupidity which ignores

all that constitutes the special dignity and pathos of womanhood. But he

felt nothing of the kind. Woman is for him the means whereby sin came into

the world, the arch stumbling-block, the tool the devil finds readiest to

his hands when he would overcome man. Only in favour of the Virgin Mother,

and of those who like her are vowed to mystical maidenhood, does the

author pardon woman at all. One single instance will suffice to

characterize the mediæval standpoint. When the Quest of the Holy Grail was

first proclaimed in Arthur's Court there was great commotion, and the

ladies would fain have joined therein, "car cascune dame ou damoiselle

(qui) fust espousée ou amie, dist à son chiualer qu'ele yroit od lui en la

queste." But a hermit comes forward to forbid this; "No dame or damsel is

to accompany her knight lest he fall into deadly sin." Wife or leman, it

was all one for the author of the Queste; woman could not but be an

occasion for deadly sin, and the sin, though in the one case less in

degree (and even this is uncertain), was the same in kind. Fully one-half

of the romance is one long exemplification of the essential vileness of

the sex-relation, worked out with the minute and ingenious nastiness of a

Jesuit moral theologian. The author was of his time; it was natural he

should think and write as he did, and it would be uncritical to blame him

for his degrading view of womanhood or for his narrow and sickly view of

life. But when we are bidden to seek example of him, it is well to state

the facts as they are.[151]

If his transformation of the story has been rudely effected without regard

to its inherent possibilities, if the spirit of his ideal proves to be

miserably ascetic and narrow, what then remains to the Queste, and how may

we account for its popularity in its own day, and for the abiding

influence which its version of the legend has exercised over posterity.

Its literary qualities are at times great; certain scenes, especially such

as set forth the sacramental nature of the Grail, are touched with a

mystical fervour which haunts the imagination. It has given some of the

most picturesque features to this most picturesque of legends. But I see

in the idea of the mystic quest proclaimed to and shared in by the whole

Table Round the real secret of the writer's success. This has struck the

imagination of so many generations and given the Queste an undeserved

fame. In truth the conception of Arthur's court, laying aside ordinary

cares and joys, given wholly up to one overmastering spiritual aim, is a

noble one. It is, I think, only in a slight degree the outcome of definite

thought and intent but was dictated to the writer by the form into which

he had recast the story. Galahad had supplanted Perceval, but the latter

could not be suppressed entirely. The achievement of the quest involved

the passing away out of this world of the chief heroes, hence a third less

perfect one is joined to them to bring back tidings to earth of the

marvels he had witnessed. Lancelot, to whom are assigned so many of

Perceval's adventures, cannot be denied a share in the quest; it is the

same with Gawain, whose character in the older romance fits him, moreover,

excellently for the _rôle_ of "dreadful example." By this time the

Arthurian legend was fully grown, and the mention of these Knights called

up the names of others with whom they were invariably connected by the

romance writers. Well nigh every hero of importance was thus drawn into

the magic circle, and the mystic Quest assumed, almost inevitably, the

shape it did.

This conception, to which, if I am right, the author of the Queste was led

half unconsciously, seems to us the most admirable thing in his work. It

was, however, his ideal of virginity which struck the idea of his

contemporaries, and which left its mark upon after versions. An age with

such a gross ideal of love may have needed an equally gross ideal of

purity. Physical chastity plays henceforth the leading part in the moral

development of the cycle. With Robert de Borron it is the sin of the flesh

which brings down upon the Grail host the wrath of Heaven, and

necessitates the display of the Grail's wondrous power. Here may be noted

the struggle of the new conception with the older form of the story.

Alain, the virgin knight, would rather be flayed than marry, and yet he

does marry in obedience to the original model. Robert is consistent in all

that relates to the symbolism of the Grail, but in other respects, as we

have already seen, he is easily thrown off his guard. In the

Didot-Perceval, written as a sequel to Robert's poem, the same struggle

between old and new continues, and the reconciling spirit goes to work in

naïve and unskilful style. The incidents of the Conte du Graal are kept,

although they accord but ill with the hero's ascetic spirit. In the

portion of the Conte du Graal itself which goes under Manessier's name,

along with adventures taken direct from Chrestien's model, and far less

Christianised than in the earlier poet's work, many occur which are

simply transferred from the Queste. No attempt is made at reconciling

these jarring elements, and the effect of the contrast is at times almost

comic. In two of the later romances of the cycle the fusion has been more

complete, and the result is, in consequence, more interesting. The prose

Perceval le Gallois keeps the original hero of the Quest as far as name

and kinship are concerned, but it gives him the aggressive virginity and

the proselytising zeal of Galahad. Gerbert's finish to the Conte du Graal

is, perhaps, the strangest outcome of the double set of influences to

which the later writers were exposed. Without doubt his model differed

from the version used by Gautier and Manessier. It is more Celtic in tone,

and is curiously akin to the hypothetical lost source of Wolfram von

Eschenbach. The hero's absence from his lady-love is insisted upon, and

the need of returning to her before he can find peace. The genuineness of

this feature admits of little doubt. Many folk-tales tell of the severance

of lover and beloved, and of their toilful wanderings until they meet

again; such a tale easily lends itself to the idea that separation is

caused by guilt, and that, whilst severed, one or other lover must suffer

misfortune. Often, as in the case of Diarmaid and the Daughter of King

Under the Waves (_supra_, p. 194), definite mention is made of the guilt,

as a rule an infringed taboo. Such an incident could scarcely fail to

assume the ethical shape Gerbert has given it. Thus he had only to listen

to his model, to take his incidents as he found them, and he had the

matter for a moral conception wholly in harmony with them. The chastity

ideal has been too strong for him. His lovers do come together, but only

to exemplify the virtue of continence in the repulsive story of their

bridal night. After Gerbert the cycle lengthens, but does not develop. The

Queste retains its supremacy, and through Malory its dominant conception

entered deeply into the consciousness of the English race.

How far the author of the Queste must be credited with the new ideal he

brought into the legend is worth enquiry. Like so much else therein, it

may have its roots in the folk and hero tales which underlie the romances.

The Castle of Talismans visited by Perceval is the Land of Shades. In

popular tradition the incident takes the form of entry into the hollow

hill-side where the fairy king holds his court and hoards untold riches.

Poverty and simplicity are the frequent qualifications of the successful

quester; oftener still some mystic birthright, the being a Sunday's child

for instance, or a seventh son; or again freedom from sin is required,

and, perhaps, most frequently maidenhood.[152] The stress which so many

peoples lay upon virginity in the holy prophetic maidens, who can

transport themselves into the otherworld and bring thence the commands of

the god, may be noted in the same connection. No Celtic tale I have

examined with a view to throwing light upon the Grail romances insists

upon this idea, but some version, now lost, may possibly have done so.

Celtic tradition gave the romance writers of the Middle Ages material and

form for the picture of human love; it may also have given them a hint of

the opposing ideal of chastity.[153]

All this time it should be noted that no real progress is made in the

symbolical machinery of the legend. The Holy Grail becomes superlatively

sacrosanct, but it retains its pristine pagan essence, even in the only

version, the Grand St. Graal, which knew of Borron and of his mystical

conception.

Such, then, had been the growth of the legend in one direction. The

original incidents were either transformed, mutilated, or, where they kept

their first shape, underwent no ethical deepening or widening. The

talismans themselves had been transferred from Celtic to Christian

mythology, but their fate was still bound up with the otherworld. He who

would seek them must turn his back upon this earth from which the Palace

Spiritual and the City of Sarras were even more remote than Avalon or

Tir-na n-Og. Was no other course open? Could not framework and incidents

of the Celtic tales be retained, and yet, raised to a loftier, wider

level, become a fit vehicle for philosophic thought and moral exhortation?

One side of popular tradition figured the hero as wresting the talismans

from the otherworld powers for the benefit of his fellow men. Could not

this form of the myth be made to yield a human, practical conception of

the Quest and Winning of the Holy Grail?

We are luckily not reduced to conjecture in this matter. A work largely

fulfilling these hypothetical requirements exists in the Parzival of

Wolfram von Eschenbach. On the whole it is the most interesting individual

work of modern European literature prior to the Divina Commedia, and its

author has a better claim than any other mediæval poet to be called a man

of genius. He must, of course, be measured by the standard of his time. It

would be useless to expect from him that homogeneity of narrative, that

artistic proportion of style first met with 150 years later in Italy, and

which from Italy passed into all European literatures. Compared with the

unknown poets who gave their present shape to the Nibelungenlied or to the

Chanson de Roland he is an individual writer, but he is far from deserving

this epithet even in the sense that Chaucer deserves it. His subject

dominates him. Even when his philosophic mind is conceiving it under a new

aspect he anxiously holds to the traditional form. Hence great

inconsistencies in his treatment of the theme, hence, too, the frequent

difficulty in interpreting his meaning, the frequent doubt as to how far

the interpretation is correct. Here, as in the discussion respecting the

_origines_ of the Grail legend, resort must often be had to conjecture,

and any solution of the fascinating problems involved is necessarily and

largely subjective.

