{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_4090/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_4090","id":"gutenberg_4090","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4090","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Grail -- Legends -- History and criticism","Romances -- History and criticism"],"text":"From Ritual to Romance\n\nby Jessie L. Weston\n\n\n\u201cAnimus ad amplitudinem Mysteriorum pro modulo suo dilatetur, non\nMysteria ad angustias animi constringantur.\u201d (Bacon.)\n\n\u201cMany literary critics seem to think that an hypothesis about obscure\nand remote questions of history can be refuted by a simple demand for\nthe production of more evidence than in fact exists.\u2014But the true test\nof an hypothesis, if it cannot be shewn to conflict with known truths,\nis the number of facts that it correlaates, and explains.\u201d (Cornford,\n_Origins of Attic Comedy_.)\n\n\n\n\nPreface\n\n\nIn the introductory Chapter the reader will find the aim and object of\nthese studies set forth at length. In view of the importance and\ncomplexity of the problems involved it seemed better to incorporate\nsuch a statement in the book itself, rather than relegate it to a\nPreface which all might not trouble to read. Yet I feel that such a\ngeneral statement does not adequately express my full debt of\nobligation.\n\nAmong the many whose labour has been laid under contribution in the\nfollowing pages there are certain scholars whose published work, or\npersonal advice, has been specially illuminating, and to whom specific\nacknowledgment is therefore due. Like many others I owe to Sir J. G.\nFrazer the initial inspiration which set me, as I may truly say, on the\nroad to the Grail Castle. Without the guidance of _The Golden Bough_ I\nshould probably, as the late M. Gaston Paris happily expressed it,\nstill be wandering in the forest of Broceliande!\n\nDuring the Bayreuth Festival of 1911 I had frequent opportunities of\nmeeting, and discussion with, Professor von Schroeder. I owe to him not\nonly the introduction to his own work, which I found most helpful, but\nreferences which have been of the greatest assistance; _e.g._ my\nknowledge of Cumont\u2019s _Les Religions Orientales_, and Scheftelowitz\u2019s\nvaluable study on _Fish Symbolism_, both of which have furnished\nimportant links in the chain of evidence, is due to Professor von\nSchroeder.\n\nThe perusal of Miss J. E. Harrison\u2019s _Themis_ opened my eyes to the\nextended importance of these Vegetation rites. In view of the evidence\nthere adduced I asked myself whether beliefs which had found expression\nnot only in social institution, and popular custom, but, as set forth\nin Sir G. Murray\u2019s study on Greek Dramatic Origins, attached to the\nwork, also in Drama and Literature, might not reasonably\u2014even\ninevitably\u2014be expected to have left their mark on Romance? The one\nseemed to me a necessary corollary of the other, and I felt that I had\ngained, as the result of Miss Harrison\u2019s work, a wider, and more\nassured basis for my own researches. I was no longer engaged merely in\nenquiring into the sources of a fascinating legend, but on the\nidentification of another field of activity for forces whose potency as\nagents of evolution we were only now beginning rightly to appreciate.\n\nFinally, a casual reference, in Anrich\u2019s work on the Mysteries, to the\n_Naassene Document_, caused me to apply to Mr G. R. S. Mead, of whose\nknowledge of the mysterious border-land between Christianity and\nPaganism, and willingness to place that knowledge at the disposal of\nothers, I had, for some years past, had pleasant experience. Mr Mead\nreferred me to his own translation and analysis of the text in\nquestion, and there, to my satisfaction, I found, not only the final\nlink that completed the chain of evolution from Pagan Mystery to\nChristian Ceremonial, but also proof of that wider significance I was\nbeginning to apprehend. The problem involved was not one of Folk-lore,\nnot even one of Literature, but of Comparative Religion in its widest\nsense.\n\nThus, while I trust that my co-workers in the field of Arthurian\nresearch will accept these studies as a permanent contribution to the\nelucidation of the Grail problem, I would fain hope that those scholars\nwho labour in a wider field, and to whose works I owe so much, may find\nin the results here set forth elements that may prove of real value in\nthe study of the evolution of religious belief.\n\nJ. L. W.\n\n\nParis,\n\n    _October_, 1919.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\nIntroductory\n\nNature of the Grail problem. Unsatisfactory character of results\nachieved. Objections to Christian Legendary origin; to Folk-lore\norigin. Elements in both theories sound. Solution to be sought in a\ndirection which will do justice to both. Sir J. G. Frazer\u2019s _Golden\nBough_ indicates possible line of research. Sir W. Ridgeway\u2019s criticism\nof _Vegetation_ theory examined. _Dramas and Dramatic Dances_. The\nLiving and not the Dead King the factor of importance. Impossibility of\nproving human origin for Vegetation Deities. Not Death but Resurrection\nthe essential centre of Ritual. _Muharram_ too late in date and lacks\nResurrection feature. Relation between defunct heroes and special\nlocalities. Sanctity possibly antecedent to connection. _Mana_ not\nnecessarily a case of relics. Self-acting weapons frequent in Medieval\nRomance. Sir J. G. Frazer\u2019s theory holds good. Remarks on method and\ndesign of present Studies.\n\nCHAPTER II\nThe Task of the Hero\n\nEssential to determine the original nature of the task imposed upon the\nhero. Versions examined. The Gawain forms\u2014_Bleheris, Di\u00fb Cr\u00f4ne_.\nPerceval versions\u2014_Gerbert, prose Perceval, Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes,\nPerlesvaus, Manessier, Peredur, Parzival_. Galahad\u2014Queste. Result,\nprimary task healing of Fisher King and removal of curse of Waste Land.\nThe two inter-dependent. Illness of King entails misfortune on Land.\nEnquiry into nature of King\u2019s disability. _Sone de Nansai_. For\nelucidation of problem necessary to bear in mind close connection\nbetween Land and Ruler. Importance of Waste Land _motif_ for criticism.\n\nCHAPTER III\nThe Freeing of the Waters\n\nEnquiry may commence with early Aryan tradition. The _Rig-Veda_.\nExtreme importance assigned to Indra\u2019s feat of \u201cFreeing the Waters.\u201d\nThis also specific achievement of Grail heroes. Extracts from\n_Rig-Veda_. Dramatic poems and monologues. Professor von Schroeder\u2019s\ntheory. _Mysterium und Mimus. \u1e5aishya\u00e7\u1e5bi\u00f1ga_ drama. Parallels with\n_Perceval_ story. Result, the specific task of the Grail hero not a\nliterary invention but an inheritance of Aryan tradition.\n\nCHAPTER IV\nTammuz and Adonis\n\nGeneral objects to be attained by these Nature Cults. Stimulation of\nFertility, Animal and Vegetable. Principle of Life ultimately conceived\nof in anthropomorphic form. This process already advanced in\n_Rig-Veda_. Greek Mythology preserves intermediate stage. The _Eniautos\nDaimon_. Tammuz\u2014earliest known representative of Dying God. Character\nof the worship. Origin of the name. _Lament for Tammuz_. His death\naffects not only Vegetable but Animal life. Lack of artistic\nrepresentation of Mysteries. Mr Langdon\u2019s suggestion. Ritual possibly\ndramatic. Summary of evidence. Adonis\u2014Phoenician-Greek equivalent of\nTammuz. Probably most popular and best known form of Nature Cult.\nMythological tale of Adonis. Enquiry into nature of injury. Importance\nof recognizing true nature of these cults and of the ritual observed.\nVarying dates of celebration. Adonis probably originally _Eniautos\nDaimon_. Principle of Life in general, hence lack of fixity in date.\nDetails of the ritual. Parallels with the Grail legend examined. Dead\nKnight or Disabled King. Consequent misfortunes of Land. The Weeping\nWomen. The Hairless Maiden. Position of Castle. Summing up. Can\nincidents of such remote antiquity be used as criticism for a Medieval\ntext?\n\nCHAPTER V\nMedieval and Modern Forms of Nature Ritual\n\nIs it possible to establish chain of descent connecting early Aryan and\nBabylonian Ritual with Classic, Medieval and Modern forms of Nature\nworship? Survival of Adonis cult established. Evidence of Mannhardt and\nFrazer. Existing Continental customs recognized as survivals of ancient\nbeliefs. Instances. \u2018Directly related\u2019 to Attis-Adonis cult. Von\nSchroeder establishes parallel between existing Fertility procession\nand _Rig-Veda_ poem. Identification of Life Principle with King.\nProsperity of land dependent on king as representative of god. Celts.\nGreeks. Modern instances, the Shilluk Kings. Parallel between Shilluk\nKing, Grail King and Vegetation Deity. _Sone de Nansai_ and the _Lament\nfor Tammuz_. Identity of situation. Plea for unprejudiced criticism.\nImpossibility of such parallels being fortuitous; the result of\ndeliberate intention, not an accident of literary invention. If\nidentity of central character be admitted his relation to Waste Land\nbecomes fundamental factor in criticizing versions. Another African\nsurvival.\n\nCHAPTER VI\nThe Symbols\n\nSummary of results of previous enquiry. _The Medieval Stage_. Grail\nromances probably contain record of secret ritual of a Fertility cult.\nThe Symbols of the cult\u2014Cup, Lance, Sword, Stone, or Dish. Plea for\ntreating Symbols as a related group not as isolated units. Failure to\ndo so probably cause of unsatisfactory result of long research.\nEssential to recognize Grail story as an original whole and to treat it\nin its _ensemble_ aspect. We must differentiate between origin and\naccretion. Instances. _The Legend of Longinus_. Lance and Cup not\nassociated in Christian Art. Evidence. The _Spear_ of Eastern Liturgies\nonly a _Knife. The Bleeding Lance_. Treasures of the Tuatha de Danann.\nCorrespond as a group with Grail Symbols. Difficulty of equating\nCauldron-Grail. Probably belong to a different line of tradition.\nInstances given. Real significance of Lance and Cup. Well known as Life\nSymbols. The Samurai. Four Symbols also preserved as Suits of the\nTarot. Origin of Tarot discussed. Probably reached Europe from the\nEast. Use of the Symbols in Magic. Probable explanation of these\nvarious appearances to be found in fact that associated group were at\none time symbols of a Fertility cult. Further evidence to be examined.\n\nCHAPTER VII\nThe Sword Dance\n\nRelation of Sword Dance, Morris Dance, and Mumming Play. Their\nCeremonial origin now admitted by scholars. Connected with seasonal\nFestivals and Fertility Ritual. Earliest Sword Dancers, the Maruts. Von\nSchroeder, _Mysterium und Mimus_. Discussion of their nature and\nfunctions. The Kouretes. Character of their dance. Miss J. E. Harrison,\nThemis. The Korybantes. Dance probably sacrificial in origin. The\nSalii. Dramatic element in their dance. Mars, as Fertility god.\nMamurius Veturius. Anna Perenna. Character of dance seasonal. Modern\nBritish survivals. The Sword Dance. Mostly preserved in North.\nVariants. Mr E. K. Chambers, _The Medieval Stage_. The Mumming Plays.\nDescription. Characters. Recognized as representing Death and Revival\nof Vegetation Deity. Dr Jevons, _Masks and the Origin of the Greek\nDrama_. Morris Dances. No dramatic element. Costume of character\nsignificant. Possible survival of theriomorphic origin. Elaborate\ncharacter of figures in each group. Symbols employed. The Pentangle.\nThe Chalice. Present form shows dislocation. Probability that three\ngroups were once a combined whole and Symbols united. Evidence\nstrengthens view advanced in last Chapter. Symbols originally a group\nconnected with lost form of Fertility Ritual. Possible origin of Grail\nKnights to be found in Sword Dancers.\n\nCHAPTER VIII\nThe Medicine Man\n\nThe _r\u00f4le_ of the Medicine Man, or Doctor in Fertility Ritual. Its\nimportance and antiquity. The _Rig-Veda_ poem. Classical evidence, Mr\nF. Cornford. Traces of Medicine Man in the Grail romances. Gawain as\nHealer. Persistent tradition. Possible survival from pre-literary form.\nEvidence of the _Triads_. Peredur as Healer. Evolution of theme. _Le\nDist de l\u2019Erberie_.\n\nCHAPTER IX\nThe Fisher King\n\nSummary of evidence presented. Need of a \u2018test\u2019 element. To be found in\ncentral figure. Mystery of his title. Analysis of variants. _Gawain_\nversion. _Perceval_ version. Borron alone attempts explanation of\ntitle. _Parzival. Perlesvaus. Queste. Grand Saint Graal_. Comparison\nwith surviving ritual variants. Original form King dead, and restored\nto life. Old Age and Wounding themes. Legitimate variants. Doubling of\ncharacter a literary device. Title. Why _Fisher_ King? Examination of\nFish Symbolism. Fish a Life symbol. Examples. Indian\u2014Manu, Vishnu,\nBuddha. Fish in Buddhism. Evidence from China. Orpheus. Babylonian\nevidence. Tammuz _Lord of the Net_. Jewish Symbolism. The Messianic\nFish-meal. Adopted by Christianity. Evidence of the catacombs. Source\nof Borron\u2019s Fish-meals. Mystery tradition not Celtic Folk-tale.\nComparison of version with _Finn_ story. With Messianic tradition.\n_Epitaph of Bishop Aberkios. Voyage of Saint Brandan_. Connection of\nFish with goddess Astarte. Cumont. Connection of Fish and Dove. Fish as\nFertility Symbol. Its use in Marriage ceremonies. Summing up of\nevidence. Fisher King inexplicable from Christian point of view.\nFolk-lore solution unsatisfactory. As a Ritual survival completely in\nplace. Centre of action, and proof of soundness of theory.\n\nCHAPTER X\nThe Secret of the Grail (1)\n\n_The Mysteries_\n\nThe Grail regarded as an object of awe. Danger of speaking of Grail or\nrevealing Its secrets. Passages in illustration. Why, if survival of\nNature cults, popular, and openly performed? A two-fold element in\nthese cults, _Exoteric, Esoteric_. The Mysteries. Their influence on\nChristianity to be sought in the _Hellenized_ rather than the\n_Hellenic_ cults. Cumont. Rohde. Radical difference between Greek and\nOriental conceptions. Lack of evidence as regards Mysteries on the\nwhole. Best attested form that connected with Nature cults.\nAttis-Adonis. Popularity of the Phrygian cult in Rome. Evidence as to\nAttis Mysteries. Utilized by Neo-Platonists as vehicle for teaching.\nClose connection with Mithraism. The Taurobolium. Details of Attis\nMysteries. Parallels with the Grail romances.\n\nCHAPTER XI\nThe Secret of the Grail (2)\n\n_The Naassene Document_\n\nRelations between early Christianity, and pre-Christian cults. Early\nHeresies. Hippolytus, and _The Refutation of all Heresies_. Character\nof the work. _The Naassene Document_. Mr Mead\u2019s analysis of text. A\nsynthesis of Mysteries. Identification of Life Principle with the\nLogos. Connection between Drama and Mysteries of Attis. Importance of\nthe Phrygian Mysteries. Naassene claim to be sole Christians.\nSignificance of evidence. Vegetation cults as vehicle of high spiritual\nteaching. Exoteric and Esoteric parallels with the Grail tradition.\nProcess of evolution sketched. Bleheris. _Perlesvaus_. Borron and the\nMystery tradition. Christian Legendary, and Folk-tale, secondary, not\nprimary, features.\n\nCHAPTER XII\nMithra and Attis\n\nProblem of close connection of cults. Their apparent divergence. Nature\nof deities examined. Attis. Mithra. The Messianic Feast. Dieterich,\n_Eine Mithrasliturgie_. Difference between the two initiations. Link\nbetween Phrygian, Mithraic, and Christian, Mysteries to be found in\ntheir higher, esoteric, teaching. Women not admitted to Mithraic\ninitiation. Possible survival in Grail text. Joint diffusion through\nthe Roman Empire. Cumont\u2019s evidence. Traces of cult in British Isles.\nPossible explanation of unorthodox character of Grail legend. Evidence\nof survival of cult in fifth century. The _Elucidation_ a possible\nrecord of historic facts. Reason for connecting Grail with Arthurian\ntradition.\n\nCHAPTER XIII\nThe Perilous Chapel\n\nThe adventure of the Perilous Chapel in Grail romances. _Gawain_ form.\n_Perceval_ versions. _Queste. Perlesvaus. Lancelot. Chevalier \u00e0 Deux\nEsp\u00e9es_. Perilous Cemetery. Earliest reference in _Chastel Orguellous.\n\u00c2tre Perilleus. Prose Lancelot_. Adventure part of \u2018Secret of the\nGrail.\u2019 The Chapel of Saint Austin. _Histoire de Fulk Fitz-Warin_.\nGenuine record of an initiation. Probable locality North Britain. Site\nof remains of Mithra-Attis cults. Traces of Mystery tradition in\nMedieval romance. _Owain Miles_. Bousset, _Himmelfahrt der Seele_.\nParallels with romance. Appeal to Celtic scholars. Otherworld journeys\na possible survival of Mystery tradition. The Templars, were they\nNaassenes?\n\nCHAPTER XIV\nThe Author\n\n_Provenance_ and authorship of Grail romantic tradition. Evidence\npoints to Wales, probably Pembrokeshire. Earliest form contained in\ngroup of _Gawain_ poems assigned to Bleheris. Of Welsh origin. Master\nBlihis, Blihos, Bliheris, Br\u00e9ri, Bledhericus. Probably all references\nto same person. Conditions of identity. Mr E. Owen, and Bledri ap\nCadivor. Evidence not complete but fulfils conditions of problem\nProfessor Singer and possible character of Bleheris\u2019 text. Mr Alfred\nNutt. Irish and Welsh parallels. Recapitulation of evolutionary\nprocess. Summary and conclusion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\nIntroductory\n\n\nIn view of the extensive literature to which the Grail legend has\nalready given birth it may seem that the addition of another volume to\nthe already existing _corpus_ calls for some words of apology and\nexplanation. When the student of the subject contemplates the countless\nessays and brochures, the volumes of studies and criticism, which have\nbeen devoted to this fascinating subject, the conflicting character of\ntheir aims, their hopelessly contradictory results, he, or she, may\nwell hesitate before adding another element to such a veritable\nwitches\u2019 cauldron of apparently profitless study. And indeed, were I\nnot convinced that the theory advocated in the following pages contains\nin itself the element that will resolve these conflicting ingredients\ninto one harmonious compound I should hardly feel justified in offering\na further contribution to the subject.\n\nBut it is precisely because upwards of thirty years\u2019 steady and\npersevering study of the Grail texts has brought me gradually and\ninevitably to certain very definite conclusions, has placed me in\npossession of evidence hitherto ignored, or unsuspected, that I venture\nto offer the result in these studies, trusting that they may be\naccepted as, what I believe them to be, a genuine _Elucidation_ of the\nGrail problem.\n\nMy fellow-workers in this field know all too well the essential\nelements of that problem; I do not need here to go over already\nwell-trodden ground; it will be sufficient to point out certain salient\nfeatures of the position.\n\nThe main difficulty of our research lies in the fact that the Grail\nlegend consists of a congeries of widely differing elements\u2014elements\nwhich at first sight appear hopelessly incongruous, if not completely\ncontradictory, yet at the same time are present to an extent, and in a\nform, which no honest critic can afford to ignore.\n\nThus it has been perfectly possible for one group of scholars, relying\nupon the undeniably Christian-Legendary elements, preponderant in\ncertain versions, to maintain the thesis that the Grail legend is _ab\ninitio_ a Christian, and ecclesiastical, legend, and to analyse the\nliterature on that basis alone.\n\nAnother group, with equal reason, have pointed to the strongly marked\nFolk-lore features preserved in the tale, to its kinship with other\nthemes, mainly of Celtic _provenance_, and have argued that, while the\nlater versions of the cycle have been worked over by ecclesiastical\nwriters in the interests of edification, the story itself is\nnon-Christian, and Folk-lore in origin.\n\nBoth groups have a basis of truth for their arguments: the features\nupon which they rely are, in each case, undeniably present, yet at the\nsame time each line of argument is faced with certain insuperable\ndifficulties, fatal to the claims advanced.\n\nThus, the theory of Christian origin breaks down when faced with the\nawkward fact that there is no Christian legend concerning Joseph of\nArimathea and the Grail. Neither in Legendary, nor in Art, is there any\ntrace of the story; it has no existence outside the Grail literature,\nit is the creation of romance, and no genuine tradition.\n\nOn this very ground it was severely criticized by the Dutch writer\nJacob van Maerlant, in 1260. In his _Merlin_ he denounces the whole\nGrail history as lies, asserting that the Church knows nothing of\nit\u2014which is true.\n\nIn the same way the advocate of a Folk-lore origin is met with the\nobjection that the section of the cycle for which such a source can be\ndefinitely proved, _i.e._, the _Perceval_ story, has originally nothing\nwhatever to do with the Grail; and that, while parallels can be found\nfor this or that feature of the legend, such parallels are isolated in\ncharacter and involve the breaking up of the tale into a composite of\nmutually independent themes. A prototype, containing the main features\nof the Grail story\u2014the Waste Land, the Fisher King, the Hidden Castle\nwith its solemn Feast, and mysterious Feeding Vessel, the Bleeding\nLance and Cup\u2014does not, so far as we know, exist. None of the great\ncollections of Folk-tales, due to the industry of a Cosquin, a\nHartland, or a Campbell, has preserved specimens of such a type; it is\nnot such a story as, _e.g._, _The Three Days Tournament_, examples of\nwhich are found all over the world. Yet neither the advocate of a\nChristian origin, nor the Folk-lorist, can afford to ignore the\narguments, and evidence of the opposing school, and while the result of\nhalf a century of patient investigation has been to show that the\norigin of the Grail story must be sought elsewhere than in\necclesiastical legend, or popular tale, I hold that the result has\nequally been to demonstrate that neither of these solutions should be\nignored, but that the ultimate source must be sought for in a direction\nwhich shall do justice to what is sound in the claims of both.\n\nSome years ago, when fresh from the study of Sir J. G. Frazer\u2019s\nepoch-making work, _The Golden Bough_, I was struck by the resemblance\nexisting between certain features of the Grail story, and\ncharacteristic details of the Nature Cults described. The more closely\nI analysed the tale, the more striking became the resemblance, and I\nfinally asked myself whether it were not possible that in this\nmysterious legend\u2014mysterious alike in its character, its sudden\nappearance, the importance apparently assigned to it, followed by as\nsudden and complete a disappearance\u2014we might not have the confused\nrecord of a ritual, once popular, later surviving under conditions of\nstrict secrecy? This would fully account for the atmosphere of awe and\nreverence which even under distinctly non-Christian conditions never\nfails to surround the Grail, It may act simply as a feeding vessel, It\nis none the less _toute sainte cose;_ and also for the presence in the\ntale of distinctly popular, and Folk-lore, elements. Such an\ninterpretation would also explain features irreconcilable with orthodox\nChristianity, which had caused some scholars to postulate a heterodox\norigin for the legend, and thus explain its curiously complete\ndisappearance as a literary theme. In the first volume of my _Perceval_\nstudies, published in 1906, I hinted at this possible solution of the\nproblem, a solution worked out more fully in a paper read before the\nFolk-lore Society in December of the same year, and published in Volume\nXVIII. of the Journal of the Society. By the time my second volume of\nstudies was ready for publication in 1909, further evidence had come\ninto my hands; I was then certain that I was upon the right path, and I\nfelt justified in laying before the public the outlines of a theory of\nevolution, alike of the legend, and of the literature, to the main\nprinciples of which I adhere to-day.\n\nBut certain links were missing in the chain of evidence, and the work\nwas not complete. No inconsiderable part of the information at my\ndisposal depended upon personal testimony, the testimony of those who\nknew of the continued existence of such a ritual, and had actually been\ninitiated into its mysteries\u2014and for such evidence the student of the\nletter has little respect. He worships the written word; for the oral,\nliving, tradition from which the word derives force and vitality he has\nlittle use. Therefore the written word had to be found. It has taken me\nsome nine or ten years longer to complete the evidence, but the chain\nis at last linked up, and we can now prove by printed texts the\nparallels existing between each and every feature of the Grail story\nand the recorded symbolism of the Mystery cults. Further, we can show\nthat between these Mystery cults and Christianity there existed at one\ntime a close and intimate union, such a union as of itself involved the\npractical assimilation of the central rite, in each case a\n\u2018Eucharisticc\u2019 Feast, in which the worshippers partook of the Food of\nLife from the sacred vessels.\n\nIn face of the proofs which will be found in these pages I do not think\nany fair-minded critic will be inclined to dispute any longer the\norigin of the \u2018Holy\u2019 Grail; after all it is as august and ancient an\norigin as the most tenacious upholder of Its Christian character could\ndesire.\n\nBut I should wish it clearly to be understood that the aim of these\nstudies is, as indicated in the title, to determine the _origin_ of the\nGrail, not to discuss the _provenance_ and interrelation of the\ndifferent versions. I do not believe this latter task can be\nsatisfactorily achieved unless and until we are of one accord as to the\ncharacter of the subject matter. When we have made up our minds as to\nwhat the Grail really was, and what it stood for, we shall be able to\nanalyse the romances; to decide which of them contains more, which\nless, of the original matter, and to group them accordingly. On this\npoint I believe that the table of descent, printed in Volume II. of my\n_Perceval_ studies is in the main correct, but there is still much\nanalytical work to be done, in particular the establishment of the\noriginal form of the _Perlesvaus_ is highly desirable. But apart from\nthe primary object of these studies, and the results therein obtained,\nI would draw attention to the manner in which the evidence set forth in\nthe chapters on the Mystery cults, and especially that on _The Naassene\nDocument_, a text of extraordinary value from more than one point of\nview, supports and complements the researches of Sir J. G. Frazer. I\nam, of course, familiar with the attacks directed against the\n\u2018Vegetation\u2019 theory, the sarcasms of which it has been the object, and\nthe criticisms of what is held in some quarters to be the exaggerated\nimportance attached to these Nature cults. But in view of the use made\nof these cults as the medium of imparting high spiritual teaching, a\nuse which, in face of the document above referred to, can no longer be\nignored or evaded, are we not rather justified in asking if the true\nimportance of the rites has as yet been recognized? Can we possibly\nexaggerate their value as a factor in the evolution of religious\nconsciousness?\n\nSuch a development of his researches naturally lay outside the range of\nSir J. G. Frazer\u2019s work, but posterity will probably decide that, like\nmany another patient and honest worker, he \u2018builded better than he\nknew.\u2019\n\nI have carefully read Sir W. Ridgeway\u2019s attack on the school in his\n_Dramas and Dramatic Dances_, and while the above remarks explain my\nposition with regard to the question as a whole, I would here take the\nopportunity of stating specifically my grounds for dissenting from\ncertain of the conclusions at which the learned author arrives. I do\nnot wish it to be said: \u201cThis is all very well, but Miss Weston ignores\nthe arguments on the other side.\u201d I do not ignore, but I do not admit\ntheir validity. It is perfectly obvious that Sir W. Ridgeway\u2019s theory,\nreduced to abstract terms, would result in the conclusion that all\nreligion is based upon the cult of the Dead, and that men originally\nknew no gods but their grandfathers, a theory from which as a student\nof religion I absolutely and entirely dissent. I can understand that\nsuch Dead Ancestors can be looked upon as Protectors, or as\nBenefactors, but I see no ground for supposing that they have ever been\nregarded as Creators, yet it is precisely as vehicle for the most lofty\nteaching as to the Cosmic relations existing between God and Man, that\nthese Vegetation cults were employed. The more closely one studies\npre-Christian Theology, the more strongly one is impressed with the\ndeeply, and daringly, spiritual character of its speculations, and the\nmore doubtful it appears that such teaching can depend upon the unaided\nprocesses of human thought, or can have been evolved from such germs as\nwe find among the supposedly \u2018primitive\u2019 peoples, such as _e.g._ the\nAustralian tribes. Are they really primitive? Or are we dealing, not\nwith the primary elements of religion, but with the _disjecta membra_\nof a vanished civilization? Certain it is that so far as historical\nevidence goes our earliest records point to the recognition of a\nspiritual, not of a material, origin of the human race; the Sumerian\nand Babylonian Psalms were not composed by men who believed themselves\nthe descendants of \u2018witchetty grubs.\u2019 The Folk practices and ceremonies\nstudied in these pages, the Dances, the rough Dramas, the local and\nseasonal celebrations, do not represent the material out of which the\nAttis-Adonis cult was formed, but surviving fragments of a worship from\nwhich the higher significance has vanished.\n\nSir W. Ridgeway is confident that Osiris, Attis, Adonis, were all at\none time human beings, whose tragic fate gripped hold of popular\nimagination, and led to their ultimate deification. The first-named\ncult stands on a somewhat different basis from the others, the\nbeneficent activities of Osiris being more widely diffused, more\nuniversal in their operation. I should be inclined to regard the\nEgyptian deity primarily as a Culture Hero, rather than a Vegetation\nGod.\n\nWith regard to Attis and Adonis, whatever their original character (and\nit seems to me highly improbable that there should have been two youths\neach beloved by a goddess, each victim of a similar untimely fate),\nlong before we have any trace of them both have become so intimately\nidentified with the processes of Nature that they have ceased to be men\nand become gods, and as such alone can we deal with them. It is also\npermissible to point out that in the case of Tammuz, Esmun, and Adonis,\nthe title is not a proper name, but a vague appellative, denoting an\nabstract rather than a concrete origin. Proof of this will be found\nlater. Sir W. Ridgeway overlooks the fact that it is not the tragic\ndeath of Attis-Adonis which is of importance for these cults, but their\nsubsequent restoration to life, a feature which cannot be postulated of\nany ordinary mortal.\n\nAnd how are we to regard Tammuz, the prototype of all these deities? Is\nthere any possible ground for maintaining that he was ever a man? Prove\nit we cannot, as the records of his cult go back thousands of years\nbefore our era. Here, again, we have the same dominant feature; it is\nnot merely the untimely death which is lamented, but the restoration to\nlife which is celebrated.\n\nThroughout the whole study the author fails to discriminate between the\nactivities of the living, and the dead, king. The Dead king may, as I\nhave said above, be regarded as the Benefactor, as the Protector, of\nhis people, but it is the Living king upon whom their actual and\ncontinued prosperity depends. The detail that the ruling sovereign is\nsometimes regarded as the re-incarnation of the original founder of the\nrace strengthens this point\u2014the king never dies\u2014_Le Roi est mort, Vive\nle Roi_ is very emphatically the motto of this Faith. It is the\ninsistence on Life, Life continuous, and ever-renewing, which is the\nabiding characteristic of these cults, a characteristic which\ndifferentiates them utterly and entirely from the ancestral worship\nwith which Sir W. Ridgeway would fain connect them.\n\nNor are the arguments based upon the memorial rites of definitely\nhistorical heroes, of comparatively late date, such as Hussein and\nHossein, of any value here. It is precisely the death, and not the\nresurrection, of the martyr which is of the essence of the Muharram. No\none contends that Hussein rose from the dead, but it is precisely this\npoint which is of primary importance in the Nature cults; and Sir W.\nRidgeway must surely be aware that Folk-lorists find in this very\nMuharram distinct traces of borrowing from the earlier Vegetation\nrites.\n\nThe author triumphantly asserts that the fact that certain Burmese\nheroes and heroines are after death reverenced as tree spirits \u2018sets at\nrest for ever\u2019 the belief in abstract deities. But how can he be sure\nthat the process was not the reverse of that which he postulates,\n_i.e._, that certain natural objects, trees, rivers, etc., were not\nregarded as sacred _before_ the Nats became connected with them? That\nthe deified human beings were not after death assigned to places\nalready held in reverence? Such a possibility is obvious to any\nFolk-lore student, and local traditions should in each case be\ncarefully examined before the contrary is definitely asserted.\n\nSo far as the origins of Drama are concerned the Ode quoted later from\nthe Naassene Document is absolute and definite proof of the close\nconnection existing between the Attis Mystery ritual, and dramatic\nperformances, _i.e._, Attis regarded in his deified, Creative, \u2018Logos,\u2019\naspect, not Attis, the dead youth.\n\nNor do I think that the idea of \u2018Mana\u2019 can be lightly dismissed as \u2018an\nordinary case of relics.\u2019 The influence may well be something entirely\napart from the continued existence of the ancestor, an independent\nforce, assisting him in life, and transferring itself after death to\nhis successor. A \u2018Magic\u2019 Sword or Staff is not necessarily a relic;\nMedieval romance supplies numerous instances of self-acting weapons\nwhose virtue in no wise depends upon their previous owner, as _e.g._\nthe Sword in _Le Chevalier \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9p\u00e9e_, or the Flaming Lance of the\n_Chevalier de la Charrette_. Doubtless the cult of Ancestors plays a\nlarge _r\u00f4le_ in the beliefs of certain peoples, but it is not a\nsufficiently solid foundation to bear the weight of the super-structure\nSir W. Ridgeway would fain rear upon it, while it differs too radically\nfrom the cults he attacks to be used as an argument against them; the\none is based upon Death, the other on Life.\n\nWherefore, in spite of all the learning and ingenuity brought to bear\nagainst it, I avow myself an impenitent believer in Sir J. G. Frazer\u2019s\nmain theory, and as I have said above, I hold that theory to be of\ngreater and more far-reaching importance than has been hitherto\nsuspected.\n\nI would add a few words as to the form of these studies\u2014they may be\nfound disconnected. They have been written at intervals of time\nextending over several years, and my aim has been to prove the\nessentially archaic character of _all_ the elements composing the Grail\nstory rather than to analyse the story as a connected whole. With this\naim in view I have devoted chapters to features which have now either\ndropped out of the existing versions, or only survive in a subordinate\nform, e.g. the chapters on _The Medicine Man_, and _The Freeing of the\nWaters_. The studies will, I hope, and believe, be accepted as offering\na definite contribution towards establishing the fundamental character\nof our material; as stated above, when we are all at one as to what the\nHoly Grail really was, and is, we can then proceed with some hope of\nsuccess to criticize the manner in which different writers have handled\nthe inspiring theme, but such success seems to be hopeless so long as\nwe all start from different, and often utterly irreconcilable,\nstandpoints and proceed along widely diverging roads. One or another\nmay, indeed, arrive at the goal, but such unanimity of opinion as will\nlend to our criticism authoritative weight is, on such lines,\nimpossible of achievement.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\nThe Task of the Hero\n\n\nAs a first step towards the successful prosecution of an investigation\ninto the true nature and character of the mysterious object we know as\nthe Grail it will be well to ask ourselves whether any light may be\nthrown upon the subject by examining more closely the details of the\nQuest in its varying forms; _i.e._, what was the precise character of\nthe task undertaken by, or imposed upon, the Grail hero, whether that\nhero were Gawain, Perceval, or Galahad, and what the results to be\nexpected from a successful achievement of the task. We shall find at\nonce a uniformity which assures us of the essential identity of the\ntradition underlying the varying forms, and a diversity indicating that\nthe tradition has undergone a gradual, but radical, modification in the\nprocess of literary evolution. Taken in their relative order the\nversions give the following result.\n\nGAWAIN (_Bleheris_). Here the hero sets out on his journey with no\nclear idea of the task before him. He is taking the place of a knight\nmysteriously slain in his company, but whither he rides, and why, he\ndoes not know, only that the business is important and pressing. From\nthe records of his partial success we gather that he ought to have\nenquired concerning the nature of the Grail, and that this enquiry\nwould have resulted in the restoration to fruitfulness of a Waste Land,\nthe desolation of which is, in some manner, not clearly explained,\nconnected with the death of a knight whose name and identity are never\ndisclosed. \u201cGreat is the loss that ye lie thus, \u2019tis even the\ndestruction of kingdoms, God grant that ye be avenged, so that the folk\nbe once more joyful and the land repeopled which by ye and this sword\nare wasted and made void.\u201d[1] The fact that Gawain does ask concerning\nthe Lance assures the partial restoration of the land; I would draw\nattention to the special terms in which this is described: \u201cfor so soon\nas Sir Gawain asked of the Lance...the waters flowed again thro\u2019 their\nchannel, and all the woods were turned to verdure.\u201d[2]\n\n_Di\u00fb Cr\u00f4ne_. Here the question is more general in character; it affects\nthe marvels beheld, not the Grail alone; but now the Quester is\nprepared, and knows what is expected of him. The result is to break the\nspell which retains the Grail King in a semblance of life, and we\nlearn, by implication, that the land is restored to fruitfulness: \u201cyet\nhad the land been waste, but by his coming had folk and land alike been\ndelivered.\u201d[3] Thus in the earliest preserved, the GAWAIN form, the\neffect upon the land appears to be the primary result of the Quest.\n\nPERCEVAL. The _Perceval_ versions, which form the bulk of the existing\nGrail texts, differ considerably the one from the other, alike in the\ntask to be achieved, and the effects resulting from the hero\u2019s success,\nor failure. The distinctive feature of the _Perceval_ version is the\ninsistence upon the sickness, and disability of the ruler of the land,\nthe Fisher King. Regarded first as the direct cause of the wasting of\nthe land, it gradually assumes overwhelming importance, the task of the\nQuester becomes that of healing the King, the restoration of the land\nnot only falls into the background but the operating cause of its\ndesolation is changed, and finally it disappears from the story\naltogether. One version, alone, the source of which is, at present,\nundetermined, links the PERCEVAL with the GAWAIN form; this is the\nversion preserved in the Gerbert continuation of the _Perceval_ of\nChr\u00e9tien de Troyes. Here the hero having, like Gawain, partially\nachieved the task, but again like Gawain, having failed satisfactorily\nto resolder the broken sword, wakes, like the earlier hero, to find\nthat the Grail Castle has disappeared, and he is alone in a flowery\nmeadow. He pursues his way through a land fertile, and well-peopled and\nmarvels much, for the day before it had been a waste desert. Coming to\na castle he is received by a solemn procession, with great rejoicing;\nthrough him the folk have regained the land and goods which they had\nlost. The mistress of the castle is more explicit. Perceval had asked\nconcerning the Grail:\n\n\u201cpar coi amend\u00e9\nSomes, en si faite mani\u00e9re\nQu\u2019en ceste regne n\u2019avoit rivi\u00e9re\nQui ne fust gaste, ne fontaine.\nE la terre gaste et soutaine.\u201d\n\nLike Gawain he has \u2018freed the waters\u2019 and thus restored the land.[4]\n\nIn the prose _Perceval_ the _motif_ of the Waste Land has disappeared,\nthe task of the hero consists in asking concerning the Grail, and by so\ndoing, to restore the Fisher King, who is suffering from extreme old\nage, to health, and youth.[5]\n\n\u201cSe tu eusses demand\u00e9 quel\u2019en on faisoit, que li rois ton aiol fust\ngariz de l\u2019enfermetez qu\u2019il a, et fust revenu en sa juvent\u00e9.\u201d\n\nWhen the question has been asked: \u201cLe rois p\u00e9sch\u00e9or estoit gariz et tot\nmuez de sa nature.\u201d \u201cLi rois peschi\u00e9re estoit mu\u00e9s de se nature et\nestoit garis de se maladie, et estoit sains comme pissons.\u201d[6] Here we\nhave the introduction of a new element, the restoration to youth of the\nsick King.\n\nIn the _Perceval_ of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes we find ourselves in presence\nof certain definite changes, neither slight, nor unimportant, upon\nwhich it seems to me insufficient stress has hitherto been laid. The\nquestion is changed; the hero no longer asks what the Grail is, but (as\nin the prose _Perceval_) whom it serves? a departure from an essential\nand primitive simplicity\u2014the motive for which is apparent in Chr\u00e9tien,\nbut not in the prose form, where there is no enigmatic personality to\nbe served apart. A far more important change is that, while the malady\nof the Fisher King is antecedent to the hero\u2019s visit, and capable of\ncure if the question be asked, the failure to fulfil the prescribed\nconditions of itself entails disaster upon the land. Thus the sickness\nof the King, and the desolation of the land, are not necessarily\nconnected as cause and effect, but, a point which seems hitherto\nunaccountably to have been overlooked, the latter is directly\nattributable to the Quester himself.[7]\n\n\u201cCar se tu demand\u00e9 l\u2019eusses\nLi rice roi qui moult s\u2019esmaie\nFust or tost garis de sa plaie\nEt si tenist sa ti\u00e8re en pais\nDont il n\u2019en tenra point jamais,\u201d\n\nbut by Perceval\u2019s failure to ask the question he has entailed dire\nmisfortune upon the land:\n\n\u201cDames en perdront lor maris,\nTi\u00e9res en seront essili\u00e9s,\nEt pucielles desconselli\u00e9s\nOrfenes, veves, en remanront\nEt maint chevalier en morront.\u201d[8]\n\nThis idea, that the misfortunes of the land are not antecedent to, but\ndependent upon, the hero\u2019s abortive visit to the Grail Castle, is\ncarried still further by the compiler of the _Perlesvaus_, where the\nfailure of the predestined hero to ask concerning the office of the\nGrail is alone responsible for the illness of the King and the\nmisfortunes of the country. \u201cUne grans dolors est avenue an terre\nnovelement par un jeune chevalier qui fu herbergiez an l\u2019ostel au riche\nroi Pesch\u00e9or, si aparut \u00e0 lui li saintimes Graaus, et la lance de quoi\nli fiers seigne par la poignte; ne demanda de quoi ce servoit, ou dont\nce venoit, et por ce qu\u2019il ne demanda sont toutes les terres comm\u00e9ues\nan guerre, ne chevalier n\u2019ancontre autre au forest qu\u2019il ne li core\nsus, et ocie s\u2019il peut.\u201d[9]\n\n\u201cLi Roi Pecheors de qui est grant dolors, quar il est che\u00fcz en une\ndouleureuse langour\u2014ceste langour li est venue par celui qui se heberga\nan son ostel, \u00e0 qui li seintimes Graaus s\u2019aparut, por ce que cil ne\nvost demander de qu\u2019il an servoit, toutes les terres an furent comm\u00e9ues\nen gerre.\u201d[10]\n\n\u201cJe suis che\u00fcz an langour d\u00e8s cele oure que li chevaliers se herberga\n\u00e7oianz dont vous avez o\u00ef parler; par un soule parole que il d\u00e9loia a\ndire me vint ceste langour.\u201d[11]\n\nFrom this cause the Fisher King dies before the hero has achieved the\ntask, and can take his place. \u201cLi bons Rois Peschi\u00e9res est morz.\u201d[12]\nThere is here no cure of the King or restoration of the land, the\nspecific task of the Grail hero is never accomplished, he comes into\nhis kingdom as the result of a number of knightly adventures, neither\nmore nor less significant than those found in non-Grail romances.\n\nThe _Perlesvaus_, in its present form, appears to be a later, and more\nfully developed, treatment of the _motif_ noted in Chr\u00e9tien, _i.e._,\nthat the misfortunes of King and country are directly due to the\nQuester himself, and had no antecedent existence; this, I would submit,\nalters the whole character of the story, and we are at a loss to know\nwhat, had the hero put the question on the occasion of his first visit,\ncould possibly have been the result achieved. It would not have been\nthe cure of the King: he was, apparently, in perfect health; it would\nnot have been the restoration to verdure of the Land: the Land was not\nWaste; where, as in the case of Gawain, there is a Dead Knight, whose\ndeath is to be avenged, _something_ might have been achieved, in the\ncase of the overwhelming majority of the _Perceval_ versions, which do\nnot contain this feature, the dependence of the Curse upon the Quester\nreduces the story to incoherence. In one _Perceval_ version alone do we\nfind a _motif_ analogous to the earlier _Gawain Bleheris_ form. In\nManessier the hero\u2019s task is not restricted to the simple asking of a\nquestion, but he must also slay the enemy whose treachery has caused\nthe death of the Fisher King\u2019s brother; thereby healing the wound of\nthe King himself, and removing the woes of the land. What these may be\nwe are not told, but, apparently, the country is not \u2018Waste.\u2019[13]\n\nIn _Peredur_ we have a version closely agreeing with that of Chr\u00e9tien;\nthe hero fails to enquire the meaning of what he sees in the Castle of\nWonders, and is told in consequence: \u201cHadst thou done so the King would\nhave been restored to health, and his dominions to peace, whereas from\nhenceforth he will have to endure battles and conflicts, and his\nknights will perish, and wives will be widowed, and maidens will be\nleft portionless, and all this because of thee.\u201d[14] This certainly\nseems to imply that, while the illness of the Fisher King may be\nantecedent to, and independent of, the visit and failure of the hero,\nthe misfortunes which fall on the land have been directly caused\nthereby.\n\nThe conclusion which states that the Bleeding Head seen by the hero\n\u201cwas thy cousin\u2019s, and he was killed by the Sorceresses of Gloucester,\nwho also lamed thine uncle\u2014and there is a prediction that thou art to\navenge these things\u2014\u201d would seem to indicate the presence in the\noriginal of a \u2018Vengeance\u2019 theme, such as that referred to above.[15]\n\nIn _Parzival_ the stress is laid entirely on the sufferings of the\nKing; the question has been modified in the interests of this theme,\nand here assumes the form \u201cWhat aileth thee, mine uncle?\u201d The blame\nbestowed upon the hero is solely on account of the prolonged sorrow his\nsilence has inflicted on King and people; of a Land laid Waste, either\nthrough drought, or war, there is no mention.\n\n\u201cIuch solt\u2019 iur wirt erbarmet h\u00e2n,\nAn dem Got wunder h\u00e2t get\u00e2n,\nUnd het gevr\u00e2get s\u00eener n\u00f4t,\nIr lebet, und s\u00eet an saelden t\u00f4t.\u201d[16]\n\u201cD\u00f4 der tr\u00fbrege vischaere\nSaz \u00e2ne fr\u00f6ude und \u00e2ne tr\u00f4st\nWar umb\u2019 iren niht siufzens h\u00e2t erl\u00f4st.\u201d[17]\n\n\nThe punishment falls on the hero who has failed to put the question,\nrather than on the land, which, indeed, appears to be in no way\naffected, either by the wound of the King, or the silence of the hero.\nThe divergence from Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s version is here very marked, and, so\nfar, seems to have been neglected by critics. The point is also of\nimportance in view of the curious parallels which are otherwise to be\nfound between this version and _Perlesvaus;_ here the two are in marked\ncontradiction with one another.