This book is translated from the first volume of "Perceval le Gallois
ou le conte du Graal"; edited by M. Ch. Potvin for 'La Societe des
Bibliophiles Belges' in 1866, (1) from the MS. numbered 11,145 in the
library of the Dukes of Burgundy at Brussels. This MS. I find thus
described in M. F. J. Marchal's catalogue of that priceless collection:
'"Le Roman de Saint Graal", beginning "Ores lestoires", in the French
language; date, first third of the sixteenth century; with ornamental
capitals.' (2) Written three centuries later than the original
romance, and full as it is of faults of the scribe, this manuscript is
by far the most complete known copy of the "Book of the Graal" in
existence, being defective only in Branch XXI. Titles 8 and 9, the
substance of which is fortunately preserved elsewhere. Large
fragments, however, amounting in all to nearly one-seventh of the
whole, of a copy in handwriting of the thirteenth century, are
preserved in six consecutive leaves and one detached leaf bound up with
a number of other works in a MS. numbered 113 in the City Library at
Berne. The volume is in folio on vellum closely written in three
columns to the page, and the seven leaves follow the last poem
contained in it, entitled "Duremart le Gallois". The manuscript is well
known, having been lent to M. de Sainte Palaye for use in the Monuments
of French History issued by the Benedictines of the Congregation of St
Maur. Selections from the poems it contains are given in Sinner's
"Extraits de Poesie du XIII. Siecle", (3) and it is described,
unfortunately without any reference to these particular leaves, by the
same learned librarian in the "Catalogus Codicum MSS. Bibl. Bernensis",
J.R. Sinner. (4)
M. Potvin has carefully collated for his edition all that is preserved
of the Romance in this manuscript, comprising all the beginning of the
work as far as Branch III. Title 8, about the middle, and from Branch
XIX. Title 23, near the beginning, to Branch XXX. Title 5, in the
middle. Making allowance for variations of spelling and sundry minor
differences of reading, by no means always in favour of the earlier
scribe, the Berne fragments are identical with the corresponding
portions of the Brussels manuscript, and it is therefore safe to assume
that the latter is on the whole an accurate transcript of the entire
original Romance.
The only note of time in the book itself is contained in the
declaration at the end. From this it appears that it was written by
order of the Seingnor of Cambrein for Messire Jehan the Seingnor of
Neele. M. Potvin, without giving any reason for so doing, assumes that
this Lord of Cambrein is none other than the Bishop of Cambrai. If
this assumption be correct, the person referred to was probably either
John of Berhune, who held the see from 1200 till July 27, 1219, or his
successor Godfrey of Fontaines (Conde), who held it till 1237. To me,
however, it seems more likely that the personage intended was in
reality the 'Seingnor' of Cambrin, the chef-lieu of a canton of the
same name, on a small hill overlooking the peat-marshes of Bethune,
albeit I can find no other record of any such landed proprietor's
existence.
Be this as it may, the Messire Jehan, Seingnor of Neele, can hardly be
other than the John de Nesle who was present at the battle of Bouvines
in 1214, and who in 1225 sold the lordship of Bruges to Joan of
Flanders. (5) These dates therefore may be regarded as defining that
of the original Romance within fairly narrow limits.
This conclusion is confirmed by other evidence. An early Welsh
translation of the story was published with an English version and a
glossary by the Rev. Robert Williams in the first volume of his
"Selections from the Hengwrt MSS". (6) The first volume of this work
is entitled "Y Seint Greal, being the adventures of King Arthur's
knights of the Round Table, in the quest of the Holy Grail, and on
other occasions. Originally written about the year 1200". The volume,
following the manuscript now in the library of W.W.E. Wynne, Esq., at
Peniarth, is divided into two parts. The first, fol. 1-109 of the
manuscript, represents the thirteenth to the seventeenth book of Sir
Thomas Malory's "Morte d'Arthur". Of the second, which represents the
Romance here translated, Mr Williams writes: "The second portion of the
Welsh Greal, folios 110-280, contains the adventures of Gwalchmei
Peredur and Lancelot, and of the knights of the Round Table; but these
are not found in the "Morte d'Arthur". The Peniarth MS. is beautifully
written on vellum, and in perfect preservation, and its date is that of
Henry VI., the early part of the fifteenth century. The orthography
and style of writing agrees literally with that of the "Mabinogion of
the Llyvr Coch Hergest", which is of that date. This, of course, is a
transcript of an earlier copy; but there is no certainty when it was
first translated into Welsh, though Aneurin Owen in his "Catalogue of
the Hengwrt MSS." assigns it to the sixth year of Henry I. It is
mentioned by Davydd ab Gwilym, who died in 1368."