Wolfram's relation to his predecessors must be taken into account in

estimating the value of the Parzival. The earlier portion of his work

differs entirely, as we have seen, from any existing French romance; so

does the finish in so far as it agrees with the opening. The greater part

of the story is closely parallel to Chrestien; there are points of

contact, peculiar to these two writers, with Gerbert. Little invention,

properly so called, of incident can be traced in the Parzival. The part

common to it and Chrestien is incomparably fuller and more interesting in

the German poet, but the main outlines are the same. Wolfram has, however,

been at some pains to let us know what was his conception of the legend.

That much is allowed to remain at variance therewith is a clear proof of

his timidity of invention.

Doubt, he says, is the most potent corrupter of the soul. Whoso gives

himself over to unfaith and unsteadfastness treadeth in truth the downward

path. God Himself is very faithfulness. Strife against Him, doubt of Him,

is the highest sin. But humility and repentance may expiate it, and he who

thus repents may be chosen by God for the Grail Kingship, the summit of

earthly holiness. Peace of soul and all earthly power are the chosen

one's; alone, unlawful desire and the company of sinners are denied him by

the Grail.

How is this leading conception worked out? The framework and the march of

incidents are the same as in the Conte du Graal. One capital change at

once, however, lifts the story to a higher level. The Fisher King suffers

from a wound received in the cause of unlawful love, in disobedience to

those heavenly commands which govern the Grail community. The healing

question can be put only by one worthy to take up the high office Amfortas

has dishonoured, in virtue of having passed through the strife of doubt,

and become reconciled to God by repentance and humble trust. If Parzival

neglected to put the question on his first arrival at the Grail Castle, it

was that in the conceit of youth he fancied all wisdom was his. Childish

insistence upon his mother's counsels had brought down reproof upon him;

he had learnt the world's wisdom from Gurnemanz, he had shown himself in

defence of Conduiramur a valiant knight, worthy of power and woman's love.

When brought into contact with the torturing sorrow of Amfortas, he is too

full of himself, of his teacher's wisdom, to rightly use the opportunity.

The profound significance of the question which at once releases the

sinner, and announces the one way in which the sin may be cancelled,

namely, by the coming of a worthier successor, is due, if we may credit

Birch-Hirschfeld, to an accident. Wolfram only knew Chrestien. The latter

never explains the real nature of the Grail, and the German poet's

knowledge of French was too slight to put him on the right track. The

question, "Whom serve they with the Grail?" which he found in Chrestien,

was necessarily meaningless to him, and he replaced it by his, "Uncle,

what is it tortures thee?" The change _may_ be the result of accident as

is so much else in this marvellous legend, but it required a man of genius

to turn the accident to such account. It is the insistence upon charity as

the herald and token of spiritual perfection that makes the grandeur of

Wolfram's poem, and raises it so immeasureably above the Queste.

The same human spirit is visible in the delineation of the Grail Kingship

as the type of the highest good. Wolfram's theology is distinctively

antinomian--no man may win the Grail in his own strength; it choseth whom

it will--and has been claimed on the one hand[154] as a reflex of orthodox

Catholic belief, on the other as a herald of the Lutheran doctrine of

grace.[155] Theological experts may be left to fight out this question

among themselves. Apart from this, Wolfram has a practical sense of the

value of human effort. With him the Quest is not to be achieved by utter

isolation from this earth and its struggles. The chief function of the

Grail Kingdom is to supply an abiding type of a divinely ordered Society;

it also trains up leaders for those communities which lack them. It is a

civilising power as well as a Palace Spiritual.

In the relation of man to Heaven, Wolfram, whilst fully accepting the

doctrines of his age, appeals to the modern spirit with far greater power

and directness than the Queste. In the other great question of the legend,

the relation of man to woman, he is likewise nearer to us, although it

must be confessed that he builds better than he knows. To the love ideal

of his day, based wholly upon passion and vanity and severed from all

family feeling, he opposes the wedded love of Parzival and Conduiramur.

The hero's recollection of the mother of his children is the one saving

influence throughout the years of doubt and discouragement which follow

Kundrie's reproaches. Whilst still staggering under this blow, so cruelly

undeserved as it seems to him, he can wish his friend and comrade, Gawain,

a woman chaste and good, whom he may love and who shall be his guardian

angel. The thought of Conduiramur holds him aloof from the offered love of

Orgeluse. In his last and bitterest fight, with his unknown brother, when

it had nigh gone with him to his death, he recalls her and renews the

combat with fresh strength. She it is for whom he wins the highest earthly

crown, of which her pure, womanly heart makes her worthy. Reunion with her

and with his children is Parzival's first taste of the joy that is

henceforth to be his.

Passages may easily be multiplied that tally ill with the ideas of the

poem as here briefly set forth. But the existence of these ideas is patent

to the unprejudiced reader. Despite its many shortcomings, the poem which

contains them is the noblest and most human outcome of that mingled strain

of Celtic fancy and Christian symbolism whose history we have traced.[156]

In Wolfram, equally with the majority of the French romance writers, there

is little consistency in the formal use of the mystic talismans. Be the

reason what it may, Wolfram certainly never thought of associating the

Grail with the Last Supper. But its religious character is, at times, as

marked with him as with Robert de Borron or the author of the Queste. It

is the actual vehicle of the Deity's commands; it restrains from sin; it

suffers no unchaste servant; it may be seen of no heathen; the simple

beholding of it preserves men from death. This last characteristic would

be thought in modern times a sufficient tribute to the original nature of

the old pagan cauldron of increase and rejuvenescence. But Wolfram was of

his time, and followed his models faithfully. Along with the lofty

spiritual attributes of his Grail, he pictures in drastic fashion its

food-dispensing powers. The mystic stone, fallen from Heaven itself,

renewed each Good Friday by direct action of the Spirit, becomes all at

once a mere victual producing machine. We can see how little Wolfram liked

this feature of his model, and how he felt the contrast between it and his

own more spiritual conception. But here, as elsewhere in the poem, he

allowed much to stand against which his better judgment protested. His own

share in the development of the legend must be gauged by what is

distinctively his, not by what he has in common with others. Judged thus,

he must be said to have developed the Christian symbolic side of the

legend as much as the human philosophic side. If in Robert de Borron the

Grail touches its highest symbolic level through its identification with

the body of the dead and risen Lord, we can trace in Wolfram the germ of

that approximation of the Grail-Quester to the earthly career of the

Saviour which Wagner was to develop more than 600 years later.[157]

What influence Wolfram's poem, with its practical, human enthusiasm, its

true and noble sexual morality, might have had on English literature is an

interesting speculation. It would have appealed, one would think, to our

race with its utilitarian ethical instinct, with its lofty ideal of wedded

love. The true man, Parzival, should, in the fitness of things, be the

English hero of the Quest, rather than the visionary ascetic Galahad.

Mediæval England was dominated by France and knew nothing of Germany, and

when in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries we can trace German

influence on English thought and writ, taste had changed, and the Parzival

was well-nigh forgotten in its own land. It remained so almost until our

own days. The Quest after Perfection still haunted the German mind, but it

was conceived of on altogether different lines from those of the twelfth

century poet. The nation of scholars pictured the quester as a student,

not as a knight. When it took shape in the dreary period of Protestant

scholasticism the quest is wholly cursed. Faust's pursuit of knowledge is

unlawful, a rebellion against God, which dooms him irrevocably. Not until

Goethe's day is the full significance of the legend perceived, is the

theme widened to embrace the totality of human striving. Thus the last

glimpse we have of Faust is of one devoted to the service of man; the last

words of the poem are a recognition of the divine element in the love of

man and woman.[158]

In Germany, as in England, the old legend has appealed afresh to poets and

thinkers, and then, as was natural, they turned to Germany's greatest

mediæval poet. Wagner's Parsifal would, in any case, be interesting as an

expression of one of the strongest dramatic geniuses of the century.

Considered purely as a work of literature, apart from the music, it has

rare beauty and profound significance. The essentially dramatic bent of

Wagner's mind, the stage destination of the poem, must be borne in mind

when considering it. Wolfram's conception--youthful folly and inexperience

chastised by reproof, followed by doubt and strife, cancelled by the

faithful steadfastness of the full-grown man--is obviously unsuited for

dramatic purposes. At no one point of Wolfram's poem do we find that clash

of motives and of characters which the stage requires. In building up

_his_ conception Wagner has utilised every hint of his predecessor with

wonderful ingenuity. Klinschor, the magician, becomes with him the active

opponent of the Grail King, Amfortas, from whom he has wrested the holy

spear by the aid of Kundry's unholy beauty. Kundry is Wagner's great

contribution to the legend. She is the Herodias whom Christ for her

laughter doomed to wander till He come again. Subject to the powers of

evil, she must tempt and lure to their destruction the Grail warriors. And

yet she would find release and salvation could a man resist her love

spell.[159] She knows this. The scene between the unwilling temptress,

whose success would but doom her afresh, and the virgin Parsifal thus

becomes tragic in the extreme. How does this affect Amfortas and the

Grail? In this way. Parsifal is the "pure fool," knowing nought of sin or

suffering. It had been foretold of him he should become "wise by

fellow-suffering," and so it proves. The overmastering rush of desire

unseals his eyes, clears his mind. Heart-wounded by the shaft of passion,

he feels Amfortas' torture thrill through him. The pain of the physical

wound is his, but far more, the agony of the sinner who has been unworthy

his high trust, and who, soiled by carnal sin, must yet daily come in

contact with the Grail, symbol of the highest purity and holiness. The

strength which comes of the new-born knowledge enables him to resist

sensual longing, and thereby to release both Kundry and Amfortas.