\n\nThe question finally asked, the result is, as indicated in the prose\nversion, the restoration of the King not merely to health, but also to\nyouth\u2014\n\n\u201cSwaz der Fr\u00e2nzoys heizet fl\u00f4\u2019r\u00ee\u2019\nDer glast kom sinem velle b\u00ee,\nParzival\u2019s schoen\u2019 was nu ein wint;\nUnd Absal\u00f4n D\u00e2v\u00eedes kint,\nVon Askal\u00fbn Vergulaht\nUnd al den schoene was geslaht,\nUnd des man Gahmurete jach\nD\u00f4 man\u2019n in zogen sach\nZe Kanvoleis s\u00f4 w\u00fcnnecl\u00eech,\nIr dech\u00e9ines schoen\u2019 was der gel\u00eech,\nDie Anfortas \u00fbz siecheit truoc.\nGot noch k\u00fcnste kan genuoc.\u201d[18]\n\nGALAHAD. In the final form assumed by the story, that preserved in the\n_Queste_, the achievement of the task is not preceded by any failure on\nthe part of the hero, and the advantages derived therefrom are personal\nand spiritual, though we are incidentally told that he heals the Fisher\nKing\u2019s father, and also the old King, Mordrains, whose life has been\npreternaturally prolonged. In the case of this latter it is to be noted\nthat the mere fact of Galahad\u2019s being the predestined winner suffices,\nand the healing takes place _before_ the Quest is definitely achieved.\n\nThere is no Waste Land, and the wounding of the two Kings is entirely\nunconnected with Galahad. We find hints, in the story of Lambar, of a\nknowledge of the earlier form, but for all practical purposes it has\ndisappeared from the story.[19]\n\nAnalysing the above statements we find that the results may be grouped\nunder certain definite headings:\n\n(_a_) There is a general consensus of evidence to the effect that the\nmain object of the Quest is the restoration to health and vigour of a\nKing suffering from infirmity caused by wounds, sickness, or old age;\n\n(_b_) and whose infirmity, for some mysterious and unexplained reason,\nreacts disastrously upon his kingdom, either depriving it of\nvegetation, or exposing it to the ravages of war.\n\n(_c_) In two cases it is definitely stated that the King will be\nrestored to youthful vigour and beauty.\n\n(_d_) In both cases where we find Gawain as the hero of the story, and\nin one connected with Perceval, the misfortune which has fallen upon\nthe country is that of a prolonged drought, which has destroyed\nvegetation, and left the land Waste; the effect of the hero\u2019s question\nis to restore the waters to their channel, and render the land once\nmore fertile.\n\n(_e_) In three cases the misfortunes and wasting of the land are the\nresult of war, and directly caused by the hero\u2019s failure to ask the\nquestion; we are not dealing with an antecedent condition. This, in my\nopinion, constitutes a marked difference between the two groups, which\nhas not hitherto received the attention it deserves. One aim of our\npresent investigation will be to determine which of these two forms\nshould be considered the elder.\n\nBut this much seems certain, the aim of the Grail Quest is two-fold; it\nis to benefit (_a_) the King, (_b_) the land. The first of these two is\nthe more important, as it is the infirmity of the King which entails\nmisfortune on his land, the condition of the one reacts, for good or\nill, upon the other; how, or why, we are left to discover for\nourselves.\n\nBefore proceeding further in our investigation it may be well to\ndetermine the precise nature of the King\u2019s illness, and see whether any\nlight upon the problem can be thus obtained.\n\nIn both the _Gawain_ forms the person upon whom the fertility of the\nland depends is dead, though, in the version of _Di\u00fb Cr\u00f4ne_ he is, to\nall appearance, still in life. It should be noted that in the\n_Bleheris_ form the king of the castle, who is not referred to as the\nFisher King, is himself hale and sound; the wasting of the land was\nbrought about by the blow which slew the knight whose body Gawain sees\non the bier.\n\nIn both the _Perlesvaus_, and the prose _Perceval_ the King has simply\n\u2018fallen into languishment,\u2019 in the first instance, as noted above, on\naccount of the failure of the Quester, in the second as the result of\nextreme old age.\n\nIn Chr\u00e9tien, Manessier, _Peredur_, and the _Parzival_, the King is\nsuffering from a wound the nature of which, euphemistically disguised\nin the French texts, is quite clearly explained in the German.[20]\n\nBut the whole position is made absolutely clear by a passage preserved\nin _Sone de Nansai_ and obviously taken over from an earlier poem. This\nromance contains a lengthy section dealing with the history of Joseph\n\u2018d\u2019Abarimathie,\u2019 who is represented as the patron Saint of the kingdom\nof Norway; his bones, with the sacred relics of which he had the\ncharge, the Grail and the Lance, are preserved in a monastery on an\nisland in the interior of that country. In this version Joseph himself\nis the Fisher King; ensnared by the beauty of the daughter of the Pagan\nKing of Norway, whom he has slain, he baptizes her, though she is still\nan unbeliever at heart, and makes her his wife, thus drawing the wrath\nof Heaven upon himself. God punishes him for his sin:\n\n\u201cEs rains et desous l\u2019afola\nDe coi grant dolor endura.\u201d[21]\n\n\nThen, in a remarkable passage, we are told of the direful result\nentailed by this punishment upon his land:\n\n\u201cSa tierre ert a ce jour nomm\u00e9e\nLorgres, ch\u2019est verit\u00e9s prouv\u00e9e,\nLorgres est uns nons de dolour\nNomm\u00e9s en larmes et en plours,\nBien doit iestre en dolour nomm\u00e9s\nCar on n\u2019i seme pois ne bl\u00e9s\nNe enfes d\u2019omme n\u2019i nasqui\nNe puchielle n\u2019i ot mari,\nNe arbres fueille n\u2019i porta\nNe nus pr\u00e9s n\u2019i raverd\u00efa,\nNe nus oysiaus n\u2019i ot naon\nNe se n\u2019i ot beste faon,\nTant que li rois fu mehaigni\u00e9s\nEt qu\u2019il fu fors de ses pechi\u00e9s,\nCar Jesu-Crist fourment pesa\nQu\u2019\u00e0 la mescr\u00e9ant habita.\u201d[22]\n\n\nNow there can be no possible doubt here, the condition of the King is\nsympathetically reflected on the land, the loss of virility in the one\nbrings about a suspension of the reproductive processes of Nature on\nthe other. The same effect would naturally be the result of the death\nof the sovereign upon whose vitality these processes depended.\n\nTo sum up the result of the analysis, I hold that we have solid grounds\nfor the belief that the story postulates a close connection between the\nvitality of a certain King, and the prosperity of his kingdom; the\nforces of the ruler being weakened or destroyed, by wound, sickness,\nold age, or death, the land becomes Waste, and the task of the hero is\nthat of restoration.[23]\n\nIt seems to me, then, that, if we desire to elucidate the perplexing\nmystery of the Grail romances, and to place the criticism of this\nimportant and singularly fascinating body of literature upon an assured\nbasis, we shall do so most effectually by pursuing a line of\ninvestigation which will concentrate upon the persistent elements of\nthe story, the character and significance of the achievement proposed,\nrather than upon the varying details, such as Grail and Lance, however\nimportant may be their _r\u00f4le_. If we can ascertain, accurately, and\nunmistakably, the meaning of the whole, we shall, I think, find less\ndifficulty in determining the character and office of the parts, in\nfact, the question _solvitur ambulando_, the \u2018complex\u2019 of the problem\nbeing solved, the constituent elements will reveal their significance.\n\nAs a first step I propose to ask whether this \u2018Quest of the Grail\u2019\nrepresents an isolated, and unique achievement, or whether the task\nallotted to the hero, Gawain, Perceval, or Galahad, is one that has\nbeen undertaken, and carried out by heroes of other ages, and other\nlands. In the process of our investigation we must retrace our steps\nand turn back to the early traditions of our Aryan forefathers, and see\nwhether we cannot, even in that remote antiquity, lay our hand upon a\nclue, which, like the fabled thread of Ariadne, shall serve as guide\nthrough the mazes of a varying, yet curiously persistent, tradition.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\nThe Freeing of the Waters\n\n\n\u2018To begin at the beginning,\u2019 was the old story-telling formula, and it\nwas a very sound one, if \u2018the beginning\u2019 could only be definitely\nascertained! As our nearest possible approach to it I would draw\nattention to certain curious parallels in the earliest literary\nmonuments of our race. I would at the same time beg those scholars who\nmay think it \u2018a far cry\u2019 from the romances of the twelfth century of\nour era to some 1000 years B.C. to suspend their judgment till they\nhave fairly examined the evidence for a tradition common to the Aryan\nrace in general, and persisting with extraordinary vitality, and a\nmarked correspondence of characteristic detail, through all migrations\nand modifications of that race, down to the present day.\n\nTurning back to the earliest existing literary evidence, the\n_Rig-Veda_, we become aware that, in this vast collection of over 1000\npoems (it is commonly known as _The Thousand and One Hymns_ but the\npoems contained in it are more than that in number) are certain\nparallels with our Grail stories which, if taken by themselves, are\nperhaps interesting and suggestive rather than in any way conclusive,\nyet which, when they are considered in relation to the entire body of\nevidence, assume a curious significance and importance. We must first\nnote that a very considerable number of the _Rig-Veda_ hymns depend for\ntheir initial inspiration on the actual bodily needs and requirements\nof a mainly agricultural population, _i.e._, of a people that depend\nupon the fruits of the earth for their subsistence, and to whom the\nregular and ordered sequence of the processes of Nature was a vital\nnecessity.\n\nTheir hymns and prayers, and, as we have strong reason to suppose,\ntheir dramatic ritual, were devised for the main purpose of obtaining\nfrom the gods of their worship that which was essential to ensure their\nwell-being and the fertility of their land\u2014warmth, sunshine, above all,\nsufficient water. That this last should, in an Eastern land, under a\ntropical sun, become a point of supreme importance, is easily to be\nunderstood. There is consequently small cause for surprise when we\nfind, throughout the collection, the god who bestows upon them this\nmuch desired boon to be the one to whom by far the greater proportion\nof the hymns are addressed. It is not necessary here to enter into a\ndiscussion as to the original conception of Indra, and the place\noccupied by him in the early Aryan Pantheon, whether he was originally\nregarded as a god of war, or a god of weather; what is important for\nour purpose is the fact that it is Indra to whom a disproportionate\nnumber of the hymns of the _Rig-Veda_ are addressed, that it is from\nhim the much desired boon of rain and abundant water is besought, and\nthat the feat which above all others redounded to his praise, and is\nceaselessly glorified both by the god himself, and his grateful\nworshippers, is precisely the feat by which the Grail heroes, Gawain\nand Perceval, rejoiced the hearts of a suffering folk, _i.e._, the\nrestoration of the rivers to their channels, the \u2018Freeing of the\nWaters.\u2019 Tradition relates that the seven great rivers of India had\nbeen imprisoned by the evil giant, Vritra, or Ahi, whom Indra slew,\nthereby releasing the streams from their captivity.\n\nThe _Rig-Veda_ hymns abound in references to this feat; it will only be\nnecessary to cite a few from among the numerous passages I have noted.\n\n\u2018Thou hast set loose the seven rivers to flow.\u2019\n\n\u2018Thou causest water to flow on every side.\u2019\n\n\u2018Indra set free the waters.\u2019\n\n\u2018Thou, Indra, hast slain Vritra by thy vigour, thou hast set free the\nrivers.\u2019\n\n\u2018Thou hast slain the slumbering Ahi for the release of the waters, and\nhast marked out the channels of the all-delighting rivers.\u2019\n\n\u2018Indra has filled the rivers, he has inundated the dry land.\u2019\n\n\u2018Indra has released the imprisoned waters to flow upon the earth.\u2019[1]\n\nIt would be easy to fill pages with similar quotations, but these are\nsufficient for our purpose.\n\nAmong the _Rig-Veda_ hymns are certain poems in Dialogue form, which\nfrom their curious and elliptic character have been the subject of much\ndiscussion among scholars. Professor Oldenberg, in drawing attention to\ntheir peculiarities, had expressed his opinion that these poems were\nthe remains of a distinct type of early Indian literature, where verses\nforming the central, and illuminating, point of a formal ceremonial\nrecital had been \u2018farced\u2019 with illustrative and explanatory prose\npassages; the form of the verses being fixed, that of the prose being\nvaried at the will of the reciter.[2]\n\nThis theory, which is technically known as the \u2018\u00c2khy\u00e2na\u2019 theory (as it\nderived its starting point from the discussion of the Suparn\u00e2khy\u00e2na\ntext), won considerable support, but was contested by M. Sylvain L\u00e9vi,\nwho asserted that, in these hymns, we had the remains of the earliest,\nand oldest, Indian dramatic creations, the beginning of the Indian\nDrama; and that the fragments could only be satisfactorily interpreted\nfrom the point of view that they were intended to be spoken, not by a\nsolitary reciter, but by two or more _dramatis personae_.[3]\n\nJ. Hertel (_Der Ursprung des Indischen Dramas und Epos_) went still\nfurther, and while accepting, and demonstrating, the justice of this\ninterpretation of the \u2018Dialogue\u2019 poems, suggested a similar origin for\ncertain \u2018Monologues\u2019 found in the same collection.[4]\n\nProfessor Leopold von Schroeder, in his extremely interesting volume,\n_Mysterium und Mimus im Rig-Veda_,[5] has given a popular and practical\nform to the results of these researches, by translating and publishing,\nwith an explanatory study, a selection of these early \u2018Culture\u2019 Dramas,\nexplaining the speeches, and placing them in the mouth of the\nrespective actors to whom they were, presumably, assigned. Professor\nvon Schroeder holds the entire group to be linked together by one\ncommon intention, _viz_., the purpose of stimulating the processes of\nNature, and of obtaining, as a result of what may be called a Ritual\nCulture Drama, an abundant return of the fruits of the earth. The whole\nbook is rich in parallels drawn from ancient and modern sources, and is\nof extraordinary interest to the Folk-lore student.\n\nIn the light thrown by Professor von Schroeder\u2019s researches, following\nas they do upon the illuminating studies of Mannhardt, and Frazer, we\nbecome strikingly aware of the curious vitality and persistence of\ncertain popular customs and beliefs; and while the two last-named\nwriters have rendered inestimable service to the study of Comparative\nReligion by linking the practices of Classical and Medieval times with\nthe Folk-customs of to-day, we recognize, through von Schroeder\u2019s work,\nthat the root of such belief and custom is imbedded in a deeper stratum\nof Folk-tradition than we had hitherto realized, that it is, in fact, a\nheritage from the far-off past of the Aryan peoples.\n\nFor the purposes of our especial line of research _Mysterium und Mimus_\noffers much of value and interest. As noted above, the main object of\nthese primitive Dramas was that of encouraging, we may say, ensuring,\nthe fertility of the Earth; thus it is not surprising that more than\none deals with the theme of which we are treating, the Freeing of the\nWaters, only that whereas, in the quotations given above, the\nworshippers praise Indra for his beneficent action, here Indra himself,\n_in propria persona_ appears, and vaunts his feat.\n\n\u201cIch schlug den Vritra mit der Kraft des Indra!\nDurch eignen Grimm war ich so stark geworden!\nIch machte f\u00fcr die Menschen frei die Wasser\u201d[6]\n\nAnd the impersonated rivers speak for themselves.\n\n\u201cIndra, den Blitz im Arm, brach uns die Bahnen,\nEr schlug den Vritra, die Str\u00f6me einschloss.\u201d[7]\n\n\nThere is no need to insist further on the point that the task of the\nGrail hero is in this special respect no mere literary invention, but a\nheritage from the achievements of the prehistoric heroes of the Aryan\nrace.\n\nBut the poems selected by Professor von Schroeder for discussion offer\nus a further, and more curious, parallel with the Grail romances.\n\nIn Section VIII. of the work referred to the author discusses the story\nof \u1e5aishya\u00e7\u1e5bi\u00f1ga, as the _Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata_ names the hero; here we find a\nyoung Brahmin brought up by his father, Vibh\u00e2ndaka, in a lonely forest\nhermitage[8] absolutely ignorant of the outside world, and even of the\nvery existence of beings other than his father and himself. He has\nnever seen a woman, and does not know that such a creature exists.\n\nA drought falls upon a neighbouring kingdom, and the inhabitants are\nreduced to great straits for lack of food. The King, seeking to know by\nwhat means the sufferings of his people may be relieved, learns that so\nlong as \u1e5aishya\u00e7\u1e5bi\u00f1ga continues chaste so long will the drought endure.\nAn old woman, who has a fair daughter of irregular life, undertakes the\nseduction of the hero. The King has a ship, or raft (both versions are\ngiven), fitted out with all possible luxury, and an apparent Hermit\u2019s\ncell erected upon it. The old woman, her daughter and companions,\nembark; and the river carries them to a point not far from the young\nBrahmin\u2019s hermitage.\n\nTaking advantage of the absence of his father, the girl visits\n\u1e5aishya\u00e7\u1e5bi\u00f1ga in his forest cell, giving him to understand that she is a\nHermit, like himself, which the boy, in his innocence, believes. He is\nso fascinated by her appearance and caresses that, on her leaving him,\nhe, deep in thought of the lovely visitor, forgets, for the first time,\nhis religious duties.\n\nOn his father\u2019s return he innocently relates what has happened, and the\nfather warns him that fiends in this fair disguise strive to tempt\nhermits to their undoing. The next time the father is absent the\ntemptress, watching her opportunity, returns, and persuades the boy to\naccompany her to her \u2018Hermitage\u2019 which she assures him, is far more\nbeautiful than his own. So soon as \u1e5aishya\u00e7\u1e5bi\u00f1ga is safely on board the\nship sails, the lad is carried to the capital of the rainless land, the\nKing gives him his daughter as wife, and so soon as the marriage is\nconsummated the spell is broken, and rain falls in abundance.\n\nProfessor von Schroeder points out that there is little doubt that, in\ncertain earlier versions of the tale, the King\u2019s daughter herself\nplayed the _r\u00f4le_ of temptress.\n\nThere is no doubt that a ceremonial \u2018marriage\u2019 very frequently formed a\npart of the \u2018Fertility\u2019 ritual, and was supposed to be specially\nefficacious in bringing about the effect desired.[9] The practice\nsubsists in Indian ritual to this hour, and the surviving traces in\nEuropean Folk-custom have been noted in full by Mannhardt in his\nexhaustive work on _Wald und Feld-Kulte;_ its existence in Classic\ntimes is well known, and it is certainly one of the living Folk-customs\nfor which a well-attested chain of descent can be cited. Professor von\nSchroeder remarks that the efficacy of the rite appears to be enhanced\nby the previous strict observance of the rule of chastity by the\nofficiant.[10]\n\nWhat, however, is of more immediate interest for our purpose is the\nfact that the \u1e5aishya\u00e7\u1e5bi\u00f1ga story does, in effect, possess certain\ncurious points of contact with the Grail tradition.\n\nThus, the lonely upbringing of the youth in a forest, far from the\nhaunts of men, his absolute ignorance of the existence of human beings\nother than his parent and himself, present a close parallel to the\naccounts of Perceval\u2019s youth and woodland life, as related in the Grail\nromances.[11]\n\nIn Gerbert\u2019s continuation we are told that the marriage of the hero is\nan indispensable condition of achieving the Quest, a detail which must\nhave been taken over from an earlier version, as Gerbert proceeds to\nstultify himself by describing the solemnities of the marriage, and the\nceremonial blessing of the nuptial couch, after which hero and heroine\nsimultaneously agree to live a life of strict chastity, and are\nrewarded by the promise that the Swan Knight shall be their\ndescendant\u2014a tissue of contradictions which can only be explained by\nthe _mal-\u00e0-droit_ blending of two versions, one of which knew the hero\nas wedded, the other, as celibate. There can be no doubt that the\noriginal _Perceval_ story included the marriage of the hero.[12]\n\nThe circumstances under which \u1e5aishya\u00e7\u1e5bi\u00f1ga is lured from his Hermitage\nare curiously paralleled by the account, found in the _Queste_ and\nManessier, of Perceval\u2019s temptation by a fiend, in the form of a fair\nmaiden, who comes to him by water in a vessel hung with black silk, and\nwith great riches on board.[13]\n\nIn pointing out these parallels I wish to make my position perfectly\nclear; I do not claim that either in the _Rig-Veda_, or in any other\nearly Aryan literary monument, we can hope to discover the direct\nsources of the Grail legend, but what I would urge upon scholars is the\nfact that, in adopting the hypothesis of a Nature Cult as a possible\norigin, and examining the history of these Cults, their evolution, and\ntheir variant forms, we do, in effect, find at every period and stage\nof development undoubted points of contact, which, though taken\nseparately, might be regarded as accidental, in their _ensemble_ can\nhardly be thus considered. When every parallel to our Grail story is\nfound within the circle of a well-defined, and carefully studied,\nsequence of belief and practice, when each and all form part of a\nwell-recognized body of tradition the descent of which has been\nabundantly demonstrated, then I submit such parallels stand on a sound\nbasis, and it is not unreasonable to conclude that the body of\ntradition containing them belongs to the same family and is to be\ninterpreted on the same principles as the closely analogous rites and\nceremonies.\n\nI suspend the notice and discussion of other poems contained in Prof.\nvon Schroeder\u2019s collection till we have reached a later stage of the\ntradition, when their correspondence will be recognized as even more\nstriking and suggestive.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\nTammuz and Adonis\n\nPART I. TAMMUZ\n\nIn the previous chapter we considered certain aspects of the attitude\nassumed by our Aryan forefathers towards the great processes of Nature\nin their ordered sequence of Birth, Growth, and Decay. We saw that\nwhile on one hand they, by prayer and supplication, threw themselves\nupon the mercy of the Divinity, who, in their belief, was responsible\nfor the granting, or withholding, of the water, whether of rain, or\nriver, the constant supply of which was an essential condition of such\nordered sequence, they, on the other hand, believed that, by their own\nactions, they could stimulate and assist the Divine activity. Hence the\ndramatic representations to which I have referred, the performance, for\ninstance, of such a drama as the _\u1e5aishya\u00e7\u1e5bi\u00f1ga_, the ceremonial\n\u2018marriages,\u2019 and other exercises of what we now call sympathetic magic.\nTo quote a well-known passage from Sir J. G. Frazer: \u201cThey commonly\nbelieved that the tie between the animal and vegetable world was even\ncloser than it really is\u2014to them the principle of life and fertility,\nwhether animal or vegetable, was one and indivisible. Hence actions\nthat induced fertility in the animal world were held to be equally\nefficacious in stimulating the reproductive energies of the\nvegetable.\u201d[1] How deeply this idea was rooted in the minds of our\nancestors we, their descendants, may learn from its survival to our own\nday.\n\nThe ultimate, and what we may in a general sense term the classical,\nform in which this sense of the community of the Life principle found\nexpression was that which endowed the vivifying force of Nature with a\ndistinct personality, divine, or semi-divine, whose experiences, in\nvirtue of his close kinship with humanity, might be expressed in terms\nof ordinary life.\n\nAt this stage the progress of the seasons, the birth of vegetation in\nspring, or its revival after the autumn rains, its glorious fruition in\nearly summer, its decline and death under the maleficent influence\neither of the scorching sun, or the bitter winter cold, symbolically\nrepresented the corresponding stages in the life of this\nanthropomorphically conceived Being, whose annual progress from birth\nto death, from death to a renewed life, was celebrated with a solemn\nritual of corresponding alternations of rejoicing and lamentation.\n\nRecent research has provided us with abundant material for the study of\nthe varying forms of this Nature Cult, the extraordinary importance of\nwhich as an evolutionary factor in what we may term the concrete\nexpression of human thought and feeling is only gradually becoming\nrealized.[2]\n\nBefore turning our attention to this, the most important, section of\nour investigation, it may be well to consider one characteristic\ndifference between the Nature ritual of the _Rig-Veda_, and that\npreserved to us in the later monuments of Greek antiquity.\n\nIn the _Rig-Veda_, early as it is, we find the process of religious\nevolution already far advanced; the god has separated himself from his\nworshippers, and assumed an anthropomorphic form. Indra, while still\nretaining traces of his \u2018weather\u2019 origin, is no longer, to borrow Miss\nHarrison\u2019s descriptive phrase, \u2018an automatic explosive thunder-storm,\u2019\nhe wields the thunderbolt certainly, but he appears in heroic form to\nreceive the offerings made to him, and to celebrate his victory in a\nsolemn ritual dance. In Greek art and literature, on the other hand,\nwhere we might expect to find an even more advanced conception, we are\nfaced with one seemingly more primitive and inchoate, _i.e._, the idea\nof a constantly recurring cycle of Birth, Death, and Resurrection, or\nRe-Birth, of all things in Nature, this cycle depending upon the\nactivities of an entity at first vaguely conceived of as the \u2018Luck of\nthe Year,\u2019 the _Eniautos Daimon_. This Being, at one stage of evolution\ntheriomorphic\u2014he might assume the form of a bull, a goat, or a snake\n(the latter, probably from the close connection of the reptile with the\nearth, being the more general form)\u2014only gradually, and by distinctly\ntraceable stages, assumed an anthropomorphic shape.[3] This gives to\nthe study of Greek antiquity a special and peculiar value, since in\nregard to the body of religious belief and observance with which we are\nhere immediately concerned, neither in what we may not improperly term\nits ultimate (early Aryan), nor in what has been generally considered\nits proximate (Syro-Phoenician), source, have these intermediate stages\nbeen preserved; in each case the ritual remains are illustrative of a\nhighly developed cult, distinctly anthropomorphic in conception. I\noffer no opinion as to the critical significance of this fact, but I\nwould draw the attention of scholars to its existence.\n\nThat the process of evolution was complete at a very early date has\nbeen proved by recent researches into the Sumerian-Babylonian\ncivilization. We know now that the cult of the god Tammuz, who, if not\nthe direct original of the Phoenician-Greek Adonis, is at least\nrepresentative of a common parent deity, may be traced back to 3000\nB.C., while it persisted among the Sabeans at Harran into the Middle\nAges.[4]\n\nWhile much relating to the god and his precise position in the\nSumerian-Babylonian Pantheon still remains obscure, fragmentary\ncuneiform texts connected with the religious services of the period\nhave been discovered, and to a considerable extent deciphered, and we\nare thus in a position to judge, from the prayers and invocations\naddressed to the deity, what were the powers attributed to, and the\nbenefits besought from, him. These texts are of a uniform character;\nthey are all \u2018Lamentations,\u2019 or \u2018Wailings,\u2019 having for their exciting\ncause the disappearance of Tammuz from this upper earth, and the\ndisastrous effects produced upon animal and vegetable life by his\nabsence. The woes of the land and the folk are set forth in poignant\ndetail, and Tammuz is passionately invoked to have pity upon his\nworshippers, and to end their sufferings by a speedy return. This\nreturn, we find from other texts, was effected by the action of a\ngoddess, the mother, sister, or paramour, of Tammuz, who, descending\ninto the nether world, induced the youthful deity to return with her to\nearth. It is perfectly clear from the texts which have been deciphered\nthat Tammuz is not to be regarded merely as representing the Spirit of\nVegetation; his influence is operative, not only in the vernal\nprocesses of Nature, as a Spring god, but in all its reproductive\nenergies, without distinction or limitation, he may be considered as an\nembodiment of the Life principle, and his cult as a Life Cult.\n\nMr Stephen Langdon inclines to believe that the original Tammuz\ntypified the vivifying waters; he writes: \u201cSince, in Babylonia as in\nEgypt, the fertility of the soil depended upon irrigation, it is but\nnatural to expect that the youthful god who represents the birth and\ndeath of nature, would represent the beneficent waters which flooded\nthe valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates in the late winter, and which\nebbed away, and nearly disappeared, in the canals and rivers in the\nperiod of Summer drought. We find therefore that the theologians\nregarded this youthful divinity as belonging to the cult of Eridu,\ncentre of the worship of Ea, lord of the nether sea.\u201d[5] In a note to\nthis passage Mr Langdon adds: \u201cHe appears in the great theological list\nas _Dami-zi, ab-zu_, \u2018Tammuz of the nether sea,\u2019 _i.e._, \u2018the faithful\nson of the fresh waters which come from the earth.\u2019\u201d[6]\n\nThis presents us with an interesting analogy to the citations given in\nthe previous chapter from the _Rig-Veda;_ the Tammuz cult is specially\nvaluable as providing us with evidence of the gradual evolution of the\nLife Cult from the early conception of the vivifying power of the\nwaters, to the wider recognition of a common principle underlying all\nmanifestations of Life.\n\nThis is very clearly brought out in the beautiful Lament for Tammuz,\npublished by Mr Langdon in _Tammuz and Ishtar_, and also in _Sumerian\nand Babylonian Psalms_.[7]\n\n\u201cIn Eanna, high and low, there is weeping,\n\nWailing for the house of the lord they raise.\n\nThe wailing is for the plants; the first lament is \u2018they grow not.\u2019\n\nThe wailing is for the barley; the ears grow not.\n\nFor the habitations and flocks it is; they produce not.\n\nFor the perishing wedded ones, for perishing children it is; the\ndark-headed people create not.\n\nThe wailing is for the great river; it brings the flood no more.\n\nThe wailing is for the fields of men; the gunu grows no more.\n\nThe wailing is for the fish-ponds; the dasuhur fish spawn not.\n\nThe wailing is for the cane-brake; the fallen stalks grow not.\n\nThe wailing is for the forests; the tamarisks grow not.\n\nThe wailing is for the highlands; the masgam trees grow not.\n\nThe wailing is for the garden store-house; honey and wine are produced\nnot.\n\nThe wailing is for the meadows; the bounty of the garden, the sihtu\nplants grow not.\n\nThe wailing is for the palace; life unto distant days is not.\u201d\n\nCan anything be more expressive of the community of life animating the\nwhole of Nature than this poignantly worded lament?\n\nA point which differentiates the worship of Tammuz from the kindred,\nand better known, cult of Adonis, is the fact that we have no\nliturgical record of the celebration of the resurrection of the deity;\nit certainly took place, for the effects are referred to:\n\n\u201cWhere grass was not, there grass is eaten,\nWhere water was not, water is drunk,\nWhere the cattle sheds were not, cattle sheds are built.\u201d[8]\n\n\nWhile this distinctly implies the revival of vegetable and animal life,\nthose features (_i.e._, resurrection and sacred marriage), which made\nthe Adonis ritual one of rejoicing as much as of lamentation, are\nabsent from liturgical remains of the Tammuz cult.[9]\n\nA detail which has attracted the attention of scholars is the lack of\nany artistic representation of this ritual, a lack which is the more\nstriking in view of the important position which these \u2018Wailings for\nTammuz\u2019 occupy in the extant remains of Babylonian liturgies. On this\npoint Mr Langdon makes an interesting suggestion: \u201cIt is probable that\nthe service of wailing for the dying god, the descent of the mother,\nand the resurrection, were attended by mysterious rituals. The actual\nmysteries may have been performed in a secret chamber, and consequently\nthe scenes were forbidden in Art. This would account for the surprising\ndearth of archaeological evidence concerning a cult upon which the very\nlife of mankind was supposed to depend.\u201d[10]\n\nIn view of the fact that my suggestion as to the possible later\ndevelopment of these Life Cults as Mysteries has aroused considerable\nopposition, it is well to bear in mind that such development is held by\nthose best acquainted with the earliest forms of the ritual to have\nbeen not merely possible, but to have actually taken place, and that at\na very remote date. Mr Langdon quotes a passage referring to \u201cKings who\nin their day played the _r\u00f4le_ of Tammuz in the mystery of this cult\u201d;\nhe considers that here we have to do with kings who, by a symbolic act,\nescaped the final penalty of sacrifice as representative of the Dying\nGod.[11]\n\nThe full importance of the evidence above set forth will become more\nclearly apparent as we proceed with our investigation; here I would\nsimply draw attention to the fact that we now possess definite proof\nthat, at a period of some 3000 years B.C., the idea of a Being upon\nwhose life and reproductive activities the very existence of Nature and\nits corresponding energies was held to depend, yet who was himself\nsubject to the vicissitudes of declining powers and death, like an\nordinary mortal, had already assumed a fixed, and practically final,\nform; further, that this form was specially crystallized in ritual\nobservances. In our study of the later manifestations of this cult we\nshall find that this central idea is always, and unalterably, the same,\nand is, moreover, frequently accompanied by a remarkable correspondence\nof detail. The chain of evidence is already strong, and we may justly\nclaim that the links added by further research strengthen, while they\nlengthen, that chain.\n\nPART II. ADONIS\n\nWhile it is only of comparatively recent date that information as to\nthe exact character of the worship directed to Tammuz has been\navailable and the material we at present possess is but fragmentary in\ncharacter, the corresponding cult of the Phoenician-Greek divinity we\nknow as Adonis has for some years been the subject of scholarly\nresearch. Not only have the details of the ritual been examined and\ndiscussed, and the surviving artistic evidence described and\nillustrated, but from the anthropological side attention has been\nforcibly directed to its importance as a factor in the elucidation of\ncertain widespread Folk-beliefs and practices.[12]\n\nWe know now that the worship of Adonis, which enjoyed among the Greeks\na popularity extending to our own day, was originally of Phoenician\norigin, its principal centres being the cities of Byblos, and Aphaka.\nFrom Phoenicia it spread to the Greek islands, the earliest evidence of\nthe worship being found in Cyprus, and from thence to the mainland,\nwhere it established itself firmly. The records of the cult go back to\n700 B.C., but it may quite possibly be of much earlier date. Mr Langdon\nsuggests that the worship of the divinity we know as Adonis, may, under\nanother name, reach back to an antiquity equal with that we can now\nascribe to the cult of Tammuz. In its fully evolved classical form the\ncult of Adonis offers, as it were, a halfway house, between the\nfragmentary relics of Aryan and Babylonian antiquity, and the wealth of\nMedieval and Modern survivals to which the ingenuity and patience of\ncontemporary scholars have directed our attention.\n\nWe all know the mythological tale popularly attached to the name of\nAdonis; that he was a fair youth, beloved of Aphrodite, who, wounded in\nthe thigh by a wild boar, died of his wound. The goddess, in despair at\nhis death, by her prayers won from Zeus the boon that Adonis be allowed\nto return to earth for a portion of each year, and henceforward the\nyouthful god divides his time between the goddess of Hades, Persephone,\nand Aphrodite. But the importance assumed by the story, the elaborate\nceremonial with which the death of Adonis was mourned, and his\nrestoration to life f\u00eated, the date and character of the celebrations,\nall leave no doubt that the personage with whom we are dealing was no\nmere favourite of a goddess, but one with whose life and well-being the\nordinary processes of Nature, whether animal or vegetable, were closely\nand intimately concerned. In fact the central figure of these rites, by\nwhatever name he may be called, is the somewhat elusive and impersonal\nentity, who represents in anthropomorphic form the principle of animate\nNature, upon whose preservation, and unimpaired energies, the life of\nman, directly, and indirectly, depends.[13]\n\nBefore proceeding to examine these rites there is one point, to which I\nhave alluded earlier, in another connection, upon which our minds must\nbe quite clear, _i.e._, the nature of the injury suffered. Writers upon\nthe subject are of one accord in considering the usual account to be\nbut a euphemistic veiling of the truth, while the close relation\nbetween the stories of Adonis and Attis, and the practices associated\nwith the cult, place beyond any shadow of a doubt the fact that the\ntrue reason for this universal mourning was the cessation, or\nsuspension, by injury or death, of the reproductive energy of the god\nupon whose virile activity vegetable life directly, and human life\nindirectly, depended.[14] What we have need to seize and to insist upon\nis the overpowering influence which the sense of Life, the need for\nLife, the essential Sanctity of the Life-giving faculty, exercised upon\nprimitive religions. Vellay puts this well when he says: \u201cEn r\u00e9alit\u00e9\nc\u2019est sur la conception de la vie physique, consid\u00e9r\u00e9e dans son\norigine, et dans son action, et dans le double principe qui l\u2019anime,\nque repose tout le cycle religieux des peuples Orientaux de\nl\u2019Antiquit\u00e9.\u201d[15]\n\nProfessor von Schroeder says even more precisely and emphatically: \u201cIn\nder Religion der Arischen Urzeit ist Alles auf Lebensbejahung\ngerichtet, Mann kann den Phallus als ihr Beherrschendes Symbol\nbetrachten.\u201d[16] And in spite of the strong opposition to this cult\nmanifested in Indian literature, beginning with the _Rig-Veda_, and\nripening to fruition in the _Upanishads_, in spite of the rise of\nBuddhism, with its opposing dictum of renunciation, the \u2018Life-Cult\u2019\nasserted its essential vitality against all opposition, and under\nmodified forms represents the \u2018popular\u2019 religion of India to this day.\n\nEach and all of the ritual dramas, reconstructed in the pages of\n_Mysterium und Mimus_ bear, more or less distinctly, the stamp of their\n\u2018Fertility\u2019 origin,[17] while outside India the pages of Frazer and\nMannhardt, and numerous other writers on Folk-lore and Ethnology,\nrecord the widespread, and persistent, survival of these rites, and\ntheir successful defiance of the spread of civilization.\n\nIt is to this special group of belief and practice that the Adonis (and\nmore especially its Phrygian counterpart the Attis) worship belong, and\neven when transplanted to the more restrained and cultured environment\nof the Greek mainland, they still retained their primitive character.\nFarnell, in his _Cults of the Greek States_, refers to the worship of\nAdonis as \u201ca ritual that the more austere State religion of Greece\nprobably failed to purify, the saner minds, bred in a religious\natmosphere that was, on the whole, genial, and temperate, revolted from\nthe din of cymbals and drums, the meaningless ecstasies of sorrow and\njoy, that marked the new religion.\u201d[18]\n\nIt is, I submit, indispensable for the purposes of our investigation\nthat the essential character and significance of the cults with which\nwe are dealing should not be evaded or ignored, but faced, frankly\nadmitted and held in mind during the progress of our enquiry.\n\nHaving now determined the general character of the ritual, what were\nthe specific details?\n\nThe date of the feast seems to have varied in different countries; thus\nin Greece it was celebrated in the Spring, the moment of the birth of\nVegetation; according to Saint Jerome, in Palestine the celebration\nfell in June, when plant life was in its first full luxuriance. In\nCyprus, at the autumnal equinox, _i.e._, the beginning of the year in\nthe Syro-Macedonian calendar, the death of Adonis falling on the 23rd\nof September, his resurrection on the 1st of October, the beginning of\na New Year. This would seem to indicate that here Adonis was\nconsidered, as Vellay suggests, less as the god of Vegetation than as\nthe superior and nameless Lord of Life (Adonis=Syriac _Ad\u00f4n_, Lord),\nunder whose protection the year was placed.[19] He is the _Eniautos\nDaimon_.\n\nIn the same way as the dates varied, so, also, did the order of the\nritual; generally speaking the elaborate ceremonies of mourning for the\ndead god, and committing his effigy to the waves, preceded the joyous\ncelebration of his resurrection, but in Alexandria the sequence was\notherwise; the feast began with the solemn and joyous celebration of\nthe nuptials of Adonis and Aphrodite, at the conclusion of which a\nHead, of papyrus, representing the god, was, with every show of\nmourning, committed to the waves, and borne within seven days by a\ncurrent (always to be counted upon at that season of the year) to\nByblos, where it was received and welcomed with popular rejoicing.[20]\nThe duration of the feast varied from two days, as at Alexandria, to\nseven or eight.\n\nConnected with the longer period of the feast were the so-called\n\u2018Gardens of Adonis,\u2019 baskets, or pans, planted with quick growing\nseeds, which speedily come to fruition, and as speedily wither. In the\nmodern survivals of the cult three days form the general term for the\nflowering of these gardens.[21]\n\nThe most noticeable feature of the ritual was the prominence assigned\nto women; \u201cce sont les femmes qui le pleurent, et qui l\u2019accompagnent \u00e0\nsa tombe. Elles sanglotent \u00e9perdument pendant les nuits,\u2014c\u2019est leur\ndieu plus que tout autre, et seules elles veulent pleurer sa mort, et\nchanter sa r\u00e9surrection.\u201d[22]\n\nThus in the tenth century the festival received the Arabic name of\n_El-B\u00fbgat_, or \u2018The Festival of the Weeping Women.\u2019[23]\n\nOne very curious practice during these celebrations was that of cutting\noff the hair in honour of the god; women who hesitated to make this\nsacrifice must offer themselves to strangers, either in the temple, or\non the market-place, the gold received as the price of their favours\nbeing offered to the goddess. This obligation only lasted for one\nday.[24] It was also customary for the priests of Adonis to mutilate\nthemselves in imitation of the god, a distinct proof, if one were\nneeded, of the traditional cause of his death.[25]\n\nTurning from a consideration of the Adonis ritual, its details, and\nsignificance, to an examination of the Grail romances, we find that\ntheir _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ provides a striking series of parallels with the\nClassical celebrations, parallels, which instead of vanishing, as\nparallels have occasionally an awkward habit of doing, before closer\ninvestigation, rather gain in force the more closely they are studied.\n\nThus the central figure is either a dead knight on a bier (as in the\n_Gawain_ versions), or a wounded king on a litter; when wounded the\ninjury corresponds with that suffered by Adonis and Attis.[26]\n\nClosely connected with the wounding of the king is the destruction\nwhich has fallen on the land, which will be removed when the king is\nhealed. The version of _Sone de Nansai_ is here of extreme interest;\nthe position is stated with so much clearness and precision that the\nconclusion cannot be evaded\u2014we are face to face with the dreaded\ncalamity which it was the aim of the Adonis ritual to avert, the\ntemporary suspension of all the reproductive energies of Nature.[27]\n\nWhile the condition of the king is the cause of general and vociferous\nlamentation, a special feature, never satisfactorily accounted for, is\nthe presence of a weeping woman, or several weeping women. Thus in the\ninterpolated visit of Gawain to the Grail castle, found in the C group\nof _Perceval_ MSS., the Grail-bearer weeps piteously, as she does also\nin _Di\u00fb Cr\u00f4ne_.[28]\n\nIn the version of the prose _Lancelot_ Gawain, during the night, sees\ntwelve maidens come to the door of the chamber where the Grail is kept,\nkneel down, and weep bitterly, in fact behave precisely as did the\nclassical mourners for Adonis\u2014\u201cElles sanglotent \u00e9perdument pendant la\nnuit.\u201d[29]\u2014behaviour for which the text, as it now stands, provides no\nshadow of explanation or excuse. The Grail is here the most revered of\nChristian relics, the dwellers in the castle of Corbenic have all that\nheart can desire, with the additional prestige of being the guardians\nof the Grail; if the feature be not a belated survival, which has lost\nits meaning, it defies any explanation whatsoever.\n\nIn _Di\u00fb Cr\u00f4ne_ alone, where the Grail-bearer and her maidens are the\nsole living beings in an abode of the Dead, is any explanation of the\n\u2018Weeping Women\u2019 attempted, but an interpolated passage in the Heralds\u2019\nCollege MS. of the _Perceval_ states that when the Quest is achieved,\nthe hero shall learn the cause of the maiden\u2019s grief, and also the\nexplanation of the Dead Knight upon the bier:\n\n\u201cdel graal q\u2019vient apr\u00e9s\nE purquei plure tut ad\u00e9s\nLa pucele qui le sustient\nDe la biere qu\u2019apr\u00e9s vient\nSavera la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 adonques\nCeo que nul ne pot saveir onques\nPur nule rien qui avenist.\u201d\nfo. 180vo-181.\n\n\nOf course in the _Perceval_ there is neither a Weeping Maiden, nor a\nBier, and the passage must therefore be either an unintelligent\naddition by a scribe familiar with the _Gawain_ versions, or an\ninterpolation from a source which did contain the features in question.\nSo far as the texts at our disposal are concerned, both features belong\nexclusively to the _Gawain_, and not to the _Perceval_ Quest. The\ninterpolation is significant as it indicates a surviving sense of the\nimportance of this feature.\n\nIn the _Perlesvaus_ we have the curious detail of a maiden who has lost\nher hair as a result of the hero\u2019s failure to ask the question, and the\nconsequent sickness of the Fisher King. The occurrence of this detail\nmay be purely fortuitous, but at the same time it is admissible to\npoint out that the Adonis cults do provide us with a parallel in the\nenforced loss of hair by the women taking part in these rites, while no\nexplanation of this curious feature has so far as I am aware been\nsuggested by critics of the text.[30]\n\nWe may also note the fact that the Grail castle is always situated in\nthe close vicinity of water, either on or near the sea, or on the banks\nof an important river. In two cases the final home of the Grail is in a\nmonastery situated upon an island. The presence of water, either sea,\nor river, is an important feature in the Adonis cult, the effigy of the\ndead god being, not buried in the earth, but thrown into the water.[31]\n\nIt will thus be seen that, in suggesting a form of Nature worship,\nanalogous to this well-known cult, as the possible ultimate source from\nwhich the incidents and _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ of the Grail stories were\nderived, we are relying not upon an isolated parallel, but upon a group\nof parallels, which alike in incident and intention offer, not merely a\nresemblance to, but also an explanation of, the perplexing problems of\nthe Grail literature. We must now consider the question whether\nincidents so remote in time may fairly and justly be utilized in this\nmanner.