{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42205/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42205","id":"gutenberg_42205","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42205","summary":null,"tags":["Arthurian romances -- History and criticism","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Grail -- Legends","Grail -- Legends -- History and criticism","Knights and knighthood in literature","Literature, Medieval -- History and criticism","Mythology, Celtic","Quests (Expeditions) in literature"],"text":"Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The Folk-Lore Society,\n FOR COLLECTING AND PRINTING\n RELICS OF POPULAR ANTIQUITIES, &c.\n ESTABLISHED IN\n THE YEAR MDCCCLXXVIII.\n\n [Illustration: Alter et Idem.]\n\n PUBLICATIONS\n OF\n THE FOLK-LORE SOCIETY.\n 1888.\n XXIII.\n\n\n\n\nList of Officers of the Society.\n\n1887-1888.\n\n\nPRESIDENT.\n\n THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF STRAFFORD.\n\n\nVICE-PRESIDENTS.\n\n ANDREW LANG, M.A.\n W. R. S. RALSTON, M.A.\n EDWARD B. TYLOR, LL.D., F.R.S.\n\n\nDIRECTOR.\n\n G. L. GOMME, F.S.A., 1, Beverley Villas, Barnes Common, S.W.\n\n\nCOUNCIL.\n\n THE HON. J. ABERCROMBY.\n A. MACHADO Y ALVAREZ.\n THE EARL BEAUCHAMP, F.S.A.\n EDWARD BRABROOK, F.S.A.\n DR. G. B. BRINTON.\n JAMES BRITTEN, F.L.S.\n LOYS BRUEYRE.\n MISS C. S. BURNE.\n EDWARD CLODD.\n PROFESSOR D. COMPARETTI.\n G. LAURENCE GOMME, F.S.A.\n A. GRANGER HUTT, F.S.A.\n SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, BT., F.R.S.\n REV. DR. RICHARD MORRIS.\n ALFRED NUTT.\n EDWARD PEACOCK, F.S.A.\n Z. D. PEDROSO.\n PROFESSOR A. H. SAYCE, M.A.\n CAPTAIN R. C. TEMPLE.\n HENRY B. WHEATLEY, F.S.A.\n\n\nAUDITORS.\n\n G. L. APPERSON.\n JOHN TOLHURST, F.S.A.\n\n\nLOCAL SECRETARIES.\n\n IRELAND: G. H. KINAHAN, R.I.A.\n SOUTH SCOTLAND: WILLIAM GEORGE BLACK, ESQ.\n NORTH SCOTLAND: Rev. WALTER GREGOR.\n INDIA: CAPTAIN R. C. TEMPLE.\n CHINA: J. STEWART LOCKHART.\n\n\nHONORARY SECRETARIES.\n\n A. GRANGER HUTT, F.S.A., 8, Oxford Road, Kilburn, N.W.\n J. J. FOSTER, 36, Alma Square, St. John's Wood, N.W.\n\n\n\n\nSTUDIES ON THE LEGEND OF THE HOLY GRAIL.\n\n\n\n\n_Works by the same Author._\n\n\n=The Aryan Expulsion and Return Formula among the Celts.=--_Folk-Lore\nRecord_, Vol. IV. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n \"Interessante \u00e9tude de mythographie compar\u00e9e.\"--_Revue Celtique._\n\n=Mabinogion Studies, I. The Mabinogi of Branwen, daughter of\nLlyr.=--_Folk-Lore Record_, Vol. V. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n \"Eingehendes und sehr beachtenswerthes Studium.\"--Prof. ERNST\n WINDISCH, in _Ersch und Gruber_.\n\n \"These careful and searching studies deserve to be honourably\n mentioned.\"--Mons. HENRI GAIDOZ, in the _Academy_.\n\n\n\n\n STUDIES ON THE\n LEGEND OF THE HOLY GRAIL\n\n _WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE HYPOTHESIS_\n OF ITS CELTIC ORIGIN.\n\n\n BY ALFRED NUTT.\n\n\n \"Welchem Volke das M\u00e4rchen (von Parzival's Jugendgeschichte)\n angeh\u00f6rte, welches die schriftliche oder m\u00fcndliche\n Ueberlieferung mit der Gralsage in Verbindung brachte, ist\n schwer zu bestimmen, doch w\u00fcrde dasjenige Volk den meisten\n Anspruch darauf haben, bei welchem sich dies M\u00e4rchen ausserhalb\n jenes Zusammenhangs nachweisen liesse.\"--K. SIMROCK.\n\n \"The Celtic hero who in the twelfth century became Perceval le\n Chercheur du basin ... in the end became possessed of that\n sacred basin le Saint Graal, and the holy lance which, though\n Christian in the story, are the same as the talismans which\n appear so often in Gaelic tales ... the glittering weapon which\n destroys, and the sacred medicinal cup which cures.\"--J. F.\n CAMPBELL.\n\n \"In all the Fenian stories mention is made of Fionn's healing\n cup ... it is the same as the Holy Grail of course.\"--J. F.\n CAMPBELL.\n\n\n London:\n DAVID NUTT, 270-71, STRAND.\n 1888.\n\n\n\n\n HARRISON AND SONS,\n PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HER MAJESTY,\n ST. MARTIN'S LANE, LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION.\n\n\n To the Memory\n OF\n J. F. CAMPBELL,\n FROM WHOM\n I FIRST LEARNT TO LOVE CELTIC TRADITION.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n Description of the leading forms of the Romance: Conte del\n Graal--Joseph d'Arimathie--Didot-Perceval--Queste del Saint\n Graal--Grand Saint Graal--Parzival--Perceval le Gallois--\n Mabinogi of Peredur--Sir Perceval--Diu Cr\u00f4ne--Information\n respecting date and authorship of these works in the MSS. page 1\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n Summaries--Conte du Graal: Pseudo-Chrestien, Chrestien,\n Gautier de Doulens, Manessier, Gerbert--Wolfram--Heinrich von\n dem T\u00fcrlin--Didot-Perceval--Mabinogi of Peredur--Thornton MS.\n Sir Perceval--Queste del Saint Graal--Grand Saint Graal--\n Robert de Borron's poem, Joseph of Arimathea page 8\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n The legend formed of two portions: Early History of Grail,\n Quest--Two forms of each portion distinguished--Grouping of\n the various versions--Alternative hypotheses of development--\n Their bearing upon the alleged Celtic origin of the Grail--\n Closer examination of the various accounts of the Grail: The\n first use made of it and its first possessor; its solace of\n Joseph; its properties and the effect produced by it; its\n name; its arrival in England; the Grail-keeper and his\n relationship to the Promised Knight--Three different stages\n in the development of the Queste--The work and the\n qualification of the Promised Knight--Conclusions: Priority\n over Early History of Quest--Chronological arrangement of the\n versions page 65\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n SKETCH OF THE LITERATURE CONNECTED WITH THE GRAIL CYCLE.\n\n Villemarqu\u00e9--Halliwell--San Marte (A. Schulz)--Simrock--\n Rochat--Furnivall's reprint of the Grand St. Graal and of\n Borron--J. F. Campbell--Furnivall's Queste--Paulin Paris--\n Potvin's Conte du Graal--Bergmann--Skeat's Joseph of\n Arimathea--Hucher: Grail Celtic, date of Borron--Zarncke, Zur\n Geschichte der Gralsage; Grail belongs to Christian\n legend--Birch-Hirschfeld develops Zarncke's views: Grand St.\n Graal younger than Queste, both presuppose Chrestien and an\n earlier Queste, the Didot-Perceval, which forms integral part\n of Borron's trilogy; Mabinogi later than Chrestien; various\n members of the cycle dated--Martin combats Birch-Hirschfeld:\n Borron later than Chrestien, whose poem represents oldest\n stage of the romance, which has its roots in Celtic\n tradition--Hertz--Criticism of Birch-Hirschfeld page 97\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n Relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal--The\n former not the source of the latter--Relationship of the\n Conte du Graal and the Mabinogi--Instances in which the\n Mabinogi has copied Chrestien--Examples of its independence--\n The incident of the blood drops in the snow--Differences\n between the two works--The machinery of the Mabinogi and the\n traces of it in the Conte du Graal--The stag hunt--The\n Mabinogi and Manessier--The sources of the Conte du Graal and\n the relation of the various parts to a common original--Sir\n Perceval--Steinbach's theory--Objections to it--The counsels\n in the Conte du Graal--Wolfram and the Mabinogi--Absence of\n the Grail from the apparently oldest Celtic form page 127\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n The Lay of the Great Fool--Summary of the Prose Opening--The\n Aryan Expulsion and Return Formula--Comparison with the\n Mabinogi, Sir Perceval, and the Conte du Graal--Comparison\n with various Gaelic m\u00e4rchen, the Knight of the Red Shield,\n the Rider of Grianaig--Originality of the Highland tale--\n Comparison with the Fionn legend--Summary of the Lay of the\n Great Fool--Comparison with the stag hunt incident in the\n Conte du Graal and the Mabinogi--The folk-tale of the twin\n brethren--The fight against the witch who brings the dead to\n life in Gerbert and the similar incident in the folk-tale of\n the Knight of the Red Shield--Comparison with the original\n form of the Mabinogi--Originality of Gerbert page 152\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n The various forms of the visit to the Grail Castle in the\n romances--Conte du Graal: Chrestien; Gautier-Manessier;\n Gautier-Gerbert--Didot-Perceval--Mabinogi--Conte du Graal;\n Gawain's visit to the Grail Castle--Heinrich von dem\n T\u00fcrlin--Conte du Graal: Perceval's visit to the Castle of\n Maidens--Inconsistency of these varying accounts; their\n testimony to stories of different nature and origin being\n embodied in the romances--Two main types: feud quest and\n unspelling quest--Reasons for the confusion of the two\n types--Evidence of the confusion in older Celtic literature--\n The Grail in Celtic literature: the gear of the Tuatha de\n Danann; the cauldron in the Ultonian cycle; the Mabinogi of\n Branwen; vessel of balsam and glaive of light in the\n contemporary folk-tale--The sword in Celtic literature:\n Tethra; Fionn; Manus--Parallels to the Bespelled Castle; the\n Brug of Oengus, the Brug of Lug, the Brug of Manannan Mac\n Lir, Bran's visit to the Island of Women, Cormac Mac Art, and\n the Fairy Branch; Diarmaid and the Daughter of King Under the\n Waves--Unspelling stories: The Three Soldiers; the waiting of\n Arthur; Arthur in Etna; the Kyffh\u00e4user Legend, objections to\n Martin's views concerning it--Gawain's visit to the Magic\n Castle and Celtic parallels; The Son of Bad Counsel; Fionn in\n Giant Land; Fionn in the House of Cuana; Fionn and the Yellow\n Face--The Vanishing of the Bespelled Castle--Comparison with\n the Sleeping Beauty cycle--The \"Haunted Castle\" form and its\n influence on Heinrich's version--The Loathly Grail Messenger page 170\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n The Fisher King in the Conte du Graal, in the Queste, and in\n Borron and the Grand St. Graal--The accounts of latter\n complete each other--The Fish is the Salmon of Wisdom--\n Parallel with the Fionn Saga--The nature of the Unspelling\n Quest--The Mabinogi of Taliesin and its mythological\n affinities--Brons, Bran, Cernunnos--Perceval's silence: Conte\n du Graal explanation late; explanation from the Fionn Saga--\n Comparison of incident with _geasa_; nature of latter;\n references to it in Celtic folk-tales and in old Irish\n literature, Book of Rights, Diarmaid, Cuchulainn--_Geasa_ and\n _taboo_ page 207\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n Summing up of the elements of the older portion of the\n cycle--Parallelism with Celtic tradition--The Christian\n element in the cycle: the two forms of the Early History;\n Brons form older--Brons and Bran--The Bran conversion\n legend--The Joseph conversion legend, Joseph in apocryphal\n literature, the Evangelium Nicodemi--The Bran legend the\n starting point of the Christian transformation of the\n legend--Substitution of Joseph for Bran--Objection to this\n hypothesis--Hypothetical sketch of the growth of the legend page 215\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n The Moral and Spiritual import of the Grail-Legend\n universally recognised--Popularity of the Arthurian Romance--\n Reasons for that Popularity--Affinities of the Medi\u00e6val\n Romances with early Celtic Literature; Importance of the\n Individual Hero; Knighthood; the _r\u00f4le_ of Woman; the Celtic\n Fairy and the Medi\u00e6val Lady; the Supernatural--M. Renan's\n views--The Quest in English Literature, Malory--The earliest\n form of the Legend, Chrestien, his continuators--The Queste\n and its Ideal--The Sex-Relations in the Middle Ages--\n Criticism of Mr. Furnivall's estimate of the moral import of\n the Queste--The Merits of the Queste--The Chastity Ideal in\n the later versions--Modern English Treatments: Tennyson,\n Hawker--Possible Source of the Chastity Ideal in Popular\n Tradition--The Perceval Quest in Wolfram; his Moral\n Conception; the Question; Parzival and Conduiramur--The\n Parzival Quest and Faust--Wagner's Parsifal--The Christian\n element in the Legend--Ethical Ideas in the folk-tale\n originals of the Grail Romances: the Great Fool; the Sleeping\n Beauty--Conclusion page 228\n\n\n APPENDIX A.: The Relationship of Wolfram to Chrestien page 261\n\n\n APPENDIX B.: The Grand St. Graal Prologue and the Brandan\n Legend page 264\n\n\n INDEX I. The Dramatis Person\u00e6 of the Legend page 266\n\n\n INDEX II. page 275\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe present work is, as its title states, a collection of \"Studies.\" It\ndoes not profess to give an exhaustive or orderly account of the Grail\nromance cycle; it deals with particular aspects of the legend, and makes\nno pretence of exhausting even these.\n\nIt may be urged that as this is the case the basis of the work is too\nbroad for the superstructure, and that there was no need to give full\nsummaries of the leading forms of the legend, or to discuss at such length\ntheir relation one to another, when it was only intended to follow up one\nof the many problems which this romance cycle presents. Had there existed\nany work in English which did in any measure what the writer has here\nattempted to do, he would only too gladly have given more space and more\ntime to the elaboration of the special subject of these studies. But the\nonly work of the kind is in German, _Birch-Hirschfeld's Die Gralsage_.\nMany interested in the Arthurian romances do not know German; and some who\nprofess an interest in them, and who do know German, are not, to judge by\ntheir writings, acquainted with Birch-Hirschfeld's work. It seemed worth\nwhile, therefore, to present the facts about the cycle with greater\nfulness than would have been necessary had those facts been generally\naccessible. The writer felt, too, that whatever judgment might be passed\nupon his own speculations, his statements of fact might give his book some\nvalue in the eyes of students. He also wished to give all who felt an\ninterest in the line of investigation he opened up the opportunity of\npursuing it further, or the means of checking his assertions and\nconjectures.\n\nThe writer has taken his texts as he found them. He has studied the\nsubject matter of the romances, not the words in which they have been\nhanded down. Those who seek for philological disquisitions are, therefore,\nwarned that they will find nothing to interest them; and those scholars\nwho are well acquainted with the printed texts, but who are on the search\nfor fresh MS. evidence, must not look here for such. On the other hand, as\nthe printed texts are for the most of such rarity and price as to be\npractically inaccessible to anyone not within reach of a large library,\nthe writer trusts that his abstract of them will be welcome to many. He\nhas striven to take note of all works of real value bearing upon the\nsubject. He endeavoured, though unsuccessfully, to obtain a copy of M.\nGaston Paris' account of the Arthurian romances which, though it has been\nfor some months in print, is not yet published.\n\nThe writer has done his best to separate the certain from the conjectural.\nLike M. Renan, in a similar case, he begs the reader to supply the\n\"perhaps\" and the \"possibly's\" that may sometimes have dropt out. The\nwhole subject is fraught with difficulty, and there are special reasons\nwhy all results must for some time to come be looked upon as conjectural.\nThese are glanced at here and there in the course of these studies, but it\nmay be well to put them together in this place. Firstly, whatever opinions\nbe held as to which are the older forms of the legend, it is certain that\nin no one case do we possess a primary form. All the versions that have\ncome down to us presuppose, even where they do not actually testify to, a\nmodel. Two of the forms which there is substantial agreement in reckoning\namong the oldest, the poems of Chrestien de Troyes and Robert de Borron,\nwere never finished by the authors; sequels exist to both, of a later date\nand obviously affected by other forms of the legend. A reconstruction of\nthe original story is under these circumstances a task of great\nuncertainty. So much for the difficulty inherent in the nature of the\nevidence, a difficulty which it is to be feared will always beset the\nstudent of this literature, as no new texts are likely to be found.\nSecondly, this evidence, such as it is, is not accessible in a form of\nwhich the most can be made. The most important member of the group, the\nConte du Graal, only exists in one text, and that from a late and poor\nMS. It is certain that a critical edition, based upon a survey of the\nentire MS. evidence, will throw great light upon all the questions here\ntreated of. The Mabinogi of Peredur has not yet been critically edited,\nnor have the MSS. of the other romances yielded up all that can be learnt\nfrom them. Thirdly, whatever opinion be held respecting the connection of\nthe North French romances and Celtic tradition, connection of some kind\nmust be admitted. Now the study of Celtic tradition is only beginning to\nbe placed upon a firm basis, and the stores of Celtic myth and legend are\nonly beginning to be thrown open to the non-Celtic scholar. Were there in\nexistence a Celtic parallel to Grimm's great work on German Mythology, the\nviews for which the writer contends would have been, in all likelihood,\nadmitted ere now, and there would have been no necessity for this work at\nall.\n\nWhilst some of the reasons which render the study of the Grail legends so\nfascinating, because so problematic, will probably always remain in force,\nothers will vanish before the increase of knowledge. When the diplomatic\nevidence is accessible in a trustworthy form; when the romances have\nreceived all the light that can be shed upon them from Celtic history,\nphilology, and mythology, the future student will have a comparatively\neasy task. One of the writer's chief objects has been to excite an\ninterest in these romances among those who are able to examine the Celtic\nelements in them far more efficiently than he could do. Welsh philologists\ncan do much to explain the _Onomasticon Arthurianum_; Cymric history\ngenerally may elucidate the subject matter. But as a whole Welsh\nliterature is late, meagre, and has kept little that is archaic. The study\nof Irish promises far better results. Of all the races of modern Europe\nthe Irish have the most considerable and the most archaic mass of\npre-Christian traditions. By the side of their heroic traditional\nliterature that of Cymry or Teuton (High and Low), or Slav is recent,\nscanty, and unoriginal.\n\nA few words must be said in defence of the free use made of conjecture in\nthe course of these studies. This is well nigh unavoidable from the way in\nwhich the texts we have to deal with have come down to us. What M. Renan\nhas said about the Hebrew historical scriptures is excellently exemplified\nin the Grail romances. There was no fixed text, no definite or rounded\nsequence of incidents, of which scribes respected the integrity. On the\ncontrary, each successive transcriber was only anxious to add some fresh\nadventure to the interminable tale, and those MSS. were most thought of\nwhich contained the greatest number of lines. The earlier MSS. have,\ntherefore, almost entirely disappeared, and we are dealing with works\nwhich we know to have been composed in the twelfth century, but of which\nwe have only thirteenth or fourteenth century transcripts. Inconsistencies\nin the conduct of the story are the inevitable consequence in most cases,\nbut sometimes the latest arranger had an eye for unity of effect, and\nattained this by the simple process of altering the old account so as to\nmake it fit with the new. In dealing with the text of an _individual_\nauthor, whether ancient or modern, it would be in the last degree\nuncritical to explain difficulties by such hypotheses as the loss of an\nearlier draft, or the foisting into the work of later and incongruous\nincidents and conceptions. Not so in the case of the romances; this method\nof explanation is natural and legitimate, but none the less is it largely\nconjectural.\n\nThe writer may be blamed for not having presented his subject in a more\nengaging and more lucid form. He would plead in excuse the circumstances\nunder which his work has been carried on. When the only hours of study are\nthose which remain after the claims, neither few nor light, of business\nand other duties have been met, it is hard to give an appearance of unity\nto a number of minute detail studies, and to weld them together into one\nharmonious whole. The fact that the work has been written, and printed, at\nconsiderable intervals of time may, it is hoped, be accepted as some\nexcuse for inconsistency in the terminology.\n\nThe writer has many acknowledgments to make. First and chief to Dr.\nBirch-Hirschfeld, but for whose labours, covering well nigh the whole\nfield of the Grail cycle, he would not have been able to take in hand his\nwork at all; then to Dr. Furnivall, to whose enthusiasm and spirit the\npublication of some of the most important texts are due. In these two\ncases the writer acknowledges his gratitude with the more readiness that\nhe has felt compelled to come to an opposite conclusion from that arrived\nat by Dr. Birch-Hirschfeld respecting the genesis and growth of the\nlegend, and because he has had to differ from Dr. Furnivall's estimate of\nthe moral value of the Galahad romances. To M. Hucher, to Mons. Ch.\nPotvin, the editor, single-handed, of the Conte du Graal, to M. d'Arbois\nde Jubainville, to Professor Ernst Martin, to the veteran San-Marte, to\nHerr Otto K\u00fcpp, and to Herr Paul Steinbach, these studies owe much.\nProfessor Rhys' Hibbert Lectures came into the writer's hands as he was\npreparing the latter portion of the book for the press; they were of great\nservice to him, and he was especially gratified to find opinions at which\nhe had arrived confirmed on altogether independent grounds by Professor\nRhys' high authority. The writer is also indebted to him, to Mr. H. L. D.\nWard, of the British Museum, and to his friend Mr. Egerton Phillimore for\nhelp given while the sheets were passing through the press. Lastly, the\nwriter desires to pay an especial tribute of gratitude and respect to that\nadmirable scholar, J. F. Campbell. Of all the masters in folk-lore, Jacob\nGrimm not excepted, none had a keener eye or surer, more instinctively\nright judgment.\n\nAlthough the writer admits, nay, insists upon the conjectural character of\nhis results, he believes he is on the right track, and that if the Grail\nromances be worked out from any other point of view than the one here\ntaken, the same goal will be reached. It should be said that some of the\nconclusions, which he can claim as his own by right of first mention, were\nstated by him in a paper he read before the Folk-Lore Society in 1880\n(afterwards reprinted, Celtic Magazine, 1887, August-October); and in a\npaper he read before the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, in 1884.\n\nThese studies have been a delight and a solace to the writer; had it been\notherwise, he would still feel himself amply repaid for his work by the\nthought that he had made a contribution, however slight, to the criticism\nof the Legend of the Holy Grail.\n\n\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\n[The reader is kindly begged to mark in these corrections before using the\nbook.]\n\n Page 22, line 12, _for_ Corbi\u00e8rc _read_ Corbi\u00e8re.\n \" 25, line 37, _insert_ Passion _before_ Week.\n \" 30, 7 lines from bottom, _for_ Avallon _read_ Avalon.\n \" 85, line 24, _for_ Percival _read_ Perceval.\n \" 86, line 12, _for_ Percival _read_ Perceval.\n \" 90, 5 lines from bottom, _for_ Pelleur _read_ Pelleans.\n \" 102, line 22, _for_ seems _read_ seem.\n \" 120, line 3, _for_ 1180 _read_ 1189.\n \" 124, line 29, _for_ Bron _read_ Brons.\n \" 156, line 11, _insert_ comma _after_ specially.\n \" 159, line 11, _for_ Henessey _read_ Hennessy.\n \" 163, note, _i.e._, _for_ Graal _read_ Gaal.\n \" 183, line 23, _insert_ comma _after_ more.\n \" 188, line 5, _for_ euphemerised _read_ euhemerised.\n \" 188, line 5, _for_ invasion _read_ invasions.\n \" 188, line 17, _for_ mystic _read_ mythic.\n \" 189, line 1, _for_ LXXVII _read_ LXXXII.\n \" 197, note, _for_ Carl the Great _read_ Karl the Great.\n \" 200, line 12, _insert_ comma _after_ plight; _dele_ comma _after_\n love.\n \" 201, 1 line from bottom, _insert_ late _before_ medi\u00e6val.\n \" 204, note, _for_ Percival _read_ Perceval.\n \" 217, line 23, _for_ mystic _read_ mythic.\n\n\n\n\nSTUDIES ON THE LEGEND OF THE HOLY GRAIL.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n Description of the leading forms of the Romance: Conte del\n Graal--Joseph d'Arimathie--Didot-Perceval--Queste del Saint\n Graal--Grand Saint Graal--Parzival--Perceval le Gallois--Mabinogi of\n Peredur--Sir Perceval--Diu Cr\u00f4ne--Information respecting date and\n authorship of these works in the MSS.\n\n\nThe following are the forms in which the Legend of the Holy Grail has come\ndown to us:--\n\nA.--=Le Conte del Graal=, a poem of over 60,000 verses, the major part of\nwhich (45,379 verses) was printed for the first time by Potvin: Le Conte\ndel Graal, six volumes, 8vo. (vols. ii.-vi. containing our poem), Mons,\n1866-71, from a MS. preserved in the Mons Library.[1] The portion of the\npoem which is not printed in full is summarised by Potvin in the sixth\nvolume of his edition. The poem, so far as at present known, is the work\nof four men:\n\n A I. Chrestien de Troyes, who carried the work down to verse 10,601.\n\n A II. Gautier de Doulens, who continued it to verse 34,934.\n\n A III. Manessier, who finished it in 45,379 verses.\n\n A IV. Gerbert, to whom are due over 15,000 verses, mostly found\n interpolated between Gautier de Doulens and Manessier.\n\nA MS. preserved in the Library of Montpellier[2] differs in important\nrespects from the Mons one as far as Gautier de Doulens and Manessier are\nconcerned. It intercalates 228 verses between verses 20,294 and 20,296 of\nthe Mons MS., and gives a different redaction of verses 34,996-35,128 in\nagreement with the aforesaid intercalation. It likewise mentions two\nvisits of Gawain to the Grail Castle. The intercalation in Gautier may be\ncalled A II_a_, and the variant in Manessier A III_a_.\n\nB.--=Joseph d'Arimathie, Merlin=, exists in two forms: (1) a fragmentary\nmetrical version entitled in the sole existing MS. (Biblioth\u00e8que\nNationale, No. 20,047. Fonds St. Germain, No. 1,987) Li R(o)manz de l'est\n(o)ire dou Graal, and consisting of 4,018 verses, 3,514 for the Joseph,\nthe remainder, for about one-fifth of the Merlin. First printed by\nFrancisque Michel: Le Roman du St. Graal. Bordeaux, 1841. Secondly by\nFurnivall: Seynt Graal or the Sank Ryal. Printed for the Roxburghe Club,\ntwo volumes, 4to., London, 1861-63, where it is found in an appendix at\nthe end of vol i. (2) A prose version of which several MSS. exist, all of\nwhich are fully described by E. Hucher: Le Saint-Graal, ou le Joseph\nd'Arimathie, three volumes, 12mo., Le Mans, 1875-78, vol. i., pp. 1-28.\nThe chief are: the Cang\u00e9 MS. (_circa_ 1250) of which Hucher prints the\nJoseph, vol. i., pp. 209-276, and the Didot MS., written in 1301, of which\nHucher prints the Joseph, vol. i., pp. 277-333. Hucher likewise gives,\nvol. i., pp. 335-365, variants from the Huth MS. (_circa_ 1280).\n\nThese different versions may be numbered as follows:--\n\n B I. The metrical version, which I shall always quote as Metr. Jos.,\n from Furnivall's edition.\n\n B II. The prose versions: B II_a_, Cang\u00e9 Jos.; B II_b_, Didot Jos.; B\n II_c_, Huth Jos., all quoted from Hucher, vol. i.\n\nC.--=Perceval=, prose romance found in the already-mentioned Didot MS. at\nthe end of the Merlin, printed by Hucher, vol. i., pp. 415-505, from which\nit will be quoted as Didot-Perceval.\n\nD.--=Queste del Saint Graal=, prose romance commonly found in the MSS. in\ncombination with Lancelot and the Mort Artur. Edited by Furnivall: La\nQueste del St. Graal. Printed for the Roxburghe Club, 4to., London, 1864.\nThe introduction contains a full account of the existing MSS. A different\nredaction from that of any of the known French MSS. is preserved in a\nWelsh translation, printed, with a modern English version by the editor,\nfrom a fifteenth century Hengwrt MS., by the Rev. Robert Williams: Y Seint\nGraal, London, 8vo., 1876. I shall quote--\n\n D I. Queste, from Furnivall's edition.\n\n D II. Welsh Quest, from Williams' edition.\n\nE.--The so-called =Grand Saint Graal=, prose romance found in the MSS.,\nboth preceding the Merlin and the Queste, and preceding the Queste and the\nMort Artur. Printed by Furnivall from Cambridge and Brit. Mus. MSS.,\ntogether with a metrical English adaptation by Henry Lonelich, of about\nthe time of Henry the VIth, in the already-mentioned Seynt Graal; and by\nHucher, vols. ii. and iii., from a Le Mans MS.; will be quoted as Grand\nSt. Graal, from Furnivall's edition.\n\nF.--=Parzival=, by Wolfram von Eschenbach, German metrical romance,\ncritically edited from the MSS. by Karl Lachmann, Wolfram von Eschenbach,\nVierte Ausgabe, 8vo., Berlin, 1879, from which it will be quoted as\nWolfram.\n\nG.--=Perceval le Gallois=, prose romance, first printed by Potvin, vol. i.\nof his Conte del Graal, from a Mons MS., with variants from a fragmentary\nBerne MS. (as to both of which see pp. 353, etc.). A Welsh translation,\nwith modern English version by the editor, made from a MS. closely allied\nto the Berne fragments, and representing a superior text to that printed\nby Potvin, in Williams' already-mentioned Y Seint Graal.\n\nBesides these works there exist two versions of the Perceval legend in\nwhich the Holy Grail, as such, does not appear. These are:--\n\nH.--=The Mabinogi of Peredur, the son of Evrawc=, Welsh prose romance\nfound in the Red Book of Hergest, a MS. of the end of the fourteenth\ncentury, and in MSS. a hundred years older. I shall quote it as Peredur,\nfrom Lady Guest's English translation of the Mabinogion, 8vo., London,\n1877.\n\nI.--=Sir Perceval of Galles=, English metrical romance, printed for the\nfirst time from the Thornton MS., of _circa_ 1440, by Halliwell: The\nThornton Romances, printed for the Camden Society, small 4to., London,\n1884; from which I shall quote it as Sir Perceval.\n\nFinally there exists an independent German version of certain adventures,\nthe hero of which in the Conte du Graal, in Wolfram, and in the Mabinogi,\nis Gawain. This is--\n\nK.--=Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin.= Diu Cr\u00f4ne. Edited by G. H. F. Scholl.\nBibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins, vol. xxvii., Stuttgart, 1852.\n\nThe positive information which the different MSS. of the above mentioned\nworks afford respecting their authors, date of composition, sources, etc.,\nis as follows:--In the prologue to his poem, Chrestien (Potvin i., pp.\n307-308) dedicates his work to \"Li quens Felippes de Flandres,\" who as he\nstates (verse 67), \"li bailla le livre,\" which served him as model, and\nwhom he praises at great length as surpassing Alexander. We know that\nCount Philip of Flanders took the cross in 1188, set out for the Holy Land\nin 1190, and died on the 1st of June, 1191, before Akkon.[3] As Chrestien\nsays not a word about the crusading intentions of Philip, it may be\ninferred that he wrote his prologue before 1188, and began the poem in\n1189 at the latest. Gautier de Doulens (probably of that ilk, in Picardy,\nsome miles from Amiens)[4] has only left his name, verse 33,755, Gautiers\nde Dons qui l'estore, etc. Manessier the next continuator has been more\nexplicit; he describes himself as completing the work at the command\nof ...\n\n Jehanne la Comtesse\n Qu'est de Flandre dame et mestresse.\n (Potvin, vi., p. 157.)\n\nThis Joan, daughter of Baldwin the VIth, ruled Flanders _alone_ during the\nimprisonment of her husband after the battle of Bouvines (1214-1227), and\nManessier's words can only apply to her during this period, so that his\ncontinuation must have been written between 1214-1227.[5] The third\ncontinuator, Gerbers, only mentions his name (Potvin, vi., p. 212).\n\nThe author of version B, names himself, B I, verse 3,461, Messires Roberz\nde Beron; verses 3,488-94 state that no mortal man had told the story,\nuntil he had it from\n\n Mon seigneur Gautier en peis\n Qui de Mont Belyal estoit.\n\nVerse 3,155 gives the name somewhat differently, Meistres Robers dist de\nBouron. The prose versions follow the poem with additions, thus Cang\u00e9 Jos.\n(p. 275); Messires Roberz de Borron lou restrait \u00e0 mon seigneur Gautier,\nlou preu conte de Mob\u00e9liart.\n\nWalter of Montbeliard, brother to Count Richard of Montbeliard, went to\nthe Holy Land in 1199, became Constable of Jerusalem, Regent of Cyprus,\nand died in 1212. The date of his birth is uncertain, but as his elder\nbrother died in 1237, Walter could hardly have been born before 1150. His\nfather, Amadeus, died in 1183, in which year he received the countship of\nMontfaucon. It may only have been after he thus became independent that\nRobert entered his service. In any case Robert could not have spoken of\nhim as \"mon seigneur,\" before 1170. That year may, therefore, be taken as\na _terminus a quo_, and the year 1212 as a _terminus ad quem_ for dating\nthese versions.\n\nThe Grand St. Graal is likewise ascribed in the MSS. to Robert de Borron,\nand it is further stated that he translated from Latin into French--Et\nensi le temoigne me sires robiers de borron qui a translatee de latin en\nfranchois cheste estoire (ii. p. 78).\n\nThe Queste ascribed in the MSS. to Walter Mapes, is said to have been\ncompiled by him for the love of his lord, King Henry--maistre Gautiers Map\nles extrait pour l'amor del roy Henri son seignor, qui fist l'estore\ntranslater du latin en francois[6]--Walter Mapes, born before 1143 (he\npresided at the assizes of Gloucester in 1173), died in 1210. If we may\nbelieve the MSS., the Queste would probably fall within the last\ntwenty-five years of the twelfth century.\n\nThe author of Perceval le Gallois describes himself (Potvin, i., 348) as\nwriting the book for the \"Seignor de Neele,\" whose Christian name,\n\"Johan,\" is given four lines lower down, at the command of the \"Seingnor\nde Cambresis,\" _i.e._, the Bishop of Cambray. This John of Nesle is\nprobably the one who in the year 1225 sold the lordship of Bruges to\nCountess Joan of Flanders.