INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER X.
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
INTRODUCTION.
The
present work is, as its title states, a collection of “Studies.”
It does not profess to give an exhaustive or orderly account of the
Grail romance cycle; it deals with particular aspects of the legend,
and makes no pretence of exhausting even these.It
may be urged that as this is the case the basis of the work is too
broad for the superstructure, and that there was no need to give full
summaries of the leading forms of the legend, or to discuss at such
length their relation one to another, when it was only intended to
follow up one of the many problems which this romance cycle presents.
Had there existed any work in English which did in any measure what
the writer has here attempted to do, he would only too gladly have
given more space and more time to the elaboration of the special
subject of these studies. But the only work of the kind is in German,
Birch-Hirschfeld’s Die Gralsage.
Many interested in the Arthurian romances do not know German; and
some who profess an interest in them, and who do know German, are
not, to judge by their writings, acquainted with Birch-Hirschfeld’s
work. It seemed worth while, therefore, to present the facts about
the cycle with greater fulness than would have been necessary had
those facts been generally accessible. The writer felt, too, that
whatever judgment might be passed upon his own speculations, his
statements of fact might give his book some value in the eyes of
students. He also wished to give all who felt an interest in the line
of investigation he opened up the opportunity of pursuing it further,
or the means of checking his assertions and conjectures.The
writer has taken his texts as he found them. He has studied the
subject matter of the romances, not the words in which they have been
handed down. Those who seek for philological disquisitions are,
therefore, warned that they will find nothing to interest them; and
those scholars who are well acquainted with the printed texts, but
who are on the search for fresh MS. evidence, must not look here for
such. On the other hand, as the printed texts are for the most of
such rarity and price as to be practically inaccessible to anyone not
within reach of a large library, the writer trusts that his abstract
of them will be welcome to many. He has striven to take note of all
works of real value bearing upon the subject. He endeavoured, though
unsuccessfully, to obtain a copy of M. Gaston Paris’ account of the
Arthurian romances which, though it has been for some months in
print, is not yet published.The
writer has done his best to separate the certain from the
conjectural. Like M. Renan, in a similar case, he begs the reader to
supply the “perhaps” and the “possibly’s” that may
sometimes have dropt out. The whole subject is fraught with
difficulty, and there are special reasons why all results must for
some time to come be looked upon as conjectural. These are glanced at
here and there in the course of these studies, but it may be well to
put them together in this place. Firstly, whatever opinions be held
as to which are the older forms of the legend, it is certain that in
no one case do we possess a primary form. All the versions that have
come down to us presuppose, even where they do not actually testify
to, a model. Two of the forms which there is substantial agreement in
reckoning among the oldest, the poems of Chrestien de Troyes and
Robert de Borron, were never finished by the authors; sequels exist
to both, of a later date and obviously affected by other forms of the
legend. A reconstruction of the original story is under these
circumstances a task of great uncertainty. So much for the difficulty
inherent in the nature of the evidence, a difficulty which it is to
be feared will always beset the student of this literature, as no new
texts are likely to be found. Secondly, this evidence, such as it is,
is not accessible in a form of which the most can be made. The most
important member of the group, the Conte du Graal, only exists in one
text, and that from a late and poor MS. It is certain that a critical
edition, based upon a survey of the entire MS. evidence, will throw
great light upon all the questions here treated of. The Mabinogi of
Peredur has not yet been critically edited, nor have the MSS. of the
other romances yielded up all that can be learnt from them. Thirdly,
whatever opinion be held respecting the connection of the North
French romances and Celtic tradition, connection of some kind must be
admitted. Now the study of Celtic tradition is only beginning to be
placed upon a firm basis, and the stores of Celtic myth and legend
are only beginning to be thrown open to the non-Celtic scholar. Were
there in existence a Celtic parallel to Grimm’s great work on
German Mythology, the views for which the writer contends would have
been, in all likelihood, admitted ere now, and there would have been
no necessity for this work at all.Whilst
some of the reasons which render the study of the Grail legends so
fascinating, because so problematic, will probably always remain in
force, others will vanish before the increase of knowledge. When the
diplomatic evidence is accessible in a trustworthy form; when the
romances have received all the light that can be shed upon them from
Celtic history, philology, and mythology, the future student will
have a comparatively easy task. One of the writer’s chief objects
has been to excite an interest in these romances among those who are
able to examine the Celtic elements in them far more efficiently than
he could do. Welsh philologists can do much to explain the
Onomasticon Arthurianum;
Cymric history generally may elucidate the subject matter. But as a
whole Welsh literature is late, meagre, and has kept little that is
archaic. The study of Irish promises far better results. Of all the
races of modern Europe the Irish have the most considerable and the
most archaic mass of pre-Christian traditions. By the side of their
heroic traditional literature that of Cymry or Teuton (High and Low),
or Slav is recent, scanty, and unoriginal.A
few words must be said in defence of the free use made of conjecture
in the course of these studies. This is well nigh unavoidable from
the way in which the texts we have to deal with have come down to us.
