PART II. ADONIS
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.
CHAPTER I
IntroductoryIn
view of the extensive literature to which the Grail legend has
already given birth it may seem that the addition of another volume
to the already existing corpus calls for some words of apology and
explanation. When the student of the subject contemplates the
countless essays and brochures, the volumes of studies and criticism,
which have been devoted to this fascinating subject, the conflicting
character of their aims, their hopelessly contradictory results, he,
or she, may well hesitate before adding another element to such a
veritable witches' cauldron of apparently profitless study. And
indeed, were I not convinced that the theory advocated in the
following pages contains in itself the element that will resolve
these conflicting ingredients into one harmonious compound I should
hardly feel justified in offering a further contribution to the
subject.But
it is precisely because upwards of thirty years' steady and
persevering study of the Grail texts has brought me gradually and
inevitably to certain very definite conclusions, has placed me in
possession of evidence hitherto ignored, or unsuspected, that I
venture to offer the result in these studies, trusting that they may
be accepted as, what I believe them to be, a genuine Elucidation of
the Grail problem.My
fellow-workers in this field know all too well the essential elements
of that problem; I do not need here to go over already well-trodden
ground; it will be sufficient to point out certain salient features
of the position.The
main difficulty of our research lies in the fact that the Grail
legend consists of a congeries of widely differing elements—elements
which at first sight appear hopelessly incongruous, if not completely
contradictory, yet at the same time are present to an extent, and in
a form, which no honest critic can afford to ignore.Thus
it has been perfectly possible for one group of scholars, relying
upon the undeniably Christian-Legendary elements, preponderant in
certain versions, to maintain the thesis that the Grail legend is ab
initio a Christian, and ecclesiastical, legend, and to analyse the
literature on that basis alone.Another
group, with equal reason, have pointed to the strongly marked
Folk-lore features preserved in the tale, to its kinship with other
themes, mainly of Celtic provenance, and have argued that, while the
later versions of the cycle have been worked over by ecclesiastical
writers in the interests of edification, the story itself is
non-Christian, and Folk-lore in origin.Both
groups have a basis of truth for their arguments: the features upon
which they rely are, in each case, undeniably present, yet at the
same time each line of argument is faced with certain insuperable
difficulties, fatal to the claims advanced.Thus,
the theory of Christian origin breaks down when faced with the
awkward fact that there is no Christian legend concerning Joseph of
Arimathea and the Grail. Neither in Legendary, nor in Art, is there
any trace of the story; it has no existence outside the Grail
literature, it is the creation of romance, and no genuine tradition.On
this very ground it was severely criticized by the Dutch writer Jacob
van Maerlant, in 1260. In his Merlin he denounces the whole Grail
history as lies, asserting that the Church knows nothing of it—which
is true.In
the same way the advocate of a Folk-lore origin is met with the
objection that the section of the cycle for which such a source can
be definitely proved, i.e., the Perceval story, has originally
nothing whatever to do with the Grail; and that, while parallels can
be found for this or that feature of the legend, such parallels are
isolated in character and involve the breaking up of the tale into a
composite of mutually independent themes. A prototype, containing the
main features of the Grail story—the Waste Land, the Fisher King,
the Hidden Castle with its solemn Feast, and mysterious Feeding
Vessel, the Bleeding Lance and Cup—does not, so far as we know,
exist. None of the great collections of Folk-tales, due to the
industry of a Cosquin, a Hartland, or a Campbell, has preserved
specimens of such a type; it is not such a story as, e.g., The Three
Days Tournament, examples of which are found all over the world. Yet
neither the advocate of a Christian origin, nor the Folk-lorist, can