[7]\n\nWolfram von Eschenbach, of that ilk, in North Bavaria, born in the last\nthirty years of the twelfth century, died about 1220. He knew Chrestien's\npoem well, and repeatedly refers to it, but with great contempt, as being\nthe wrong version of the story, whereas he holds the true version from\nKyot, the singer, a \"Provenzal,\" who found the tale of Parzival written in\nheathen tongue at D\u00f4let (Toledo), by Flegetanis, a heathen who first\ntaught concerning the Grail, put it into French, and after searching the\nchronicles of Britain, France, and Ireland in vain, at length found\ninformation in the chronicles of Anjou (pp. 202 and 219).\n\nNothing is stated in the works themselves respecting the authors of the\nMabinogi and the Thornton Sir Perceval.\n\nHeinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin frequently quotes Chrestien as his authority,\n_e.g._, verses 16,941, 23,046, 23,982.\n\nIf these various statements are to be accepted, it follows that in the\ncourse of fifty years (1170-1220) a great body of romance came into\nexistence, partly in France, Chrestien, his continuators, and Robert de\nBorron; partly in England, Walter Mapes; and partly in Germany, Wolfram\nvon Eschenbach, and Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin. Of this body of romance only\na portion has come down to us, the work of Kyot and the Latin originals of\nthe Queste and the Grand St. Graal having disappeared. Furthermore, it is\nonly possible to date with any accuracy three or four of the works, viz.,\nChrestien, Manessier, Wolfram (whose poem falls certainly within the first\nten years of the thirteenth century), though it may also be taken as\ncertain that R. de Borron wrote after 1170, and the anonymous author of\nPerceval le Gallois before 1225. Of the dated works Chrestien's is the\noldest, 1188-90, and it postulates the existence of previous versions.\n\nThe object of the present investigation being to determine, as far as\npossible, the age and relationship to one another of the different\nversions which have come down to us, to exhibit the oldest form of the\nstory as we have it, and to connect it with Celtic traditional belief and\nliterature, it will be well, before proceeding to further discuss the\nvarious points left doubtful by the evidence gathered from the MSS., to\ngive clear and detailed summaries of the most important versions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n Summaries--Conte du Graal: Pseudo-Chrestien, Chrestien, Gautier de\n Doulens, Manessier, Gerbert--Wolfram--Heinrich von dem\n T\u00fcrlin--Didot-Perceval--Mabinogi of Peredur--Thornton MS. Sir\n Perceval--Queste del Saint Graal--Grand Saint Graal--Robert de\n Borron's poem, Joseph of Arimathea.\n\n\n=The Conte du Graal.=--PSEUDO-CHRESTIEN.[8]--The story tells of the\n\"Graal,\" whose mysteries, if Master Blihis lie not, none may reveal; it\nfalls into seven parts, and shows how the rich land of Logres was\ndestroyed. (1) In the wells and springs of that land harboured damsels who\nfed the wayfarer with meat and pasties and bread. But King Amangons did\nwrong to one and carried off her golden cup, so that never more came\ndamsels out of the springs to comfort the wanderer. And the men of King\nAmangons followed his evil example. Thereafter the springs dried up, and\nthe grass withered, and the land became waste, and no more might be found\nthe court of the Rich Fisher, which had filled the land with plenty and\nsplendour. (2) The Knights of the Table Round, learning the ill done to\nthe damsels, set forth to protect them; they found them not, but fair\ndamsels wandering in the woods, each with her knight; with the latter they\nstrove, and when they overcame them sent them to Arthur. Thus came Blihos\nBliheris to Arthur's court conquered by Gauvain; he knew goodly tales and\nhe told how the wandering damsels were sprung from those ravished by King\nAmangons. So long would they wander till God gave them to find the court,\nwhence joy and splendour would come to the land. (3) Arthur's knights\nresolved to seek the court of the Rich Fisher--much knew he of black art,\nmore than an hundred times changed he his semblance, that no man seeing\nhim again recognised him. Gauvain found it, and had great joy therefrom;\nbut before him a young knight, small of age, but none bolder of\ncourage--Percevaus li Galois was he--he asked whereto the Grail served,\nbut nought of the lance why it dripped blood, nor of the sword one half of\nwhich was away whilst the other lay in the bier. But he asked surely\nconcerning the rich cross of silver. Now in the room three times there\narose such great sorrow that no man who heard it, so bold he might be but\nfeared. Afterwards the room filled and the king came in, full richly\ndressed, so that he might hardly be known of them that had seen him the\nday before, fishing. And when all were sat down the Grail came in, and\nwithout serjeant nor seneschal served all present, and 'twas wonder what\nfood it gave them. And then came the great marvel which has not its like.\nBut Perceval will tell of this, so I must say no more; it is a great shame\nto tell beforehand what is in a good tale. When the good knight shall come\nwho found the court three times you shall hear me tell of Grail and lance,\nand of him who lay in the bier, of the sword, of the grief and swooning of\nall beholders. (4) Now the court was found seven times, and each time\nshall have a fresh tale:--\n\n The seventh (the most pleasing) tells of the lance wherewith Longis\n pierced the side of the King of holy Majesty;\n\n The sixth of warlike feats;\n\n The fifth of the anger and loss of Huden; The fourth of heaven, for he\n was no coward, the knight Mors del Calan, who first came to Glamorgan;\n\n The third of the hawk whereof Castrars had such fear--Pecorins, the\n son of Amangons, bore all his days the wound on his forehead;\n\n The second has not yet been told; it tells of the great sorrows\n Lancelot of the Lake had there where he lost his virtue;\n\n And the last is the adventure of the shield, never a better one was\n there.\n\n(5) After this adventure the land was repeopled; court and grail were\nfound; the streams ran again; the meadows were green, the forests thick\nand leafy; so that all folk marvelled. But there came back a folk, the\nsame that came out of the springs (save they were not cooks), a caitiff\nset, and built for their damsels the rich Maidens' Castel, and the Bridge\nPerillous, and Castel Orguellous, and warred against the Table Round. In\nthe castle were 376, each sire of 20 knights. And not till after four\nyears did Arthur overcome them and was there peace.\n\n_(Here beginneth the Story of the Grail.)_\n\n(6) There were in the land of Wales twelve knights, of whom Bliocadrans\nalone survived, so eager were they in seeking tournament and combats.\nAfter living for two years with his wife, childless, Bliocadrans set forth\nto a tournament given by the King of Wales and Cornwall against them of\nthe Waste Fountain. At first successful, he is at length slain. A few days\nafter his departure his wife has borne a son. When at length she learns\nher husband's death, she takes counsel with her chamberlain, and\npretending a pilgrimage to St. Brandan, in Scotland, withdraws to the\nWaste Forest far removed from all men. Here she brings up her son, and\nthough she allows him to hunt in the forest, warns him against men covered\nwith iron--they are devils. He promises to follow her counsel, and\nthenceforth he goes into the forest alone.\n\n=The Conte du Graal.=--(_a_) CHRESTIEN.--(1) When as trees and meadows\ndeck themselves with green, and birds sing, the son of the widow lady goes\nout into the wood. He meets five knights, and, as their weapons shine in\nthe sun, takes them for angels, after having first thought them to be the\ndevils his mother had warned him against. He prays to them as his mother\nhas taught him. One of the knights asks if he has seen five knights and\nthree maidens who had passed that way, but he can but reply with questions\nconcerning the arms and trappings of the knights. He learns of Arthur the\nKing who makes knights, and when he returns to his mother tells her he has\nbeheld a more beautiful thing than God and His angels, knights namely, and\nhe too will become one. In vain his mother tells him of his father's and\nhis two elder brothers' fates, slain in battle. Nothing will serve, so the\nmother makes him a dress of coarse linen and leather, and before he leaves\ncounsels him as follows: If dame or damsel seek his aid he is to give it,\nhe is to do naught displeasing to them, but to kiss the maiden who is\nwilling, and to take ring and girdle of her if he can; to go for long with\nno fellow-traveller whose name he knows not, to speak with and consort\nwith worthy men, to pray to our Lord when he comes to church or convent.\nShe then tells him of Jesus Christ, the Holy Prophet. He departs clad and\narmed in Welsh fashion, and his mother swoons as though dead. (2) Perceval\ncomes to a tent in the wood, and, taking it for a convent, goes in and\nfinds sleeping on a bed a damsel, whom the neighing of his horse wakes. In\npursuance of his mother's counsel he kisses her more than twenty times,\ntakes her ring from her, and eats and drinks of her provisions. Thereafter\nhe rides forth, and her lover returning and hearing what has taken place,\nswears to avenge himself upon the intruder, and until such time the\ndamsel, whose tale he disbelieves, is to follow him barefoot and not to\nchange her raiment. (3) Perceval learns the way to Carduel from a\ncharcoal-burner; arrived there, he sees a knight coming forth from the\ncastle and bearing a golden cup in his hand, clad in red armour, who\ncomplains of Arthur as having robbed him of his land. Perceval rides into\nthe castle hall and finds the court at meat. Arthur, lost in thought, pays\nno attention to the first two salutations of Perceval, who then turns his\nhorse to depart, and in so doing knocks off the King's hat. Arthur then\ntells him how the Red Knight has carried off his cup, spilling its\ncontents over the Queen. Perceval cares not a rap for all this, but asks\nto be made knight, whereat all laugh. Perceval insists, and claims the Red\nKnight's armour. Kex bids him fetch them, whereat the King is displeased.\nPerceval greets a damsel, who laughs and foretells he shall be the best\nknight in the world. For this saying Kex strikes her, and kicks into the\nfire a fool who had been wont to repeat that the damsel would not laugh\ntill she beheld the best of knights. (4) Perceval tarries no longer, but\nfollows the Red Knight, and bids him give up his arms and armour. They\nfight, and Perceval slays his adversary with a cast of his dart. Yon\u00e8s,\nwho has followed him, finds him put to it to remove the knight's\narmour--he will burn him out of it if need be--and shows him how to\ndisarm the dead man and to arm himself. Perceval then mounts the knight's\nsteed and rides off, leaving the cup to Yon\u00e9s to be given to the King,\nwith this message: he, Perceval, would come back to avenge the damsel of\nthe blow Kex struck her. (5) Perceval comes to a castle, in front of which\nhe finds an old knight, to whom he relates what has befallen him, and of\nwhom he asks counsel as his mother bade him. The knight, Gonemans of\nGelbort, takes him into his castle, teaches him the use of arms, and all\nknightly practices. In especial he is to avoid over-readiness in speaking\nand in asking questions, and to give over his habit of always quoting his\nmother's counsels. He then dubs him knight, and sends him forth to return\nto his mother. (6) After a day's journey Perceval comes to a town defended\nby a castle, and, being allowed entrance therein, finds all waste and\ndeserted, even the very convents. The lady of the castle, a damsel of\nsurpassing beauty, welcomes him and bids him to table. Mindful of\nGonemans' counsels he remains silent, and she must speak to him first. She\nturns out to be Gonemans' niece. At night the young stranger is shown to\nhis chamber, but the damsel cannot sleep for thought. Weeping she comes to\nPerceval's bedside, and in reply to his wondering questions tells him how\nthe forces of King Clamadex encompass the castle, and how that on the\nmorrow she must yield, but rather than be Clamadex's she will slay\nherself. He promises to help her, and bids her to him in the bed, which\nshe does, and they pass the night in each other's arms, mouth to mouth. On\nthe morrow he begs for her love in return for his promised aid, which she\nhalf refuses, the more to urge him on. He fights with and overcomes\nAguigrenons, Clamadex's marshal, and sends him to Arthur's court. Clamadex\nhearing of this tries afresh to starve out the castle, but a storm luckily\nthrows a passing ship ashore, and thereby reprovisions the besieged ones.\nClamadex then challenges Perceval, is overcome, and sent to Arthur's\ncourt, where he arrives shortly after his marshal. They relate wonders\nconcerning the Red Knight, and the King is more than ever displeased with\nKex for having offended such a valiant warrior. After remaining for a\nwhile with Blanchefleur, Perceval takes leave of her, as he longs to see\nhis mother again. (7) He comes to a river, upon which is a boat, and\ntherein two men fishing. One of them, in reply to his questions, directs\nhim for a night's shelter to his own castle hard by. Perceval starts for\nit, and at first unable to find it reproaches the fisher. Suddenly he\nperceives the castle before him, enters therein, is disarmed, clad in a\nscarlet mantle, and led into a great hall. Therein is a couch upon which\nlies an old man; near him is a fire, around which some four hundred men\nare sitting. Perceval tells his host he had come from Biau-Repaire. A\nsquire enters, bearing a sword, and on it is written that it will never\nbreak save in one peril, and that known only to the maker of it. 'Tis a\npresent from the host's niece to be bestowed where it will be well\nemployed. The host gives it to Perceval, \"to whom it was adjudged and\ndestined.\" Hereupon enters another squire, bearing in his hand a lance,\nfrom the head of which a drop of blood runs down on the squire's hand.\nPerceval would have asked concerning this wonder, but he minds him of\nGonemans' counsel not to speak or inquire too much. Two more squires\nenter, holding each a ten-branched candlestick, and with them a damsel, a\n\"graal\" in her hands. The graal shines so that it puts out the light of\nthe candles as the sun does that of the stars. Thereafter follows a damsel\nholding a (silver) plate. All defile past between the fire and the couch,\nbut Perceval does not venture to ask wherefore the graal is used. Supper\nfollows, and the graal is again brought, and Perceval, knowing not its\nuse, had fain asked, but always refrains when he thinks of Gonemans, and\nfinally puts off his questions till the morrow. After supper the guest is\nled to his chamber, and on the morrow, awakening, finds the castle\ndeserted. No one answers his calls. Issuing forth he finds his horse\nsaddled and the drawbridge down. Thinking to find the castle dwellers in\nthe forest he rides forth, but the drawbridge closes so suddenly behind\nhim that had not the horse leapt quickly forward it had gone hard with\nsteed and rider. In vain Perceval calls: none answer. (8) He pricks on and\ncomes to an oak, beneath which sits a maid holding a dead knight in her\narms and lamenting over him. She asks him where he has passed the night,\nand on learning it tells him the fisher who had directed him to the castle\nand his host were one and the same; wounded by a spear thrust through both\nthighs his only solace is in fishing, whence he is called the Fisher King.\nShe asks, had Perceval seen the bleeding lance, the graal, and the silver\ndish? had he asked their meaning? No; then what is his name? He does not\nknow it, but she guesses it: Perceval le Gallois; but it should be\nPerceval the Caitiff, for had he asked concerning what he saw, the good\nking would have been made whole again, and great good have sprung\ntherefrom. He has also a heavy sin on his conscience in that his mother\ndied of grief when he left her. She herself is his cousin. Perceval asks\nconcerning the dead knight, and learning it is her lover offers to revenge\nher upon his slayer. In return she tells him about the sword, how it will\nfly in pieces if he have not care of it, and how it may be made whole\nagain by dipping it in a lake, near which dwells its maker, the smith\nTrebucet. (9) Perceval leaves his cousin and meets, riding on a wretched\nhorse, a scantily and shabbily clad woman of miserable appearance,\nlamenting her hard fate and unjust treatment. She is the lady of the tent\nwhose ring Perceval had carried off. She bids him fly her husband, the\nOrgellous de la Lande. The latter appears, challenges Perceval, but is\novercome by him, convinced of his wife's innocence, compelled to take her\ninto favour again, and both must go to Arthur's court, relate the whole\nstory, and renew Perceval's promise to the damsel whom Kex had struck, to\navenge her. Arthur, when he hears of the deeds of the young hero, sets\nforth with his whole court to seek him. (10) Snow has fallen, and a flock\nof wild geese, blinded by the snow, has had one of its number wounded by a\nfalcon. Three blood drops have fallen on the snow, and Perceval beholding\nthem falls into deep thought on the red and white in his love's face.\nArthur and his knights come up with him. Saigremors sees him first, bids\nhim come, and, when he answers no word, tilts against him, but is\noverthrown. Kex then trys his luck, but is unhorsed so rudely that arm and\nleg are broken. Gauvain declares that love must be mastering the strange\nknight's thoughts, approaches him courteously, tells his own name and\nlearns Perceval's, and brings the latter to Arthur, by whom he is received\nwith all honour. Perceval then learns it is Kex he has overthrown, thus\nfulfilling his promise to the damsel whom Kex had smitten, and whose\nknight he offers himself to be. (11) Perceval returns on the morrow with\nthe court to Carlion, and the next day at noon there comes riding on a\nyellow mule a damsel more hideous than could be pictured outside hell. She\ncurses Perceval for having omitted to ask concerning the lance and graal;\nhad he done so the King would have been healed of his wound and ruled his\nland in peace; now maidens will be put to shame, orphans and widows made,\nand many knights slain. Turning to the King she tells of the adventures to\nbe achieved at the Castel Orgellous, where dwell five hundred and seventy\nknights, each with his lady love. He, though, who would win the highest\nrenown must to Montesclaire to free the damsel held captive there. She\nthen departs. Gauvain will forth to the imprisoned damsel, Gifl\u00e8s to the\nCastel Orgellous, and Perceval swears to rest no two nights in the same\nplace till he have learnt concerning graal and lance. (12) A knight,\nGuigambresil, enters and accuses Gauvain of having slain his lord. The\nlatter sets forth at once to the King of Cavalon to clear himself of this\naccusation. (13) On his way he meets the host of Melians, who is preparing\nto take part in a tournament to approve himself worthy the love of the\ndaughter of Tiebaut of Tingaguel, who had hitherto refused his suit.\nGauvain rides on to Tingaguel to help its lord. On arriving at the castle\nthe eldest daughter jeers at him, whilst the youngest takes his part,\ndeclaring him a better knight than Melians, whereat her sister is very\nindignant. On the first day of the tournament Melians shows himself the\nbest knight, but the younger sister still declares her faith in Gauvain,\nand has her ears boxed in consequence. She appeals to Gauvain to be her\nknight and avenge the injury done her. He consents, overcomes Melians,\nwhose horse he sends to his little lady, and all other knights; then,\nafter telling his name, rides forth. (14) He meets two knights, the\nyounger of whom offers him hospitality, and sends him to his sister,\nbidding her welcome him. She receives him kindly, and when, struck with\nher beauty, he asks her favours, grants them at once. They are interrupted\nby a steward, who reproaches her with giving her love to her father's\nmurderer, and calls upon the castle folk to attack Gauvain. The latter\ndefends himself until the return of Guigambresil, who reproaches the lord\nof the castle for letting Gauvain be attacked, as he had expressed his\nreadiness to do single combat. Gauvain is then allowed to go, and is\nexcused the combat if within a year he can bring back the bleeding lance.\nHe sets off in search of it. (15) The tale returns to Perceval, who has\nwandered about for five years without thinking of God, yet performing many\nfeats. He meets three knights accompanied by ladies, all clad in\npenitents' dress. 'Twas a Good Friday, and the eldest knight rebukes\nPerceval for riding fully armed on such a day. He must confess him to a\nholy hermit who lives hard by. Perceval goes thither, accuses himself of\nhaving forgotten God through his great grief at not learning the use of\nthe graal. The hermit reveals himself as his uncle, tells Perceval that he\nis in sin as having caused his mother's death, and for that reason he\ncould not ask concerning lance and graal; but for her prayers he had not\nlived till now. Perceval remains two days with his uncle, receives\nabsolution, and rides forth. (16) The story turns to Gauvain, who, after\nEscalavon, finds beneath an oak a damsel lamenting over a wounded knight;\nthe latter advises Gauvain to push on, which he does, and comes upon a\ndamsel who receives him discourteously, and when at her bidding he has\nfetched her horse from a garden hard by, mocks at him and rides off. He\nfollows, and culls on the way herbs with which he heals the wounded\nknight. A squire rides up very hideous of aspect, mounted on a wretched\nhack. Gauvain chastises him for discourteous answers; meanwhile the\nwounded knight makes off with Gauvain's steed, making himself known as\nGriogoras, whom Gauvain had once punished for ill-doing, Gauvain has to\nfollow the damsel upon the squire's hack, comes to a river, on the other\nside of which is a castle, overcomes a knight who attacks him, during\nwhich the damsel vanishes, is ferried across the stream, giving the\nvanquished knight to the ferryman as toll; (17) comes on the morrow to the\nMagic Castle, wherein damsels are held fast, awaiting a knight full of all\nknightly virtues to restore their lands to the ladies, marry the damsels,\nand put an end to the enchantments of the palace. Upon entering, Gauvain\nsees a magnificent bed, seats himself therein, is assailed by magic art,\novercomes a lion, and is then acclaimed lord of the castle. He would then\nleave the castle, but the ferryman says he may not, whereat Gauvain is\nmoved to anger. On the morrow, looking forth, Gauvain beholds the (18)\ndamsel who led him to the ford, accompanied by a knight. He hastens forth,\novercomes the knight, seeks again the damsel's love, but is sent by her to\nthe Ford Perillous. Here he meets Guiromelant, who loves Gauvain's sister,\nClarissant, a dweller in the Magic Castle. A combat is arranged to take\nplace after seven days. Upon his return to the damsel, named Orgellouse de\nLogres, he is now well received by her. She hates Guiromelant for having\nslain her lover, and has long sought a good knight to avenge her.\nGuiromelant on his side hates Gauvain for having, as he says,\ntreacherously killed his father. Gauvain and Orgellouse return to the\nMagic Castle. One of the queens who dwells there is mother to Arthur; the\nsecond one, his daughter, mother to Gauvain. The latter gives his sister\nClarissant a ring Guiromelant had begged him, unknowing who he was, to\nbring to her. He then sends a knight to Arthur to bid him and his whole\ntrain come witness the fight 'twixt him and Guiromelant. The messenger\nfinds Arthur plunged in grief at Gauvain's absence....\n\n * * * * *\n\nHere Chrestien's share breaks off abruptly in the middle of a sentence,\nand the poem is taken up by\n\n(_b_) GAUTIER DE DOULENS.[9]--(1) Arthur and his court accept Gauvain's\ninvitation and make for the Castle of Wonders, the Queen whereof has\nmeantime made herself known to Gauvain as Yg\u00e8ne, Arthur's mother. The duel\nbetween Gauvain and Guiromelant is hindered, and the latter weds Gauvain's\nsister. (Montp. MS. here inserts a first visit of Gawain to Grail Castle,\nwhich is substantially the same as the one it repeats afterwards in the\nsame place as the Mons MS.) Adventures of Arthur and Gauvain against Brun\nde Branlant follow, of Gauvain with a maiden in a tent and her brother\nBrandalis, of Carduel of Nantes, whose wife is beloved of the magician\nGarahiet, and of their son Carados, and the magic horn (verses\n11,000-15,800). (2) (A fresh series of adventures begins) Arthur sets\nforth to seek Giflet, son of Dos; Gauvain meets again with Brandalis,\nwhose sister has meanwhile borne him a son; Castel Orgellous, where Giflet\nis imprisoned, is captured; Gauvain's son by Brandalis' sister is lost.\n(3) An unknown knight comes to Arthur's court; Keie, who demands his name,\nis unhorsed; Gauvain brings the unknown to the court, but the latter is\nslain by a javelin cast by invisible hands. Gauvain equips himself in the\nunknown's armour and starts forth to learn the latter's name. After\npraying in a chapel, in which he beholds a light on the altar quenched by\na black hand, he rides through Brittany and Normandy, and comes to a\ncastle where, owing to his armour, he is at first hailed as lord. In one\nof the rooms stands a bier, whereon lies a knight, cross and broken sword\nupon his body, his left hand bleeding. A crowned knight enters and goes to\nbattle with Gauvain; canons and clerks come and perform the Vigil of the\nDead; whilst at table Gauvain sees the rich Grail serving out bread and\nwine to the knights. Gauvain remains alone after the meal; he sees a lance\nwhich bleeds into a silver cup. The crowned knight again enters, bearing\nin his hand a broken sword which had belonged to the unknown knight, over\nwhom he mourns. He hands the sword to Gauvain and asks him to put the\npieces together. Gauvain cannot, whereupon the knight declares him unfit\nto fulfil the quest (_li besoin_) on which he came. Later he may try\nagain. Gauvain asks concerning lance, sword, and bier. The lance, he is\ntold, is the one wherewith the Son of God was pierced in the side, 'twill\nbleed till Doomsday. The tale of the broken sword which brought so much\nwoe upon the kingdom of Logres will also be told, but here Gauvain falls\nfast asleep.[10] On the morrow he wakes, and finds himself on the sea\nstrand. He rides off, and behold the country has burst into green leaf,\nand the reason thereof is his having asked concerning the lance. The\ncountryfolk both bless and curse him for having so far delivered them and\nfor not having completed the deliverance by asking concerning the Grail.\n(4) He meets a young knight who turns out to be his son. (5) (Adventures\nin which Carahi\u00e8s, Gauvain's brother, is chief actor.) (6) The story\nreturns to Perceval, who, after leaving the hermit, rides for three days\nand comes to a castle, over the door of which hangs a horn. Perceval blows\ntherein, overcomes the knight who answers the challenge, and sends him to\nArthur's court. (7) On his way to the Castle of Mont Orgellous, to the\npillar of which only an accomplished knight might tie his horse, he comes\nto the stream on whose banks he had previously met the Fisher King.\nSeeking for a bridge he meets a damsel on a mule, who, under pretence of\nshowing a way across the river, tries to drown him. He then comes to a\ncastle, which entering he finds untenanted. In the hall stands a\nchessboard. Perceval plays, is beaten, seizes the board and makes as if to\nthrow it in the moat. Hereupon a damsel rises from the water to stay his\nhand, and coming into the room reproaches him. Overcome by her beauty he\nasks her favours. She will grant them if he bring the head of the stag\nwhich roams in the castle park. Thereto she lends him her hound, bidding\nhim be sure he return it. The hunt follows; Perceval overtakes the stag,\nslays it, and cutting off its head prepares to bring it back, when a maid\nof ill-chance (_pucelle de malaire_) takes and carries it off. Perceval\nclaiming it is reproached by her for having slain her stag, but told he\nmay win again the hound if he go to a mound whereon a knight is painted\nand say, \"Vassal, what doest thou here?\" The combat with the Knight of the\nTomb follows, during which hound and stag's head are carried off by\nanother knight, whom Perceval can only follow when he has overcome the\nKnight of the Tomb and driven him back therein. Now this knight, hight the\nBlack Knight, had dwelt there summer and winter five years, striving with\nall-comers for the sake of his love. Perceval, following up the Robber\nKnight, meets the damsel who had carried off the hound, but she only mocks\nhim for answer to his questions. (8) After an adventure with a\ndiscourteous knight, Perceval meets at length a brother of the Red Knight\nwhom he had formerly slain, who tells him he had seen the daughter of the\nFisher King, and she had told him of a knight who had carried off a hound\nand stag's head belonging to a good knight who had been at her court, and\nhad omitted to ask concerning the grail, for which reason she had taken\nhis hound and refused him help to follow the Robber Knight. (9) Perceval\nis directed by the Red Knight's brother to the Fisher King's castle, but\nmisses his way, and after an adventure at a castle, where he slays a lion,\novercomes Abrioris and sends him to Arthur; finds a damsel mourning over a\nknight slain by a giant, whom he kills, achieves the feat of the Ford\nAmorous, meets and fights with Gauvain's son until they learn who each\nother is, and at length comes to Belrepaire. (10) At first unrecognised by\nBlanchefleur he makes himself known, stays with her three days, and then\nrides off, in spite of her entreaties. (11) He meets Rosette (the loathly\ndamsel) and Le Biaus Mauvais, laughs at the former, is challenged by the\nlatter, whom he overcomes and sends to Arthur. (12) He comes to his\nmother's house, enters without making himself known, learns from his\nsister that his mother died at his departure ten years before, tells her\nwho he is, and both set forth to their uncle, the hermit. On the way\nPerceval slays a knight who offers violence to his sister. They come to\ntheir uncle, sleep there, and on the morrow Perceval reveals himself,\nconfesses, is reproved for having slain the knight the day before.\nPerceval, after mentioning his desire to learn more concerning lance,\nGrail, and sword, and receiving good advice from the hermit, leaves with\nhis sister, with whom he stays three days and then quits her, despite her\npiteous entreaties. (12_a_) Perceval comes to the Castle of Maidens, where\nhe falls untimely asleep, and on the morrow finds himself in the forest,\nfar from any castle. (13) Perceval finds the damsel who had carried off\nthe hound, fights with her knight, Garalas, overcomes him, learns that the\nKnight of the Tomb is his brother, who had lived for ten years with a fay\nin a magic invisible castle, and had met no one to overcome him until\nPerceval came. Perceval sends both knight and damsel to Arthur. (14)\nPerceval meets with a white mule led by a damsel; he joins her, although\nshe entreats him not to do so. Suddenly struck by a great light in the\nforest, he turns to ask his companion what it might mean, but finds her\ngone. A violent storm comes on. The morrow he meets the damsel with the\nmule, who had felt no storm. She tells him about the great light: it came\nfrom the \"Gr\u00e9aus,\" which was given by the King of kings as He hung on the\nCross; the devil may not lead astray any man on the same day he sees it,\ntherefore the king has it carried about. Perceval asks further, but is\ntold only a holy man may speak of these mysteries. Perceval relates his\nadventure with the lady of the chessboard, and the damsel gives him the\nwhite mule, which will lead to her castle, together with a ring giving the\npossessor power over the mule. He is to give both back when he meets her.\n(16) The mule brings Perceval across a river, over a glass bridge, on the\nother side of which he meets with Brios, who persuades him to join in a\ntournament held by Arthur at the Castel Orguellous, as he must win the\nprize of knighthood before coming to the castle of the Fisher King.\nPerceval leaves stag's head and hound at Brios' castle, carries off the\nprize at the tournament, remaining unknown. (17) Proceeding thence he\nfrees a knight imprisoned beneath a tombstone, who, in return, shuts him\nup in the tomb, but, being unable to make the mule go forward, is obliged\nto release him, and returns to his prison, telling Perceval he knows him\nfor the best knight in the world. (18) Perceval meets the damsel of the\nmule, to whom he returns ring and mule, and who asks him if he has been at\nthe Fisher King's court; on his saying, No, she hurries off. Perceval\nprays God to direct him to the Castle of the Chessboard. A voice tells him\nto follow the hound; he does so, reaches the castle, is greeted by the\nmaiden, to whom he gives stag's head and hound, and who in return tells\nhim concerning the chessboard which _Morghe la f\u00e9e_ had had made at\nLondon, on the Thames, and grants him her favours as she had promised. On\nthe morrow Perceval rides forth, accompanied awhile by the damsel, who\nwill show him his onward way. (19) They come to a river, on which is a\nboat tied to an oak tree. Perceval is to enter it, cross the river, and on\nthe other side he will find a road leading to the Fisher King. On his way\nPerceval releases a knight whom he finds hanging by his feet from a tree;\n'tis Bagommedes whom Keie had treated thus, and who returns to Arthur's\ncourt, challenges Keie, and is only hindered by Arthur from slaying him.