What M. Renan has said about the Hebrew historical scriptures is
excellently exemplified in the Grail romances. There was no fixed
text, no definite or rounded sequence of incidents, of which scribes
respected the integrity. On the contrary, each successive transcriber
was only anxious to add some fresh adventure to the interminable
tale, and those MSS. were most thought of which contained the
greatest number of lines. The earlier MSS. have, therefore, almost
entirely disappeared, and we are dealing with works which we know to
have been composed in the twelfth century, but of which we have only
thirteenth or fourteenth century transcripts. Inconsistencies in the
conduct of the story are the inevitable consequence in most cases,
but sometimes the latest arranger had an eye for unity of effect, and
attained this by the simple process of altering the old account so as
to make it fit with the new. In dealing with the text of an
individual author,
whether ancient or modern, it would be in the last degree uncritical
to explain difficulties by such hypotheses as the loss of an earlier
draft, or the foisting into the work of later and incongruous
incidents and conceptions. Not so in the case of the romances; this
method of explanation is natural and legitimate, but none the less is
it largely conjectural.The
writer may be blamed for not having presented his subject in a more
engaging and more lucid form. He would plead in excuse the
circumstances under which his work has been carried on. When the only
hours of study are those which remain after the claims, neither few
nor light, of business and other duties have been met, it is hard to
give an appearance of unity to a number of minute detail studies, and
to weld them together into one harmonious whole. The fact that the
work has been written, and printed, at considerable intervals of time
may, it is hoped, be accepted as some excuse for inconsistency in the
terminology.The
writer has many acknowledgments to make. First and chief to Dr.
Birch-Hirschfeld, but for whose labours, covering well nigh the whole
field of the Grail cycle, he would not have been able to take in hand
his work at all; then to Dr. Furnivall, to whose enthusiasm and
spirit the publication of some of the most important texts are due.
In these two cases the writer acknowledges his gratitude with the
more readiness that he has felt compelled to come to an opposite
conclusion from that arrived at by Dr. Birch-Hirschfeld respecting
the genesis and growth of the legend, and because he has had to
differ from Dr. Furnivall’s estimate of the moral value of the
Galahad romances. To M. Hucher, to Mons. Ch. Potvin, the editor,
single-handed, of the Conte du Graal, to M. d’Arbois de
Jubainville, to Professor Ernst Martin, to the veteran San-Marte, to
Herr Otto Küpp, and to Herr Paul Steinbach, these studies owe much.
Professor Rhys’ Hibbert Lectures came into the writer’s hands as
he was preparing the latter portion of the book for the press; they
were of great service to him, and he was especially gratified to find
opinions at which he had arrived confirmed on altogether independent
grounds by Professor Rhys’ high authority. The writer is also
indebted to him, to Mr. H. L. D. Ward, of the British Museum, and to
his friend Mr. Egerton Phillimore for help given while the sheets
were passing through the press. Lastly, the writer desires to pay an
especial tribute of gratitude and respect to that admirable scholar,
J. F. Campbell. Of all the masters in folk-lore, Jacob Grimm not
excepted, none had a keener eye or surer, more instinctively right
judgment.Although
the writer admits, nay, insists upon the conjectural character of his
results, he believes he is on the right track, and that if the Grail
romances be worked out from any other point of view than the one here
taken, the same goal will be reached. It should be said that some of
the conclusions, which he can claim as his own by right of first
mention, were stated by him in a paper he read before the Folk-Lore
Society in 1880 (afterwards reprinted, Celtic Magazine, 1887,
August-October); and in a paper he read before the Honourable Society
of Cymmrodorion, in 1884.These
studies have been a delight and a solace to the writer; had it been
otherwise, he would still feel himself amply repaid for his work by
the thought that he had made a contribution, however slight, to the
criticism of the Legend of the Holy Grail.