afford to ignore the arguments, and evidence of the opposing school,
and while the result of half a century of patient investigation has
been to show that the origin of the Grail story must be sought
elsewhere than in ecclesiastical legend, or popular tale, I hold that
the result has equally been to demonstrate that neither of these
solutions should be ignored, but that the ultimate source must be
sought for in a direction which shall do justice to what is sound in
the claims of both.Some
years ago, when fresh from the study of Sir J. G. Frazer's
epoch-making work, The Golden Bough, I was struck by the resemblance
existing between certain features of the Grail story, and
characteristic details of the Nature Cults described. The more
closely I analysed the tale, the more striking became the
resemblance, and I finally asked myself whether it were not possible
that in this mysterious legend—mysterious alike in its character,
its sudden appearance, the importance apparently assigned to it,
followed by as sudden and complete a disappearance—we might not
have the confused record of a ritual, once popular, later surviving
under conditions of strict secrecy? This would fully account for the
atmosphere of awe and reverence which even under distinctly
non-Christian conditions never fails to surround the Grail, It may
act simply as a feeding vessel, It is none the less toute sainte
cose; and also for the presence in the tale of distinctly popular,
and Folk-lore, elements. Such an interpretation would also explain
features irreconcilable with orthodox Christianity, which had caused
some scholars to postulate a heterodox origin for the legend, and
thus explain its curiously complete disappearance as a literary
theme. In the first volume of my Perceval studies, published in 1906,
I hinted at this possible solution of the problem, a solution worked
out more fully in a paper read before the Folk-lore Society in
December of the same year, and published in Volume XVIII. of the
Journal of the Society. By the time my second volume of studies was
ready for publication in 1909, further evidence had come into my
hands; I was then certain that I was upon the right path, and I felt
justified in laying before the public the outlines of a theory of
evolution, alike of the legend, and of the literature, to the main
principles of which I adhere to-day.But
certain links were missing in the chain of evidence, and the work was
not complete. No inconsiderable part of the information at my
disposal depended upon personal testimony, the testimony of those who
knew of the continued existence of such a ritual, and had actually
been initiated into its mysteries—and for such evidence the student
of the letter has little respect. He worships the written word; for
the oral, living, tradition from which the word derives force and
vitality he has little use. Therefore the written word had to be
found. It has taken me some nine or ten years longer to complete the
evidence, but the chain is at last linked up, and we can now prove by
printed texts the parallels existing between each and every feature
of the Grail story and the recorded symbolism of the Mystery cults.
Further, we can show that between these Mystery cults and
Christianity there existed at one time a close and intimate union,
such a union as of itself involved the practical assimilation of the
central rite, in each case a 'Eucharistic' Feast, in which the
worshippers partook of the Food of Life from the sacred vessels.In
face of the proofs which will be found in these pages I do not think
any fair-minded critic will be inclined to dispute any longer the
origin of the 'Holy' Grail; after all it is as august and ancient an
origin as the most tenacious upholder of Its Christian character
could desire.But
I should wish it clearly to be understood that the aim of these
studies is, as indicated in the title, to determine the origin of the
Grail, not to discuss the provenance and interrelation of the
different versions. I do not believe this latter task can be
satisfactorily achieved unless and until we are of one accord as to
the character of the subject matter. When we have made up our minds
as to what the Grail really was, and what it stood for, we shall be
able to analyse the romances; to decide which of them contains more,
which less, of the original matter, and to group them accordingly. On
this point I believe that the table of descent, printed in Volume II.
