From Ritual to Romance
by Jessie L. Weston
“Animus ad amplitudinem Mysteriorum pro modulo suo dilatetur, non
Mysteria ad angustias animi constringantur.” (Bacon.)
“Many literary critics seem to think that an hypothesis about obscure
and remote questions of history can be refuted by a simple demand for
the production of more evidence than in fact exists.—But the true test
of an hypothesis, if it cannot be shewn to conflict with known truths,
is the number of facts that it correlaates, and explains.” (Cornford,
_Origins of Attic Comedy_.)
Preface
In the introductory Chapter the reader will find the aim and object of
these studies set forth at length. In view of the importance and
complexity of the problems involved it seemed better to incorporate
such a statement in the book itself, rather than relegate it to a
Preface which all might not trouble to read. Yet I feel that such a
general statement does not adequately express my full debt of
obligation.
Among the many whose labour has been laid under contribution in the
following pages there are certain scholars whose published work, or
personal advice, has been specially illuminating, and to whom specific
acknowledgment is therefore due. Like many others I owe to Sir J. G.
Frazer the initial inspiration which set me, as I may truly say, on the
road to the Grail Castle. Without the guidance of _The Golden Bough_ I
should probably, as the late M. Gaston Paris happily expressed it,
still be wandering in the forest of Broceliande!
During the Bayreuth Festival of 1911 I had frequent opportunities of
meeting, and discussion with, Professor von Schroeder. I owe to him not
only the introduction to his own work, which I found most helpful, but
references which have been of the greatest assistance; _e.g._ my
knowledge of Cumont’s _Les Religions Orientales_, and Scheftelowitz’s
valuable study on _Fish Symbolism_, both of which have furnished
important links in the chain of evidence, is due to Professor von
Schroeder.
The perusal of Miss J. E. Harrison’s _Themis_ opened my eyes to the
extended importance of these Vegetation rites. In view of the evidence
there adduced I asked myself whether beliefs which had found expression
not only in social institution, and popular custom, but, as set forth
in Sir G. Murray’s study on Greek Dramatic Origins, attached to the
work, also in Drama and Literature, might not reasonably—even
inevitably—be expected to have left their mark on Romance? The one
seemed to me a necessary corollary of the other, and I felt that I had
gained, as the result of Miss Harrison’s work, a wider, and more
assured basis for my own researches. I was no longer engaged merely in
enquiring into the sources of a fascinating legend, but on the
identification of another field of activity for forces whose potency as
agents of evolution we were only now beginning rightly to appreciate.
Finally, a casual reference, in Anrich’s work on the Mysteries, to the
_Naassene Document_, caused me to apply to Mr G. R. S. Mead, of whose
knowledge of the mysterious border-land between Christianity and
Paganism, and willingness to place that knowledge at the disposal of
others, I had, for some years past, had pleasant experience. Mr Mead
referred me to his own translation and analysis of the text in
question, and there, to my satisfaction, I found, not only the final
link that completed the chain of evolution from Pagan Mystery to
Christian Ceremonial, but also proof of that wider significance I was
beginning to apprehend. The problem involved was not one of Folk-lore,
not even one of Literature, but of Comparative Religion in its widest
sense.
Thus, while I trust that my co-workers in the field of Arthurian
research will accept these studies as a permanent contribution to the
elucidation of the Grail problem, I would fain hope that those scholars
who labour in a wider field, and to whose works I owe so much, may find
in the results here set forth elements that may prove of real value in
the study of the evolution of religious belief.
J. L. W.
Paris,
_October_, 1919.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
Introductory
Nature of the Grail problem. Unsatisfactory character of results
achieved. Objections to Christian Legendary origin; to Folk-lore
origin. Elements in both theories sound. Solution to be sought in a
direction which will do justice to both. Sir J. G. Frazer’s _Golden
Bough_ indicates possible line of research. Sir W. Ridgeway’s criticism
of _Vegetation_ theory examined. _Dramas and Dramatic Dances_. The
Living and not the Dead King the factor of importance. Impossibility of
proving human origin for Vegetation Deities. Not Death but Resurrection
the essential centre of Ritual. _Muharram_ too late in date and lacks
Resurrection feature. Relation between defunct heroes and special
localities. Sanctity possibly antecedent to connection. _Mana_ not
necessarily a case of relics. Self-acting weapons frequent in Medieval
Romance. Sir J. G. Frazer’s theory holds good. Remarks on method and
design of present Studies.