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\nMedieval and Modern Forms of Nature Ritual\n\n\nReaders of the foregoing pages may, not improbably, object that, while\nwe have instanced certain curious and isolated parallels from early\nAryan literature and tradition, and, what, from the point of view of\ndeclared intention, appears to be a kindred group of religious belief\nand practice in pre-Historic and Classical times, the two, so far, show\nno direct signs of affiliation, while both may be held to be far\nremoved, in point of date, alike from one another, and from the\nromantic literature of the twelfth century.\n\nThis objection is sound in itself, but if we can show by modern\nparallels that the ideas which took form and shape in early Aryan\nDrama, and Babylonian and Classic Ritual, not only survive to our day,\nbut are found in combination with features corresponding minutely with\ndetails recorded in early Aryan literature, we may hold the gulf to be\nbridged, and the common origin, and close relationship, of the\ndifferent stages to be an ascertained fact. At the outset, and before\nexamining the evidence collected by scholars, I would remind my readers\nthat the modern Greeks have retained, in many instances under changed\nnames, no inconsiderable portion of their ancient mythological beliefs,\namong them the \u2018Adonis\u2019 celebrations; the \u2018Gardens of Adonis\u2019 blossom\nand fade to-day, as they did many centuries ago, and I have myself\nspoken with a scholar who has seen \u2018women, at the door of their houses,\nweeping for Adonis.\u2019[1]\n\nFor evidence of the widespread character of Medieval and Modern\nsurvivals we have only to consult the epoch-making works of Mannhardt,\n_Wald und Feld-Kulte_, and Frazer, _The Golden Bough;_[2] in the pages\nof these volumes we shall find more than sufficient for our purpose.\nFrom the wealth of illustration with which these works abound I have\nselected merely such instances as seem to apply more directly to the\nsubject of our investigation.[3]\n\nThus, in many places, it is still the custom to carry a figure\nrepresenting the Vegetation Spirit on a bier, attended by mourning\nwomen, and either bury the figure, throw it into water (as a rain\ncharm), or, after a mock death, carry the revivified Deity, with\nrejoicing, back to the town. Thus in the Lechrain a man in black\nwomen\u2019s clothes is borne on a bier, followed by men dressed as\nprofessional women mourners making lamentation, thrown on the village\ndung-heap, drenched with water, and buried in straw.[4]\n\nIn Russia the Vegetation or Year Spirit is known as Yarilo,[5] and is\nrepresented by a doll with phallic attributes, which is enclosed in a\ncoffin, and carried through the streets to the accompaniment of\nlamentation by women whose emotions have been excited by drink.\nMannhardt gives the lament as follows: \u201cWessen war Er schuldig? Er war\nso gut! Er wird nicht mehr aufstehen! O! Wie sollen wir uns von Dir\ntrennen? Was ist das Leben wenn Du nicht mehr da bist? Erhebe Dich,\nwenn auch nur auf ein St\u00fcndchen! Aber Er steht nicht auf, Er steht\nnicht auf!\u201d[6]\n\nIn other forms of the ritual, we find distinct traces of the\nresuscitation of the Vegetation Deity, occasionally accompanied by\nevidence of rejuvenation. Thus, in Lausitz, on Laetare Sunday (the 4th\nSunday in Lent), women with mourning veils carry a straw figure,\ndressed in a man\u2019s shirt, to the bounds of the next village, where they\ntear the effigy to pieces, hang the shirt on a young and flourishing\ntree, \u201csch\u00f6ne Wald-Baum,\u201d which they proceed to cut down, and carry\nhome with every sign of rejoicing. Here evidently the young tree is\nregarded as a rejuvenation of the person represented in the first\ninstance by the straw figure.[7]\n\nIn many parts of Europe to-day the corresponding ceremonies, very\ngenerally held at Whitsuntide, include the mock execution of the\nindividual representing the Vegetation Spirit, frequently known as the\nKing of the May. In Bohemia the person playing the _r\u00f4le_ of the King\nis, with his attendants, dressed in bark, and decked with garlands of\nflowers; at the conclusion of the ceremonies the King is allowed a\nshort start, and is then pursued by the armed attendants. If he is not\novertaken he holds office for a year, but if overtaken, he suffers a\nmock decapitation, head-dress, or crown, being struck off, and the\npretended corpse is then borne on a bier to the next village.[8]\n\nMannhardt, discussing this point, remarks that in the mock execution we\nmust recognize \u201cEin verbreiteter und jedenfalls uralter Gebrauch.\u201d He\nenumerates the various modes of death, shooting, stabbing (in the\nlatter case a bladder filled with blood, and concealed under the\nclothes, is pierced); in Bohemia, decapitation, occasionally drowning\n(which primarily represents a rain charm), is the form adopted.[9] He\nthen goes on to remark that this ceremonial death must have been\ngenerally followed by resuscitation, as in Thuringia, where the \u2018Wild\nMan,\u2019 as the central figure is there named, is brought to life again by\nthe Doctor, while the survival, in the more elaborate Spring\nprocessions of this latter character, even where he plays no special\n_r\u00f4le_, points to the fact that his part in the proceedings was\noriginally a more important one.\n\nThat Mannhardt was not mistaken is proved by the evidence of the\nkindred Dances, a subject we shall consider later; there we shall find\nthe Doctor playing his old-time _r\u00f4le_, and restoring to life the slain\nrepresentative of the Vegetation Spirit.[10] The character of the\nDoctor, or Medicine Man, formed, as I believe, at one time, no\nunimportant link in the chain which connects these practices with the\nGrail tradition.\n\nThe signification of the resuscitation ceremony is obscured in cases\nwhere the same figure undergoes death and revival without any\ncorresponding change of form. This point did not escape Mannhardt\u2019s\nacute critical eye; he remarks that, in cases where, _e.g._, in Swabia,\nthe \u2018King\u2019 is described as \u201cein armer alter Mann,\u201d who has lived seven\nyears in the woods (the seven winter months), a scene of rejuvenation\nshould follow\u2014\u201cdiese scheint meistenteils verloren gegangen; doch\nvielleicht _scheint_ es nur so.\u201d He goes on to draw attention to the\npractice in Reideberg, bei Halle, where, after burying a straw figure,\ncalled the Old Man, the villagers dance round the May-Pole, and he\nsuggests that the \u2018Old Man\u2019 represents the defunct Vegetation Spirit,\nthe May Tree, that Spirit resuscitated, and refers in this connection\nto the \u201cdurchaus verwandten Asiatischen Gebrauchen des Attis, und\nAdonis-Kultus.\u201d[11]\n\nThe foregoing evidence offers, I think, sufficient proof of the, now\ngenerally admitted, relationship between Classical, Medieval, and\nModern forms of Nature ritual.\n\nBut what of the relation to early Aryan practice? Can that, also, be\nproved?\n\nIn this connection I would draw attention to Chapter 17 of _Mysterium\nund Mimus_, entitled, _Ein Volkst\u00fcmlicher Umzug beim Soma-Fest_. Here\nProfessor von Schroeder discusses the real meaning and significance of\na very curious little poem (Rig-Veda, 9. 112); the title by which it is\ngenerally known, _Alles lauft nach Geld_, does not, at first sight, fit\nthe content of the verse, and the suggestion of scholars who have seen\nin it a humorous enumeration of different trades and handicrafts does\nnot explain the fact that the Frog and the Horse appear in it.\n\nTo Professor von Schroeder belongs the credit of having discovered that\nthe _personnel_ of the poem corresponds with extraordinary exactitude\nto the Figures of the Spring and Summer \u2018Fertility-exciting\u2019\nprocessions, described with such fulness of detail by Mannhardt.\nEspecially is this the case with the Whitsuntide procession at\nV\u00e4rdeg\u00f6tzen, in Hanover, where we find the group of phallic and\nfertility demons, who, on Prof. von Schroeder\u2019s hypothesis, figure in\nthe song, in concrete, and actual form.[12] The Vegetation Spirit\nappears in the song as an Old Man, while his female counterpart, an Old\nWoman, is described as \u2018filling the hand-mill.\u2019 Prof. von Schroeder\npoints out that in some parts of Russia the \u2018Baba-jaga\u2019 as the Corn\nMother is called, is an Old Woman, who flies through the air in a\nhand-mill. The Doctor, to whom we have referred above, is mentioned\ntwice in the four verses composing the song; he was evidently regarded\nas an important figure; while the whole is put into the mouth of a\n\u2018Singer\u2019 evidently the Spokesman of the party, who proclaims their\nobject, \u201cVerschiednes k\u00f6nnend suchen wir Gute Dinge,\u201d _i.e._, gifts in\nmoney and kind, as such folk processions do to-day.\n\nThe whole study is of extraordinary interest for Folk-lore students,\nand so far as our especial investigation is concerned it seems to me to\nsupply the necessary proof of the identity, and persistence, of Aryan\nfolk-custom and tradition.\n\nA very important modification of the root idea, and one which appears\nto have a direct bearing on the sources of the Grail tradition, was\nthat by which, among certain peoples, the _r\u00f4le_ of the god, his\nresponsibility for providing the requisite rain upon which the\nfertility of the land, and the life of the folk, depended, was combined\nwith that of the King.\n\nThis was the case among the Celts; McCulloch, in _The Religion of the\nCelts_, discussing the question of the early Irish _geasa_ or taboo,\nexplains the _geasa_ of the Irish kings as designed to promote the\nwelfare of the tribe, the making of rain and sunshine on which their\nprosperity depended. \u201cTheir observance made the earth fruitful,\nproduced abundance and prosperity, and kept both the king and his land\nfrom misfortune. The Kings were divinities on whom depended\nfruitfulness and plenty, and who must therefore submit to obey their\n\u2018_geasa_.\u2019[13]\n\nThe same idea seems to have prevailed in early Greece; Mr A. B. Cook,\nin his studies on _The European Sky-God_, remarks that the king in\nearly Greece was regarded as the representative of Zeus: his duties\ncould be satisfactorily discharged only by a man who was perfect, and\nwithout blemish, _i.e._, by a man in the prime of life, suffering from\nno defect of body, or mind; he quotes in illustration the speech of\nOdysseus (_Od_. 19. 109 ff.). \u201c\u2018Even as a king without blemish, who\nruleth god-fearing over many mighty men, and maintaineth justice, while\nthe black earth beareth wheat and barley, and the trees are laden with\nfruit, and the flocks bring forth without fail, and the sea yieldeth\nfish by reason of his good rule, and the folk prosper beneath him.\u2019 The\nking who is without blemish has a flourishing kingdom, the king who is\nmaimed has a kingdom diseased like himself, thus the Spartans were\nwarned by an oracle to beware of a \u2018lame reign.\u2019\u201d[14]\n\nA most remarkable modern survival of this idea is recorded by Dr Frazer\nin the latest edition of _The Golden Bough_,[15] and is so complete and\nsuggestive that I make no apology for transcribing it at some length.\nThe Shilluk, an African tribe, inhabit the banks of the White Nile,\ntheir territory extending on the west bank from Kaka in the north, to\nLake No in the south, on the east bank from Fashoda to Taufikia, and\nsome 35 miles up the Sohat river. Numbering some 40,000 in all, they\nare a pastoral people, their wealth consisting in flocks and herds,\ngrain and millet. The King resides at Fashoda, and is regarded with\nextreme reverence, as being a re-incarnation of Nyakang, the\nsemi-divine hero who settled the tribe in their present territory.\nNyakang is the rain-giver, on whom their life and prosperity depend;\nthere are several shrines in which sacred Spears, now kept for\nsacrificial purposes, are preserved, the originals, which were the\nproperty of Nyakang, having disappeared.\n\nThe King, though regarded with reverence, must not be allowed to become\nold or feeble, lest, with the diminishing vigour of the ruler, the\ncattle should sicken, and fail to bear increase, the crops should rot\nin the field and men die in ever growing numbers. One of the signs of\nfailing energy is the King\u2019s inability to fulfil the desires of his\nwives, of whom he has a large number. When this occurs the wives report\nthe fact to the chiefs, who condemn the King to death forthwith,\ncommunicating the sentence to him by spreading a white cloth over his\nface and knees during his mid-day slumber. Formerly the King was\nstarved to death in a hut, in company with a young maiden but (in\nconsequence, it is said, of the great vitality and protracted suffering\nof one King) this is no longer done; the precise manner of death is\ndifficult to ascertain; Dr Seligmann, who was Sir J. G. Frazer\u2019s\nauthority, thinks that he is now strangled in a hut, especially erected\nfor that purpose.\n\nAt one time he might be attacked and slain by a rival, either of his\nown family, or of that of one of the previous Kings, of whom there are\nmany, but this has long been superseded by the ceremonial slaying of\nthe monarch who after his death is revered as Nyakang.[16]\n\nThis survival is of extraordinary interest; it presents us with a\ncuriously close parallel to the situation which, on the evidence of the\ntexts, we have postulated as forming the basic idea of the Grail\ntradition\u2014the position of a people whose prosperity, and the fertility\nof their land, are closely bound up with the life and virility of their\nKing, who is not a mere man, but a Divine re-incarnation. If he \u2018falls\ninto languishment,\u2019 as does the Fisher King in _Perlesvaus_, the land\nand its inhabitants will suffer correspondingly; not only will the\ncountry suffer from drought, \u201c_Nus pr\u00e8s n\u2019i raverdia_,\u201d but the men\nwill die in numbers:\n\n\u201cDames en perdront lor maris\u201d\n\nwe may say; the cattle will cease to bear increase:\n\n\u201cNe se n\u2019i ot beste faon,\u201d\n\nand the people take drastic steps to bring about a rejuvenation; the\nold King dies, to be replaced by a young and vigorous successor, even\nas Brons was replaced by Perceval.\n\nLet us now turn back to the preceding chapter, and compare the position\nof the people of the Shilluk tribe, and the subjects of the Grail King,\nwith that of the ancient Babylonians, as set forth in their\nLamentations for Tammuz.\n\nThere we find that the absence of the Life-giving deity was followed by\nprecisely the same disastrous consequences;\n\nVegetation fails\u2014\n\n\u201cThe wailing is for the plants; the first lament is they grow not.\nThe wailing is for the barley; the ears grow not.\u201d\n\n\nThe reproductive energies of the animal kingdom are suspended\u2014\n\n\u201cFor the habitation of flocks it is; they produce not.\nFor the perishing wedded ones, for perishing children it is; the\ndark-headed people create not.\u201d\n\n\nNor can we evade the full force of the parallel by objecting that we\nare here dealing with a god, not with a man; we possess the recorded\nnames of \u2018kings who played the _r\u00f4le_ of Tammuz,\u2019 thus even for that\nearly period the commingling of the two conceptions, god and king, is\ndefinitely established.\n\nNow in face of this group of parallels, whose close correspondence, if\nwe consider their separation in point of time (3000 B.C.; 1200 A.D.;\nand the present day), is nothing short of astonishing, is it not\nabsolutely and utterly unreasonable to admit (as scholars no longer\nhesitate to do) the relationship between the first and last, and\nexclude, as a mere literary invention, the intermediate parallel?\n\nThe ground for such a denial may be mere prejudice, a reluctance to\nrenounce a long cherished critical prepossession, but in the face of\nthis new evidence does it not come perilously close to scientific\ndishonesty, to a disregard for that respect for truth in research the\nimperative duty of which has been so finely expressed by the late M.\nGaston Paris.\u2014\u201cJe professe absolument et sans r\u00e9serve cette doctrine,\nque la science n\u2019a d\u2019autre objet que la v\u00e9rit\u00e9, et la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 pour\nelle-m\u00eame, sans aucun souci des cons\u00e9quences, bonnes ou mauvaises,\nregrettables ou heureuses, que cette v\u00e9rit\u00e9 pourrait avoir dans la\npratique.\u201d[17] When we further consider that behind these three main\nparallels, linking them together, there lies a continuous chain of\nevidence, expressed alike in classical literature, and surviving Folk\npractice, I would submit that there is no longer any shadow of a doubt\nthat in the Grail King we have a romantic literary version of that\nstrange mysterious figure whose presence hovers in the shadowy\nbackground of the history of our Aryan race; the figure of a divine or\nsemi-divine ruler, at once god and king, upon whose life, and\nunimpaired vitality, the existence of his land and people directly\ndepends.\n\nAnd if we once grant this initial fact, and resolve that we will no\nlonger, in the interests of an outworn critical tradition, deny the\nweight of scientific evidence in determining the real significance of\nthe story, does it not inevitably follow, as a logical sequence, that\nsuch versions as fail to connect the misfortunes of the land directly\nwith the disability of the king, but make them dependent upon the\nfailure of the Quester, are, by that very fact, stamped as secondary\nversions. That by this one detail, of capital importance, they approve\nthemselves as literary treatments of a traditional theme, the true\nmeaning of which was unknown to the author?\n\nLet us for a moment consider what the opposite view would entail; that\na story which was originally the outcome of pure literary invention\nshould in the course of re-modelling have been accidentally brought\ninto close and detailed correspondence with a deeply rooted sequence of\npopular faith and practice is simply inconceivable, the re-modelling,\nif re-modelling there were, must have been intentional, the men whose\nhandiwork it was were in possession of the requisite knowledge.\n\nBut how did they possess that knowledge, and why should they undertake\nsuch a task? Surely not from the point of view of antiquarian interest,\nas might be done to-day; they were no twelfth century Frazers and\nMannhardts; the subject must have had for them a more living, a more\nintimate, interest. And if, in face of the evidence we now possess, we\nfeel bound to admit the existence of such knowledge, is it not more\nreasonable to suppose that the men who first told the story were the\nmen who _knew_, and that the confusion was due to those who, with more\nliterary skill, but less first-hand information, re-modelled the\noriginal theme?\n\nIn view of the present facts I would submit that the problem posed in\nour first chapter may be held to be solved; that we accept as a _fait\nacquis_ the conclusion that the woes of the land are directly dependent\nupon the sickness, or maiming, of the King, and in no wise caused by\nthe failure of the Quester. The \u2018Wasting of the land\u2019 must be held to\nhave been antecedent to that failure, and the _Gawain_ versions in\nwhich we find this condition fulfilled are, therefore, prior in origin\nto the _Perceval_, in which the \u2018Wasting\u2019 is brought about by the\naction of the hero; in some versions, indeed, has altogether\ndisappeared from the story.\n\nThus the position assigned in the versions to this feature of the Waste\nLand becomes one of capital importance as a critical factor. This is a\npoint which has hitherto escaped the attention of scholars; the\nmisfortunes of the land have been treated rather as an accident, than\nas an essential, of the Grail story, entirely subordinate in interest\nto the _dramatis personae_ of the tale, or the objects, Lance and\nGrail, round which the action revolves. As a matter of fact I believe\nthat the \u2018Waste Land\u2019 is really the very heart of our problem; a\nrightful appreciation of its position and significance will place us in\npossession of the clue which will lead us safely through the most\nbewildering mazes of the fully developed tale.\n\nSince the above pages were written Dr Frazer has notified the discovery\nof a second African parallel, equally complete, and striking. In\n_Folk-Lore_ (Vol. XXVI.) he prints, under the title _A Priest-King in\nNigeria_, a communication received from Mr P. A. Talbot, District\nCommissioner in S. Nigeria. The writer states that the dominant Ju-Ju\nof Elele, a town in the N.W. of the Degema district, is a Priest-King,\nelected for a term of seven years. \u201cThe whole prosperity of the town,\nespecially the fruitfulness of farm, byre, and marriage-bed, was linked\nwith his life. Should he fall sick it entailed famine and grave\ndisaster upon the inhabitants.\u201d So soon as a successor is appointed the\nformer holder of the dignity is reported to \u2018die for himself.\u2019 Previous\nto the introduction of ordered government it is admitted that at any\ntime during his seven years\u2019 term of office the Priest might be put to\ndeath by any man sufficiently strong and resourceful, consequently it\nis only on the rarest occasions (in fact only one such is recorded)\nthat the Ju-Ju ventures to leave his compound. At the same time the\nriches derived from the offerings of the people are so considerable\nthat there is never a lack of candidates for the office.\n\nFrom this and the evidence cited above it would appear that the\ninstitution was widely spread in Africa, and at the same time it\naffords a striking proof in support of the essential soundness of Dr\nFrazer\u2019s interpretation of the Priest of Nemi, an interpretation which\nhas been violently attacked in certain quarters, very largely on the\nground that no one would be found willing to accept an office involving\nsuch direct danger to life. The above evidence shows clearly that not\nonly does such an office exist, but that it is by no means an unpopular\npost.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\nThe Symbols\n\n\nIn the previous chapters we have discussed the Grail Legend from a\ngeneral, rather than a specific, point of view; _i.e._, we have\nendeavoured to ascertain what was the real character of the task\nimposed upon the hero, and what the nature and value of his\nachievement.\n\nWe have been led to the conclusion that that achievement was, in the\nfirst instance, of an altruistic character\u2014it was no question of\nadvantages, temporal or spiritual, which should accrue to the Quester\nhimself, but rather of definite benefits to be won for others, the\nfreeing of a ruler and his land from the dire results of a punishment\nwhich, falling upon the King, was fraught with the most disastrous\nconsequences for his kingdom.\n\nWe have found, further, that this close relation between the ruler and\nhis land, which resulted in the ill of one becoming the calamity of\nall, is no mere literary invention, proceeding from the fertile\nimagination of a twelfth century court poet, but a deeply rooted\npopular belief, of practically immemorial antiquity and inexhaustible\nvitality; we can trace it back thousands of years before the Christian\nera, we find it fraught with decisions of life and death to-day.\n\nFurther, we find in that belief a tendency to express itself in certain\nceremonial practices, which retain in a greater or less degree the\ncharacter of the ritual observances of which they are the survival. Mr\nE. K. Chambers, in _The Mediaeval Stage_, remarks: \u201cIf the comparative\nstudy of Religion proves anything it is, that the traditional beliefs\nand customs of the mediaeval or modern peasant are in nine cases out of\nten but the _detritus_ of heathen mythology and heathen worship,\nenduring with but little external change in the shadow of a hostile\nfaith. This is notably true of the village festivals and their _ludi_.\nTheir full significance only appears when they are regarded as\nfragments of forgotten cults, the na\u00efve cults addressed by a primitive\nfolk to the beneficent deities of field and wood and river, or the\nshadowy populace of its own dreams.\u201d[1] We may, I think, take it that\nwe have established at least the possibility that in the Grail romances\nwe possess, in literary form, an example of the _detritus_ above\nreferred to, the fragmentary record of the secret ritual of a Fertility\ncult.\n\nHaving reached this hypothetical conclusion, our next step must be to\nexamine the Symbols of this cult, the group of mysterious objects which\nforms the central point of the action, a true understanding of the\nnature of these objects being as essential for our success as\ninterpreters of the story as it was for the success of the Quester in\ndays of old. We must ask whether these objects, the Grail itself,\nwhether Cup or Dish; the Lance; the Sword; the Stone\u2014one and all\ninvested with a certain atmosphere of awe, credited with strange\nvirtues, with sanctity itself, will harmonize with the proposed\nsolution, will range themselves fitly and fairly within the framework\nof this hypothetical ritual.\n\nThat they should do so is a matter of capital importance; were it\notherwise the theory advanced might well, as some of my critics have\nmaintained, \u2018never get beyond the region of ingenious speculation,\u2019 but\nit is precisely upon the fact that this theory of origin, and so far as\ncriticism has gone, this theory alone, does permit of a natural and\nunforced interpretation of these related symbols that I rely as one of\nthe most convincing proofs of the correctness of my hypothesis.\n\nBefore commencing the investigation there is one point which I would\ndesire to emphasize, _viz._, the imperative necessity for treating the\nSymbols or Talismans, call them what we will, on the same principle as\nwe have treated the incidents of the story, _i.e._, as a connected\nwhole. That they be not separated the one _from_ the other, and made\nthe subject of independent treatment, but that they be regarded in\ntheir relation the one _to_ the other, and that no theory of origin be\nheld admissible which does not allow for that relation as a primitive\nand indispensable factor. It may be the modern tendency to specialize\nwhich is apt to blind scholars to the essential importance of regarding\ntheir object of study as a whole, that fosters in them a habit of\nfocussing their attention upon that one point or incident of the story\nwhich lends itself to treatment in their special line of study, and\nwhich induces them to minimize, or ignore, those elements which lie\noutside their particular range. But, whatever the cause, it is\nindubitable that this method of \u2018criticism by isolation\u2019 has been, and\nis, one of the main factors which have operated in retarding the\nsolution of the Grail problem.\n\nSo long as critics of the story will insist on pulling it into little\npieces, selecting one detail here, another there, for study and\nelucidation, so long will the _ensemble_ result be chaotic and\nunsatisfactory. We shall continue to have a number of monographs, more\nor less scholarly in treatment\u2014one dealing with the Grail as a\nFood-providing talisman, and that alone; another with the Grail as a\nvehicle of spiritual sustenance. One that treats of the Lance as a\nPagan weapon, and nothing more; another that regards it as a Christian\nrelic, and nothing less. At one moment the object of the study will be\nthe Fisher King, without any relation to the symbols he guards, or the\nland he rules; at the next it will be the relation of the Quester to\nthe Fisher King, without any explanation of the tasks assigned to him\nby the story. The result obtained is always quite satisfactory to the\nwriter, often plausible, sometimes in a measure sound, but it would\ndefy the skill of the most synthetic genius to co-ordinate the results\nthus obtained, and combine them in one harmonious whole. They are like\npieces of a puzzle, each of which has been symmetrically cut and\ntrimmed, till they lie side by side, un-fitting, and un-related.\n\nAnd we have been pursuing this method for over fifty years, and are\nstill, apparently, content to go on, each devoting attention to the\nsymmetrical perfection of his own little section of the puzzle, quite\nindifferent to the fact that our neighbour is in possession of an\nequally neatly trimmed fragment, which entirely refuses to fit in with\nour own!\n\nIs it not time that we should frankly admit the unsatisfactory results\nof these years of labour, and honestly face the fact that while we now\nhave at our disposal an immense mass of interesting and suggestive\nmaterial often of high value, we have failed, so far, to formulate a\nconclusion which, by embracing and satisfying the manifold conditions\nof the problem, will command general acceptance? And if this failure be\nadmitted, may not its cause be sought in the faulty method which has\nfailed to recognize in the Grail story an original whole, in which the\nparts\u2014the action, the actors, the Symbols, the result to be obtained,\nincident, and intention\u2014stood from the very first in intimate relation\nthe one to the other? That while in process of utilization as a\nliterary theme these various parts have suffered modification and\naccretion from this, or that, side, the problem of the _ultimate_\nsource remains thereby unaffected?\n\nSuch a reversal of method as I suggest will, I submit, not only provide\nus with a critical solution capable of general acceptance, but it will\nalso enable us to utilize, and appreciate at their due value, the\nresult of researches which at the present moment appear to be mutually\ndestructive the one of the other. Thus, while the purely Folk-lore\ninterpretation of the Grail and Lance excludes the Christian origin,\nand the theory of the exclusively Christian origin negatives the\nFolk-lore, the pre-existence of these symbols in a popular ritual\nsetting would admit, indeed would invite, later accretion alike from\nfolk belief and ecclesiastical legend.\n\nWe are the gainers by any light that can possibly be thrown upon the\nprocess of development of the story, but studies of the separate\nsymbols while they may, and do, afford valuable _data_ for determining\nthe character and period of certain accretions, should not be regarded\nas supplying proof of the origin of the related group.\n\nReference to some recent studies in the Legend will make my meaning\nclear. A reviewer of my small _Quest of the Holy Grail_ volume remarked\nthat I appeared to be ignorant of Miss Peebles\u2019s study _The Legend of\nLonginus_ \u201cwhich materially strengthens the evidence for the Christian\norigin.\u201d[2] Now this is precisely what, in my view, the study in\nquestion, which I knew and possessed, does not do. As evidence for the\nfact that the Grail legend has taken over certain features derived from\nthe popular \u2018Longinus\u2019 story (which, incidentally, no one disputed),\nthe essay is, I hold, sound, and valuable; as affording material for\ndetermining the source of the Grail story, it is, on the other hand,\nentirely without value.\n\nOn the principle laid down above no theory which purports to be\nexplanatory of the source of one symbol can be held satisfactory in a\ncase where that symbol does not stand alone. We cannot accept for the\nGrail story a theory of origin which concerns itself with the Lance, as\nindependent of the Grail. In the study referred to the author has been\nat immense pains to examine the different versions of the \u2018Longinus\u2019\nlegend, and to trace its development in literature; in no single\ninstance do we find Longinus and his Lance associated with a Cup or\nVase, receptacle of the Sacred Blood.\n\nThe plain fact is that in Christian art and tradition Lance and Cup are\nnot associated symbols. The Lance or Spear, as an instrument of the\nPassion, is found in conjunction with the Cross, Nails, Sponge, and\nCrown of Thorns, (anyone familiar with the wayside Crosses of Catholic\nEurope will recognize this), not with the Chalice of the Mass.[3] This\nlatter is associated with the Host, or _Agnus Dei_. Still less is the\nSpear to be found in connection with the Grail in its Food-providing\nform of a Dish.\n\nNo doubt to this, critics who share the views of Golther and Burdach\nwill object, \u201cbut what of the Byzantine Mass? Do we not there find a\nSpear connected with the Chalice?\u201d[4]\n\nI very much doubt whether we do\u2014the so-called \u2018Holy Spear\u2019 of the\nByzantine, and present Greek, liturgy is simply a small silver\nspear-shaped knife, nor can I discover that it was ever anything else.\nI have made careful enquiries of liturgical scholars, and consulted\neditions of Oriental liturgies, but I can find no evidence that the\nknife (the use of which is to divide the Loaf which, in the Oriental\nrite, corresponds to the Wafer of the Occidental, in a manner\nsymbolically corresponding to the Wounds actually inflicted on the\nDivine Victim) was ever other than what it is to-day. It seems obvious,\nfrom the method of employment, that an actual Spear could hardly have\nbeen used, it would have been an impossibly unwieldy instrument for the\npurpose.\n\nNor is the \u2018procession\u2019 in which the elements are carried from the\nChapel of the Prothesis to the Sanctuary of a public character\ncomparable with that of the Grail castle; the actual ceremony of the\nGreek Mass takes place, of course, behind a veil. A point of\nconsiderable interest, however, is, what caused this difference in the\nByzantine liturgy? What were the influences which led to the\nintroduction of a feature unknown to the Western rite? If, as the\nresult of the evidence set forth in these pages, the ultimate origin of\nthe Grail story be finally accepted as deriving from a prehistoric\nritual possessing elements of extraordinary persistence and vitality,\nthen the _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ of that story is older than the Byzantine\nritual. Students of the subject are well aware that the tradition of\nancient pre-Christian rites and ceremonies lingered on in the East long\nafter they had been banished by the more practical genius of the West.\nIt may well prove that so far from the Grail story being a reminiscence\nof the Byzantine rite, that rite itself has been affected by a ritual\nof which the Grail legend preserves a fragmentary record.\n\nIn my view a Christian origin for Lance and Cup, as associated symbols,\nhas not been made out; still less can it be postulated for Lance and\nCup as members of an extended group, including Dish, Sword, and Stone.\n\nOn this point Professor Brown\u2019s attempt to find in Irish tradition the\norigin of the Grail symbols is distinctly more satisfactory.[5]\n\nI cannot accept as decisive the solution proposed, which seems to me to\nbe open to much the same criticism as that which would find in the\nLance the Lance of Longinus\u2014both are occupied with details, rather than\nwith _ensemble;_ both would find their justification as offering\nevidence of accretion, rather than of origin; neither can provide us\nwith the required _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_.\n\nBut Professor Brown\u2019s theory is the more sound in that he is really\ndealing with a group of associated symbols; in his view Lance and Grail\nalike belong to the treasures of the Tuatha de Danann (that legendary\nrace of Irish ancestors, who were at once gods and kings), and\ntherefore _ab initio_ belong together. But while I should, on the\nwhole, accept the affiliation of the two groups, and believe that the\ntreasures of the Tuatha de Danann really correspond to the symbols\ndisplayed in the hall of the Grail castle, I cannot consider that the\none is the origin of the other. There is one very fundamental\ndifference, the importance of which I cannot ignore, but which, I\nbelieve, has hitherto escaped Professor Brown\u2019s attention.\n\nThe object corresponding to the Grail itself is the cauldron of the\nDagda, \u201cNo company ever went from it unthankful\u201d (or \u2018unsatisfied\u2019).[6]\n\nNow this can in no sense be considered as a Cup, or Vase, nor is it the\ntrue parallel to a Dish. The connection with the Grail is to be found\nsolely and exclusively in the food-providing properties ascribed to\nboth. But even here the position is radically different; the impression\nwe derive from the Irish text and its analogous parallels is that of\nsize (it is also called a \u2018tub\u2019), and inexhaustible content, it is a\ncauldron of plenty.[7] Now, neither of these qualities can be\npostulated of the Grail; whatever its form, Cup or Dish, it can easily\nbe borne (in uplifted hands, _entre ses mains hautement porte_) by a\nmaiden, which certainly could not be postulated of a cauldron! Nor is\nthere any proof that the Vessel itself contained the food with which\nthe folk of the Grail castle were regaled; the texts rather point to\nthe conclusion that the appearance of the Grail synchronized with a\nmysterious supply of food of a choice and varied character. There is\nnever any hint that the folk feed _from the Grail;_ the only suggestion\nof such feeding is in the \u2018Oiste,\u2019 by which the father of the Fisher\nKing (or the King himself) is nourished.\n\nIn certain texts the separation of the two is clearly brought out; in\n_Joseph of Arimathea_, for instance, the Fish caught by Brons is to be\nplaced at one end of the table, the Grail at the other. In Gawain\u2019s\nadventure at the Grail castle, in the prose _Lancelot_, as the Grail is\ncarried through the hall \u201cforthwith were the tables replenished with\nthe choicest meats in the world,\u201d but the table before Gawain remains\nvoid and bare.[8] I submit that while the Grail is in certain phases a\nfood-supplying talisman it is not one of the same character as the\ncauldrons of plenty; also while the food supply of these latter has the\nmarked characteristic of _quantity_, that of the Grail is remarkable\nrather for _quality_, its choice character is always insisted upon.\n\nThe perusal of Professor Brown\u2019s subsequent study, _Notes on Celtic\nCauldrons of Plenty and The Land-Beneath-the-Waves_, has confirmed me\nin my view that these special objects belong to another line of\ntradition altogether; that which deals with an inexhaustible submarine\nsource of life, examples of which will be found in the \u2018Sampo\u2019 of the\nFinnish _Kalewala_, and the ever-grinding mills of popular\nfolk-tale.[9] The fundamental idea here seems to be that of the origin\nof all Life from Water, a very ancient idea, but one which, though akin\nto the Grail tradition, is yet quite distinct therefrom. The study of\nthis special theme would, I believe, produce valuable results.[10]\n\nOn the whole, I am of the opinion that the treasures of the Tuatha de\nDanann and the symbols of the Grail castle go back to a common\noriginal, but that they have developed on different lines; in the\nprocess of this development one \u2018Life\u2019 symbol has been exchanged for\nanother.\n\nBut Lance and Cup (or Vase) were in truth connected together in a\nsymbolic relation long ages before the institution of Christianity, or\nthe birth of Celtic tradition. They are sex symbols of immemorial\nantiquity and world-wide diffusion, the Lance, or Spear, representing\nthe Male, the Cup, or Vase, the Female, reproductive energy.[12]\n\nFound in juxtaposition, the Spear upright in the Vase, as in the\n_Bleheris_ and _Balin_ (both, be it noted, _Gawain_) forms, their\nsignification is admitted by all familiar with \u2018Life\u2019 symbolism, and\nthey are absolutely in place as forming part of a ritual dealing with\nthe processes of life and reproductive vitality.[13]\n\nA most remarkable and significant use of these symbols is found in the\nceremonies of the Samurai, the noble warrior caste of Japan. The\naspirant was (I am told still is) admitted into the caste at the age of\nfourteen, when he was given over to the care of a guardian at least\nfifteen years his senior, to whom he took an oath of obedience, which\nwas sworn upon the Spear. He remained celibate during the period\ncovered by the oath. When the Samurai was held to have attained the\ndegree of responsibility which would fit him for the full duties of a\ncitizen, a second solemn ceremony was held, at which he was released\nfrom his previous vows, and presented with the Cup; he was henceforth\nfree to marry, but intercourse with women previous to this ceremony was\nat one time punishable with death.[14]\n\nThat Lance and Cup are, _outside_ the Grail story, \u2018Life\u2019 symbols, and\nhave been such from time immemorial, is a fact; why, then should they\nnot retain that character _inside_ the framework of that story? An\nacceptance of this interpretation will not only be in harmony with the\ngeneral _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_, but it will also explain finally and\nsatisfactorily, (_a_) the dominant position frequently assigned to the\nLance; (_b_) the fact that, while the Lance is borne in procession by a\nyouth, the Grail is carried by a maiden\u2014the sex of the bearer\ncorresponds with the symbol borne.[15]\n\nBut Lance and Cup, though the most prominent of the Symbols, do not\nalways appear alone, but are associated with other objects, the\nsignificance of which is not always apparent. Thus the Dish, which is\nsometimes the form assumed by the Grail itself, at other times appears\nas a _taill\u00e9or_, or carving platter of silver, carried in the same\nprocession as the Grail; or there may be two small _taill\u00e9ors;_\nfinally, a Sword appears in varying _r\u00f4les_ in the story.\n\nI have already referred to the fact, first pointed out by the late Mr\nAlfred Nutt,[16] that the four treasures of the Tuatha de Danann\ncorrespond generally with the group of symbols found in the Grail\nromances; this correspondence becomes the more interesting in view of\nthe fact that these mysterious Beings are now recognized as alike\nDemons of Fertility and Lords of Life. As Mr Nutt subsequently pointed\nout, the \u2018Treasures\u2019 may well be, Sword and Cauldron certainly are,\n\u2018Life\u2019 symbols.\n\nOf direct connection between these Celtic objects and the Grail story\nthere is no trace; as remarked above, we have no Irish Folk or Hero\ntale at all corresponding to the Legend; the relation must, therefore,\ngo back beyond the date of formation of these tales, _i.e._, it must be\nconsidered as one of origin rather than of dependence.\n\nBut we have further evidence that these four objects do, in fact, form\na special group entirely independent of any appearance in Folk-lore or\nRomance. They exist to-day as the four suits of the Tarot.\n\nStudents of the Grail texts, whose attention is mainly occupied with\nMedieval Literature, may not be familiar with the word Tarot, or aware\nof its meaning. It is the name given to a pack of cards, seventy-eight\nin number, of which twenty-two are designated as the \u2018Keys.\u2019\n\nThese cards are divided into four suits, which correspond with those of\nthe ordinary cards; they are:\n\nCup (Chalice, or Goblet)\u2014Hearts.\nLance (Wand, or Sceptre)\u2014Diamonds.\nSword\u2014Spades.\nDish (Circles, or Pentangles, the form varies)\u2014Clubs.\n\n\nTo-day the Tarot has fallen somewhat into disrepute, being principally\nused for purposes of divination, but its origin, and precise relation\nto our present playing-cards, are questions of considerable antiquarian\ninterest. Were these cards the direct parents of our modern pack, or\nare they entirely distinct therefrom?[17]\n\nSome writers are disposed to assign a very high antiquity to the Tarot.\nTraditionally, it is said to have been brought from Egypt; there is no\ndoubt that parallel designs and combinations are to be found in the\nsurviving decorations of Egyptian temples, notably in the astronomic\ndesigns on the ceiling of one of the halls of the palace of Medinet\nAbou, which is supported on twenty-two columns (a number corresponding\nto the \u2018keys\u2019 of the Tarot), and also repeated in a calendar sculptured\non the southern fa\u00e7ade of the same building, under a sovereign of the\nXXIII dynasty. This calendar is supposed to have been connected with\nthe periodic rise and fall of the waters of the Nile.[18]\n\nThe Tarot has also been connected with an ancient Chinese monument,\ntraditionally erected in commemoration of the drying up of the waters\nof the Deluge by Yao. The face of this monument is divided up into\nsmall sections corresponding in size and number with the cards of the\nTarot, and bearing characters which have, so far, not been deciphered.\n\nWhat is certain is that these cards are used to-day by the Gipsies for\npurposes of divination, and the opinion of those who have studied the\nsubject is that there is some real ground for the popular tradition\nthat they were introduced into Europe by this mysterious people.\n\nIn a very interesting article on the subject in _The Journal of the\nGipsy-Lore Society_,[19] Mr De la Hoste Ranking examines closely into\nthe figures depicted on the various cards, and the names attached to\nthe suits by the Gipsies. He comes to the conclusion that many of the\nwords are of Sanskrit, or Hindustani, origin, and sums up the result of\nthe internal evidence as follows: \u201cThe Tarot was introduced by a race\nspeaking an Indian dialect. The figure known as \u2018The Pope\u2019 shows the\ninfluence of the Orthodox Eastern Faith; he is bearded, and carries the\nTriple Cross. The card called \u2018The King\u2019 represents a figure with the\nhead-dress of a Russian Grand-Duke, and a shield bearing the Polish\neagle. Thus the people who used the Tarot must have been familiar with\na country where the Orthodox Faith prevailed, and which was ruled by\nprinces of the status of Grand-Dukes. The general result seems to point\nto a genuine basis for the belief that the Tarot was introduced into\nEurope from the East.\u201d\n\nAs regards the group of symbols in general, Mr W. B. Yeats, whose\npractical acquaintance with Medieval and Modern Magic is well known,\nwrites: \u201c(1) Cup, Lance, Dish, Sword, in slightly varying forms, have\nnever lost their mystic significance, and are to-day a part of magical\noperations. (2) The memory kept by the four suits of the Tarot, Cup,\nLance, Sword, Pentangle (Dish), is an esoterical notation for\nfortune-telling purposes.\u201d[20]\n\nBut if the connection with the Egyptian and Chinese monuments, referred\nto above, is genuine, the original use of the \u2018Tarot\u2019 would seem to\nhave been, not to foretell the Future in general, but to predict the\nrise and fall of the waters which brought fertility to the land.\n\nSuch use would bring the \u2018Suits\u2019 into line with the analogous symbols\nof the Grail castle and the treasures of the Tuatha de Danann, both of\nwhich we have seen to be connected with the embodiment of the\nreproductive forces of Nature.\n\nIf it is difficult to establish a direct connection between these two\nlatter, it is practically impossible to argue any connection between\neither group and the \u2018Tarot\u2019; no one has as yet ventured to suggest the\npopularity of the works of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes among the Gipsies! Yet\nthe correspondence can hardly be fortuitous. I would suggest that,\nwhile Lance and Cup, in their associated form, are primarily symbols of\nHuman Life energy, in conjunction with others they formed a group of\n\u2018Fertility\u2019 symbols, connected with a very ancient ritual, of which\nfragmentary survivals alone have been preserved to us.\n\nThis view will, I believe, receive support from the evidence of the\nceremonial Dances which formed so important a part of \u2018Fertility\u2019\nritual, and which survive in so many places to this day. If we find\nthese symbols reappearing as a part of these dances, their real\nsignificance can hardly be disputed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\nThe Sword Dance\n\n\nThe subject we are now about to consider is one which of late years has\nattracted considerable attention, and much acute criticism has been\nexpended on the question of its origin and significance. Valuable\nmaterial has been collected, but the studies, so far, have been\nindividual, and independent, the much needed _travail d\u2019ensemble_ has\nnot yet appeared.\n\nOne definite result has, however, been obtained; it is now generally\nadmitted that the so-called Sword Dances, with the closely related\nMorris Dances, and Mumming Plays, are not mere survivals of martial\nexercises, an inherited tradition from our warrior ancestors, but were\nsolemn, ceremonial (in some cases there is reason to believe,\nInitiatory) dances, performed at stated seasons of the year, and\ndirectly and intimately connected with the ritual of which we have\ntreated in previous chapters, a ritual designed to preserve and promote\nthe regular and ordered sequence of the processes of Nature. And here,\nagain, our enquiry must begin with the very earliest records of our\nrace, with the traditions of our Aryan forefathers.