CHAPTER I.
Description
of the leading forms of the Romance: Conte del Graal—Joseph
d’Arimathie—Didot-Perceval—Queste del Saint Graal—Grand Saint
Graal—Parzival—Perceval le Gallois—Mabinogi of Peredur—Sir
Perceval—Diu Crône—Information respecting date and authorship of
these works in the MSS.The
following are the forms in which the Legend of the Holy Grail has
come down to us:—A.—Le
Conte del Graal, a
poem of over 60,000 verses, the major part of which (45,379 verses)
was printed for the first time by Potvin: Le Conte del Graal, six
volumes, 8vo. (vols. ii.-vi. containing our poem), Mons, 1866-71,
from a MS. preserved in the Mons Library.[1]
The portion of the poem which is not printed in full is summarised by
Potvin in the sixth volume of his edition. The poem, so far as at
present known, is the work of four men:A
I. Chrestien de Troyes, who carried the work down to verse 10,601.A
II. Gautier de Doulens, who continued it to verse 34,934.A
III. Manessier, who finished it in 45,379 verses.A
IV. Gerbert, to whom are due over 15,000 verses, mostly found
interpolated between Gautier de Doulens and Manessier.A
MS. preserved in the Library of Montpellier[2]
differs in important respects from the Mons one as far as Gautier de
Doulens and Manessier are concerned. It intercalates 228 verses
between verses 20,294 and 20,296 of the Mons MS., and gives a
different redaction of verses 34,996-35,128 in agreement with the
aforesaid intercalation. It likewise mentions two visits of Gawain to
the Grail Castle. The intercalation in Gautier may be called A IIa,
and the variant in Manessier A IIIa.B.—Joseph
d’Arimathie, Merlin,
exists in two forms: (1) a fragmentary metrical version entitled in
the sole existing MS. (Bibliothèque Nationale, No. 20,047. Fonds St.
Germain, No. 1,987) Li R(o)manz de l’est (o)ire dou Graal, and
consisting of 4,018 verses, 3,514 for the Joseph, the remainder, for
about one-fifth of the Merlin. First printed by Francisque Michel: Le
Roman du St. Graal. Bordeaux, 1841. Secondly by Furnivall: Seynt
Graal or the Sank Ryal. Printed for the Roxburghe Club, two volumes,
4to., London, 1861-63, where it is found in an appendix at the end of
vol i. (2) A prose version of which several MSS. exist, all of which
are fully described by E. Hucher: Le Saint-Graal, ou le Joseph
d’Arimathie, three volumes, 12mo., Le Mans, 1875-78, vol. i., pp.
1-28. The chief are: the Cangé MS. (circa
1250) of which Hucher prints the Joseph, vol. i., pp. 209-276, and
the Didot MS., written in 1301, of which Hucher prints the Joseph,
vol. i., pp. 277-333. Hucher likewise gives, vol. i., pp. 335-365,
variants from the Huth MS. (circa
1280).These
different versions may be numbered as follows:—B
I. The metrical version, which I shall always quote as Metr. Jos.,
from Furnivall’s edition.B
II. The prose versions: B IIa,
Cangé Jos.; B IIb,
Didot Jos.; B IIc,
Huth Jos., all quoted from Hucher, vol. i.C.—Perceval,
prose romance found in the already-mentioned Didot MS. at the end of
the Merlin, printed by Hucher, vol. i., pp. 415-505, from which it
will be quoted as Didot-Perceval.D.—Queste
del Saint Graal,
prose romance commonly found in the MSS. in combination with Lancelot
and the Mort Artur. Edited by Furnivall: La Queste del St. Graal.