In the latest version of the Perceval Quest, as in the Galahad Quest, the

ideal of chastity is thus paramount. This result is due to Wagner's

dramatic treatment of the theme. The conception that knowledge of sin and

fellowship in suffering are requisite to enable man to resist temptation,

and that thus alone does he acquire the needful strength to assist his

fellows, however true and profound, can obviously only be worked out on

the stage through the medium of one form of sin and suffering. The long

psychological process of Wolfram's poem, the slow growth of the unthinking

youth into the steadfast, faithful man, is replaced by a mystic,

transcendental conversion. From out a world of human endeavour, human

motive, we have stepped into one wholly ascetic and symbolical. The love

of man for woman only appears in the guise of forbidden desire; the aims

and needs of this world are not even thought of. Every incident has been

remoulded in accord with Christian tradition. Wagner fully accepts the

sacramental nature of the Grail, and the Grail feast is with him a

faithful reproduction of the Last Supper. Holiness and purity are the

essence of the Grail, which is cleared from every taint of its pagan

origin. And whilst Wagner, following the French models, identifies the

Grail with the most sacred object of Christian worship, he also,

developing hints of Wolfram's, reshapes the career of his Grail-seeker in

accord with that of Christ. Parsifal, the releaser of sin-stricken Kundry,

of sin-stricken Amfortas--Parsifal, the restorer of peace and holiness to

the Grail Kingdom--becomes a symbol of the Saviour.

In the reasoned, artistic growth of the legend, the plastic, living

element is that supplied by Christian tradition. From the moment that the

Celtic lord of the underworld is identified with the evangelist of Britain

we see the older complex of tales acquire consistency, life, and meaning.

Even where the direct influence of the intruding element is slightest, as

in the Conte du Graal, we can still perceive that it is responsible for

the germs of after development. Sometimes violently and unintelligently,

sometimes with a keen feeling for the possibilities of the original

romance, sometimes with the boldest introduction of new matter, sometimes

with slavish adherence to pre-Christian conceptions, the transformation of

the Celtic tales goes on. The cauldron of increase and renovation, the

glaive of light, the magic fish, the visit to the otherworld, all are

gradually metamorphosed until at last the talisman of the Irish gods

becomes the symbol of the risen Lord, its seeker a type of Christ in His

divinest attributes.

The ethical teaching of the legend becomes also purely Christian as the

Middle Ages conceived Christianity. Renunciation of the world and of the

flesh is its key-note. Once only in Wolfram do we find an ideal human in

its essence, though dogmatic in form; the path thus opened is not trodden

further, and the legend remains as a whole, on the moral side, a monument

of Christian asceticism.

We have seen reason to surmise that the folk-tales which underlie the

romances themselves gave the hint for the most characteristic

manifestation of this ascetic ideal. It is worth enquiry if these tales

have developed themselves independently from the Christianised legend, and

if such development shows any trace of ethical conceptions comparable with

those of the legend. Can we gather from the tales as fashioned by the folk

teaching similar to that of the preachers, philosophers, and artists by

whom the legend has been shaped? Few enquiries can be more interesting

than one which traces such a conception as the Quest after the highest

good as pictured by the rudest and most primitive members of the race.

Many of the tales which formed a part of the (hypothetical) Welsh original

of the earliest Grail romances have been shown to come under the Aryan

Expulsion and Return Formula (_supra_, Ch. VI). Among most races this

formula has connected itself with the national heroes, and has given rise

to hero-tales in which the historical element outweighs the ethical.

Sometimes, as in the tale of Perseus, the incidents are so related as to

bring out an ethical _motif_; Perseus is certainly thought of as avenging

his mother's undeserved wrongs. I cannot trace anything of the kind among

the Celts. All the incidents of the formula in Celtic tradition which I

know of are purely historical in character. This element of the old

Saga-mass thus yields nothing for the present enquiry. Others are more

fruitful. Perceval is akin not only to Fionn, but also to the Great Fool.

The Lay of the Great Fool was found to tally closely with adventures in

the Mabinogi and in the Conte du Graal (_supra_, Ch. VI). It also sets

forth a moral conception that admits of profitable comparison with that of

the Grail romances.

Ultimately, the Lay is, I have little doubt, one of the many forms in

which a mortal's visit to the otherworld was related. Wandering into the

Glen of Glamour, the hero and his love encounter a magician; the hero

drinks of the proffered cup, despite his love's remonstrances, and

forthwith loses his two legs. This is obviously a form of the

widely-spread myth which forbids the visitant to the otherworld to partake

of aught there under penalty of never returning to earth. But this

mythical _motif_ has taken an ethical shape in popular fancy. According to

Kennedy's version, it is the hero's excess in draining the cup to the

dregs which calls for punishment. This change is of the same nature as

that noted with regard to a similar incident in the Grail romances. There,

the old mythic taboo of sleeping or speaking in the otherworld called at

last for an explanation, and found one in Wolfram's philosophic

conception. The parallel does not end here. Perceval may retrieve his

fault, and so may the Great Fool; Wolfram makes his hero win salvation by

steadfast faith, the folk-tale makes its hero in the face of every form of

temptation a pattern of steadfast loyalty to the absent friend and to the

pledged word. It may, or may not, be considered to the advantage of the

folk-tale that, unlike the mediæval romance, it deals neither in mysticism

nor in asceticism. The sin and atonement of the Great Fool are such as the

popular mind can grasp; he is an example of human weakness and human

strength. The woman he loves is no temptress, no representative of the

evil principle--on the contrary, she is ever by his side to counsel and to

cheer him.

When it is remembered that the two off-shoots, romantic-legendary and

popular, from the one traditional stem have grown up in perfect

independence of each other, the kinship of moral idea is startling. The

folk-lorist has often cause to wonder at the spontaneous flower-like

character of the object of his study; folk-tradition seems to obey fixed

laws of growth and to be no product of man's free thought and speech. The

few partisans of the theory that folk-tradition is only a later and

weakened echo of the higher culture of the race are invited to study the

present case. A Celtic tale, after supplying an important element to the

Christianised Grail legend, has gone on its way entirely unaffected by the

new shape which that legend assumed, and yet it has worked out a moral

conception of fundamental likeness to one set forth in the legend. It

would be difficult to find a more perfect instance of the spontaneous,

evolutional character of tradition contended for by what, in default of a

better name, must be called the anthropological school of folk-lorists.

We must quit Celtic ground to find another example of an element in the

originals of the Grail romances, embodying a popular ethical idea. This

instance is such an interesting one that I cannot pass it by in silence.

As was shown in Chapter VII, one of the many forms of the hero's visit to

the otherworld has for object the release of maidens held captive by an

evil power. A formal connection was established between this section of

the romance and the folk-tale of the Sleeping Beauty. As a whole, too,

this tale admits of comparison with the legend. Its origin is mythic

without a doubt. Whether it be regarded as a day or as a year myth, as the

rescue of the dawn from night, or of the incarnate spring from the bonds

of winter, it equally pictures a victory of the lord of light and heat and

life over the powers of darkness, cold, and death. With admirable fidelity

folk-tradition has preserved the myth, so that its true nature can be

recognised without fail. It would be wrong, though, to conclude that

retention of the mythic framework implied any recognition of its mythic

character on the part of those who told or listened to the story. Some

investigators, indeed, hold it idle to consider it otherwise than as a

tale told merely for amusement. But a story, to live, must appeal to moral

as well as to æsthetic emotions. In the folk-mind this story sets forth,

dimly though it may be, that search for the highest human felicity which

is likewise a theme of the Grail romances. What better picture of this

quest could be found than the old mythic symbol of the awakening of life

and increase beneath the kiss of the sun-god. The hero of the folk-tale

makes his way through the briars and tangle of the forest that he may

restore to the deserted castle life and plenty; so much has the tale

retained of the original mythic signification. As regards the quester

himself, the maiden he thus woos is his reward and the noblest prize earth

has to offer him. Where the romance writers made power, or riches, or

learning, or personal salvation the goal of man's effort, the folk-tale

bids him seek happiness in the common human affections.