\nAll Arthur's knights then start forth for the Mont Dolorous and in search\nof Perceval. The adventures of Gauvain alone are related in detail until\nthe tale returns to Perceval. (20) After freeing Bagommedes, Perceval,\nwandering in the woods, comes to a tree, in whose branches sits a child,\nwho can tell nothing of the Fisher King, but tells Perceval he will come\non the morrow to the Mont Dolorous. This he does, and binds his horse to\nthe pillar. A damsel on a white mule tells him of Arthur's birth, and how\nMerlin had made castle and pillar to prove who should be the best of\nknights. She was Merlin's daughter. (21) Perceval rides on, and towards\nevening sees afar off a tree upon which burn many lights; as he draws near\nhe finds only a chapel, upon the altar of which lies a dead knight. A\ngreat and sudden light is followed by the appearance of a black hand,\nwhich puts out the candle on the altar. On the morrow he meets first a\nhuntsman, who tells him he is near the castle, then a damsel, who explains\nthe child in the tree, the chapel, and the black hand as having connection\nwith the Holy Grail and the lance. (22) Perceval comes at last to the\ncastle of the Fisher King, whom he finds on a couch as heretofore. He\ntells him his adventures, and asks concerning the child on the tree, the\ntree full of lights, and the chapel with the dead knight. Meanwhile a\ndamsel enters a hall bearing the Grail, another follows with the bleeding\nlance, then comes a squire with a sword broken in two. Again Perceval puts\nhis questions, and will not eat until they are answered. First, he is told\nof the child which would not speak to him on account of his many sins, and\nwhich climbed ever upwards to show man's thoughts should be raised to the\nCreator. Before learning aught further Perceval is to try and weld the\nbroken sword together; none but a true knight lover of God, and of God's\nspouse, Holy Church, may accomplish it. Perceval succeeds, save that a\nlittle crack still remains. The Fisher King embraces him and hails him as\nlord of his house.\n\nHere the section which goes under the name of Gautier ends.\n\n[A portion of Gautier's section of the Conte du Graal is found in the\nBerne MS., partly edited, partly summarised, by Rochat in his work, _Ein\nunbekannter Percheval li Gallois_ (_vide_ _infra_ p. 101). This version\noffers some remarkable peculiarities. It has a short introduction of\nthirteen lines; then follows line 21,930 of Gautier in Potvin's text (Mons\nMS.). An incident follows, omitted in the Mons MS., but found in\nMontpellier and in Paris, 794: Perceval meets a huntsman who upbraids him\nfor having been at the Fisher King's court, and failed to ask about Grail\nand bleeding lance. Then follow Incidents 6, 7 (8 is absent so far as one\ncan judge from Rochat's summary), 9 to 13 (in which Perceval does not\napparently send Garalas and his love to Arthur), and 14 to end, the\nfollowing finish being then tacked on: The Fisher King is father to Alain\nle Gros, husband to Enigeus, sister to that Joseph who, when Christ's body\nwas taken down from the Cross, had it from Pilate as a reward for his\nservices. Joseph had the vessel prepared to catch in it the blood from the\nbody; it was the same Jesus had made the Sacrament in on the Thursday\nbefore. The Fisher King dies on the third day and Perceval reigns in his\nstead.][11]\n\nThe Conte du Graal is continued by--\n\n(_c_) MANESSIER.--(1) Perceval, full of joy, sits down to table; after the\nmeal, lance, Grail, and a goodly silver dish pass before the royal table\naway into the next room. Perceval, sighing, asks concerning these objects\nand the maidens bearing them. (2) The King tells as follows: the lance is\nthat wherewith Longis pierced God's side that day he hung on the Cross\n(Montpellier MS.: When Longis withdrew the spear the blood ran down to\nfeet, so that Joseph of Barimacie turned black from sorrow, and he\ncollected the blood in the holy vessel). On Perceval's asking further, the\nGrail is the vessel wherein the holy precious blood of our Lord was\nreceived. Then Perceval asks how it came thither; (3) Joseph brought it\nwhen he departed from the prison whence he was freed by Vespasian. He\nbaptized forty of his friends, and wandered forth with them till they came\nto Sarras, where, as the tale tells, they found the King in the Temple of\nthe Sun. Joseph helped the King against his enemies by means of a red\ncross which he fixed on the King's shield. Evelac, such was the King's\nname, won the battle thereby, was baptized, and renamed Noodrans. It went\nso likewise with his brother-in-law, Salafr\u00e8s, renamed Natiien. Joseph\ndeparted thence, ever bearing the Grail with him, till at length he came\nhither, converted the land, and I, of his seed, am keeping manor and\nGrail, the which shall never dwell elsewhere, God willing. (Montpellier\nMS. merely says, how Joseph was put into a dark prison, and kept there\nforty years, but the Lord sent him the sweetness of the Grail twice or\nthrice a day. Tiberius and Vespasian deliver him and bring him to Rome,\nwhence he carries away the lance.) (4) To Perceval's questions concerning\nthe damsels: the Grail-bearer is of royal blood, and pure maid, or God\nmight not let her hold it, she is my child; the dish-bearer is also of\nhigh lineage, daughter to King Goon Desert. (5) The King would then go to\nsleep, but Perceval would know about the broken sword: In Quiquagrant\ndwelt Goon Desert, the King's brother. Besieged by Espinogre he made a\nsally and slew him. Espinogre's nephew swore revenge; donning the armour\nof a knight of Goon Desert, he slew him, but the sword broke when the\ntraitrous blow was struck. Goon Desert's body was brought to his brother's\ncastle, whither came, too, his daughter with the broken sword, foretelling\nthat a knight should come, rejoin the pieces, and avenge the foul blow.\nThe Fisher King taking up the fragments incautiously was pierced through\nthe thigh, and the wound might not be healed until his brother's death was\navenged. The murderer's name is Partiniaus, Lord of the Red Tower.\nPerceval vows to avenge this wrong, but first, despite the King's strong\nhints that it is bed-time, must learn (6) about the candles on the trees,\nhow they are fay trees, and the lights deceiving ones, but they might not\ndeceive Perceval, he being destined to achieve the wonders of the earth,\nand he has put an end to this illusion; (7) how the black hand haunted a\nchapel wherein Pinogres had slain his mother, and over four thousand\nknights had been slain by it. (8) Perceval starting on the morrow in\nsearch of Partinal meets with Saigremors, and with him delivers a damsel\nfrom ten robber knights. Perceval, wounded, stays a month at the damsel's\ncastle, and (9) the story tells for some fifteen hundred verses\n(36,100-37,400) of Saigremors; how he pursues the robber knights, comes to\nthe Castle of Maidens, delivers the dame thereof from a knight, Calides,\nwho wars upon her, and afterwards delivers another maiden, to whom two\nknights were offering violence; (10) then, for over two thousand verses of\nGauvain; how he prepares to set forth again in search of the Fisher King;\nhow a maiden comes to him whose brother had been slain in his service,\nreproaches Gauvain for his conduct at the Fisher King's castle, and\ncarries him off; how he saves a maid going to be burnt; how after other\nadventures he slays King Margon, returns to Arthur's court, fights with\nKex to avenge the brother of the damsel, etc. (11) Meanwhile Perceval,\nleaving the damsel who has tended him right well, rides forth into a wood,\nwhere he is overtaken by a great storm of thunder and hail, after which he\ncomes to the chapel where lies the body of the knight slain by the black\nhand. Perceval strives with the devil to whom this belongs, overcomes, and\nwith the help of a hermit who tells him the tale of all the knights who\nhad fallen there, buries the body. He then confesses to the hermit, who\nwarns him not to think of acquiring fame, but rather to save his soul.\n(12) Perceval, riding forth on the morrow, is met by the devil, who throws\nhim from his horse; he finds another, mounts it, but coming to a stream\nluckily crosses himself, when it disappears; it was the devil. (13) A\ndamsel passes by with a bark, wherein Perceval mounts; she minds him of\nBlanchefleur, and desire masters him, but again he crosses himself in\ntime, and ship and damsel vanish. (14) A hermit comes who instructs him\nconcerning all these things, brings him where he finds a fresh steed, and\nto a fair castle. Perceval overcomes a knight who would bar his passing,\ndelivers the lady love of Dodinel from a felon knight; is appealed to for\nhelp by a damsel of Blanchefleur's, oppressed by Arides of Cavalon. (15)\nSetting off to the succour of his lady love, his horse falls lame, he\ncomes to a smith who tells him his name is Tribuet, the forger of the\nbroken sword. Tribuet makes the sword whole, and bids Perceval guard it\nwell, never had king or conqueror a better one. (16) Perceval reaches Bel\nRepaire, overcomes Arides, whom he sends to Arthur's court, bidding him\nannounce his own arrival for Whitsuntide. He then quits Blanchefleur, and\n(17) meets with the Coward Knight, who will not fight even when he sees\ntwo damsels carried off by ten knights. Perceval attacks the ravishers,\nthe Coward Knight is drawn into the struggle, and quits himself valiantly.\nThe rescued damsels bring the knights to their castle, where Perceval,\nsore wounded, remains for two months. (18) Meanwhile Saigremors has\nannounced Perceval's arrival at Camelot. Whitsuntide passing, all the\nknights set forth in search of him, and, amongst others, Boort; he meets\nhis brother Lyonel led, bound and naked, by six knights, who scourge him,\nand at the same moment he hears the plaint of a maid to whom a knight is\ndoing violence. Her he succours, then hurries after his brother, whom,\nmeanwhile, Gauvain has rescued. Lyonel bitterly reproaches his brother for\nabandoning him, and falls upon him, sword in hand; Boort offers no\ndefence, and would be slain but for a passing knight, Calogrinant, who\npays for his interference with his life. Finally, heavenly intervention\nappeases Lyonel. Calogrinant is buried by a hermit. (19) Perceval, healed,\nleaves the castle together with the Coward Knight, is present with him at\na tournament, at which he distinguishes himself above all others, leaves\nhis companion, to whom he gives the name Le Hardis, and (20) meets Hector,\nwho challenges him. The two fight, and well-nigh kill each other. To them,\nlying on the field of combat, appears an angel with the Grail, and makes\nthem whole. (21) Perceval rides on to Partinal's castle, before which\nstands a fir tree whereon hangs a shield. Perceval throws this down,\nwhereupon Partinal appears and a desperate combat ensues, ended by the\noverthrow of Partinal, and, as he will submit to no conditions, his death.\nPerceval cuts off his head and makes for the Grail Castle, but only after\na summer's seeking, lights upon it chancewise. (22) As he nears the\ncastle, the warders come to the King, telling him a knight is coming with\na head hanging at his saddle-bow; hereupon the King leaps to his feet and\nis straightway made whole. Partinal's head is stuck on a pike on the\nhighest tower of the castle. After supper, at which the same mystic\nprocession of talismans takes place as heretofore, the King learns\nPerceval's name, and thereby finds that he is his own sister's son. He\nwould hand him his crown, but Perceval has vowed not to take it, his uncle\nliving. (23) He returns to Arthur's court, overcoming on the way seven\nknights, and tells his adventures, which Arthur has written down and kept\nin a box at Salisbury. The Grail damsel appears and tells Perceval his\nuncle is dead. Perceval goes to Corbi\u00e8re accompanied by all the court, who\nassist at his crowning and remain with him a month, during which time the\nGrail feeds all with the costliest foods. He marries his cousins, the two\nGrail-bearers, to two valiant kings, and reigns in peace for seven years.\n(24) After which time he follows a hermit into the wilderness, accompanied\nby Grail, lance, and holy dish. He serves the Lord for ten years, and,\nwhen he dies, Grail, lance, and dish were doubtless carried up to heaven,\nfor since that day no man saw them.\n\n(_d_) GERBERT.--(According to Birch Hirschfeld interpolated between\nGautier and Manessier, and joining on therefore to the last incident in\nGautier.)[12]\n\n(1) Perceval's sin in having indirectly caused the death of his mother\ndisables him from making whole the broken sword, and he must set forth\nagain in search of the Grail. In the night he dreams a danger threatens\nhis sister, and on the morrow he wakes up in open field, the Grail Castle\nhaving vanished. (2) He comes to a fair castle in the midst of a meadow,\nand, finding the door shut, knocks at it with his sword till the latter\nbreaks. An old man appears, and tells him the broken sword will cost him\nseven years more wanderings until he come again to the Grail Castle. All\nhe can do for Perceval is to give him a letter which heals the wounded and\nmakes the wearer invincible. (3) Perceval riding thence through country\nthat the day before was waste and folkless, finds it now well cultivated\nand peopled; all press round him and bless him for the change wrought by\nhis asking concerning the Grail. (4) He comes to a castle wherein is a\nforge guarded by two serpents, and on it was a sword forged for a year,\nand it might not be broken, save in a certain danger, or mended save at\nthe same forge. Perceval, after resisting the devil in the shape of a fair\nmaid, attacks and overcomes the two serpents, and has his sword mended by\nthe blacksmith, who tells him how he broke it at the gate of Paradise.\n(5) After making whole by his letter two knights of the Round Table who\nhad lost their wits in Castle Dolorous, Perceval comes to Carlion, to\nArthur's court, and accomplishes the adventure of the Perillous Seat which\na fairy had sent to Arthur. Only the destined Grail-finder might sit in\nit. Six knights who had previously essayed the feat had been swallowed up\nby the earth; they reappear when Perceval is successful. (6) Perceval is\ncalled away from the court by a forsaken damsel, whose false lover he\ncompels to marry her; then, after overcoming fresh temptation in\ndamsel-shape, he comes to his sister's castle, overcomes her adversary,\nwho turns out to be Mordret, and reaches the Castle of Maidens, where he\nis healed of his wounds by the lady of the castle, his cousin. She tells\nhim of his mother, Philosofine, and how the Grail was taken from the ken\nof man owing to the sinfulness of the world. Perceval leaves his sister in\nthis castle where dames are chaste and damsels maids. (7) Returning to\ncourt, whither Mordret had preceded him in sorry plight, Perceval is\nmocked at by Kex, whom he overcomes, and afterwards meets Gauvain and\nTristan. (8) Leaving the court, he meets with four knights carrying their\nfather, mortally wounded, accompanies them to their castle, recognises in\nthe wounded knight, Gornumant, who had knighted him, swears to avenge him,\ntells all that has befallen himself, and learns that the cause of his\nsuccessive failures is his forsaking his betrothed, Blanchefleur, whom he\nknows to be Gornumant's niece. He is told that if he listen heedfully to\nmass and marry the damsel all will be well, and he will learn the secrets\nof lance and Grail. But first Perceval overcomes a hideous hag, who by\nnight brings to life Gornumant's enemies slain during the day. She has a\npotion, whereof Christ made use in the sepulchre, and with it she quickens\nthe dead. She recognizes Perceval and acknowledges him as her conqueror,\nyet while she lives he shall know nought of the Grail; she works by order\nof the King of the Waste City, who hates all Christian folk. Perceval\ntries the virtue of the potion on the most valiant of his enemies, with\nwhom he engages in a fresh and desperate struggle, heals Gornumant with\nit, and sets off to marry Blanchefleur, as he is wishful to live cleanly\nand fly deadly sin. (9) She is overjoyed at his arrival; preparations are\nmade for the marriage; the night before, she comes to his bedside in smock\nand mantle, and they pass the night side by side, but with the sheet\nbetween them. The wedding follows, and then, fearful of losing the\nheavenly joy for sake of carnal longing, they resolve to resist the devil\nand live virgin-wise, for virginity surpasseth aught else, even as the\ntopaz does crystal. Perceval, in a dream, is assured that of his seed\nshall be the Swan Knight and the deliverer of the Holy Sepulchre.\nMeanwhile he is still to search after lance and Grail. (10) On the morrow\nhe quits Blanchefleur, \"maid she laid her to bed, maid she arose;\" frees a\nmaiden pursued by a brutal knight; (11) comes to a castle where the\nwayfarer must first fight against four knights and then against the lord\nof the castle; does away with this custom; (12) comes to cross roads,\nwhereof one is safe and easy, the other adventurous and full of danger;\nmeets a knight all on fire; sees two hermits, one kneeling at a cross,\nthe other scourging it; then a wonderful beast, a doe followed by fawns,\nwhich assail and devour her; (13) is presented at a hermit's with a shield\nnone but the Grail-winner may wear, after which the table heretofore\nmeanly spread is covered with rich fare, and learns the meaning of the\nmystic scenes he has witnessed. (14) He is summoned by a damsel, who tells\nhim of the Dragon King, lord of a heathen folk dwelling in mid-sea,\npossessor of a shield whereon is painted a dragon that belches forth\nflame. Perceval sets forth to attack him, resists the devil who dwells in\nthe dragon head, thanks to his miraculous shield whereon the cross is\npainted, and forces him to flee; continues the fight against the Dragon\nKnight without his shield, and slays him, but not till he has repented him\nof his sins. (15) Meanwhile a thief has made off with the shield, in\npursuing whom Perceval comes to an abbey, where he learns the story of\nJoseph of Arimathea. Some forty years after the Crucifixion lived a\nheathen king, Evelac, in Sarras, wherefrom the Saracens have their name,\nsore pressed by Tholomes, King of Syria. But Joseph of Barimaschie, who\nhad been five years in Pilate's service, comes to him, and with him his\nbrother-in-law, Seraphe; he promised the King victory if he would let\nhimself be baptized. The King consented, and received the name of\nMordrach. Joseph then came to this land, and with him sixty folk and two\nfair ladies, whereof the one, Philosophine, bore a plate, the other an\never-bleeding lance, whilst Joseph had a vessel, never saw man a fairer\none. But King Crudel flung Joseph and his companions into prison, where\nthey dwelt forty days, but it harmed them not, as through the Holy Grail\nthey were filled with great plenty and had every wish fulfilled. Now,\nMordrains, learning this, brought together a great host, invaded King\nCrudel's lands, attacked and slew him. Mordrains, disarming, was found to\nbe covered with wounds, none of which he had felt. On the morrow Joseph\nput up a table, altar-wise, and thereon laid the Grail, which Mordrains\nseeing, pressed near to. But an angel with a fiery sword kept him back,\nand a voice assured him he had laid such a burden on his shoulders as he\nmight not pass away, nor would his wounds be healed until should come the\ntrue knight, loved of Christ, sinless, and in his arms he, Mordrains,\nshould die. And till then the Host should be his only food. Since then\nthree hundred years have passed, and the monks have heard that the knight\nis in the land who shall ask concerning lance and Grail, and thereby heal\nthe king. (16) Perceval leaves on the morrow and comes to a castle wherein\nis a coffin, brought thereto in a boat drawn by a swan; none save the best\nknight in the world may open it. All have tried, even Gauvain, and failed.\nPerceval succeeds, and finds in the coffin the body of a knight, former\nlord of the castle, and a letter setting forth that he who should open the\ncoffin was his murderer. Perceval, attacked in consequence by the dead\nman's sons, defends himself by making a buttress of the youngest son's\nbody. Afterwards he overcomes the folk of the castle, and delivers\nGauvain, held prisoner therein. (17) Perceval, after confessing his sins\nto a hermit, has an adventure with the devil, who comes out of a tomb,\nbut whom he forces back therein. (18) He then succours a maiden whom her\njealous lover has thrown into a fountain; (19) punishes a damsel who\ntempts him in traitrous-wise; (20) meets with and is sore pressed by a\ngiant, whom he overcomes; (21) has a fresh and victorious encounter with\nKex, and, finally, (22) arrives at crossways, is directed by the cross to\nthe Fisher King's court, reaches it, asks straightway for the Grail, is\nquestioned by the King and relates his allegorical adventures. At table\nthe Grail appears, followed by lance and sword. Perceval pieces together\nthe sword, and the King, full of joy, embraces him.\n\n=Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival.=--Gahmuret, Parzival's father, goes to\nthe East, takes service with Baruc, wins the love of the heathen queen\nBelakane, but after remaining with her a short time forsakes her,\npromising to return if she become Christian. She bears a son, and names\nhim Feirefiz. Gahmuret by his prowess at a tournament wins the love of\nHerzeloyde, whom he marries on condition he may go a tourneying every\nmonth. Hearing his old lord Baruc is in danger, he hastens to his aid, and\nis slain. Herzeloyde on receipt of the news resolves to withdraw to the\nwilderness, and bring up her son in ignorance of knighthood.\n\n[From this point up to and including the adventure with Orgeuilleuse,\nwhere Chrestien's share of the Conte du Graal breaks off, Wolfram agrees\nvery closely with Chrestien. It has been much debated in Germany whether\nhe really had any other model but Chrestien, and whether his alleged model\nKyot be not a feigned source to justify his departure from the story as\nfound in the Conte du Graal. A brief outline of the arguments for and\nagainst this view will be found in Appendix A. The chief points of\ndifference in the portion common to the two poets are: the more important\nposition in the narrative assigned to Perceval's cousin, whom Wolfram\nnames Sigune, who is fed from the Grail by the Grail messenger, the\nloathly damsel, and about whose loves with Schianatulander Wolfram has\nleft fragments of another poem, Titurel. Parzival meets her immediately\nafter his adventure with the lady of the tent. Parzival's love is named\nCondwiramur. On the first night of their marriage he leaves her maid (as\nin Gerbert's version). But the most important peculiarity of Wolfram's\npoem is his account of the Grail itself, a stone which yields all manner\nof food and drink, the power of which is sustained by a dove, which every\nweek lays a Host upon it, given, after the fall of the rebel angels, in\ncharge to Titurel and his dynasty, by them preserved in the Grail castle,\nMontsalvatch, guarded by a sacred order of knighthood whom it chooses\nitself. The knights are vowed to virginity, the king alone being allowed\nmarriage. The cause of the maimed king's (Amfortas) hurt is his having\ntaken up arms in the cause of worldly and unlawful love. When Parzival\nleaves the Grail castle after the first visit, he is mocked at by the\ninmates for having omitted the question. More stress is laid on the broken\nsword, connected with which is a magic spell Parzival must master before\nhe can become lord of the Grail castle. The \"loathly damsel,\" Kundrie, is\nalso a much more important person with Wolfram than with Chrestien, and\nshe is brought into contact with Parzival's cousin, Sigune. Parzival's\nlove for his wife is dwelt upon at length, and he is urged by the hermit\nrather to rejoin her than to seek the Grail.]\n\nAfter the adventure with Orgueilleuse, Wolfram continues as follows:--The\nlord of the magic castle, wherein are kept prisoners Arthur's mother and\nthe other queens, is Clinschor, nephew of Virgilius of Naples, who took to\nmagic after his unmanning at the hands of King Ibert, whose wife, Iblis,\nhe loved. Gawain overcomes the magician, and, both unknowing, fights with\nParzival. The latter, after many lesser adventures, meets his half-brother\nFeirefiz, and sustains with him the hardest of all his fights. At length\nrecognition is brought about, the two embrace, and repair to Arthur's\ncourt. Cundrie nears once more, tells Parzival he has been chosen Grail\nking, that his wife and twin sons, Loherangrin and Kardeiz, have been\nsummoned to the Grail castle, and that the question will now free Amfortas\nand his land. With Cundrie and Feirefiz, Parzival rides to the Grail\ncastle, meets his wife, together they all behold the talismans, save\nFeirefiz, to whom as a heathen the sight of the Grail is denied. But he is\nbaptised, weds Repanse de Schoie, the Grail damsel, the two return to\nIndia, and from them is born Prester John. Parzival rules over his Grail\nkingdom. Of his son Loherangrin it is told how he is led to the aid of the\nDuchess of Brabant by a swan, how he marries her on condition she inquire\nnot as to his origin, and how, on her breaking the command, the swan\ncarries him away from her.\n\n=Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin.=--_The Gawain Episodes of Diu Cr\u00f4ne._--The\nparallelism of Heinrich's poem with those of Wolfram and Chrestien begins\nabout verse 17,500 with an adventure of Gawain's corresponding to Inc. 13\nin Chrestien (Tournament for the hand of Tiebaut of Tingaguel's daughter,\nepisode of the two sisters, combat with Melians de Lis). In Heinrich the\nfather is named Leigamar, the eldest daughter Fursensephin, (Fleur sans\nepine ?), the youngest Quebelepluz, where Heinrich has taken a French\nphrase setting forth the greater fairness of the damsel for a proper name.\nInc. 14 in Chrestien then follows with these differences: the name of the\ncastle is Karamphi; Gawain and the facile damsel are surprised by the\nlatter's brother, and it is her father who, to avenge the wrong done his\nhouse, makes Gawain swear that within a year he will either seek out the\nGrail or return as prisoner to Karamphi. Chrestien's Inc. 15 is of course\nmissing, the story going straight on to Inc. 16, meeting with the wounded\nknight (here Lohenis) and his lady love Emblie, who by treachery deprive\nGawain of his steed; then the arrival at the Castle of Wonders, and the\nnight passed in the enchanted bed, where the hero is overwhelmed with\ncrossbolts shot at him by invisible foes. The plucking of the flower from\nthe enchanted garden at the bidding of a damsel (Orgueilleuse in Chrestien\nand Wolfram, here Mancipicelle), and the meeting with and challenge by\nGiremelanz follow. Arthur's court comes to the Castle of Wonders to\nwitness the combat. Gawain and Giremelanz are reconciled, the latter\nmarries Gawain's sister, and Gawain himself sets off to search for the\nGrail. [Adventures then follow which correspond to nothing in Chrestien or\nWolfram, in which Gawain wins talismans destined to aid him in his\nsearch.] Gawain sets forth on his quest accompanied by Kay, Lancelot, and\nCalocreant. They part at crossways. Gawain comes to the sister of the\nmagician (anonymous in Chrestien, Klinschor in Wolfram, here Gansguoter)\nof the Castle of Wonders. She bids him take heed, if he wish to see the\nGrail, he be not overcome by sleep, and for this that he drink not\novermuch; as soon as he saw it and its accompanying damsels, he was to ask\nabout it. If he neglected this, all his past and any future toil would be\nuseless. On his way to the Grail castle, the hero meets with all sorts of\ndangers, and obstacles, and wonders; amongst others, passing the night in\na castle where he is tended by invisible hands. After month-long\nwanderings he meets with Lancelot and Calocreant, and learns that Kay, in\na vain attempt to penetrate to the Grail, has been flung into prison. The\nthree comrades then come to the Grail castle. They are led into a hall\nwhich passes in splendour aught earthly eye ever saw. The floor is strewn\nwith roses, on a bed lies an old man in gold-embroidered garments, and\nwatches two youths playing at chess. Towards night the hall fills with\nknights and dames, a youth enters bearing a sword which he lays before the\nold man. Gawain is pressed to drink; but refuses, not so his two\ncompanions, who straightway fall asleep. Then enter two damsels bearing\nlights, followed by two knights with a spear, and two more damsels with a\n\"toblier\" (? tailleor, plate) of gold and jewels. After them comes the\nfairest woman ever God created, and with her a maiden weeping. The spear\nis laid on the table, by it the \"toblier\" wherein are three drops of\nblood. In the box borne by the fair lady is a piece of bread, one third\npart of which she breaks off and gives to the old man. Gawain recognising\nin her Gansguoter's sister, stays no longer, but asks what these wonders\nmean. Straightway knights and dames all with mighty shout leap from table,\nand great joy arises. The old man says what he has seen is the Grail; none\nsaw it before save Parzival, and he asked not. By his question Gawain has\ndelivered from long waiting and suffering both those which are dead and\nthose which live. The old man himself and his companions are really dead,\nthough they seem it not, but the lady and her damsels are living; for\ntheir unstained womanhood God has granted them to have the Grail, and\ntherewith yearly to feed the old man. All Gawain's adventures latterly\nhave come from the Grail. Now he has ended all, he is to take as prize of\nhis knighthood the sword which will help him in every danger. After him no\nman shall see the Grail; further concerning it he must not ask, nor may\nknow more. At daybreak the old man's tale ends, and he with his whole\ncourt vanish, leaving only the lady with her five damsels. [After\nreleasing Kay, and undergoing other adventures, Gawain returns to Arthur's\ncourt.]\n\n=The Petit Saint Graal or Didot-Perceval.=[13]--_Prologue._--After the\nchoosing of Arthur to be King, Merlin comes to the court, and tells how\nArthur is Uther-Pendragon's son, brought up by Antor as his son. All\nrejoice at this, especially Gauvain, son of Lot. After dinner the barons\nbring Merlin to Arthur, and tell him how he was the prophet of\nUther-Pendragon, and had made the Round Table. Arthur promises to honour\nMerlin. The latter calls him apart with Gauvain and Key, and tells him\nhow, in the time of Uther-Pendragon, the Round Table was made after the\npattern of one Joseph constructed when he separated the good from the\nevil. Two Kings of Britain before had been Kings of France, and conquered\nRome; Queen Sibyl and Solomon had prophesied Arthur should be third, and\nhe, Merlin, was the third to assure him of it. But this could only be if\nArthur established the Round Table as Merlin directed. Now the Grail had\nbeen given Joseph by our Lord himself, and at His command Joseph led a\ngreat folk into the desert. And when evil befell them Joseph, at our\nLord's command, made a table; whereat one place was left empty in\nremembrance of Judas. But Moyses, a false disciple, sat therein, but sank\ninto the abyss, whereout he shall not come until the time of Antichrist.\nOur Lord made the first table; Joseph, the second; he, Merlin, the third.\nThe Grail was given into the keeping of the rich Fisher King; but he was\nold, full of sickness, and should not win health till a knight came,\nhaving sat at the Round Table, true man of God and of Holy Church, and the\nbest knight in the world for feats of arms. He must ask the rich fisher of\nwhat use is the Grail; then the King would be cured of his infirmity, the\nenchantments of Britain would cease, and the prophecy be fulfilled. Should\nArthur do this, great good would come of it; he, Merlin, must go, as he\ncould not often show himself to the people. Whereupon he departs to\nOrtoberland, to Blaise, his master, who writes down these things, and by\nhis writings we know them. The son of Alein le Gros is a child named\nPercevaux, and as Alein is dying he hears the voice of the Holy Ghost\nsaying, Know thou art near thy end, and wilt soon come into the fellowship\nof Jesus Christ. Brons, thy father, dwells in these isles of Ireland, and\nwith him is the Grail. And he may not die until thy son finds him, to whom\nhe shall commend the grace of the vessel, and teach the secret words\nJoseph taught him, then shall he be cured of his infirmities. And I\ncommand thy son that he go to the court of Arthur, where he shall be\ntaught how he may find the house of his grandfather. Alein dies, and\nPercevaux mounts his horse and comes to Arthur's court, and asks arms from\nhim, and stays there and is much loved.\n\n(1) Arthur proposes holding a tournament at Easter, the greatest the world\nhad seen, to honour the Round Table. Perceval at first takes no part in\nthe tournament; but afterwards, for love of Aleine, niece of Gauvain, who\nincites him thereto, and sends him a suit of red armour, he enters the\nlists unknown, and overbears all opponents, so that all say he should fill\nthe empty place at the Round Table. Perceval claims the empty place from\nthe King, and when refused threatens to return to his land and never visit\nthe court again. Arthur yields, and Perceval seats himself. Then the rocks\nand the earth groan dolorously, and a voice reproaches Arthur with having\ndisobeyed Merlin's command. Were it not the goodness of Alein le Gros\nPerceval had died the death of Moys. Now should Arthur know the vessel our\nLord gave Joseph was in the keeping of the rich fisher, and he was ill and\ninfirm, and until the best knight in the world should come might not die.\nAnd when that knight should come to the rich fisher and ask concerning the\nvessel, then should he be cured, but die within three days after giving\nthe vessel to that knight, and teaching him the secret words handed down\nby Joseph. Thus the enchantments of Britain should cease. (2) Perceval\nswears not to lie one night where he had lain the night before till he\nfind the rich fisher. Gauvain, Sagremors, Beduers, Hurgains, and Erec\nswear the same. The knights set forth amid general lamentation. They part\nat a chapel, and the story follows Perceval. (3) He comes, after two days,\nupon a damsel weeping over a knight, Hurganet, one of the Round Table, who\nhad gone forth on the Grail Quest. He had delivered her from a giant, and\nridden with her into a tent where they found knights and ladies, who\nwarned them not to await the owner, the \"Orgoillos Delandes,\" who would\nkill him. And whilst speaking a dwarf entered, scourge in hand, who threw\ndown the tent. The Lord of the Tent then appeared, clad in red armour, and\nslew Hurganet. Perceval determines to avenge his death; rides to the tent\nwith the damsel; is warned of its inmates; is surprised by the dwarf, who\nsmites the damsel with his scourge, whereupon Perceval fells him to the\nground. The Knight of the Tent appears; after a desperate struggle\nPerceval overcomes him and sends him with the damsel to Arthur's court.