Whatever may be the date of the Welsh version, the translator had no
great mastery of French, and is often at fault as to the meaning both
of words and sentences, and when in a difficulty is only too apt to cut
the knot by omitting the passage bodily. The book itself, moreover, is
not entire. On page 275, all between Branch IX. Title 16 and Branch
XI. Title 2, twenty-two chapters in all, is missing. Again, on page
355, Titles 10-16 in Branch XXI. are left out, while the whole of the
last Branch, containing 28 Titles, is crumpled up into one little
chapter, from which it would seem that the Welshman had read the
French, but thought it waste of pains to translate it. In all, not to
speak of other defects, there are fifty-six whole chapters in the
present book, of which there is not a word in the Welsh.
In one matter, however, Mr Williams' English translation has stood me
in good stead. In Branch XXI., as I have said, the French manuscript
makes default of two Titles, but almost the whole of their substance is
supplied by the Welsh version. By an unlucky accident, before the
hiatus in the French is fully filled up, the Welsh version itself
becomes defective, though the gap thus left open can hardly extend
beyond a very few words. Without this supplement, incomplete as it is,
it would have been impossible to give the full drift of one of the
Romancer's best stories, which is equally unintelligible in both the
French and Welsh texts in their present state.
As the Welsh version gives a number of names both of persons and places
widely differing from those in the French, it may be useful here to
note the principal changes made. Perceval in the Welsh is called
Peredur, which is said to mean "steel suit". The Welshman, however,
adds that the name in French is "Peneffresvo Galief", which, unless it
be a misreading or miswriting for Perceval le Galois, is to me wholly
unintelligible. Perceval's father, Alain li Gros, is in the Welsh Earl
Evrawg, and his sister Dindrane, Danbrann. King Arthur is Emperor
Arthur, his Queen Guenievre, Gwenhwyvar, and their son Lohot, Lohawt or
Llacheu. Messire Gawain is Gwalchmei; Chaus, son of Ywain li Aoutres,
Gawns, son of Owein Vrych; Messire Kay or Kex is Kei the Long; Ahuret
the Bastard, Anores; Ygerne, wife of Uther Pendragon, Eigyr; Queen
Jandree, Landyr; and King Fisherman for the most part King Peleur. Of
places, Cardoil is Caerlleon on Usk, Pannenoisance, Penvoisins;
Tintagel, Tindagoyl; and Avalon, Avallach.
By a double stroke of ill-luck, the complete and wholly independent
Romance here translated has thus been printed by its two former editors
as if it were only a part of some other story. M. Potvin describes it
as the "First Part, the Romance in Prose," of his "Perceval le
Gallois", and Mr Williams accepts it as the "Second Portion" of his "Y
Seint Greal". This unhappy collocation has led not a few of M.
Potvin's readers to neglect his First Part, under the impression that
the story is retold in the other volumes containing the Romance in
verse; while not a few of Mr Williams' readers have neglected his
Second Portion under the impression that there could be nothing of any
special importance in an adjunct referred to by the Editor in so
perfunctory a manner. In very truth, however, the Story of the Holy
Graal here told is not only the most coherent and poetic of all the
many versions of the Legend, but is also the first and most authentic.