\n\nThe earliest recorded Sword Dancers are undoubtedly the Maruts, those\nswift-footed youths in gleaming armour who are the faithful attendants\non the great god, Indra. Professor von Schroeder, in _Mysterium und\nMimus_, describes them thus:[1] they are a group of youths of equal age\nand identical parentage, they are always depicted as attired in the\nsame manner, \u201cSie sind reich und pr\u00e4chtig geschm\u00fcckt, mit Goldschmuck\nauf der Brust, mit Spangen an den H\u00e4nden, Hirschfelle tragen sie auf\nden Schultern. Vor allem aber sind sie kriegerisch ger\u00fcstet, funkelnde\nSpeere tragen sie in den H\u00e4nden, oder auch goldene \u00c4xte. Goldene\nHarnische oder M\u00e4ntel umh\u00fcllen sie, goldene Helme schimmern auf ihren\nH\u00e4uptern. Nie erscheinen sie ohne Wehr und Waffen. Es scheint dass\ndiese ganz und gar zu ihren Wesen geh\u00f6ren.\u201d\n\nThe writer goes on to remark that when such a band of armed youths, all\nof the same age, always closely associated with each other, are\nrepresented as Dancers, and always as Dancers\u2014\u201cdann haben wir\nunabweislich das Bild eines Waffentanzes vor unseren Augen\u201d\u2014and\nProfessor von Schroeder is undoubtedly right.\n\nConstantly throughout the _Rig-Veda_ the Maruts are referred to as\nDancers, \u201cgold-bedecked Dancers,\u201d \u201cwith songs of praise they danced\nround the spring,\u201d \u201cWhen ye Maruts spear-armed dance, they (_i.e._, the\nHeavens) stream together like waves of water.\u201d[2]\n\nAnd a special moment for the dance of these glorious youths \u201cever young\nbrothers of whom none is elder, none younger\u201d[3] is that of the\nceremonial sacrifice, \u201csie tanzen auf ihren himmlischen Bahnen, sie\nspringen und tanzen auch bei den Opferfesten der Menschen.\u201d[4]\n\nThe Maruts, as said above, were conceived of as the companions of\nIndra, and helpers in his fight against his monstrous adversaries; thus\nthey were included in the sacrifices offered in honour of that Deity.\n\nOne of the most striking of the ritual Dramas reconstructed by\nProfessor von Schroeder is that which represents Indra as indignantly\nrejecting the claim of the Maruts to share in such a sacrifice; they\nhad failed to support him in his conflict with the dragon, Vritra, when\nby his might he loosed the waters, \u2018neither to-day, nor to-morrow\u2019 will\nhe accept a sacrifice of which they share the honour; it requires all\nthe tact of the Offerer, Agastya, and of the leader of the Maruts to\nsoothe the offended Deity.[5]\n\nHere I would draw attention to the significant fact that the feat\ncelebrated is that to which I have previously referred as the most\nfamous of all the deeds attributed to Indra, the \u2018Freeing of the\nWaters,\u2019 and here the Maruts are associated with the god.\n\nBut they were also the objects of independent worship. They were\nspecially honoured at the C\u00e2turm\u00e2sya, the feasts which heralded the\ncommencement of the three seasons of four months each into which the\nIndian year was divided, a division corresponding respectively to the\nhot, the cool, and the wet, season. The advantages to be derived from\nthe worship of the Maruts may be deduced from the following extracts\nfrom the _Rig-Veda_, which devotes more than thirty hymns to their\npraise. \u201cThe adorable Maruts, armed with bright lances, and cuirassed\nwith golden breastplates, enjoy vigorous existence; may the cars of the\nquick-moving Maruts arrive for our good.\u201d \u201cBringers of rain and\nfertility, shedding water, augmenting food.\u201d \u201cGivers of abundant food.\u201d\n\u201cYour milchkine are never dry.\u201d \u201cWe invoke the food-laden chariots of\nthe Maruts.\u201d[6] Nothing can be clearer than this; the Maruts are\n\u2018daimons\u2019 of fertility, the worship of whom will secure the necessary\nsupply of the fruits of the earth.\n\nThe close association of the Maruts with Indra, the great Nature god,\nhas led some scholars to regard them as personifications of a special\nmanifestation of Nature, as Wind-gods. Professor von Schroeder points\nout that their father was the god Rudra, later known as \u00c7iva, the god\nof departed souls, and of fruitfulness, _i.e._, a Chthonian deity, and\nsuggests that the Maruts represent the \u201cin Wind und Sturm dahinjagende\nSeelenschar.\u201d[7] He points out that the belief in a troop of departed\nsouls is an integral part of Aryan tradition, and classifies such\nbelief under four main headings.\n\n1. Under the form of a spectral Hunt, the Wild Huntsman well known in\nEuropean Folk-lore. He equates this with Dionysus Zagreus, and the Hunt\nof Artemis-Hekate.\n\n2. That of a spectral Army, the souls of warriors slain in fight. The\nNorthern _Einherier_ belong to this class, and the many traditions of\nspectral combats, and ghostly battles, heard, but not seen.\n\n3. The conception of a host of women in a condition of ecstatic\nexaltation bordering on madness, who appear girdled with snakes, or\nhissing like snakes, tear living animals to pieces, and devour the\nflesh. The classic examples here are the Greek Maenads, and the Indian\nSen\u00e2s, who accompany Rudra.\n\n4. The conception of a train of theriomorphic, phallic, demons of\nfertility, with their companion group of fair women. Such are the\nSatyrs and Nymphs of Greek, the Gandharvas and Apsaras of Indian,\nMythology.\n\nTo these four main groups may be added the belief among Germanic\npeoples, also among the Letts, in a troop of Child Souls.\n\nThese four groups, in more or less modified forms, appear closely\nconnected with the dominant Spirit of Vegetation, by whatever name that\nspirit may be known.\n\nAccording to von Schroeder there was, among the Aryan peoples\ngenerally, a tendency to regard the dead as assuming the character of\ndaimons of fertility. This view the learned Professor considers to be\nat the root of the annual celebrations in honour of the Departed, the\n\u2018Feast of Souls,\u2019 which characterized the commencement of the winter\nseason, and is retained in the Catholic conception of November as the\nmonth of the Dead.[8]\n\nIn any case we may safely conclude that the Maruts, represented as\narmed youths, were worshipped as deities of fruitfulness; that their\ndances were of a ceremonial character; and that they were, by nature\nand origin, closely connected with spirits of fertility of a lower\norder, such as the Gandharvas. It also appears probable that, if the\nDramas of which traces have been preserved in the _Rig-Veda_, were, as\nscholars are now of opinion, once actually represented, the\nmythological conception of the Maruts must have found its embodiment in\nyouths, most probably of the priestly caste, who played their _r\u00f4le_,\nand actually danced the ceremonial Sword Dance. As von Schroeder says,\n\u201cKein Zweifel dass sie dabei von menschlichen, resp. priesterlichen\nPersonen dargestellt wurden.[9]\n\nWhen we turn from the early Aryan to the classic Greek period we find\nin the Kouretes, and in a minor degree in the Korybantes, a parallel so\nextraordinarily complete, alike in action and significance, that an\nessential identity of origin appears to be beyond doubt.\n\nThe Kouretes were, as their name indicates, a band of armed youths, of\nsemi-divine origin, \u201cKureten sind von Haus aus halb-g\u00f6ttlich d\u00e4monische\nWesen nicht nur menschliche Priester, oder deren mythische\nVertreter.\u201d[10] Again, they are to be considered as \u201celementare\nUrwesen,\u201d and as such of \u201cG\u00f6ttliche Abkunft.\u201d[11] Preller regards them\nas \u201cD\u00e4monen des Gebirgs,\u201d[12] while a passage from Hesiod, quoted by\nStrabo, equates them with nymphs and satyrs, _i.e._, fertility\ndemons.[13]\n\nWhen we remember that the Gandharvas are the Indian equivalent of the\nSatyrs the close parallel between the Maruts and the Kouretes, both\nalike bands of armed youths, of elementary origin, and connected with\nbeings of a lower grade, is striking.\n\nThe home of the Kouretes was in Crete, where they were closely\nassociated with the worship of the goddess Rhea. The traditional story\nheld that, in order to preserve the infant Zeus from destruction by his\nfather Kronos, they danced their famous Sword Dance round the babe,\noverpowering his cries by the clash of their weapons.\n\nTheir dance was by some writers identified with the Pyrrhic dance,\nfirst performed by Athene, in honour of her victory over the Giants,\nand taught by her to the Kouretes. It had however, as we shall see, a\nvery distinct aim and purpose, and one in no way connected with warlike\nends.\n\nIn Miss J. E. Harrison\u2019s deeply interesting volume, _Themis_,[14] she\ngives the translation of a fragmentary _Hymn of the Kouretes_,\ndiscovered among the ruins of a temple in Crete, a text which places\nbeyond all doubt the fact that, however mythical in origin, the\nKouretes, certainly, had actual human representatives, and that while\nin the case of the Maruts there may be a question as to whether their\ndance actually took place, or not, so far as the Kouretes are concerned\nthere can be no such doubt.\n\nThe following is the text as preserved to us; the slabs on which it is\ninscribed are broken, and there are consequent lacunae.\n\n\u201cIo, Kouros most great, I give thee hail, Kronian, lord of all that is\nwet and gleaming, thou art come at the head of thy Daimones. To Dikte\nfor the year, Oh march, and rejoice in the dance and song,\n\n\u201cThat we make to thee with harps and pipes mingled together, and sing\nas we come to a stand at thy well-fenced altar.\n\n\u201cIo, &c.\n\n\u201cFor here the shielded Nurturers took thee, a child immortal, from\nRhea, and with noise of beating feet hid thee away.\n\n\u201cIo, &c.\n\n\u201cAnd the Horai began to be fruitful year by year, and Dik\u00e8 to possess\nmankind and all wild living things were held about by wealth-loving\nPeace.\n\n\u201cIo, &c.\n\n\u201cAnd the Horai began to be fruitful year by year, and Dik\u00e8 to possess\nmankind and all wild living things were held about by wealth-loving\nPeace.\n\n\u201cIo, &c.\n\n\u201cTo us also leap for full jars, and leap for fleecy flocks, and leap\nfor fields of fruit, and for hives to bring increase.\n\n\u201cIo, &c.\n\n\u201cLeap for our cities, and leap for our sea-borne ships, and leap for\nour young citizens, and for goodly Themis.\u201d\n\nThis hymn is most extraordinarily interesting; it places beyond all\ndoubt what was the root intention of this ceremonial dance; it was\ndesigned to stimulate the reproductive energies of Nature, to bring\ninto being fruitful fields, and vineyards, plenteous increase in the\nflocks and herds, and to people the cities with youthful citizens; and\nthe god is entreated not merely to accept the worship offered, but\nhimself to join in the action which shall produce such fair results, to\nleap for full jars, and fleecy flocks, and for youthful citizens.\n\nThe importance of movement, notably of what we may call group movement,\nas a stimulant to natural energies, is thoroughly recognized among\nprimitive peoples; with them Dance holds a position equivalent to that\nwhich, in more advanced communities, is assigned to Prayer. Professor\nvon Schroeder comments on this, \u201cEs ist merkw\u00fcrdig genug zu sehen wie\ndas Tanzen nach dem Glauben primitiver V\u00f6lker eine \u00e4hnliche Kraft und\nBedeutung zu haben scheint wie man sie auf h\u00f6heren Kulturstufen dem\ninbr\u00fcnstigen Gebete zuschreibt.\u201d[15] He cites the case of the\nTarahumara Indians of Central America; while the family as a whole are\nlabouring in the fields it is the office of one man to dance\nuninterruptedly on the dance place of the house; if he fails in his\noffice the labour of the others will be unsuccessful. The one sin of\nwhich a Tarahumara Indian is conscious is that of not having danced\nenough. Miss Harrison, in commenting on the dance of the Kouretes,\nremarks that among certain savage tribes when a man is too old to dance\nhe hands on his dance to another. He then ceases to exist socially;\nwhen he dies his funeral is celebrated with scanty rites; having \u2018lost\nhis dance\u2019 he has ceased to count as a social unit.[16]\n\nWith regard to the connection of the Kouretes with the infant Zeus,\nMiss Harrison makes the interesting suggestion that we have here a\ntrace of an Initiation Dance, analogous to those discussed by M. Van\nGennep in his _Rites du Passage_, that the original form was Tit\u0103ns,\n\u2018White-clay men,\u2019 which later became Tit\u0101ns, \u2018Giants,\u2019 and she draws\nattention to the fact that daubing the skin with white clay is a\nfrequent practice in these primitive rituals. To this I would add that\nit is a noteworthy fact that in our modern survivals of these dances\nthe performers are, as a rule, dressed in white.\n\nThe above suggestion is of extreme significance, as it brings out the\npossibility that these celebrations were not only concerned with the\nprosperity of the community, as a whole, but may also have borne a\nspecial, and individual, aspect, and that the idea of Initiation into\nthe group is closely connected with the ceremonial exercise of group\nfunctions.\n\nTo sum up, there is direct proof that the classic Greeks, in common\nwith their Aryan forefathers, held the conception of a group of Beings,\nof mythic origin, represented under the form of armed youths, who were\nnoted dancers, and whose activities were closely connected with the\nprocesses of Nature. They recognized a relation between these beings,\nand others of a less highly developed aspect, phallic demons, often of\ntheriomorphic form. Thus the dance of the Kouretes should be considered\nas a ceremonial ritual action, rather than as a warlike exercise; it\nwas designed to promote the fruitfulness of the earth, not to display\nthe skill of the dancers in the handling of weapons. When we turn to an\nanalogous group, that of the Korybantes, we find that, while presenting\na general parallel to the Kouretes (with whom they are often coupled in\nmythologies), they also possess certain distinct characteristics, which\nform a connecting link with other, and later, groups.\n\nThe Korybantes were of Phrygian origin, attached to the worship of the\ngoddess Kybele, and Attis, the well-known Phrygian counterpart to the\nPhoenician Adonis, and originally the most important embodiment of the\nVegetation Spirit. R\u00f6scher considers them to be of identical origin\nwith the Kouretes, _i.e._, as elementary \u2018daimons,\u2019 but the Korybantes\nof Classic art and tradition are undoubtedly human beings. Priests of\nKybele, they appear in surviving bas-reliefs in company with that\ngoddess, and with Attis.\n\nThe dance of the Korybantes is distinguished from that of the Kouretes\nby its less restrained, and more orgiastic character; it was a wild and\nwhirling dance resembling that of the modern Dervishes, accompanied by\nself-mutilation and an unrhythmic clashing of weapons, designed, some\nwriters think, to overpower the cries of the victims.\n\nIf this suggestion be correct it would seem to indicate that, if the\nDance of the Kouretes was originally an Initiation Dance, that of the\nKorybantes was Sacrificial in character. We shall see later that\ncertain features in the surviving forms of the Sword Dance also point\nin this direction.\n\nThe interest of the Korybantes for our investigation lies in the fact\nthat here again we have the Sword Dance in close and intimate\nconnection with the worship of the Vegetation Spirit, and there can be\nno doubt that here, as elsewhere, it was held to possess a stimulating\nvirtue.\n\nA noticeable point in the modern survivals of these Dances is that the\nDance proper is combined with a more or less coherent dramatic action.\nThe Sword Dance originally did not stand alone, but formed part of a\nDrama, to the action of which it may be held to have given a cumulative\nforce.\n\nOn this point I would refer the reader to Professor von Schroeder\u2019s\nbook, where this aspect of the Dance is fully discussed.[17]\n\nWe have already spoken of the Maruts, and their dramatic connection\nwith Indra; the Greek Dancers offer us no direct parallel, though the\nconnection of the Kouretes with the infant Zeus may quite possibly\nindicate the existence in the original form of the Dance, of a more\ndistinctly dramatic element.\n\nWe have, however, in the Roman Salii a connecting link which proves\nbeyond all doubt that our modern dances, and analogous representations,\nare in fact genuine survivals of primitive ceremonies, and in no way a\nmere fortuitous combination of originally independent elements.\n\nThe Salii formed a college of priests, twelve in number, dedicated to\nthe service of Mars, who, it is important to remember, was originally a\ngod of growth and vegetation, a Spring Deity, who bestowed his name on\nthe vernal month of March; only by degrees did the activities of the\ngod become specially connected with the domain of War.[18]\n\nThere seem to have been two groups of Salii, one having their college\non the Palatine, the other on the Quirinal; the first were the more\nimportant. The Quirinal group shared in the celebrations of the latter\npart of the month only.\n\nThe first of March was the traditional birthday of Mars, and from that\ndate, during the whole of the month, the Salii offered sacrifices and\nperformed dances in his honour. They wore pointed caps, or helmets, on\ntheir head, were girt with swords, and carried on the left arm shields,\ncopied from the \u2018ancilia\u2019 or traditional shield of Mars, fabled to have\nfallen from heaven. In their right hand they bore a small lance.\n\nDionysus of Halicarnassus, in a passage describing the Salii, says,\n\u201cthey carried in their right hand a spear, or staff, or something of\nthat sort.\u201d Miss Harrison, quoting this passage, gives a reproduction\nof a bas-relief representing the Salii carrying what she says \u201care\nclearly drumsticks.\u201d (As a matter of fact they very closely resemble\nthe \u2018Wands\u2019 which in the Tarot cards sometimes represent the \u2018Lance\u2019\nsuit.)\n\nMiss Harrison suggests that the original shields were made of skins,\nstretched upon a frame, and beaten by these \u2018drumsticks.\u2019 This may\nquite well have been the case, and it would bear out my contention that\nthe original contact of weapon and shield was designed rather as a\nrhythmic accompaniment to the Dance, than as a display of skill in\nhandling sword and lance, _i.e._, that these dances were not primarily\nwarlike exercises.\n\nAt the conclusion of their songs the Salii invoked Mamurius Veturius,\nthe smith who was fabled to have executed the copies of the original\nshield, while on the 14th of March, a man, dressed in skins, and\nsupposed to represent the aforesaid smith, was led through the streets,\nbeaten by the Salii with rods, and thrust out of the city.\n\nThe following day, the 15th, was the feast of Anna Perenna, fabled to\nbe an old woman, to whom Mars had confided the tale of his love for\nNerio, and who, disguising herself as the maiden, had gone through the\nceremony of marriage with the god. This feast was held outside the\ngates. On the 23rd the combined feast of Mars and Nerio was held with\ngreat rejoicing throughout the city. Modern scholars have unanimously\nrecognized in Mamurius Veturius and Anna Perenna the representatives of\nthe Old Year, the Vegetation Spirit, and his female counterpart, who,\ngrown old, must yield place to the young god and his correspondingly\nyouthful bride. Reference to Chapter 5, where the medieval and modern\nforms of this Nature ritual are discussed, and instances of the\ncarrying out of Winter, and ceremonial bringing in of Spring, are\ngiven, will suffice to show how vital and enduring an element in\nFolk-lore is this idea of driving out the Old Year, while celebrating\nthe birth of the New. Here then, again, we have a ritual Sword Dance\nclosely associated with the practice of a Nature cult; there can, I\nthink, be no doubt that _ab initio_ the two were connected with each\nother.\n\nBut the dance of the Salii with its dramatic Folk-play features forms\nan interesting link between the classic Dance of the Kouretes, and the\nmodern English survivals, in which the dramatic element is strongly\nmarked. These English forms may be divided into three related groups,\nthe Sword Dance, the Morris Dance, and the Mumming Play. Of these the\nMorris Dance stands somewhat apart; of identical origin, it has\ndiscarded the dramatic element, and now survives simply as a Dance,\nwhereas the Sword Dance is always dramatic in form, and the Mumming\nPlay, acted by characters appearing also in the Sword Dance, invariably\ncontains a more or less elaborate fight.[19]\n\nThe Sword Dance proper appears to have been preserved mostly in the\nNorth of England, and in Scotland. Mr Cecil Sharp has found four\ndistinct varieties in Yorkshire alone. At one time there existed a\nspecial variant known as the _Giants\u2019 Dance_, in which the leading\ncharacters were known by the names of Wotan, and Frau Frigg; one figure\nof this dance consisted in making a ring of swords round the neck of a\nlad, without wounding him.\n\nMr E. K. Chambers has commented on this as the survival of a\nsacrificial origin.[20] The remarks of this writer on the Sword Dance\nin its dramatic aspect are so much to the point that I quote them here.\n\u201cThe Sword Dance makes its appearance, not like heroic poetry in\ngeneral, as part of the minstrel repertory, but as a purely popular\nthing at the agricultural festivals. To these festivals we may\ntherefore suppose it to have originally belonged.\u201d Mr Chambers goes on\nto remark that the dance of the Salii discussed above, was clearly\nagricultural, \u201cand belongs to Mars not as War god, but in his more\nprimitive quality of a fertilization Spirit.\u201d\n\nIn an Appendix to his most valuable book the same writer gives a full\ndescription, with text, of the most famous surviving form of the Sword\nDance, that of Papa Stour (old Norwegian _P\u00e2pey in St\u00f4ra_), one of the\nShetland Islands.\n\nThe dance was performed at Christmas (Yule-tide). The dancers, seven in\nnumber, represented the seven champions of Christendom; the leader,\nSaint George, after an introductory speech, performed a solo dance, to\nthe music of an accompanying minstrel. He then presented his comrades,\none by one, each in turn going through the same performance. Finally\nthe seven together performed an elaborate dance. The complete text of\nthe speeches is given in the Appendix referred to.[21]\n\nThe close connection between the English Sword Dance, and the Mumming\nPlay, is indicated by the fact that the chief character in these plays\nis, generally speaking, Saint George. (The title has in some cases\nbecome corrupted into _King_ George.) In Professor von Schroeder\u2019s\nopinion this is due to Saint George\u2019s legendary _r\u00f4le_ as Dragon\nslayer, and he sees in the importance assigned to this hero an argument\nin favour of his theory that the \u201cSlaying of the Dragon\u201d was the\nearliest Aryan Folk-Drama.\n\nIn _Folk-Lore_, Vol. X., a fully illustrated description of the Mumming\nPlay, as performed at Newbold, a village near Rugby, is given.[22] Here\nthe characters are Father Christmas, Saint George, a Turkish Knight,\nDoctor, Moll Finney (mother of the Knight), Humpty Jack, Beelzebub, and\n\u2018Big-Head-and-Little-Wit.\u2019 These last three have no share in the action\nproper, but appear in a kind of Epilogue, accompanying a collection\nmade by Beelzebub.\n\nThe Play is always performed at Christmas time, consequently Father\nChristmas appears as stage-manager, and introduces the characters. The\naction consists in a general challenge issued by Saint George, and\naccepted by the Turkish Knight. A combat follows, in which the Turk is\nslain. His mother rushes in, weeps over the body, and demands the\nservices of a Doctor, who appears accordingly, vaunts his skill in\nlines interspersed with unintelligible gibberish, and restores the Turk\nto life. In the version which used to be played throughout Scotland at\nHogmanay (New-Year-tide), the characters are Bol Bendo, the King of\nFrance, the King of Spain, Doctor Beelzebub, Golishan, and Sir\nAlexander.[23] The fight is between Bol Bendo (who represents the Saint\nGeorge of the English version), and Golishan. The latter is killed,\nand, on the demand of Sir Alexander (who acts as stage-manager),\nrevived by the doctor, this character, as in the English version,\ninterlarding the recital of his feats of healing skill with\nunintelligible phrases.[24] There is a general consensus of opinion\namong Folk-lore authorities that in this rough drama, which we find\nplayed in slightly modified form all over Europe (in Scandinavia it is\nthe Julbock, a man dressed in skins, who, after a dramatic dance, is\nkilled and revived),[25] we have a symbolic representation of the death\nand re-birth of the year; a counterpart to those ceremonies of driving\nout Winter, and bringing in Spring, which we have already described.\n\nThis chapter had already been written when an important article, by Dr\nJevons, entitled _Masks and the Origin of the Greek Drama_ appeared in\n_Folk-Lore_ (Vol. XXVII.) The author, having discussed the different\nforms of Greek Drama, and the variety of masks employed, decides that\n\u201cGreek Comedy originated in Harvest Festivals, in some ceremony in\nwhich the Harvesters went about in procession wearing masks.\u201d This\nceremony he connects directly with the English Mumming Plays,\nsuggesting that \u201cthe characters represented on this occasion were the\nVegetation Spirit, and those who were concerned in bringing about his\nrevivification\u2014in fine, Greek Comedy and the Mumming Play both sprang\nfrom the rite of revivification.\u201d At a later stage of our enquiry we\nshall have occasion to return to this point, and realize its great\nimportance for our theory.\n\nThe Morris Dances differ somewhat from the Sword, and Mumming Dances.\nThe performances as a rule take place in the Spring, or early Summer,\nchiefly May, and Whitsuntide. The dances retain little or no trace of\ndramatic action but are dances pure and simple. The performers,\ngenerally six in number, are attired in white elaborately-pleated\nshirts, decked with ribbons, white mole-skin trousers, with bells at\nthe knee, and beaver hats adorned with ribbons and flowers. The leader\ncarries a sword, on the point of which is generally impaled a cake;\nduring the dancing slices of this cake are distributed to the lookers\non, who are supposed to make a contribution to the \u2018Treasury,\u2019 a\nmoney-box carried by an individual called the Squire, or Clown, dressed\nin motley, and bearing in the other hand a stick with a bladder at one\nend, and a cow\u2019s tail at the other.\n\nIn some forms of the dance there is a \u2018Lord\u2019 and a \u2018Lady,\u2019 who carry\n\u2018Maces\u2019 of office; these maces are short staves, with a transverse\npiece at the top, and a hoop over it. The whole is decorated with\nribbons and flowers, and bears a curious resemblance to the _Crux\nAnsata_.[26] In certain figures of the dance the performers carry\nhandkerchiefs, in others, wands, painted with the colours of the\nvillage to which they belong; the dances are always more or less\nelaborate in form.\n\nThe costume of the \u2018Clown\u2019 (an animal\u2019s skin, or cap of skin with tail\npendant) and the special character assumed by the Maytide celebrations\nin certain parts of England, _e.g._, Cornwall and Staffordshire,[27]\nwould seem to indicate that, while the English Morris Dance has dropped\nthe dramatic action, the dancers not being designated by name, and\nplaying no special _r\u00f4le_, it has, on the other hand, retained the\ntheriomorphic features so closely associated with Aryan ritual, which\nthe Sword Dance, and Mumming Play, on their side, have lost.[28]\n\nA special note of these English survivals, and one to which I would now\ndraw attention, is the very elaborate character of the figures, and the\nexistence of a distinct symbolic element. I am informed that the Sword\ndancers of to-day always, at the conclusion of a series of elaborate\nsword-lacing figures, form the Pentangle; as they hold up the sign they\ncry, triumphantly, \u201c_A Nut! A Nut!_\u201d The word _Nut_=_Knot_ (as in the\ngame of \u2018_Nuts_, _i.e._, breast-knots, nosegays, _in May_\u2019). They do\nthis often even when performing a later form of the Mumming Play.\n\nI have already drawn attention to the fact that in _Gawain and the\nGreen Knight_ the hero\u2019s badge is the Pentangle (or Pentacle), there\nexplained as called by the English \u2018the Endless Knot.\u2019[29] In the\nprevious chapter I have noted that the Pentangle frequently in the\nTarot suits replaces the Dish; in Mr Yeats\u2019s remarks, cited above, the\ntwo are held to be interchangeable, one or the other always forms one\nof the group of symbols.\n\nIn one form of the Morris Dance, that performed in Berkshire, the\nleader, or \u2018Squire\u2019 of the Morris carries a Chalice! At the same time\nhe bears a Sword, and a bull\u2019s head at the end of a long pole. This\nfigure is illustrated in Miss Mary Neal\u2019s _Esperance Morris Book_.[30]\n\nThus our English survivals of these early Vegetation ceremonies\npreserve, in a more or less detached form, the four symbols discussed\nin the preceding chapter, Grail, Sword, Lance, and Pentangle, or Dish.\nIt seems to me that, in view of the evidence thus offered, it is not a\nvery hazardous, or far-fetched hypothesis to suggest that these\nsymbols, the exact value of which, as a group, we cannot clearly\ndetermine, but of which we know the two most prominent, Cup and Lance,\nto be sex symbols, were originally \u2018Fertility\u2019 emblems, and as such\nemployed in a ritual designed to promote, or restore, the activity of\nthe reproductive energies of Nature.\n\nAs I have pointed out above an obvious dislocation has taken place in\nour English survivals. Sword Dance, Mumming Play, and Morris Dance, no\nlonger form part of one ceremony, but have become separated, and\nconnected, on the one hand with the Winter, on the other with the early\nSummer, Nature celebrations; it is thus not surprising that the symbols\nshould also have become detached. The fact that the three groups\nmanifestly form part of an original whole is an argument in favour of\nthe view that at one moment all the symbols were used together, and the\nGrail chalice carried in a ceremony in which Sword, Lance, and\nPentangle, were also displayed.\n\nBut there is another point I would suggest. Is it not possible that, in\nthese armed youths, who were in some cases, notably in that of the\nSalii, at once warriors and priests, we have the real origin of the\nGrail Knights? We know now, absolutely, and indubitably, that these\nSword Dances formed an important part of the Vegetation ritual; is it\nnot easily within the bounds of possibility that, as the general\nceremonial became elevated, first to the rank of a Mystery Cult, and\nthen used as a vehicle for symbolic Christian teaching, the figures of\nthe attendant warrior-priests underwent a corresponding change? From\nSalii to Templars is not after all so \u2018far a cry\u2019 as from the\nglittering golden-armed Maruts, and the youthful leaping Kouretes, to\nthe grotesque tatterdemalion personages of the Christmas Mumming Play.\nWe have learnt to acknowledge the common origin of these two latter\ngroups; may we not reasonably contemplate a possible relation existing\nbetween the two first named?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\nThe Medicine Man\n\n\nIn previous chapters I have referred to the part played by the Doctor\nin a large number of the surviving \u2018Fertility\u2019 ceremonies, and to the\nfact, noted by other writers, that even where an active share is no\nlonger assigned to the character, he still appears among the _dramatis\npersonae_ of these Folk-plays and processions.[1] We will now examine\nmore closely the _r\u00f4le_ allotted to this mysterious personage; we shall\nfind it to be of extreme antiquity and remarkable significance.\n\nIn the interesting and important work by Professor von Schroeder, to\nwhich I have already often referred, we find the translation of a\ncurious poem (_Rig-Veda_, 10. 97), a monologue placed in the mouth of a\nDoctor, or Medicine Man, who vaunts the virtue of his herbs, and their\npower to cure human ills.[2] From the references made to a special sick\nman von Schroeder infers that this poem, like others in the collection,\nwas intended to be acted, as well as recited, and that the personage to\nbe healed, evidently present on the scene, was probably represented by\na dummy, as no speeches are allotted to the character.\n\nThe entire poem consists of 23 verses of four lines each, and is\ndivided by the translator into three distinct sections; the first is\ndevoted to the praise of herbs in general, their power to cure the sick\nman before them, and at the same time to bring riches to the Healer\u2014the\nopening verses run:\n\n\u201cDie Kr\u00e4uter alt, entsprossen einst\nDrei Alter vor den G\u00f6ttern noch,\nDie braunen will Ich preisen jetzt!\nHundert und sieben Arten sinds.\n\u201cJa, hundert Arten, M\u00fctterlein,\nUnd tausend Zweige habt ihr auch,\nIhr, die ihr hundert Kr\u00e4fte habt,\nMacht diesen Menschen mir gesund.\n\u201cIhr Kr\u00e4uter h\u00f6rt, ihr M\u00fctterchen,\nIhr g\u00f6ttlichen, das sag ich euch:\nRoss, Rind und Kleid gew\u00e4nn\u2019 ich gern\nUnd auch dein Leben, lieber Mann!\n\n.................................\n\nF\u00fcrwahr ihr bringt mir Rinder ein,\nWenn ihr ihn rettet diesen Mann.\u201d\nHe then praises the power of all herbs:\n\u201cVom Himmel kam der Kr\u00e4uter Schar\nGeflogen, und da sprechen sie;\nWen wir noch lebend treffen an\nDer Mann soll frei von Schaden sein.\u201d\n\n\nFinally the speaker singles out one herb as superior to all others:\n\n\u201cDie Kr\u00e4uter viel in Soma\u2019s Reich\nDie hundertfach verst\u00e4ndigen,\nVon denen bist das beste du\nErf\u00fcllst den Wunsch, und heilst das Herz.\u201d\n\n\nHe conjures all other herbs to lend their virtue to this special\nremedy:\n\n\u201cIhr Kr\u00e4uter all\u2019 in Soma\u2019s Reich\nVerbreitet auf der Erde hin,\nIhr, von Brihaspati erzeugt,\nGebt diesem Kraute eure Kraft!\n\u201cNicht nehme Schaden, der euch gr\u00e4bt,\nNoch der, f\u00fcr Welchen Ich euch grub!\nBei uns soll Alles, Mensch, und Vieh,\nGesund und ohne Schaden sein.\n\u201cIhr, die ihr h\u00f6ret dies mein Wort,\nIhr, die ihr in der Ferne seid,\nIhr Pflanzen all\u2019, vereignet euch,\nGebt diesem Kraute eure Kraft!\u201d\n\n\nAnd the herbs, taking counsel together with Soma their king, answer:\n\n\u201cF\u00fcr Wen uns ein Brahmane braucht\nDen, K\u00f6nig, wollen retten wir,\u201d\n\n\na line which throws a light upon the personality of the speaker; he is\nobviously a Brahmin, and the Medicine Man here, as elsewhere, unites\nthe functions of Priest and Healer.\n\nProfessor von Schroeder suggests that this Dramatic Monologue formed\npart of the ceremonies of a Soma feast, that it is the Soma plant from\nwhich the heavenly drink is brewed which is to be understood as the\nfirst of all herbs and the curer of all ills, and the reference to Soma\nas King of the herbs seems to bear out this suggestion.\n\nIn a previous chapter[3] I have referred to a curious little poem, also\nfound in the _Rig-Veda_, and translated by von Schroeder under the\ntitle _A Folk-Procession at a Soma-Feast_, the _dramatis personae_ of\nthe poem offering, as I pointed out, a most striking and significant\nparallel to certain surviving Fertility processions, notably that of\nV\u00e4rdeg\u00f6tzen in Hanover. In this little song which von Schroeder places\nin the mouth of the leader of the band of maskers, the Doctor is twice\nreferred to; in the opening lines we have the Brahmin, the Doctor, the\nCarpenter, the Smith, given as men plying different trades, and each\nand all in search of gain; in the final verse the speaker announces, \u201cI\nam a Poet (or Singer), my father a Doctor.\u201d Thus of the various trades\nand personages enumerated the Doctor alone appears twice over, an\nindication of the importance attached to this character.\n\nUnfortunately, in view of the fragmentary condition of the survivals of\nearly Aryan literature, and the lack of explanatory material at our\ndisposal, it is impossible to decide what was the precise _r\u00f4le_\nassigned to the \u2018Medicine Man\u2019; judging from the general character of\nthe surviving dramatic fragments and the close parallel which exists\nbetween these fragments and the Medieval and Modern Fertility\nceremonies, it seems extremely probable that his original _r\u00f4le_ was\nidentical with that assigned to his modern counterpart, _i.e._, that of\nrestoring to life or health the slain, or suffering, representative of\nthe Vegetation Spirit.\n\nThis presumption gains additional support from the fact that it is in\nthis character that the Doctor appears in Greek Classical Drama. Von\nSchroeder refers to the fact that the Doctor was a stock figure in the\nGreek \u2018Mimus\u2019[4] and in Mr Cornford\u2019s interesting volume entitled _The\nOrigin of Attic Comedy_, the author reckons the Doctor among the stock\nMasks of the early Greek Theatre, and assigns to this character the\nprecise _r\u00f4le_ which later survivals have led us to attribute to him.\n\nThe significance of Mr Cornford\u2019s work lies in the fact that, while he\naccepts Sir Gilbert Murray\u2019s deeply interesting and suggestive theory\nthat the origins of Greek Tragedy are to be sought in \u201cthe Agon of the\nFertility Spirit, his Pathos, and Theophany,\u201d he contends that a\nsimilar origin may be postulated for Attic Comedy\u2014that the stock Masks\n(characters) agree with a theory of derivation of such Comedy from a\nritual performance celebrating the renewal of the seasons.[5] \u201cThey\nwere at first serious, and even awful, figures in a Religious Mystery,\nthe God who every year is born, and dies, and rises again; his Mother\nand his Bride; the Antagonist who kills him; the Medicine Man who\nrestores him to life.\u201d[6]\n\nI would submit that the presence of such a character in the original\nritual drama of Revival which, on my theory, underlies the romantic\nform of the Grail legend, may, in view of the above evidence, and of\nthat brought forward in the previous chapters, be accepted as at least\na probable hypothesis.\n\nBut, it may be objected, granting that the Doctor in these Fertility\nprocessions and dramas represents a genuine survival of a feature of\nimmemorial antiquity, a survival to be traced alike in Aryan remains,\nin Greek literature, and in Medieval ceremony, what is the precise\nbearing upon the special subject of our investigations? There is no\nDoctor in the Grail legend, although there is certainly abundant scope\nfor his activities!\n\nThere may be no Doctor in the Grail legend to-day, but was there never\nsuch a character? How if this be the key to explain the curious and\npersistent attribution of healing skill to so apparently unsuitable a\npersonage as Sir Gawain? I would draw the attention of my readers to a\npassage in the _Perceval_ of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes, where Gawain, finding\na wounded knight by the roadside, proceeds to treat him:\n\n\u201cEt Mesire Gauvain savoit\nPlus que nuls homs de garir plaie;\nUne herbe voit en une haie\nTrop bonne pour douleur tolir\nDe plaie, et il la va cueillir.\u201d[7]\n\n\nOther MSS. are rather fuller:\n\n\u201cEt Messires Gauvain savoit\nPlus que nus hons vivant de plaies,\nUnes herbe voit les une haies\nQu\u2019il connoissoit lonc temps avoit\nQue son mestre apris li avoit\nEnseigniee et bien moustree,\nEt il l\u2019avoit bien esgardee\nSi l\u2019a molt bien reconneue.\u201d[8]\n\n\nWe find reference to Gawain\u2019s possession of medical knowledge\nelsewhere. In the poem entitled _Lancelot et le cerf au pied blanc_,\nGawain, finding his friend desperately wounded, carries him to a\nphysician whom he instructs as to the proper treatment.[9]\n\n\u201cEnde Walewein wiesde den Ersatere mere\nEne const, die daertoe halp wel sere.\u201d[10]\n\n\nIn the parallel adventure related in _Morien_ Gawain heals Lancelot\nwithout the aid of any physician:[11]\n\n\u201cDoe was Walewein harde blide\nEnde bant hem sine wonden ten tide\nMet selken crude die daer dochten\nDat si niet bloden mochten.\u201d[12]\n\n\nThey ride to an anchorite\u2019s cell:\n\u201cSi waren doe in dire gedochten\nMochten sie daer comen tier stont\nDatten Walewein soude maken gesont.\u201d[13]\n\n\nThe Dutch _Lancelot_ has numerous references to Gawain\u2019s skill in\nhealing. Of course the advocates of the originality of Chr\u00e9tien de\nTroyes will object that these references, though found in poems which\nhave no connection with Chr\u00e9tien, and which are translations from lost\nFrench originals of an undetermined date, are one and all loans from\nthe more famous poem. This, however, can hardly be contended of the\nWelsh _Triads;_ there we find Gwalchmai, the Welsh Gawain, cited as one\nof the three men \u201cTo whom the nature of every object was known,\u201d[14] an\naccomplishment exceedingly necessary for a \u2018Medicine Man,\u2019 but not at\nfirst sight especially needful for the equipment of a knight.[15] This\npersistent attribution of healing skill is not, so far as my\nacquaintance with medieval Romance goes, paralleled in the case of any\nother knight; even Tristan, who is probably the most accomplished of\nheroes of romance, the most thoroughly trained in all branches of\nknightly education, is not credited with any such knowledge. No other\nknight, save Gawain, has the reputation of a Healer, yet Gawain, the\nMaidens\u2019 Knight, the \u2018fair Father of Nurture\u2019 is, at first sight,\nhardly the personage one might expect to possess such skill. Why he\nshould be so persistently connected with healing was for long a problem\nto me; recently, however, I have begun to suspect that we have in this\napparently motiveless attribution the survival of an early stage of\ntradition in which not only did Gawain cure the Grail King, but he did\nso, not by means of a question, or by the welding of a broken sword,\nbut by more obvious and natural means, the administration of a healing\nherb. Gawain\u2019s character of Healer belongs to him in his _r\u00f4le_ of\nGrail Winner.\n\nSome years ago, in the course of my reading, I came across a passage in\nwhich certain knights of Arthur\u2019s court, riding through a forest, come\nupon a herb \u2018which belonged to the Grail.\u2019 Unfortunately the reference,\nat the time I met with it, though it struck me as curious, did not\npossess any special significance, and either I omitted to make a note\nof it, or entered it in a book which, with sundry others, went\nmysteriously astray in the process of moving furniture. In any case,\nthough I have searched diligently I have failed to recover the passage,\nbut I note it here in the hope that one of my reader may be more\nfortunate.\n\nIt is perhaps not without significance that a mention of Peredur\n(Perceval) in Welsh poetry may also possibly contain a reference to his\nhealing office. I refer to the well-known _Song of the Graves_ in the\nBlack Book of Carmarthen where the grave of Mor, son of Peredur\nPenwetic, is referred to. According to Dr G. Evans the word _penwedic_,\nor _perfeddyg_, as it may also be read, means _chief Healer_. Peredur,\nit is needless to say, is the Welsh equivalent of Perceval, Gawain\u2019s\nsuccessor and supplanter in the _r\u00f4le_ of Grail hero.\n\nI have no desire to press the point unduly, but it is certainly\nsignificant that, entirely apart from any such theory of the evolution\nof the Grail legend as that advanced in these pages, a Welsh scholar\nshould have suggested a rendering of the title of the Grail hero which\nis in complete harmony with that theory; a rendering also which places\nhim side by side with his compatriot Gwalchmai, even as the completely\nevolved Grail story connects him with Gawain. In any case there is food\nfor reflection in the fact that the possibility of such an origin once\nadmitted, the most apparently incongruous, and inharmonious, elements\nof the story show themselves capable of a natural and unforced\nexplanation.\n\nIn face of the evidence above set forth it seems impossible to deny\nthat the Doctor, or Medicine Man, did, from the very earliest ages,\nplay an important part in Dramatic Fertility Ritual, that he still\nsurvives in the modern Folk-play, the rude representative of the early\nritual form, and it is at least possible that the attribution of\nhealing skill to so romantic and chivalrous a character as Sir Gawain\nmay depend upon the fact that, at an early, and pre-literary stage of\nhis story, he played the _r\u00f4le_ traditionally assigned to the Doctor,\nthat of restoring to life and health the dead, or wounded,\nrepresentative of the Spirit of Vegetation.\n\nIf I am right in my reading of this complicated problem the\n_mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ of the Grail story was originally a loan from a ritual\nactually performed, and familiar to those who first told the tale. This\nritual, in its earlier stages comparatively simple and objective in\nform, under the process of an insistence upon the inner and spiritual\nsignificance, took upon itself a more complex and esoteric character,\nthe rite became a Mystery, and with this change the _r\u00f4le_ of the\nprincipal actors became of heightened significance. That of the Healer\ncould no longer be adequately fulfilled by the administration of a\nmedicinal remedy; the relation of Body and Soul became of cardinal\nimportance for the Drama, the Medicine Man gave place to the Redeemer;\nand his task involved more than the administration of the original\nHerbal remedy. In fact in the final development of the story the\n_Pathos_ is shared alike by the representative of the Vegetation\nSpirit, and the Healer, whose task involves a period of stern testing\nand probation.\n\nIf we wish to understand clearly the evolution of the Grail story we\nmust realize that the simple Fertility Drama from which it sprung has\nundergone a gradual and mysterious change, which has invested it with\nelements at once \u2018rich and strange,\u2019 and that though Folk-lore may be\nthe key to unlock the outer portal of the Grail castle it will not\nsuffice to give us the entrance to its deeper secrets.\n\nAPPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII\n\nWhile having no connection with the main subject of our study, the\nGrail legend, I should like to draw the attention of students of\nMedieval literature to the curious parallel between the _Rig-Veda_ poem\nof the _Medicine Man_ or _Kr\u00e4uter-Lied_ as it is also called, and\nRusteboeuf\u2019s _Dist de l\u2019Erberie_. Both are monologues, both presuppose\nthe presence of an audience, in each case the speaker is one who vaunts\nhis skill in the use of herbs, in each case he has in view the ultimate\ngain to himself. Here are the opening lines of the Medieval poem:[1]\n\n\u201cSeignor qui ci estes venu\nPetit et grant, jone et chenu,\nIl vos est trop bien avenu\nSachiez de voir;\nJe ne vos vueil pas de\u00e7evoir\nBien le porroz aper\u00e7evoir\nAinz que m\u2019en voise.\nAsiez vos, ne fetes noise\nSi escotez s\u2019il ne vos poise\nJe sui uns mires.\u201d\n\n\nHe has been long with the lord of Caire, where he won much gold; in\nPuille, Calabre, Luserne.\n\n\u201cAi herbes prises\nQui de granz vertuz sont enprises\nSus quelque mal qu\u2019el soient mises\nLe maus s\u2019enfuit.\u201d\n\n\nThere is no reference in the poem to a cure about to be performed in\nthe presence of the audience, which does not however exclude the\npossibility of such cure being effected.\n\nIt would be interesting to know under what circumstances such a poem\nwas recited, whether it formed part of a popular representation. The\naudience in view is of a mixed character, young and old, great and\nsmall, and one has a vision of the Quack Doctor at some village fair,\non the platform before his booth, declaiming the virtues of his\nnostrums before an audience representative of all ranks and ages. It is\na far cry from such a Medieval scene to the prehistoric days of the\n_Rig-Veda_, but the _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ is the same; the popular \u2018seasonal\u2019\nfeast, the Doctor with his healing herbs, which he vaunts in skilful\nrhyme, the hearers, drawn from all ranks, some credulous, some amused.\nThere seems very little doubt that both poems are specimens, and very\ngood specimens, of a _genre_ the popularity and vitality of which are\ncommensurate with the antiquity of its origin.[2]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\nThe Fisher King\n\n\nThe gradual process of our investigation has led us to the conclusion\nthat the elements forming the existing Grail legend\u2014the setting of the\nstory, the nature of the task which awaits the hero, the symbols and\ntheir significance\u2014one and all, while finding their counterpart in\nprehistoric record, present remarkable parallels to the extant practice\nand belief of countries so widely separate as the British Isles,\nRussia, and Central Africa.