Such, all too briefly sketched, has been the fate and story of these

tales, first shaped in a period of culture wellnigh pre-historic, gifted

by reason of their Celtic setting with a charm that commended them to the

romantic spirit of the middle ages, and made them fit vehicles for the

embodiment of mediæval ideas. Quickened by Christian symbolism they came

to express and typify the noblest and the most mystic longings of man. The

legend, as the poets and thinkers of the twelfth century fashioned it, has

still a lesson and a meaning for us. It may be likened to one of the

divine maidens of Irish tradition. She lives across the western sea. Ever

and again heroes, filled with mysterious yearning for the truth and beauty

of the infinite and undying, make sail to join her if they may. They pass

away and others succeed them, but she remains ever young and fair. So long

as the thirst of man for the ideal endures, her spell will not be

weakened, her charm will not be lessened. But each generation works out

this Quest in its own spirit. This much may be predicted with some

confidence: henceforth, whosoever would do full justice to the legend must

take pattern by Wolfram von Eschenbach rather than by any of his rivals;

he must deal with human needs and human longings; his ideal must be the

widening of human good and human joy. Above all, he must give reverent yet

full expression to all the aspirations, all the energies of man and of

woman.

FINIS.

APPENDIX A.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH AND CHRESTIEN.

The various arguments for and against the use of any other French source

than Chrestien by Wolfram have been clearly summed up by G. Bötticher, Die

Wolfram Literatur seit Lachmann, Berlin, 1880. The chief representative of

the negative opinion is Birch-Hirschfeld, who first gives, Chapter VIII.

of his work, a useful collection of passages relating to the Grail, the

Castle, and the Quest, from both authors. His chief argument is this:--The

Grail in all the romances except in Wolfram is a cup or vessel, but in

Wolfram a stone, a peculiarity only to be explained by Wolfram's ignorance

of any source than Chrestien, and by the fact that the latter, in

accordance with his usual practice of leaving objects and persons in as

mysterious an atmosphere as possible, nowhere gives a clear description of

the Grail. He undoubtedly would have done so if he had finished his work.

Such indications as he gave led Wolfram, who did not understand the word

_Graal_, to think it was a stone. It is inconceivable that Kyot, if such a

personage existed, should have so far departed from all other versions as

not to picture the Grail as a vessel, inconceivable, again, that his

account of it should have been just as vague as Chrestien's, that he

should have afforded Wolfram no hint of the real nature of the object. In

Chrestien Perceval's question refers to the Grail, but Wolfram, missing

the significance of the holy vessel owing to the meagreness of the

information respecting it given to him by Chrestien, was compelled to

transform the whole incident, and to refer it solely to the sufferings of

the wounded King. Again, Chrestien meant to utilise the sword, and to

bring Gawain to the Grail Castle; but his unfinished work did not carry

out his intention, and in Wolfram Gawain also fails to come to the Grail

Castle; the sword is passed over in silence in the latter part of the

poem.--Simrock, jealous for the credit of Wolfram, claimed for him the

invention of all that could not be traced to Chrestien, resting the claim

chiefly upon consideration of a sentimental patriotic nature.--In

opposition to these views, although the fact is not denied that Wolfram

followed Chrestien closely for the parts common to both, it is urged to be

incredible that he, a German poet, should invent a prologue to Chrestien's

unfinished work connecting with an Angevin princely genealogical legend.

It was also pointed out, with greatest fulness by Bartsch, Die Eigennamen

im Parcival und Titurel, Germanist. Studien, II., 114, _et seq._, that the

German poet gives a vast number of proper names which are not to be found

in Chrestien, and that these are nearly all of French, and especially

Southern French and Provençal origin.--Simrock endeavoured to meet this

argument in the fifth edition of his translation, but with little

success.--Bötticher, whilst admitting the weight of Birch-Hirschfeld's

arguments, points out the difficulties which his theory involves. If

Wolfram simply misunderstood Chrestien and did not differ from him

personally, why should he be at the trouble of inventing an elaborately

feigned source to justify a simple addition to the original story? If he

only knew of the Grail from Chrestien, what gave him the idea of endowing

it, as he did, with mystic properties? Martin points out in addition (Zs.

f. d. A., V. 87) that Wolfram has the same connection of the Grail and

Swan Knight story as Gerbert, whom, _ex hypothesi_, he could not have

known, and who certainly did not know him.--In his Zur Gralsage, Martin

returned to the question of proper names, and showed that a varying

redaction of a large part of the romance is vouched for by the different

names which Heinrich von dem Türlin applies to personages met with both in

Chrestien and in Wolfram. If, then, one French version, that followed by

Heinrich, who is obviously a translator, is lost, why not another?

The first thorough comparison of Chrestien and Wolfram is to be found in

Otto Küpp's Unmittelbaren Quellen des Parzival, (Zs. f. d. Ph. XVII., l).

He argues for Kyot's existence. Some of the points he mentions in which

the two poems differ, and in which Wolfram's account has a more archaic

character, may be cited: The mention of Gurnemanz's sons; the food

producing properties of the Grail on Parzival's first visit; the

reproaches of the varlet to Parzival on his leaving the Grail Castle, "You

are a goose, had you but moved your lips and asked the host! Now you have

lost great praise;"[160] the statement that the broken sword is to be made

whole by dipping in the Lake Lac, and the mention of a sword charm by

virtue of which Parzival can become lord of the Grail Castle; the mention

that no one seeing the Grail could die within eight days. In addition Küpp

finds that many of the names in Wolfram are more archaic than those of

Chrestien. On the other hand, Küpp has not noticed that Chrestien has

preserved a more archaic feature in the prohibition laid upon Gauvain not

to leave for seven days the castle after he had undergone the adventure of

the bed.

Küpp has not noticed that some of the special points he singles out in

Wolfram are likewise to be found in Chrestien's continuators, _e.g._, the

mention of the sons of Gurnemanz, by Gerbert.

I believe I have the first pointed out the insistence by both Wolfram and

Gerbert upon the hero's love to and duty towards his wife.

The name of Parzival's uncle in Wolfram, Gurnemanz, is nearer to the form

in Gerbert, Gornumant, than to that in Chrestien, Gonemant.

The matter may be summed up thus: it is very improbable that Wolfram

should have invented those parts of the story found in him alone; the

parts common to him and Chrestien are frequently more archaic in his case;

there are numerous points of contact between him and Gerbert. All this

speaks for another French source than Chrestien. On the other hand, it is

almost inconceivable that such a source should have presented the Grail as

Wolfram presents it.

I cannot affect to consider the question decidedly settled one way or the

other, and have, therefore, preferred to make no use of Wolfram. I would

only point out that if the contentions of the foregoing studies be

admitted, they strongly favour the genuineness of the non-Chrestien

section of Wolfram's poem,[161] though I admit they throw no light upon

his special presentment of the Grail itself.

APPENDIX B.

THE PROLOGUE TO THE GRAND ST. GRAAL AND THE BRANDAN LEGEND.

I believe the only parallel to this prologue to be the one furnished by

that form of the Brandan legend of which Schröder has printed a German

version (Sanct Brandan) at Erlangen, in 1871, from a MS. of the fourteenth

century, but the first composition of which he places (p. 15) in the last

quarter of the twelfth century. The text in question will be found pp. 51,

_et seq._: Brandan, a servant of God, seeks out marvels in rare books, he

finds that two paradises were on earth, that another world was situated

under this one, so that when it is here night it is day there, and of a

fish so big that forests grew on his back, also that the grace of God

allowed some respite every Saturday night to the torments of Judas. Angry

at all these things he burnt the book. But the voice of God spake to him,

"Dear friend Brandan thou hast done wrong, and through thy wrath I see My

wonders lost." The holy Christ bade him fare nine years on the ocean,

until he see whether these marvels were real or a lie. Thereafter Brandan

makes ready a ship to set forth on his travels.

This version was very popular in Germany. Schröder prints a Low German

adaptation, and a chap book one, frequently reprinted during the

fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. But besides this form

there was another, now lost, which can be partially recovered from the

allusions to it in the Wartburg Krieg, a German poem of the thirteenth and

early fourteenth century, and which is as follows:--An angel brings

Brandan a book from heaven: Brandan finds so many incredible things in it

that he taxes book and angel with lying, and burns the book. For his

unfaith he must wander till he find it. God's grace grants him this at

last; an angel gives him the sign of two fires burning, which are the eyes

of an ox, upon whose tongue he shall find the book. He hands it to

Uranias, who brings it to _Scotland_ (_i.e._, of course Ireland) Schröder,

p. 9.

The closeness of the parallel cannot be denied, and it raises many

interesting questions, which I can here only allude to. The Isle of

Brandan has always been recognized as a Christian variant of the Celtic

Tír-na n-Og, the Land of the Shades, Avalon. Schröder has some instructive

remarks on this subject, p. 11. The voyage of Brandan may thus be

compared with that of Bran, the son of Febal (_supra_, p. 232), both being

versions of the wide-spread myth of a mortal's visit to the otherworld. It

is not a little remarkable that in the Latin legend, which differs from

the German form by the absence of the above-cited prologue, there is an

account (missing in the German), of a "conopeus" ("cover" or "canopy,")

_cf._ Ducange and Diez, _sub voce_; the old French version translates it

by "Pavillon of the colour of silver but harder than marble, and a column

therein of clearest crystal." And on the fourth day they find a window and

therein a "calix" of the same nature as the "conopeus" and a "patena" of

the colour of the column (Schröder, p. 27, and Note 41).