This seems to be proved beyond doubt by a passage in the History of
Fulke Fitz-Warine, originally written apparently between the years 1256
and 1264. The passage occurs at the end of the History, and is printed
in verse of which I give a literal prose translation:
"Merlin saith that in Britain the Great a Wolf shall come
from the White Launde. Twelve sharp teeth shall he have,
six below and six above. He shall have so fierce a look
that he shall chase the Leopard forth of the White Launde,
so much force shall he have and great virtue. We now know
that Merlin said this for Fulke the son of Waryn, for each
of you ought to understand of a surety how in the time of
the King Arthur that was called the White Launde which is
now named the White Town. For in this country was the
chapel of S. Austin that was fair, where Kahuz, the son of
Ywein, dreamed that he carried off the candlestick and that
he met a man who hurt him with a knife and wounded him in
the side. And he, on sleep, cried out so loud that King
Arthur hath heard him and awakened from sleep. And when
Kahuz was awake, he put his hand to his side. There hath he
found the knife that had smitten him through. SO TELLETH US
THE GRAAL, THE BOOK OF THE HOLY VESSEL. There the King
Arthur recovered his bounty and his valour when he had lost
all his chivalry and his virtue. From this country issued
forth the Wolf as saith Merlin the Wise, and the twelve
sharp teeth have we known by his shield. He bore a shield
indented as the heralds have devised. In the shield are
twelve teeth of gules and argent. By the Leopard may be
known and well understood King John, for he bore in his
shield the leopards of beaten gold." (7)
The story of Kahuz or Chaus here indicated by the historian is told at
length in the opening chapters of the present work and, so far as is
known, nowhere else. The inference is therefore unavoidable that we
have here "The Graal, the Book of the Holy Vessel" to which the
biographer of Fulke refers. The use, moreover, of the definite article
shows that the writer held this book to be conclusive authority on the
subject. By the time he retold the story of Fulke, a whole library of
Romances about Perceval and the Holy Graal had been written, with some
of which it is hard to believe that any historian of the time was
unacquainted. He nevertheless distinguishes this particular story as
"The Graal", a way of speaking he would scarce have adopted had he
known of any other "Graals" of equal or nearly equal authority.
Several years later, about 1280, the trouveur Sarrazin also cites "The
Graal" ("li Graaus") in the same manner, in superfluous verification of
the then-accepted truism that King Arthur was at one time Lord of Great
Britain. This appeal to "The Graal" as the authority for a general
belief shows that it was at that time recognised as a well-spring of
authentic knowledge; while the fact that the trouveur was not
confounding "The Graal" with the later version of the story is further
shown by his going on presently to speak of "the Romance that Chrestien
telleth so fairly of Perceval the adventures of the Graal." (8)
Perhaps, however, the most striking testimony to the fact that this
work is none other than the original "Book of the Graal" is to be found
in the "Chronicle of Helinand", well known at the time the Romance was
written not only as a historian but as a troubadour at one time in high
favour at the court of Philip Augustus, and in later years as one of
the most ardent preachers of the Albigensian Crusade. The passage, a
part of which has been often quoted, is inserted in the Chronicle under
the year 720, and runs in English thus:
"At this time a certain marvellous vision was revealed by an
angel to a certain hermit in Britain concerning S. Joseph,
the decurion who deposed from the cross the Body of Our
Lord, as well as concerning the paten or dish in the which
Our Lord supped with His disciples, whereof the history was
written out by the said hermit and is called "Of the Graal"
(de Gradali). Now, a platter, broad and somewhat deep, is
called in French "gradalis" or "gradale", wherein costly
meats with their sauce are wont to be set before rich folk
by degrees ("gradatim") one morsel after another in divers
orders, and in the vulgar speech it is called "graalz", for
that it is grateful and acceptable to him that eateth
therein, as well for that which containeth the victual, for
that haply it is of silver or other precious material, as
for the contents thereof, to wit, the manifold courses of
costly meats. I have not been able to find this history
written in Latin, but it is in the possession of certain
noblemen written in French only, nor, as they say, can it
easily be found complete. This, however, I have not
hitherto been able to obtain from any person so as to read
it with attention. As soon as I can do so, I will translate
into Latin such passages as are more useful and more likely
to be true." (9)
A comparison of this passage with the Introduction to the present work
(10) leaves no doubt that Helinand here refers to this "Book of the
Graal", which cannot therefore be of a later date than that at which he
made this entry in his "Chronicle". At the same time, the difficulty
he experienced in obtaining even the loan of the volume shows that the
work had at that time been only lately written, as in the course of a
few years, copies of a book so widely popular must have been
comparatively common. The date, therefore, at which Helinand's
"Chronicle" was written determines approximately that of the "Book of
the Graal".