\n\nThe explanation of so curious a fact, for it is a fact, and not a mere\nhypothesis, may, it was suggested, most probably be found in the theory\nthat in this fascinating literature we have the, sometimes partially\nunderstood, sometimes wholly misinterpreted, record of a ritual,\noriginally presumed to exercise a life-giving potency, which, at one\ntime of universal observance, has, even in its decay, shown itself\npossessed of elements of the most persistent vitality.\n\nThat if the ritual, which according to our theory lies at the root of\nthe Grail story, be indeed the ritual of a Life Cult, it should, _in_\nand _per se_, possess precisely these characteristics, will, I think,\nbe admitted by any fair-minded critic; the point of course is, can we\ndefinitely _prove_ our theory, _i.e._, not merely point to striking\nparallels, but select, from the figures and incidents composing our\nstory, some one element, which, by showing itself capable of\nexplanation on this theory, and on this theory alone, may be held to\nafford decisive proof of the soundness of our hypothesis?\n\nIt seems to me that there is one such element in the bewildering\ncomplex, by which the theory can be thus definitely tested, that is the\npersonality of the central figure and the title by which he is known.\nIf we can prove that the Fisher King, _qua_ Fisher King, is an integral\npart of the ritual, and can be satisfactorily explained alike by its\nintention, and inherent symbolism, we shall, I think, have taken the\nfinal step which will establish our theory upon a sure basis. On the\nother hand, if the Fisher King, _qua_ Fisher King, does not fit into\nour framework we shall be forced to conclude that, while the\n_provenance_ of certain elements of the Grail literature is practically\nassured, the _ensemble_ has been complicated by the introduction of a\nterminology, which, whether the outcome of serious intention, or of\nmere literary caprice, was foreign to the original source, and so far,\ndefies explanation. In this latter case our theory would not\nnecessarily be _manqu\u00e9_, but would certainly be seriously incomplete.\n\nWe have already seen that the personality of the King, the nature of\nthe disability under which he is suffering, and the reflex effect\nexercised upon his folk and his land, correspond, in a most striking\nmanner, to the intimate relation at one time held to exist between the\nruler and his land; a relation mainly dependent upon the identification\nof the King with the Divine principle of Life and Fertility.\n\nThis relation, as we have seen above, exists to-day among certain\nAfrican tribes.\n\nIf we examine more closely into the existing variants of our romances,\nwe shall find that those very variants are not only thoroughly _dans le\ncadre_ of our proposed solution, but also afford a valuable, and\nhitherto unsuspected, indication of the relative priority of the\nversions.\n\nIn Chapter I, I discussed the task of the hero in general, here I\npropose to focus attention upon his host, and while in a measure\ntraversing the same ground, to do so with a view to determining the\ntrue character of this enigmatic personage.\n\nIn the _Bleheris_ version,[1] the lord of the castle is suffering under\nno disability whatever; he is described as \u201ctall, and strong of limb,\nof no great age, but somewhat bald.\u201d Besides the King there is a Dead\nKnight upon a bier, over whose body Vespers for the Dead are solemnly\nsung. The wasting of the land, partially restored by Gawain\u2019s question\nconcerning the Lance, has been caused by the \u2018Dolorous Stroke,\u2019 _i.e._,\nthe stroke which brought about the death of the Knight, whose identity\nis here never revealed. Certain versions which interpolate the account\nof Joseph of Arimathea and the Grail, allude to \u2018Le riche Pescheur\u2019 and\nhis heirs as Joseph\u2019s descendants, and, presumably, for it is not\ndirectly stated, guardians of the Grail,[2] but the King himself is\nhere never called by that title. From his connection with the Waste\nLand it seems more probable that it was the Dead Knight who filled that\n_r\u00f4le_.\n\nIn the second version of which Gawain is the hero, that of _Di\u00fb\nCr\u00f4ne_,[3] the Host is an old and infirm man. After Gawain has asked\nthe question we learn that he is really dead, and only compelled to\nretain the semblance of life till the task of the Quester be achieved.\nHere, again, he is not called the Fisher King.\n\nIn the _Perceval_ versions, on the contrary, we find the name\ninvariably associated with him, but he is not always directly connected\nwith the misfortunes which have fallen upon his land. Thus, while the\nWauchier texts are incomplete, breaking off at the critical moment of\nasking the question, Manessier who continues, and ostensibly completes,\nWauchier, introduces the Dead Knight, here Goondesert, or Gondefer\n(which I suspect is the more correct form), brother of the King, whose\ndeath by treachery has plunged the land in misery, and been the direct\ncause of the self-wounding of the King.[4] The healing of the King and\nthe restoration of the land depend upon Perceval\u2019s slaying the murderer\nPartinal. These two versions show a combination of Perceval and Gawain\nthemes, such as their respective dates might lead us to expect.\n\nRobert de Borron is the only writer who gives a clear, and tolerably\nreasonable, account of why the guardian of the Grail bears the title of\nFisher King; in other cases, such as the poems of Chr\u00e9tien and Wolfram,\nthe name is connected with his partiality for fishing, an obviously\n_post hoc_ addition.\n\nThe story in question is found in Borron\u2019s _Joseph of Arimathea_.[5]\nHere we are told how, during the wanderings of that holy man and his\ncompanions in the wilderness, certain of the company fell into sin. By\nthe command of God, Brons, Joseph\u2019s brother-in-law, caught a Fish,\nwhich, with the Grail, provided a mystic meal of which the unworthy\ncannot partake; thus the sinners were separated from the righteous.\nHenceforward Brons was known as \u2018The Rich Fisher.\u2019 It is noteworthy,\nhowever, that in the Perceval romance, ascribed to Borron, the title is\nas a rule, _Roi_ Pescheur, not _Riche_ Pescheur.[6]\n\nIn this romance the King is not suffering from any special malady, but\nis the victim of extreme old age; not surprising, as he is Brons\nhimself, who has survived from the dawn of Christianity to the days of\nKing Arthur. We are told that the effect of asking the question will be\nto restore him to youth;[7] as a matter of fact it appears to bring\nabout his death, as he only lives three days after his restoration.[8]\n\nWhen we come to Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poem we find ourselves confronted with a\nstriking alteration in the presentment. There are, not one, but two,\ndisabled kings; one suffering from the effects of a wound, the other in\nextreme old age. Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s poem being incomplete we do not know what\nhe intended to be the result of the achieved Quest, but we may I think\nreasonably conclude that the wounded King at least was healed.[9]\n\nThe _Parzival_ of von Eschenbach follows the same tradition, but is\nhappily complete. Here we find the wounded King was healed, but what\nbecomes of the aged man (here the grandfather, not as in Chr\u00e9tien the\nfather, of the Fisher King) we are not told.[10]\n\nThe _Perlesvaus_ is, as I have noted above,[13] very unsatisfactory.\nThe illness of the King is badly motivated, and he dies before the\nachievement of the Quest. This romance, while retaining certain\ninteresting, and undoubtedly primitive features, is, as a whole, too\nlate, and _remani\u00e9e_ a redaction to be of much use in determining the\nquestion of origins.\n\nThe same may be said of the _Grand Saint Graal_ and _Queste_ versions,\nboth of which are too closely connected with the prose _Lancelot_, and\ntoo obviously intended to develope and complete the _donn\u00e9es_ of that\nromance to be relied upon as evidence for the original form of the\nGrail legend.[12] The version of the _Queste_ is very confused: there\nare two kings at the Grail castle, Pelles, and his father; sometimes\nthe one, sometimes the other, bears the title of Roi Pescheur.[13]\nThere is besides, an extremely old, and desperately wounded, king,\nMordrains, a contemporary of Joseph, who practically belongs, not to\nthe Grail tradition, but to a Conversion legend embodied in the _Grand\nSaint Graal_.[14] Finally, in the latest cyclic texts, we have three\nKings, all of whom are wounded.[15]\n\nThe above will show that the presentment of this central figure is much\nconfused; generally termed Le Roi Pescheur, he is sometimes described\nas in middle life, and in full possession of his bodily powers.\nSometimes while still comparatively young he is incapacitated by the\neffects of a wound, and is known also by the title of Roi Mehaign\u00e9, or\nMaimed King. Sometimes he is in extreme old age, and in certain closely\nconnected versions the two ideas are combined, and we have a wounded\nFisher King, and an aged father, or grandfather. But I would draw\nattention to the significant fact that in no case is the Fisher King a\nyouthful character; that distinction is reserved for his Healer, and\nsuccessor.\n\nNow is it possible to arrive at any conclusion as to the relative value\nand probable order of these conflicting variants? I think that if we\nadmit that they do, in all probability, represent a more or less\ncoherent survival of the Nature ritual previously discussed, we may, by\nhelp of what we know as to the varying forms of that ritual, be enabled\nto bring some order out of this confusion.\n\nIf we turn back to Chapters 4, 5, and 7, and consult the evidence there\ngiven as to the Adonis cults, the Spring Festivals of European Folk,\nthe Mumming Plays of the British Isles, the main fact that emerges is\nthat in the great majority of these cases the representative of the\nSpirit of Vegetation is considered as dead, and the object of these\nceremonies is to restore him to life. This I hold to be the primary\nform.\n\nThis section had already been written when I came across the important\narticle by Dr Jevons, referred to in a previous chapter.[16] Certain of\nhis remarks are here so much to the point that I cannot refrain from\nquoting them. Speaking of the Mumming Plays, the writer says: \u201cThe one\npoint in which there is no variation is that\u2014the character is killed\nand brought to life again. The play is a ceremonial performance, or\nrather it is the development in dramatic form of what was originally a\nreligious or magical rite, representing or realizing the revivification\nof the character slain. This revivification is the one essential and\ninvariable feature of all the Mummer\u2019s plays in England.\u201d[17]\n\nIn certain cases, _e.g._, the famous Roman Spring festival of Mamurius\nVeturius and the Swabian ceremony referred to above,[18] the central\nfigure is an old man. In no case do I find that the representative of\nVegetation is merely wounded, although the nature of the ritual would\nobviously admit of such a variant.\n\nThus, taking the extant and recognized forms of the ritual into\nconsideration, we might expect to find that in the earliest, and least\ncontaminated, version of the Grail story the central figure would be\ndead, and the task of the Quester that of restoring him to life. Viewed\nfrom this standpoint the _Gawain_ versions (the priority of which is\nmaintainable upon strictly literary grounds, Gawain being the original\nArthurian romantic hero) are of extraordinary interest. In the one form\nwe find a Dead Knight, whose fate is distinctly stated to have involved\nhis land in desolation, in the other, an aged man who, while preserving\nthe semblance of life, is in reality dead.\n\nThis last version appears to me, in view of our present knowledge, to\nbe of extreme critical value. There can, I think, be little doubt that\nin the primary form underlying our extant versions the King was dead,\nand restored to life; at first, I strongly suspect, by the agency of\nsome mysterious herb, or herbs, a feature retained in certain forms of\nthe Mumming play.\n\nIn the next stage, that represented by Borron, he is suffering from\nextreme old age, and the task of the Quester is to restore him to\nyouth. This version is again supported by extant parallels. In each of\nthese cases it seems most probable that the original ritual (I should\nwish it to be clearly understood that I hold the Grail story to have\nbeen primarily dramatic, and actually performed) involved an act of\nsubstitution. The Dead King in the first case being probably\nrepresented by a mere effigy, in the second being an old man, his place\nwas, at a given moment of the ritual, taken by the youth who played the\n_r\u00f4le_ of the Quester. It is noteworthy that, while both Perceval and\nGalahad are represented as mere lads, Gawain, whatever his age at the\nmoment of the Grail quest, was, as we learn from _Di\u00fb Cr\u00f4ne_, dowered\nby his fairy Mistress with the gift of eternal youth.[19]\n\nThe versions of Chr\u00e9tien and Wolfram, which present us with a wounded\nFisher King, and a father, or grandfather,[20] in extreme old age, are\ndue in my opinion to a literary device, intended to combine two\nexisting variants. That the subject matter was well understood by the\noriginal redactor of the common source is proved by the nature of the\ninjury,[21] but I hold that in these versions we have passed from the\ndomain of ritual to that of literature. Still, we have a curious\nindication that the Wounding variant may have had its place in the\nformer. The suggestion made above as to the probable existence in the\nprimitive ritual of a substitution ceremony, seems to me to provide a\npossible explanation of the feature found alike in Wolfram, and in the\nclosely allied Grail section of _Sone de Nansai; i.e._, that the wound\nof the King was a punishment for sin, he had conceived a passion for a\nPagan princess.[22] Now there would be no incongruity in representing\nthe Dead King as reborn in youthful form, the aged King as _revenu dans\nsa juvence_, but when the central figure was a man in the prime of life\nsome reason had to be found, his strength and vitality being restored,\nfor his supersession by the appointed Healer. This supersession was\nadequately motivated by the supposed transgression of a fundamental\nChristian law, entailing as consequence the forfeiture of his crown.\n\nI would thus separate the _doubling_ theme, as found in Chr\u00e9tien and\nWolfram, from the _wounded_ theme, equally common to these poets. This\nlatter might possibly be accounted for on the ground of a ritual\nvariant; the first is purely literary, explicable neither on the\nexoteric, nor the esoteric, aspect of the ceremony. From the exoteric\npoint of view there are not, and there cannot be, two Kings suffering\nfrom parallel disability; the ritual knows one Principle of Life, and\none alone. Equally from the esoteric standpoint Fisher King, and Maimed\nKing, representing two different aspects of the same personality, may,\nand probably were, represented as two individuals, but one alone is\ndisabled. Further, as the two are, in very truth, one, they should be\nequals in age, not of different generations. Thus the _Bleheris_\nversion which gives us a Dead Knight, presumably, from his having been\nslain in battle, still in vigorous manhood, and a hale King is,\nritually, the more correct. The original of Manessier\u2019s version must\nhave been similar, but the fact that by the time it was compiled the\nFisher King was generally accepted as being also the Maimed King led to\nthe introduction of the very awkward, and poorly motivated,\nself-wounding incident. It will be noted that in this case the King is\nnot healed either at the moment of the slaying of his brother\u2019s\nmurderer (which would be the logical result of the _donn\u00e9es_ of the\ntale), nor at the moment of contact with the successful Quester, but at\nthe mere announcement of his approach.[23]\n\nThus, if we consider the King, apart from his title, we find that alike\nfrom his position in the story, his close connection with the fortunes\nof his land and people, and the varying forms of the disability of\nwhich he is the victim, he corresponds with remarkable exactitude to\nthe central figure of a well-recognized Nature ritual, and may\ntherefore justly be claimed to belong _ab origine_ to such a\nhypothetical source.\n\nBut what about his title, why should he be called the _Fisher_ King?\n\nHere we strike what I hold to be the main _crux_ of the problem, a\nfeature upon which scholars have expended much thought and ingenuity, a\nfeature which the authors of the romances themselves either did not\nalways understand, or were at pains to obscure by the introduction of\nthe obviously _post hoc_ \u201cmotif\u201d above referred to, _i.e._, that he was\ncalled the Fisher King because of his devotion to the pastime of\nfishing: _\u00e0-propos_ of which Heinzel sensibly remarks, that the story\nof the Fisher King \u201cpresupposes a legend of this personage only vaguely\nknown and remembered by Chr\u00e9tien.\u201d[24]\n\nPractically the interpretations already attempted fall into two main\ngroups, which we may designate as the Christian-Legendary, and the\nCeltic-Folk-lore interpretations. For those who hold that the Grail\nstory is essentially, and fundamentally, Christian, finding its root in\nEucharistic symbolism, the title is naturally connected with the use of\nthe Fish symbol in early Christianity: the _Icthys_ anagram, as applied\nto Christ, the title \u2018Fishers of Men,\u2019 bestowed upon the Apostles, the\nPapal ring of the Fisherman\u2014though it must be noted that no\nmanipulation of the Christian symbolism avails satisfactorily to\naccount for the lamentable condition into which the bearer of the title\nhas fallen.[25]\n\nThe advocates of the Folk-lore theory, on the other hand, practically\nevade this main difficulty, by basing their interpretation upon\nBorron\u2019s story of the catching of the Fish by Brons, equating this\ncharacter with the Bran of Welsh tradition, and pointing to the\nexistence, in Irish and Welsh legend, of a Salmon of Wisdom, the\ntasting of whose flesh confers all knowledge. Hertz acutely remarks\nthat the incident, as related by Borron, is not of such importance as\nto justify the stress laid upon the name, Rich Fisher, by later\nwriters.[26] We may also note in this connection that the Grail\nromances never employ the form \u2018_Wise_ Fisher,\u2019 which, if the origin of\nthe name were that proposed above, we might reasonably expect to find.\nIt is obvious that a satisfactory solution of the problem must be\nsought elsewhere.\n\nIn my opinion the key to the puzzle is to be found in the rightful\nunderstanding of the _Fish-Fisher_ symbolism. Students of the Grail\nliterature have been too prone to treat the question on the Christian\nbasis alone, oblivious of the fact that Christianity did no more than\ntake over, and adapt to its own use, a symbolism already endowed with a\ndeeply rooted prestige and importance.\n\nSo far the subject cannot be said to have received adequate treatment;\ncertain of its aspects have been more or less fully discussed in\nmonographs and isolated articles, but we still await a comprehensive\nstudy on this most important question.[27]\n\nSo far as the present state of our knowledge goes we can affirm with\ncertainty that the Fish is a Life symbol of immemorial antiquity, and\nthat the title of Fisher has, from the earliest ages, been associated\nwith Deities who were held to be specially connected with the origin\nand preservation of Life.\n\nIn Indian cosmogony Manu finds a little fish in the water in which he\nwould wash his hands; it asks, and receives, his protection, asserting\nthat when grown to full size it will save Manu from the universal\ndeluge. This is Jhasa, the greatest of all fish.[28]\n\nThe first Avatar of Vishnu the Creator is a Fish. At the great feast in\nhonour of this god, held on the twelfth day of the first month of the\nIndian year, Vishnu is represented under the form of a golden Fish, and\naddressed in the following terms: \u201cWie Du, O Gott, in Gestalt eines\nFisches die in der Unterwelt befindlichen Veden gerettet hast, so rette\nauch mich.\u201d[29] The Fish Avatar was afterwards transferred to Buddha.\n\nIn Buddhist religion the symbols of the Fish and Fisher are freely\nemployed. Thus in Buddhist monasteries we find drums and gongs in the\nshape of a fish, but the true meaning of the symbol, while still\nregarded as sacred, has been lost, and the explanations, like the\nexplanations of the Grail romances, are often fantastic afterthoughts.\n\nIn the M\u0101h\u0101yana scriptures Buddha is referred to as the Fisherman who\ndraws fish from the ocean of Samsara to the light of Salvation. There\nare figures and pictures which represent Buddha in the act of fishing,\nan attitude which, unless interpreted in a symbolic sense, would be\nutterly at variance with the tenets of the Buddhist religion.[30]\n\nThis also holds good for Chinese Buddhism. The goddess Kwanyin\n(=Avalokitesvara), the female Deity of Mercy and Salvation, is depicted\neither on, or holding, a Fish. In the Han palace of Kun-Ming-Ch\u2019ih\nthere was a Fish carved in jade to which in time of drought sacrifices\nwere offered, the prayers being always answered.\n\nBoth in India and China the Fish is employed in funeral rites. In India\na crystal bowl with Fish handles was found in a reputed tomb of Buddha.\nIn China the symbol is found on stone slabs enclosing the coffin, on\nbronze urns, vases, etc. Even as the Babylonians had the Fish, or\nFisher, god, Oannes who revealed to them the arts of Writing,\nAgriculture, etc., and was, as Eisler puts it, \u2018teacher and lord of all\nwisdom,\u2019 so the Chinese Fu-Hi, who is pictured with the mystic tablets\ncontaining the mysteries of Heaven and Earth, is, with his consort and\nretinue, represented as having a fish\u2019s tail.[31]\n\nThe writer of the article in _The Open Court_ asserts that \u201cthe Fish\nwas sacred to those deities who were supposed to lead men back from the\nshadows of death to life.\u201d[32] If this be really the case we can\nunderstand the connection of the symbol first with Orpheus, later with\nChrist, as Eisler remarks: \u201cOrpheus is connected with nearly all the\nmystery, and a great many of the ordinary chthonic, cults in Greece and\nItaly. Christianity took its first tentative steps into the reluctant\nworld of Graeco-Roman Paganism under the benevolent patronage of\nOrpheus.\u201d[33]\n\nThere is thus little reason to doubt that, if we regard the Fish as a\nDivine Life symbol, of immemorial antiquity, we shall not go very far\nastray.\n\nWe may note here that there was a fish known to the Semites by the name\nof Adonis, although as the title signifies \u2018Lord,\u2019 and is generic\nrather than specific, too much stress cannot be laid upon it. It is\nmore interesting to know that in Babylonian cosmology Adapa the Wise,\nthe son of Ea, is represented as a Fisher.[34] In the ancient Sumerian\nlaments for Tammuz, previously referred to, that god is frequently\naddressed as _Divine Lamgar, Lord of the Net_, the nearest equivalent I\nhave so far found to our \u2018Fisher King.\u2019[35] Whether the phrase is here\nused in an actual or a symbolic sense the connection of idea is\nsufficiently striking.\n\nIn the opinion of the most recent writers on the subject the Christian\nFish symbolism derives directly from the Jewish, the Jews, on their\nside having borrowed freely from Syrian belief and practice.[36]\n\nWhat may be regarded as the central point of Jewish Fish symbolism is\nthe tradition that, at the end of the world, Messias will catch the\ngreat Fish Leviathan, and divide its flesh as food among the faithful.\nAs a foreshadowing of this Messianic Feast the Jews were in the habit\nof eating fish upon the Sabbath. During the Captivity, under the\ninfluence of the worship of the goddess Atargatis, they transferred the\nceremony to the Friday, the eve of the Sabbath, a position which it has\nretained to the present day. Eisler remarks that \u201cin Galicia one can\nsee Israelite families in spite of their being reduced to the extremest\nmisery, procuring on Fridays a single gudgeon, to eat, divided into\nfragments, at night-fall. In the 16th century Rabbi Solomon Luria\nprotested strongly against this practice. Fish, he declared, should be\neaten on the Sabbath itself, not on the Eve.\u201d[37]\n\nThis Jewish custom appears to have been adopted by the primitive\nChurch, and early Christians, on their side, celebrated a Sacramental\nFish-meal. The Catacombs supply us with numerous illustrations, fully\ndescribed by the two writers referred to. The elements of this mystic\nmeal were Fish, Bread, and Wine, the last being represented in the\nMessianic tradition: \u201cAt the end of the meal God will give to the most\nworthy, _i.e._, to King David, the Cup of Blessing\u2014one of fabulous\ndimensions.\u201d[38]\n\nFish play an important part in Mystery Cults, as being the \u2018holy\u2019 food.\nUpon a tablet dedicated to the Phrygian _Mater Magna_ we find Fish and\nCup; and D\u00f6lger, speaking of a votive tablet discovered in the Balkans,\nsays, \u201cHier ist der Fisch immer und immer wieder allzu deutlich als die\nheilige Speise eines Mysterien-Kultes hervorgehoben.\u201d[39]\n\nNow I would submit that here, and not in Celtic Folk-lore, is to be\nfound the source of Borron\u2019s Fish-meal. Let us consider the\ncircumstances. Joseph and his followers, in the course of their\nwanderings, find themselves in danger of famine. The position is\nsomewhat curious, as apparently the leaders have no idea of the\ncondition of their followers till the latter appeal to Brons.[40]\n\nBrons informs Joseph, who prays for aid and counsel from the Grail. A\nVoice from Heaven bids him send his brother-in-law, Brons, to catch a\nfish. Meanwhile he, Joseph, is to prepare a table, set the Grail,\ncovered with a cloth, in the centre opposite his own seat, and the fish\nwhich Brons shall catch, on the other side. He does this, and the seats\nare filled\u2014\u201cSi s\u2019i asieent une grant partie et plus i ot de cels qui\nn\u2019i sistrent mie, que de cels qui sistrent.\u201d Those who are seated at\nthe table are conscious of a great \u201cdouceur,\u201d and \u201cl\u2019accomplissement de\nlor cuers,\u201d the rest feel nothing.\n\nNow compare this with the Irish story of the Salmon of Wisdom.[41]\n\nFinn Mac Cumhail enters the service of his namesake, Finn Eger, who for\nseven years had remained by the Boyne watching the Salmon of Lynn Feic,\nwhich it had been foretold Finn should catch. The younger lad, who\nconceals his name, catches the fish. He is set to watch it while it\nroasts but is warned not to eat it. Touching it with his thumb he is\nburned, and puts his thumb in his mouth to cool it. Immediately he\nbecomes possessed of all knowledge, and thereafter has only to chew his\nthumb to obtain wisdom. Mr Nutt remarks: \u201cThe incident in Borron\u2019s poem\nhas been recast in the mould of mediaeval Christian Symbolism, but I\nthink the older myth can still be clearly discerned, and is wholly\nresponsible for the incident as found in the _Conte du Graal_.\u201d\n\nBut when these words were written we were in ignorance of the\nSacramental Fish-meal, common alike to Jewish, Christian, and Mystery\nCults, a meal which offers a far closer parallel to Borron\u2019s romance\nthan does the Finn story, in which, beyond the catching of a fish,\nthere is absolutely no point of contact with our romance, neither\nJoseph nor Brons derives wisdom from the eating thereof; it is not they\nwho detect the sinners, the severance between the good and the evil is\nbrought about automatically. The Finn story has no common meal, and no\nidea of spiritual blessings such as are connected therewith.\n\nIn the case of the Messianic Fish-meal, on the other hand, the parallel\nis striking; in both cases it is a communal meal, in both cases the\nprivilege of sharing it is the reward of the faithful, in both cases it\nis a foretaste of the bliss of Paradise.\n\nFurthermore, as remarked above, the practice was at one time of very\nwidespread prevalence.\n\nNow whence did Borron derive his knowledge, from Jewish, Christian or\nMystery sources?\n\nThis is a question not very easy to decide. In view of the pronounced\nChristian tone of Borron\u2019s romance I should feel inclined to exclude\nthe first, also the Jewish Fish-meal seems to have been of a more open,\ngeneral and less symbolic character than the Christian; it was frankly\nan anticipation of a promised future bliss, obtainable by all.\n\nOrthodox Christianity, on the other hand, knows nothing of the Sacred\nFish-meal, so far as I am aware it forms no part of any Apocalyptic\nexpectation, and where this special symbolism does occur it is often\nunder conditions which place its interpretation outside the recognized\ncategory of Christian belief.\n\nA noted instance in point is the famous epitaph of Bishop Aberkios,\nover the correct interpretation of which scholars have spent much time\nand ingenuity.[42] In this curious text Aberkios, after mentioning his\njourneys, says:\n\n\u201cPaul I had as my guide,\nFaith however always went ahead and set before me as food a _Fish_ from\na _Fountain_, a huge one, a clean one,\nWhich a _Holy Virgin_ has _caught_.\nThis she gave to the friends ever to eat as food,\nHaving good _Wine_, and offering it watered together with _Bread_.\nAberkios had this engraved when 72 years of age in truth.\n_Whoever can understand this_ let him pray for Aberkios.\u201d\n\n\nEisler (I am here quoting from the Quest article) remarks, \u201cAs the last\nline of our quotation gives us quite plainly to understand, a number of\nwords which we have italicized are obviously used in an unusual,\nmetaphorical, sense, that is to say as terms of the Christian Mystery\nlanguage.\u201d While Harnack, admitting that the Christian character of the\ntext is indisputable, adds significantly: \u201c_aber das Christentum der\nGrosskirche ist es nicht_.\u201d\n\nThus it is possible that, to the various points of doubtful orthodoxy\nwhich scholars have noted as characteristic of the Grail romances,\nBorron\u2019s Fish-meal should also be added.\n\nShould it be objected that the dependence of a medieval romance upon a\nJewish tradition of such antiquity is scarcely probable, I would draw\nattention to the _Voyage of Saint Brandan_, where the monks, during\ntheir prolonged wanderings, annually \u2018kept their Resurrection,\u2019 _i.e._,\ncelebrate their Easter Mass, on the back of a great Fish.[43] On their\nfirst meeting with this monster Saint Brandan tells them it is the\ngreatest of all fishes, and is named Jastoni, a name which bears a\ncurious resemblance to the Jhasa of the Indian tradition cited\nabove.[44] In this last instance the connection of the Fish with life,\nrenewed and sustained, is undeniable.\n\nThe original source of such a symbol is most probably to be found in\nthe belief, referred to in a previous chapter,[45] that all life comes\nfrom the water, but that a more sensual and less abstract idea was also\noperative appears from the close connection of the Fish with the\ngoddess Astarte or Atargatis, a connection here shared by the Dove.\nCumont, in his _Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain_,\nsays: \u201cTwo animals were held in general reverence, namely, Dove and\nFish. Countless flocks of Doves greeted the traveller when he stepped\non shore at Askalon, and in the outer courts of all the temples of\nAstarte one might see the flutter of their white wings. The Fish were\npreserved in ponds near to the Temple, and superstitious dread forbade\ntheir capture, for the goddess punished such sacrilege, smiting the\noffender with ulcers and tumours.\u201d[46]\n\nBut at certain mystic banquets priests and initiates partook of this\notherwise forbidden food, in the belief that they thus partook of the\nflesh of the goddess. Eisler and other scholars are of the opinion that\nit was the familiarity with this ritual gained by the Jews during the\nCaptivity that led to the adoption of the Friday Fish-meal, already\nreferred to, Friday being the day dedicated to the goddess and, later,\nto her equivalent, Venus. From the Jews the custom spread to the\nChristian Church, where it still flourishes, its true origin, it is\nneedless to say, being wholly unsuspected.[47]\n\nDove and Fish also appear together in ancient iconography. In Comte\nGoblet d\u2019Alviella\u2019s work _The Migration of Symbols_ there is an\nillustration of a coin of Cyzicus, on which is represented an Omphalus,\nflanked by two Doves, with a Fish beneath;[48] and a whole section is\ndevoted to the discussion of the representations of two Doves on either\nside of a Temple entrance, or of an Omphalus. In the author\u2019s opinion\nthe origin of the symbol may be found in the sacred dove-cotes of\nPhoenicia, referred to by Cumont.\n\nScheftelowitz instances the combination of Fish-meal and Dove, found on\na Jewish tomb of the first century at Syracuse, and remarks that the\ntwo are frequently found in combination on Christian tombstones.[49]\n\nStudents of the Grail romances will not need to be reminded that the\nDove makes its appearance in certain of our texts. In the _Parzival_ it\nplays a somewhat important _r\u00f4le;_ every Good Friday a Dove brings from\nHeaven a Host, which it lays upon the Grail; and the Dove is the badge\nof the Grail Knights.[50] In the prose _Lancelot_ the coming of the\nGrail procession is heralded by the entrance through the window of a\nDove, bearing a censer in its beak.[51] Is it not possible that it was\nthe already existing connection in Nature ritual of these two, Dove and\nFish, which led to the introduction of the former into our romances,\nwhere its _r\u00f4le_ is never really adequately motivated? It is further to\nbe noted that besides Dove and Fish the Syrians reverenced Stones, more\nespecially meteoric Stones, which they held to be endowed with life\npotency, another point of contact with our romances.[52]\n\nThat the Fish was considered a potent factor in ensuring fruitfulness\nis proved by certain prehistoric tablets described by Scheftelowitz,\nwhere Fish, Horse, and Swastika, or in another instance Fish and\nReindeer, are found in a combination which unmistakeably denotes that\nthe object of the votive tablet was to ensure the fruitfulness of\nflocks and herds.[53]\n\nWith this intention its influence was also invoked in marriage\nceremonies. The same writer points out that the Jews in Poland were\naccustomed to hold a Fish feast immediately on the conclusion of the\nmarriage ceremony and that a similar practice can be prove for the\nancient Greeks.[54] At the present day the Jews of Tunis exhibit a\nFish\u2019s tail on a cushion at their weddings.[55] In some parts of India\nthe newly-wedded pair waded knee-deep into the water, and caught fish\nin a new garment. During the ceremony a Brahmin student, from the\nshore, asked solemnly, \u201cWhat seest thou?\u201d to which the answer was\nreturned, \u201cSons and Cattle.\u201d[56] In all these cases there can be no\ndoubt that it was the prolific nature of the Fish, a feature which it\nshares in common with the Dove, which inspired practice and intention.\n\nSurely the effect of this cumulative body of evidence is to justify us\nin the belief that Fish and Fisher, being, as they undoubtedly are,\nLife symbols of immemorial antiquity, are, by virtue of their origin,\nentirely in their place in a sequence of incidents which there is solid\nground for believing derive ultimately from a Cult of this nature. That\nBorron\u2019s Fish-meal, that the title of Fisher King, are not accidents of\nliterary invention but genuine and integral parts of the common body of\ntradition which has furnished the incidents and _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ of the\nGrail drama. Can it be denied that, while from the standpoint of a\nChristian interpretation the character of the Fisher King is simply\nincomprehensible, from the standpoint of Folk-tale inadequately\nexplained, from that of a Ritual survival it assumes a profound meaning\nand significance? He is not merely a deeply symbolic figure, but the\nessential centre of the whole cult, a being semi-divine, semi-human,\nstanding between his people and land, and the unseen forces which\ncontrol their destiny. If the Grail story be based upon a Life ritual\nthe character of the Fisher King is of the very essence of the tale,\nand his title, so far from being meaningless, expresses, for those who\nare at pains to seek, the intention and object of the perplexing whole.\nThe Fisher King is, as I suggested above, the very heart and centre of\nthe whole mystery, and I contend that with an adequate interpretation\nof this enigmatic character the soundness of the theory providing such\nan interpretation may be held to be definitely proved.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\nThe Secret of the Grail (1)\n\nThe Mysteries\n\nStudents of the Grail literature cannot fail to have been impressed by\na certain atmosphere of awe and mystery which surrounds that enigmatic\nVessel. There is a secret connected with it, the revelation of which\nwill entail dire misfortune on the betrayer. If spoken of at all it\nmust be with scrupulous accuracy. It is so secret a thing that no\nwoman, be she wife or maid, may venture to speak of it. A priest, or a\nman of holy life might indeed tell the marvel of the Grail, but none\ncan hearken to the recital without shuddering, trembling, and changing\ncolour for very fear.\n\n\u201cC\u2019est del Graal dont nus ne doit\nLe secret dire ne conter;\nCar tel chose poroit monter\nLi contes ains qu\u2019il fust tos dis\nQue teus hom en seroit maris\nQui ne l\u2019aroit mie fourfait.\n\n..............................\n\nCar, se Maistre Blihis ne ment\nNus ne doit dire le secr\u00e9.\u201d[1]\n\n\u201cMais la mervelle qu\u2019il trova\nDont maintes fois s\u2019espoenta\nNe doit nus hom conter ne dire\nCil ki le dist en a grant ire\nCar c\u2019est li signes del Graal (other texts secr\u00e9s)\nS\u2019en puet avoir et paine et mal (Li fet grant pechi\u00e9 et grant mal)\nCil qui s\u2019entremet del conter\nFors ensi com it doit aler.\u201d[2]\n\n\nThe above refers to Gawain\u2019s adventure at the Black Chapel, _en route_\nfor the Grail Castle.\n\nThe following is the answer given to Perceval by the maiden of the\nWhite Mule, after he has been overtaken by a storm in the forest. She\ntells him the mysterious light he beheld proceeded from the Grail, but\non his enquiry as to what the Grail may be, refuses to give him any\ninformation.\n\n\u201cLi dist \u2018Sire, ce ne puet estre\nQue je plus vos en doie dire\nSi vous .c. fois esties me sire\nN\u2019en oseroie plus conter,\nNe de mon labor plus parler (other texts, ma bouche)\nCar ce est chose trop secr\u00e9e\nSi ne doit estre racont\u00e9e\nPar dame ne par damoisele,\nPar mescine ne par puciele,\nNe par nul home qui soit n\u00e9s\nSi prouvoires n\u2019est orden\u00e9s,\nU home qui maine sainte vie,\n\n............................\n\nCil poroit deI Graal parler,\nEt la mervelle raconter,\nQue nus hom nel poroit o\u00efr\nQue il ne l\u2019estuece fremir\nTrambler et remuer color,\nEt empalir de la paour.\u2019\u201d[3]\n\n\nFrom this evidence there is no doubt that to the romance writers the\nGrail was something secret, mysterious and awful, the exact knowledge\nof which was reserved to a select few, and which was only to be spoken\nof with bated breath, and a careful regard to strict accuracy.\n\nBut how does this agree with the evidence set forth in our preceding\nchapters? There we have been led rather to emphasize the close\nparallels existing between the characters and incidents of the Grail\nstory, and a certain well-marked group of popular beliefs and\nobservances, now very generally recognized as fragments of a once\nwidespread Nature Cult. These beliefs and observances, while dating\nfrom remotest antiquity, have, in their modern survivals, of recent\nyears, attracted the attention of scholars by their persistent and\npervasive character, and their enduring vitality.\n\nYet, so far as we have hitherto dealt with them, these practices were,\nand are, popular in character, openly performed, and devoid of the\nspecial element of mystery which is so characteristic a feature of the\nGrail.\n\nNor, in these public Folk-ceremonies, these Spring festivals, Dances,\nand Plays, is there anything which, on the face of it, appears to bring\nthem into touch with the central mystery of the Christian Faith. Yet\nthe men who wrote these romances saw no incongruity in identifying the\nmysterious Food-providing Vessel of the _Bleheris-Gawain_ version with\nthe Chalice of the Eucharist, and in ascribing the power of bestowing\nSpiritual Life to that which certain modern scholars have identified as\na _Wunsch-Ding_, a Folk-tale Vessel of Plenty.\n\nIf there be a mystery of the Grail surely the mystery lies here, in the\npossibility of identifying two objects which, apparently, lie at the\nvery opposite poles of intellectual conception. What brought them\ntogether? Where shall we seek a connecting link? By what road did the\nromancers reach so strangely unexpected a goal?\n\nIt is, of course, very generally recognized that in the case of most of\nthe pre-Christian religions, upon the nature and character of whose\nrites we possess reliable information, such rites possessed a two-fold\ncharacter\u2014_exoteric;_ in celebrations openly and publicly performed, in\nwhich all adherents of that particular cult could join freely, the\nobject of such public rites being to obtain some external and material\nbenefit, whether for the individual worshipper, or for the community as\na whole\u2014_esoteric;_ rites open only to a favoured few, the initiates,\nthe object of which appears, as a rule, to have been individual rather\nthan social, and _non_-material. In some cases, certainly, the object\naimed at was the attainment of a conscious, ecstatic, union with the\ngod, and the definite assurance of a future life. In other words there\nwas the public worship, and there were the Mysteries.\n\nOf late years there has been a growing tendency among scholars to seek\nin the Mysteries the clue which shall enable us to read aright the\nbaffling riddle of the Grail, and there can be little doubt that, in so\ndoing, we are on the right path. At the same time I am convinced that\nto seek that clue in those Mysteries which are at once the most famous,\nand the most familiar to the classical scholar, _i.e._, the Eleusinian,\nis a fatal mistake. There are, as we shall see, certain essential, and\nradical, differences between the Greek and the Christian religious\nconceptions which, affecting as they do the root conceptions of the two\ngroups, render it quite impossible that any form of the Eleusinian\nMystery cult could have given such results as we find in the Grail\nlegend.[4]\n\nCumont in his _Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain_,\nspeaking of the influence of the Mysteries upon Christianity, remarks\nacutely, \u201cOr, lorsqu\u2019on parle de myst\u00e8res on doit songer \u00e0 I\u2019Asie\nhell\u00e9nis\u00e9e, bien plus qu\u2019\u00e0 la Gr\u00e8ce propre, malgr\u00e9 tout le prestige qui\nentourait Eleusis, car d\u2019abord les premi\u00e8res communaut\u00e9s Chr\u00e9tiennes se\nfont fond\u00e9es, form\u00e9es, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9es, au milieu de populations\nOrientales, S\u00e9mites, Phrygiens, Egyptiens.\u201d[5]\n\nThis is perfectly true, but it was not only the influence of _milieu_,\nnot only the fact that the \u2018hellenized\u2019 faiths were, as Cumont points\nout, more advanced, richer in ideas and sentiments, more pregnant, more\npoignant, than the more strictly \u2018classic\u2019 faiths, but they possessed,\nin common with Christianity, certain distinctive features lacking in\nthese latter.\n\nIf we were asked to define the special characteristic of the central\nChristian rite, should we not state it as being a Sacred meal of\nCommunion in which the worshipper, not merely symbolically, but\nactually, partakes of, and becomes one with, his God, receiving thereby\nthe assurance of eternal life? (_The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ\npreserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life_.)\n\nBut it is precisely this conception which is lacking in the Greek\nMysteries, and that inevitably, as Rohde points out: \u201cThe Eleusinian\nMysteries in common with all Greek religion, differentiated clearly\nbetween gods and men, _eins ist der Menschen, ein andres der\nG\u00f6tter-Geschlecht_\u2014\u1f15\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d The attainment of union\nwith the god, by way of ecstasy, as in other Mystery cults, is foreign\nto the Eleusinian idea. As Cumont puts it \u201cThe Greco-Roman deities\nrejoice in the perpetual calm and youth of Olympus, the Eastern deities\ndie to live again.\u201d[6] In other words Greek religion lacks the\nSacramental idea.\n\n\nThus even if we set aside the absence of a parallel between the ritual\nof the Greek Mysteries and the _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ of the Grail stories,\nEleusis would be unable to offer us those essential elements which\nwould have rendered possible a translation of the incidents of those\nstories into terms of high Christian symbolism. Yet we cannot refrain\nfrom the conclusion that there was something in the legend that not\nmerely rendered possible, but actually invited, such a translation.\n\nIf we thus dismiss, as fruitless for our investigation, the most famous\nrepresentative of the Hellenic Mysteries proper, how does the question\nstand with regard to those faiths to which Cumont is referring, the\nhellenized cults of Asia Minor?\n\nHere the evidence, not merely of the existence of Mysteries, but of\ntheir widespread popularity, and permeating influence, is overwhelming;\nthe difficulty is not so much to prove our case, as to select and\nco-ordinate the evidence germane to our enquiry.\n\nRegarding the question as a whole it is undoubtedly true that, as\nAnrich remarks, \u201cthe extent of the literature devoted to the Mysteries\nstands in no relation whatever (_gar keinem Verh\u00e4ltniss_) to the\nimportance in reality attached to them.\u201d[7] Later in the same\nconnection, after quoting Clement of Alexandria\u2019s dictum \u201cGeheime Dinge\nwie die Gottheit, werden der Rede anvertraut, nicht der Schrift,\u201d he\nadds, \u201c_Schriftliche Fixierung ist schon beinahe Entweihung_.\u201d[8] A\njust remark which it would be well if certain critics who make a virtue\nof refusing to accept as evidence anything short of a direct and\npositive literary statement would bear in mind. There are certain lines\nof research in which, as Bishop Butler long since emphasized,\nprobability must be our guide.\n\nFortunately, however, so far as our present research is concerned, we\nhave more than probability to rely upon; not only did these Nature\nCults with which we are dealing express themselves in Mystery terms,\nbut as regards these special Mysteries we possess clear and definite\ninformation, and we know, moreover, that in the Western world they\nwere, of all the Mystery faiths, the most widely spread, and the most\ninfluential.\n\nAs Sir J. G. Frazer has before now pointed out, there are parallel and\nover-lapping forms of this cult, the name of the god, and certain\ndetails of the ritual, may differ in different countries, but whether\nhe hails from Babylon, Phrygia, or Phoenicia, whether he be called\nTammuz, Attis, or Adonis, the main lines of the story are fixed, and\ninvariable. Always he is young and beautiful, always the beloved of a\ngreat goddess; always he is the victim of a tragic and untimely death,\na death which entails bitter loss and misfortune upon a mourning world,\nand which, for the salvation of that world, is followed by a\nresurrection. Death and Resurrection, mourning and rejoicing, present\nthemselves in sharp antithesis in each and all of the forms.\n\nWe know the god best as Adonis, for it was under that name that, though\nnot originally Greek, he became known to the Greek world, was adopted\nby them with ardour, carried by them to Alexandria, where his feast\nassumed the character of a State solemnity; under that name his story\nhas been enshrined in Art, and as Adonis he is loved and lamented to\nthis day. The Adonis ritual may be held to be the classic form of the\ncult.\n\nBut in Rome, the centre of Western civilization, it was otherwise:\nthere it was the Phrygian god who was in possession; the dominating\nposition held by the cult of Attis and the _Magna Mater_, and the\nprofound influence exercised by that cult over better known, but\nsubsequently introduced, forms of worship, have not, so far, been\nsufficiently realized.