Thus there is a formal connection between the Brandan legend and the Grail

romances in the prologue common to two works of each cycle, and there is a

likeness of subject-matter between the Brandan legend and the older Celtic

traditions which I have assumed to be the basis of the romances. But

German literature likewise supplies evidence of a connection between

Brandan and Bran. Professor Karl Pearson has referred me to a passage in

the Pfaffe Amis, a thirteenth century South German poem, composed by Der

Stricker, the hero of which, a prototype of Eulenspiegel, goes through the

world gulling and tricking his contemporaries. In a certain town he

persuades the good people to entrust to him their money, by telling them

that he has in his possession a very precious relic, the head of St.

Brandan, which has commanded him to build a cathedral (Lambl's Edition,

Leipzig, 1872, p. 32). The preservation of the head of Bran is a special

feature in the Mabinogi. I have instanced parallels from Celtic tradition

(Branwen, p. 14), and Professor Rhys has since (Hibb. Lect., p. 94)

connected the whole with Celtic mythological beliefs. This chance

reference in a German poem is the only trace to my knowledge of an earlier

legend in which, it may be, Bran and Brandan, the visitor to and the lord

of the otherworld, were one and the same person.

It is highly desirable that every form of or allusion to the Brandan

legend should be examined afresh, as, perhaps, able to throw fresh light

upon the origin and growth of the Grail legend. In Pseudo-Chrestien

Perceval's mother goes on a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Brandan.

INDEX I.

DRAMATIS PERSONÆ.

[This Index is to the Summaries contained in Chapter II, and the

references are not to page and line, but to Version and Incident. The

Versions are distinguished by the following abbreviations:--

Conte du Graal =Co=, Pseudo-Chrestien =PC=, Chrestien =C=, Gautier =G=,

Manessier =Ma=, Gerbert =Ge=, Wolfram =W=, Heinrich von dem Türlin =H=,

Mabinogi of Peredur =M=, Thornton MS. Sir Perceval =T=, Didot-Perceval

=D=, Borron's poem =B=, Queste =Q= (=Q={1} and =Q={2} refer to the

different drafts of the romance distinguished p. 83) Grand St. Graal =GG=.

With the less important entries, or when the entries are confined to one

version, a simple number reference is given. But in the case of the more

important personages, notably Perceval, Gawain, and Galahad, an attempt

has been made to show the life history, by grouping together references to

the same incident from different versions; in this case each incident

group is separated from other groups by a long dash ----. Any speciality

in the incident presented by a version is bracketed _before_ the reference

initial, and, when deemed advisable, reference has been made to allied as

well as to similar incidents. This detail, to save space, is, as a rule,

given only once, as under Perceval, and not duplicated under other

headings, the number reference alone being given in the latter cases. The

fullest entry is Perceval, which practically comprises such entries as

Fisher King, Grail, Sword, Lance, etc.]

=ABEL= =Q=37, =GG=24.

=ABRIORIS= =G=9.

=ACHEFLOUR= =T=1.

=ADAM= =Q=37, =GG=24.

=ADDANC OF LAKE= =M=16, 19.

=AGARAN= =Q=23.

=AGRESTES= =GG=40.

=AGUIGRENONS= =Co=, _Kingrun_ =W=, anonymous =M=, =C=6, =W=, =M=8.

=ALAINS=, Celidoine's son =GG=43.

=ALAINS= or =ALEIN= (=li Gros= =D=, =Q=, =GG=) =B=12----=Dprol=, 1, 6, 12,

=Q=26, =GG=30, 43, 45, 51, 58, 59.

=ALEINE=, Gawain's niece, =D=1.

=ALFASEM= =GG=51, 58.

=AMANGONS= =PC=1, 2, 4.

=AMFORTAS=, see Fisher King.

=AMINADAP= =GG=58.

=ANGHARAD= Law Eurawc, =M=12, 14.

=ANTIKONIE=, see Facile Damsel.

=ARGASTES= =Q=27.

=ARIDES= of Cavalon =Ma=14, 16 (a King of Cavalon mentioned =C=12

corresponds to _Vergulat_ of Askalon in =W=).

=ARTHUR= =PC=2, 3, 5, =C=1, =Dprol=----arrival of Perceval at his court

=C=3, =W=, =M=3, =T=4, =Dprol=----=C=6, 9, 10, =W=, =M=9, 10, 11----=M=13,

14----=C=11, =W=, =M=20----=T=7----=C=18, =W=----=G=1, =W=----=G=2, 3, 6,

9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, =Ma=10, 16, 23, =Ge=5, =H=, =D=1, 3, 5, 8, 14, 16,

=M=25, =Q=3, 5, 13, =GG=33, 45, 48.

=AUGUSTUS CÆSAR= =GG=11.

=AVALON= or =AVARON= =B=12, 13, =D=9.

=BAGOMMEDES= =G=19, 20.

=BANDAMAGUS= =Q=5, 6, 43.

=BANS= =Q=26, =GG=30, 59.

=BEAU MAUVAIS=, le, =G=11, =D=8.

=BEDUERS= =D=2.

=BLAISE= =Dprol=, 14.

=BLANCHEFLEUR= =Co=, Conduiramur =W=, anonymous =M=, _cf._ Lufamour

=T=----Perceval's cousin =Co=, =W=----first meeting with Perceval =C=6,

=W=, =M=8----second meeting with Perceval =G=10----third meeting

=Ma=13-16----third meeting and marriage with Perceval =Ge=8-10, _cf._ =W=.

=BLIHIS= =PC=1 = Blaise?

=BLIHOS BLIHERIS= =PC=2.

=BLIOCADRANS= (of Wales, Perceval's father), =PC=6.

=BORS, BOHORS, BOORT= =Q=1, 3, 13, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, =Ma=18----=Q=35,

48-52.

=BRANDALIS= =G=1, 2.

=BRIOS= =G=16.

=BRONS, BRON=, or =HEBRON=. =B=7, 8, 12, 14, =Dprol=, 6, 16, =GG=41, 42,

_cf._ p. 19.

=BRUILLANT= =GG=58 = Urlain =Q=35.

=BRUN DE BRANLANT= =G=1.

=CAIN= =Q=37, =GG=24.

=CAIPHAS= =GG=2, 3.

=CAIUS= =GG=3.

=CALIDES= =Ma=9.

=CALOGRENANT= =Q=33. =CALOGRINANT= =Ma=18----_Calocreant_ in =H=, one of

the three Grail-seekers.

=CARAHIES= =G=5.

=CARCHELOIS= =Q=39.

=CARDUEL= =C=3----_Carduel_ of Nantes =G=1.

=CASTRARS= =PC=4.

=CATHELOYS= =GG=58.

=CAVALON= =C=12----=Ma=14, 16.

=CELIDOINE= =GG=22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 39, 59, =Q=26.

=CHANAAN= =GG=45, 47.

=CHESSBOARD CASTLE= =G=7, =D=4, =M=24----=G=14----=G=18, =D=13.

=CHRIST= =B=1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11, =Q=7, 10, 13, 15, 20, 26, 50, =Dprol=, 16,

=Ge=15, =GG=1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 21, 23, 30, 37, 41, 45.

=CLAMADEX= =C=6, Clamide =W=, the earl =M=8 = the Sowdane =T=7.

=CLARISSE= =Co= Mons MS. or _Clarissant_ Montpellier MS., ITONJE

=W=----=C=18, =G=1, =W=.

=CLAUDIUS= =GG=3.

=CLAUDIUS=, son of Claudas =Q={2}51.

=CORBENIC= =Q=, =GG=, =CORBIÈRE= =Ma=23, =Q=13, 43, 48, =GG=51.

=CORSAPIAS= =GG=22.

=COWARD KNIGHT= =Ma=17, 19.

=CRUDEL= =Q=6, 15, =Ge=15, =GG=36-38.

=DAVID= =Q=37.

=DODINEL= =Ma=14.

=ELIEZER= =Q=27.

=EMPTY SEAT=, see Seat Perillous.

=ENYGEUS=, =ENYSGEUS=, or =ANYSGEUS= =B=7, 8, 11, 12.

=EREC= =D=2.

=ERNOUS= =Q=39.

=ESCORANT= =Q={2}51.

=ESCOS= =GG=47.

=ESPINOGRE= =Ma=5.

=ESTROIS DE GARILES= =Q={2}51.

=ETLYM GLEDDYV COCH= =M=16-18.

=EVALACH.= Evalach li mescouncus =GG=, Eualac =Q= (Anelac 26), Evelac

=Ma=, =Ge=. Overcoming Tholomes =GG=6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, =Q=6, 15, 26,

=Ma=3, =Ge=15, name changed to _Mordrains_, which see.