\nShe had fain stayed with him, but he thought of other things. (4) Perceval\ncomes to the finest castle in the world, enters, and finds no inhabitant.\nOnly a chessboard he finds. He begins to move the pieces, and they play\nagainst him, and he is checkmated three times running. Full of anger he\nprepares to throw the chessmen into the castle moat--suddenly a damsel\nshows herself and reproaches him. He will abstain if she comes to him. She\nconsents, and after her squires and maidens have disarmed Perceval he\njoins her. Overcome by her beauty he requests her love. She will grant it\nhim if he capture the white stag of the wood. She lends him her hound, and\nrecommends him to take the utmost care of it. Perceval chases the stag,\ncaptures it, and, having cut off its head, starts back. But meanwhile an\nold woman has carried off the hound. She will only give it up if Perceval\nwill go to a grave whereunder is a knight painted, and say: \"Felon, he\nthat put you there.\" Perceval complies; whereupon appears a knight on a\nblack horse armed in black. They strive, and Perceval overcomes him. But\nmeantime a second knight has carried off both the stag's head and the\nhound from the old woman. Perceval's adversary flees to the tomb, which\ncloses upon him, and Perceval follows the second knight after a vain\nattempt to get help from the old woman. (5) Him he found not; but after\nfeats longer than I can tell, comes to his father's house, where he was\nborn. He only finds his sister and a niece. The former tells him\nconcerning her brother, who went to Arthur's court; whereupon their mother\ndied of grief. Perceval reveals himself, and is amazed at what she relates\nconcerning the Grail and its guardian, and asks if he may come to behold\nit. She answers, Yes; whereupon he vows not to rest till he have found it.\nShe attempts to dissuade him, but he remains firm. She then urges him to\ngo to their uncle, who is a hermit, to whom he may confess the sin of his\nmother's death, and who will advise him concerning the Quest. (6) Both\nproceed thither. He rejoices to see them, and asks if Perceval has been to\nthe house of his father, guardian of the vessel named Grail, and, on\nhearing that he has not, tells him how at the table which Joseph and\nhimself had made, the voice of the Holy Ghost had come to them, telling\nthem to go westward, and ordering the rich fisher, his father, to come to\nthat land where the sun goes down (_avaloit_), telling him he should not\ndie till the son of Alein had become the best knight in the world.\nPerceval had been chosen to do his Lord's service; he is to slay no knight\nnor to lie with any woman, that being luxurious sin. His sins have\nprevented his reaching Brons. He is to be careful to keep himself from sin\nand felony, being of a race our Lord so loved that He committed His blood\nto their keeping. Much else he says, and on the morrow Perceval and his\nsister ride forth. (7) They meet a knight who challenges them. Perceval,\nthinking of the damsel who had given him the hound, at first pays no\nattention, but then overcomes and slays him. Perceval is much grieved at\nhaving so soon broken his uncle's injunction. On the morrow he leaves his\nsister, promising to return so soon as he may. (8) He meets a knight,\naccompanied by a damsel the most wonderfully ugly nature ever made,\nwhereat he signs himself and laughs. The knight, indignant, challenges\nhim, but is overcome and sent with the damsel to Arthur's court. Kay makes\nmock of them; but Arthur reproves him and receives them courteously. They\nremain at the court, and know that she was the most beautiful woman in the\nworld! (9) Perceval comes to a ford and is challenged by its guardian,\nwhom he overcomes. His name is Urban of the Black Thorn; his lady had set\nhim to guard the ford. Her castle vanishes with a great noise, and she\ncomes to her lover's aid with her maidens in shape of birds. Perceval\nslays one who becomes a woman, and is carried off by the others to\nAvallon. (10) Perceval comes to a tree at the crossing of four roads,\namong its branches he sees two naked children of seven years old. They\nspeak to him concerning the Grail, and direct him to take the road to the\nright. They vanish, and a voice tells him to heed their counsel. (11)\nPerceval comes to a river whereon are three men in a boat, and the master\nof the boat bids him go down the stream till he should come to his house.\nPerceval rides a whole day without finding it, and curses the fisher. At\nlast he comes to a castle with lowered drawbridge, enters, and is robed in\nscarlet by two squires. Meanwhile four attendants have carried the Fisher\nKing, father of Alein, and grandfather of Perceval, into the hall. The\nKing wished to do Perceval what honour he might. They eat, and whilst at\ntable a squire comes out of a chamber, and brings in both hands a lance,\nwhence flows a drop of blood. Him follows a damsel bearing two silver\nplates and clothes; then a squire with a vessel in which was our Lord's\nblood. All bow as he passes, and Perceval had fain asked, but he fears to\ndisplease the King, minding him of the worthy man to whom he had\nconfessed, and who forbade his speaking too much and enquiring\novermuch--for a man of idle words is displeasing to our Lord. All night\nPerceval thinks of the lance and of the Grail, and in the morning, on\nwaking, finds neither man nor woman. He sets forth to seek some one, but\nin vain, and is greatly distressed. (12) He finds a damsel weeping\nbitterly, who, seeing him, cries out: \"Percevaux le Gallois, be accursed,\nunhappier art thou than ever, having been in the house of the rich Fisher\nKing, and not having asked concerning the Grail. Thy Lord hates thee; and\n'tis wonder the earth do not open beneath thee.\" Had he not seen Grail and\nlance pass? Had he asked what one did with them, the King, cured of his\ninfirmity, would have returned to his youth; our Lord's prophecy to Joseph\nbeen fulfilled, and the enchantments of Britain undone. But Perceval is\nneither wise, valiant, nor true man enough to have charge of the blood.\nBut he shall come again and ask concerning the Grail, and his grandfather\nshall be cured. (13) The damsel departs, and Perceval, unable to find his\ngrandfather's house, rides on and comes to a tree under which a damsel is\nsitting, and in whose branches the stag's head, which had been carried off\nfrom him, is hanging. Perceval takes it, and when his hound following a\nstag comes up, takes possession of it likewise. But the knight who had\ntaken them appears. Perceval fights with and overcomes him; learns that he\nis the brother of the Knight of the Tomb, who lives therein with his love,\nsister of the damsel for whose sake Perceval had hunted the stag. To her\nPerceval now returns, gives her hound and stag's head, and then departs\nrefusing the offer of her love, even to stop one night with her. (14)\nPerceval wanders for seven years achieving many feats, and sending more\nthan one hundred knights prisoners to Arthur; but, not being able to find\nhis grandfather's house, he falls into such melancholy as to lose his\nmemory, so that he minds him no more of God, and never enters Church. One\nGood Friday, fully armed, he meets a knight and ladies in penitents'\ndress, who reproach him for going armed on a day that our Lord was\ncrucified. Perceval repents; returns to his uncle, the hermit; learns that\nhis sister is dead, and does penitence. The songmen, in their pleasing\nrhymes, say nothing of this; but we tell you of it as we find it in the\ntale Merlin made Blaise write down. (15) Perceval rides forth and meets\nseven squires of Melianz de Liz, who is going to a tournament at the White\nCastle, the damsel of which is to be the victor's prize. All the knights\nof the Round Table will be there, having returned that Whitsuntide from\nthe Quest of the Grail without achieving aught. Perceval leaves the\nsquires and come to a castle where he puts up. His host urges him to take\npart in the tournament. The morrow they ride forth and look on; Melianz\nwears the scarf of the lady of the castle; he and Gauvain prove themselves\nthe best knights, the onlooking ladies know not to whom to award the\nprize. The next day, Perceval, having resolved upon taking part, accepts\nthe scarf of his host's daughter, overcomes all adversaries, and sends\nsteeds to the lady in return for her scarf. Being asked by his host if he\nwill not woo the damsel of the White Castle, Perceval answers he may not\ntake wife. Then appears an old man who reproaches Perceval for going to a\ntournament, and with forgetting his vow to sleep no two nights in the same\nhouse till the Quest be accomplished. He is Merlin, come from Hortoblande,\nto say that owing to the prayers of Perceval's uncle, our Lord wills that\nthe latter may have his blood to keep. He is to go to his grandfather.\nPerceval asks when he shall get there. \"Before a year,\" is the answer.\n\"'Tis a long time.\" \"Not so,\" says Merlin, who leaves him, and tells all\nto Blaise, from whose writing we know of it. (16) That same night Perceval\ncomes to his grandfather's house, is received by the Fisher King, and as\nthey sit at table the Grail appears, and the relics with it, and when\nPerceval sees it he asks to what use is the vessel put? Forthwith the King\nis cured, and his being changed. Perceval must say first who he is before\nlearning such holy things. Upon learning it is his grandson before him,\nthe King leads him to the Grail, and tells him with this lance Longis\npierced the side of Jesus Christ, whom he knew in the flesh. In this\nvessel is the blood, Joseph caught as it ran to the ground. It is called\nGrail because it is agreeable to worthy men; none may sin in its presence.\nThen Brons, kneeling, prays, and the voice of the Holy Ghost tells him the\nprophecy will be fulfilled; and he is to teach Perceval the secret words\nour Lord on the cross told Joseph, and Joseph told him. He does, but I\ncannot and may not say what these words were. Then angels carry him off;\nand Perceval remains, and the enchantments of Britain and of the whole\nworld cease. And that same day Arthur and his knights sitting at the Round\nTable are aware of a great noise, and the seat is made whole again which\nhad broken under Perceval. Merlin appears to Blaise, tells him his work is\nended, and takes him to Perceval, who was right glad of his company.\n\n_Epilogue._--Merlin comes to Arthur's court and relates all that had taken\nplace. The knights, finding the Quest of the Grail is over, and mindful of\nMerlin's former words, urge Arthur to invade the continent. He does so,\novercomes Frollo, King of France; refuses tribute to the Emperor of Rome,\novercomes him, but is recalled to England on learning Mordret's treachery.\nThe latter is slain; but Arthur, wounded mortally, is carried to Avallon\nto be healed of Morguen, his sister. Lastly, Merlin tells Perceval how he\nwill withdraw from the world, and be no more seen of men. And the tale\nsays no more of Merlin and the Grail.\n\n=The Mabinogi of Peredur ab Evrawc.=--Evrawc, Earl of the North, has seven\nsons, six of whom, like himself, fall in tournaments and combats. His wife\ncarries off her youngest son, Peredur, to the desert, and forbids horses\nor arms being shown to him. He grows up strong and active, and can outrun\nhis mother's goats and hinds. (1) One day he sees three knights\npassing--Gwalchmai, the son of Gwyar, and Geneir Gwystyl, and Owain, the\nson of Urien. His mother declares them to be angels; whereupon he\ndetermines to join them. He questions Owain concerning his accoutrements\nand the use of his weapons. His mother swoons away at the thought of his\nleaving her; but he picks out a horse and saddles it. Before leaving, his\nmother counsels him to repeat his paternoster wherever he sees a church;\nto take food and drink if none offer them; to aid when any outcry is,\nespecially a woman's; if he sees a fair jewel to take it and give it to\nanother; to pay his court to fair women whether they will or no. (2) After\ntwo days and nights Peredur comes to a tent, where he finds a damsel. Half\nof the food and drink she has he takes, half leaves to her; asks her for\nher ring at leaving, which she gives him. Her lord returning, is jealous,\nand sets forth to avenge his supposed wrong. (3) Peredur journeys on to\nArthur's court. A knight has been there before him, and grievously\ninsulted Gwenhwyvar by dashing a goblet of wine in her face, and carrying\nthe goblet out, and has dared any to avenge the insult; but all hang their\nheads. Peredur enters the hall and demands knighthood. On Kai's protesting\nhe is too meanly equipped, a dwarf, who, with his female companion has\nbeen a year at Arthur's court without speaking, salutes him as the flower\nof knighthood. Kai strikes him for this, and kicks the female dwarf, who\nrepeats the salutation. Kai bids Peredur seek the knight and win back the\ngoblet, then shall he have knighthood. Peredur does so, and slays the\nknight. Owain, who has followed, shows him how to undo the armour and to\nclad himself in it, and bids him back to Arthur. But Peredur refuses, he\nwill not come back to the court till he have avenged the injury done by\nKai to the dwarf and dwarfess. (4) Peredur overcomes sixteen knights and\nsends them to Arthur with the same message. (5) Peredur comes to a castle\nby a lake, and sees a venerable man sitting by the lake and his attendant\nfishing, and the old man is lame. And Peredur enters the castle, and is\npractised in the use of weapons, and learns courtesy and noble bearing;\nand the old man is his uncle--his mother's brother. He is to leave his\nmother's habits and discourse, and if he sees aught to wonder at, not to\nask the meaning of it. (6) Peredur leaves his uncle and comes to a castle\nwhere dwells a second uncle of his--brother likewise of his mother. His\nstrength is tested by his having to cut through an iron staple with a\nsword. Twice he does it and the broken pieces re-unite, but the third time\nneither would unite as before. He has arrived at two-thirds of his\nstrength, and when he attains his full power none will be able to contend\nwith him. Whilst talking, two youths enter the hall bearing a mighty spear\nwith three streams of blood flowing from the point to the ground. All\nwail and lament; but as Peredur is not vouchsafed the meaning of what he\nsees he forbears to ask concerning it. Then enter two maidens with a\nsalver in which a man's head swims in blood. The outcry redoubles. Peredur\nretires to sleep. (7) On the morrow, with his uncle's permission, he rides\nforth, finds a beautiful woman lamenting over the corpse of a knight. She\nreveals herself as his foster-sister; calls him accursed for causing his\nmother's death by leaving her; and tells him it is her husband she mourns\nfor, slain by the Knight of the Glade. Peredur meets the latter, overcomes\nhim, and makes him take his foster-sister in marriage. (8) Peredur comes\nto a castle where are eighteen youths and five maidens, and he had never\nseen one of so fair an aspect as the chief of the maidens. A flask of wine\nand six loaves are brought by two nuns, and that must suffice for all. The\nyouths press the maiden to offer herself to Peredur as his wife or lady\nlove. She refuses; but consents when they threaten leaving her to her\nenemies. She comes weeping to Peredur and relates how she is besieged by\nan earl who seeks her hand. She implores his aid, and offers to place\nherself in his hands. Peredur bids her go sleep, he will assist her, The\nnext day he overthrows the master of the household of the earl. To save\nhis life the latter must deliver up one-third of the besieged maiden's\nlands. The second day it fares the same with the earl's steward; the third\nwith the earl himself. Peredur thus wins back all his hostess' lands, and\ntarries with her three weeks; but for her love he would not have stayed so\nlong. (9) Peredur next meets the Lady of the Tent, ill-entreated of her\nhusband concerning him. Him he overcomes, compels to acknowledge her\ninnocence, and sends both to Arthur. (10) Peredur comes to the castle of a\ntall and stately lady, who bids him escape from the sorceresses of\nGloucester, who will attack the castle that night; but he resolves to\nremain, and defends one of the watch when overtaken by a sorceress. The\nlatter hails him by his name. She foreknows she is to suffer harm from\nhim. If he will go with her he shall learn chivalry and the use of arms.\nPeredur consents on her promising to refrain from injuring the countess,\nand stays with her three weeks. (11) Peredur comes to a hermit's cell. In\nthe morning it has snowed. A hawk has killed a fowl in front of the cell,\nbut is scared away by Peredur's horse; a raven has alighted on the bird.\nPeredur likens the blackness of the raven and the whiteness of the snow\nand the redness of the blood to the hair and the skin and the two red\nspots on the cheeks of the lady he loves best. Whilst thus lost in\nthought, Arthur and his household come up with him, but fail to recognise\nhim. A youth accosts him, but receives no answer; whereupon he thrusts at\nPeredur but is struck to the ground. Twenty-four youths essay the same,\nand are repulsed in like manner. Kai then comes and speaks angrily, but\nPeredur breaks his arms for him. Gwalchmai then approaches him\ncourteously, learns his name, and brings him to Arthur, who does him\nhonour. Thus all return to Caerlleon. (12) Peredur solicits the love of\nAngharad Law Eurawc, and when she denies him, vows to speak to no\nChristian till she loves him. (13) Peredur comes to the castle of a huge\ngrey man, a heathen, after slaying a lion, his porter. The grey man's\ndaughter warns him of her father, and at his request brings his horse and\narms to his lodging. Peredur overcomes the vassals, and slays the sons of\nthe grey man, and sends the whole household to Arthur to be baptized. (14)\nPeredur slays a serpent lying upon a gold ring, and wins the ring. For a\nlong time he speaks to no Christian, and loses colour and aspect through\nlonging for Arthur and his lady love. He returns to Arthur's court, but\nnone know him, and he suffers Kai to thrust him through the thigh without\nhis saying a word. He overcomes many knights, and at length Angharad Law\nEurawc confesses her love for him. He remains at Arthur's court. (15)\nPeredur comes to the castle of a huge, black, one-eyed man. The latter's\ndaughter warns him against her father. But Peredur stays, overcomes the\nlatter, and learns how he lost his eye. On the Mound of Mourning is a\ncairn, in the cairn a serpent with a stone in its tail, the virtue whereof\nis to give as much gold to the possessor as he may desire. In fighting the\nserpent he had lost his eye. He directs Peredur to the serpent, and is\nslain by him. Peredur refuses the love of the maidens of the castle, and\nrides forth. (16) He comes to the palace of the son of the King of the\nTortures. Every day the Addanc of the Lake slays them. Whilst at discourse\na charger enters the hall with a corpse in the saddle. They anoint the\ncorpse with warm water and balsam, and it comes to life. The same happens\nwith two other youths. The morrow they ride forth anew against the Addanc,\nrefusing Peredur, who would go with them; but he follows and finds seated\non a mound the fairest lady, who, if he will pledge her his love, will\ngive him a stone by which he may see the Addanc and be unseen of it. He\npromises, and she gives him the stone, telling him to seek her in India.\nPeredur passes through a valley wherein is a flock of white sheep, and one\nof black, and when they cross the river flowing through the valley they\nchange colour. He learns of their shepherd the way to the Addanc's cave,\nslays it, meets his three companions of the night before, who tell him it\nwas predicted that he should slay the monster, offers them its head,\nrefuses their sister whom they proffer him in marriage; accepts the\nservices of a youth, Etlym Gleddyv Coch, who wishes to become his\nattendant, and rides forth. (17) He comes to the court of the Countess of\nAchievements, overthrows her three hundred knights; but learning she loves\nEtlym resigns her to him. (18) Peredur, accompanied by Etlym, comes to the\nMound of Mourning, slays two out of the three hundred knights he finds\nguarding the serpent, slays the latter, repays the remaining hundred\nknights all they have spent, gives Etlym the stone and sends him back to\nhis love. (19) Peredur comes to a valley wherein are many coloured tents,\nlodges with a miller, from whom he borrows food and lodging, and learns\nthat a tournament is forward. He overcomes all the knights present, and\nsends their horses and arms to the miller as repayment. The Empress of the\nTournament sends for him, he repels her messengers thrice, the fourth time\nhe yields. She reveals herself as the lady who had helped him against the\nAddanc, and she entertains him for fourteen years. (20) Arthur is at\nCaerlleon-upon-Usk, with him his knights, and among them Peredur. There\nenters, riding upon a yellow mule, a maiden of hideous aspect. She greets\nall save Peredur, to whom she reproaches his silence at the court of the\nLame King; had he asked the meaning of the streaming spear and of the\nother wonders the King would have regained health and the dominions\npeace--all his misfortunes are due to Peredur. She then tells of a castle\nwhere are five hundred and seventy knights, each with the lady he loves\nbest--there may fame be acquired; and of a castle on a lofty mountain\nwhere a maiden is detained prisoner, whoso should deliver her should\nattain the summit of the fame of the world. Gwalchmai sets forth to\nrelease the imprisoned maiden, Peredur to enquire the meaning of the\nbleeding lance. Before they leave a knight enters and defies Gwalchmai to\nsingle combat, for that he had slain his lord by treachery. (21) Gwalchmai\nmeets a knight who directs him to his own castle, where he is welcomed by\nhis sister. The steward of the castle accuses him to the knight of being\nthe slayer of his, the knight's, father. Gwalchmai demands a year to\nacknowledge or deny the accusation. (22) Peredur, who, seeking tidings of\nthe black maiden, but finding none, has wandered over the whole island,\nmeets a priest who chides him for being in armour on Good Friday. Peredur\ndismounts, asks the priest's blessing, and learns of a castle where he may\ngain tidings of the Castle of Wonders. (23) Peredur proceeds thither, and\nmeets the King of the castle, who commends him to his daughter, by whom he\nis well received. A little yellow page accuses him to the King of winning\nhis daughter's love, and advises that he should be thrown into prison. But\nthe damsel befriends him, and assists him to take part in a tournament,\nwhere, for three days, he overthrows all opponents. The King at last\nrecognises him, and offers him his daughter; but he refuses and sets forth\nfor the Castle of Wonders. (24) On arriving there he finds the door open,\nand in the hall a chessboard and chessmen playing by themselves. He\nfavours one side which loses, whereupon he casts the chessboard in the\nlake. The black maiden comes in and reproaches him--he may find the\nchessboard again at the Castle of Ysbidinongyl, where a black man lays\nwaste the dominions of the Empress. Him Peredur overcomes, but spares his\nlife; this the black maiden chides him for, and he slays him; but the\nblack maiden still refuses him access to the Empress unless he can slay a\nstag, swift as the swiftest bird, with one sharp horn in his forehead. She\ngives him a little dog belonging to the Empress which will rouse the stag.\nWith its aid he slays the latter, but a lady, riding by, carries off the\ndog, and chides him for slaying the stag. He can only win her friendship\nby going to a cromlech which is in a grove, and challenging to fight three\ntimes a man who dwells there. Peredur complies, and fights with a black\nman clad in rusty armour; but when he dismounts his adversary disappears.\n(25) Peredur, riding on, comes to a castle where sits a lame grey-headed\nman, and Gwalchmai by him. A youth enters the hall and beseeches Peredur's\nfriendship--he had been the black maiden who came to Arthur's court, and\nwho had chid Peredur concerning the chessboard; he was the youth who came\nwith the bloody head in the salver, and the head was that of Peredur's\ncousin slain by the sorceresses of Gloucester, who also lamed Peredur's\nuncle, and he, the speaker, was Peredur's cousin. Peredur seeks aid of\nArthur, and they start against the sorceresses. One of the latter slays\nthree of Arthur's men; whereupon Peredur smites her, and she flees,\nexclaiming this was Peredur, who had learnt chivalry of them, their\ndestined slayer. She and all her companions are slain. Thus is it related\nconcerning the Castle of Wonders.\n\n=The Thornton MS. Sir Perceval.=--(1) PERCYVELLE is son of Percyvelle and\nAcheflour, Arthur's sister. His father is slain in a tournament by the Red\nKnight whom he had previously overcome in a former tournament. His mother\ntakes to the woods, brings up her son without instruction till he is\nfifteen years, when she teaches him to pray to God. (2) He then meets with\nthree knights of Arthur's court--Ewayne, Gawayne, and Kay. He takes them\nfor gods. Learning that they are knights, he determines to go to Arthur's\ncourt and become a knight himself, catches a wild horse, and, returning to\nhis mother, announces his attention. She counsels him to be always of\nmeasure, to salute knights when he meets them, and at his departure gives\nhim a ring for token. (3) He sets forth, and finding on his way a house\nmakes himself free of it, eats, drinks, and finding a lady sleeping on a\nbed takes from her her ring, leaving his mother's in its place. (4) Coming\nto Arthur's hall he rides into it and up to the King so that his mare\nkisses Arthur's forehead. He demands knighthood at Arthur's hands,\nthreatening to slay him if refused. Arthur sees the likeness to his\nfather, laments over the latter's untimely fate, and recalls that books\nsay the son should avenge the father's bane. Percyvelle bids him let be\nhis jangling and dub him knight. Whilst sitting down to table the Red\nKnight comes in, carries off Arthur's cup (five years long had he done so)\nnone daring to hinder him. At the King's lament Percyvelle engages to slay\nthe Red Knight, and bring the cup back if knighthood be granted him. The\nKing promises, Percyvelle follows the ravisher, who scorns him, but is\nslain by a dart flung at him. He captures the knight's steed, and not\nbeing able otherwise to remove his armour, and recalling his mother's\ninjunction \"out of the iron burn the tree\" kindles a fire to burn the\nbody. Gawayne, who has followed him, shows him how to unlace the armour;\nwhen that is removed Percyvelle casts the body into the fire to roast. He\nrefuses to return to Arthur, looking upon himself as great a lord as the\nKing, but sends the cup back through Gawayne and rides on. (5) He meets an\nold witch, mother to the Red Knight, who addresses him as her son; her he\nspears and casts into the fire. (6) He meets ten knights, who flee, taking\nhim for the Red Knight, but on his raising his vizor the oldest knight,\nreassured, relates how the Red Knight bore him and his sons enmity, and\nhow, fifteen years before, he had slain his brother. Learning that\nPercyvelle had burnt his enemy, he invites him to his castle. (7) Whilst\nat meat a messenger comes in from the Maiden-land begging help from the\nLady Lufamour against a \"Sowdane,\" who would have her to wife. Percyvelle\nstarts forth with three of the old knight's sons, whom, however, he sends\nback each after a mile. Meanwhile, the King at Carebedd, mourning for\nPercyvelle, receives Lufamour's messages, gains from him tidings of\nPercyvelle, and sets forth with his court to follow him. Percyvelle,\ncoming to the Sowdane's camp, is set upon by the guard, but slays them\nall, and then lays him down to rest under the castle wall. In the morning\nLufamour's men make her aware of the slaughter wrought upon her enemies.\nShe perceives Percyvelle and sends her chamberlain, Hatlayne, to bid him\nto her chamber. Whilst at table together tidings are brought that the\nenemy have nearly taken the town. Percyvelle sallies forth alone and soon\nleaves not one alive. He is then ware of four knights--Arthur, Ewayne,\nGawayne, Kay. He pricks against them and Gawayne receives his onslaught.\nThey recognise each other, and all proceed to Lufamour's castle. The next\nday the Sowdane challenges all comers; Percyvelle, dubbed knight by\nArthur, slays him, and thereafter weds Lufamour. (8) After a year he\nthinks on his mother's loneliness, and sets forth to seek her. Hearing a\ndamsel lamenting in the wood, he finds her bound to a tree, for that a\nyear before, while sleeping, a stranger had robbed her of a ring leaving\nhis own in its stead. Now her ring was of a stone of such virtue that\nneither death nor hurt could come to the wearer. He releases her,\novercomes the Black Knight who had bound her, reconciles them and claims\nhis own ring for the ring he had taken. But the Black Knight has given it\nto the lord of the land--a giant. (9) Percyvelle slays the giant, and\nclaims the ring of the porter. The latter tells him how his master, loving\na fair lady, had offered her that same ring, but she, exclaiming that he\nhad killed her son, rushed into the forest and was since then bereft of\nher senses. Percyvelle puts on a goat's skin, and after nine days search\nfinds her. A magic drink of the giant's throws her into a three days'\nsleep, after which, restored to her right mind, she goes home with her\nson. He afterwards goes to the Holy Land, and is there slain.\n\n=The Queste del Saint Graal.=--[_Furnivall's text (F.) has been taken as\nthe basis of the present summary. Words and passages not found in the\nWelsh translation (W) are italicised; words or passages found in the Welsh\ntranslation instead of those in Furnivall are in parentheses. The variants\nfrom Birch-Hirschfeld's Summary (B. H.) are given in the notes._]\n\n(1) On Whitsun Eve the companions of the Round Table being assembled at\nCamelot, a _damsel_ (youth) comes in great haste, asks for Lancelot and\nbids him _from King Pelles_ (for the sake of whatever he loved most)\naccompany her to the forest. Notwithstanding Guinevere's opposition he\ndoes so, and comes to a nunnery where he finds his two cousins, Boort and\nLionel. Three nuns then bring Galahad, a child the like of whom might\nscarce be found in the world; one asks Lancelot to knight him, he\nconsents, and on the morrow Lancelot and his companions return to\nCamelot; his cousins think the child must be Lancelot's son, but Lancelot\nanswers no word. (2) At the Round Table the seat of each knight is marked,\nbut on the Seat Perillous it is written that _four hundred and fifty-four_\n(four hundred and fifty) years have passed since the Lord's Passion, and\nthat on this Whitsun Day the seat shall find its master. Lancelot covers\nthese words, and, whilst at Kay's reminding, the court awaits an adventure\nbefore sitting down to meat, a youth tells them of a stone floating on the\nwater. It is a block of red marble, in which sticks a sword, and upon it\nwritten that none may draw the sword save the best knight in the world.\nLancelot declares that the wonders of the Holy Grail are about to begin,\nand refuses to essay the adventure; Gawain, Perceval, and others try, but\nfail; they then sit down to table served by twelve kings; an old man\nenters, leading a knight in vermeil armour, whom he proclaims the desired\nknight, of the seed of David and kin of Joseph of Arimathea, who shall\nachieve the adventures of the Holy Grail. He draws near the Seat\nPerillous, on which is now written, \"This is Galahad's seat,\" sits himself\ntherein, dismisses the old man, _and bids him greet_, \"_My uncle, King\nPelles, and my grandfather, the rich fisher_.\"[14] (3) Great honour is\ndone to the new knight, whom Lancelot recognises as his son, and Bors and\nLionel as the youth begot by Lancelot upon the daughter _of the Fisher\nKing_ (King Pelles). The Queen is told that the knight is come, and her\nladies say he _shall end the wonders of Great Britain, and through him the\nMaimed King shall be healed_. Galahad is then urged by Arthur to essay the\nadventure of the sword, consents, easily draws out the sword, and asks for\na shield. (4) A damsel appears, weeps for Lancelot as having lost his\nplace as the best knight in the world, and tells the King from Nasciens,\nthe hermit, that on that day he would send the Holy Grail to feed the\ncompanions of the Round Table. A tournament is ordered, in which Galahad\nis held the best, as he overthrows all save Lancelot and Perceval. After\nvespers the court sits down to table, a clap of thunder is heard, followed\nby the brightest of sunbeams, so that all are as if lighted by the Holy\nGhost. None know whence the light comes, and none has power to say a word.\nThe Holy Grail enters, covered with white samite, but none may see who\ncarries it; the hall is filled with sweet odours, and as the Grail passes\nalong the tables each seat is filled with such meat as each one longs for.\nThen it departs, none may say how, and those can now speak who before\ncould say no word. (5) All return thanks to God for the grace vouchsafed\nthem, and Gawain tells them that heretofore no man had been served with\nwhatever he might desire save _at the Maimed King's_ (at the court of King\nPeleur). But they could not behold the Grail openly, and Gawain declares\nhe will go on quest of it for a year and a day. The knights of the Round\nTable make a like vow. Arthur is much distressed, as he knows many will\ndie on the quest. The Queen and her ladies weep likewise, and propose to\njoin their knights, but an old priest tells them from Nasciens, the\nhermit, that no knight entering on the quest of the Holy Grail is to have\nwith him his lady or damsel--the quest is no earthly one. On the morrow,\nat King Bandamagus' suggestion, all the questers, Galahad first, swear to\nmaintain the quest for a year and a day and longer if need be. After the\nQueen has taken leave of Lancelot, and Arthur has vainly tried to force a\nshield on Galahad, the questers set off together and pass the first night\nat Vagan's Castle. On the morrow they ride forth and separate. (6) After\nfive days Galahad comes to an abbey where he finds King Bandamagus and\nYwain \"li aoutres.