of my Perceval studies is in the main correct, but there is still
much analytical work to be done, in particular the establishment of
the original form of the Perlesvaus is highly desirable. But apart
from the primary object of these studies, and the results therein
obtained, I would draw attention to the manner in which the evidence
set forth in the chapters on the Mystery cults, and especially that
on The Naassene Document, a text of extraordinary value from more
than one point of view, supports and complements the researches of
Sir J. G. Frazer. I am, of course, familiar with the attacks directed
against the 'Vegetation' theory, the sarcasms of which it has been
the object, and the criticisms of what is held in some quarters to be
the exaggerated importance attached to these Nature cults. But in
view of the use made of these cults as the medium of imparting high
spiritual teaching, a use which, in face of the document above
referred to, can no longer be ignored or evaded, are we not rather
justified in asking if the true importance of the rites has as yet
been recognized? Can we possibly exaggerate their value as a factor
in the evolution of religious consciousness?Such
a development of his researches naturally lay outside the range of
Sir J. G. Frazer's work, but posterity will probably decide that,
like many another patient and honest worker, he 'builded better than
he knew.'I
have carefully read Sir W. Ridgeway's attack on the school in his
Dramas and Dramatic Dances, and while the above remarks explain my
position with regard to the question as a whole, I would here take
the opportunity of stating specifically my grounds for dissenting
from certain of the conclusions at which the learned author arrives.
I do not wish it to be said: "This is all very well, but Miss
Weston ignores the arguments on the other side." I do not
ignore, but I do not admit their validity. It is perfectly obvious
that Sir W. Ridgeway's theory, reduced to abstract terms, would
result in the conclusion that all religion is based upon the cult of
the Dead, and that men originally knew no gods but their
grandfathers, a theory from which as a student of religion I
absolutely and entirely dissent. I can understand that such Dead
Ancestors can be looked upon as Protectors, or as Benefactors, but I
see no ground for supposing that they have ever been regarded as
Creators, yet it is precisely as vehicle for the most lofty teaching
as to the Cosmic relations existing between God and Man, that these
Vegetation cults were employed. The more closely one studies
pre-Christian Theology, the more strongly one is impressed with the
deeply, and daringly, spiritual character of its speculations, and
the more doubtful it appears that such teaching can depend upon the
unaided processes of human thought, or can have been evolved from
such germs as we find among the supposedly 'primitive' peoples, such
as e.g. the Australian tribes. Are they really primitive? Or are we
dealing, not with the primary elements of religion, but with the
disjecta membra of a vanished civilization? Certain it is that so far
as historical evidence goes our earliest records point to the
recognition of a spiritual, not of a material, origin of the human
race; the Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms were not composed by men who
believed themselves the descendants of 'witchetty grubs.' The Folk
practices and ceremonies studied in these pages, the Dances, the
rough Dramas, the local and seasonal celebrations, do not represent
the material out of which the Attis-Adonis cult was formed, but
surviving fragments of a worship from which the higher significance
has vanished.Sir
W. Ridgeway is confident that Osiris, Attis, Adonis, were all at one
time human beings, whose tragic fate gripped hold of popular
imagination, and led to their ultimate deification. The first-named
cult stands on a somewhat different basis from the others, the
beneficent activities of Osiris being more widely diffused, more
universal in their operation. I should be inclined to regard the
Egyptian deity primarily as a Culture Hero, rather than a Vegetation
God.With
regard to Attis and Adonis, whatever their original character (and it
seems to me highly improbable that there should have been two youths
each beloved by a goddess, each victim of a similar untimely fate),
long before we have any trace of them both have become so intimately
identified with the processes of Nature that they have ceased to be
men and become gods, and as such alone can we deal with them. It is
also permissible to point out that in the case of Tammuz, Esmun, and
Adonis, the title is not a proper name, but a vague appellative,
denoting an abstract rather than a concrete origin. Proof of this
will be found later. Sir W. Ridgeway overlooks the fact that it is
not the tragic death of Attis-Adonis which is of importance for these
cults, but their subsequent restoration to life, a feature which
cannot be postulated of any ordinary mortal.And
how are we to regard Tammuz, the prototype of all these deities? Is
there any possible ground for maintaining that he was ever a man?