Printed for the Roxburghe Club, 4to., London, 1864. The introduction
contains a full account of the existing MSS. A different redaction
from that of any of the known French MSS. is preserved in a Welsh
translation, printed, with a modern English version by the editor,
from a fifteenth century Hengwrt MS., by the Rev. Robert Williams: Y
Seint Graal, London, 8vo., 1876. I shall quote—D
I. Queste, from Furnivall’s edition.D
II. Welsh Quest, from Williams’ edition.E.—The
so-called Grand
Saint Graal, prose
romance found in the MSS., both preceding the Merlin and the Queste,
and preceding the Queste and the Mort Artur. Printed by Furnivall
from Cambridge and Brit. Mus. MSS., together with a metrical English
adaptation by Henry Lonelich, of about the time of Henry the VIth, in
the already-mentioned Seynt Graal; and by Hucher, vols. ii. and iii.,
from a Le Mans MS.; will be quoted as Grand St. Graal, from
Furnivall’s edition.F.—Parzival,
by Wolfram von Eschenbach, German metrical romance, critically edited
from the MSS. by Karl Lachmann, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Vierte
Ausgabe, 8vo., Berlin, 1879, from which it will be quoted as Wolfram.G.—Perceval
le Gallois, prose
romance, first printed by Potvin, vol. i. of his Conte del Graal,
from a Mons MS., with variants from a fragmentary Berne MS. (as to
both of which see pp. 353, etc.). A Welsh translation, with modern
English version by the editor, made from a MS. closely allied to the
Berne fragments, and representing a superior text to that printed by
Potvin, in Williams’ already-mentioned Y Seint Graal.Besides
these works there exist two versions of the Perceval legend in which
the Holy Grail, as such, does not appear. These are:—H.—The
Mabinogi of Peredur, the son of Evrawc,
Welsh prose romance found in the Red Book of Hergest, a MS. of the
end of the fourteenth century, and in MSS. a hundred years older. I
shall quote it as Peredur, from Lady Guest’s English translation of
the Mabinogion, 8vo., London, 1877.I.—Sir
Perceval of Galles,
English metrical romance, printed for the first time from the
Thornton MS., of
circa 1440, by
Halliwell: The Thornton Romances, printed for the Camden Society,
small 4to., London, 1884; from which I shall quote it as Sir
Perceval.Finally
there exists an independent German version of certain adventures, the
hero of which in the Conte du Graal, in Wolfram, and in the Mabinogi,
is Gawain. This is—K.—Heinrich
von dem Türlin.
Diu Crône. Edited by G. H. F. Scholl. Bibliothek des Litterarischen
Vereins, vol. xxvii., Stuttgart, 1852.The
positive information which the different MSS. of the above mentioned
works afford respecting their authors, date of composition, sources,
etc., is as follows:—In the prologue to his poem, Chrestien (Potvin
i., pp. 307-308) dedicates his work to “Li quens Felippes de
Flandres,” who as he states (verse 67), “li bailla le livre,”
which served him as model, and whom he praises at great length as
surpassing Alexander. We know that Count Philip of Flanders took the
cross in 1188, set out for the Holy Land in 1190, and died on the 1st
of June, 1191, before Akkon.[3]
As Chrestien says not a word about the crusading intentions of
Philip, it may be inferred that he wrote his prologue before 1188,
and began the poem in 1189 at the latest. Gautier de Doulens
(probably of that ilk, in Picardy, some miles from Amiens)[4]
has only left his name, verse 33,755, Gautiers de Dons qui l’estore,
etc. Manessier the next continuator has been more explicit; he
describes himself as completing the work at the command of ...Jehanne
la ComtesseQu’est
de Flandre dame et mestresse.(Potvin,
vi., p. 157.)This
Joan, daughter of Baldwin the VIth, ruled Flanders
alone during the
imprisonment of her husband after the battle of Bouvines (1214-1227),
and Manessier’s words can only apply to her during this period, so
that his continuation must have been written between 1214-1227.[5]
The third continuator, Gerbers, only mentions his name (Potvin, vi.,
p. 212).The
author of version B, names himself, B I, verse 3,461, Messires Roberz
de Beron; verses 3,488-94 state that no mortal man had told the
story, until he had it fromMon
seigneur Gautier en peisQui
de Mont Belyal estoit.Verse