\" The abbey contains a shield which no knight save the\ndestined one may take and go unslain or unhurt. King Bandamagus would take\nit, but is overthrown by a White Knight; Galahad then takes it, and his\nright to do so is admitted by the White Knight, who tells him as follows\nconcerning it:--Forty-three years after our Lord's Passion, Joseph of\nArimathea, who took our Lord's body down from the Cross,[15] came to the\ncity Sarras, where dwelt King Evelac, then a Saracen, who was at war with\nhis neighbour, Tholomes. Josephes, Joseph's son, warned Evelac against\ngoing forth to battle unprepared, and, in answer to the King's questions\nwhat he should do, told him of the new law and Gospel truth and the\nSaviour's death, and fixed on his shield a cross of sandal. He was to\nuncover this on the fourth day's fighting, and to call on the Lord. When\nhe did so he beheld a bleeding, crucified figure. He won the battle, and\non his telling the story his brother-in-law, Nasciens, received baptism.\nThe shield then restored to a man his lost hand. Evelac was baptized, and\nguarded the shield in lordly fashion. Josephes came with his father to\nGreat Britain, where King Crudel threw them with many other Christians\ninto prison. Mordrains[16] and Nasciens then invaded Great Britain,\nreleased Josephes and remained with him in the land. When Josephes was on\nhis deathbed, and Evelac asked him for a remembrance, then he bade King\nMordrains bring his shield, and with the blood streaming from his nose\nmarked on it a cross; this would always remain red, and no knight should\nwith impunity unhang the shield till Galahad should come, last of\nNasciens' line. Where Nasciens lay buried, there the shield was to be\nkept. (7) Galahad draws near a tomb in the abbey graveyard, whence issues\na voice telling him not to approach and drive it out. But he does so, and\na smoke in man's form comes out; on opening the tomb a dead knight's body\nis found lying therein, this is cast out. These things are a symbol: the\nhard tombstone signifies the _hard-heartedness of the world_ (the hardship\nwhich Jesus Christ had in this world);[17] the dead body those dead in\nsin, and as in Christ's time when they slew Him and were harried out of\ntheir land by Vespasian as a punishment; the smoke was a devil who fled\nfrom Galahad because he was a virgin. (8) On the morrow Galahad rides\nforth accompanied by Melians, a youth who had begged to be allowed to\nserve him, and whom he had knighted. They separate at a cross road,\nMelians takes the left hand road in spite of warning, comes to a tent\nwhere hangs a golden crown, seizes it, meets a strange knight who\noverthrows and had slain him but for Galahad coming to the rescue and\novercoming first one, then a second assailant. Melians is taken to an\nabbey to be tended, and learns that the two knights who almost overpowered\nhim were his pride in taking the left hand path, his covetousness in\ncarrying off the crown of gold. (9) Galahad enters a hermitage to pray\nthere, and hears a voice bidding him proceed to the Castle of Maidens and\nrid it of its bad customs. He encounters on the way seven knights whom he\nmust overcome, such was the custom of the castle. He forces them to\nflight, and an old priest brings him the keys of the castle. He finds\ntherein numberless maidens, and learns that the former lord of the castle\nhad been, with his son, slain by the seven knights, who had striven\nbeforehand to carry off his daughter. She foretold that as they had gained\nthe castle for a maiden's sake, they would lose it through a maiden, and\nbe overcome by a single knight, whereupon they determined to make prisoner\nevery maiden passing that way. Galahad delivers the captives, and puts a\ndaughter of the former duke in possession of the castle. He learns then\nthat the seven brothers have been slain by Gawain, Gheriot, and Ywain.\n(10) The story now returns to Gawain. He passes by the abbey where Galahad\nfound the shield, then that where Melians lay ill, is reproached by a\nfriar with being too sinful to be with Galahad, meets Gheheries, his\nbrother, meets Ywain on the morrow, meets the seven brothers who attack\nthem and are slain; then Gawain comes alone to a hermitage, confesses for\nthe first time since fourteen years, is admonished by the hermit, learns\nthat the Castle of Maidens signifies hell, the captives the good souls\nwrongfully therein confined before Christ's coming, the seven knights the\nseven sins. Gawain is pressed, but vainly, to make penitence. (11) The\nstory returns to Galahad. After wandering for awhile without adventures he\nmeets Lancelot and Perceval. They do not recognise him, not knowing his\n_arms_ (shield),[18] and attack him. He overcomes them, but learning from\nthe words of a recluse, who sees the combat, that she really knows him,\nand, fearing recognition, he hurries off.[19] (12) Perceval stays with the\nrecluse, and Lancelot starts in pursuit of the Unknown Knight. He comes\nin the night to a stone cross near which stands (an old)[20] chapel. He\ndismounts and enters, but an iron rail hinders his progress; through it he\nsees an altar whereon _burn seven candles_ (a silver candlestick, a wax\ntaper).[21] He leaves the chapel, unsaddles his horse, and lies down to\nsleep by the cross. Then comes a sick knight on a bier drawn by two\nhorses, dolourously lamenting. He looks at Lancelot, but says no word,\nthinking him asleep, nor does Lancelot say aught, but remains half asleep.\nAnd the sick knight laments, \"_When may I have solace from the holy vessel\nfor the pain I suffer for such a small fault_ (was ever so much pain as is\nupon me who have done no evil at all)?\"[22] But Lancelot says no word, nor\nwhen the candlestick comes towards the cross and the Holy Grail approaches\nthe sick knight, who prays he may be made whole to join likewise the\nquest. Then crawling to the table whereon the vessel stands, and _touching\nhis eyes with_ (kissing) it, feels relief and slumbers. The Grail\ndisappears and Lancelot still says never a word, for which aftertimes much\nmischance was his. The sick knight arises well, a squire appears and\n_arms_ him (with Lancelot's sword and helm),[23] and brings him Lancelot's\nsteed, and the knight swears never to rest till he knows why the Holy\nGrail appears in so many places of the Kingdom of Logres, and by whom it\nwas brought to England. So he departs, and _his squire carries off\nLancelot's armour_. Lancelot awakes wondering whether what he has seen be\ndream or truth. And he hears a voice saying--harder than stone, bitterer\nthan wood, more despised than the fig tree--he must away, not pollute the\nspot where is the Holy Grail. He wanders forth weeping, comes to a hermit,\nconfesses his great sin, his love for Guinevere, is admonished to tear it\nfrom his heart, when there may still be hope for him. Lancelot promises,\nand has the adventure at the chapel explained to him, and stays with the\nhermit for penance and instruction. (13) The story now returns to\nPerceval. The recluse orders he be well taken care of, she loves him well,\nhe is her nephew. She dissuades him from fighting Galahad as he wishes,\ndoes he wish to die and be killed as his brothers _for their outrages_ (in\ntheir combats and tournaments)? He and Galahad and Bors will achieve the\nQuest. She is his aunt, formerly Queen of the Waste Land. _He asks about\nhis mother whom he fears he has badly treated, and learns she died when he\nwent to Arthur's court._[24] He asks further concerning the knight with\nthe red arms, and is told as follows:--Since Christ's coming were three\nchief tables; first, the table at which Christ often ate with his\nApostles; second, the table of the Holy Grail, established in semblance\nand remembrance of the first, by which so many miracles were wrought in\nthis land in the time of Joseph of Arimathea, in the beginning when\nChristianity was brought to this country. He came with four thousand poor\ncompanions. One day, wandering in a forest, they had nothing to eat, but\nan old woman brought _twelve_ (ten) loaves, these they bought and they\nwere wroth with one another when they came to divide them. Joseph angry,\ntook the twelve loaves, made the people sit, and by virtue of the Holy\nGrail multiplied the loaves to their need. At that table was a seat where\nJosephes, son of Joseph, might sit, but none other, for, as the history\ntells, the place was blessed by our Lord himself. Now two brothers,\nrelatives of Josephes, envied him his leadership, saying they were of as\ngood seed as he, and one sat in Josephes' seat, and was straightway\nswallowed up by the earth, whence the seat was called the Dreaded Seat.\nLast came the Round Table, made by Merlin's counsel, to show the roundness\nof the world and of the firmament. And Merlin foretold that by companions\nof this table should the truth of the Grail be known, and that three\nshould achieve it, two virgins and one chaste, and the one should surpass\nhis father as man surpasses wolf, and he should be master, and for him\nMerlin made a great and wonderful seat, wherein none might sit unharmed\nsave he, and it was known as the Seat Perillous. And as at Whitsuntide the\nHoly Spirit came to the Apostles in guise of fire, so at Whitsuntide\nGalahad came clad in red armour. And on the day he came the questing for\nthe Grail began, which might not cease till the truth concerning it _and\nthe lance_ was known. To find Galahad, Perceval must first try Castle\n_Gher_ (Goth) where dwells a cousin of Galahad, _and then Castle Corbenic\nwhere dwells the Maimed King_. (14) His aunt then tells how after that her\nhusband fell in war against King Laban she withdrew into that wild place.\nAnd her son went to serve King Pelles, their relative, and since two years\nshe only knows of him that he is following tournaments throughout Great\nBritain. (15) On the morrow Perceval comes to a monastery, and seeing mass\nbeing performed would enter but cannot, and sees a sick bed with a man or\nwoman lying on it, whom, as he rises when the body of our Lord is raised,\nhe sees to be an old man crowned, with his body full of wounds and crying\nout, \"Father, forget me not.\" He seems as if he were over _four hundred_\n(one hundred and four) years old. Perceval asks concerning these wonders,\nand is told as follows:--When Joseph of Arimathea came to this land, the\nSaracen, King Crudel, hearing of the Grail by which he lived, threw him\nand his son Josephes and some hundred others into prison for forty days,\nand forbade food to be given them. But they had the holy vessel with them.\nWhen Mordrains and his brother-in-law, Seraphe, heard these things, they\nassembled their host, landed in Britain, overcame Crudel, and freed\nJoseph. On the morrow Evelac, as he was called before he became Christian,\ndesired to see the Holy Grail plainly, and though warned to desist pressed\nforward to do so, and was struck blind and helpless. He accepted his\npunishment submissively, but only prayed to Christ that he might survive\ntill _the good knight should come, the best[25] of his seed_ (the knight\nwho is to achieve the adventures of the Holy Grail). A voice answered his\nprayer should be granted, and then he should receive the light of his eyes\nand his wounds should be made whole. This happened _four hundred_ (one\nhundred and four) years before, and it was that King Evelac whom Perceval\nhad seen, and during that while he had fed on nought else save the Lord's\nbody. (16) Perceval riding forth on the morrow is attacked by twenty\nknights, sore pressed, and only rescued by the Red Knight's help, who then\ndisappears. (17) Perceval, having lost his horse, asks one vainly from a\npassing squire, from whom it is shortly afterwards carried off by another\nknight, whom Perceval, mounted on the squire's cob, attacks but is\noverthrown. (18) At night a woman appears and offers him a horse if he\nwill do her will--she is, in truth, the enemy. He agrees, she mounts him,\nhe comes to a river, and, before essaying to ford it, makes the sign of\nthe cross, whereupon the horse rushes howling into the water. (19)\nPerceval, rescued from this peril, finds himself on a wild island\nmountain, full of savage beasts; he helps a lion against a snake and wins\nits service. He is ill at ease on his island, but he trusts God, and is\nnot like those men of Wales where sons pull their fathers out of bed and\nkill them to save the disgrace of their dying in bed. (20) That night,\nsleeping by the lion's side, Perceval dreams of two women visiting him,\none mounted on a lion, the second on a serpent; this one reproaches him\nfor killing the serpent. On the morrow an old man comes ship-borne,\ncomforts Perceval with good counsel, and interprets his dream: the dame on\nthe lion was Christ's new law, she on the serpent the old law. (21) A\ndamsel then appears, warns Perceval against the old man, prepares for him\na rich banquet with good wine, not British, as in Great Britain they only\ndrink cervoise and other home-made drinks, and excites his passion. He is\non the point of yielding, but seeing the cross-handled pommel of his sword\ncrosses himself, and the damsel disappears in flames. Perceval pierces his\nthigh with his sword in his contrition. The old man reappears, exhorts,\nexplains the various features of his temptation, and finally takes him\naway with him in his ship. (22) The story now returns to Lancelot. After\nthree exhortations from the hermit he sets forth, and first meets a\nservant, who assails him bitterly as an unfaithful traitorous knight, in\nthat having openly seen the Holy Grail doing its wonders before him, he\nyet moved not from his seat. (23) He comes to a hermit's hut and finds the\nhermit lamenting over the dead body of his companion, who, at his nephew,\nAgaran's, request, had left the hermitage to aid him against his enemies,\nand had been treacherously slain by the latter. These things are told by a\ndevil, which had entered into the dead hermit's body. Lancelot is\nadmonished at great length, receives stripes, puts on the dead hermit's\nhair shirt, and finally leaves with the advice that he should confess\nevery week. (24) He meets a damsel who encourages him, but tells him he\nwill find no lodging for the night. _He dismounts at the foot of a cross\nat the cross-ways, and has a vision of a man surrounded with stars,\ncrowned and accompanied by seven Kings and two knights, who pray to be\ntaken to heaven; a man descending from heaven orders one of the knights\naway, whilst to the other he gives the shape of a winged lion, so that he\nflies up to heaven and is admitted._[26] (25) Lancelot meets the knight\nwho had carried off his arms, and who attacks, but is overthrown by him.\n(26) _He comes to a hermitage, confesses, tells his vision, and learns\nthat it has a great meaning in respect of his lineage, which must be\nexpounded at much length: forty-two years after the Passion of Christ,\nJoseph of Arimathea left Jerusalem, came to Sarras, helped Evelac, who\nreceived baptism at the hands of Josephes, together with his\nbrother-in-law, Seraphe (who took the name Nasciens), and who became a\npillar of the holy faith, so that the great secrets of the Holy Grail were\nopened to him, which none but Joseph had beheld before, and no knight\nafter save in dream. Now Evelac dreamed that out of his nephew, son of\nNasciens, came forth a great lake, whence issued nine streams, eight of\nthe same size, and the last greater than all the rest put together; our\nLord came and washed in the lake which King Mordrains thus saw flowing\nfrom Celidoine's belly. This Celidoine was the man surrounded by stars in\nLancelot's vision, and this because he knew the course of the stars and\nthe manner of the planets, and he was first King of Scotland, and the nine\nstreams were his nine descendants, of whom seven Kings and two\nknights:--first, Warpus; second, Chrestiens;[27] third, Alain li Gros;\nfourth, Helyas; fifth, Jonaans, who went to Wales and there took to wife\nKing Moroneus' daughter; sixth, Lancelot, who had the King of Ireland's\ndaughter to wife; seventh, Bans. These were the seven Kings who appeared\nto Lancelot. The eighth stream was Lancelot himself, the elder of the\nknights of the vision. The ninth stream was Galahad, begot by Lancelot\nupon the Fisher King's daughter, lion-like in power, deepest of all the\nstreams._[28] (27) Lancelot comes to a castle with a meadow before it,\nwhereon a throng of black armoured knights is tourneying against knights\nin white armour. Lancelot goes to the help of the former,[29] but is\ncaptured, and on being released rides off lamenting. At night, as he\nsleeps, a man comes from heaven and reproaches him with his ill faith. A\nhermitess expounds the allegorical meaning of the adventure. The white\nknights are those of Eliezer, son of King Pelles, the black those of\nArgastes, son of King Helain; this symbolised the Quest, which was a\ntournament between the heavenly knights and the earthly ones, and in that\nQuest none might enter who was black with sin; and Lancelot though sinful,\nhaving entered thereon had joined the black knights, and his capture by\nthe others was his overthrow by Galahad, and his lamentation his return\nto sin, and it was our Lord who reproached him in his vision; let him not\ndepart from truth. (28) Lancelot comes to Lake Marchoise, is attacked by a\nknight in black armour, who kills his horse and rides off; he lays down on\nthe shore and awaits trustfully God's help. (29) The story returns to\nGawain. After journeying many days adventureless, he meets Hector de\nMares. Neither has heard aught of Lancelot, Galahad, or Bohors. Travelling\ntogether they come to a deserted chapel, where, passing the night, Gawain\ndreams he sees in a meadow one hundred and fifty bulls all spotted, save\nthree, one being dingy, the two others being pure white. Of the one\nhundred and forty-seven who set off to find better pasture many die and\nsome return, of the three one returns, but two remain between whom strife\narises and they separate. Hector dreams that he and Lancelot, being\ncompanions, are attacked by a man who knocks Lancelot off his horse and\nsits him on an ass, after which Lancelot, coming to a fair fountain, would\ndrink of it, but it vanishes; he, Hector, keeping his horse comes to a\ncastle, the lord of which refuses him admission for that he is too high\nmounted. Whilst telling one another their dreams, a hand with a taper\nappears and vanishes, and a voice tells them that, poor of belief as they\nare, they cannot attain the Holy Grail. On their way to find a hermit who\nmay explain these wonders, Gawain is attacked by and kills a knight,\nYwains the Adulterer, son of King Urien. They then come to the hermit,\nNasciens, who explains the bulls as the companions of the Round Table, the\nspotted ones those stained by sin, the three unspotted ones are the\nachievers, two white, virgins--Galahad and Perceval--one dingy, having\nonce sinned carnally, Bors. The last part of the dream may not be\nexplained, as evil might come of it. In Hector's dream the two horses are\nPride and Ostentation. Lancelot's being seated on an ass signifies the\nputting off of pride, the fountain is the Holy Grail. Both knights are too\nfull of sin to continue in the quest of the Grail. They ride forth and\nmeet with no adventure worth notice. (30) The story returns to Bors. After\nfirst coming to a hermit, who exhorts him to abandon the Quest if he do\nnot feel himself free from sin, to whom he confesses, from whom he\nreceives absolution, and to whom he vows to eat nought save bread and\nwater till the Quest be achieved, he comes to a castle whose mistress is\nsore oppressed by her sister, against whose champion, Priadam the Black,\nshe has vainly sought a defender. Bors promises to come to help. He passes\nthe night at the castle and will not sleep in the rich bed she offers him,\nthough in the morning he tumbles it as if he had lain in it. He overcomes\nPriadam, and reinstates the lady in her lordship. (31) On the morrow he\nmeets his brother, naked, bound on a hack, being beaten with thorns by two\nknights. At the same moment passes a very fair maiden being carried off by\na knight, and she cries to him for help. He is in anguish, but goes to the\nmaiden's help, wounds her would-be ravisher, and restores her to her\nfriends. (32) He then hurries after his brother, but meets a seeming monk\nwho makes him believe his brother is dead, and gives him an explanation of\ndreams he has had. He then comes to a tower and is welcomed by its\ninmates. A damsel offers him her love, and when he refuses threatens with\ntwelve other damsels to throw herself from the tower. Bors is full of\npity, but thinks they had better lose their souls than he his. They fall\nfrom the tower, Bors crosses himself, and the whole vanishes, being a\ndeceit of the devil. His brother's corpse that had been shown him is also\ngone. (33) On the morrow he comes to an abbey, where he learns that his\nbrother lives, and where all his dreams and adventures are allegorically\nexplained. He then meets Lionel, his brother, who reproaches him bitterly\nfor his conduct, and falls upon him with intent to kill. First a hermit,\nthen a passing knight, Calogrenant, would stop him, but he slays both.\nBors is at length, in spite of prayers and entreaties, compelled to draw\nin self defence, but a voice tells him to flee, and a fiery brand comes\nfrom heaven between them. Bors follows the command of the voice directing\nhim towards the sea, where Perceval awaits him. He comes to a ship covered\nwith white samite, and finds therein Perceval, who at first does not know\nhim again, and who tells him all that he has passed through. (34) The\nstory returns to Galahad. After countless adventures he finds himself one\nday opposed to Gawain and Hector de Mares in a tournament; he deals the\nformer such a blow as knocks him out of his saddle. (35) He is brought to\nthe ship wherein are Perceval and Bors by a damsel, who accompanies them\nuntil, fourteen days' sail from Logres, they come to a desert isle off\nwhich is another ship, on which is written[30] that those who would enter\nshould see they were full of faith. The damsel then tells Perceval she is\nhis sister, _daughter of King Pellehem_. They enter the ship and find a\nrich bed with a crown at its head, and at its foot a sword six inches out\nof the scabbard, its tip a stone of all the colours in the world, its\nhandle of the bones of two beasts, the serpent Papagast, the fish\nOrteniaus; it is covered with a cloth whereon is written that only the\nfirst of his line would grasp the sword. Perceval and Bors both essay\nvainly. Galahad, on being asked, sees written on the blade that he only\nshould draw who could strike better than others. The damsel tells the\nstory of the sword as follows:--When the ship came to the Kingdom of\nLogres there was war between King Lambar, father to the Maimed King, and\nKing Urlain, heretofore Saracen, but newly baptised. Once Urlain,\ndiscomfited, fled to the ship, and, finding therein the sword, drew it and\nslew King Laban[31] with it, and that was the first blow struck with the\nsword in the Kingdom of Logres, and there came from it such pestilence and\ndestruction in the land of the two kingdoms that it was afterwards called\nthe Waste Land. When Urlain re-entered the ship he fell down dead. (36)\nGalahad, further examining the sword, finds the scabbard of serpent's\nskin, but the hangings of poor stuff. On the scabbard is written that the\nwearer must surpass his fellows, and the hangings be changed only by a\nKing's daughter and she a maid; on turning the sword over, the other side\nis found black as pitch, and bearing words that he who should praise it\nmost should blame it most in his greatest need. Perceval's sister explains\nthis as follows: Forty years after our Lord's Passion, Nasciens,\nMordrains' brother-in-law, came to the Turning Isle, and found this ship,\nand therein bed and sword, this last he coveted, but had not the hardihood\nto draw it, though he stayed eight days food and drinkless longing for it;\non the ninth day a tempest drove him to another island, where, assailed by\na giant, he drew the sword, and though it snapped in two and thus\nfulfilled the inscription, yet he overcame the giant. He afterwards met\nMordrains and told him of these wonders; Mordrains reunited the fragments,\nthen, in obedience to a voice, they left the ship, but in going Nasciens\nwas wounded for having dared to draw a sword of which he was not worthy,\nthus he who praised it most had most reason to blame it. As for the other\nwords, _King Pelles,[32] called the Maimed King_ (a lame King who was my,\n_i.e._, the damsel's, uncle) once came to this ship on the shore of the\nsea over against Ireland, and entering it found the sword, drew but was\nwounded through the thighs by a lance, _and might not be healed till\nGalahad come_.[33] (37) They then examine the bed and find it has three\nspindles; that in front, snow white; that behind, blood red; that above,\nemerald green, and lest this be thought a lie the story turns from its\nstraight path to explain about these spindles. After Eve, yielding to the\ndevil's advice, had caused Adam to sin, and both knew themselves carnal\nand were ashamed, and were driven forth from Paradise, Eve kept the branch\nof the Tree of Life which she had plucked, and planted it and it grew to a\ntree with branches and leaves white in token that Eve was a virgin when\nshe planted it. Sitting one day beneath the tree, God commanded them to\nknow one another carnally, and when they were ashamed to set about such\nfoul work sent darkness over them. Abel was thus begotten, and the Tree of\nLife turned green. Afterwards Cain slew Abel underneath that same tree and\nit turned red. At the Deluge it remained unharmed and lasted till\nSolomon's time. Whilst the wise King was pondering over the malice of his\nwife and of all women, a voice told him a woman of his line should bring\nmen more joy than her sex had caused sorrow, and that a virgin knight\nshould be the last of his lineage. His wife, whom he consults as to how he\nshall let this knight know he had foreknowledge of his coming, advised the\nbuilding of the ship, and the taking of David's sword to be fitted with a\nnew hilt of precious stones, and a new pommel and scabbard, and placed in\nthe ship together with Solomon's crown on a rich bed; she furthermore had\nthree spindles made from the Tree of Life and from trees grown from it.\nAnd when all was ready Solomon saw in dreams angels coming from heaven and\nputting the different inscriptions on the sword and ship. (38) The story\nspeaks now of other things. New hangings had not been put on the sword,\nthis was to be done by a damsel. Perceval's sister supplies hangings made\nof her own hair, and names the sword \"The Sword of Strange Hangings,\" and\nthe scabbard \"Memory of Blood,\" and Galahad girds on the sword. (39) On\nthe morrow they set sail and come to Castle Carchelois, in the March of\nScotland, the inmates whereof attack them but are all slain. Galahad is\nsorry for those he has killed, but a priest tells him they are heathens,\nand he has done the best work in the world, as the three knights who held\nthe castle had ravished their own sister and wounded their father, Count\nErnous, to death. Before the latter dies he urges Galahad _to go to the\nassistance of the Maimed King_ (to undertake other adventures).[34] (40)\nOn the morrow they meet a white stag led by four lions; these come to a\nhermitage, hear mass, the stag becomes a man and sits on the altar, the\nlions a man, an eagle, a lion, and an ox, all winged. (41) On the morrow\nPerceval takes Galahad's sword, which he will wear from henceforth. They\ncome to a castle, the inmates of which demand that Perceval's sister\nshould pay the custom of the castle, which is to give a dishful of blood\nfrom her right arm. The three companions protect Perceval's sister against\noverwhelming odds till nightfall, when, learning that the blood is asked\nto heal the Lady of the Castle suffering from leprosy, Perceval's sister\nsacrifices herself. Before dying she gives directions that her body is to\nbe put in a ship and buried in the Palace Spiritual in Sarras. Bors then\nleaves his two companions to succour a wounded knight pursued by a knight\nand a dwarf;[35] and Perceval and Galahad, after seeing the castle they\nhad thus left destroyed by fire from heaven in vengeance of the blood of\nthe good maidens which had there been shed, likewise separate. (42) The\nstory returns to Lancelot. He is at the Water of Marcoise, surrounded by\nthe forest and high rocks, but he does not lose faith in God; in obedience\nto a voice he goes on board a passing ship and finds therein Perceval's\nsister, whose story he learns from the letter at her head. After a month's\njourneying a knight joins them who proves to be Galahad, and they pass\ntogether half a year achieving marvellous adventures. After Easter, at the\nnew time when the birds sing their sweet and varied songs, they come to\nland, and a knight in white arms bids Galahad leave his father, which he\ndoes. (43) After a month's further wandering on the sea, Lancelot comes to\na castle guarded by two lions,[36] against whom he would at first defend\nhimself, but is reproved for trusting his strength rather than his\nCreator. Entering, he comes to a room wherein are the Holy Vessel, and a\npriest celebrating mass; Lancelot is warned not to enter, but when he sees\nthat the priest about to raise the body of God has a man put into his\nhands, he cannot refrain from pressing forward to his aid, but is struck\ndown by a fiery wind and remains fourteen days dumb, food- and drinkless.\nHe finds he is in Castle Corbenic, and a damsel tells him his quest is\nended. King Pelles rejoices to see him, at dinner the Holy Grail fills the\ntables so that living man could not think of greater plenty; whilst at\ndinner Hector de Mares comes to the castle door, but is ashamed to enter,\nhearing that Lancelot is within, and rides off pursued by the reproaches\nand taunts of those of the castle. Lancelot returns to Arthur's court,\npassing on the way the tomb of Bandamagus, whom Gawain had slain. (44) The\nstory returns to Galahad. He comes to an abbey wherein is King Mordrains,\nwho knows his approach, and asks that he may die in his arms; Galahad\ntakes him on his breast, Mordrains dies and all his wounds are found\nhealed. (45) Galahad cools the boiling fountain by putting his hand in it.\n(46) Galahad delivers from the tomb where he had been burning three\nhundred and fifty-four years his relative, Symeu, who thus expiated his\nsin against Joseph of Arimathea. (47) Galahad rides five years before he\ncomes to the _house of the Maimed King_ (the court of King Peleur), and\nduring all the five years Perceval bears him company, and within that time\nthey _achieve the great adventures of the Kingdom of Logres_ (cast out the\nevil adventures of the Island of Britain). (48) One day they met Bors, who\nin the five years had not been in bed four times. The three come to\n_Castle Corbenic_[37] (the court of King Peleur) _where they are greeted\nby King Pelles, and where Eliezer, King Pelles' son, brings the broken\nsword with which Joseph had been pierced through the thighs; Bors cannot\nrejoin the pieces, Perceval can only adjust them together, Galahad alone\ncan make the sword whole, and it is then given to Bors_. (50) At\nvesper-time a hot wind strikes the palace, and a voice orders all unfit to\nsit at Christ's table to depart, as the true knights were to be fed with\nHeaven's food. All leave save _King Pelles, Eliezer, his son, and his\nniece, the most religious maid on the earth_ (a young maiden); to them\nenter nine knights[38] and salute Galahad: three are from _Gaul_ (Wales),\nthree from Ireland, three from Denmark. _Then four damsels bring in on a\nwooden bed a man, crowned, in evil plight, who greets Galahad as his\nlong-expected deliverer._ A voice orders out of the room him who has not\nbeen a companion of the Quest, and straightway _King Pelles and Eliezer\nand_ the damsel depart. From heaven comes a man clad like a Bishop and\nborne in a chair by four[39] angels, who place him before the table upon\nwhich stands the Holy Grail. Upon his forehead is written that he was\n_Joseph_ (son of Joseph of Arimathea) first Bishop of Christendom, whereat\nthey wonder, as they know that man lived three hundred years before. He\nkneels before the altar and opens the door of the _ark_ (chamber), and\nfour angels[39] issue, _two bearing burning lights, the third a cloth of\nred samite, the fourth a lance bleeding so hard that the drops run into a\nbox he holds in his other hand_ (two with torches, the third with the\nlance, the fourth holding the box into which the blood drops); the candles\nare placed on the table, the cloth is placed on the holy vessel so that\nthe blood fell into it. Joseph then celebrates the Sacrament, and on his\nraising the wafer, as it were a child descends from heaven and strikes\nitself into the wafer, so that it takes man's form. Joseph then kisses\nGalahad and bids him be fed by the Saviour's own hand, and vanishes. But\nthere comes out of the holy vessel, a man with hands bleeding and feet and\nbody, and says He will reveal His secrets, and give the high food so long\ndesired and toiled for. He gives the Sacrament to Galahad and his\ncompanions, and explains that the Grail is the dish of the Last Supper,\nand Galahad shall see it more fully in the City of Sarras, whither it is\ngoing, Britain being unworthy of it, and whither he is to follow it with\nPerceval and Bors; _but as he must not leave the land without healing the\nMaimed King he is to take some of the blood of the lance and therewith\nanoint his legs_.[40] Galahad asks why all may not come with him; but\nChrist says they are twelve who have eaten as the Apostles were twelve,\nand they must separate as the Apostles separated. _Galahad then heals the\nMaimed King, who goes into an abbey of white monks._ (51) The three\ncompanions, after sending messages to Arthur's court _through Estrois de\nGariles and Claudius, son of King Claudas_,[41] coming to Solomon's ship,\nherein they find the Holy Grail, set sail; on landing bury Perceval's\nsister, heal a cripple to help them carry the Grail-table, are cast in\nprison by King _Escorant_ for a year, are fed by the Holy Grail; at\n_Escorant's_ death Galahad is made King, fashions a tree of gold and\nprecious stones over the Grail and prays before it every morning as do his\ncompanions. (52) On the anniversary of Galahad's crowning the three see\nbefore the holy vessel a man clad like a Bishop, who begins mass and calls\nGalahad to see what he has so longed to see, and at the sight Galahad\ntrembles very greatly, and he thanks God for letting him see that which\ntongue may not describe nor heart think, and he begs that he may pass away\nfrom this earthly life to the heavenly one. The Bishop then gives him the\nbody of God, and reveals himself as Josephus, son of Joseph of Arimathea.