=EVE= =Q=37, =GG=24.

=FACILE DAMSEL=, Anonymous =Co=, =H=, =M=, _Antikonie_ =W=, =C=14, =W=,

=H=, =M=21.

=FEIREFIZ= =W=.

=FELIX= =GG=3, 11.

=FISHER KING.= Anonymous =Co=, Amfortas =W=, Brons =B=, =D=, Alain =GG=.

Anonymous (?), =Q={1}, Pelles =Q={2}. In =M= the Fisher corresponds to

Gonemans. In all the French works of the cycle the adjective rich is

commonly applied to the Fisher. Splendour of court =PC=1----learned in

black art =PC=3----old and sick =Dprol=, First meeting with Perceval =C=7,

=W=, =D=11, _cf._ =PC=3, =M=6----=C=8, =W=, _cf._ =D=2, 12----=C=11, =W=,

_cf._ =D=15, =M=21----=G=7, 8, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20----Second meeting with

Perceval =G=22, =Ma=1-7 or =Ge=1-5, =D=16, _cf._ =M=25----=Ma=10----Third

meeting with Perceval =Ma=22, =Ge=22, =W=----Grandfather of Galahad

=Q={1}2, 26. See also Maimed King.

Surname given to Brons =B=12, to Alain =GG=43.

Vessel given to him =D=1----commanded to go to the West =D=6.

=FLEGENTYNE= =GG=22, 29, 31, 37, 59.

=GAHMURET= =W=.

=GALAHAD= (GALAAD). _Father_: Lancelot =Q=, =GG=----_Mother_: daughter of

King Pelles =Q={1}, =GG=, or Fisher King =Q={2}----Seat Perillous

=Q=2----Sword =Q=3----Quest proclaimed =Q=5----Evelac's Shield =Q=6,

=GG=50----Devil-inhabited tomb =Q=7, _cf._ =Ge=17----Melians'

discomforture =Q=8----Castle of Maidens =Q=9----overcoming of Lancelot and

Perceval =Q=11----destined achiever of Quest =Q=13----rescue of Perceval

=Q=16----Genealogy =Q=26, =GG=21, 30, 58----likening to a spotless bull

=Q=29----overcoming of Gawain =Q=34----stay on ship =Q=35, 36----sword

=Q=36----Maimed King =Q={2} 36----capture of Castle Carchelois

=Q=39----stag and lions =Q=40, _cf._ =GG=45----castle of the evil custom

=Q=41----stay with father =Q=42----healing of Mordrains =Q=44, _cf._

=GG=39----cooling of fountain =Q=45----making white the Cross

=GG=40----release of Symeu =Q=46, =GG=49----making whole sword

=GG=44----release of Moys =GG=46----five years' wanderings

=Q=47----arrival at King Peleur's =Q={1}, Maimed King's =Q={2}, witnessing

of Grail and healing of Maimed King =Q=48-50----Sarras, crowning, death

=Q=51, 52.

=GALAHAD= (GALAAD) son of Joseph =GG=8, 31, 34----King of Hocelice and

ancestor of Urien =GG=49----founding of abbey for Symeu =GG=49.

=GANSGUOTER= =H=.

=GANORT= =GG=33, 35.

=GARALAS= =G=13.

=GAWAIN.= Gauvain =Co=, =Q=, =GG=, Gwalchmai =M=, Gawan =W=, Gawein =H=,

Gawayne or Wawayne =T=----of the seed of Joseph of Arimathea =GG=48,

Arthur's nephew =Co=, =Q=----conquers Blihos Bliheris =PC=2----allusion to

his finding the Grail =PC=3----one of the knights met by Perceval in wood

=M=1, =T=2----helps Perceval to disarm Red Knight =T=4----meeting with

Perceval after blood-drops incident =C=10, =W=, =M=11----vow to release

imprisoned maiden =C=11, =M=20----reproached by Guigambresil =C=12,

(Kingrimur) =W=, (anonymous) =M=20----tournament at Tiebaut's =C=13,

(Lippaot) =W=, (Leigamar) =H=, _cf._ =D=15, where Perceval is hero but

Gawain best knight after him----adventure with the facile damsel =C=14,

(Antikonie) =W=, =H=, =M=21----injunction to seek bleeding lance =C=14,

=W=, (Grail) =H=----adventure with Griogoras =C=16, (Urjan) =W=, (Lohenis)

=H=----meeting with scornful damsel, Orgeuilleuse, arrival at ferryman's

=C=16, =W=----Magic Castle =C=17, =W=, _cf._ =GG=51----may not leave

castle =C=17----second meeting with Orgueilleuse =C=18, =W=,

(Mancipicelle) =H=----Ford Perillous, Guiromelant =C=18, (Gramoflanz) =W=,

(Giremelanz) =H=----marriage with Orgueilleuse =W=, (?) =C=18----arrival

of Arthur to witness combat with Guiromelant =C=18 continued by =G=1, =W=,

=H=----fight with Perceval =W=, _cf._ =T=7----reconciliation with

Guiromelant =G=1, =W=, =H=----departure on Grail Quest and winning various

talismans =H=----[first arrival at Grail Castle according to Montpellier

MS. of =Co=]----Brun de Branlant, Brandalis =G=1 and 2----slaying of

unknown knight and Quest to avenge him =G=3----Chapel of Black Hand

=G=3----arrival at Grail Castle (first according to Mons MS. of =Co=),

half successful =G=3, wholly successful =H=, _cf._ =M=25 found by Peredur

at Castle of Talismans, and reference in =Q=51 Welsh version----greetings

of country folk =G=3, _cf._ =Ge=3----meeting with his son =G=4----Mount

Dolorous Quest =G=19----renewed Grail Quest, reproached for conduct at

Fisher King's, slaying of Margon =Ma=10----rescue of Lyonel

=Ma=18----rescue by Perceval =Ge=16.

Joins in search for Grail with remainder of Table Round =D={2}, =Q=,

betraying knowledge of Maimed King =Q=5.

Meeting with Ywain, Gheheris and confession to hermit =Q=10.

Meeting with Hector de Mares =Q=29.

Overcoming at Galahad's hand =Q=34.

=GHEHERIES= =Q=10.

=GIFLÈS= =C=11, =G=2.

=GONEMANS= or =GONEMANT= =Co=, Gornumant =Ge=, Gurnemanz =W=, Fisher Uncle

=M=, =C=5, =W=, =M=5, uncle to Blanchefleur =C=6, =C=7, =W=, second

meeting with Perceval =Ge=8-9, _cf._ =T=6.

=GOON DESERT= =Ma=4.

=GRAIL=, Early History of. Last Supper cup given to Joseph =B=2, 3, 4,

=GG=2, =Q=50, =Ma=3----Solace of Joseph =B=5, 6, =GG=2, =D=16, =Ma=3

(Montpellier MS.)----Grail and Fish =B=8, 9 _cf._ =GG=43----Directs Joseph

what to do with Alain =B=12, _cf._ =GG=42, confided to Brons =B=14,15,

=Dprol= 6, (Alain) =GG=51----=D=6, 10----feeds host =GG=5, =Q=13, also

=GG=32----Blinding of Nasciens =GG=16, 21, 23, 30, passage to England 31,

=D=6, =Q=6, 13, 15----Crudel =GG=38, =Q=15, =Ge=15----Blinding of

Mordrains =GG=38, 39, 42, only feeds the sinless 43, 44, refuses meat to

Chanaan and Symeu 47, resting-place, Castle Corbenic =GG=51.

Book of, revealed to hermit =GG=2.

=GRAIL=, Quest of _by Perceval_: first seen at Fisher King's =PC=3, =C=7,

=W=, =D=11----properties of =C=8, =W=, =D=12----=C=11, =W=----=C=15,

=W=----lights up forest =G=14----=G=21----seen for second time

=G=22-=Ma=1-7 or =Ge=1-3, =D=16----heals Hector and Perceval

=Ma=20----taken from earth =Ge=6, _cf._ =W=----opposed by witch, =Ge=8,

9----connection with Shield =Ge=13----seen for third time =Ma=23, 24,

=Ge=22; _by Gawain_: =H= and =G=3; _by Lancelot_: =Q=12, 22, 43; _by

Galahad_: =Q=2, feeds Arthur's court =Q=4, quest proclaimed =Q=5, feeds

host =Q=13, =GG=32, denied to Gawain and Hector =Q=29, 30, accomplished

=Q=50-52.

=GRAIL-MESSENGER=, see Loathly Damsel.

=GRAMOFLANZ= see Guiromelant.

=GRIOGORAS= =C=16 = Lohenis =H=.

=GUIROMELANT= =Co=, Gramoflanz =W=, Giremelanz =H=, =C=18-=G=1, =W=, =H=.

=HECTOR= (de =MARES= =Q=) =Q=29, 34, 43, =Ma=20.

=HELAIN= =Q=27.

=HELICORAS= =GG=22.