In its present state, the "Chronicle" comes to an end with a notice of
the capture of Constantinople by the French in 1204, and it has been
hastily assumed that Helinand's labours as a chronicler must have
closed in that year. As a matter of fact they had not then even begun.
At that time Helinand was still a courtly troubadour, and had not yet
entered on the monastic career during which his "Chronicle" was
compiled. He was certainly living as late as 1229, and preached a
sermon, which assuredly shows no signs of mental decrepitude, in that
year at a synod in Toulouse. (11)
Fortunately a passage in the "Speculum Historiale" of Vincent of
Beauvais, himself a younger contemporary and probably a personal
acquaintance of Helinand, throws considerable light on the real date of
Helinand's "Chronicle". After recounting certain matters connected
with the early years of the thirteenth century, the last date mentioned
being 1209, Vincent proceeds:--
"In those times, in the diocese of Beauvais, was Helinand
monk of Froid-mont, a man religious and distinguished for
his eloquence, who also composed those verses on Death in
our vulgar tongue which are publicly read, so elegantly and
so usefully that the subject is laid open clearer than the
light. He also diligently digested into a certain huge
volume a Chronicle from the beginning of the world down to
his own time. But in truth this work was dissipated and
dispersed in such sort that it is nowhere to be found
entire. For it is reported that the said Helinand lent
certain sheets of the said work to one of his familiars, to
wit, Guarin, Lord Bishop of Senlis of good memory, and thus,
whether through forgetfulness or negligence or some other
cause, lost them altogether. From this work, however, as
far as I have been able to find it, I have inserted many
passages in this work of mine own also."
It will thus be seen that about 1209, Helinand became a monk at
Froid-mont, and it is exceedingly improbable that any portion of his
"Chronicle" was written before that date. On the other hand, his
'familiar' Guarin only became Bishop of Senlis in 1214, and died in
1227, (12) so that it is certain Helinand wrote the last part of his
"Chronicle" not later than the last-mentioned year. The limits of time,
therefore, between which the "Chronicle" was written are clearly
circumscribed; and if it is impossible to define the exact year in
which this particular entry was made, it is not, I fancy, beyond the
legitimate bounds of critical conjecture.
On the first page of the Romance, Helinand read that an Angel had
appeared to a certain hermit in Britain and revealed to him the history
of the Holy Graal. In transferring the record of this event to his
"Chronicle", he was compelled by the exigencies of his system, which
required the insertion of every event recorded under some particular
year, to assign a date to the occurrence. A vague "five hundred years
ago" would be likely to suggest itself as an appropriate time at which
the occurrence might be supposed to have taken place; and if he were
writing in 1220, the revelation to the hermit would thus naturally be
relegated to the year 720, the year under which the entry actually
appears. This, of course, is pure guesswork, but the fact remains that
the "Chronicle" was written in or about 1220, and the "Book of the
Graal" not long before it.
The name of the author is nowhere recorded. He may possibly be
referred to in the "Elucidation" prefixed to the rhymed version of
"Percival le Gallois" under the name of "Master Blihis", but this vague
and tantalising pseudonym affords no hint of his real identity. (13)
Whoever he may have been; I hope that I am not misled by a translator's
natural partiality for the author he translates in assigning him a
foremost rank among the masters of medieval prose romance.
With these testimonies to its age and genuineness, I commend the "Book
of the Graal" to all who love to read of King Arthur and his knights of
the Table Round. They will find here printed in English for the first
time what I take to be in all good faith the original story of Sir
Perceval and the Holy Graal, whole and incorrupt as it left the hands
of its first author.
--Sebastian Evans,
Coombe Lea, Bickley, Kent