\nGalahad kisses Perceval and Bors, and sends greetings to Lancelot through\nBors, his soul then leaves his body and angels take it away. A hand from\nheaven then comes to the vessel and takes it and the lance, and bears it\nheavenwards, so that since there was no man bold enough to say he has seen\nthe Holy Grail (except Gwalchmai once). (52) _Galahad's body is buried.\nPerceval goes into a hermitage, where Bors stays with him for a year and\ntwo months; Perceval dies, and is buried by Bors in Galahad's tomb; Bors\nleft alone in a place as strange as Babylon, sets sail for Britain, and\ncomes to Camelot, when all are greatly joyed to see him; he tells the\nadventures of the Holy Grail; they are written down and kept in the Abbey\nof Salisbury, and from these Master Walter Map drew to make his book of\nthe Holy Grail for the love of King Henry his lord, who had the story\ntranslated from Latin into French. The story now is silent and tells no\nmore concerning the adventures of the Holy Grail._[42]\n\n=Grand St. Graal.=--(1) The writer salutes all who have faith in the Holy\nTrinity. He does not name himself for three reasons: lest his declaration\nthat he received the story from God Himself be a stumbling block; lest his\nfriends pay less honour to the book if they know the author; lest if he\nhave made any blunder all the blame fall upon him.\n\n(2) In the year 717 after the Passion of Christ, as the writer lies in his\nhut in one of the wildest parts of White Britain, on Good Friday Eve and\ndoubts of the Trinity, Christ appears to him and gives him a little book\nnot larger than a man's palm, and this book will resolve all his doubts;\nHe Himself has written it, and only he who is purified by confession and\nfasting may read it. On the morrow the writer opens it and finds therein\nfour sections, headed each as follows: This is the book of thy lineage;\nhere begins the book of the Holy Grail; here is the beginning of the\nterrors; here begin the marvels. As he reads lightning and thunder come\nand other wonders. On Good Friday, as he is celebrating the service, an\nangel raises him in spirit to the third heaven, and his doubts concerning\nthe Trinity are set at rest. When his spirit returns to his body he locks\nup the book; but on Easter Sunday, when he would read further, finds it\ngone; a voice says he must suffer to have the book back again, must go to\nthe plains of Walescog, follow a wonderful beast to Norway, and there find\nwhat he seeks. He obeys, the beast leads him first to a hermit's, then\npast the pine of adventures to a knight's castle, on the third day to the\nqueen's lake and a nunnery. After exorcising a hermit possessed of the\ndevil, he finds the book, and on his return Christ commands him to make a\nfair copy before Ascension Day. He sets to work at once, on the fifteenth\nday after Easter.[43] The book begins as follows: Few believe on Christ\nat His crucifixion, among whom is Joseph of Arimathea, as the Holy\nScripture of the Grail testifies. He is in all things a good man. He lives\nin Jerusalem with his wife and a son, Josephes (not the same Josephes who\nso often quotes the Scripture, but not less learned than he), he it was\nwho passed his father's kin across sea to White Britain, since called\nEngland, without rudder or sail, but in the fold of this shirt. Joseph,\nhaving much loved the Lord, longs after His death to possess somewhat\nhaving belonged to Him; goes to the house of the Last Supper, and carries\noff the dish wherein He had eaten. Having been a knight of Pilate's for\nseven years, he craves a boon of him, which is Christ's body. Pilate\ngrants it; Joseph descends the body from the Cross, places it in a\nsepulchre, and, fetching the dish from his house, collects in it the blood\nflowing from the body,[44] and finishes laying the body in the tomb. The\nJews hear of this, are angered, seize Joseph, throw him into prison in the\nmost hideous and dirtiest dungeon ever seen, feed him at first on bread\nand water, but when Christ is found to have arisen, Caiaphas, Joseph's\njailor, lets him starve. But Christ brings the holy dish that Joseph had\nsent back to his house with all the blood in it. Joseph is overjoyed.\nChrist comforts him, and assures him he shall live and carry His name to\nforeign parts. Joseph thus remains in prison. Meanwhile his wife, though\noften pressed to marry, refuses until she shall have had sure tidings of\nher husband; as for his son he will only marry Holy Church. (3) Forty\nyears go by; after Christ's death Tiberius C\u00e6sar reigned ten years, then\nCaius, one year; then Claudius, fourteen years; then Noirons, in whose\nreign S.S. Peter and Paul were crucified, fourteen years; then Titus, and\nVespasian, his son, a leper. The freeing of Joseph befalls in the third\nyear of Titus' reign and in this wise: Titus has vainly sought a leech to\nheal Vespasian. At last a strange knight from Capernaum promises his help\nand tells how he in his youth had been healed of the leprosy by a prophet.\nThe Emperor on hearing this sent to Judea to seek out that prophet; his\nmessenger comes to Felix, and orders him to have proclamation made for\naught Christ has touched; hereupon an old woman, Marie la Venissienne,\nbrings the cloth upon which the Saviour's likeness had painted itself when\nshe wiped His face. The messenger returns to Rome with this cloth and the\nmere sight of it heals Vespasian, who straightway resolves to avenge\nChrist's death. He goes to Jerusalem, Joseph's wife appears before him,\naccuses the Jews of having made away with her husband; none of the Jews\nknow where he is save Caiaphas, who reveals the secret on condition that\nhe is to be neither burnt or slain. Vespasian himself goes down into the\nprison and finds it as light as though one hundred candles had burnt in\nit. He tells Joseph who he is, whereat the latter wondered, not thinking\nhe had been longer than from Friday to Sunday, not once had it been dark.\nA voice tells Joseph not to fear, and that he will find the Holy Vessel at\nhis home. Joseph returns to Jerusalem with Vespasian, and points out to\nhim the abettors of Christ's death, whom Vespasian has burnt. Caiaphas is\nset adrift in a boat. (4) The night before Vespasian returns to Rome,\nChrist appears to Joseph and commands him to go forth and fill foreign\nlands with his seed; he must be baptised, and must go forth without money\nor aught but the dish; all heart can want or wish he shall have, all who\naccompany him must be baptised likewise. Joseph is baptised by St. Philip,\nthen Bishop of Jerusalem, as is also Vespasian, concerning whom the story\nis now silent. (5) Joseph preaches to his friends and relatives and\nconverts seventy-five of them. They leave Jerusalem and come to Bethany,\nwhere the Lord appears to Joseph, promises him aid as once to the Jews in\nthe wilderness, commands him to make a wooden ark for the dish, which he\nis to open when he wants to speak to Him, but no one is to touch it save\nJoseph and his son Josephes; Joseph does as commanded, his troop is\nmiraculously fed, and on the eleventh day they come to the town of Sarras,\nbetween Babilone and Salavandre, whence the Saracens have their name, and\nnot from Sara. (6) Joseph and his seventy-five companions enter the city\nand go to the Temple of the Sun, to the seat of judgment, where the\nSaracens are assembled with their lord, Evalach the Unknown: he had been a\nman of prowess in his youth, but was now old; seven days before, the\nEgyptians had beaten his army, and the council is now devising how\nvengeance may be taken therefor. Joseph is greatly joyed at these events,\nand when the council advises peace assures the King of victory, but he\nmust destroy his images and believe on Him who died on the Cross. Evalach\nasks how one who could not save himself could save another. Joseph, in\nanswer, tells of Christ's birth, life, death, descent into hell,\nresurrection, ascension, and of the sending of the Holy Ghost. Evalach\ncannot understand either the Incarnation or the Trinity, and although\nJoseph explains that the Virgin conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy\nGhost through her ear, and that her virginity was no more hurt than is\nwater when a sunbeam enters it, remains stubborn and calls his learned men\nto his aid, but Joseph confounds these, and Evalach lodges the Christians\nfor the night and gives them good beds. (7) Evalach dreams of a tree-stock\nwhence spring three equal trunks and though three yet are truly one, also\nof a room with a secret door of marble, through which a child passes\nwithout opening it; a voice tells him this is a type of the miraculous\nconception of Christ. (8) Meanwhile, Joseph, unable to sleep, prays for\ncomfort and adjures the Lord by all His mercies to help Evalach; he is\ntold by a voice he shall be sent for to explain the King's dream. Joseph\nthen goes to sleep with his wife, Helyab, but not as lustful folk do, for\nthere was nothing between them till the Lord commanded the begetting of\nGalahad, and then, so full of love to the Saviour were they that they had\nno desire. From Galahad came the high race which honoured the land of\nWhite Britain, now called England. (9) The morrow morning Joseph and his\ncompany worship before the ark (now the place wherein they were had been\ncalled the Spiritual Palace by Daniel) when a soft sweet wind comes and\nthe Holy Ghost descends and Christ speaks and urges all to love Him; He\ntells Josephes to draw near and take charge of His flesh and blood;\nJosephes opens the door of the ark and sees a man all in red, and with him\nfive angels, each six winged, all in red, each with a bloody sword in his\nleft, and in their rights severally, a cross, nails, lance, sponge, and\nscourge; Josephes sees Christ nailed to the Cross, and the blood running\ndown from His side and feet into the dish; he would enter the ark but\nangels restrain him. Joseph, wondering at his son's state, kneels before\nthe ark and sees therein an altar covered with white cloths, under which\nis a red samite one, covering three nails, a lance head all bloody, and\nthe dish he had brought, and in the middle of the altar an exceeding rich\nvessel of gold and precious stones; seven angels issue from the ark with\nwater and watering pot (2), gold basins and towels (2), and gold censers\n(3), an eighth carrying the holy dish, a ninth a head so rich and\nbeautiful as never mortal eye saw, a tenth a sword, three more with\ntapers, lastly Jesus. The company of angels go over the house sprinkling\nit with holy water, because it had heretofore been dwelt in by devils.\nChrist tells Josephes he is to receive the sacrament of His flesh and\nblood, and be made sovran shepherd over His new sheep; bishop's vestments\nare brought out of the ark. Josephes is seated in a chair, which\nafterwards made a Saracen King's eyes fly out of his head, is consecrated,\nan angel keeps the holy oil wherewith all Kings of Britain were anointed\ntill the time of Uther Pendragon, of whom none of the many that have told\nhis history have rightly known why he was so called; the meaning of the\nepiscopal vestments is explained to Josephes, and his duties set forth.\n(10) Josephes then goes into the ark and celebrates the sacrament using\nChrist's words only, whereat bread and wine become flesh and blood, and in\nplace of the bread a child, which, though as bidden, he divides into three\nparts yet is eaten as one whole; an angel puts patina and chalice into the\ndish; Joseph and his company receive the sacrament in the form of a child;\nChrist bids Josephes celebrate the sacrament daily; tells him that he and\nJoseph are to go with Evalach's messengers now nigh at hand. Leucans,\nJosephes' cousin, is appointed guardian of the ark. (11) Joseph and his\nson go before the King and overcome all the heathen clerk's objections;\nJosephes tells Evalach he will be given over to his enemies for three\ndays, and shall only escape by believing on Christ; the heathen idols are\nsmashed by a devil at the compelling of Josephes' two angels. A messenger\nbrings the news that King Tholomes has entered and is capturing the land,\nand he will not rest till he be crowned at Sarras. Josephes tells the King\nthis ill-hap is to mind him of his lowly origin, he is son of a shoemaker\nin an old city of France, Meaux, and was one of a tribute of one hundred\nyouths and one hundred maidens claimed by Augustus C\u00e6sar from France, as\nhere dwelt a prouder folk than elsewhere, and the two daughters of the\nCount of the Town, Sevain, were among the tribute, and Evalach was among\ntheir servants. When Felix was named Governor of Syria by Tiberius he had\ntaken Evalach with him, and held him in high honour until one day, angry\nwith Felix's son, Evalach slew him and had to fly, after which he entered\nthe service of Tholome Cerastre, King of Babylon, who had given him the\nland he now ruled. Josephes further explains the King's dreams, and when\nthe latter declares himself willing to believe, asks for his shield, upon\nwhich he fixes a red cross and tells him to look on it in his need and\npray to God and he shall be saved. (12) Evalach marches with his army\nagainst Tholomes, is joined by his brother-in-law, Seraphe (whom he\nthought hated him most of any man in the world) at the Queen's entreaty;\nnumerous combats ensue between the two armies; Seraphe performs prodigies\nof valour; Evalach is taken prisoner, and in his need looks on the shield,\nsees thereon Christ crucified, prays to God for help, a White Knight\nappears, overcomes Tholomes, who is taken prisoner, and Evalach's army is\nvictorous. (13) Meanwhile Josephes, remaining in Sarras, has been\ncounselling Queen Sarraquite, secretly a Christian, since her mother was\ncured of a bloody flux, and since Christ appeared to her when she was\nafraid of the hermit her mother had led her to for baptism because he had\nsuch a long beard; she dares not avow her faith for fear of her husband.\nJosephes tells her of the battle which has taken place and of the White\nKnight. (14) Evalach and Seraphe return; the King asks at once after the\nChristians, and learns that he owes his victory to the Lord to whom also\nSeraphe owed his strength in battle; the shield is uncovered, a man with a\nwounded arm is healed by it, and then the cross vanishes; Seraphe turns\nChristian, is baptised and receives the name Nasciens, he is straightway\nhealed of his wounds, exhorts Evalach to believe, and tells of Tholomes'\ndeath. Evalach is baptised, and re-christened Mordrains, or\nSlow-of-Belief. After baptising the town and destroying all images,\nJosephes leaves three of his companions in charge of the Grail Ark, and\ngoes with the rest to Orcanz, turns out of an image a devil who had slain\nTholomes, and converts more of the heathen folk. (15) Meanwhile Mordrains\nhas ordered his people to be baptised or to leave his land; many take the\nlatter course and are met outside the town by a devil who wounds them\ngrievously, whereupon Josephes hurries to their aid, but is met by an\nangel with a lance and smitten through the thigh for having left his\nbaptising work to trouble himself about contemners of God's law, and the\nmark of the wound should stay with him all his life, and the iron spear\nhead remain in the wound so that ever after he limped, and he had later to\nsmart for it, as the tale will show in due season. Many more people are\nconverted, Bishops are left in the land and holy relics at Sarras. (16)\nJosephes brings Mordrains, Sarraquite, and Nasciens to the holy shrine,\nand shows them the vessel wherein is Christ's blood. Nasciens thinks he\nhas never seen aught to match it, and he gives it a name that since it has\nnever lost. For, says he, nothing he had seen before but somewhat\ndispleased him (li degraast), but this pleases him (li gr\u00e9e) entirely; he\nfurther tells how once when a young man, hunting, as he stood deep in\nthought a voice made itself heard, saying \"Thou shall't never accomplish\nwhat thou thinkest on until the wonders of the Grail are disclosed,\" and\nhe knows now this must be the Grail as every wish of his heart is\naccomplished. And he draws nearer and lifts the vessel's lid and looks\ntherein, but straightway falls to trembling, feeling he can no longer see.\nAnd he knew that the blindness was to punish his curiosity, and turning to\nJosephes tells him that the iron shall not be drawn out of that wound\ninflicted by the angel at Orcanz, nor he himself recover his sight until\nJosephes, wounded, himself comes to draw out the iron.\n\nSo they stand lost in thought, till a voice is heard, \"After my vengeance\nmy healing\" and an angel appears, touches Josephes' thigh with the lance\nshaft, whereupon the head comes out, and from it drop great drops of blood\nwhich the angel collects in a vessel, and wherewith he anoints Josephes'\nwound, making it whole, and Nasciens' eyes, restoring to him his sight.\nAnd the angel tells them that the meaning of the lance is that of the\nbeginning of the wonderful adventures which shall befall in lands whither\nGod purposes leading them; when the true knights should be separated from\nthe false ones, and the earthly knighthood become a heavenly one. And at\nthe beginning of those adventures the lance would drop blood as then, but\nbeforehand none; and then wonders would happen all over the world where\nthe lance was, great and terrible wonders, in recognition of the Holy\nGrail and of the lance; and the marvels of the Grail should never be seen\nsave by one man alone; and by the lance wherewith Josephes was struck\nshould but one other man be struck, and he a King of Josephes' kin, and\nthe last of the good men; he should be struck through the two thighs, and\nonly healed when the Grail wonders were disclosed to the Good Knight, and\nthat one should be last of Nasciens' kin. Thus, as Nasciens was the first\nto behold the wonders of the Grail, that one should be the last; so saith\nthe true crucified one, adding, \"Upon the first and last of My new\nministers will I spend the vengeance of the adventurous lance in token of\nMyself having received the lance stroke whilst on the Cross.\" And so many\ndays as Josephes had born the lance head in his wound so many days should\nthe marvellous adventures last. Now these days (_years_)[45] were\ntwenty-two. (17) Josephes explains Mordrains' vision, and makes him\ndestroy the image of a woman he had kept in a secret chamber, known, so he\nthought, only to himself. (18) Josephes and his company go forth from\nSarras, but the tale tells nothing of them in this place, but keeps\nstraight on. On the following night Mordrains dreams that, sitting in\nSarras at table, of a sudden a thunderbolt strikes crown from his head and\nthe first mouthful from his lips; a great wind carries him up into a far\nland where he is fed by a lion and lioness, and after a while an eagle\ncarries off Nasciens' son to a land whereof the inhabitants bow down\nbefore him, and out of this nephew's belly comes a great lake giving rise\nto nine streams, eight of equal breadth and depth, the ninth as wide and\ndeep as the remainder put together, and rushing and turbulent, and at\nfirst foul and muddy, but afterwards clear and pure as a precious stone;\nthen comes down from heaven a man in likeness of one crucified, who bathes\nhands and feet in the lake and eight streams, but in the ninth his whole\nbody. (19) Mordrains tells his vision to Nasciens and confesses to former\ntreacherous and jealous feelings he had against him; they seek counsel of\nthe priests, but none can expound the vision, and as they sit together a\ngreat tumult is heard and the sound of a horn announcing \"the beginning of\ndread,\" and they fall senseless to the ground; but Mordrains is caught up\nby the Holy Ghost and borne off. (20) Meanwhile Nasciens is accused by\nKalafier, a Christian-hater, of having made away with Mordrains, and is\ncast into prison with Kalafier for gaoler. (21) Meanwhile Mordrains has\nbeen carried off by the Holy Ghost to an island lying between Babylon,\nScotland, and Ireland, a high land from which the western sea can be\nlooked over as far as Spain; it was once a pirates' lair, but Pompey drove\nthem thence. To Mordrains comes a noble man who gives his name as\nTout-entour, comforts him, and exhorts him to steadfastness in the faith;\nwhen he leaves a fair woman appears and tempts the King, who luckily does\nnot pay heed to her, and well for him, as he learns from the noble man\nthat she is Lucifer in disguise. He is assailed by many temptations;\nstorm, thunder, and lightning affright him; the wonderful bird Phoenix\nattacks him and snatches the bread from his lips; Lucifer again visits him\nand shows him Nasciens' dead body, but it is only an invention; finally,\nall these trials withstood, the noble man comes again and expounds the\ndream of the nine streams: the lake is a son of Nasciens, from whom\ndescend nine Kings, all good men and true, but the ninth surpassing all in\nevery virtue; he is the knight to whom the wonders of the Grail shall be\nshown, and Christ shall bathe Himself wholly in him. (22) Meanwhile\nNasciens has been kept in prison together with his son, Celidoine\n(Heaven-given) by Kalafier. But a miraculous hand appearing from out a\ncloud strikes off Nasciens' fetters, and carries him out of the dungeon;\nKalafier pursues but is struck down by the hand; on his death bed he\norders that Celidoine be cast from the battlements, but nine hands bear\nhim up in mid air, whilst Kalafier, slain by fire from heaven, goes to\neternal death. Sarraquite, overjoyed to hear of her brother's escape,\nsends out messengers to meet them. Meanwhile Nasciens' wife, Flegentyne,\nhas set out in search of her husband accompanied by the old knight,\nCorsapias, and his son, Helicoras. (23) Now Nasciens has been carried\nfourteen days journey off to the Turning Isle (concerning which many\nwonders are told); all of these things are true, as Christ Himself has\nwritten the book of the Holy Grail, and He never wrote aught else save the\nLord's Prayer for the disciples and the judgment upon the woman taken in\nadultery. And no man is bold enough to say that since the Resurrection\nChrist wrote aught else save this \"haute escripture del S. Graal.\" (24) A\nship comes to Nasciens' isle which he would enter but for words warning\nhim against it unless he be full of faith. However, crossing himself he\nenters [and finds therein the same wonders as those described in Queste,\nInc. 35, 36, 37, viz.:--the sword and the three spindles, precisely the\nsame story about which is told as in the Queste]. (25) Nasciens deeming\nthere must be magic in this, the ship splits in twain, and had well nigh\ndrowned him, but he regains the isle swimming, and on the morrow an old\nman comes in a ship and gives him an allegorical explanation of what has\nbefallen him. (26) Meanwhile Celidoine, carried off by the hands to the\nland of the heathen King Label, wins his favour by expounding a dream,\nconverts him, but at his death is cast adrift by the heathen barons in a\nboat with a lion, and after three days comes to Nasciens' island. (27) The\ntwo rejoice on their meeting, and leave the island together in Solomon's\nship, come after four days to another island, where Nasciens, attacked by\na giant, seizes Solomon's sword but it breaks in his hand, nevertheless,\nwith another sword he overcomes the giant. He chides Solomon's sword, but\nCelidoine says it is some sin of his made it break. Thereafter they see a\nship approaching wherein is Mordrains. There is rejoicing between the\nthree, and much telling of past adventures. Nasciens shows the broken\nsword to Mordrains, who, taking it in his hands, joins it together,\nwhereupon a voice bids them leave the ship; Nasciens, not obeying fast\nenough, is wounded in the shoulder by a fiery sword in punishment of his\nhaving drawn Solomon's sword. (28) The messengers sent out by Sarraquite\nin search of Nasciens have, meantime, had many adventures, have come\nacross the daughter of King Label, suffered shipwreck, and been thrown\nupon a desert isle formerly the home of the great physician, Ypocras (of\nwhom a long story is told how he was tricked by a Roman lady), been\ntempted in divers fashions, but at last they are led to Mordrains,\nNasciens, and Celidoine. (29) On the third night a priest clad in white\ncomes walking on the sea, heals Nasciens' wound, and sends off Celidoine\nin another ship. The remainder come to land, Mordrains and Sarraquite are\nreunited; Nasciens' wife, Flegentyne, is sent for; and Label's daughter is\nchristened by Petrone, a holy man and kinsman of Joseph. She was after\nCelidoine's wife, as my lord Robert of Borron testifies, who translated\nthis history from Latin into French after the holy hermit to whom our Lord\nfirst gave it. (30) Nasciens sets forth in search of his son, his knights\nfollow on his track, and two are struck dead for their sins. Nasciens\ncomes again to Solomon's ship, is tempted by the devil in the shape of a\nfair damsel, goes on board the ship and dreams as follows:--Celidoine is\nin the promised land with all those who had left Sarras; he, Nasciens,\nshall go thence likewise and never depart thence, nor shall the ship until\nit take back the last of his line to Sarras, together with the Holy Grail,\nand that shall be after three hundred years; and thereafter Celidoine\nleads before him nine persons, all in guise of Kings, save the eighth who\nwas like a dog, and the ninth turns into a lion, and at his death the\nwhole world mourns over him. And the names of these, Nasciens'\ndescendants, are: Celidoine, Marpus, Nasciens, Alains li Gros, Ysaies,\nJonans, Lancelot, Bans, Lancelot, like unto a dog until his end, Galahad,\nfoul at the source, but afterwards clear, in whom Christ shall bathe\nHimself wholly, and who shall end all the adventures. On the morrow it is\nexplained to Nasciens that the eighth of his descendants likens a dog on\naccount of his sins, and the ninth is foul at the beginning as engendered\nin fornication and not as Holy Church wills. (31) The story, after\ntouching on Flegentyne, who retires to her own land, returns to Joseph,\nwho, with his son, Josephes, and his companions, has been wandering about.\nJoseph is ordered by a voice from heaven to beget a son, whose name shall\nbe Galaad. At length the company comes to the sea shore and laments that\nit has no ships; Joseph rebukes them, and says those may pass who have\nkept chaste, whereupon four hundred and sixty come forward to confess\ntheir lechery. Josephes is told to put forward the Grail-bearers, to take\nthe shirt off his back, and having spread it on the water, all the pure\ncompanions shall find place on it. This happens, and all find place save\nSymeu and his son, who are not as they should be, and who sink and are\nwell nigh drowned. The chosen company arrive on the morrow in Great\nBritain, then full of Saracens and infidels. Josephes then prays for the\nremainder of the company; a heavenly voice says they shall come in good\ntime, and that this is the promised land in which they shall multiply and\nbecome the worthiest race anywhere. (32) Meantime Nasciens has been led in\nSolomon's ship to those of Joseph's followers who had been left behind, as\nthe history of the Holy Grail testifies. After being warned against fresh\nfalling into sin they are brought over to Joseph, and are fed with as much\nmeat as they could want. But the fifth day the company, not having eaten\nfor a day, come to the tent of a poor woman, wherein are twelve loaves\nabout which they dispute. Josephes, referred to, breaks each loaf in\nthree, and having placed the Holy Grail at the head of the table by its\npower the bread suffices for more than five hundred people. (33) Hereafter\nthe company comes to Castle Galafort, where Celidoine is found disputing\nwith the Saracen wise men. The Christians are well received by Ganort, and\nshortly afterwards he and his people are baptised, one hundred and fifty\nwho refuse being drowned. Over their bodies a tower is built, the Tower of\nMarvels, and thereafter, it is prophesied, a King named Arthur should\nreign, and from one blow of a sword adventures should arise, lasting\ntwelve years, until the last descendant of Nasciens should end them, and\ntill that time no knight of Arthur's house should enter the tower without\nhaving to fight as good a man as himself; thus should it be till he who\nwas to end the adventures appeared. So they build the tower, and it lasts\nuntil Lancelot destroys it, as the \"Tale of Arthur's Death\" relates. (34)\nJoseph's wife bears a son, who receives the name of Galahad, of the Castle\nof Galafort. (35) The King of Northumberland, hearing of Ganort's\nconversion, summons him to the court, and on his refusal attacks him, but\nis defeated and slain by the Christians. (36) Josephes, his father, and\none hundred and fifty of the Christians, leaving Galafort, come to\nNorgales, and are thrown into prison by King Crudel, who says, \"Let them\nbe for forty days, and see if their vessel will feed them.\" Our Lord comes\nto comfort them, and bids them be of good cheer, He will send an avenger\nto slay these dogs. (37) Our Lord, in the likeness of one crucified, then\nappears to Mordrains, bids him set forth with wife and children and King\nLabel's daughter and Nasciens' wife and go to Great Britain, there to\navenge him on King Crudel. Mordrains hearkens, and shortly after sets\nforth with all his household, leaving his land in charge of Duke Ganor. On\nthe way a devil carries off the captain of the ship, who had lusted after\nQueen Flegentyne. They arrive in Britain and rejoin their friends; great\nis the joy; Nasciens' queen is like to have died of joy, and swoons twelve\ntimes. (38) Mordrains sends word to Crudel to set the Christians free, and\non his refusal marches against, overthrows, and slays him, but is\ngrievously wounded, though he suffers no pain. Josephes and his companions\nare freed, and thanksgivings are made before the Grail. On the morrow, as\nJosephes is officiating before the holy vessel, Mordains presses near to\nsee it, in spite of a warning voice; he loses his sight and the power of\nhis body; he confesses his folly, but prays he may not die till the Good\nKnight's coming, the ninth of Nasciens' descendants. A voice promises him\nthis, and that when the Good Knight comes he shall recover his sight and\nhis wounds be healed; but three hear this promise beside Mordrains\nhimself, Joseph, Josephes, and Nasciens. (39) Mordrains is brought to\nGalafort, where Celidoine marries King Label's daughter and begets a son,\nNasciens. Mordrains then, after giving his wife and shield into Nasciens'\nkeeping, retires to a hermitage, and builds a monastery of the White\nMonks, and stays there till Perceval sees him and Galahad, too, as the\n\"Tale of the Holy Grail\" tells. (40) Josephes leaves Galafort, and, coming\nto Camelot, converts many of the people, whereat King Agrestes, being\ngrieved, is baptised with false intent, and after Josephes' departure\npersecutes the Christians, and is punished by madness and death. Josephes\nreturning, buries the martyrs, whose blood had blackened a cross, which\nkeeps the name of the \"Black Cross,\" till the Good Knight, Lancelot of the\nLake's son comes. (41) Josephes comes to a hill called Hill of the Giant;\n'tis a Friday, and Brons is sitting next him at the Grail-table, but\nbetween the two is space for a man to sit, and Brons, Josephes' kinsman,\nasks him why he does not invite some one to fill it. Josephes answers,\nonly he who is a holier man than any present can fill that place, as it\ntypifies Christ's seat at the Last Supper, and is empty waiting His\ncoming, or whom He shall send. Such of the company as are in mortal sin\ntake this saying as presumption and fable, and Moys declares his\nwillingness to sit in it if his companions will ask Josephes' leave. They\ndo so, and though Josephes minds them how Moys might hardly come to\nBritain, and though he solemnly warns Moys himself, he gives his leave.\nMoys takes the seat, and at once seven flaming bands from heaven seize\nupon him and carry him off to a far place burning like a dry bush. The\npeople repent, and, in answer to their enquiries, Josephes tells them the\nday shall come when they shall know where Moys is. (42) After the meal\nJosephes, at Brons' request, has the latter's twelve sons up before him,\nand asks them whether they will be wedded or not. Eleven choose wedding,\nbut the twelfth virginity and the service of the Holy Grail. Josephes,\noverjoyed, having married the other eleven, appoints him guardian of the\nGrail at his death, and he might leave the guardianship afterwards to whom\nhe would. (43) Josephes and his companions pass through Britain converting\nthe heathen. Now the Grail only gives food to such as are not in sin, and\nonce as the troop is encamped by a lake, Peter, a kinsman of Josephes',\nbears it through the ranks, and all are fed with the best food, save the\nsinners; these complain, and beg Josephes to pray for them, whereupon he\nbids Brons' youngest son, the same he had chosen as Grail-keeper, Alains\nle Gros (not that Alains, Celidoine's son, _he_ was king and wore a crown,\nbut this one never) take the net from the Grail-table and fish with it in\nthe pond. Alains does so and catches one fish, a big one, but say they,\n'Twill not be enough; however, Alains, having shared it in three, and\nhaving prayed it might suffice, all are fed. Alains is called in\nconsequence the Rich Fisher, and all the Grail-keepers after him bear this\nname, but they were more blessed than he, being crowned Kings whereas he\nnever wore crown. (44) Joseph, leaving his companions, comes into the\nForest of Broceliande, meets a Saracen who would lead him to his sick\nbrother, but is himself slain by a lion. Joseph is thrown in prison and\nwounded in the thigh by the men of the sick knight's castle, but,\nobtaining leave to visit the sick knight, heals him, and brings back to\nlife the Saracen slain by the lion; both brothers are baptised; a fragment\nof the sword remaining in the wound, Joseph draws it out, and laying it\nwith the remainder of the sword prophecies it shall not be made whole till\nhe come who shall achieve the adventures of the Holy Grail. (45) Joseph,\nreturning to his companions, finds them in doubt as to how they shall\ncross a great water, they pray for guidance, and a white hart appears,\nfollowed by four stags, and leads them across, all save Chanaan, who\ncrosses later in a fisherman's boat. Josephes, in answer to Alain and\nPierron, explains the hart and lions as Christ and the Evangelists, and\nChrist would appear in that wise afterwards to Arthur, Mordred, and\nLancelot. (46) The Christians come to a house where burns a great fire,\nout of which is heard a lamentable voice; it is that of Moys; at Josephes'\nprayer rain falls from heaven and quenches half the flames, but he may not\nbe wholly delivered until the Good Knight, Galahad, come. (47) The\nChristians come into the land of King Escos, whence Scotland has its name.