\n\nThe first of the Oriental cults to gain a footing in the Imperial city,\nthe worship of the _Magna Mater_ of Pessinonte was, for a time, rigidly\nconfined within the limits of her sanctuary. The orgiastic ritual of\nthe priests of Kybele made at first little appeal to the more\ndisciplined temperament of the Roman population. By degrees, however,\nit won its way, and by the reign of Claudius had become so popular that\nthe emperor instituted public feasts in honour of Kybele and Attis,\nfeasts which were celebrated at the Spring solstice, March\n15th-27th.[9]\n\nAs the public feast increased in popularity, so did the Mystery feast,\nof which the initiated alone were privileged to partake, acquire a\nsymbolic significance: the foods partaken of became \u201cun aliment de vie\nspirituelle, et doivent soutenir dans les \u00e9preuves de la vie l\u2019initi\u00e9.\u201d\nPhilosophers boldly utilized the framework of the Attis cult as the\nvehicle for imparting their own doctrines, \u201cLorsque le N\u00e8oplatonisme\ntriomphera la fable Phrygienne deviendra le moule traditionnel dans\nlequel des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes subtils verseront hardiment leurs sp\u00e9culations\nphilosophiques sur les forces cr\u00e9atrices f\u00e9condantes, principes de\ntoutes les formes mat\u00e9rielles, et sur la d\u00e9livrance de l\u2019\u00e2me divine\nplong\u00e9e dans la corruption de ce monde terrestre.\u201d[10]\n\nCertain of the Gnostic sects, both pre- and post-Christian, appear to\nhave been enthusiastic participants in the Attis mysteries;[11]\nHepding, in his _Attis_ study, goes so far as to refer to Bishop\nAberkios, to whose enigmatic epitaph our attention was directed in the\nlast chapter, as \u201c_der Attis-Priester_.\u201d[12]\n\nAnother element aided in the diffusion of the ritual. Of all the\nOriental cults which journeyed Westward under the aegis of Rome none\nwas so deeply rooted or so widely spread as the originally Persian cult\nof Mithra\u2014the popular religion of the Roman legionary. But between the\ncults of Mithra and of Attis there was a close and intimate alliance.\nIn parts of Asia Minor the Persian god had early taken over features of\nthe Phrygian deity. \u201cAussit\u00f4t que nous pouvons constater la pr\u00e9sence du\nculte Persique en Italie nous le trouvons \u00e9troitement uni \u00e0 celui de la\nGrande M\u00e9re de Pessinonte.\u201d[13] The union between Mithra and the\ngoddess An\u00e2hita was held to be the equivalent of that subsisting\nbetween the two great Phrygian deities Attis-Kybele. The most ancient\nMithreum known, that at Ostia, was attached to the Metroon, the temple\nof Kybele. At Saalburg the ruins of the two temples are but a few steps\napart. \u201cL\u2019on a tout lieu de croire que le culte du dieu Iranien et\ncelui de la d\u00e9esse Phrygienne v\u00e9curent en communion intime sur toute\nl\u2019\u00e9tendue de l\u2019Empire.\u201d[14]\n\nA proof of the close union of the two cults is afforded by the mystic\nrite of the Taurobolium, which was practised by both, and which, in the\nWest, at least, seems to have passed from the temples of the Mithra to\nthose of the _Magna Mater_. At the same time Cumont remarks that the\nactual rite seems to have been practised in Asia from a great\nantiquity, before Mithraism had attributed to it a spiritual\nsignificance. It is thus possible that the rite had earlier formed a\npart of the Attis initiation, and had been temporarily disused.[15]\n\nWe shall see that the union of the Mithra-Attis cults becomes of\ndistinct importance when we examine, (_a_) the spiritual significance\nof these rituals, and their elements of affinity with Christianity,\n(_b_) their possible diffusion in the British Isles.\n\nBut now what do we know of the actual details of the Attis mysteries?\nThe first and most important point was a Mystic Meal, at which the food\npartaken of was served in the sacred vessels, the tympanum, and the\ncymbals. The formula of an Attis initiate was \u201c_I have eaten from the\ntympanum, I have drunk from the cymbals_.\u201d As I have remarked above,\nthe food thus partaken of was a Food of Life\u2014\u201c_Die Attis-Diener in der\nTat eine magische Speise des Lebens aus ihren Kult-Ger\u00e4ten zu essen\nmeinten_.\u201d[16]\n\nDieterich in his interesting study entitled _Eine Mithrasliturgie_\nrefers to this meal as the centre of the whole religious action.\n\nFurther, in some mysterious manner, the fate of the initiate was\nconnected with, and dependent upon, the death and resurrection of the\ngod. The Christian writer Firmicius Maternus, at one time himself an\ninitiate, has left an account of the ceremony, without, however,\nspecifying whether the deity in question was Attis or Adonis\u2014as\nDieterich remarks \u201cWas er erz\u00e4hlt kann sich auf Attis-gemeinden, und\nauf Adonis-gemeinden beziehen.\u201d\n\nThis is what he says: \u201c_Nocte quadam simulacrum in lectica supinum\nponitur, et per numeros digestis fletibus plangitur: deinde cum se\nficta lamentatione satiaverint lumen infertur: tunc a sacerdote omnium\nqui flebant fauces unguentur, quibus perunctis sacerdos hoc lento\nmurmure susurrit:_\n\n\u2018Have courage, O initiates of the saviour-god,\nFor there will be salvation for us from our toils\u2014\u2019\n\n\non which Dieterich remarks: \u201cDas Heil der Mysten h\u00e4ngt an der Rettung\ndes Gottes.\u201d[17] [*** Note: The above has an English translation of\nWeston\u2019s Greek ***]\n\nHepding holds that in some cases there was an actual burial, and\nawakening with the god to a new life.[18] In any case it is clear that\nthe successful issue of the test of initiation was dependent upon the\nresurrection and revival of the god.\n\nNow is it not clear that we have here a close parallel with the Grail\nromances? In each case we have a common, and mystic, meal, in which the\nfood partaken of stands in close connection with the holy vessels. In\nthe Attis feast the initiates actually ate and drank from these\nvessels; in the romances the Grail community never actually eat from\nthe Grail itself, but the food is, in some mysterious and unexplained\nmanner, supplied by it. In both cases it is a _Lebens-Speise_, a Food\nof Life. This point is especially insisted upon in the _Parzival_,\nwhere the Grail community never become any older than they were on the\nday they first beheld the Talisman.[19] In the Attis initiation the\nproof that the candidate has successfully passed the test is afforded\nby the revival of the god\u2014in the Grail romances the proof lies in the\nhealing of the Fisher King.\n\nThus, while deferring for a moment any insistence on the obvious points\nof parallelism with the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the\npossibilities of Spiritual teaching inherent in the ceremonies,\nnecessary links in our chain of argument, we are, I think, entitled to\nhold that, even when we pass beyond the outward _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ of the\nstory\u2014the march of incident, the character of the King, his title, his\ndisability, and relation to his land and folk\u2014to the inner and deeper\nsignificance of the tale, the Nature Cults still remain reliable\nguides; it is their inner, their esoteric, ritual which will enable us\nto bridge the gulf between what appears at first sight the wholly\nirreconcilable elements of Folk-tale and high Spiritual mystery.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\nThe Secret of the Grail (2)\n\nThe Naassene Document\n\nWe have now seen that the Ritual which, as we have postulated, lies, in\na fragmentary and distorted condition, at the root of our existing\nGrail romances, possessed elements capable of assimilation with a\nreligious system which the great bulk of its modern adherents would\nunhesitatingly declare to be its very antithesis. That Christianity\nmight have borrowed from previously existing cults certain outward\nsigns and symbols, might have accommodated itself to already existing\nFasts and Feasts, may be, perforce has had to be, more or less\ngrudgingly admitted; that such a _rapprochement_ should have gone\nfurther, that it should even have been inherent in the very nature of\nthe Faith, that, to some of the deepest thinkers of old, Christianity\nshould have been held for no new thing but a fulfilment of the promise\nenshrined in the Mysteries from the beginning of the world, will to\nmany be a strange and startling thought. Yet so it was, and I firmly\nbelieve that it is only in the recognition of this one-time claim of\nessential kinship between Christianity and the Pagan Mysteries that we\nshall find the key to the Secret of the Grail.\n\nAnd here at the outset I would ask those readers who are inclined to\nturn with feelings of contemptuous impatience from what they deem an\nunprofitable discussion of idle speculations which have little or\nnothing to do with a problem they hold to be one of purely literary\ninterest, to be solved by literary comparison and criticism, and by no\nother method, to withhold their verdict till they have carefully\nexamined the evidence I am about to bring forward, evidence which has\nnever so far been examined in this connection, but which if I am not\ngreatly mistaken provides us with clear and unmistakable proof of the\nactual existence of a ritual in all points analogous to that indicated\nby the Grail romances.\n\nIn the previous chapter we have seen that there is evidence, and\nabundant evidence, not merely of the existence of Mysteries connected\nwith the worship of Adonis-Attis, but of the high importance assigned\nto such Mysteries; at the time of the birth of Christianity they were\nundoubtedly the most popular and the most influential of the foreign\ncults adopted by Imperial Rome. In support of this statement I quoted\ncertain passages from Cumont\u2019s _Religions Orientales_, in which he\ntouches on the subject: here are two other quotations which may well\nserve as introduction to the evidence we are about to examine.\n\u201cResearches on the doctrines and practices common to Christianity and\nthe Oriental Mysteries almost invariably go back, beyond the limits of\nthe Roman Empire, to the Hellenized East. It is there we must seek the\nkey of enigmas still unsolved\u2014The essential fact to remember is that\nthe Eastern religions had diffused, first anterior to, then parallel\nwith, Christianity, doctrines which acquired with this latter a\nuniversal authority in the decline of the ancient world. The preaching\nof Asiatic priests prepared in their own despite the triumph of the\nChurch.\u201d[1]\n\nBut the triumph of the new Faith once assured the organizing,\ndominating, influence of Imperial Rome speedily came into play.\nChristianity, originally an Eastern, became a Western, religion, the\n\u2018Mystery\u2019 elements were frowned upon, kinship with pre-Christian faiths\nignored, or denied; where the resemblances between the cults proved too\nstriking for either of these methods such resemblances were boldly\nattributed to the invention of the Father of Lies himself, a cunning\nsnare whereby to deceive unwary souls. Christianity was carefully\ntrimmed, shaped, and forced into an Orthodox mould, and anything that\nrefused to adapt itself to this drastic process became by that very\nrefusal anathema to the righteous.\n\nSmall wonder that, under such conditions, the early ages of the Church\nwere marked by a fruitful crop of Heresies, and heresy-hunting became\nan intellectual pastime in high favour among the strictly orthodox.\nAmong the writers of this period whose works have been preserved\nHippolytus, Bishop of Portus in the early years of the third century,\nwas one of the most industrious. He compiled a voluminous treatise,\nentitled _Philosophumena_, or _The Refutation of all Heresies_, of\nwhich only one MS. and that of the fourteenth century, has descended to\nus. The work was already partially known by quotations, the first Book\nhad been attributed to Origen, and published in the _editio princeps_\nof his works. The text originally consisted of ten Books, but of these\nthe first three, and part of the fourth, are missing from the MS. The\nOrigen text supplies part of the lacuna, but two entire Books, and part\nof a third are missing.\n\nNow these special Books, we learn from the Introduction, dealt with the\ndoctrines and Mysteries of the Egyptians and Chaldaeans, whose most\nsacred secrets Hippolytus boasts that he has divulged. Curiously\nenough, not only are these Books lacking but in the Epitome at the\nbeginning of Book X. the summary of their contents is also missing, a\nsignificant detail, which, as has been suggested by critics, looks like\na deliberate attempt on the part of some copyist to suppress the\ninformation contained in the Books in question. Incidentally this would\nseem to suggest that the worthy bishop was not making an empty boast\nwhen he claimed to be a revealer of secrets.\n\nBut what is of special interest to us is the treatment meted out to the\nChristian Mystics, whom Hippolytus stigmatizes as heretics, and whose\nteaching he deliberately asserts to be simply that of the Pagan\nMysteries. He had come into possession of a secret document belonging\nto one of these sects, whom he calls the Naassenes; this document he\ngives in full, and it certainly throws a most extraordinary light upon\nthe relation which this early Christian sect held to exist between the\nNew, and the Old, Faith. Mr G. R. S. Mead, in his translation of the\nHermetic writings entitled _Thrice-Greatest Hermes_, has given a\ncareful translation and detailed analysis of this most important text,\nand it is from his work that I shall quote.\n\nSo far as the structure of the document is concerned Mr Mead\ndistinguishes three stages.\n\n(_a_) An original Pagan source, possibly dating from the last half of\nthe first century B.C., but containing material of earlier date.\n\n(_b_) The working over of this source by a Jewish Mystic whom the\ncritic holds to have been a contemporary of Philo.\n\n(_c_) A subsequent working over, with additions, by a Christian Gnostic\n(Naassene), in the middle of the second century A. D. Finally the text\nwas edited by Hippolytus, in the _Refutation_, about 222 A. D. Thus the\nground covered is roughly from 50 B. C. to 220 A. D.[2]\n\nIn the translation given by Mr Mead these successive layers are\ndistinguished by initial letters and difference of type, but these\ndistinctions are not of importance for us; what we desire to know is\nwhat was really held and taught by these mystics of the Early Church.\nMr Mead, in his introductory remarks, summarizes the evidence as\nfollows: \u201cThe claim of these Gnostics was practically that\nChristianity, or rather the Good News of The Christ, was precisely the\nconsummation of the inner doctrine of the Mystery-institutions of all\nthe nations: the end of them all was the revelation of the Mystery of\nMan.\u201d[3] In other words the teaching of these Naassenes was practically\na synthesis of all the Mystery-religions, and although Hippolytus\nregards them as nothing more than devotees of the cult of the _Magna\nMater_, we shall see that, while their doctrine and teaching were\nundoubtedly based mainly upon the doctrine and practices of the\nPhrygian Mysteries, they practically identified the deity therein\nworshipped, _i.e._, Attis, with the presiding deity of all the other\nMysteries.\n\nMr Mead draws attention to the fact that Hippolytus places these\nNaassenes in the fore-front of his _Refutation;_ they are the first\ngroup of Heretics with whom he deals, and we may therefore conclude\nthat he considered them, if not the most important, at least the\noldest, of such sectaries.[4]\n\nWith these prefatory remarks it will be well to let the document speak\nfor itself. It is of considerable length, and, as we have seen, of\nintricate construction. I shall therefore quote only those sections\nwhich bear directly upon the subject of our investigation; any reader\ndesirous of fuller information can refer to Mr Mead\u2019s work, or to the\noriginal text published by Reitzenstein.[5]\n\nAt the outset it will be well to understand that the central doctrine\nof all these Mysteries is what Reitzenstein sums up as \u201cthe doctrine of\nthe Man, the Heavenly Man, the Son of God, who descends and becomes a\nslave of the Fate Sphere: the Man who, though originally endowed with\nall power, descends into weakness and bondage, and has to win his own\nfreedom, and regain his original state. This doctrine is not Egyptian,\nbut seems to have been in its origin part and parcel of the Chaldean\nMystery-tradition and was widely spread in Hellenistic circles.\u201d[6]\n\nThus, in the introductory remarks prefixed by Hippolytus to the\ndocument he is quoting he asserts that the Naassenes honour as the\nLogos of all universals Man, and Son of Man\u2014\u201cand they divide him into\nthree, for they say he has a mental, psychic, and cho\u00efc aspect; and\nthey think that the Gnosis of this Man is the beginning of the\npossibility of knowing God, saying, \u2018The beginning of Perfection is the\nGnosis of Man, but the Gnosis of God is perfected Perfection.\u2019 All\nthese, mental, psychic, and earthy, descended together into one Man,\nJesus, the Son of Mary.\u201d[7]\n\nThus the _Myth of Man_, the Mystery of Generation, is the subject\nmatter of the document in question, and this myth is set forth with\nreference to all the Mysteries, beginning with the Assyrian.\n\nParagraph 5 runs: \u201cNow the Assyrians call this Mystery Adonis, and\nwhenever it is called Adonis it is Aphrodite who is in love with and\ndesires Soul so-called, and Aphrodite is Genesis according to them.\u201d[8]\n\nBut in the next section the writer jumps from the Assyrian to the\nPhrygian Mysteries, saying, \u201cBut if the Mother of the Gods emasculates\nAttis, she too regarding him as the object of her love, it is the\nBlessed Nature above of the super-Cosmic, and Aeonian spaces which\ncalls back the masculine power of Soul to herself.\u201d[9]\n\nIn a note to this Mr Mead quotes from _The Life of Isidorus:_ \u201cI fell\nasleep and in a vision Attis seemed to appear to me, and on behalf of\nthe Mother of gods to initiate me into the feast called Hilario, a\nmystery which discloses the way of our salvation from Hades.\u201d\nThroughout the document reference is continually made to the Phrygians\nand their doctrine of Man. The Eleusinian Mysteries are then treated of\nas subsequent to the Phrygian, \u201cafter the Phrygians, the Athenians,\u201d\nbut the teaching is represented as being essentially identical.\n\nWe have then a passage of great interest for our investigation, in\nwhich the Mysteries are sharply divided into two classes, and their\nseparate content clearly defined. There are\u2014\u201cthe little Mysteries,\nthose of the Fleshly Generation, and after men have been initiated into\nthem they should cease for a while and become initiated in the Great,\nHeavenly, Mysteries\u2014for this is the Gate of Heaven, and this is the\nHouse of God, where the Good God dwells alone, into which House no\nimpure man shall come.\u201d[10] Hippolytus remarks that \u201cthese Naassenes\nsay that the performers in theatres, they too, neither say nor do\nanything without design\u2014for example, when the people assemble in the\ntheatre, and a man comes on the stage clad in a robe different from all\nothers, with lute in hand on which he plays, and thus chants the Great\nMysteries, not knowing what he says:\n\n\u2018Whether blest Child of Kronos, or of Zeus, or of Great Rhea,\nHail Attis, thou mournful song of Rhea!\nAssyrians call thee thrice-longed-for Adonis;v All Egypt calls thee\nOsiris;\nThe Wisdom of Hellas names thee Men\u2019s Heavenly Horn;\nThe Samothracians call thee august Adama;v The Haemonians, Korybas;\nThe Phrygians name thee Papa sometimes;\nAt times again Dead, or God, or Unfruitful, or Aipolos;\nOr Green Reaped Wheat-ear;\nOr the Fruitful that Amygdalas brought forth,\nMan, Piper\u2014Attis!\u2019\n\n\nThis is the Attis of many forms, of whom they sing as follows:\n\n\u2018Of Attis will I sing, of Rhea\u2019s Beloved,\nNot with the booming of bells,\nNor with the deep-toned pipe of Idaean Kuretes;\nBut I will blend my song with Phoebus\u2019 music of the lyre;\nEvoi, Evan,\u2014for thou art Pan, thou Bacchus art, and Shepherd of bright\nstars!\u2019\u201d[11]\n\n\nOn this Hippolytus comments: \u201cFor these and suchlike reasons these\nNaassenes frequent what are called the Mysteries of the Great Mother,\nbelieving that they obtain the clearest view of the universal Mystery\nfrom the things done in them.\u201d\n\nAnd after all this evidence of elaborate syncretism, this practical\nidentification of all the Mystery-gods with the Vegetation deity\nAdonis-Attis, we are confronted in the concluding paragraph, after\nstating that \u201cthe True Gate is Jesus the Blessed,\u201d with this astounding\nclaim, from the pen of the latest redactor, \u201cAnd of all men we alone\nare Christians, accomplishing the Mystery at the Third Gate.\u201d[12]\n\nNow what conclusions are to be drawn from this document which, in its\nentirety, Mr Mead regards as \u201cthe most important source we have for the\nhigher side (regeneration) of the Hellenistic Mysteries\u201d?\n\nFirst of all, does it not provide a complete and overwhelming\njustification of those scholars who have insisted upon the importance\nof these Vegetation cults\u2014a justification of which, from the very\nnature of their studies, they could not have been aware?\n\nSir James Frazer, and those who followed him, have dealt with the\npublic side of the cult, with its importance as a recognized vehicle\nfor obtaining material advantages; it was the social, rather than the\nindividual, aspect which appealed to them. Now we find that in the\nimmediate _pre_- and _post_-Christian era these cults were considered\nnot only most potent factors for assuring the material prosperity of\nland and folk, but were also held to be the most appropriate vehicle\nfor imparting the highest religious teaching. The Vegetation deities,\nAdonis-Attis, and more especially the Phrygian god, were the chosen\nguides to the knowledge of, and union with, the supreme Spiritual\nSource of Life, of which they were the communicating medium.\n\nWe must remember that though the document before us is, in its actual\nform, the expression of faith of a discredited \u2018Christian-Gnostic\u2019\nsect, the essential groundwork upon which it is elaborated belongs to a\nperiod anterior to Christianity, and that the Ode in honour of Attis\nquoted above not only forms part of the original source, but is, in the\nopinion of competent critics, earlier than the source itself.\n\nI would also recall to the memory of the reader the passage previously\nquoted from Cumont, in which he refers to the use made by the\nNeo-Platonist philosophers of the Attis legend, as the mould into which\nthey poured their special theories of the universe, and of\ngeneration.[13] Can the importance of a cult capable of such\nfar-reaching developments be easily exaggerated? Secondly, and of more\nimmediate importance for our investigation, is it not evident that we\nhave here all the elements necessary for a mystical development of the\nGrail tradition? The Exoteric side of the cult gives us the Human, the\nFolk-lore, elements\u2014the Suffering King; the Waste Land; the effect upon\nthe Folk; the task that lies before the hero; the group of Grail\nsymbols. The Esoteric side provides us with the Mystic Meal, the Food\nof Life, connected in some mysterious way with a Vessel which is the\ncentre of the cult; the combination of that vessel with a Weapon, a\ncombination bearing a well-known \u2018generative\u2019 significance; a double\ninitiation into the source of the lower and higher spheres of Life; the\nultimate proof of the successful issue of the final test in the\nrestoration of the King. I would ask any honest-minded critic whether\nany of the numerous theories previously advanced has shown itself\ncapable of furnishing so comprehensive a solution of the _ensemble_\nproblem?\n\nAt the same time it should be pointed out that the acceptance of this\ntheory of the origin of the story in no way excludes the possibility of\nthe introduction of other elements during the period of romantic\nevolution. As I have previously insisted,[14] not all of those who\nhandled the theme knew the real character of the material with which\nthey were dealing, while even among those who did know there were some\nwho allowed themselves considerable latitude in their methods of\ncomposition; who did not scruple to introduce elements foreign to the\noriginal _Stoff_, but which would make an appeal to the public of the\nday. Thus while Bleheris who, I believe, really held a tradition of the\noriginal cult, contented himself with a practically simple recital of\nthe initiations, later redactors, under the influence of the Crusades,\nand the Longinus legend\u2014possibly also actuated by a desire to\nsubstitute a more edifying explanation than that originally\noffered\u2014added a directly Christian interpretation of the Lance. As it\nis concerning the Lance alone that Gawain asks, the first modification\nmust have been at this point; the bringing into line of the twin\nsymbol, the Vase, would come later.\n\nThe fellowship, it may even be, the rivalry, between the two great\nBenedictine houses of Fescamp and Glastonbury, led to the redaction, in\nthe interests of the latter, of a _Saint-Sang_ legend, parallel to that\nwhich was the genuine possession of the French house.[15] For we must\nemphasize the fact that the original Joseph-Glastonbury story is a\n_Saint-Sang_, and not a _Grail_ legend. A phial containing the Blood of\nOur Lord was said to have been buried in the tomb of Joseph\u2014surely a\ncurious fate for so precious a relic\u2014and the Abbey never laid claim to\nthe possession of the Vessel of the Last Supper.[16] Had it done so it\nwould certainly have become a noted centre of pilgrimage\u2014as Dr Brugger\nacutely remarks such relics are _besucht_, not _gesucht_.\n\nBut there is reason to believe that the kindred Abbey of Fescamp had\ndeveloped its genuine _Saint-Sang_ legend into a Grail romance, and\nthere is critical evidence to lead us to suppose that the text we know\nas _Perlesvaus_ was, in its original form, now it is to be feared\npractically impossible to reconstruct, connected with that Abbey. As we\nhave it, this alone, of all the Grail romances, connects the hero alike\nwith Nicodemus, and with Joseph of Arimathea, the respective\nprotagonists of the _Saint-Sang_ legends; while its assertion that the\noriginal Latin text was found in a holy house situated in marshes, the\nburial place of Arthur and Guenevere, unmistakably points to\nGlastonbury.\n\nIn any case, when Robert de Borron proposed to himself the task of\ncomposing a trilogy on the subject the Joseph legend was already in a\ndeveloped form, and a fresh element, the combination of the Grail\nlegend with the story of a highly popular Folk-tale hero, known in this\nconnection as Perceval (though he has had many names), was established.\n\nBorron was certainly aware of the real character of his material; he\nknew the Grail cult as Christianized Mystery, and, while following the\nromance development, handled the theme on distinctively religious\nlines, preserving the Mystery element in its three-fold development,\nand equating the Vessel of the Mystic Feast with the Christian\nEucharist. From what we now know of the material it seems certain that\nthe equation was already established, and that Borron was simply\nstating in terms of romance what was already known to him in terms of\nMystery. In face of the evidence above set forth there can no longer be\nany doubt that the Mystic Feast of the Nature cults really had, and\nthat at a very early date, been brought into touch with the Sacrament\nof the Eucharist.\n\nBut to Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes the story was romance, pure and simple. There\nwas still a certain element of awe connected with Grail, and Grail\nFeast, but of the real meaning and origin of the incidents he had, I am\nconvinced, no idea whatever. Probably many modifications were already\nin his source, but the result so far as his poem is concerned is that\nhe duplicated the character of the Fisher King; he separated both,\nFather and Son, from the Wasted Land, transferring the responsibility\nfor the woes of Land and Folk to the Quester, who, although his failure\nmight be responsible for their continuance, never had anything to do\nwith their origin. He bestowed the wound of the Grail King, deeply\nsignificant in its original conception and connection, upon Perceval\u2019s\nfather, a shadowy character, entirely apart from the Grail tradition.\nThere is no trace of the Initiation elements in his poem, no Perilous\nChapel, no welding of the Sword. We have here passed completely and\nentirely into the land of romance, the doors of the Temple are closed\nbehind us. It is the story of Perceval li Gallois, not the Ritual of\nthe Grail, which fills the stage, and with the story of Perceval there\ncomes upon the scene a crowd of Folk-tale themes, absolutely foreign to\nthe Grail itself.\n\nThus we have not only the central theme of the lad reared in woodland\nsolitude, making his entrance into a world of whose ordinary relations\nhe is absolutely and ludicrously ignorant, and the traditional\nillustrations of the results of that ignorance, such as the story of\nthe Lady of the Tent and the stolen ring; but we have also the sinister\nfigure of the Red Knight with his Witch Mother; the three drops of\nblood upon the snow, and the ensuing love trance; pure Folk-tale\nthemes, mingled with the more chivalric elements of the rescue of a\ndistressed maiden, and the vanquishing in single combat of doughty\nantagonists, Giant, or Saracen. One and all of them elements offering\nwidespread popular parallels, and inviting the unwary critic into paths\nwhich lead him far astray from the goal of his quest, the Grail Castle.\nI dispute in no way the possible presence of Celtic elements in this\ncomplex. The Lance may well have borrowed at one time features from\nearly Irish tradition, at another details obviously closely related to\nthe Longinus legend. It is even possible that, as Burdach insists,\nfeatures of the Byzantine Liturgy may have coloured the representation\nof the Grail procession, although, for my own part, I consider such a\ntheory highly improbable in view of the facts that (_a_) Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s\npoem otherwise shows no traces of Oriental influence; (_b_) the \u2018Spear\u2019\nin the Eastern rite is simply a small spear-shaped knife; (_c_) the\npresence of the lights is accounted for by the author of _Sone de\nNansai_ on the ground of a Nativity legend, the authenticity of which\nwas pointed out by the late M. Gaston Paris; (_d_) it is only in the\nlater prose form that we find any suggestion of a Grail Chapel, whereas\nwere the source of the story really to be found in the Mass, such a\nfeature would certainly have had its place in the earliest versions.\nBut in each and all these cases the solution proposed has no relation\nto other features of the story; it is consequently of value _in_, and\n_per se_, only, and cannot be regarded as valid evidence for the source\nof the legend as a whole. In the process of transmutation from Ritual\nto Romance, the kernel, the Grail legend proper, may be said to have\nformed for itself a shell composed of accretions of widely differing\n_provenance_. It is the legitimate task of criticism to analyse such\naccretions, and to resolve them into their original elements, but they\nare accretions, and should be treated as such, not confounded with the\noriginal and essential material. After upwards of thirty years spent in\ncareful study of the Grail legend and romances I am firmly and entirely\nconvinced that the root origin of the whole bewildering complex is to\nbe found in the Vegetation Ritual, treated from the esoteric point of\nview as a Life-Cult, _and in that alone_. Christian Legend, and\ntraditional Folk-tale, have undoubtedly contributed to the perfected\nromantic _corpus_, but they are in truth subsidiary and secondary\nfeatures; a criticism that would treat them as original and primary can\nbut defeat its own object; magnified out of proportion they become\nstumbling-blocks upon the path, instead of sign-posts towards the goal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\nMithra and Attis\n\n\nThe fact that there was, at a very early date, among a certain sect of\nChristian Gnostics, a well-developed body of doctrine, based upon the\nessential harmony existing between the Old Faith and the New, which\nclaimed by means of a two-fold Initiation to impact to the inner circle\nof its adherents the secret of life, physical and spiritual, being, in\nface of the evidence given in the previous chapter, placed beyond any\npossible doubt, we must now ask, is there any evidence that such\nteaching survived for any length of time, or could have penetrated to\nthe British Isles, where, in view of the priority of the\n_Bleheris-Gawain_ form, the Grail legend, as we know it, seems to have\noriginated? I think there is at least presumptive evidence of such\npreservation, and transmission. I have already alluded to the close\nconnection existing between the Attis cult, and the worship of the\npopular Persian deity, Mithra, and have given quotations from Cumont\nillustrating this connection; it will be worth while to study the\nquestion somewhat more closely, and discover, if possible, the reason\nfor this intimate alliance.\n\nOn the face of it there seems to be absolutely no reason for the\nconnection of these cults; the two deities in no way resemble each\nother; the stories connected with them have no possible analogy; the\nroot conception is widely divergent.\n\nWith the character of the deity we know as Adonis, or Attis, we are now\nthoroughly familiar. In the first instance it seems to be the human\nelement in the myth which is most insisted upon. He is a mortal youth\nbeloved by a great goddess; only after his tragic death does he appear\nto assume divine attributes, and, alike in death and resurrection,\nbecome the accepted personification of natural energies.\n\nBaudissin, _Adonis und Esmun_, remarks that Adonis belongs to \u201ceiner\nKlasse von Wesen sehr unbestimmter Art der wohl \u00fcber den Menschen aber\nunter den grossen G\u00f6ttern stehen, und weniger Individualit\u00e4t besitzen\nals diese.\u201d[1] Such a criticism applies of course equally to Attis.\n\nMithra, on the other hand, occupies an entirely different position.\nCumont, in his _Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, thus describes him; he is \u201cle\ng\u00e9nie de la lumi\u00e8re c\u00e9leste. Il n\u2019est ni le soleil, ni la lune, ni les\n\u00e9toiles, mais \u00e0 l\u2019aide de ces mille oreilles, et de ces deux milles\nyeux, il surveille le monde.\u201d[2]\n\nHis beneficent activities might seem to afford a meeting ground with\nthe Vegetation goods\u2014\u201cIl donne l\u2019accroissement, il donne l\u2019abondance,\nil donne les troupeaux, il donne la prog\u00e9niture et la vie.\u201d[3]\n\nThis summary may aptly be compared with the lament for Tammuz, quoted\nin Chapter 3.\n\nBut the worship of Mithra in the form in which it spread throughout the\nRoman Empire, Mithra as the god of the Imperial armies, the deity\nbeloved of the Roman legionary, was in no sense of this concrete and\nmaterial type.\n\nThis is how Cumont sums up the main features. Mithra is the Mediator,\nwho stands between \u201cle Dieu inaccessible, et inconnaissable, qui r\u00e8gne\ndans les sph\u00e8res \u00e9th\u00e9r\u00e9es, et le genre humain qui s\u2019agite ici-bas.\u201d\u2014\u201cIl\nest le Logos \u00e9man\u00e9 de Dieu, et participant \u00e0 sa toute puissance, qui\napr\u00e8s avoir form\u00e9 le monde comme d\u00e9miurge continue \u00e0 veiller sur lui.\u201d\nThe initiates must practice a strict chastity\u2014\u201cLa r\u00e9sistance \u00e0 la\nsensualit\u00e9 \u00e9tait un des aspects du combat contre le principe du mal\u2014le\ndualisme Mithraique servait de fondement \u00e0 une morale tr\u00e8s pure et tr\u00e8s\nefficace.\u201d[4]\n\nFinally, Mithraism taught the resurrection of the body\u2014Mithra will\ndescend upon earth, and will revive all men. All will issue from their\ngraves, resume their former appearance and recognize each other. All\nwill be united in one great assembly, and the good will be separated\nfrom the evil. Then in one supreme sacrifice Mithra will immolate the\ndivine bull, and mixing its fat with the consecrated wine will offer to\nthe righteous the cup of Eternal Life.[5]\n\nThe final parallel with the Messianic Feast described in Chapter 9 is\ntoo striking to be overlooked.\n\nThe celestial nature of the deity is also well brought out in the\ncurious text edited by Dieterich from the great Magic Papyrus of the\nBiblioth\u00e8que Nationale, and referred to in a previous chapter. This\ntext purports to be a formula of initiation, and we find the aspirant\nascending through the Seven Heavenly Spheres, to be finally met by\nMithra who brings him to the presence of God. So in the Mithraic\ntemples we find seven ladders, the ascent of which by the Initiate\ntypified his passage to the seventh and supreme Heaven.[6]\n\nBousset points out that the original idea was that of three Heavens\nabove which was Paradise; the conception of Seven Heavens, ruled by the\nseven Planets, which we find in Mithraism, is due to the influence of\nBabylonian sidereal cults.[7]\n\nThere is thus a marked difference between the two initiations; the\nAttis initiate dies, is possibly buried, and revives with his god; the\nMithra initiate rises direct to the celestial sphere, where he is met\nand welcomed by his god. There is here no evidence of the death and\nresurrection of the deity.\n\nWhat then is the point of contact between the cults that brought them\ninto such close and intimate relationship?\n\nI think it must be sought in the higher teaching, which, under widely\ndiffering external mediums, included elements common to both. In both\ncults the final aim was the attainment of spiritual and eternal life.\nMoreover, both possessed essential features which admitted, if they did\nnot encourage, an assimilation with Christianity. Both of them, if\nforced to yield ground to their powerful rival, could, with a fair show\nof reason, claim that they had been not vanquished, but fulfilled, that\ntheir teaching had, in Christianity, attained its normal term.\n\nThe extracts given above will show the striking analogy between the\nhigher doctrine of Mithraism, and the fundamental teaching of its great\nrival, a resemblance that was fully admitted, and which became the\nsubject of heated polemic. Greek philosophers did not hesitate to\nestablish a parallel entirely favourable to Mithraism, while Christian\napologists insisted that such resemblances were the work of the Devil,\na line of argument which, as we have seen above, they had already\nadopted with regard to the older Mysteries. It is a matter of\nhistorical fact that at one moment the religious fate of the West hung\nin the balance, and it was an open question whether Mithraism or\nChristianity would be the dominant Creed.[8]\n\nOn the other hand we have also seen that certainly one early Christian\nsect, the Naassenes, while equally regarding the Logos as the centre of\ntheir belief, held the equivalent deity to be Attis, and frequented the\nPhrygian Mysteries as the most direct source of spiritual\nenlightenment, while the teaching as to the Death and Resurrection of\nthe god, and the celebration of a Mystic Feast, in which the\nworshippers partook of the Food and Drink of Eternal Life, offered\nparallels to Christian doctrine and practice to the full as striking as\nany to be found in the Persian faith.\n\nI would therefore submit that it was rather through the medium of their\ninner, Esoteric, teaching, that the two faiths, so different in their\nexternal practice, preserved so close and intimate a connection and\nthat, by the medium of that same Esoteric teaching, both alike came\ninto contact with Christianity, and, in the case of the Phrygian cult,\ncould, and actually did, claim identity with it.\n\nBaudissin in his work above referred to suggests that the Adonis cult\nowed its popularity to its higher, rather than to its lower, elements,\nto its suggestion of ever-renewing life, rather than to the\nsatisfaction of physical desire to be found in it.[9] Later evidence\nseems to prove that he judged correctly.\n\nWe may also note that the Attis Mysteries were utilized by the priests\nof Mithra for the initiation of women who were originally excluded from\nthe cult of the Persian god. Cumont remarks that this, an absolute rule\nin the Western communities, seems to have had exceptions in the\nEastern.[10] Is it possible that the passage quoted in the previous\nchapter, in which Perceval is informed that no woman may speak of the\nGrail, is due to contamination with the Mithra worship? It does not\nappear to be in harmony with the prominent position assigned to women\nin the Grail ritual, the introduction of a female Grail messenger, or\nthe fact that (with the exception of Merlin in the Borron text) it is\ninvariably a maiden who directs the hero on his road to the Grail\ncastle, or reproaches him for his failure there.\n\nBut there is little doubt that, separately, or in conjunction, both\ncults travelled to the furthest borders of the Roman Empire. The medium\nof transmission is very fully discussed by Cumont in both of the works\nreferred to. The channel appears to have been three-fold. First,\ncommercial, through the medium of Syrian merchants. As ardently\nreligious as practically business-like, the Syrians introduced their\nnative deities wherever they penetrated, \u201cfounding their chapels at the\nsame time as their counting-houses.\u201d[11]\n\nSecondly, there was social penetration\u2014by means of the Asiatic slaves,\nwho formed a part of most Roman households, and the State _employ\u00e9s_,\nsuch as officers of customs, army paymasters, etc., largely recruited\nfrom Oriental sources.\n\nThirdly, and most important, were the soldiers, the foreign legions,\nwho, drawn mostly from the Eastern parts of the Empire, brought their\nnative deities with them. Cumont signalizes as the most active agents\nof the dispersion of the cult of Mithra, Soldiers, Slaves, and\nMerchants.[12]\n\nAs far North as Hadrian\u2019s Dyke there has been found an inscription in\nverse in honour of the goddess of Hierapolis, the author a prefect,\nprobably, Cumont remarks, the officer of a cohort of Hamii, stationed\nin this distant spot. Dedications to Melkart and Astarte have been\nfound at Corbridge near Newcastle. The Mithraic remains are practically\nconfined to garrison centres, London, York, Chester, Caerleon-on-Usk,\nand along Hadrian\u2019s Dyke.[13] From the highly interesting map attached\nto the Study, giving the sites of ascertained Mithraic remains, there\nseems to have been such a centre in Pembrokeshire.\n\nNow in view of all this evidence is it not at least possible that the\nhigher form of the Attis cult, that in which it was known and practised\nby early Gnostic Christians, may have been known in Great Britain?\nScholars have been struck by the curiously unorthodox tone of the Grail\nromances, their apparent insistence on a succession quite other than\nthe accredited Apostolic tradition, and yet, according to the writers,\ndirectly received from Christ Himself. The late M. Paulin Paris\nbelieved that the source of this peculiar feature was to be found in\nthe struggle for independence of the early British Church; but, after\nall, the differences of that Church with Rome affected only minor\npoints of discipline: the date of Easter, the fashion of tonsure of the\nclergy, nothing which touched vital doctrines of the Faith. Certainly\nthe British Church never claimed the possession of a revelation _\u00e0\npart_. But if the theory based upon the evidence of the Naassene\ndocument be accepted such a presentation can be well accounted for.\nAccording to Hippolytus the doctrines of the sect were derived from\nJames, the brother of Our Lord, and Clement of Alexandria asserts that\n\u201cThe Lord imparted the Gnosis to James the Just, to John and to Peter,\nafter His Resurrection; these delivered it to the rest of the Apostles,\nand they to the Seventy.\u201d[14] Thus the theory proposed in these pages\nwill account not only for the undeniable parallels existing between the\nVegetation cults and the Grail romances, but also for the Heterodox\ncolouring of the latter, two elements which at first sight would appear\nto be wholly unconnected, and quite incapable of relation to a common\nsource.\n\nNor in view of the persistent vitality and survival, even to our own\nday, of the Exoteric practices can there be anything improbable in the\nhypothesis of a late survival of the Esoteric side of the ritual.\nCumont points out that the worship of Mithra was practised in the fifth\ncentury in certain remote cantons of the Alps and the Vosges\u2014_i.e._, at\nthe date historically assigned to King Arthur. Thus it would not be in\nany way surprising if a tradition of the survival of these\nsemi-Christian rites at this period also existed.[15] In my opinion it\nis the tradition of such a survival which lies at the root, and\nexplains the confused imagery, of the text we know as the\n_Elucidation_. I have already, in my short study of the subject, set\nforth my views; as I have since found further reasons for maintaining\nthe correctness of the solution proposed, I will repeat it here.[16]\n\nThe text in question is found in three of our existing Grail versions:\nin the MS. of Mons; in the printed edition of 1530; and in the German\ntranslation of Wisse-Colin. It is now prefixed to the poem of Chr\u00e9tien\nde Troyes, but obviously, from the content, had originally nothing to\ndo with that version.\n\nIt opens with the passage quoted above (p. 130) in which Master Blihis\nutters his solemn warning against revealing the secret of the Grail. It\ngoes on to tell how aforetime there were maidens dwelling in the\nhills[17] who brought forth to the passing traveller food and drink.\nBut King Amangons outraged one of these maidens, and took away from her\nher golden Cup:\n\n\u201cDes puceles une esforcha\nEt la coupe d\u2019or li toli\u2014[4].\u201d\n\n\nHis knights, when they saw their lord act thus, followed his evil\nexample, forced the fairest of the maidens, and robbed them of their\ncups of gold. As a result the springs dried up, the land became waste,\nand the court of the Rich Fisher, which had filled the land with\nplenty, could no longer be found.\n\nFor 1000 years the land lies waste, till, in the days of King Arthur,\nhis knights find maidens wandering in the woods, each with her\nattendant knight. They joust, and one, Blihos-Bliheris, vanquished by\nGawain, comes to court and tells how these maidens are the descendants\nof those ravished by King Amangons and his men, and how, could the\ncourt of the Fisher King, and the Grail, once more be found, the land\nwould again become fertile. Blihos-Bliheris is, we are told, so\nentrancing a story-teller that none at court could ever weary of\nlistening to his words.\n\nThe natural result, which here does not immediately concern us, was\nthat Arthur\u2019s knights undertook the quest, and Gawain achieved it. Now\nat first sight this account appears to be nothing but a fantastic\nfairy-tale (as such Professor Brown obviously regarded it), and\nalthough the late Dr Sebastian Evans attempted in all seriousness to\nfind a historical basis for the story in the events which provoked the\npronouncement of the Papal Interdict upon the realm of King John, and\nthe consequent deprivation of the Sacraments, I am not aware that\nanyone took the solution seriously. Yet, on the basis of the theory now\nset forth, is it not possible that there may be a real foundation of\nhistorical fact at the root of this wildly picturesque tale? May it not\nbe simply a poetical version of the disappearance from the land of\nBritain of the open performance of an ancient Nature ritual? A ritual\nthat lingered on in the hills and mountains of Wales as the Mithra\nworship did in the Alps and Vosges, celebrated as that cult habitually\nwas, in natural caverns, and mountain hollows? That it records the\noutrage offered by some, probably local, chieftain to a priestess of\nthe cult, an evil example followed by his men, and the subsequent\ncessation of the public celebration of the rites, a cessation which in\nthe folk-belief would certainly be held sufficient to account for any\nsubsequent drought that might affect the land? But the ritual, in its\nhigher, esoteric, form was still secretly observed, and the tradition,\nalike of its disappearance as a public cult, and of its persistence in\nsome carefully hidden strong-hold, was handed on in the families of\nthose who had been, perhaps still were, officiants of these rites.\n\nThat among the handers on of the torch would be the descendants of the\noutraged maidens, is most probable.