=HELYAB= =GG=2, 8, 34.

=HELYAS= =Q=26 = Ysaies =GG=30, 38.

=HERZELOYDE= =W=.

=HUDEN= =PC=4.

=HURGAINS= or =HURGANET= =D=2, 3.

=JONAANS= =Q=26, =JONANS= =GG=30, =JONAS= =GG=59.

=JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA.= D'Arymathye =B=, de Arimathie =GG=, d'Abarimathie

or d'Arimathie =Q=, de Barimacie =G=, and =Ma= (Montpellier MS.), Josep

(without mention of town =Ma=, Mons MS.), de Barismachie =Ge=----care of

Christ's body, captivity, solace, release =B=2-7, =GG=2, 3, =D=16, _cf._

=Q=6, =Ma=2----stay in Sarras =GG=4-11, =Q=6, 26, =Ge=15,

=Ma=3----=B=7----Passage to England =GG=31, =Q=6----feeding by Grail

=GG=32, =Q=13, _cf._ =B=8, 9----Moys =B=11, 12, =Dprol=, _cf._

=GG=41----=B=12-15----=GG=34, 36, =Q=15, =Ge=15----=GG=38, 44, 45, 48,

50--=D=1, 6, 12.

=JOSEPHES=, =JOSEPHE=, =JOSEPHUS=, or =JOSAPHES=, son of Joseph of

Arimathea, =GG=2, 5, 9, 10, 11 =Q=6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 31 =Q=6, 13 and 32,

36 =Q=6, 38 =Q=6 and 15, 40, 41 =Q=13 _cf._ =D=6, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50

=Q=6, =Q=50, 51.

=JOSUE= =GG=51, 58.

=KALAFIER= =GG=20, 22.

=KARDEIZ= =W=.

=KAY.= Kex =Co=----=T=2----=C=3, =W=, =M=3----=C=4, =W=, =M=4----=C=6,

=C=9----=C=10, =W=, =M=11----=M=14----=T=7----=G=3, 19, =Ma=10, =Ge=21,

=D=8----one of the three Grail-questers =H=.

=KLINSCHOR= =W.=

=LABAN= =Q=35 (query variant of Lambar?).

=LABEL= =GG=26.

=LABEL'S DAUGHTER= =GG=28, 29, 37, 39.

=LAMBAR= or =LABRAN= =Q=35, =LAMBOR= =GG=58.

=LANCE= (Spear) =PC=3, 4, =C=7, 8, =M=6, =C=11, 14, 15, =G=3, 22, =Ma=1,

2, 24, =Ge=22, =H=, =D=11, 12, 16, =Q=50, 51, =GG=9, 15, 16.

=LANCELOT=, Lancelot of Lake's grandfather =Q=26, =GG=30, 59.

=LANCELOT.= Galahad's father =Q=, =GG=, =Q=1, 2, 4 (_cf._ =C=11), 5, 11,

12 (_cf._ =C=7 and =G=3), 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (_cf._ =GG=58) 27, 28, 29,

42, 43, =GG=30, 33, 40, 45, 58, 59, =PC=4.

=LEUCANS= =GG=10.

=LIONEL Q=1, 3, attacks Bors =Q=33, =Ma=18.

=LOATHLY DAMSEL.= Anonymous =Co=, Kundrie =W=, Perceval's cousin =M=,

reproaches Perceval =C=11, =W=, =M=20----announces end of Quest, =Ma=23,

=M=25.

=LOGRES= =PC=1, =G=3, =Q=12, 35, 47.

=LOHENIS= =H= = Griogoras =C=16.

=LOHERANGRIN= =W=.

=LONGIS= =PC=4, =Ma=2, =D=16.

=LOT= =GG=48.

=LUCES= =GG=48.

=LUFAMOUR= =T=7, _cf._ Blanchefleur.

=MAIDENS' CASTLE= =PC=5, =G=12=a=, =Ge=6----=Q=9.

=MAIMED= or =LAME KING=. Same personage as Fisher King. Designated in this

way _only_ =M=, almost entirely so =Q={2} (5, 13, also =Q={1} 36, 39, 47,

50), never so =B=, =D=. =GG=58 applies the designation to Pelleans.

=MANAAL= =GG=58.

=MANCIPICELLE=, see Orgueilleuse.

=MARGON= =Ma=10.

=MARIE LA VENISSIENNE= =GG=3 = Verrine, =B=6, =W=.

=MARPUS= (=WARPUS= =Q=26) =GG=30, 59.

=MEAUX= =GG=11.

=MELIANS=, Galahad's companion =Q=8, 10.

=MELIANS DE LIS= =C=13, =D=15.

=MERLIN= (see p. 64D) =G=20, =Dprol=, 14, 15, =Q=13.

=MORDRAINS= =GG=, Mordains =Q=, _once_ Noodrans =Ma=, _once_ Mordrach

=Ge=----Baptism =GG=14, 15, =Q=6, 26, =Ma=3 =Ge=15----=GG=16, 17, vision

of descendants 18, =Q=26----=GG=19, 20, stay on island 21, _cf._

=Q=19----=GG=27, =Q=36----=GG=29 Crudel, and blinding by Grail 37, 38,

=Q=15, =Ge=15----retires to hermitage =GG=39, =Q=44----his shield =GG=50,

=Q=6.

=MORDRED= =GG=45.

=MORDRET= =Ge=6, 7.

=MORGHE LA FÉE= =G=18.

=MORONEUS= =Q={2}26.

=MORS DEL CALAN= =PC=4.

=MOUNT DOLOROUS= =G=19, 20, =Ge=5.

=MOYS=, =MOYSES= (=B=). Seat Perillous =B=10, 11, 12, =Dprol=, 1, =GG=41,

46.

=NASCIENS= =GG=, =Q=, Natiien =Ma=----Baptism =GG=14, =Q=6, 26,

=Ma=3----Blinded by Grail =GG=16----=GG=18, 19, 20, 21, 22, turning isle

and Solomon's ship, 23-27, =Q=35-37----=GG=28, 29, 30, 32, 33, Crudel 37,

38, (called Seraphe) =Q=15----=GG=39----his tomb =GG=50----death

=GG=59----appears as hermit in Arthur's time =Q=4, 5, 6, 29.

=NASCIENS=, son of Celidoine, =GG=39.

=NASCIENS=, grandson of Celidoine =GG=30, 59.

=NICODEMUS= =B=3, 4, 5.

=NOIRONS=, _i.e._, Nero =GG=3.

=ORCANZ= =GG=48.

=ORGUEILLEUSE.= Orguellouse =C=, Orgeluse =W= = Mancipicelle =H=,

=C=16----=G=1, =W=, =H=.

=OWAIN= =M=, =EWAYNE= =T=, =YONES= =C=4, =YWAIN= "li aoutres" =Q=6, 9, 10,

29, =GG=49----meets Perceval =M=1, =T=2----helps him =M=3, =C=4.

=PARTINAL= =Ma=5, 8, 21, 22.

=PECORINS= =PC=4.

=PELEUR= =Q={1}5, 47, 48.

=PELLEANS= =GG=58.

=PELLEHEM= =Q={2}35.

=PELLES= =Q={2}1-3, 14, 27, 36, 44, 48, 50, =GG=59.

=PERCEVAL= =Co=, =D=, =Q=, =GG=; PARZIVAL =W=, =H=; PEREDUR =M=;

PERCYVELLE =T=.--_Father_: Bliocadrans =PC=; anonymous =Co=, =Q=; Alain

=D=; Gahmuret =W=; Evrawe =M=; Percyvelle =T=; Pellehem =Q={2}. _Mother_:

Anonymous =Co=, =D=, =Q=, =M=; Herzeloyde =W=; Acheflour (Arthur's sister)

=T=----brought up in wood =C=1, =W=, =M=, =T=1----meets knights (5) =C=1,

=W=, (3) =M=1, =T=2----leaves mother =C=1, =W=, =D=, =M=1, =T=2----first

meeting with lady of tent =C=2, (Ieschute) =W=, =M=2, =T=3----arrival at

Arthur's Court =C=3, =W=, =D=, =M=3, =T=4----laughing prophetic damsel

=C=3, =W=, dwarves =M=3----slays _red_ knight =C=4, (Ither of Gaheviez)

=W=, (colour not specified) =M=3, =T=4----overcomes 16 Knights

=M=4----burns witch =T=5----arrival at house of first uncle, Gonemans

=C=5, Gurnemanz =W=, Anonymous =M=5, and (different adventure partly

corresponding to =Ge=8) =T=6----first arrival at castle of lady love,

Blanchefleur =C=5, Conduiramur =W=, Anonymous =M=8, Lufamour =T=7----first

arrival at Fisher King's =C=7, =W=, =D=11, =M=6----is reproached by

wayside damsel, cousin: (Anonymous) =C=8, (Sigune) =W=, =D=12, foster

sister =M=7----second meeting with lady of tent =C=9, =W=,

=M=9----overcoming of Sorceresses of Gloucester =M=10----blood drops in

the snow =C=10, =W=, =M=11----Adventures with Angharad Law Eurawc; at the

castle of the huge grey man; serpent on the gold ring; Mound of Mourning;