\nThe Holy Grail refuses meat to Chanaan and to Symeu, Moys' father, whereat\nenraged, Symeu attacks Pierre and wounds him, and Chanaan slays his\ntwelve brethren. Symeu is carried off by devils, whilst Chanaan's grave\nbursts out in flames, which may not quench till Lancelot come. (48)\nMeanwhile Pierre's wound having become worse, he is left behind with a\npriest, who leads him to the sea shore, and, at his request, places him in\na boat; this carries him to the isle of the heathen king, Orcanz, whose\ndaughter finding him on the sea shore dying, has pity on him and tends him\nsecretly till he is healed. Her father requires a champion, Pierre offers\nhimself, conquers, converts, and baptises Orcanz, who takes the name\nLamer, and marries his daughter, and King Luces comes to the wedding and\nis overjoyed. From him came Gauvain, son of King Lot of Orcanie. Mordred\nwas no true son of Lot's, but of Arthur's. Gauvain is thus of the seed of\nJoseph of Arimathea. (49) Josephes after fifteen years' wanderings comes\nback to Galafort, and finds his brother Galahad grown up; by Josephes'\nadvice the men of Hocelice take Galahad for their king, and he became the\nancestor of Ywain, son of Urien. Once whilst riding he comes to Symeu's\nfiery grave, which may not be quenched till Galahad, the Good Knight,\ncomes. At Galahad's death he is buried in an abbey he founds to allay\nSymeu's pains, and the tombstone of his grave may not be lifted until by\nLancelot. (50) Joseph dies shortly after Galahad's crowning, and Josephes,\nfeeling death near, pays a last visit to Mordrains, who begs for a token\nfrom him. Josephes asks for the king's shield, and with blood gushing from\nhis nose marks on it a red cross, gives it to Mordrains, and says no one\nshall hang it on his neck without rue till Galahad do so; the shield is\nplaced on Nasciens' tomb. On the morrow Josephes dies; his body is carried\nafterwards into Scotland to still a famine, and is buried in the Abbey of\nGlays. (51) Before his death he has confided the Grail to Alain. The\nlatter comes with his brethren, one of whom, Josue, is unmarried, to the\nTerre Foraine, converts the King and people, and marries Josue to his\ndaughter. Here is the resting-place of the Holy Grail; a lordly castle is\nbuilt for it, hight Corbenic, which is Chaldee, and signifies \"holy\nvessel.\" At Josue's wedding, such is the power of the Holy Grail, that all\npresent are as filled as if they had eaten the finest meats they could\nthink of. And that night the King, baptized Alfasem, sleeping in the\ncastle, beholds the holy vessel covered with crimson samite, and a man all\nflaming tells him no mortal may sleep where the Holy Grail rests, and\nwounds him through both thighs, and bids others beware of sleeping in the\nPalace Adventurous. And afterwards many a knight essayed the adventure,\nbut lost his life, till Gauvain came, and he, though he kept his life, had\nsuch shame and mischance as he had not had for the Kingdom of Logres'\nsake. (58) Alain and Alfasem die; Josue becomes King and Grail-keeper, and\nafter him Aminadap, Catheloys, Manaal, Lambor, all Kings and known as the\nFisher, and Lambor fighting with his enemy, Bruillant, pursues him to the\nsea shore, and Bruillant finds there Solomon's ship and enters it, and\nfinds the sword with which he slays Lambor, and this was the first blow\nstruck with that sword in Great Britain, and such great woes sprang\ntherefrom that no labourers worked, nor wheat grew, nor fruit trees bore,\nnor fish was found in the waters, so that the land was known as the Waste\nLand. But Bruillant falls dead for drawing the sword. After Lambor,\nPelleans, wounded in the two thighs in a battle of Rome, whence he was\nalways called the Maimed King, and he might not heal till Galahad the Good\nKnight come; and from him descends Pelles, and on his daughter does\nLancelot of the Lake beget Galahad. (59) Nasciens, Flegentyne, and\nSarraquite die on the self-same day. Celidoine reigns, and is followed by\nMarpus, he by Nasciens, Alain li Gros, Ysaies, Jonas, Lancelot, Bans,\nLancelot of the Lake. Here the story ends of all the seed of Celidoine,\nand returns to speak of Merlin, which my lord Robert of Borron thus\nbegins.[46]\n\n In making up the slips, the summary of Borron's poem dropped out. In\n order not to disturb the page form, which was fixed before the\n omission was noticed, it has been inserted after the Grand St. Graal\n with a subpagination.\n\n=Robert de Borron's Poem: Joseph of Arimathea.=--(1) Before Christ's\ncoming all folk went to Hell, but He came born of a Virgin that He might\nbring them out of Hell. He took flesh what time Jud\u00e6a was under Rome and\nPilate governed it. Now a soldier of Pilate's loved Christ but dared not\nshow it. Of Christ's few disciples one was bad, his chamberlain, and he\nbetrayed Him to the Jews. (2) On Thursday Jesus gathers His disciples;\nJudas' question, the washing of the feet, the kiss of betrayal follow.\nWhen the Jews carry off Jesus, one of them takes the very fair vessel\nwherein He made His sacrament, and gave it to Pilate, who keeps it till he\nlearns Jesus' death. (3) Joseph is angry hereat, and claims pay for his\nand his five knights five years' free service, and his pay is Christ's\nbody. Pilate grants it him, and Joseph hastens to the Cross, but the\nguards deny him, whereon he complains to Pilate, who sends Nicodemus to\nsee he obtain it, and also gives Joseph the vessel. (4) Joseph and\nNicodemus descend the body, and wash it, which makes the blood flow\nafresh. Joseph puts the blood in the vessel, wraps the body in a fine\ncloth and entombs it. The descent into Hell and the Resurrection follow.\n(5) The Jews are incensed against Joseph and Nicodemus; the latter\nescapes, but Joseph is thrust into a horrible and dark prison. To him\nChrist appears with His vessel, in a great light, and instructs Joseph,\ntelling him for his love to Him he shall have the symbol of His death and\ngive it to keep to whom he would; He then gives Joseph the great, precious\nvessel wherein is His holiest blood. Joseph wonders, having hidden it in\nhis house. Joseph is to yield the vessel to three persons only, who are to\ntake it in the name of the Trinity. No Sacrament shall ever be celebrated\nbut Joseph shall be remembered. But Joseph must be taught concerning the\nSacrament; the bread and wine are Christ's flesh and blood, the tomb is\nthe Altar; the grave-cloth the Corporal, the vessel wherein the blood was\nput shall be called Chalice, the cup-platten signifies the tombstone. All\nwho see Joseph's vessel shall be of Christ's company, have fulfilment of\ntheir heart's wish and joy eternal. (_The author adds_: I dare not, nor\ncould not, tell this but that I had the great book wherein the histories\nare written by the great clerks, therein are the great secrets written\nwhich are called the Graal.) Christ leaves Joseph, who remains in prison,\nno man heeding him (6) until, when Vespasian, the Emperor's son, was a\nleper, a pilgrim comes to Rome and tells of Christ's cures, and lays his\nhead Vespasian could be cured could anything of Christ's be brought to\nRome. The Emperor sends messengers, who hear Pilate's story of the\nCrucifixion and about Joseph. The Jews are called together, and one tells\nof Verrine, who is brought before the messengers, and she relates how she\nwiped Christ's face and thus got the likeness of Him. They take her to\nRome, Vespasian is healed, and sets forth to revenge Christ's death. He\nkills many Jews, burning some. One Jew offers to find Joseph, and tells\nthe story of his imprisonment. Vespasian is let down into the prison and\nfinds Joseph alive, who, to his amazement, welcomes him by name, and\nreads him a lecture on Biblical history and Christian Faith. Vespasian is\nconverted, and sells the Jews at the rate of thirty for a penny. (7)\nJoseph exhorts his kin, among them his sister, Enygeus, and\nbrother-in-law, Hebron. They agree to believe, and to follow him. He sets\noff with them and they dwell for long in far-off lands. For awhile things\ngo well, but then all the host does turns to naught; 'tis on account of\ncarnal sin. The host complains to Hebron that they and their children die\nof hunger. (8) Hebron reports this to Joseph, who goes weeping and kneels\nbefore the vessel and asks why his followers suffer? A voice from the Holy\nGhost answers he is not in fault, but he is to set the vessel before the\npeople, and to mind him how He, Christ, had eaten with His disciples, and\nhow the false disciple was detected. In the name of that table whereat\nChrist last ate, Joseph is to prepare another, and then to call his\nbrother-in-law, Brons, and make him go into the water to catch a fish, and\nthe first he catches Joseph is to put it on the table, and then to take\nthe vessel, put it on the table, cover it with a towel, and then place\nHebron's fish opposite it. The people are then to be called, who will soon\nsee wherein they have sinned. And Joseph is to sit where Christ sat at the\nLast Sacrament, with Brons at his right. And Brons is to draw back one\nseat, to signify the seat of Judas, and the seat thus left empty is not to\nbe filled until Enygeus have a child by Brons, her husband, and when that\nchild is born there shall be his seat. The people is then to be bidden sit\ndown to the grace of our Lord. Joseph does all this; part of the people\nsit, part do not, the sitters are filled with sweetness and the desire of\ntheir heart, the others feel nought. One of the sitters, named Petrus,\nasks if they feel nothing, and tells them it is because they are defiled\nwith sin. The sinners then depart, but Joseph bids them come back day by\nday. Thus Joseph detects the sinners, and thus is the vessel first proved.\n(9) Joseph tells the sinners it severs them from the others, as it holds\nno company with nor has love towards any sinner. The sinners ask the name\nof the vessel: it is called _Graal_, as it is agreeable to all who see it.\nNow all this is verity, hence we call this the Story of the Grail, and it\nshall be henceforth known as the Grail. (10) One sinner remains, Moyses, a\nhypocrite (here a gap which can be filled up from the prose versions:\nMoyses seats himself in the empty seat, whereupon the earth opens and\nswallows him). (11) Joseph prays to Christ that as He came to him in\nprison, and promised He would come to his aid when in trouble, so now He\nwould show him what has become of Moyses. The voice tells Joseph again\nabout the empty seat, and how that the one at Joseph's table was not to be\nfilled until the third man come, whom Hebron should beget and Enygeus\nbear, and _his_ son should fill the seat. Moyses had stayed behind only to\ndeceive, he had his deserts, no more should be heard of him in fable or\nsong until _he_ come who should fill the empty seat. (12) In course of\ntime Brons and Enygeus have twelve sons and are greatly bothered with\nthem, and ask Joseph what is to be done with them. Joseph prays before the\nvessel; eleven will marry, one remain single; this one is Alain. Joseph\nis told by the voice when he consults the vessel about this nephew, to\nrelate all about Christ's death and about the vessel, to tell Alain that\nfrom him shall issue an heir who is to keep the vessel; Alain is to take\ncharge of his brethren and sisters and go westwards. An angel will bring a\nletter for Petrus to read, telling him to go whither he lists; he will\nsay: the vale of Avaron; thither shall he go and wait for the son of\nAlain, and shall not pass away until that one come, and to him shall\nPetrus teach the power of the vessel, and say what has become of Moyses,\nand then may he die. (13) All happens as foretold by the voice; the letter\ncomes for Petrus, who declares his intention of departing for the vale of\nAvaron, bidding the host pray God he may never go against His will. Alain\nleaves with his brethren, and, as Joseph taught him, preaches the name of\nJesus Christ. (14) Petrus stays one day more; it is, says an angel, the\nLord sends to Joseph, that he may see and hear the things of the vessel.\nThe angel continues: The Lord knows Brons for a worthy man, and 'twas,\ntherefore His will he should go fishing; he is to keep the vessel after\nJoseph, who must instruct him properly especially concerning the holy\nwords which God spake to Joseph in the prison, which are properly called\nthe Secrets of the Grail; Brons is to be called the Rich Fisher from the\nfish he caught; all the people are to go westwards; Brons is to wait for\nthe son of his son, and to give him the vessel, then shall the meaning of\nthe blessed Trinity be made known; after the vessel has been given to\nBrons, Petrus is to go, as he may then truly say he has seen Hebron, the\nRich Fisher, put in possession of the vessel; when all this is done,\nJoseph is to go to perfect joy and life pardurable. (15) On the morrow\nJoseph tells them the angel's message, save the words of Christ in the\nprison, which he tells to the Rich Fisher alone. The latter is then put in\npossession of Grail and headship; Joseph stays three days with him, then\nthe Good Fisher goes away--in the land where he was born--and Joseph\nremains.[47]\n\nMaster Robert de Borron should doubtless tell where Alain went, Hebron's\nson, and what became of him; what life Petrus led, and what became of him;\nwhat became of the long-lost Moyses; where the Rich Fisher went, and where\nhe stayed. It were well to assemble these four things, but this no man\ncould do save he had first heard tell the greatest history of the Grail,\nwhich is all true; and in this time I tell it to my Lord Walter, never had\nthe great history of the Grail been told by mortal man. If God gives me\nstrength I will assemble these four parts if I can find them in a book,\nmeanwhile I must go on to the fifth and forget the four. (Then follows the\nMerlin).\n\n=Robert de Borron's Poem: Merlin.=--(In order to give all the materials\nfor the discussion of Birch-Hirschfeld's theory of the Grail legend in the\nnext chapter, a brief summary of the Merlin is added. A full one may be\nfound in Birch-Hirschfeld, pp. 166, _et seq._)\n\nThe devil, incensed at Christ's victory over him, in revenge begets by\nfraudful malice upon a virgin, a son, who is to be the wisest of mankind,\nand to oppose Christ's teaching. This is Merlin, who at eighteen months is\nable to save his mother, threatened with the doom of unchastity.\nAfterwards he is brought to King Vortigern, to whom he expounds the\nmystery of the unfinished tower. Vortigern is driven from his throne by\nPendragon, with whom Merlin stands in high honour; equally so with his\nsuccessor, Uter Pendragon, for whom he builds the Round Table, leaving one\nplace empty to be filled in the time of Uter's successor. He then helps\nthe King to satisfy his passion for Yguerne, and takes charge of Arthur,\ntheir son. When the latter grows up to be a youth he fulfils the adventure\nof the sword in the anvil, and is proclaimed King. \"And I, Robert of\nBorron, writer of this book, may not speak longer of Arthur till I have\ntold of Alain, son of Brons, and how the woes of Britain were caused; and\nas the book tells so must I what man Alain was, and what life he led, and\nof his seed and their life. And when I have spoken of these things I will\ntell again of Arthur.\"\n\n(Then follows in one solitary MS., the Didot-Perceval summarised above, p.\n28. As will be seen, it does not tell what man Alain was, nor does it\nrefer to him at all save in the most passing way).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n The legend formed of two portions: Early History of Grail, Quest--Two\n forms of each portion distinguished--Grouping of the various\n versions--Alternative hypotheses of development--Their bearing upon\n the alleged Celtic origin of the Grail--Closer examination of the\n various accounts of the Grail: The first use made of it and its first\n possessor; its solace of Joseph; its properties and the effect\n produced by it; its name; its arrival in England; the Grail-keeper and\n his relationship to the Promised Knight--Three different stages in the\n development of the Queste--The work and the qualification of the\n Promised Knight--Conclusions: Priority over Early History of\n Quest--Chronological arrangement of the versions.\n\n\nThe information afforded by the summaries enables us to take a general\nview of the legend as a whole, and to attempt a more accurate\nchronological classification of its varying forms. It will have been seen\nthat the legend is formed of two distinct portions: the one dealing with\nthe origin and wanderings (Early History) of the Grail, the other with its\nQuest. The two portions are found combined in the Joseph and\nDidot-Perceval and in the Grand St. Graal and Queste considered each as\none organic whole. Versions A, Chrestien and his continuators; C,\nDidot-Perceval taken by itself; D, Queste; F, Wolfram, and G, Perceval le\nGallois, treat only of the Quest. Versions B, Metrical Joseph, and E,\nGrand St. Graal, only of the Early History. But in nearly all the\nversions, no matter of which portion, references are to be found to the\nother, and when the versions are carefully examined, it is found that of\neach portion there exist two entirely different forms. Taking the Early\nHistory first, versions A, B, C, D, E, and G, in so far as they deal with\nit at all, relate much as follows: the Grail is the vessel which our Lord\nused at the Last Supper, which, given by Pilate to Joseph, served the\nlatter to receive the blood flowing from the body of the dead Christ,\nsustained him miraculously during his captivity, was, after his release,\nused by him to test the faith of his followers, and was brought to England\nby Joseph (A, D, E), by Brons (B, C), and was finally confided by Joseph\nto his brother-in-law, Brons, to be kept until the coming of the latter's\ngrandson (versions B and C), or was left in charge of Alain, son of Brons,\nfrom whom it passed to his brother Josue, in whose line it remained until\nthe Good Knight should come (version E). But F, Wolfram makes the Grail a\nvessel of \"lapsit exillit\" (_i.e._, lapis herilis, or lapsus ex coelis, or\nlapis electrix), which, after the fall of the rebel angels, was given in\ncharge to Titurel and his dynasty, and by them preserved in the Grail\nCastle, Montsalvatch, guarded by a sacred order of Knighthood whom it\nchooses itself. So far, therefore, as the Early History is concerned all\nthe versions, save one, are in the main of the same class, the differences\nbetween them being, apparently, ones of development and not of origin.\n\nTurning now to the Quest, two classes are likewise to be distinguished: in\nthe first the hero is Perceval, in the second there are three heroes,\nGalahad, Perceval, and Bors, chief of whom is Galahad. To the first class\nbelong versions A, Chrestien, etc., C, Didot-Perceval; F, Wolfram; and G,\nPerceval le Gallois; whilst D, Queste, alone of the versions which recount\nthe Quest only, belongs to the other class. It is followed, however, by E,\nGrand St. Graal, in so far as the latter has any reference to the Quest.\nIn the other Early History version, namely B, Metrical Joseph, the name of\nthe hero who is to achieve the Quest is not mentioned, but the indications\nconcerning him agree more closely with the march of the story in C,\nDidot-Perceval, than with those of D, Queste; it must therefore be ranged\nin the first class. The main incident in the versions of this class is the\nhero's visit to the castle of a sick king, his beholding there the Grail\nin company with other relics, his neglect on the first visit to ask the\nmeaning of what he sees, his punishment, second visit to the Grail Castle,\nand attainment of his end, whether healing of the Sick King or winning of\nthe Grail kingship. The two versions, H, Peredur, and I, Sir Perceval,\nwhich belong to the Grail cycle, though they do not mention the Grail, and\nalthough I, Sir Perceval, does not contain the above-mentioned incident,\nmust likewise be placed in this class, as must also the Gawain episodes\nof Diu Crone. In the second class this main incident is missing, though\nseveral of its less important features are present in altogether different\nconnection. The story in D, Queste, is largely made up of adventures\ntallying often detail for detail with those in the Early History version,\nE, Grand St. Graal, with which it shares similarity in the Quest form.\n\nWhilst each portion of the legend exists in two forms, the great majority\nof versions in both cases belong to one form. Looking for the moment upon\nD and E as one whole, there is in both cases only one minority-version,\nviz., for the Early History, F, Wolfram, for the Quest D-E, Queste, Grand\nSt. Graal. And each of these is only in a minority as far as one portion\nof the legend is concerned, D-E, agreeing with the majority in the Early\nHistory, and F in the Quest. Taking the average of all the versions there\nresults what may be called the _Joseph of Arimathea form_ as the type of\nthe Early History; the _Perceval form_ as the type of the Quest. As a\nrule, it may be confidently assumed that the larger number of versions\nrepresent an older form, an assumption strengthened so far as the Early\nHistory is concerned by the fact that the minority version, F, Wolfram,\ncan historically be proved to be one of the latest in date of all the\nversions, and, so far as the Quest is concerned, by the following\nconsiderations:--The minority version, D-E, has three heroes, of whom\nPerceval is second in importance only to the chief hero, Galahad, indeed\nhe occupies as large a space in the narrative. This position can be due\nonly to his being the original achiever of the Quest. It is obviously\ninadmissible that seven or eight versions should have conspired to pick\nout one only, and that one the second, of the three heroes of the Queste,\nand should have made him the sole hero, whilst it is easy to understand\nthat the author of D, Queste, dissatisfied for certain reasons with the\nolder forms of the story, yet not daring to alter it so far as to entirely\nburke the original hero, should have taken the course he did.\n\nTwo alternative hypotheses now naturally suggest themselves. The two parts\nof the legend may really form one organic whole, although more frequently\nfound asunder than combined, or the one part may be an explanatory and\nsupplementary after-thought. If the first hypothesis be accepted, it is\nnatural to look upon the Metrical Joseph and the Didot-Perceval as the\nfirst and last parts of a trilogy, which, as presenting the legend in its\nfullest and most orderly shape, has a claim to being the oldest form of\nthe story, and the main, if not the only, source of all other versions.\nIf, on the other hand, the second hypothesis be exact, if one part of the\nlegend be later than the other, and has been artificially welded into one\nwith it, that version in which this fusion is most perfect, instead of\nbeing the earliest is, with greater likelihood, one of the latest forms.\nHow do these alternative hypotheses affect the special object of these\nstudies--the investigation of the alleged Celtic element in the Grail\nromances? In this way. If the Early History be an integral part of the\nromance, the probabilities in favour of a purely Christian legendary\norigin for the Grail itself are immensely increased, and the utmost the\nCeltic partisan could hope to show was that a Christian legend had somehow\nor other been strongly influenced by Celtic popular traditions. But if the\nreverse be true the probabilities are at once in favour of the Christian\nlegendary element being the intruding one, and the chief aim of the Celtic\npartisan will be to disengage the present versions of the Quest from the\ntraces left upon them by the Early History, and to accumulate as many\nparallels as possible between the residuum and admittedly genuine Celtic\ntradition. It by no means follows, however, that the acceptance of the\nsecond hypothesis involves the acceptance of the Celtic origin of the\nGrail. The romance as we have it--Quest, Early History--may be the fusion\nof two elements, one of which, the Christian legendary, may claim _all_\nthat is connected with the mystic vessel. Were it otherwise our task would\nbe greatly simplified. For the mere fact that what may be called the\nnon-Grail members of the cycle, _i.e._, H, Peredur, and I, Sir Perceval,\nknow nothing of the Early History, gives no uncertain hint as to which\nportion of the romance is the original, and which the accretion. Two\npoints have then to be investigated--the relationship one to the other of\nEarly History and Quest; and, if the Quest is found to be the older\nportion, whether the Grail really belongs to it, or whether its presence\nin the various forms of the story as we now have them may not be due to\nthe Early History. An examination of the various passages in which the\nGrail is mentioned will furnish material towards settling the first point.\nSuch an examination may profitably omit all reference to Wolfram, to the\nprose Perceval le Gallois, from which little is apparently to be gained\nrespecting the oldest forms of the legend, and to Heinrich von dem\nT\u00fcrlin's version of the Gawain episodes. It must also neglect for the\nnonce the two non-Grail members of the cycle (the Mabinogi and Sir\nPerceval) as their testimony is either of little or of the highest value\naccording as the Quest is or is not found to be the oldest portion of the\nromance. With these exceptions all the versions furnish elements of\ncomparison, though little is to be got, as far as the point under\ndiscussion is concerned, from what is apparently the latest section of the\nConte du Graal, Gerbert's poem.\n\nThe consideration of the second point will necessitate comparison of the\nvarious Quest forms among themselves, and the examination of numerous\nCeltic stories which present analogies with them.\n\n\n_The Grail: the first use made of it and its first Possessor._\n\nWe learn nothing from Chrestien respecting the early history of the Grail,\nnor is Gautier more communicative if the Mons MS. version be followed. The\nintercalation, A IIA, however, and Manessier give full details. According\nto the former:\n\n ... c'est icel Graal por voir\n Que nostre Sires tant ama\n Que de son saint sanc l'anora\n Au jor que il fu en croix mis. (16-19)\n\nAccording to the latter:\n\n C'est li vassiaus, ce saci\u00e9s-vous,\n \u00d9 ens li sains sans pr\u00e9sious\n Nostre Segnor fu rec\u00e9us\n Quant de la lance fu f\u00e9rus. (35,017-20)\n\nWe learn from the former that \"Josep le fist f\u00e8re\" (v. 22), and that he\nused it to collect the blood that flowed from each foot of our Lord as He\nhung on the Cross (verses 30-39), whilst the latter leaves it uncertain\nwho the first possessor was, and who held the Grail to receive our Lord's\nblood. The information given in versions B, is as might be expected, much\nfuller. B I, Metr. Jos., which calls it \"un veissel mout gent,\" tells how\nChrist used it, He \"feisoit son sacrement\" in it; how it was found by a\nJew, who delivered it up to Pilate, by whom it was given to Joseph, and by\nhim used to receive the blood which bursts forth again from Christ's\nwounds when the body has been taken down from the Cross.--C,\nDidot-Perceval: Brons, after relating how Longis pierced the Lord's body\nas it hung on the Cross, says of the Grail, \"en cest vessel gist le sanc\nque Joseph recueilli qui decoroit par terre\" (p. 483).--E, Grand St.\nGraal: Joseph himself finds the vessel out of which Christ had eaten,\ntakes it home, and when he has received the body from Pilate, fetches the\nvessel and collects in it all the blood flowing from the wound he can (I,\npp. 23, 24). Curiously enough, the very MS. which gives this version has\nan illustration of Joseph sitting under the Cross and collecting the blood\nas it drops from the wounds in side and feet. Three different accounts of\nhow the Grail came into Joseph's possession and to what use he put it thus\nexist:--\n\n (1) The Grail is the vessel in which Christ's blood was received as He\n hung upon the Cross (Pseudo-Gautier, Manessier, Didot-Perceval, and an\n illustration in a MS. of the Grand St. Graal); Joseph had had it made\n (Pseudo-Gautier).\n\n (2) The Grail is the vessel which had been used by Christ at the Last\n Supper. It is used as a receptacle for the blood of Christ after His\n body has been taken down from the Cross (Metr. Jos.).\n\n (3) Same as No. 2, with minor alterations, such as that it was Joseph\n who found the holy vessel himself (Grand St. Graal).\n\n\n_The Grail: its Solace of Joseph._\n\nChrestien and Gautier are again silent, but from A IIA, Pseudo-Gautier, we\nlearn that Joseph was wont to pray before the Grail, that he was, in\nconsequence, imprisoned in a high tower by the Jews, delivered thence by\nthe Lord, whereupon the Jews resolve to exile him with Nicodemus, and\nthat sister of his who had a likeness of Christ (verses 60-110).\nManessier, in the Mons MS. version, passes this over, but A IIIA, has the\nfollowing important passage:--\n\n En une charte orrible et l\u00e8de\n Fu mis Joseph sanz nul arreste;\n\n * * * *\n\n XL ans ilecques estut\n C'onques ne menja ne ne but;\n Mais Damediex li envoioit\n Le Saint Graal que il v\u00e9oit\n II foi\u00e9es ou III le jor; (V. pp. 153-4.)\n\nIn the B versions this episode is one of capital importance. B I., Joseph\nis put into prison, because the Jews suspect him of having stolen away\nChrist's body. To him in the dungeon, \"qui estoit horrible et obscure\" (v.\n703), appears Christ, who hands him the Grail, whereat he is surprised, as\nhe had hidden it in a house where none knew of it (v. 860), and addresses\nhim as follows:--\n\n En ten povoir l'enseigne aras\n De ma mort et la garderas\n Et cil l'averunt \u00e0 garder\n A cui tu la voudras donner. (847-50)\n\nThese will be three--\n\n Joseph, bien ce saras garder,\n Que tu ne le doiz commander\n Qu'a trois persones qui l'arunt.\n Ou non dou P\u00e8re le penrunt\n Et dou Fil et dou Saint-Esprit (871-75)\n\nThe offices Joseph rendered to Christ's body were symbolical of the\nSacrament: the sepulchre is the altar; the sheet in which the body was\nwrapped the corporal; the vessel in which the blood was received shall be\ncalled chalice; and by the patina upon which it rests is signified the\ntombstone (v. 901-912). Finally Christ promises Joseph that:--\n\n Tout cil qui ten veissel verrunt,\n En ma compeignie serunt;\n De cuer arunt emplissement\n Et joie pardurablement. (917-20)\n\nThe prose versions repeat this account in the main, but with some\nimportant additions, thus: B II, Cang\u00e9 MS., adds after Christ's last\nwords, \"Lors li aprant Jh\u00e9su Christ tex paroles que j\u00e0 nus conter ne\nretraire ne porroit,\" etc. (I, 227); when Christ hands the vessel to\nJoseph, \"Tu tiens lou sanc as trois personnes en une d\u00e9it\u00e9, qui degota des\nplaies de la char au fil,\" etc. (I, 225-26); after the description of the\nGrail, \"lou Graal c'est \u00e0 dire sor lou caalice.\"... In C, Didot-Perceval,\nthe Holy Ghost, speaking to Brons, commands him to reveal to Perceval,\n\"icelles paroles segroies qu'il (_i.e._, Christ) aprist \u00e0 Joseph en la\nprison,\" which, adds the narrator, \"je ne vous puis dire ne ne doi\" (I,\n483). E, Grand St. Graal: The Jews, angry at Joseph's having taken\nChrist's body down from the Cross, throw him into \"la plu hideuse chartre\nqui onques fust veue\" and when they hear of the Lord's resurrection\npropose to starve him; but Christ comes to him, brings him for comfort \"la\nsainte esceuele que ostoie en sa maison a tot le sanc qu'il Auoit\nrequelli,\" and comforted him much, and assured him that he should not die\nin prison but come out safe and sound, and his name be glorified. And\nJoseph \"fu en la prison ... tant qu'il demoura xlii ans\" (pp. 25-26).[48]\nHere again are three distinct accounts:--\n\n (1) That of Pseudo-Gautier, which merely mentions Joseph's devotions\n to the Grail, and does not connect that devotion with any solace\n during his captivity.\n\n (2) That of the B versions, in which Christ Himself brings the holy\n vessel to the captive, and connects it with certain promises and\n recommendations which He makes to him; the vessel shall remain with\n his seed, but it is to be in charge of three persons, a symbol of the\n Trinity. The services rendered by Joseph to Christ's body are\n connected with the Mass. The late (prose) drafts of this version\n insist still more upon the sacramental nature of the Grail.\n\n (3) The Grand St. Graal and Pseudo-Manessier introduce a fresh\n element--the Grail is the material means by which Joseph is sustained\n (forty years according to the one, forty-two years according to the\n other version) without food or drink.\n\nThe great importance of the incident in the B versions is most remarkable\nwhen contrasted with the comparative indifference displayed by the other\nversions, and notably by the Grand St. Graal, which, at the first blush,\nlooks so like a mere amplification of B, still more remarkable the\nagreement between the prose versions of B, with C, Didot-Perceval,\nrespecting Christ's words to Joseph against B I, Metr. Jos. It is\ndifficult to decide which of the two versions is the older; B I, after\nChrist's words, has the following important passage:--\n\n Ge n'ose conter ne retreire,\n Ne je ne le pourroie feire,\n Neis, se je feire le voloie,\n Se je le grant livre n'avoie\n O\u00f9 les estoires sunt escrites,\n Par les granz clers feites et dites:\n L\u00e1 sunt li grant secr\u00e9 escrit\n Qu'en numme le Graal et dit.\n\nwhich may either have been the reason why the prose versions, followed by\nthe Didot-Perceval, speak as they do about the secret words, or may be the\nversifier's excuse for giving those secret words themselves, _i.e._, the\nexplanation of the mysteries of the Grail in its relation to the\nSacrament, in which case the verse would be later than the prose\nforms.[49] Finally, it would seem that Pseudo-Manessier, A IIIA, and the\nGrand St. Graal drew their information one from the other or from a common\nsource.