\n\nThe sense of mystery, of a real danger to be faced, of an overwhelming\nSpiritual gain to be won, were of the essential nature of the tale. It\nwas the very mystery of Life which lay beneath the picturesque\nwrappings; small wonder that the Quest of the Grail became the synonym\nfor the highest achievement that could be set before men, and that when\nthe romantic evolution of the Arthurian tradition reached its term,\nthis supreme adventure was swept within the magic circle. The knowledge\nof the Grail was the utmost man could achieve, Arthur\u2019s knights were\nthe very flower of manhood, it was fitting that to them the supreme\ntest be offered. That the man who first told the story, and boldly, as\nbefitted a born teller of tales, wedded it the Arthurian legend, was\nhimself connected by descent with the ancient Faith, himself actually\nheld the Secret of the Grail, and told, in purposely romantic form,\nthat of which he knew, I am firmly convinced, nor do I think that the\ntime is far distant when the missing links will be in our hand, and we\nshall be able to weld once more the golden chain which connects Ancient\nRitual with Medieval Romance.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\nThe Perilous Chapel\n\n\nStudents of the Grail romances will remember that in many of the\nversions the hero\u2014sometimes it is a heroine\u2014meets with a strange and\nterrifying adventure in a mysterious Chapel, an adventure which, we are\ngiven to understand, is fraught with extreme peril to life. The details\nvary: sometimes there is a Dead Body laid on the altar; sometimes a\nBlack Hand extinguishes the tapers; there are strange and threatening\nvoices, and the general impression is that this is an adventure in\nwhich supernatural, and evil, forces are engaged.\n\nSuch an adventure befalls Gawain on his way to the Grail Castle.[1] He\nis overtaken by a terrible storm, and coming to a Chapel, standing at a\ncrossways in the middle of a forest, enters for shelter. The altar is\nbare, with no cloth, or covering, nothing is thereon but a great golden\ncandlestick with a tall taper burning within it. Behind the altar is a\nwindow, and as Gawain looks a Hand, black and hideous, comes through\nthe window, and extinguishes the taper, while a voice makes lamentation\nloud and dire, beneath which the very building rocks. Gawain\u2019s horse\nshies for terror, and the knight, making the sign of the Cross, rides\nout of the Chapel, to find the storm abated, and the great wind fallen.\nThereafter the night was calm and clear.\n\nIn the _Perceval_ section of Wauchier and Manessier we find the same\nadventure in a dislocated form.[2]\n\nPerceval, seeking the Grail Castle, rides all day through a heavy\nstorm, which passes off at night-fall, leaving the weather calm and\nclear. He rides by moonlight through the forest, till he sees before\nhim a great oak, on the branches of which are lighted candles, ten,\nfifteen, twenty, or twenty-five. The knight rides quickly towards it,\nbut as he comes near the lights vanish, and he only sees before him a\nfair little Chapel, with a candle shining through the open door. He\nenters, and finds on the altar the body of a dead knight, covered with\na rich samite, a candle burning at his feet.\n\nPerceval remains some time, but nothing happens. At midnight he\ndeparts; scarcely has he left the Chapel when, to his great surprise,\nthe light is extinguished.\n\nThe next day he reaches the castle of the Fisher King, who asks him\nwhere he passed the preceding night. Perceval tells him of the Chapel;\nthe King sighs deeply, but makes no comment.\n\nWauchier\u2019s section breaks off abruptly in the middle of this episode;\nwhen Manessier takes up the story he gives explanations of the Grail,\netc., at great length, explanations which do not at all agree with the\nindications of his predecessor. When Perceval asks of the Chapel he is\ntold it was built by Queen Brangemore of Cornwall, who was later\nmurdered by her son Espinogres, and buried beneath the altar. Many\nknights have since been slain there, none know by whom, save it be by\nthe Black Hand which appeared and put out the light. (As we saw above\nit had not appeared.) The enchantment can only be put an end to if a\nvaliant knight will fight the Black Hand, and, taking a veil kept in\nthe Chapel, will dip it in holy water, and sprinkle the walls, after\nwhich the enchantment will cease.\n\nAt a much later point Manessier tells how Perceval, riding through the\nforest, is overtaken by a terrible storm. He takes refuge in a Chapel\nwhich he recognizes as that of the Black Hand. The Hand appears,\nPerceval fights against and wounds it; then appears a Head; finally the\nDevil in full form who seizes Perceval as he is about to seek the veil\nof which he has been told. Perceval makes the sign of the Cross, on\nwhich the Devil vanishes, and the knight falls insensible before the\naltar. On reviving he takes the veil, dips it in holy water, and\nsprinkles the walls within and without. He sleeps there that night, and\nthe next morning, on waking, sees a belfry. He rings the bell, upon\nwhich an old man, followed by two others, appears. He tells Perceval he\nis a priest, and has buried 3000 knights slain by the Black Hand; every\nday a knight has been slain, and every day a marble tomb stands ready\nwith the name of the victim upon it. Queen Brangemore founded the\ncemetery, and was the first to be buried within it. (But according to\nthe version given earlier she was buried beneath the altar.) We have\nhere evidently a combination of two themes, Perilous Chapel and\nPerilous Cemetery, originally independent of each other. In other MSS.\nthe Wauchier adventure agrees much more closely with the Manessier\nsequel, the Hand appearing, and extinguishing the light. Sometimes the\nHand holds a bridle, a feature probably due to contamination with a\nCeltic Folk-tale, in which a mysterious Hand (here that of a giant)\nsteals on their birth-night a Child, and a foal.[3] These _Perceval_\nversions are manifestly confused and dislocated, and are probably drawn\nfrom more than one source.\n\nIn the _Queste_ Gawain and Hector de Maris come to an old and ruined\nChapel where they pass the night. Each has a marvellous dream. The next\nmorning, as they are telling each other their respective visions, they\nsee, \u201ca Hand, showing unto the elbow, and was covered with red samite,\nand upon that hung a bridle, not rich, and held within the fist a great\ncandle that burnt right clear, and so passed afore them, and entered\ninto the Chapel, and then vanished away, and they wist not where.\u201d[4]\nThis seems to be an unintelligent borrowing from the _Perceval_\nversion.\n\nWe have, also, a group of visits to the Perilous Chapel, or Perilous\nCemetery, which appear to be closely connected with each other. In each\ncase the object of the visit is to obtain a portion of the cloth which\ncovers the altar, or a dead body lying upon the altar. The romances in\nquestion are the _Perlesvaus_, the prose _Lancelot_, and the _Chevalier\n\u00e0 deux Esp\u00e9es_.[5] The respective protagonists being Perceval\u2019s sister,\nSir Lancelot, and the young Queen of Garadigan, whose city has been\ntaken by King Ris and who dares the venture to win her freedom.\n\nIn the first case the peril appears to lie in the Cemetery, which is\nsurrounded by the ghosts of knights slain in the forest, and buried in\nunconsecrated ground. The _Lancelot_ version is similar, but here the\ntitle is definitely _Perilous Chapel_. In the last version there is no\nhint of a Cemetery.\n\nIn the _Lancelot_ version there is a dead knight on the altar, whose\nsword Lancelot takes in addition to the piece of cloth. In the poem a\nknight is brought in, and buried before the altar; the young queen,\nafter cutting off a piece of the altar cloth, uncovers the body, and\nbuckles on the sword. There is no mention of a Hand in any of the three\nversions, which appear to be late and emasculated forms of the theme.\n\nThe earliest mention of a Perilous Cemetery, as distinct from a Chapel,\nappears to be in the Chastel Orguellous section of the _Perceval_, a\nsection probably derived from a very early stratum of Arthurian\nromantic tradition. Here Arthur and his knights, on their way to the\nsiege of Chastel Orguellous, come to the _Vergier des Sepoltures_,\nwhere they eat with the Hermits, of whom there are a hundred and more.\n\n\u201cne me l\u2019o\u00efst or pas chi dire\nLes merveilles del chimetire\ncar si sont diverses et grans\nqu\u2019il n\u2019est hom terriens vivans\nqui poist pas quidier ne croire\nque ce fust onques chose voire.\u201d[6]\n\n\nBut there is no hint of a Perilous Chapel here.\n\nThe adventures of Gawain in the _Atre Perilleus_,[7] and of Gawain and\nHector in the _Lancelot_ of the final cyclic prose version, are of the\nmost _banal_ description; the theme, originally vivid and picturesque,\nhas become watered down into a meaningless adventure of the most\nconventional type.\n\nBut originally a high importance seems to have been attached to it. If\nwe turn back to the first version given, that of which Gawain is the\nhero, we shall find that special stress is laid on this adventure, as\nbeing part of \u2018the Secret of the Grail,\u2019 of which no man may speak\nwithout grave danger.[8] We are told that, but for Gawain\u2019s loyalty and\ncourtesy, he would not have survived the perils of that night. In the\nsame way Perceval, before reaching the Fisher King\u2019s castle, meets a\nmaiden, of whom he asks the meaning of the lighted tree, Chapel, etc.\nShe tells him it is all part of the _saint secret_ of the Grail.[9] Now\nwhat does this mean? Unless I am much mistaken the key is to be found\nin a very curious story related in the _Perlesvaus_, which is twice\nreferred to in texts of a professedly historical character. The tale\nruns thus. King Arthur has fallen into slothful and _fain\u00e9ant_ ways,\nmuch to the grief of Guenevere, who sees her lord\u2019s fame and prestige\nwaning day by day. In this crisis she urges him to visit the Chapel of\nSaint Austin, a perilous adventure, but one that may well restore his\nreputation. Arthur agrees; he will take with him only one squire; the\nplace is too dangerous. He calls a youth named Chaus, the son of Yvain\nthe Bastard, and bids him be ready to ride with him at dawn. The lad,\nfearful of over-sleeping, does not undress, but lies down as he is in\nthe hall. He falls asleep\u2014and it seems to him that the King has wakened\nand gone without him. He rises in haste, mounts and rides after Arthur,\nfollowing, as he thinks, the track of his steed. Thus he comes to a\nforest glade, where he sees a Chapel, set in the midst of a grave-yard.\nHe enters, but the King is not there; there is no living thing, only\nthe body of a knight on a bier, with tapers burning in golden\ncandlesticks at head and foot. Chaus takes out one of the tapers, and\nthrusting the golden candlestick betwixt hose and thigh, remounts and\nrides back in search of the King. Before he has gone far he meets a\nman, black, and foul-favoured, armed with a large two-edged knife. He\nasks, has he met King Arthur? The man answers, No, but he has met him,\nChaus; he is a thief and a traitor; he has stolen the golden\ncandlestick; unless he gives it up he shall pay for it dearly. Chaus\nrefuses, and the man smites him in the side with the knife. With a loud\ncry the lad awakes, he is lying in the hall at Cardoil, wounded to\ndeath, the knife in his side and the golden candlestick still in his\nhose.\n\nHe lives long enough to tell the story, confess, and be shriven, and\nthen dies. Arthur, with the consent of his father, gives the\ncandlestick to the church of Saint Paul, then newly founded, \u201cfor he\nwould that this marvellous adventure should everywhere be known, and\nthat prayer should be made for the soul of the squire.\u201d[10]\n\nThe pious wish of the King seems to have been fulfilled, as the story\nwas certainly well known, and appears to have been accepted as a\ngenuine tradition. Thus the author of the _Histoire de Fulk Fitz-Warin_\ngives a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the adventure, and asserts that the Chapel of Saint\nAustin referred to was situated in Fulk\u2019s patrimony, _i.e._, in the\ntract known as the Blaunche Launde, situated in Shropshire, on the\nborder of North Wales. As source for the tale he refers to _Le Graal,\nle lyvre de le Seint Vassal_, and goes on to state that here King\nArthur recovered _sa bount\u00e9 et sa valur_ when he had lost his\nknighthood and fame. This obviously refers to the _Perlesvaus_ romance,\nthough whether in its present, or in an earlier form, it is impossible\nto say. In any case the author of the _Histoire_ evidently thought that\nthe Chapel in question really existed, and was to be located in\nShropshire.[11] But John of Glastonbury also refers to the story, and\nhe connects it with Glastonbury.[12]\n\nNow how can we account for so wild, and at first sight so improbable, a\ntale assuming what we may term a semi-historical character, and\nbecoming connected with a definite and precise locality?\u2014a feature\nwhich is, as a rule, absent from the Grail stories.\n\nAt the risk of startling my readers I must express my opinion that it\nwas because the incidents recorded were a reminiscence of something\nwhich had actually happened, and which, owing to the youth, and\npossible social position, of the victim, had made a profound impression\nupon the popular imagination.\n\n_For this is the story of an initiation_ (or perhaps it would be more\ncorrect to say the test of fitness for an initiation) _carried out on\nthe astral plane, and reacting with fatal results upon the physical._\n\nWe have already seen in the Naassene document that the Mystery ritual\ncomprised a double initiation, the Lower, into the mysteries of\ngeneration, _i.e._, of physical Life; the higher, into the Spiritual\nDivine Life, where man is made one with God.[13]\n\nSome years ago I offered the suggestion that the test for the primary\ninitiation, that into the sources of physical life, would probably\nconsist in a contact with the horrors of physical death, and that the\ntradition of the Perilous Chapel, which survives in the Grail romances\nin confused and contaminated form, was a reminiscence of the test for\nthis lower initiation.[14] This would fully account for the importance\nascribed to it in the _Bleheris-Gawain_ form, and for the asserted\nconnection with the Grail. It was not till I came to study the version\nof the _Perlesvaus_, with a view to determining its original\n_provenance_, that I recognized its extreme importance for critical\npurposes. The more one studies this wonderful legend the more one\ndiscovers significance in what seem at first to be entirely independent\nand unrelated details. If the reader will refer to my Notes on the\n_Perlesvaus_, above referred to, he will find that the result of an\ninvestigation into the evidence for _locale_ pointed to the conclusion\nthat the author of the _Histoire de Fulk Fitz-Warin_ and most probably\nalso the author of the _Perlesvaus_ before him, were mistaken in their\nidentification, that there was no tradition of any such Chapel in\nShropshire, and consequently no tale of its foundation, such as the\nauthor of the _Histoire_ relates. But I was also able to show that\nfurther north, in Northumberland, there was also a Blanchland,\nconnected with the memory of King Arthur, numerous dedications to Saint\nAustin, and a tradition of that Saint driving out the local demons\nclosely analogous to the tale told of the presumed Shropshire site. I\ntherefore suggested that inasmuch as the _Perlesvaus_ represented\nArthur as holding his court at Cardoil (Carlisle), the Northern\nBlanchland, which possessed a Chapel of Saint Austin, and lay within\neasy reach, was probably the original site rather than the Shropshire\nBlaunche Launde, which had no Chapel, and was much further away.\n\nNow in view of the evidence set forth in the last chapter, is it not\nclear that this was a locality in which these semi-Pagan,\nsemi-Christian, rites, might, _prima facie_, be expected to linger on?\nIt is up here, along the Northern border, that the Roman legionaries\nwere stationed; it is here that we find monuments and memorials of\ntheir heathen cults; obviously this was a locality where the\ndemon-hunting activities of the Saint might find full scope for action.\nI would submit that there is at least presumptive evidence that we may\nhere be dealing with the survival of a genuine tradition.\n\nAnd should any of my readers find it difficult to believe that, even\ndid initiations take place, and even were they of a character that\ninvolved a stern test of mental and physical endurance\u2014and I imagine\nmost scholars would admit that there was, possibly, more in the\noriginal institutions, than, let us say, in a modern admission to\nFree-Masonry\u2014yet it is \u2018a far cry\u2019 from pre-Christian initiations to\nMedieval Romance, and a connection between the two is a rash postulate,\nI would draw their attention to the fact that, quite apart from our\nGrail texts, we possess a romance which is, plainly, and blatantly,\nnothing more or less than such a record. I refer, of course, to _Owain\nMiles_, or _The Purgatory of Saint Patrick_, where we have an account\nof the hero, after purification by fasting and prayer, descending into\nthe Nether World, passing through the abodes of the Lost, finally\nreaching Paradise, and returning to earth after Three Days, a reformed\nand regenerated character.[15]\n\n\u201cThen with his monks the Prior anon,\nWith Crosses and with Gonfanon\nWent to that hole forthright,\nThro\u2019 which Knight Owain went below,\nThere, as of burning fire the glow,\nThey saw a gleam of light;\nAnd right amidst that beam of light\nHe came up, Owain, God\u2019s own knight,\nBy this knew every man\nThat he in Paradise had been,\nAnd Purgatory\u2019s pains had seen,\nAnd was a holy man.\u201d\n\n\nNow if we turn to Bousset\u2019s article _Himmelfahrt der Seele_, to which I\nhave previously referred (p. \u2014-), we shall find abundant evidence that\nsuch a journey to the Worlds beyond was held to be a high spiritual\nadventure of actual possibility\u2014a venture to be undertaken by those\nwho, greatly daring, felt that the attainment of actual knowledge of\nthe Future Life was worth all the risks, and they were great and\nterrible, which such an enterprise involved.\n\nBousset comments fully on Saint Paul\u2019s claim to have been \u2018caught up\ninto the Third Heaven\u2019 and points out that such an experience was the\nproperty of the Rabbinical school to which Saul of Tarsus had belonged,\nand was brought over by him from his Jewish past; such experiences were\nrare in Orthodox Christianity.[16] According to Jewish classical\ntradition but one Rabbi had successfully passed the test, other\naspirants either failing at a preliminary stage, or, if they\npersevered, losing their senses permanently. The practice of this\necstatic ascent ceased among Jews in the second century A.D.\n\nBousset also gives instances of the soul leaving the body for three\ndays, and wandering through other worlds, both good and evil, and also\ndiscusses the origin of the bridge which must be crossed to reach\nParadise, both features characteristic of the _Owain_ poem.[17] In fact\nthe whole study is of immense importance for a critical analysis of the\nsources of the romance in question.\n\nAnd here I would venture to beg the adherents of the \u2018Celtic\u2019 school to\nuse a little more judgment in their attribution of sources. Visits to\nthe Otherworld are not _always_ derivations from Celtic Fairy-lore.\nUnless I am mistaken the root of this theme is far more deeply imbedded\nthan in the shifting sands of Folk and Fairy tale. I believe it to be\nessentially a Mystery tradition; the Otherworld is not a myth, but a\nreality, and in all ages there have been souls who have been willing to\nbrave the great adventure, and to risk all for the chance of bringing\nback with them some assurance of the future life. Naturally these\nventures passed into tradition with the men who risked them. The early\nraces of men became semi-mythic, their beliefs, their experiences,\nreceded into a land of mist, where their figures assumed fantastic\noutlines, and the record of their deeds departed more and more widely\nfrom historic accuracy.\n\nThe poets and dreamers wove their magic webs, and a world apart from\nthe world of actual experience came to life. But it was not all myth,\nnor all fantasy; there was a basis of truth and reality at the\nfoundation of the mystic growth, and a true criticism will not rest\ncontent with wandering in these enchanted lands, and holding all it\nmeets with for the outcome of human imagination.\n\nThe truth may lie very deep down, but it is there, and it is worth\nseeking, and Celtic fairy-tales, charming as they are, can never afford\na satisfactory, or abiding, resting place. I, for one, utterly refuse\nto accept such as an adequate goal for a life\u2019s research. A path that\nleads but into a Celtic Twilight can only be a by-path, and not the\nKing\u2019s Highway!\n\nThe Grail romances repose eventually, not upon a poet\u2019s imagination,\nbut upon the ruins of an august and ancient ritual, a ritual which once\nclaimed to be the accredited guardian of the deepest secrets of Life.\nDriven from its high estate by the relentless force of religious\nevolution\u2014for after all Adonis, Attis, and their congeners, were but\nthe \u2018half-gods\u2019 who must needs yield place when \u2018the Gods\u2019 themselves\narrive\u2014it yet lingered on; openly, in Folk practice, in Fast and Feast,\nwhereby the well-being of the land might be assured; secretly, in cave\nor mountain-fastness, or island isolation, where those who craved for a\nmore sensible (not necessarily sensuous) contact with the unseen\nSpiritual forces of Life than the orthodox development of Christianity\nafforded, might, and did, find satisfaction.\n\nWere the Templars such? Had they, when in the East, come into touch\nwith a survival of the Naassene, or some kindred sect? It seems\nexceedingly probable. If it were so we could understand at once the\npuzzling connection of the Order with the Knights of the Grail, and the\ndoom which fell upon them. That they were held to be Heretics is very\ngenerally admitted, but in what their Heresy consisted no one really\nknows; little credence can be attached to the stories of idol worship\noften repeated. If their Heresy, however, were such as indicated above,\na Creed which struck at the very root and vitals of Christianity, we\ncan understand at once the reason for punishment, and the necessity for\nsecrecy. In the same way we can now understand why the Church knows\nnothing of the Grail; why that Vessel, surrounded as it is with an\natmosphere of reverence and awe, equated with the central Sacrament of\nthe Christian Faith, yet appears in no Legendary, is figured in no\npicture, comes on the scene in no Passion Play. The Church of the\neleventh and twelfth centuries knew well what the Grail was, and we,\nwhen we realize its genesis and true lineage, need no longer wonder why\na theme, for some short space so famous and so fruitful a source of\nliterary inspiration, vanished utterly and completely from the world of\nliterature.\n\nWere Grail romances forbidden? Or were they merely discouraged?\nProbably we shall never know, but of this one thing we may be sure, the\nGrail is a living force, it will never die; it may indeed sink out of\nsight, and, for centuries even, disappear from the field of literature,\nbut it will rise to the surface again, and become once more a theme of\nvital inspiration even as, after slumbering from the days of Malory, it\nwoke to new life in the nineteenth century, making its fresh appeal\nthrough the genius of Tennyson and Wagner.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\nThe Author\n\n\nHaving now completed our survey of the various elements which have\nentered into the composite fabric of the Grail Legend, the question\nnaturally arises where, and when, did that legend assume romantic form,\nand to whom should we ascribe its literary origin?\n\nOn these crucial points the evidence at our disposal is far from\ncomplete, and we can do little more than offer suggestions towards the\nsolution of the problem.\n\nWith regard to the first point, that of locality, the evidence is\nunmistakably in favour of a Celtic, specifically a Welsh, source. As a\nliterary theme the Grail is closely connected with the Arthurian\ntradition. The protagonist is one of Arthur\u2019s knights, and the hero of\nthe earlier version, Gawain, is more closely connected with Arthur than\nare his successors, Perceval and Galahad. The Celtic origin of both\nGawain and Perceval is beyond doubt; and the latter is not merely a\nCelt, but is definitely Welsh; he is always \u2018li Gallois.\u2019 Galahad I\nhold to be a literary, and not a traditional, hero; he is the product\nof deliberate literary invention, and has no existence outside the\nframe of the later cyclic redactions. It is not possible at the present\nmoment to say whether the _Queste_ was composed in the British Isles,\nor on the continent, but we may safely lay it down as a basic principle\nthat the original Grail heroes are of insular origin, and that the\nGrail legend, in its romantic, and literary, form is closely connected\nwith British pseudo-historical tradition.\n\nThe beliefs and practices of which, if the theory maintained in these\npages be correct, the Grail stories offer a more or less coherent\nsurvival can be shown, on the evidence of historic monuments, and\nsurviving Folk-customs, to have been popular throughout the area of the\nBritish Isles; while, with regard to the higher teaching of which I\nhold these practices to have been the vehicle, Pliny comments upon the\nsimilarity existing between the ancient Magian Gnosis and the Druidical\nGnosis of Gaul and Britain, an indication which, in the dearth of\naccurate information concerning the teaching of the Druids, is of\nconsiderable value.[1]\n\nAs we noted in the previous chapter, an interesting parallel exists\nbetween Wales, and localities, such as the Alps, and the Vosges, where\nwe have definite proof that these Mystery cults lingered on after they\nhad disappeared from public celebration. The Chart appended to Cumont\u2019s\n_Monuments de Mithra_ shows Mithraic remains in precisely the locality\nwhere we have reason to believe certain of the _Gawain_ and _Perceval_\nstories to have originated.\n\nAs to the date of origin, that, of course, is closely connected with\nthe problem of authorship; if we can, with any possibility, identify\nthe author we can approximately fix the date. So far as the literary\nevidence is concerned, we have no trace of the story before the twelfth\ncentury, but when we do meet with it, it is already in complete, and\ncrystallized, form. More, there is already evidence of competing\nversions; we have no existing Grail romance which we can claim to be\nfree from contamination, and representing in all respects the original\nform.\n\nThere is no need here to go over old, and well-trodden, ground; in my\nstudies of the _Perceval_ Legend, and in the later popular _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of\nthe evidence,[2] _The Quest of the Holy Grail_, I have analysed the\ntexts, and shown that, while the poem of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes is our\nearliest surviving literary version, there is the strongest possible\nevidence that Chr\u00e9tien, as he himself admits, was not inventing, but\nre-telling, an already popular tale.[3] The Grail Quest was a theme\nwhich had been treated not once nor twice, but of which numerous, and\nconflicting, versions were already current, and, when Wauchier de\nDenain undertook to complete Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s unfinished work, he drew\nlargely upon these already existing forms, regardless of the fact that\nthey not only contradicted the version they were ostensibly completing,\nbut were impossible to harmonize with each other.\n\nIt is of importance for our investigation, however, to note that where\nWauchier does refer to a definite source, it is to an evidently\nimportant and already famous collection of tales, _Le Grant Conte_,\ncomprising several \u2018Branches,\u2019 the hero of the collection being not\nChr\u00e9tien\u2019s hero, Perceval, but Gawain, who, both in pseudo-historic and\nromantic tradition, is far more closely connected with the Arthurian\nlegend, occupying, as he does, the traditional position of nephew,\nSister\u2019s Son, to the monarch who is the centre of the cycle; even as\nCuchullinn is sister\u2019s son to Conchobar, Diarmid to Finn, Tristan to\nMark, and Roland to Charlemagne. In fact this relationship was so\nobviously required by tradition that we find Perceval figuring now as\nsister\u2019s son to Arthur, now to the Grail King, according as the\nArthurian, or the Grail, tradition dominates the story.[4]\n\nThe actual existence of such a group of tales as those referred to by\nWauchier derives confirmation from our surviving _Gawain_ poems, as\nwell as from the references in the _Elucidation_, and on the evidence\nat our disposal I have ventured to suggest the hypothesis of a group of\npoems, dealing with the adventures of Gawain, his son, and brother, the\n_ensemble_ being originally known as _The Geste of Syr Gawayne_, a\ntitle which, in the inappropriate form _The Jest of Sir Gawain_, is\npreserved in the English version of that hero\u2019s adventure with the\nsister of Brandelis.[5] So keen a critic as Dr Brugger has not\nhesitated to accept the theory of the existence of this _Geste_, and is\nof opinion that the German poem _Di\u00fb Cr\u00f4ne_ may, in part at least, be\nderived from this source.\n\nThe central adventure ascribed to Gawain in this group of tales is\nprecisely the visit to the Grail Castle to which we have already\nreferred, and we have pointed out that the manner in which it is\nrelated, its directness, simplicity, and conformity with what we know\nof the Mystery teaching presumably involved, taken in connection with\nthe personality of the hero, and his position in Arthurian romantic\ntradition, appear to warrant us in assigning to it the position of\npriority among the conflicting versions we possess.\n\nAt two points in the re-telling of these _Gawain_ tales Wauchier\ndefinitely refers to the author by name, Bleheris. On the second\noccasion he states categorically that this Bleheris was of Welsh birth\nand origin, _n\u00e9 et engenu\u00efs en Galles_, and that he told the tale in\nconnection with which the statement is made to a certain Comte de\nPoitiers, whose favourite story it was, he loved it above all others,\nwhich would imply that it was not the only tale Bleheris had told\nhim.[6]\n\nAs we have seen in a previous chapter, the _Elucidation_ prefaces its\naccount of the Grail Quest by a solemn statement of the gravity of the\nsubject to be treated, and a warning of the penalties which would\nfollow on a careless revelation of the secret. These warnings are put\ninto the mouth of a certain Master Blihis, concerning whom we hear no\nmore. A little further on in the poem we meet with a knight,\nBlihos-Bliheris, who, made prisoner by Gawain, reveals to Arthur and\nhis court the identity of the maidens wandering in the woods, of the\nFisher King, and the Grail, and is so good a story-teller that none can\nweary of listening to his tales.[7]\n\nAgain, in the fragmentary remains of Thomas\u2019s _Tristan_ we have a\npassage in which the poet refers, as source, to a certain Br\u00e9ri, who\nknew \u201call the feats, and all the tales, of all the kings, and all the\ncounts who had lived in Britain.\u201d[8]\n\nFinally, Giraldus Cambrensis refers to _famosus ille fabulator_,\nBledhericus, who had lived \u201cshortly before our time\u201d and whose renown\nhe evidently takes for granted was familiar to his readers.\n\nNow are we to hold that the Bleheris who, according to Wauchier, had\ntold tales concerning Gawain, and Arthur\u2019s court, one of whic tales was\ncertainly the Grail adventure; the Master Blihis, who knew the Grail\nmystery, and gave solemn warning against its revelation; the\nBlihos-Bliheris, who knew the Grail, and many other tales; the Br\u00e9ri,\nwho knew all the legendary tales concerning the princes of Britain; and\nthe famous story-teller Bledhericus, of whom Giraldus speaks, are\ndistinct and separate personages, or mere inventions of the separate\nwriters, or do all these passages refer to one and the same individual,\nwho, in that case, may well have deserved the title _famosus ille\nfabulator?_\n\nWith regard to the attitude taken up by certain critics, that no\nevidential value can be attached to these references, I would point out\nthat when Medieval writers quote an authority for their statements\nthey, as a rule, refer to a writer whose name carries weight, and will\nimpress their readers; they are offering a guarantee for the\nauthenticity of their statements. The special attribution may be purely\nfictitious but the individual referred to enjoys an established\nreputation. Thus, the later cyclic redactions of the Arthurian romances\nare largely attributed to Walter Map, who, in view of his public\nposition, and political activities, could certainly never have had the\nleisure to compose one half of the literature with which he is\ncredited! In the same way Robert de Borron, Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes, Wolfram\nvon Eschenbach, are all referred to as sources without any\njustification in fact. Nor is it probable that Wauchier, who wrote on\nthe continent, and who, if he be really Wauchier de Denain, was under\nthe patronage of the Count of Flanders, would have gone out of his way\nto invent a Welsh source.\n\nJudging from analogy, the actual existence of a personage named\nBleheris, who enjoyed a remarkable reputation as a story-teller, is,\n_prima facie_, extremely probable.[9]\n\nBut are these references independent, was there more than one Bleheris?\nI think not. The name is a proper, and not a family, name. In the\nlatter case it might be possible to argue that we were dealing with\nseparate members of a family, or group, of bardic poets, whose office\nit was to preserve, and relate, the national legends. But we are\ndealing with variants of a proper name, and that of distinctly insular,\nand Welsh origin.[10]\n\nThe original form, Bledri, was by no means uncommon in Wales: from that\npoint of view there might well have been four or five, or even more, of\nthat name, but that each and all of these should have possessed the\nsame qualifications, should have been equally well versed in popular\ntraditions, equally dowered with the gift of story-telling, on equally\nfriendly terms with the Norman invaders, and equally possessed of such\na knowledge of the French language as should permit them to tell their\nstories in that tongue, is, I submit, highly improbable. This latter\npoint, _i.e._, the knowledge of French, seems to me to be of crucial\nimportance. Given the relations between conqueror and conquered, and\nthe _intransigeant_ character of Welsh patriotism, the men who were on\nsufficiently friendly terms with the invaders to be willing to relate\nthe national legends, with an assurance of finding a sympathetic\nhearing, must have been few and far between. I do not think the\nimportance of this point has been sufficiently grasped by critics.\n\nThe problem then is to find a Welshman who, living at the end of the\neleventh and commencement of the twelfth centuries, was well versed in\nthe legendary lore of Britain; was of sufficiently good social status\nto be well received at court; possessed a good knowledge of the French\ntongue; and can be shown to have been on friendly terms with the Norman\nnobles.\n\nMr Edward Owen, of the Cymmrodorion Society, has suggested that a\ncertain Welsh noble, Bledri ap Cadivor, fulfils, in a large measure,\nthe conditions required. Some years ago I published in the _Revue\nCeltique_ a letter in which Mr Owen summarized the evidence at his\ndisposal. As the review in question may not be easily accessible to\nsome of my readers I will recapitulate the principal points.[11]\n\nThe father of Bledri, Cadivor, was a great personage in West Wales, and\nis looked upon as the ancestor of the most important families in the\nancient Dyfed, a division now represented by Pembrokeshire, and the\nWestern portion of Carmarthen. (We may note here that the traditional\ntomb of Gawain is at Ross in Pembrokeshire, and that there is reason to\nbelieve that the _Perceval_ story, in its earliest form, was connected\nwith that locality.)\n\nCadivor had three sons, of whom Bledri was the eldest; thus, at his\nfather\u2019s death, he would be head of this ancient and distinguished\nfamily. At the division of the paternal estates Bledri inherited, as\nhis share, lands ranging along the right bank of the lower Towey, and\nthe coast of South Pembrokeshire, extending as far as Manorbeer, the\nbirthplace of Giraldus Cambrensis. (This is again a geographical\nindication which should be borne in mind.) Cadivor himself appears to\nhave been on friendly terms with the Normans; he is said to have\nentertained William the Conqueror on his visit to St David\u2019s in 1080,\nwhile every reference we have to Bledri shows him in close connection\nwith the invaders.\n\nThus, in 1113 the _Brut-y-Tywysogion_ mentions his name as ally of the\nNorman knights in their struggle to maintain their ground in, and\naround, Carmarthen. In 1125 we find his name as donor of lands to the\nAugustinian Church of St John the Evangelist, and St Theuloc of\nCarmarthen, newly founded by Henry I. Here his name appears with the\nsignificant title _Latinarius_ (The Interpreter), a qualification\nrepeated in subsequent charters of the same collection. In one of these\nwe find Griffith, the son of Bledri, confirming his father\u2019s gift.\nProfessor Lloyd, in an article in _Archaeologia Cambrensis_, July 1907,\nhas examined these charters, and considers the grant to have been made\nbetween 1129 and 1134, the charter itself being of the reign of Henry\nI, 1101-1135.[12]\n\nIn the Pipe Roll of Henry I, 1131, Bledri\u2019s name is entered as debtor\nfor a fine incurred by the killing of a Fleming by his men; while a\nhighly significant entry records the fine of 7 marks imposed upon a\ncertain Bleddyn of Mabedrud and his brothers for outraging Bledri\u2019s\ndaughter. When we take into consideration the rank of Bledri, this\ninsult to his family by a fellow Welshman would seem to indicate that\nhis relations with his compatriots were not of a specially friendly\ncharacter.\n\nMr Owen also points out that portion of the _Brut-y-Tywysogion_ which\ncovers the years 1101-20 (especially the events of the year 1113, where\nwe find Bledri, and other friendly Welsh nobles, holding the castle of\nCarmarthen for the Normans against the Welsh), is related at an\naltogether disproportionate length, and displays a strong bias in\nfavour of the invaders. The year just referred to, for instance,\noccupies more than twice the space assigned to any other year. Mr Owen\nsuggests that here Bledri himself may well have been the chronicler; a\nhypothesis which, if he really be the author we are seeking, is quite\nadmissible.\n\nSo far as indications of date are concerned, Bledri probably lived\nbetween the years 1070-1150. His father Cadivor died in 1089, and his\nlands were divided between his sons of whom Bledri, as we have seen,\nwas the eldest. Thus they cannot have been children at that date;\nBledri, at least, would have been born before 1080. From the evidence\nof the Pipe Roll we know that he was living in 1131. The charter signed\nby his son, confirmatory of his grant, must have been subsequent to\n1148, as it was executed during the Episcopate of David, Bishop of St\nDavid\u2019s 1148-1176. Thus the period of 80 years suggested above\n(1070-1150) may be taken as covering the extreme limit to be assigned\nto his life, and activity.\n\nThe passage in which Giraldus Cambrensis refers to _Bledhericus,\nfamosus ille fabulator who tempora nostra paulo praevenit_, was written\nabout 1194; thus it might well refer to a man who had died some 40 or\n50 years previously. As we have noted above, Giraldus was born upon\nground forming a part of Bledri\u2019s ancestral heritage, and thus might\nwell be familiar with his fame.\n\nThe evidence is of course incomplete, but it does provide us with a\npersonality fulfilling the main conditions of a complex problem. Thus,\nwe have a man of the required name, and nationality; living at an\nappropriate date; of the requisite social position; on excellent terms\nwith the French nobles, and so well acquainted with their language as\nto sign himself officially \u2018The Interpreter.\u2019 We have no direct\nevidence of his literary skill, or knowledge of the traditional history\nof his country, but a man of his birth could scarcely have failed to\npossess the latter, while certain peculiarities in that section of the\nnational Chronicle which deals with the aid given by him to the Norman\ninvaders would seem to indicate that Bledri himself may well have been\nresponsible for the record. Again, we know him to have been closely\nconnected with the locality from which came the writer who refers to\nthe famous story-teller of the same name. I would submit that we have\nhere quite sufficient evidence to warrant us in accepting Bledri ap\nCadivor as, at least, the possible author of the romantic Grail\ntradition. In any case, so far, there is no other candidate in the\nfield.[13]\n\nShortly after the publication of the second volume of my _Perceval_\nstudies, I received a letter from Professor Singer, in which, after\nexpressing his general acceptance of the theories there advanced, in\nespecial of the suggested date and relation of the different versions,\nwhich he characterized as \u201c_sehr gelungen, und zu meiner Alffassung der\nEntwickelung der Altfranz\u00f6sischen Literatur sehr zu stimmen_,\u201d he\nproceeded to comment upon the probable character of the literary\nactivity of Bleheris. His remarks are so interesting and suggestive\nthat I venture to submit them for the consideration of my readers.\n\nProfessor Singer points out that in Eilhart von Oberge\u2019s _Tristan_ we\nfind the name in the form of _Pleherin_ attached to a knight of\n_Mark\u2019s_ court. The same name in a slightly varied form, _Pfelerin_,\noccurs in the _Tristan_ of Heinrich von Freiberg; both poems, Professor\nSinger considers, are derived from a French original. Under a compound\nform, _Blihos_, (or _Blio_)-_Bliheris_, he appears, in the\n_Gawain-Grail_ compilation, as a knight at _Arthur\u2019s_ court. Now\n_Br\u00e9ri-Blihis-Bleheris_ is referred to as authority alike in the\n_Tristan_, _Grail_ and _Gawain_ tradition, and Professor Singer makes\nthe interesting suggestion that these references are originally due to\nBleheris himself, who not only told the stories in the third person (a\ncommon device at that period, _v_. Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s _Erec_, and Gerbert\u2019s\ncontinuation of the _Perceval_), but also introduced himself as\neye-witness of, and actor, in a subordinate _r\u00f4le_, in, the incidents\nhe recorded. Thus in the Tristan he is a knight of Mark\u2019s, in the\n_Elucidation_ and the _Gawain_ stories a knight of Arthur\u2019s, court.\nProfessor Singer instances the case of Dares in the _De exidio Trojae_,\nand Bishop Pilgrim of Passau in the lost _Nibelungias_ of his secretary\nKonrad, as illustrations of the theory.\n\nIf this be the case such a statement as that which we find in Wauchier,\nregarding Bleheris\u2019s birth and origin, would have emanated from\nBleheris himself, and simply been taken over by the later writer from\nhis source; he incorporated the whole tale of the shield as it stood, a\nquite natural and normal proceeding.[14] Again, this suggestion would\ndo away with the necessity for postulating a certain lapse of time\nbefore the story-teller Bleheris could be converted into an Arthurian\nknight\u2014the two _r\u00f4les_, _Gew\u00e4hrsmann und Mithandelnden_, as Professor\nSinger expresses it, are coincident in date. I would also suggest that\nthe double form, _Blihos-Bliheris_, would have been adopted by the\nauthor himself, to indicate the identity of the two, Blihis, and\nBleheris. It is worthy of note that, when dealing directly with the\nGrail, he assumes the title of _Master_, which would seem to indicate\nthat here he claimed to speak with special authority.\n\nI sent the letter in question to the late Mr Alfred Nutt, who was\nforcibly struck with the possibilities involved in the suggestion, the\nfull application of which he thought the writer had not grasped. I\nquote the following passages from the long letter I received from him\nin return.\n\n\u201cBriefly put we presuppose the existence of a set of semi-dramatic,\nsemi-narrative, poems, in which a Bledri figures as an active, and at\nthe same time a recording, personage. Now that such a body of\nliterature _may_ have existed we are entitled to assume from the fact\nthat two such have survived, one from Wales, in the Llywarch Hen cycle,\nthe other from Ireland, in the Finn Saga. In both cases, the fact that\nthe descriptive poems are put in the mouth, in Wales of Llywarch, in\nIreland largely of Oisin, led to the ascription at an early date of the\nwhole literature to Llywarch and Oisin. It is therefore conceivable\nthat a Welsh \u2018litt\u00e9rateur,\u2019 familiar as he must have been with the\nLlywarch, and as he quite possibly was with the Oisin, instance, should\ncast his version of the Arthurian stories in a similar form, and that\nthe facts noted by you and Singer may be thus explained.\u201d\n\nNow that both Professor Singer (who has an exceptionally wide knowledge\nof Medieval literature), and the late Mr Alfred Nutt, knew what they\nwere talking about, does not need to be emphasized, and the fact that\ntwo such competent authorities should agree upon a possible solution of\na puzzling literary problem, makes that solution worthy of careful\nconsideration; it would certainly have the merit of simplifying the\nquestion and deserves to be placed upon record.\n\nBut while it would of course be far more satisfactory could one\ndefinitely place, and label, the man to whom we owe the original\nconception which gave birth and impetus to this immortal body of\nliterature, yet the precise identity of the author of the earliest\nGrail romance is of the accident, rather than the essence, of our\nproblem. Whether Bleheris the Welshman be, or be not, identical with\nBledri ap Cadivor, Interpreter, and friend of the Norman nobles, the\ngeneral hypothesis remains unaffected and may be thus summarized\u2014\n\nThe Grail story is not _du fond en comble_ the product of imagination,\nliterary or popular. At its root lies the record, more or less\ndistorted, of an ancient Ritual, having for its ultimate object the\ninitiation into the secret of the sources of Life, physical and\nspiritual. This ritual, in its lower, exoteric, form, as affecting the\nprocesses of Nature, and physical life, survives to-day, and can be\ntraced all over the world, in Folk ceremonies, which, however widely\nseparated the countries in which they are found, show a surprising\nidentity of detail and intention. In its esoteric \u2018Mystery\u2019 form it was\nfreely utilized for the imparting of high spiritual teaching concerning\nthe relation of Man to the Divine Source of his being, and the\npossibility of a sensible union between Man, and God. The recognition\nof the cosmic activities of the Logos appears to have been a\ncharacteristic feature of this teaching, and when Christianity came\nupon the scene it did not hesitate to utilize the already existing\nmedium of instruction, but boldly identified the Deity of Vegetation,\nregarded as Life Principle, with the God of the Christian Faith. Thus,\nto certain of the early Christians, Attis was but an earlier\nmanifestation of the Logos, Whom they held identical with Christ. The\nevidence of the Naassene document places this beyond any shadow of\ndoubt, and is of inestimable value as establishing a link between\npre-Christian, and Christian, Mystery tradition.\n\nThis curious synthetic belief, united as it was with the highly popular\ncult of Mithra, travelled with the foreign legionaries, adherents of\nthat cult, to the furthest bounds of the Roman Empire, and when the\nstruggle between Mithraism and Christianity ended in the definite\ntriumph of the latter, by virtue of that dual synthetic nature, the\nhigher ritual still survived, and was celebrated in sites removed from\nthe centres of population\u2014in caves, and mountain fastnesses; in\nislands, and on desolate sea-coasts.