3,155 gives the name somewhat differently, Meistres Robers dist de
Bouron. The prose versions follow the poem with additions, thus Cangé
Jos. (p. 275); Messires Roberz de Borron lou restrait à mon seigneur
Gautier, lou preu conte de Mobéliart.Walter
of Montbeliard, brother to Count Richard of Montbeliard, went to the
Holy Land in 1199, became Constable of Jerusalem, Regent of Cyprus,
and died in 1212. The date of his birth is uncertain, but as his
elder brother died in 1237, Walter could hardly have been born before
1150. His father, Amadeus, died in 1183, in which year he received
the countship of Montfaucon. It may only have been after he thus
became independent that Robert entered his service. In any case
Robert could not have spoken of him as “mon seigneur,” before
1170. That year may, therefore, be taken as a
terminus a quo, and
the year 1212 as a
terminus ad quem
for dating these versions.The
Grand St. Graal is likewise ascribed in the MSS. to Robert de Borron,
and it is further stated that he translated from Latin into French—Et
ensi le temoigne me sires robiers de borron qui a translatee de latin
en franchois cheste estoire (ii. p. 78).The
Queste ascribed in the MSS. to Walter Mapes, is said to have been
compiled by him for the love of his lord, King Henry—maistre
Gautiers Map les extrait pour l’amor del roy Henri son seignor, qui
fist l’estore translater du latin en francois[6]—Walter
Mapes, born before 1143 (he presided at the assizes of Gloucester in
1173), died in 1210. If we may believe the MSS., the Queste would
probably fall within the last twenty-five years of the twelfth
century.The
author of Perceval le Gallois describes himself (Potvin, i., 348) as
writing the book for the “Seignor de Neele,” whose Christian
name, “Johan,” is given four lines lower down, at the command of
the “Seingnor de Cambresis,”
i.e., the Bishop of
Cambray. This John of Nesle is probably the one who in the year 1225
sold the lordship of Bruges to Countess Joan of Flanders.[7]Wolfram
von Eschenbach, of that ilk, in North Bavaria, born in the last
thirty years of the twelfth century, died about 1220. He knew
Chrestien’s poem well, and repeatedly refers to it, but with great
contempt, as being the wrong version of the story, whereas he holds
the true version from Kyot, the singer, a “Provenzal,” who found
the tale of Parzival written in heathen tongue at Dôlet (Toledo), by
Flegetanis, a heathen who first taught concerning the Grail, put it
into French, and after searching the chronicles of Britain, France,
and Ireland in vain, at length found information in the chronicles of
Anjou (pp. 202 and 219).Nothing
is stated in the works themselves respecting the authors of the
Mabinogi and the Thornton Sir Perceval.Heinrich
von dem Türlin frequently quotes Chrestien as his authority,
e.g., verses
16,941, 23,046, 23,982.If
these various statements are to be accepted, it follows that in the
course of fifty years (1170-1220) a great body of romance came into
existence, partly in France, Chrestien, his continuators, and Robert
de Borron; partly in England, Walter Mapes; and partly in Germany,
Wolfram von Eschenbach, and Heinrich von dem Türlin. Of this body of
romance only a portion has come down to us, the work of Kyot and the
Latin originals of the Queste and the Grand St. Graal having
disappeared. Furthermore, it is only possible to date with any
accuracy three or four of the works, viz., Chrestien, Manessier,
Wolfram (whose poem falls certainly within the first ten years of the
thirteenth century), though it may also be taken as certain that R.
de Borron wrote after 1170, and the anonymous author of Perceval le
Gallois before 1225. Of the dated works Chrestien’s is the oldest,
1188-90, and it postulates the existence of previous versions.The
object of the present investigation being to determine, as far as
possible, the age and relationship to one another of the different
versions which have come down to us, to exhibit the oldest form of
the story as we have it, and to connect it with Celtic traditional
belief and literature, it will be well, before proceeding to further
discuss the various points left doubtful by the evidence gathered
from the MSS., to give clear and detailed summaries of the most
important versions.