Prove it we cannot, as the records of his cult go back thousands of
years before our era. Here, again, we have the same dominant feature;
it is not merely the untimely death which is lamented, but the
restoration to life which is celebrated.Throughout
the whole study the author fails to discriminate between the
activities of the living, and the dead, king. The Dead king may, as I
have said above, be regarded as the Benefactor, as the Protector, of
his people, but it is the Living king upon whom their actual and
continued prosperity depends. The detail that the ruling sovereign is
sometimes regarded as the re-incarnation of the original founder of
the race strengthens this point—the king never dies—Le Roi est
mort, Vive le Roi is very emphatically the motto of this Faith. It is
the insistence on Life, Life continuous, and ever-renewing, which is
the abiding characteristic of these cults, a characteristic which
differentiates them utterly and entirely from the ancestral worship
with which Sir W. Ridgeway would fain connect them.Nor
are the arguments based upon the memorial rites of definitely
historical heroes, of comparatively late date, such as Hussein and
Hossein, of any value here. It is precisely the death, and not the
resurrection, of the martyr which is of the essence of the Muharram.
No one contends that Hussein rose from the dead, but it is precisely
this point which is of primary importance in the Nature cults; and
Sir W. Ridgeway must surely be aware that Folk-lorists find in this
very Muharram distinct traces of borrowing from the earlier
Vegetation rites.The
author triumphantly asserts that the fact that certain Burmese heroes
and heroines are after death reverenced as tree spirits 'sets at rest
for ever' the belief in abstract deities. But how can he be sure that
the process was not the reverse of that which he postulates, i.e.,
that certain natural objects, trees, rivers, etc., were not regarded
as sacred before the Nats became connected with them? That the
deified human beings were not after death assigned to places already
held in reverence? Such a possibility is obvious to any Folk-lore
student, and local traditions should in each case be carefully
examined before the contrary is definitely asserted.So
far as the origins of Drama are concerned the Ode quoted later from
the Naassene Document is absolute and definite proof of the close
connection existing between the Attis Mystery ritual, and dramatic
performances, i.e., Attis regarded in his deified, Creative, 'Logos,'
aspect, not Attis, the dead youth.Nor
do I think that the idea of 'Mana' can be lightly dismissed as 'an
ordinary case of relics.' The influence may well be something
entirely apart from the continued existence of the ancestor, an
independent force, assisting him in life, and transferring itself
after death to his successor. A 'Magic' Sword or Staff is not
necessarily a relic; Medieval romance supplies numerous instances of
self-acting weapons whose virtue in no wise depends upon their
previous owner, as e.g. the Sword in Le Chevalier ŕ l'Épée, or the
Flaming Lance of the Chevalier de la Charrette. Doubtless the cult of
Ancestors plays a large rôle in the beliefs of certain peoples, but
it is not a sufficiently solid foundation to bear the weight of the
super-structure Sir W. Ridgeway would fain rear upon it, while it
differs too radically from the cults he attacks to be used as an
argument against them; the one is based upon Death, the other on
Life.Wherefore,
in spite of all the learning and ingenuity brought to bear against
it, I avow myself an impenitent believer in Sir J. G. Frazer's main
theory, and as I have said above, I hold that theory to be of greater
and more far-reaching importance than has been hitherto suspected.I
would add a few words as to the form of these studies—they may be
found disconnected. They have been written at intervals of time
extending over several years, and my aim has been to prove the
essentially archaic character of all the elements composing the Grail
story rather than to analyse the story as a connected whole. With
this aim in view I have devoted chapters to features which have now
either dropped out of the existing versions, or only survive in a
subordinate form, e.g. the chapters on The Medicine Man, and The
Freeing of the Waters. The studies will, I hope, and believe, be
accepted as offering a definite contribution towards establishing the
fundamental character of our material; as stated above, when we are
all at one as to what the Holy Grail really was, and is, we can then
proceed with some hope of success to criticize the manner in which
different writers have handled the inspiring theme, but such success
seems to be hopeless so long as we all start from different, and
often utterly irreconcilable, standpoints and proceed along widely
diverging roads. One or another may, indeed, arrive at the goal, but
such unanimity of opinion as will lend to our criticism authoritative
weight is, on such lines, impossible of achievement.