\n\nThe earliest version of the Grail story, represented by our Bleheris\nform, relates the visit of a wandering knight to one of these hidden\ntemples; his successful passing of the test into the lower grade of\nLife initiation, his failure to attain to the highest degree. It\nmatters little whether it were the record of an actual, or of a\npossible, experience; the casting into romantic form of an event which\nthe story-teller knew to have happened, had, perchance, actually\nwitnessed; or the objective recital of what he knew _might_ have\noccurred; the essential fact is that the _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ of the story,\nthe nomenclature, the march of incident, the character of the tests,\ncorrespond to what we know from independent sources of the details of\nthis Nature Ritual. The Grail Quest was actually possible then, it is\nactually possible to-day, for the indication of two of our romances as\nto the final location of the Grail is not imagination, but the record\nof actual fact.\n\nAs first told the story preserved its primal character of a composite\nbetween Christianity and the Nature Ritual, as witnessed by the\nceremony over the bier of the Dead Knight, the procession with Cross\nand incense, and the solemn Vespers for the Dead. This, I suspect,\ncorrectly represents the final stage of the process by which\nAttis-Adonis was identified with Christ. Thus, in its first form the\nstory was the product of conscious intention.\n\nBut when the tale was once fairly launched as a romantic tale, and came\ninto the hands of those unfamiliar with its Ritual origin (though the\nfact that it had such an origin was probably well understood), the\ninfluence of the period came into play. The Crusades, and the\nconsequent traffic in relics, especially in relics of the Passion,\ncaused the identification of the sex Symbols, Lance and Cup, with the\nWeapon of the Crucifixion, and the Cup of the Last Supper; but the\nChristianization was merely external, the tale, as a whole, retaining\nits pre-Christian character.\n\nThe conversion into a definitely Christian romance seems to have been\ndue to two causes. First, the rivalry between the two great monastic\nhouses of Glastonbury and Fescamp, the latter of which was already in\npossession of a genuine _Saint-Sang_ relic, and fully developed\ntradition. There is reason to suppose that the initial combination of\nthe Grail and _Saint-Sang_ traditions took place at Fescamp, and was\nthe work of some member of the minstrel Guild attached to that Abbey.\nBut the Grail tradition was originally British; Glastonbury was from\ntime immemorial a British sanctuary; it was the reputed burial place of\nArthur, of whose court the Grail Quest was the crowning adventure; the\nstory must be identified with British soil. Consequently a version was\ncomposed, now represented by our _Perlesvaus_ text, in which the union\nof Nicodemus of Fescamp, and Joseph of Glastonbury, fame, as ancestors\nof the Grail hero, offers a significant hint of the _provenance_ of the\nversion.\n\nSecondly, a no less important element in the process was due to the\nconscious action of Robert de Borron, who well understood the character\nof his material, and radically remodelled the whole on the basis of the\ntriple Mystery tradition translated into terms of high Christian\nMysticism. A notable feature of Borron\u2019s version is his utilization of\nthe tradition of the final Messianic Feast, in combination with his\nEucharistic symbolism, a combination thoroughly familiar to early\nChristian Mystics.\n\nOnce started on a definitely romantic career, the Grail story rapidly\nbecame a complex of originally divergent themes, the most important\nstage in its development being the incorporation of the popular tale of\nthe Widow\u2019s Son, brought up in the wilderness, and launched into the\nworld in a condition of absolute ignorance of men, and manners. The\n_Perceval_ story is a charming story, but it has originally nothing\nwhatever to do with the Grail. The original tale, now best represented\nby our English _Syr Percyvelle of Galles_, has no trace of Mystery\nelement; it is Folk-lore, pure and simple. I believe the connection\nwith the Grail legend to be purely fortuitous, and due to the fact that\nthe hero of the Folk-tale was known as \u2018The Widow\u2019s Son,\u2019 which he\nactually was, while this title represented in Mystery terminology a\ncertain grade of Initiation, and as such is preserved to-day in Masonic\nritual.[15]\n\nFinally the rising tide of dogmatic Medievalism, with its crassly\nmaterialistic view of the Eucharist; its insistence on the saving grace\nof asceticism and celibacy; and its scarcely veiled contempt for women,\noverwhelmed the original conception. Certain of the features of the\nancient ritual indeed survive, but they are factors of confusion,\nrather than clues to enlightenment. Thus, while the Grail still retains\nits character of a Feeding Vessel, comes and goes without visible\nagency, and supplies each knight with \u2018such food and drink as he best\nloved in the world,\u2019 it is none the less the Chalice of the Sacred\nBlood, and critics are sorely put to it to harmonize these conflicting\naspects. In the same way Galahad\u2019s grandfather still bears the title of\nthe Rich Fisher, and there are confused references to a Land laid Waste\nas the result of a Dolorous Stroke.\n\nBut while the terminology lingers on to our perplexity the characters\ninvolved lie outside the march of the story; practically no trace of\nthe old Nature Ritual survives in the final _Queste_ form. The\nremodelling is so radical that it seems most reasonable to conclude\nthat it was purposeful, that the original author of the _Queste_ had a\nvery clear idea of the real nature of the Grail, and was bent upon a\ncomplete restatement in terms of current orthodoxy. I advisedly use\nthis term, as I see no trace in the _Queste_ of a genuine Mystic\nconception, such as that of Borron. So far as criticism of the\nliterature is concerned I adhere to my previously expressed opinion\nthat the _Queste_ should be treated rather as a _Lancelot_ than as a\n_Grail_ romance. It is of real importance in the evolution of the\nArthurian romantic cycle; as a factor in determining the true character\nand origins of the Grail legend it is worse than useless; what remains\nof the original features is so fragmentary, and so distorted, that any\nattempt to use the version as basis for argument, or comparison, can\nonly introduce a further element of confusion into an already more than\nsufficiently involved problem.\n\nI am also still of opinion that the table of descent given on p. 283 of\nVolume II. of my _Perceval_ studies, represents the most probable\nevolution of the literature; at the same time, in the light of further\nresearch, I should feel inclined to add the Grail section of _Sone de\nNansai_ as deriving from the same source which gave us Kiot\u2019s poem, and\nthe _Perlesvaus_.[16] As evidence for a French original combining\nimportant features of these two versions, and at the same time\nretaining unmistakably archaic elements which have disappeared from\nboth, I hold this section of the poem to be of extreme value for the\ncriticism of the cycle.\n\nWhile there are still missing links in the chain of descent, versions\nto be reconstructed, writers to be identified, I believe that in its\n_ensemble_ the theory set forth in these pages will be found to be the\nonly one which will satisfactorily meet all the conditions of the\nproblem; which will cover the whole ground of investigation, omitting\nno element, evading no difficulty; which will harmonize apparently\nhopeless contradictions, explain apparently meaningless terminology,\nand thus provide a secure foundation for the criticism of a body of\nliterature as important as it is fascinating.\n\nThe study and the criticism of the Grail literature will possess an\neven deeper interest, a more absorbing fascination, when it is\ndefinitely recognized that we possess in that literature a unique\nexample of the restatement of an ancient and august Ritual in terms of\nimperishable Romance.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n[1] MS. Bibl. Nat., f. Fran\u00e7. 12576 fo. 90.\n\n[2] _Ibid_. fo. 90_vo_, 91.\n\n[3] _Di\u00fb Cr\u00f4ne_ (ed. Stoll, Stuttgart, 1852). Cf. _Sir Gawain of the\nGrail Castle_ for both versions.\n\n[4] Cf. MS. B.N. 12576, fo. 154.\n\n[5] _Perceval_, ed. Hucher, p. 466; Modena, p. 61.\n\n[6] Cf. Hucher, p. 482; Modena, p. 82.\n\n[7] _Perceval li Gallois_, ed. Potvin, ll. 6048-52.\n\n[8] _Ib_. ll. 6056-60.\n\n[9] Potvin, Vol. I. p. 15.\n\n[10] _Ib_. p. 26.\n\n[11] _Ib_. p. 86.\n\n[12] _Ib_. pp. 176, 178.\n\n[13] MS. B.N. 12576, ff. 221-222vo.\n\n[14] _Mabinogion_, ed. Nutt, p. 282.\n\n[15] Cf. _Peredur_ (ed. Nutt), pp. 282, 291-92.\n\n[16] _Parzival_, Book v. ll. 947-50.\n\n[17] _Ib_. Book VI. ll. 1078-80.\n\n[18] _Parzival_, Book XVI, ll 275-86.\n\n[19] Cf. _Morte Arthure_, Malory, Book XVII. Chap. 18. Note the remark\nof Mordrains that his flesh which has waxen old shall become young\nagain.\n\n[20] _Parzival_, Bk. IX. ll. 1388-92.\n\n[21] _Sone de Nansai_ (ed. Goldschmidt, Stuttgart, 1899), ll 4775-76.\n\n[22] _Sone de Nansai_, ll. 4841-56.\n\n[23] It is evidently such a version as that of _Sone de Nansai_, and\n_Parzival_, which underlies the curious statement of the _Merlin_ MS.\nB.N. f. Fr. 337, where the wife of the Fisher King is known as \u2018la Veve\nDame,\u2019 while her husband is yet in life, though sorely wounded.\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n[1] Cf. _Rig-Veda Sanhita_, trans. H. H. Wilson, 6 vols. 1854-1888.\nVol. I. p. 88, v. 12. 172, v. 8 206, v. 10 Vol. III. p. 157, vv. 2, 5,\n7, 8.\n\n[2] _Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Geschichte_, Vols.\nXXXVII. and XXXIX.\n\n[3] Cf. _Le Th\u00e9atre Indien_, Paris, 1890.\n\n[4] Cf. _Wiener Zeitsch, f\u00fcr die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, Vol. XVIII.\n1904.\n\n[5] Leipzig, 1908.\n\n[6] _Op. cit_. p. 105.\n\n[7] _Ib_. p. 230.\n\n[8] _Ib_. p. 292, for sources, and variants of tale.\n\n[9] On this point cf. Cornford, _Origin of Attic Comedy_, pp. 8, 78,\nfor importance of this feature.\n\n[10] _Op. cit_. pp. 161-170, for general discussion of question, and\nsummary of authorities. Also pp. 297 _et seq_.\n\n[11] Cf. _Legend of Sir Peceval_, Vol. I. Chapter 3.\n\n[12] MS. Bibl. Nat., f. Fr. 12576, fo. 173. Cf. also _Legend of Sir\nPerceval_, I. Chap. 4.\n\n[13] Malory, _Le Morte Arthure_, Book XIV. Chaps. 8 and 9. Potvin, ll.\n40420 _et seq_.\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n[1] Cf. Frazer, _Adonis, Attis, Osiris_, p. 5.\n\n[2] In this connection not only the epoch-making works of Mannhardt and\nFrazer, which are more specifically devoted to an examination of\nFolk-belief and practice should be studied, but also works such as _The\nMediaeval Stage_, E. K. Chambers; _Themis_, J. E. Harrison; _The Origin\nof Attic Comedy_, F. Cornford; and Sir Gilbert Murray\u2019s essay on the\nevolution of the Greek Drama, published in Miss Harrison\u2019s _Themis_.\nThe cumulative evidence is most striking.\n\n[3] A full study of this evolutionary process will be found in Miss\nHarrison\u2019s _Themis, A Study of Greek Social Origins_, referred to\nabove.\n\n[4] Baudissin, in his exhaustive study of these cults, _Adonis und\nEsmun_, comes to the conclusion that Tammuz and Adonis are different\ngods, owing their origin to a common parent deity. Where the original\nconception arose is doubtful; whether in Babylon, in Canaan, or in a\nland where the common ancestors of Phoenicians and Babylonian Semites\nformed an original unit.\n\n[5] Cf. _Tammuz and Ishtar_, S. Langdon, p. 5.\n\n[6] It may be well to note here the the \u2018Life\u2019 deity has no proper\nname; he is only known by an appellative; _Damu-zi, Damu_, \u2018faithful\nson,\u2019 or \u2018son and consort,\u2019 is only a general epithet, which designates\nthe dying god in a theological aspect, just as the name _Ad\u014dni_, \u2018my\nlord,\u2019 certainly replaced a more specific name for the god of Byblos.\n_Esmun_ of Sidon, another type of Adonis, is a title only, and means\nsimply, \u2018the name.\u2019 Cf. Langdon, _op. cit_. p. 7. Cf. this with\nprevious passages on the evolution of the Greek idea from a nameless\nentity to a definite god. Mr Langdon\u2019s remarks on the evolution of the\nTammuz cult should be carefully studied in view of the theory\nmaintained by Sir W. Ridgeway\u2014that the Vegetation deities were all of\nthem originally men.\n\n[7] From a liturgy employed at Nippur in the period of the Isin\ndynasty. Langdon, _op. cit_. p. 11. Also, _Sumerian and Babylonian\nPsalms_, p. 338.\n\n[8] Cf. Langdon, _Tammuz and Ishtar_, p. 23.\n\n[9] What we have been able to ascertain of the Sumerian-Babylonian\nreligion points to it rather as a religion of mourning and\nsupplication, than of joy and thanksgiving. The people seem to have\nbeen in perpetual dread of their gods, who require to be appeased by\ncontinual acts of humiliation. Thus the 9th, 15th, 19th, 28th, and 29th\nof the month were all days of sack-cloth and ashes, days of wailing;\nthe 19th especially was \u2018the day of the wrath of Gulu.\u2019\n\n[10] Cf. Langdon, _op. cit_. p. 24.\n\n[11] Cf. Langdon, _op. cit_. p. 26.\n\n[12] The most complete enquiry into the nature of the god is to be\nfound in Baudissin, _Adonis und Esmun_. For the details of the cult cf.\nFarnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, Vol. II.; Vellay, _Adonis_\n(_Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_). For the Folk-lore evidence cf. Mannhardt,\n_Wald un Feld-Kulte;_ Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, and _Adonis, Attis\nand Osiris_. These remarks apply also to the kindred cult of Attis,\nwhich as we shall see later forms an important link in our chain of\nevidence. The two cults are practically identical and scholars are\nfrequently at a loss to which group surviving fragments of the ritual\nshould be assigned.\n\n[13] In this connection note the extremely instructive remarks of Miss\nHarrison in the chapter on Herakles in the work referred to above. She\npoints out that the _Eniautos Daimon_ never becomes entirely and\nOlympian, but always retains traces of his \u2018Earth\u2019 origin. This\nprinciple is particularly well illustrated by Adonis, who, though,\nadmitted to Olympus as the lover of Aphrodite, is yet by this very\nnature forced to return to the earth, and descend to the realm of\nPersephone. This agrees well with the conclusion reached by Baudissin\n(_Adonis und Esmun_, p. 71) that Adonis belongs to \u201ceiner Klasse von\nWesen sehr unbestimmter Art, die wohl \u00fcber den Menschen aber unter den\ngrossen G\u00f6ttern stehen.\u201d\n\n[14] Cf. Vellay, _op. cit_. p. 93. Dulaure, _Des Divinit\u00e9s\nG\u00e9n\u00e9ratrices_. If Baudissin is correct, and the introduction of the\nBoar a later addition to the story, it would seem to indicate the\nintrusion of a phallic element into ritual which at first, like that of\nTammuz, dealt merely with the death of the god. The Attis form, on the\ncontrary, appears to have been phallic from the first. Cf. Baudissin,\n_Adonis und Esmun_, p. 160.\n\n[15] _Op. cit_. p. 83.\n\n[16] Cf. L. von Schroeder, _Vollendung den Arischen Mysterium_, p. 14.\n\n[17] It may be well to explain the exact meaning attached to these\nterms by the author. In Professor von Schroeder\u2019s view _Mysterium_ may\nbe held to connote a drama in which the gods themselves are actors;\n_Mimus_ on the contrary, is the term applied to a drama which treats of\nthe doings of mortals.\n\n[18] _Op. cit_. Vol. II. p. 647.\n\n[19] _Op. cit_. p. 115. Much of the uncertainty as to date is doubtless\ndue to the reflective influence of other forms of the cult; the Tammuz\ncelebrations were held from June 20th, to July 20th, when the Dog-star\nSirius was in the ascendant, and vegetation failed beneath the heat of\nthe summer sun. In other, and more temperate, climates the date would\nfall later. Where, however, the cult was an off-shoot of a Tammuz\noriginal (as might be the case through emigration) the tendency would\nbe to retain the original date.\n\n[20] Cf. Vellay, _op. cit_. p. 55; Mannhardt, Vol. II. pp. 277-78, for\na description of the feast. With regard to the order and sequence of\nthe celebration cf. Miss Harrison\u2019s remark, _Themis_, p. 415: \u201cIn the\ncyclic monotony of the _Eniautos Daimon_ it matters little whether\nDeath follows Resurrection, or Resurrection, Death.\u201d\n\n[21] Cf. Mannhardt, _supra_, p. \u2014-.\n\n[22] Cf. Vellay, _op. cit_. p. 103. This seems also to have been the\ncase with Tammuz, cf. Ezekiel, Chap. viii. v. 14.\n\n[23] Cf. Frazer, _The Golden Bough_, under heading _Adonis_.\n\n[24] Vellay, p. 130, Mannahrdt, Vol. II. p. 287; note the writer\u2019s\nsuggestion that the women here represent the goddess, the stranger, the\nrisen Adonis.\n\n[25] Cf. Vellay, p. 93.\n\n[26] _Vide supra_, pp. \u2014-. \u2014-.\n\n[27] _Supra_, p. 21.\n\n[28] Cf. Potvin, appendix to Vol. III.; _Sir Gawain and the Grail\nCastle_, pp. 41, 44, and note.\n\n[29] My use of this parallel has been objected to on the ground that\nthe prose _Lancelot_ is a late text, and therefore cannot be appealed\nto as evidence for original incidents. But the _Lancelot_ in its\noriginal form was held by so competent an authority as the late M.\nGaston Paris to have been one of the earliest, if not the very\nearliest, of French prose texts. (Cf. M. Paris\u2019s review of Suchier and\nBirch-Hirschfield\u2019s _Geschichte der Franz. Litt_.) The adventure in\nquestion is a \u2018Gawain\u2019 adventure; we do not know whence it was derived,\nand it may well have been included in an early version of the romance.\nApart from the purely literary question, from the strictly critical\npoint of view the adventure is here obviously out of place, and\nentirely devoid of _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_. If the origins of the Grail legend\nis really to be found in these cults, which are not a dead but a living\ntradition (how truly living, the exclusively literary critic has little\nidea), we are surely entitled to draw attention to the obvious\nparallels, no matter in which text they appear. I am not engaged in\nreconstructing the original _form_ of the Grail story, but in\nendeavoring to ascertain the ultimate _source_, and it is surely\njustifiable to point out that, in effect, no matter what version we\ntake, we find in that version points of contact with one special group\nof popular belief and practice. If I be wrong in my conclusions my\ncritics have only to suggest another origin for this particular feature\nof the romance\u2014as a matter of fact, they have failed to do so.\n\n[30] Cf. _Perlesvaus_, Branch II. Chap. I.\n\n[31] Throwing into, or drenching with, water is a well known part of\nthe \u2018Fertility\u2019 ritual; it is a case of sympathetic magic, acting as a\nrain charm.\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n[1] _Ancient Greek Religion, and Modern Greek Folk-Lore_, J. C. Lawson,\ngives some most interesting evidence as to modern survivals of\nmythological beliefs.\n\n[2] _Wald und Feld-Kulte_, 2nd edition, 2 vols., Berlin, 1904. Cf. Vol.\nII. p. 286. _The Golden Bough_, 3rd edition, 5 vols.\n\n[3] I cite from Mannhardt, as the two works overlap in the particular\nline of research we are following: the same instances are given in\nboth, buyt the honour of priority belongs to the German scholar.\n\n[4] _Op. cit_. Vol. I. p. 411.\n\n[5] See G. Calderon, \u2018Slavonic Elements in Greek religion,\u2019 _Classical\nReview_, 1918, p. 79.\n\n[6] _Op. cit_. p. 416.\n\n[7] _Op. cit_. pp. 155 and 312.\n\n[8] _Op. cit_. p. 353.\n\n[9] _Op. cit_. p. 358.\n\n[10] _Op. cit_. p. 358.\n\n[11] _Op. cit_. p. 359. Cf. the Lausitz custom given _supra_, which\nMannhardt seems to have overlooked.\n\n[12] In the poem, besides the ordinary figures of the Vegetation Deity,\nhis female counterpart, and the Doctor, common to all such processions,\nLaubfrosch, combining the two first, and Horse. Cf. Mannhardt, _Mythol.\nForsch_. pp. 142-43; _Mysterium und Mimus_, pp. 408 _et seq_.; also,\npp. 443-44. Sir W. Ridgeway (_op. cit_. p. 156) refers slightingly to\nthis interpretation of a \u2018harmless little hymn\u2019\u2014doubless the poem is\nharmless; until Prof. von Schroeder pointed out its close affinity with\nthe Fertility processions it was also meaningless.\n\n[13] _Op. cit_. Chap. 17, p. 253.\n\n[14] Cf. _Folk-Lore_, Vol. XV. p. 374.\n\n[15] _Op. cit_. Vol. V. _The Dying God_, pp. 17 _et seq_.\n\n[16] See Dr Seligmann\u2019s study, _The Cult of Nyakang and the Divine\nKings of the Shilluk_ in the Fourth Report of the Wellcome Research\nLaboratories, Kkartum, 1911, Vol. B.\n\n[17] Cf. Address on reception into the Academy when M. Paris succeeded\nto Pasteur\u2019s _fauteuil_.\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n[1] _Op. cit_. Vol. I. p. 94.\n\n[2] _The Legend of Longinus_, R. J. Peebles (Bryn Mawr College\nmonographs, Vol. IX.).\n\n[3] I discussed this point with Miss Lucy Broadwood, Secretary of the\nFolk-Song Society, who has made sketches of these Crosses, and she\nentirely agrees with me. In my _Quest of the Holy Grail_, pp. 54 _et\nseq_., I have pointed out the absolute dearth of ecclesiastical\ntradition with regard to the story of Joseph and the Grail.\n\n[4] Cf. _Littaturzeitung_, XXIV. (1903), p. 2821.\n\n[5] Cf. _The Bleeding Lance_, A. C. L. Brown.\n\n[6] Cf. Brown, _op. cit_. p. 35; also A. Nutt, _Studies in the Legend\nof the Holy Grail_, p. 184.\n\n[7] Cf. Brown, _Notes on Celtic Cauldrons of Plenty_, p. 237.\n\n[8] Cf. _Queste_, Malory, Book XIII. Chap. 7, where the effect is the\nsame.\n\n[9] Cf. _Germanische Elben und G\u00f6tter beim Estenvolker_, L. von\nSchroeder (Wien, 1906).\n\n[10] I suggested this point in corrspondence with Dr Brugger, who\nagreed with me that it was worth working out.\n\n[11] Before leaving the discussion of Professor Brown\u2019s theory, I would\ndraw attention to a serious error made by the author of _The Legend of\nLonginus_. On p. 191, she blames Professor Brown for postulating the\ndestructive qualities of the Lance, on the strength of \u2018an unsupported\npassage\u2019 in the \u2018Mons\u2019 MS., whereas the Montpellier text says that the\nLance shall bring peace. Unfortunately, it is this latter version which\nis unsupported, all the MSS., without even excepting B.N. 1429, which\nas a rule agrees with Montpellier, give the \u2018destructive\u2019 version.\n\n[12] Cf. Dulaure, _Des Divinit\u00e9s G\u00e9n\u00e9ratrices_, p. 77. Also additional\nchapter to last edition by Van Gennep, p. 333; L. von Schroeder,\n_Mysterium und Mimus_, pp. 279-80, for symbolic use of the Spear.\nMcCulloch, _Religion of the Celts_, p. 302, suggests that it is not\nimpossible that the cauldron=Hindu _yoni_, which of course would bring\nit into line with the above suggested meaning of the Grail. I think\nhowever that the real significance of the cauldron is that previously\nindicated.\n\n[13] It is interesting to note that this relative position of Lance and\nGrail lingers on in late and fully Christianized versions; cf. Sommer,\n_The Quest of the Holy Grail, Romania_, XXXVI. p. 575.\n\n[14] My informant on this point was a scholar, resident in Japan, who\ngave me the facts within his personal knowledge. I referred the\nquestion to Prof. Basil Hall Chamberlain, who wrote in answer that he\nhad not himself met with the practice but that the Samurai ceremonies\ndiffered in different provinces, and my informant might well be\ncorrect.\n\n[15] This explanation has at least the merit of simplicity as compared\nwith that proposed by the author of _The Legend of Longinus_, pp. 209\net seq., which would connect the feature with an obscure heretical\npractice of the early Irish church. It would also meet Professor\nBrown\u2019s very reasonable objections, _The Bleeding Lance_, p. 8; cf.\nalso remarks by Baist quoted in the foot-note above.\n\n[16] Cf. my _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. II. pp. 314-315, note.\n\n[17] Mr A. E. Waite, who has published a book on the subject, informs\nme that the 17 cards preserved in the Biblioth\u00e8que du Roi (Bibl.\nNationale?) as specimens of the work of the painter Charles\nGringonneur, are really Tarots.\n\n[18] Falconnier, in a brochure on _Les XXII Lames Hermetiques du\nTarot_, gives reproductions of these Egyptian paintings.\n\n[19] _Journal of the Gipsy-Lore Society_, Vol. II. New Series, pp.\n14-37.\n\n[20] From a private letter. The ultimate object of Magic in all ages\nwas, and is, to obtain control of the sources of Life. Hence, whatever\nwas the use of these objects (of which I know nothing), their\nappearance in this connection is significant.\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\n[1] _Mysterium und Mimus_, p. 50. This work contains a most valuable\nand interesting study of the Maruts, and the kindred groups of Sword\nDancers.\n\n[2] _Op. cit_. pp. 47 _et seq_.\n\n[3] _Rig-Veda_, Vol. III. p. 337.\n\n[4] _Mysterium und Mimus_, p. 48.\n\n[5] _Op. cit., Indra, die Maruts, und Agastya_, pp. 91 _et seq_.\n\n[6] _Rig-Veda_, Vol. III. pp. 331, 334, 335, 337.\n\n[7] _Mysterium un Mimus_, p. 121.\n\n[8] _Vollendung des Arische Mysterium_, p. 13. The introductory section\nof this book, containing a study of early Aryan belief, and numerous\nreferences to modern survivals, is both interesting and valuable. The\nlatter part, a panegyric on the Wagnerian drama, is of little\nimportance.\n\n[9] _Mysterium und Mimus_, p. 131.\n\n[10] Cf. R\u00f6scher\u2019s _Lexikon_, under heading _Kureten_.\n\n[11] _Op. cit_.\n\n[12] Cf. Preller, _Graechishe Mythologie_, p. 134.\n\n[13] Quoted by Preller, p. 654.\n\n[14] _Themis_, A Study in Greek Social Origins (Cambridge, 1912), pp. 6\n_et seq_.\n\n[15] _Mysterium un Mimus_, p. 23.\n\n[16] _Themis_, p. 24.\n\n[17] Cf. _Mysterium und Mimus_, section _Indra, die Maruts, und\nAgastya_ specially pp. 151 _et seq_.\n\n[18] Cf. von Schroeder, _op. cit_. pp. 141 _et seq_. for a very full\naccount of the ceremonies; also, _Themis_, p. 194; Mannhardt, _Wald und\nFeld-Kulte_, and R\u00f6scher\u2019s _Lexikon_, under heading _Mars_, for various\nreasons.\n\n[19] _Folk-Lore_, Vols. VII., X., and XVI. contain interesting and\nfully illustrated accounts of some of these dances and plays.\n\n[20] _The Mediaeval Stage_, Vol. III. p. 202. It would be interesting\nto know the precise form of this ring; was it the Pentangle?\n\n[21] Cf. also _Mysterium und Mimus_, pp. 110, 111, for a general\ndescription of the dance, _minus_ the text of the speeches.\n\n[22] Pp. 186-194.\n\n[23] Cf. _Folk-Lore_, Vol. XVI. pp. 212 _et seq_.\n\n[24] I would draw attention to the curious name of the adversary,\nGolisham; it is noteworthy that in one Arthurian romance Gawain has for\nadversary Golagros, in another Percival fights against Golerotheram.\nAre these all reminiscences of the giant Goliath, who became the\nsynonym for a dangerous, preferably heathen, adversary, even as Mahomet\nbecame the synonym for an idol?\n\n[25] Cf. Mannhardt, _Wald und Feld-Kulte_, Vol. II. pp. 191 _et seq_.\nfor a very full account of the Julbock (Yule Buck).\n\n[26] Cf. _Folk-Lore_, Vol. VIII. \u2018Some Oxfordshire Seasonal Festivals,\u2019\nwhere full illustrations of the Bampton Morris Dancers and their\nequipment will be found.\n\n[27] Cf. _The Padstow Hobby-Horse_, F.-L. Vol. XVI. p. 56; _The\nStaffordshire Horn-Dance_, Ib. Vol. VII. p. 382, and VIII. p. 70.\n\n[28] Cf. _supra_, pp. 53, 80, 85.\n\n[29] Cf. _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. II. p. 264.\n\n[30] See _English Folk-Song and Dance_ by Frank Kidson and Mary Neal,\nCambridge, 1915, plate facing p. 104. A curious point in connection\nwith the illustration is that the Chalice is surmounted by a Heart, and\nin the Tarot suits _Cups_ are the equivalent of our _Hearts_. The\ncombination has now become identified with the cult of the Sacred\nHeart, but is undoubtedly much older.\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\n[1] Cf. _supra_, Chap. 5, pp. 52, 54; Chap. 7, pp. 90, 91.\n\n[2] _Mysterium und Mimus_, p. 369, _Der Mimus des Medizinmannes_.\n\n[3] Cf. Chap. 5, pp. 53, 54.\n\n[4] _Op. cit_. p. 371\n\n[5] _Op. cit_. pp. 78 _et seq_.\n\n[6] I would draw attention to the fact that while scholars are now\ncoming to the conclusion that Classic Drama, whether Tragedy or Comedy,\nreposes for its origin upon this ancient ritual, others have pointed\nout that Modern Drama derives from the ritual Play of the Church, the\nfirst recorded medieval drama being the Easter _Quem Quaeritis?_ the\ndramatic celebration of Our Lord\u2019s Resurrection. Cf. Chambers, _The\nMediaeval Stage_, where this thesis is elaborately developed and\nillustrated. It is a curious fact that certain texts of this, the\n\u2018Classical\u2019 Passion Play, contain a scene between the Maries and the\n\u2018Unguentarius\u2019 from whom they purchase spices for the embalmment of Our\nLord. Can this be a survival of the Medicine Man? (Cf. _op. cit_. Vol.\nii. p. 33.)\n\n[7] Bibl. Nat., fonds Fran\u00e7ais, 12577, fo. 40\n\n[8] Bibl. Nat., f. F. 1453, fo. 49. _Parzival_, Bk. x. ll, 413-22.\n\n[9] _Lanceloet_, Jonckbloet, Vol.II. ll. 22271-23126.\n\n[10] _Op. cit_. ll. 22825-26.\n\n[11] _Op. cit_. Vol. 1. ll. 42540-47262.\n\n[12] _Op. cit_. ll. 46671-74.\n\n[13] _Op. cit_. ll. 46678-80.\n\n[14] Cf. Loth, _Les Mabinogion_, Vol. ii. p. 230, and note. The other\ntwo are Riwallawn Walth Banhadlen, and Llacheu son of Arthur.\n\n[15] The only instance in which I have found medicine directly\nconnected with the knightly order is in the case of the warrior clan of\nthe Samurai, in Japan, where members, physically unfitted for the task\nof a warrior, were trained as _Royal_ Doctors, the _Folk_ Doctors being\nrecruited from a class below the Samurai. Cf. _Medizin der\nNatur-V\u00f6lker_, Bartels, p. 65.\n\nAPPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII\n\n[1] Cf. _\u0152uvres de Ruteb\u0153uf_, Kressner, p. 115.\n\n[2] My attention was drawn to the poem by references to it in _The\nMediaeval Stage_, Chambers.\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\n[1] Cf. my _Sir Gawain and the Grail Castle_, pp. 3-30. The best text\nis that of MS. B.N., fonds Fran\u00e7. 12576, ff. 87vo-91. The above remarks\napply also to the _Elucidation_, which is using a version of the\n_Bleheris_ form.\n\n[2] B.N. 12577, fo. 136_vo_.\n\n[3] Cf. _Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle_, pp. 33-46.\n\n[4] Cf. B.N. 12576, ff. 220-222_vo_ and fo. 258.\n\n[5] Hucher, _Le Saint Graal_, Vo. I. pp. 251 _et seq_., 315 _et seq_.\n\n[6] Cf. Modena MS. pp. 11, 12, 21, etc.; Dr Nitze, _The Fisher-King in\nthe Grail Romances_, p. 373, says Borron uses the term _Rice_ Pescheur,\nas opposed to the _Roi_ Pescheur of Chr\u00e9tien. This remark is only\ncorrect as applied to the _Joseph_.\n\n[7] Modena MS p. 61 and note.\n\n[8] _Ibid_. p. 63.\n\n[9] The evidence of the _Parzival_ and the parallel Grail sections of\n_Sone de Nansai_, which appear to repose ultimately on a source common\nto all three authors, makes this practically certain.\n\n[10] This is surely a curious omission, if the second King were as\nessential a part of the scheme as Dr Nitze supposes.\n\n[11] Cf. Chapter 2, p. \u2014-.\n\n[12] I cannot agree with Dr Nitze\u2019s remark (_op. cit_. p. 374) that \u201cin\nmost versions the Fisher King has a mysterious double.\u201d I hold that\nfeature to be a peculiarity of the Chr\u00e9tien-Wolfram group. It is not\nfound in the Gawain versions, in Wauchier, nor in Manessier. Gerbert is\nusing the _Queste_ in the passage relative to Mordrains, and for the\nreason stated above I hold that heither _Queste_ nor _Grand Saint\nGraal_ should be cited when we are dealing, as Dr Nitze is here\ndealing, with questions of ultimate origin.\n\n[13] Cf. my _Legend of Sir Lancelot_, pp. 167 and 168.\n\n[14] Cf. Heinzel, _Ueber die Alt-Franz. Gral-Romanen_, pp. 136 and 137.\n\n[15] Cf. _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. II. p. 343, note. These three\nkings are found in the curious Merlin MS. B.N., f. Fran\u00e7. 337, fo. 249\n_et seq_.\n\n[16] _Vide supra_, pp. 91. 92.\n\n[17] _Op. cit_. p. 184.\n\n[18] Cf. Chapter 5, p. 52, Chap. 7, p. 88.\n\n[19] _Di\u00fb Crone_, ll. 17329 _et seq_.\n\n[20] In the _Parzival_ Titurel is grandfather to Anfortas, Frimutel\nintervening; critics of the poem are apt to overlook this difference\nbetween the German and French versions.\n\n[21] Cf. Chapter 2, p. 20.\n\n[22] Cf. here my notes on _Sone de Nansai_ (_Romania_, Vol. XLIII. p.\n412).\n\n[23] In connection with my previous remarks on the subject (p. 112) I\nwould point out that the _Queste_ and _Grand Sainte Graal_ versions\nrepeat the Maimed King _motif_ in the most unintelligent manner. The\nelement of old age, inherent in the Evalach-Mordrains incident, is\ncomplicated and practically obscured, by an absurdly exaggerated\nwounding element, here devoid of its original significance.\n\n[24] Heinzel, _op. cit_. p. 13.\n\n[25] For an instance of the extravagances to which a strictly Christian\ninterpretation can lead, cf. Dr Sebastian Evans\u2019s theories set forth in\nhis translation of the _Perlesvaus_ (_The High History of the Holy\nGrail_) and in his _The Quest of the Holy Grail_. The author places the\norigin of the cycle in the first quarter of the thirteenth century, and\ntreats it as an allegory of the position in England during the\nInterdict pronounced against King John, and the consequent withholding\nof the Sacraments. His identification of the character with historical\noriginals is most ingenious, an extraordinary example of misapplied\nlearning.\n\n[26] For a general discussion of the conflicting views cf. Dr Nitze\u2019s\nstudy, referred to above. The writer devotes special attention to the\nworks of the late Prof. Heinzel and Mr Alfred Nutt as leading\nrepresentatives of their respective schools.\n\n[27] R. Pischel\u2019s _Ueber die Ursprung des Christlichen Fisch-Symbols_\nis specifically devoted to the possible derivation from Indian sources.\nScheftelowitz, _Das Fischsymbolik in Judentem und Christentum_ (_Archiv\nf\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft_, Vol. XIV.), contains a great deal of\nvaluable material. R. Eisler, _Orpheus the Fisher_ (_The Quest_, Vols.\nI and II.), _John, Jonas, Oannes_ (_ibid_. Vol. III.), _The Messianic\nFish-meal of the Primitive Church_ (_ibid_. Vol. IV.), are isolated\nstudies, forming part of a comprehensive work on the subject, the\npublication of which has unfortunately been prevented by the War.\n\n[28] _Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata_, Bk. III.\n\n[29] Cf. Scheftekowitz, _op. cit_. p. 51.\n\n[30] Cf. _The Open Court_, June and July, 1911, where reproductions of\nthese figures will be found.\n\n[31] _Op. cit_. p. 403. Cf. here an illustration in Miss Harrison\u2019s\n_Themis_ (p. 262), which shows Cecrops, who played the same _r\u00f4le_ with\nregard to the Greeks, with a serpent\u2019s tail.\n\n[32] _Ibid_. p. 168. In this connection note the prayer to Vishnu,\nquoted above.\n\n[33] Cf. Eisler, _Orpheus the Fisher_ (_The Quest_, Vol. I. p. 126).\n\n[34] Cf. W. Staerk, _Ueber den Ursprung der Gral-Legende_, pp. 55, 56.\n\n[35] Df. S. Langdon, _Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms_, pp. 301, 305,\n307, 313.\n\n[36] Cf. Eisler, _The Messianic Fish-meal of the Primitive Church_\n(_The Quest_, Vol. IV.), where the various frescoes are described; also\nthe article by Scheftelowitz, already referred to. While mainly devoted\nto Jewish beliefs and practices, this study contains much material\nderived from other sources. So far it is the fullest and most\nthoroughly _document\u00e9_ treatment of the subject I have met with.\n\n[37] Cf. Eisler, _op. cit_. and Scheftelowitz, pp. 19. 20.\n\n[38] Cf. Eisler, _op. cit_. p. 508.\n\n[39] Cf. Scheftelowitz, _op. cit_. pp. 337, 338, and note 4.\n\n[40] Hucher, _Le Saint Graal_, Vol. I. pp. 251 et seq., 315 _et seq_.\n\n[41] Cf. A. Nutt, _Studies in the Legend of the Holy Grail_, p. 209.\n\n[42] Cf. Eisler, _The Mystic Epitaph of Bishop Aberkios_ (_The Quest_,\nVol. V. pp. 302-312); Scheftelowitz, _op. cit_. p. 8.\n\n[43] Cf. _The Voyage of Saint Brandan_, ll. 372, _et seq_., 660 _et\nseq_.\n\n[44] _Op. cit_. ll. 170 _et seq_., and _supra_, p. 119.\n\n[45] _Vide supra_, p. 70.\n\n[46] _Op. cit_. p. 168.\n\n[47] Cf. _The Messianic Fish-meal_.\n\n[48] _Op. cit_. p. 92, fig. 42 _a_.\n\n[49] _Op. cit_. p. 23, and note, p. 29.\n\n[50] _Parzival_, Bk. IX. ll., 1109 _et seq_., Bk. XVI. ll. 175 _et\nseq_.\n\n[51] Cf. _Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle_, p. 55. Certain of the\n_Lancelot_ MSS., _e.g._, B.N., f. Fr. 123, give two doves.\n\n[52] Cf. Scheftelowitz, p. 338. Haven, _Der Gral_, has argued that\nWolfram\u2019s stone is such a meteoric stone, a Boetylus. I am not prepared\nto take up any position as to the exact nature of the stone itself,\nwhether precious stone or meteor; the real point of importance being\nits Life-giving potency.\n\n[53] _Op. cit_. p. 381.\n\n[54] _Ibid_. p. 376 _et seq_.\n\n[55] _Ibid_. p. 20.\n\n[56] _Ibid_. p. 377.\n\nCHAPTER X\n\n[1] _Elucidation_, ll. 4-9 and 12, 13.\n\n[2] Potvin, ll. 19933-40. I quote from Potvin\u2019s edition as more\naccessible than the MSS., but the version of mons is, on the whole, an\ninferior one.\n\n[3] Potvin, ll. 28108-28.\n\n[4] This is to my mind the error vitiating much of Dr Nitze\u2019s later\nwork, _e.g._, the studies entitled _The Fisher-King in the Grail\nRomances_ and _The Sister\u2019s Son, and the Conte del Graal_.\n\n[5] _Op. cit_. Introduction, p. X.\n\n[6] Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 293, and Cumont, _op. cit_. p. 44.\n\n[7] Anrich, _Das alte Mysterien-Wesen in seinem Verh\u00e4ltniss zum\nChristentum_, p. 46.\n\n[8] _Op. cit_. p. 136.\n\n[9] Cumont, _op. cit_. p. 84.\n\n[10] _Op. cit_. pp. 104, 105.\n\n[11] Cf. Anrich, _op. cit_. p. 81.\n\n[12] Hepding, _Attis_, p. 189.\n\n[13] Cumont, _Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, pp. 19 and 78.\n\n[14] _Ibid_. p. 188.\n\n[15] _Ibid_. pp. 190 _et seq_.\n\n[16] _Vide_ Hepding, _Attis_, Chap. 4, for details.\n\n[17] Dieterich, _Eine Mithrasliturgie_, p. 174.\n\n[18] Hepding, _op. cit_. p. 196.\n\n[19] Cf. my _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. II. p. 313. Hepding mentions\n(_op. cit_. p. 174) among the _sacra_ of the goddess _Phrygium ferrum_,\nwhich he suggests was the knife from which the Archigallus wounded\nhimself on the \u2018Blood\u2019 day. Thus it is possible that the primitive\nritual may have contained a knife.\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\n[1] Cumont, _op. cit_. Introd. pp. XX and XXI.\n\n[2] _Thrice-Greatest Hermes_, Vol. I, p. 195.\n\n[3] _Op. cit_. p. 141.\n\n[4] _Op. cit_. p. 142.\n\n[5] _Op. cit_. pp. 146 _et seq_. Reitzenstein, _Die Hellenistischen\nMysterien Religionen_, Leipzig, 1910, gives the document in the\noriginal. There is also a translation of Hippolytus in the _Ante-Nicene\nLibrary_.\n\n[6] Quoted by Mead, _op. cit_. p. 138.\n\n[7] _Op. cit_. pp. 146, 147.\n\n[8] _Op. cit_. p. 151.\n\n[9] _Op. cit_. p. 152. Mr Mead concludes that there is here a lacuna of\nthe original.\n\n[10] _Op. cit_. p. 181. In a note Mr Mead says of the Greater\nMysteries, \u201cpresumaby the candidate went through some symbolic rite of\ndeath and resurrection.\u201d\n\n[11] _Op. cit_. pp. 185, 186. I would draw especial attention to this\npassage in view of the present controversey as to the Origin of Drama.\nIt looks as if the original writer of the document (and this section is\nin the Pagan Source) would have inclined to the views of Sir Gilbert\nMurray, Miss Harrison, and Mr Cornford rather than to those championed\nby their sarcastic critic, Sir W. Ridgeway.\n\n[12] _Op. cit_. p. 190.\n\n[13] _Vide supra_, p. 137.\n\n[14] Cf. _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. II. Chapters 10 and 11.\n\n[15] Cf. my _Quest of the Holy Grail_, Bell, 1913, Chap. 4, for summary\nof evidence on this point.\n\n[16] Cf. Heinzel, _Alt-Franz. Gral-Romanen_, p. 72.\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\n[1] _Op. cit_. p. 71.\n\n[2] _Op. cit_. p. 3.\n\n[3] _Op. cit_. p. 4.\n\n[4] Cumont, _op. cit_. pp. 129-141 _et seq_.\n\n[5] _Op. cit_. p. 148.\n\n[6] Dieterich, _Eine Mithrasliturgie_, the text is given with\ntranslation and is followed by an elaborate commentary. The whole study\nis most interesting and suggestive.\n\n[7] Cf. Bousset, _Der Himmelfahrt der Seele, Archiv f\u00fcr\nReligionswissenschaft_, Vol. IV.\n\n[8] Cumont, _op. cit_. pp. 199 _et seq_.\n\n[9] _Adonis und Esmun_, p. 521.\n\n[10] Cf. Mead, _op. cit_. p. 179, note; Cumont, _Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_,\np. 183.\n\n[11] Cumont, _Les Religions Orientales_, pp. 160 _et seq_.\n\n[12] _Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, p. 77.\n\n[13] _Les Religions Orientales_, pp. 166, 167, _Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, p.\n57.\n\n[14] Mead, _op. cit_. pp. 147, 148, and note.\n\n[15] Without entering into indiscreet details I may say that students\nof the Mysteries are well aware of the continued survival of this\nritual under circumstances which correspond exactly with the\nindications of two of our Grail romances.\n\n[16] _The Quest of the Holy Grail_, pp. 110 _et seq_.\n\n[17] _puys._ Professor A. C. L. Brown, _Notes on Celtic Cauldrons of\nPlenty_, n. p. 249, translates this \u2018wells,\u2019 an error into which the\nlate Mr Alfred Nutt had already fallen. Wisse Colin translates this\ncorrectly, _berg, gebirge_.\n\n[18] I suspect that the robbery of the Golden Cup was originally a\nsymbolic expression for the outrage being offered.\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\n[1] MS B.N. 12576, ff. 87_vo et seq_. A translation will be found in my\n_Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle_, pp. 13-15.\n\n[2] MS B.N. 12576, ff. 150_vo_, 222, 238_vo_.\n\n[3] Cf. here Prof. Kittredge\u2019s monograph _Arthur and Gorlagon_.\n\n[4] Cf. Malory, Book XVI. Chap. 2.\n\n[5] Cf. _Perlesvaus_, Branch XV. sections XII.-XX.; Malory, Book VI.\nChap. 15; _Chevalier \u00e0 deux Esp\u00e9es_, ll. 531 _et seq_.\n\n[6] B.N. 12576, fo. 74_vo_.\n\n[7] Cf. B.N. MS 1433, ff. 10, 11, and the analysis and remarks in my\n_Legend of Sir Lancelot_, p. 219 and note.\n\n[8] Cf. passage in question quoted on p. 137.\n\n[9] B.N. 12576, fo. 150_vo_.\n\n[10] _Perlesvaus_, Branch I. sections III., IV.\n\n[11] Cf. my notes on the subject, _Romania_, Vol. XLIII. pp. 420-426.\n\n[12] Cf. Nitze, _Glastonbury and the Holy Grail_, where the reference\nis given.\n\n[13] _Vide supra_, p. 147.\n\n[14] Cf. _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. II. p. 261. I suggested then\nthat the actual initiation would probably consist in enlightenment into\nthe meaning of Lance and Cup, in their sexual juxtaposition. I would\nnow go a step further, and suggest that the identification of the Lance\nwith the weapon of Longinus may quite well have rpelaced the original\nexplanation as given by Bleheris. In _The Quest_, Oct. 1916, I have\ngiven, under the title \u201cThe Ruined Temple,\u201d a hypothetical\nreconstruction of the Grail Initiation.\n\n[15] _Owain Miles_, edited from the unique MS. by Turnbull and Laing,\nEdinburgh, 1837. _The Purgatory of Saint Patrick_ will be found in\nHorstmann\u2019s Southern Legendary. I have given a modern English rendering\nof part of _Owain Miles_ in my _Chief Middle-English Poets_, published\nby Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, U.S.A.\n\n[16] Cf. _op. cit_. pp. 148 _et seq_.\n\n[17] _Op. cit_. pp. 155 and 254.\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nThe Author\n\n[1] Cf. Mead, _Thrice Greatest Hermes_, Vol. III. p. 295. On this point\nthe still untranslated _corpus_ of Bardic poetry may possibly throw\nlight.\n\n[2] _The Quest of The Holy Grail_ (_Quest_ series, Bell, 1913).\n\n[3] On the point that Chr\u00e9tien was treating an already popular theme,\ncf. Brugger, _Enserrement Merlin_, I. (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Franz.\nSprache_, XXIX.).\n\n[4] That is, the relationship is due to romantic tradition, not to\nMystery survival, as Dr Nitze maintains.\n\n[5] Cf. _Romania_, Vol. XXXIII. pp. 333 _et seq_.\n\n[6] Cf. _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. I. Chap. 12, for the passages\nreferred to, also article in _Romania_, XXXIII.\n\n[7] Cf. my _Quest of the Holy Grail_, pp. 110 _et seq_.\n\n[8] Cf. _Tristan_ (B\u00e9dier\u2019s ed.), Vol. I. l. 2120.\n\n[9] A critic of my _Quest_ volume remarks that \u201cwe have as little faith\nin Wauchier\u2019s appeal to a Welshman Bleheris as source for his\ncontinuation of Chr\u00e9tien\u2019s \u2018_Perceval_\u2019 as we have in Layamon\u2019s similar\nappeal to Bede and St Austin at the beginning of the \u2018_Brut_.\u2019\u201d The\nremark seems to me singularly inept, there is no parallel between the\ncases. In the first place Layamon does not refer to Bede and St Austin\nas _source_, but as _models_, a very different thing. Then the\nstatement is discredited by the fact that we possess the writings of\nthese men, and know them to be of another character than Metrical\nChronicles. In the case of Wauchier his reference does not stand alone;\nit is one of a group, and that group marked by an extraordinary\nunanimity of statement; whoever Bleheris may have been he was certainly\npossessed of two definite qualifications\u2014he knew a vast number of\ntales, and he possessed a remarkable gift of narration, _i.e._, he was\na story-teller, _par excellence_. Thus he was, _a priori_, a probable\nsource for that section of Wauchier\u2019s work which is attributed to him,\na section consisting of short, picturesque, and mutually independent\ntales, which formed part of a popular collection. It is misleading to\nspeak as if Wauchier refers to him as general source for his _Perceval_\ncontinuation; the references are clearly marked and refer to _Gawain_\ntales. Apart from the fact that Wauchier\u2019s reference does not stand\nalone we have independent evidence of the actual existence of such a\ngroup of tales, in our surviving _Gawain_ poems, certain of which, such\nas _Kay and the Spit_, and _Golagros and Gawayne_ are versions of the\nstories given by Wauchier, while the author of the _Elucidation_ was\nalso familiar with the same collection. If evidence for the identity of\nBleheris is incomplete, that for his existence appears to be\nincontrovertible. Would it not be more honest if such a would-be critic\nas the writer referred to said, \u2018I do not choose to believe in the\nexistence of Bleheris, because it runs counter to my pre-conceived\ntheory of the evolution of the literature\u2019? We should then know where\nwe are. Such a parallel as that cited above has no value for those\nfamiliar with the literature but may easily mislead the general reader.\nI would also draw attention to the fact noted in the text\u2014the extreme\nimprobability of Wauchier, a continental writer, inventing an insular\nand Welsh source. This is a point critics carefully evade.\n\n[10] Cf. _Bledhericus de Cornouailles_, note contributed by M. Ferd.\nLot, to Romania, Vol. XXVIII. p. 336. M. Lot remarks that he has not\nmet with the name in Armorica; it thus appears to be insular.\n\n[11] Cf. _Revue Celtique_, 1911, _A note on the identification of\nBleheris_.\n\n[12] Ed. Rhys-Evans, Vol. II. p. 297; cf. also _Revue Celtique_.\n\n[13] In the course of 1915-16 I received letters from Mr Rogers Rees,\nresident at Stepaside, Pembrokeshire, who informed me that he held\ndefinite proof of the connection of Bledri with both _Grail_ and\n_Perceval_ legends. The locality had been part of Bledri\u2019s estate, and\nthe house in which he lived was built on the site of what had been\nBledri\u2019s castle. Mr Rogers Rees maintained the existence of a living\ntradition connecting Bledri with the legends in question. At his\nrequest I sent him the list of the names of the brothers of Alain li\nGros, as given in the 1516 edition of the _Perlesvaus_, a copy of which\nis in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, and received in return a letter\nstating that the list must have been compiled by one familiar with the\ndistrict. Unfortunately, for a year, from the autumn of 1916, I was\ndebarred from work, and when, on resuming my studies, I wrote to my\ncorrespondent asking for the promised evidence I obtained no answer to\nmy repeated appeal. On communicating with Mr Owen I found he had had\nprecisely the same experience, and, for his part, was extremely\nsceptical as to there being any genuine foundation for our\ncorrespondent\u2019s assertions. While it is thus impossible to use the\nstatements in question as elements in my argument, I think it right in\nthe interests of scholarship to place them on record; they may afford a\nclue which some Welsh scholar may be able to follow up to a more\nsatisfactory conclusion.\n\n[14] Had Wauchier really desired to _invent_ an authority, in view of\nhis date, and connection with the house of Flanders, he had a famous\nname at hand\u2014that of Chr\u00e9tien de Troyes.\n\n[15] Cf. _Legend of Sir Perceval_, Vol. II. p. 307 and note. I have\nrecently received Dr Brugger\u2019s review of Mr R. H. Griffith\u2019s study of\nthe English poem, and am glad to see that the critic accepts the\nindependence of this version. If scholars can see their way to accept\nas faits acquis the mutual independence of the _Grail_, and _Perceval_\nthemes, we shall, at last, have a solid basis for future criticism.\n\n[16] Cf. my Notes, _Romania_, Vol. XLIII. pp. 403 _et seq_.","title":"From Ritual to Romance","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":64009}