Addanc of the Lake; Countess of Achievements =M=12-19----reproaches of the

loathly damsel =C=11, (Kundrie) =W=, =M=20----Good Friday incident and

confession to uncle =C=15, (Trevrezent) =W=, =D=14, =M=22----the Castle of

the Horn =G=6----the Castle of the Chessboard =G=7, =D=4, =M=24----meeting

with brother of Red Knight =G=8----Ford _amorous_ =G=9, _perillous_

=D=9----second meeting with Blanchefleur =G=10----meeting with Rosette and

Le Beau Mauvais =G=11, =D=8----meeting with sister and visit to hermit

=G=12, =D=5 and 6----the Castle of Maidens =G=12=a=----meeting with the

hound-stealing damsel =G=13, =D=13, =M=24----meeting with the damsel of

the white mule =G=14----tournament at Castle Orguellous =G=16 = =D=15

(Melianz de Lis) and =M=19 (?)----Deliverance of knight in tomb

=G=17----second visit to the Castle of the Chessboard =G=18,

=D=13----delivery of Bagommedes =G=19----arrival at Mount Dolorous

=G=20----the Black Hand in the Chapel =G=21----second arrival at Grail

Castle =G=22-=Ma=1-7 and =Ge=1, =D=16, (with final overcoming of

Sorceresses of Gloucester) =M=25.

Puts on red armour for love of Aleine, accomplishes the feat of the

Seat Perillous, and sets forth on Quest =D=1 and 2.

Slays the red knight, Orgoillous Delandes, =D=3.

Overcomes Black Knight, slays giant and finds mother =T=9.

Perceval and Saigremors =Ma=8----Second visit to Chapel of the Black Hand

=Ma=11----the demon horse =Ma=12, =Q=18----Stay on the island =Q=19, and

20, and temptation by damsel 21, =Ma=13----Delivery of Dodinel's lady love

=Ma=14----Tribuet =Ma=15----third meeting with Blanchefleur

=Ma=16----meeting with coward knight =Ma=17----combat with Hector

=Ma=20----slaying of Partinal =Ma=21----third arrival at Grail Castle

=Ma=22----learns death of his uncle the Fisher King from loathly damsel

=Ma=23, =W=----retires into wilderness =Q=52, =Ma=24----dies =Q=52, goes

to Palestine and dies (?) =T=.

Encounter, unknown to either, with Galahad =Q=11. Meeting with recluse

aunt =Q=13.

Assistance at the hands of the Red Knight =Q=16.

Adventure of the ship =Q=33, essay to draw sword =Q=35.

Receives Galahad's sword =Q=41, bears Galahad company for five years

=Q=47----adjusts the sword at the Court of Pelles =Q={2}48.

Breaking of sword at the Gate of Paradise =Ge=2----Blessings of the

country folk for putting question =Ge=3----Mending of sword at forge of

the serpent =Ge=4----Accomplishment of the feat of the Perillous Seat

=Ge=5----adventures at sister's Castle, with Mordret, and at cousin's,

Castle of Maidens =Ge=6----encounter with Kex, Gauvain, and Tristan =Ge=7,

_cf._ =T=7----meeting with Gornumant =Ge=8 (_cf._ =T=6) and fight with the

resuscitating hag----third arrival at Blanchefleur's Castle, marriage

=Ge=9----deliverance of maiden, abolition of evil custom, knight on fire

=Ge=10-12----obtains the promised shield =G=13----combat with the Dragon

King =Ge=14----arrival at abbey and story of Mordrains =Ge=15,

=Q=15----the swan-drawn coffin =Ge=16----Devil in tomb =Ge=17, _cf._

=Q=7----deliverance of maiden from fountain =Ge=18----punishment of

traitress damsel =Ge=19----combat with giant =Ge=20, _cf._

=T=9----encounters Kex =Ge=21----third arrival at Grail Castle =Ge=22.

=PERCEVAL'S AUNT= =Q=13, 14.

=PERCEVAL'S SISTER=, daughter to Pellehem =Q={2}, =G=12, =D=5-7, =Q=35,

36, 38, 41, 42----_cf._ =M=7.

=PERCEVAL'S UNCLE=, see Gonemans, Fisher King.

=PETRONE= =GG=29.

=PETRUS= =B=8, 12, 13, 14, =PETER= =GG=43, =PIERRON= =GG=45, 47, 48.

=PHILOSOPHINE= =Ge=6, 15.

=PILATE= =B=1, =GG=2, =B=3, 6.

=PRIADAM THE BLACK= =Q=30.

=QUIQUAGRANT= =Ma=5.

=RED KNIGHT.= Slain by Perceval =C=3, 4, =T=1, 5, who takes his arms, and

is mistaken for him =C=6, =T=6, transferred to Galahad when latter takes

Perceval's place =Q=14, 16----=G=8, 9.

=ROSETTE=, Loathly Maiden, =G=11, =D=8.

=SAIGREMORS= =C=10, =Ma=8, 9, 18, =D=2.

=SARRAQUITE= =GG=13, 16, 22, 28, 29, 59.

=SARRAS= =GG=5, 11, 13, 15, 18, =Ma=3, =Q=26, 41, 50, =GG=30.

=SEAT PERILLOUS= (empty) =B=10, =Dprol=, 1----=Q=2, =GG=41, =Ge=5, =Q=13.

=SERAPHE= =GG=, =Q=, =Ge=, _once_ Salafrès =Ma=----Battle with Tholomes

=GG=12, 14, =Q=6, 26, =Ma=3, =Ge=15, renamed _Nasciens_, which see.

=SEVAIN OF MEAUX= =GG=11.

=SOLOMON'S SHIP= =Q=35-38, =GG=24, 27, 30, 58.

=SOLOMON'S SWORD= =Q=35, 38, =GG=27, _cf._ =Q=48.

=SORCERESSES OF GLOUCESTER= =M=10, 25.

=STAG HUNT= =G=7, 8, 16, 18, =D=4, 13, =M=24.

=SWORD= =PC=3, =C=7, 8, =M=6, =G=3, 12, 22, =Ma=5, 22, =Ge=1, 2, 4, 15,

22, =H=, =Q=2, 3, 48, =GG=33, 44, 58. See also Solomon's sword.

=SYMEU= =Q=46, =GG=31, 47, 49.

=THOLOMES= =Q=6, =Ge=15, =GG=11, 12, 14.

=THOLOME CERASTRE= =GG=11.

=TIBERIUS CÆSAR= =GG=3, 11, =Ma=3.

=TITUS= =GG=3.

=TREBUCET= or =TRIBUET= =C=8, =W=, =Ma=15.

=URBAN OF THE BLACK THORN= =D=9, =Co=.

=URLAIN= or =URBAN= =Q=35 = Bruillant =GG=58.

=UTHER PENDRAGON= =GG=9, _cf._ p. 64D.

=VERRINE= =B=6 = Marie la Venissienne =GG=3.

=VESPASIAN= =B=6, =GG=3, 4, =Ma=3, =Q=7.

=WASTE CITY=, King of the, =Ge=8.

=WASTE LAND= =PC=1, (forest) 6, =Q=13, 35, =GG=58.

=YSAIES= =GG=30, 59 = Helyas, =Q=26.

=YWAIN=, see Owain.

INDEX II.

[This Index comprises the whole of the work with exception of the

Summaries, for which see Index I. The references are to the pages. The

entries apply solely to the page number or page group-number which they

immediately precede, and not to all the pages between themselves and the

next entry. In the majority of cases a simple number reference is given,

and the fuller entries are to those points which the author wishes

specially to emphasise.]

Abundia and Herodias, 100.

Adonis, 101.

Alain (son of Brons), 66, 77, 79, 82, 83, 84, 89, 109, 112, 123,

as Fisher King, 208, 210, 218, 222, 245.

Amfortas, Fisher King in Wolfram, 249,

in Wagner's Parsifal, 253-55, 263.

Aminadap, 84.

Arbois de Jubainville, 184-85, 188, 192-93.

Arthur, Arthur saga, Arthurian romance or legend, 108, 114, 116, 117,

Martin's interpretation of, 122-24, 130, 134, 136, 144, 147, 148, 153,

155, 156, 188,

A's waiting, 197-98,

A and Potter Thompson, 198, 205, 218, 219, 221, 222,

popularity of, 228-29,

Celtic character of, 230, 231, 236, 243, 244, 245.

Avalon (Avaron), 77,

punning explanation of, 78,

parallel to the Grail, 122-23 and 188,

with the Magic Castle, 191, 198, 218, 222,

connection with Glastonbury, 223, 248,

parallel with Brandan's isle, 264.

Baldur, 100.

Ban, 83, 84.

Baring-Gould, 98.

Bartsch, 261.

Battle of Magh Rath, 185, 186.

Bergmann's San Grëal, 104.