\n\n\n_Properties and Effect of the Grail._\n\nIn Chrestien these seem to be of a purely physical nature; the Grail is\nborne uncovered through the hall at every meal (4,470-79), it feeds the\nFisher King's father--\n\n D'une seule oiste li sains hom\n Quant en ce Greal li aporte\n Sa vie sostient et conforte\n Tant sainte cose est li Graaus. (7,796-99)\n\nthe most direct testimony in Chrestien to its sacred nature. In Gautier,\nlikewise, the physical properties are insisted upon in the following\npassages:--\n\n Lors vit parmi la sale aler\n La rice Gr\u00e9ail ki servoit\n Et mist le pain a grant esploit. (20,114-16)\n\n Moult mangi\u00e8rent \u00e0 grant loisir;\n Adonques v\u00e9issi\u00e9s servir\n Le Gr\u00e9ail moult honestement. (20,142-43)\n\nbut in verses 28,078-81 a remarkable spiritual effect is attributed to\nit--\n\n Car li diables ne de\u00e7oit\n Nul homme ki le jor le voie,\n Ne ne le met en male voie\n Por faire p\u00e9ci\u00e9 creminal.\n\nIn A IIA, Pseudo-Gautier, the physical side alone is insisted upon--\n\n Et de quanqu'il lor ert mestiers\n Les fornissoit \u00e0 tel plent\u00e9\n Com s'il n'eust n\u00e9ant coust\u00e9; (12-14)\n\n Et li Graaux par tot aloit\n Et pain et vin par tot portoit\n Et autres m\u00e8s a grant plant\u00e9. (171-74)\n\nManessier makes no special reference to the properties of the Grail.\n\nIn the B versions it is the spiritual power of the Grail which is dwelt\nupon. Christ's words to Joseph have already been quoted (_supra_, p. 71),\nand the use which the latter puts the Grail to, and which is specially\nindicated to Joseph by the Holy Ghost, is in accordance with them. The\nGrail is to serve him as a touchstone to distinguish the sinners of his\ncompany--\n\n Car il n'a \u00e0 nul pecheour\n Ne compaignie ne amour; (2,629-30)\n\nwhereas to those who have not defiled themselves with sin it brings\n\n La douceur, l'accomplissement\n De leur cueurs tout enti\u00e8rement; (2,565-67)\n\nso that according to them--\n\n ... Cuers ne pourroit,\n A pourpenser ne soufiroit\n Le grant delit que nous avuns\n Ne la grant joie en quoi nous suns. (2,609-12)\n\nThis testing power of the Grail is especially brought into play when the\nvessel is placed on the table in connection with the fish which Brons\ncaught, and which won him the name of the Rich Fisher.\n\nC, Didot-Perceval, has only one reference, \"ne il ne covient mie en sa\ncompagnie pechier\" (I, 483), agreeing with B and with Gautier's lines\n28,079-80.\n\nIn D, Queste, we revert to the physical gifts of the Grail. \"And as soon\nas it entered the door of the hall the whole court was filled with\nperfumes ... and it proceeded to every place in the hall. And as it came\nbefore the tables it filled them with every kind of meat that a man would\nwish to have.\" When it comes in, \"Every one looked at each other, and\nthere was not one that could say a single word;\" when it goes out, \"Every\none recovered his speech\" (D II, pp. 442-43). There is no allusion to a\ngathering at which the Grail is used to test the state of grace of its\ndevotees. E, Grand St. Graal, shows a curious mixture of the two ideas;\nthe Grail feeds its worshippers, but only those who are \"de sainte vie,\"\nto them it bring \"toutes le boines viandes ke cuers d'omme pourroit\npenser,\" but \"li pecheour n'auoient ke mangier.\" This version shows itself\nhere, as in so many other passages, one of the latest in date, embodying\nand reconciling as it does the conceptions of the older\nversions--conceptions which it is difficult to derive, either from a\ncommon source or from one another. If it were not for the solitary phrase\nof Gautier's, lines 28,079, etc. (a passage which affords the strongest\nproof against the homogeneity of that part of the Conte du Graal which\ngoes under Gautier's name), there would be an unbroken chain of testimony\nas to the food-giving power of the Grail on the part of the earlier A\nversions, supported by the Queste in opposition to the spiritual gifts\ninsisted on by the B and E, Grand St. Graal, forms. It is in any case\ndifficult to believe that if the writer of the Queste, with his strong\ntendency to mystic allegory, had had before him the highly spiritual\npresentment of the Grail-power found in B, he would have neglected it in\nfavour of the materialistic description he uses. In one point this version\ndiffers from all others, the dumbness with which the Grail strikes those\nto whom it appears.[50]\n\n\n_Name of Grail._\n\nWhilst the majority of versions afford no explanation of the name of the\nGrail, B and C attach a curious punning meaning to it, thus B I, Metr.\nJos.:\n\n Par droit Graal l'apelera;\n Car nus le Graal ne verra,\n Ce croi-je, qu'il ne li agr\u00e9e; (2,659-61)\n\nand C, Didot-Perceval, \"Et por ce l'anpelon-nos Graal, qu'il agr\u00e9e as\nprodes homes\" (p. 483). E, Grand St. Graal, seems to follow these versions\nin Nasciens' words, \"Car tout mi pense sont accompli, puis ke ie voi chou\nqui en toutes choses me plaist et m'agr\u00e9e\" (I, 212). Is such a punning\nexplanation more consonant with the earliness or the lateness of the\nversions in which it is found? If the meaning of \"Gr\u00e9al\" as cup or vessel\nwas a perfectly well-established one, it is difficult to see why in the\nfirst treatment of the subject it should have been necessary to explain\nthe word at all.\n\n\n_Arrival of the Grail in England._\n\nNeither A I, Chrestien, nor A II, Gautier, give any indication how the\nGrail came to England; not until we come to A IIA, Pseudo-Gautier, do we\nlearn anything on the subject. It is there related (v. 139-48) how Joseph\nand his companions take ship and sail till they come to the land promised\nJoseph by God--the White Isle, namely, a part of England; and how (v.\n161-66) Joseph, finding that \"sa vitaille li falloit,\" prays God to lend\nhim that Grail in which he had collected the holy blood. The prayer is\ngranted and the Grail appears and feeds the company. A III, Manessier,\nsimply says that Joseph, after leaving Sarras, carried the Grail about\nwith him, then in a singularly enigmatic passage (the Fisher King is\nspeaking):--\n\n Et, quant il furent d\u00e9partis,\n Il s'en ala en son pa\u00efs,\n Et tout partout \u00f9 il aloit\n La loi Jh\u00e9sucrist essau\u00e7oit.\n Puis vint en cest pa\u00efs manoir,\n Od lui le saint Gr\u00e9al, por voir.\n Josep qui en Dieu se fia\n Icest pa\u00efs \u00e9d\u00e9fia. (35,123-30)\n\nThe B versions account is much more elaborate, and demands the most\ncareful analysis. In B I, Metr. Jos., the first mention of the West is\nfound in Christ's words to Joseph concerning his nephew, Alain, who is to\nkeep the Grail, to take charge of his brothers and sisters, and\n\n Puis s'en ira vers occident\n Es plus loiteins lius que pourra; (3,100-01)\n\nfurther that Petrus is likewise to go \"\u00e8s vaus d'Avaron\" (3,123), it being\nadded that--\n\n Ces terres trestout vraiement\n Se treient devers occident. (3,125-26)\n\nEffectively we learn (v. 3,262, etc.) that Alain leads his brothers into\nstrange lands. But the Grail remains behind, and in v. 3,353, etc., an\nangel declares it necessary that all the people should go to the West,\nthat Brons should have the vessel, that he should go straight to the West,\nand that Petrus, after seeing the Grail safe in Brons' keeping, is to go\nlikewise. Joseph follows the angel's command, and three days after he has\ncommitted the Grail to Brons' hands.\n\n Ainsi Joseph se demoura.\n Li boens Pescherres s'en ala\n (Dont furent puis meintes paroles\n Cont\u00e9es, ki ne sunt pas foles)\n En la terre lau il fu nez,\n Et Joseph si est demourez. (3,455-60)\n\nA puzzling passage, as it is difficult to be sure whether line 3,459\nrefers to the Fisher or to Joseph, a point of obvious importance, as in\nthe latter case it would indicate that Joseph in this version does not go\nWest. On turning to the prose versions, some remarkable variations are\nfound in the corresponding passages; thus B II, Cang\u00e9 MS. (I, 265) after\nrelating how Brons finds wives for his children, adds, \"Mais ancor estoit\nla crestientez moult tenue et moult novele en ce pa\u00efs que l'an apeloit la\nbloe Bretaigne que Joseph avoit novellement convertie \u00e0 la cr\u00e9ance de\nJh\u00e9su-Christ,\" words which would seem to indicate that the writer imagined\nJoseph and his company _already_ in England. The corresponding passage to\nv. 3,445-60 runs thus: Ensinc se departirent, si s'en ala li riches\npeschierres dont maintes paroles furent puis, en la grant Bretaigne et\nensinc remest Joseph et fina en la terre et ou pa\u00efs o\u00f9 il fu envoiez de\npar Jh\u00e9su-Crist (275). B III, Didot MS, accentuates the punning reference\nto Avalon in the angel's message to Joseph, \"Come li monde ... va en\navalant covient-il que toute ceste gent se retraie en occident\" (p. 330).\nThe final passage runs thus: \"Eynsi se despartirent Joseph et Bron: et\nJoseph s'en ala en la terre et el pais o\u00f9 il fust nez et ampris la terre\"\n(p. 332). Thus the testimony of these versions favours the application of\nv, 2,459 in Metr. Jos. to Joseph. From C, Didot-Perceval, we obtain an\naccount similar in parts to that of the B versions, the most direct\nreference being in the speech of the hermit, Perceval's uncle, \"Biaus\nni\u00e8s, sach\u00e8s que \u00e0 la table l\u00e0 o\u00f9 Joseph fist et je meismes o\u00efmes la voiz\nde saint esperit qui nos comenda venir en loingteines terres en occident,\net comenda le riche p\u00e9ch\u00e9or mon p\u00e8re que il venist en cestes parties, l\u00e0\nou li soleil avaloit\" (449-50), where the punning reference to Avalon is\nagain prominent, and where, apparently, the passage of Joseph himself to\nEngland is not indicated. An entirely different form of the legend is\nfound in D and E. In the former (D II, 450) it is briefly stated, \"And\nafterwards it happened to Joseph, and Joseph his father, and a number of\nhis family with them, to set out from the city of Sarras, and they came as\nfar as Great Britain\"; again, p. 467, Perceval's aunt relates how when\nJoseph of Arimathea came, and his son Joseph with him, to Great Britain,\nthere came with them about 4,000 people, all of whom are fed by ten\nloaves, placed on the table, on the head of which is the Grail. E, Grand\nSt. Graal, dwells specially upon Josephe; he is referred to in I, p. 22,\nas having passed \"le lignage ioseph son p\u00e8re outre mer iusqu'en la bloie\nbertaigne qui ore a nom engleterre,\" and II, 123, etc., gives a full\naccount of how the passage is effected; how the Grail-bearers are sent\nfirst, and supported through the water by its power; how, when Josephe\ntakes off his shirt, and his father Joseph puts his foot upon it, it\nswells until it holds 250 persons. These two accounts agree better with\nthat of A IIA, Pseudo-Gautier, than with any of the others; indeed, a\npassage in the latter (v. 125-29), which tells how Joseph committed the\nportrait of our Lord, made by Verrine, to the mercy of the sea, may have\ngiven the hint for the miraculous shirt story of the Grand St. Graal. In\nthis version, too, as in D, Queste, we first hear of the passage to\nEngland, and then the Grail appears at the miraculous feeding of the\ntravellers. The versions thus fall into two clearly-defined groups, Joseph\nbeing the Grail-bearer in the one, Brons in the latter. The latter class\nis represented by the Metrical Joseph and the Didot-Perceval alone, if we\nexcept the Berne MS. form of a portion of the Conte du Graal, which, in\nits finish, has obviously copied the Metrical Joseph. To the former class\nbelong all the other versions. Nay, more, one of the prose forms of\nBorron's poems is interpolated, so as to countenance the Joseph-account of\nthe bringing of the Grail to England. Moreover, Borron's account of the\nwhole transaction is ambiguous and obscure; at first Alain is the destined\nhero, long passages being devoted to him, and the keeping of the mystic\nvessel being expressly reserved to him. Yet he leaves, quite quietly,\nnothing more being heard of him, and the same machinery of angelic\nmessages is set in motion for Brons, to whom, henceforth, the chief _r\u00f4le_\nis assigned. Does not this show that there were from the outset two\naccounts of the evangelisation of Britain, one, attributing it to Joseph,\nof wider popularity, and followed solely by the majority of the romances,\nwhilst Borron, who gave greater prominence to the other account, has\nmaladroitly tried to fuse the two into one? In any case it would be\nremarkable were the legend of purely Christian origin, and were the\nMetrical Joseph its earliest form, and source of the other forms, that its\ntestimony on such an important point should be contradicted by nearly\nevery other version.\n\nDo the foregoing facts throw any light upon the question whether the two\nsections of the romance are originally independent, and which is the\nearlier? It is the later forms of the Quest alone which mention Joseph.\nBut if he be really the older of the two personages to whom, in the Early\nHistory, the evangelisation of Britain is attributed, this would of itself\ngo a long way to proving that the two portions of the romance only came\ninto contact at a late stage of their development, and that the Quest is\nthe older. It is otherwise if Brons be looked upon as the original\nGrail-bringer; the same causes which led to his exclusion from the other\nversions of the Early History might have kept him out of most versions of\nthe Quest, and his presence in one Quest version could be claimed as a\nproof of the homogeneity of the romance. For the present, it is sufficient\nto mark the fact that what may be called the Brons form of the Early\nHistory is in a minority.\n\n\n_The Grail-Keeper and his relationship to the Promised Knight._\n\nIn the A versions the Grail-keeper is the Fisher King, uncle to the hero\nof the Quest, Perceval. The relationship is first plainly put in\nChrestien, where the hermit, speaking to Perceval of the Grail, says--\n\n Cil qui l'en sert, il est mes frere\n Ma soeur et soie fu ta m\u00e8re,\n Et del rice Pesc\u00e9our croi\n Que il est fius \u00e0 celui roi\n Qui del Graal servir se fait. (7,789-94)\n\nThe origin of his name is fully explained in the passage (v. 4,685-98),\nwhich tells of his being wounded in battle by a lance-thrust through his\ntwo thighs, of his sufferings, and of his only solace being fishing from\na boat. How the Grail came into his possession C does not say. Gautier has\nno occasion to mention these facts, but from Manessier we learn that\nJoseph, having converted the land, died therein; that the Fisher King is\nof his seed, and that if God wills the Grail will never have its dwelling\nelsewhere than with him (35,130-36); that he, the Fisher King, had a\nbrother, Goon Desert, treacherously slain by Partinal, who broke his sword\nin the murderous act. Goon's body and the fragments of the sword being\nbrought by his niece to the Fisher King, he wounds himself with them,\n\"parmi les gambes en traviers,\" and may not be healed until a knight\nshould come to weld the fragments together and avenge his brother's death.\n\nPseudo-Gautier tells how Joseph, dying, prays that the Grail may remain\nwith his descendants--\n\n Si fist il, c'est verit\u00e9 fine,\n Qu' apr\u00e8s sa mort n'en ot s\u00e9sine\n Nus hom, tant fust de son lignage\n Se il ne fu del haut parage.\n Li riches Pesch\u00e9or, por voir,\n En fu estret et tuit si oir\n Et des suens fu Greloguevaus\n Ausi en r\u00e9fu Percevaus. (183-90)\n\nManessier disagrees, it will have been noticed, with Chrestien respecting\nthe cause of the Fisher King's wound, and neither he nor the other\ncontinuators of Chrestien make any mention of that enigmatic personage the\nFisher King's father, so casually alluded to by Chrestien (v. 7,791-99).\nPerceval according to them is a direct descendant of Joseph, Brons being\nas entirely ignored here as in the transport of the Grail to England.\n\nIn the B versions the Grail-keeper is Brons, and the Promised Knight is\nhis son or grandson, for a close examination again shows that two varying\naccounts have been embodied in one narrative. In the passage where the\nHoly Ghost, speaking to Joseph, tells him of the empty place to be left at\nthe table he is to make, the following lines occur:--\n\n Cil lius estre empliz ne pourra\n Devant qu' Enygeus avera\n Un enfant de Bron sen mari,\n Que tu et ta suer amez si;\n Et quant li enf\u00e8s sera nez,\n La sera ses lius assenez; (2,531-37)\n\nfollowed closely by the prose versions: B II, Cang\u00e9 MSS., \"ne icil leux ne\npourra estre ampliz tant que le filz Bron et Anysgeus ne l'accomplisse\"\n(I, 254); B III, Didot MS., \"Cist leus ne porra mie estre ampliz devant ce\nque li fist Bron l'ampleisse\" (I, 316). But afterwards a fresh account\nappears; in the second message of the Holy Ghost, Joseph is told:\n\n Que cist luis empliz ne sera\n Devant que li tierz hons venra\n Qui descendra de ten lignage\n Et istera de ten parage,\n Et Hebruns le doit engenrer\n Et Enygeus ta sueur porter;\n Et cil qui de sen fil istra,\n Cest liu m\u00e9ismes emplira. (2,789-96)\n\nIn the corresponding passages both B II and III have the following\nsignificant addition, \"et I. autre (_i.e._, place) avoc cestui qui el nom\nde cestui sera fond\u00e9\" (I, 261), \"raemplira ce leu et I. autre qui en leu\ndecestu isera fondez\" (I, 322), which effectually disposes of M. Hucher's\nattempt (I, 254, note) to harmonise the two accounts by the remark that in\nthe first one \"il ne s'agit pas de la Table ronde o\u00f9 c'est Perceval qui\nremplit le lieu vide.\" Henceforth the legend follows the second account.\nTo Alain, son of Brons, is revealed that\n\n ... de lui doit oissir\n Un oir malle, qui doit venir. (3,091-92)\n\nPetrus is to wait for \"le fil Alein,\" Brons is to wait for \"le fil sen\nfil,\" and when he is come to give him the vessel and Grail (3,363-67). B\nII, Cang\u00e9 MS., again makes a characteristic addition to the promise to\nAlain \"et si li di que de lui doit issir un oirs masles, \u00e0 cui la grace de\nmon veissel doit repairier\" (I, 267).\n\nC, Didot-Perceval, follows the second account of B. Perceval is son to\nAlain li Gros, grandson to Brons, the rich Fisher King, \"et cil rois\np\u00e9ch\u00e9ors est en grant enfermetez, quar il est vieil home et plains de\nmaladies\" (I, 418), and nephew to the hermit, \"un des fiz Bron et fr\u00e8re\nAlein\" (I, 448), though curiously enough when he tells Brons that he knows\nhim to be father of his father, the latter addresses him as \"bieaux ni\u00e8s\"\n(I, 483). In any case whether B and C do or do not afford proof of a\nnearer relationship than that of grandson and grandfather between the\nGrail-keeper and the achiever of the Quest, the chronology which bridges\nover 400 years in two generations is equally fantastic.\n\nIn D, Queste, no less than three different accounts are to be\ndistinguished, corresponding certainly to three stages in the development\nof this version due to the influence of other versions of the legend. The\nearliest is that preserved in D II, the Welsh translation of a now lost\nFrench original. The Promised Knight is Galahad, son of Lancelot,\ngrandson, on the mother's side, of King Pelles (ch. iv). The Grail is kept\nat the court of King Peleur (ch. lxvii), the name of which is apparently\nCorbenic (ch. lxiv). The Lame King is mentioned by Perceval's sister (ch.\nxlix), as a son of King Lambar, who fought with King Urlain and slew him,\nand in consequence of that blow the country was wasted; afterwards (ch.\nl.) his lameness is set down to his folly in attempting to draw the magic\nsword, for which, though there was not in Christendom a better man than\nhe, he was wounded with a spear through the thigh. She also speaks of him\nhere as her uncle. The Grail quest is not connected in any way with the\nhealing of this Lame King. In the text printed by Furnivall, Galahad is\nfirst introduced as Lancelot's son and Pelles' grandson, but when he comes\nto Arthur's court he bids his returning companion, \"salues moi tous chiaus\ndel saint hostel et mon _oncle le roi pelles_ et mon _aioul le riche\npesch\u00e9our_.\" Guinevere's ladies, according to this version, prophesy that\nGalahad will heal the Lame King. A long account, missing in D I, is given\nby the hermit to Lancelot of his ancestry as follows (p. 120):--Celidoine,\nson of Nasciens, had nine descendants, Warpus, Crestiens, Alain li Gros,\nHelyas, Jonaans, Lancelot, Ban, Lancelot himself, Galahad, in whom Christ\nwill bathe himself entirely. Perceval is son of a King Pellehem (p. 182).\nThe Lame King is Pelles, \"que l'on api\u00e8le lo roi mehaigni\u00e9\" (p. 188); he\nis at Corbenic when Lancelot comes there. When Galahad and his companions\narrive at his court a sick man wearing a crown is brought in, who blesses\nGalahad as his deliverer. After the appearance of the Grail, Galahad heals\nhim by touching his wound with the spear. The third account, from the\nversion of the Queste printed with the Lancelot and the Mort Artur in\n1488, at Rouen, by Gaillard le Bourgeois,[51] makes Galahad send greetings\nto the Fisher King and to his _grandfather, King Pelles_; it adds to\nPerceval's sister's account of how Pelles was wounded, the words, \"he was\nGalahad's grandfather;\"[52] it adds to the account of Lancelot's visit to\nthe Grail Castle, the words, \"this was Castle Corbenic, where the Holy\nGrail was kept.\" Before discussing these differences it is advisable to\nsee what the Grand St. Graal says on these points. Here Alain, the Fisher\nKing, son of Brons, is a virgin, and when Josephe commits the Grail to his\ncare he empowers him to leave it to whom he likes (II, 360--39.) In\naccordance with this Alain leaves the Grail to his brother Josue, with the\ntitle of Fisher King. Josue's descendants are Aminadap, Catheloys, Manaal,\nLambor (who was wounded by Bruillans with Solomon's sword, whence arose\nsuch a fierce war that the whole land was laid desert).[53] Pelleans,\nwounded in battle in the ankle, whence he had the name Lame King, Pelles,\nupon whose daughter Lancelot begets Galahad, who is thus, on the mother's\nside, ninth in descent from Brons, brother to Joseph. Galahad's descent is\nlikewise given from Celidoine, son of Nasciens, as follows: Marpus,\nNasciens, Alains li Gros, Ysaies, Jonans, Lancelot, Bans, Lancelot,\nGalahad, who in thus counting Celidoine is tenth in descent from Nasciens,\nJoseph's companion, (vol. ii, ch. xxxix.) So far the story is fairly\nconsistent, although there is a difference of one generation between\nfather's and mother's genealogy. But ch. 17, in a very important passage,\nintroduces a different account. The angel is expounding to Josephe and\nNasciens the marvels of the lance; to Josephe he says, \"de cheste lance\ndont tu as este ferus; ne sera iamis ferus ke vns seus hom. Et chil sera\nrois, et descendra de ton lignaige, si serra li daerrains des boins. Chil\nen sera ferus parmi les cuisses ambedeus,\" and will not be healed till the\nGood Knight come, \"et chil ... serra li daerrains hom del lignaige\nnascien. Et tout ausi com nasciens a este li premiers hom qui les\nmeruelles du graal a veues; autresi sera chil li daerrains qui les\nverra.[54] Car che dist li urais crucefis. 'Au premier home du precieus\nlignaige, et au daerrain, ai iou deuise \u00e0 demonstrer mes meruelles.' Et si\ndist enchore apr\u00e8s. 'Sour le premier et sour le daerrain de mes menistres\nnouuiaus qui sont enoint et sacre a mon plaisir, espanderai iou la\nvenianche de la lanche auentureuse'\" (I, 216-17), _i.e._, the last of\nJosephe's line shall be the only man wounded by the lance, the last of\nNasciens' line shall be the deliverer. But according to Galahad's\ngenealogy, given above, it is _not_ the last of Josephe's line\n(represented by his cousin Josue) who is the Wounded King, for Galahad\nhimself is as much the last in descent from Josephe as from Nasciens, and\neven if we take the words to apply only to the direct male descendants of\nJosue, there is still a discrepancy, as not Pelles, but Pelleant, his\nfather, is the \"roi mehaigni\u00e9s.\" If the Wounded King were really the last\nof Josephe's line, _i.e._, Pelles, Galahad would be his grandson, as\nPercival is to Brons. Taking the two versions D. and E. together, some\nidea may be gathered from them of the way in which the legend has grown,\nand of the shifts to which the later harmonisers were put in their\nattempts to reconcile divergent accounts. In the first draft of the\nQueste, Galahad has nothing to do with the Lame King, the latter remains\nPerceval's uncle, the very relationship obtaining in Chrestien. Galahad\nhas supplanted Perceval, but has not stepped into the place entirely. The\nsecond draft of the Queste endeavours to remedy this by clumsily\nintroducing the Lame King and his healing, missing in the first draft,\ninto the great Grail scene at the end, an idea foreign to the original\nauthor of the Queste, who, having broken with Perceval as chief hero, also\nbroke with the distinctive Quest incident as far as the chief hero is\nconcerned. But a strange blunder is committed; the second draft, anxious\nto make Galahad's grandfather both Fisher and Lame King, actually speaks\nof Pelles as Galahad's uncle, in direct contradiction to its own\nindication. The third draft corrects this mistake, and tries by different\nexplanatory interpolations to confirm the relationship of Galahad to the\nLame King, and the identity of his castle with the Grail Castle. The\nauthor of the Grand St. Graal now appears on the scene, appropriates the\nstory about King Lambar, father to the Lame King, Percival's uncle, makes\nhim an ancestor of Galahad, and gives a name to his son, Pelleant (which\nname creeps back into the second draft of the Queste as that of Perceval's\nfather), and thus derives Galahad on the mother's side from Brons,\nalthough it escapes him that he thus gives the lie to the prophecy which\nhe puts in the angel's mouth, that it is the last of Josephe's seed who is\nto be lamed by the lance, and that he has not given his Lambor fictitious\nancestors enough to equalize the genealogies.\n\nWe are thus led back to the relationship of uncle and nephew as the\nearliest subsisting between the Grail King and the achiever of the Quest,\nand we find in those versions which supplant Perceval by Galahad a story\ntold of the former's great uncle, King Lambar, by no means unlike that\ntold of his uncle in the A versions, and that there, as here, the cause of\nthe woe brought upon the hero's family is one of the magic talismans which\nthe hero is in quest of and by means of which he is to achieve his quest.\nWe further notice that in so far as the Early History influences the Quest\nforms, it is the later versions in which its influence is apparent, and it\nis the Joseph, not the Brons form, which exercises this influence. Not\nuntil we come to the Grand St. Graal, an obvious and bold attempt to\nembody previous versions in one harmonious whole, does the Brons form make\nitself felt.\n\n\n_Work of the Promised Knight._\n\nIn Chrestien we can only guess at what the results of the successful\nachievement of the Quest would have been by the reproaches addressed to\nthe hero upon the failure of his first visits to the Grail Castle; he\nwould have mended all things, and--\n\n Le bon roi ki est mehaigni\u00e9s;\n Que tous eust regaengni\u00e9s\n Ses membres, et ti\u00e8re tenist,\n Et si grans bien en avenist; (4,763-67)\n\nmany evils will flow from his failure, and the cause of it is the sin he\nhas committed in leaving his mother, who thereupon died of grief\n(4,768-71); again the Loathly Damsel reproaches him that the Rich King\nwould have been healed of his wound, he would have kept in peace his land,\nwhich he never may again, for now\n\n Dames en perdront lor maris\n Ti\u00e8res en seront essilies,\n Et puci\u00e8les deconsellies;\n Orfenes, veves en remanront\n Et maint Chevalier en morront. (6,056-60)\n\nGautier de Doulens gives a vivid description of the effect of Gawain's\npartially successful visit to the Grail King; the character of the\nlandscape changes at once--\n\n N'estoit pas plus que mienuis,\n Le soir devant, que Dex avoit\n Rendu issi com il devoit\n As aiges lor cors el pa\u00efs;\n Et tout li bos, ce m'est avis,\n Refurent en verdor trov\u00e9,\n Si tos com il ot demand\u00e9\n Por coi si sainnoit en l'anstier\n La lance; si devoit puplier\n Li r\u00e8gnes; mais plus ne pupla\n Por tant que plus ne demanda. (20,344-55)\n\nAll the country folk both bless and curse Gawain.\n\n Sire, mors nous as et garis,\n Tu dois estre li\u00e9s et maris;\n Car grant aise nos as don\u00e9,\n S'en devons tout mercier D\u00e9;\n Et si te devons moult hair\n Pour con que nel vosis \u00f6ir\n Le Greail, por coi il servoit,\n Ne de la joie ki devoit\n L\u00e0 venir ne poroit nus dire,\n Si en doit avoir duel et ire. (20,357-66)\n\nIn Manessier, when Perceval has finally accomplished the Quest by the\nslaying of Partinal, and has come for the third time to the Grail Castle\n(though even then he only reaches it after long wanderings and lights upon\nit by chance), news whereof is brought to the King;--\n\n Li rois, \u00e0 grant joie et grant feste\n Est maintenant salis en pi\u00e9s\n Et se senti sain et haiti\u00e9s. (44,622-24)\n\nPerceval is crowned King after his uncle's death, and reigns for seven\nyears.\n\nThus, in the A versions, the healing of the Maimed King, and the\nconsequent restoration to fertility and prosperity of his land, such are\nthe tasks to be achieved by the hero of the Quest. In the B versions an\nentirely different series of conceptions is met with. Brons, the Fisher\nKing, is to wait for his grandson, and to hand him the vessel which he\nreceived from Joseph. When this is done the meaning of the Trinity is to\nbe known--[55]\n\n Lors sera la senefiance\n Accomplie et la demonstrance\n De la benoite Trinit\u00e9,\n Qu'avons en trois parz devis\u00e9e. (3,371-74)\n\nBesides this, the Promised Knight is to visit Petrus, who may not pass\naway till he comes, and from whom he is to learn the power of the vessel,\nand the fate of Moys (v. 3,127-36). Finally, when he comes he is to fill\nthe empty seat, and to find Moys, of whom it is said--\n\n De lui plus ne pallera-on\n Ne en fable ne en chan\u00e7on,\n Devant que cil revenra\n Qui li liu vuit raemplira:\n Cil-m\u00e9ismes le doit trouver. (2,815-19)\n\nHere the only indication which can possibly be tortured into a hint of the\nwaiting of a sick king for his deliverer is the reference to Petrus. It is\nnot a little remarkable that when the latter is leaving for England, he\nasks for the prayers of the company that he may not fall into sin, and\nlose the love of God (v. 3320-35) Does this presuppose a version in which\nhe _does_ sin, and is consequently punished by disease, from which only\nthe Promised Knight may heal him?\n\nOn turning to C, a totally distinct account of what the Quest achiever is\nto do presents itself. He seats himself, it is true, in the empty seat,\nbut it goes nigh with him that he suffers the fate of Moys, from which he\nis only preserved by the great goodness of his father, Alain (p. 427). He\ndoes not find Moys; Petrus is not once mentioned by name, nor does\nPerceval visit anyone who may not die till he come, and from whom he\nlearns the power of the vessel, saving always the Fisher King, for the\nreferences to whom see _supra_, p. 83. This Fisher King is \"veil home et\nplains de maladies, ne il n'aura james sant\u00e9 devant un chevalier que y\u00e0 \u00e0\nla Table ronde aserra, sera prodons vers Deu et vers sainte eglise et ait\nfait tant d'armes que il soit le plus alosez del monde. Et lors vendra \u00e0\nla maison au riche roi p\u00e9ch\u00e9or et quant il aura demand\u00e9 de quoi li Graus\nsert, tantost sera li roi gariz de de sa'nfermet\u00e9 et cherront li\nenchentement de Bretaigne et sera la proph\u00e9tic accomplie\" (p. 419). Again,\np. 427 \"li riches rois p\u00e9ch\u00e9ors est ch\u00e9uz en grant maladie et en grant\nenfermet\u00e9, ne il peust morir devant que uns de XXX chevalier, qui ci sunt\nasis, ait tant fait d'armes et de chevalerie qu'il soit li mieudres\nchevalier del monde.\" Again, p. 427, \"Et quant il (_i.e._, the Fisher\nKing) sera gariz, si ira, dedanz li III jorz, de vie \u00e0 mort, et baillera \u00e0\ncelui chevalier, le vesseau et li aprendra le segroites paroles qui li\naprist Joseph; et lors ampliz de la grace du Sainct Esprit et cherront li\nenchentement de la Bretaigne et les afaires.\" Again, when Perceval has\ncome for the second time to the Fisher King's, and has asked the question\nand learnt the secret words, he remained there \"et moult fust prodons et\nch\u00e9irent les enchentement de la terre de Bretaigne et par tout le monde.\"\nHere, then, are the Sick King, the mysterious question, the healing, and\nthe effect upon the land (note how the enchantments of Britain are\ninsisted upon), as in the A versions. The only points of contact with B\nare that Brons is like Petrus in not being able to die till Perceval come,\nand that his infirmity seems to be ascribed mainly to his age, and not to\na wound, which at first sight seems to agree better with the vague\nindications of B than with the positive statement of A.\n\nTwo accounts, each fairly definite and consistent, are thus forthcoming\nrespecting the object of the Quest, the one represented by A and C, the\nother by B. What light is thrown upon the matter by the remaining\nversions, and which of these two accounts do they support? Neither from\nthe Queste, D, nor from the Grand St. Graal, E, can any clear conception\nof the Quest be gathered. Both have a great deal to say about the\nadventures and the wonders of the Grail, but absolutely nothing comes of\nthe achievement so far as the Grail itself, or as Galahad and his two\ncompanions are concerned. It goes to the East, they with it, they become\nhermits and die. But in proportion as the main object of the Quest becomes\nless definite, the number of secondary objects increases. In D, Queste,\nGalahad is to achieve the adventure of the Seat Perillous (ch. iii, iv);\nhe is to wear the shield left by Joseph to Mordrains (ch. x); he is to\nrelease from life Mordrains himself, struck with blindness for approaching\ntoo near the Grail (ch. xxiii); he (according to the second draft of the\nQueste), is to release King Pelles (his grandfather, according to draft\n3), wounded through both ankles for trying to draw the sword; he is to\nrelease Simei, burning in a fiery grave for that he once sinned against\nJoseph of Arimathea (ch. lxvi). To this sufficiently long list the Grand\nSt. Graal adds the resoldering of the sword broken by Joseph--\"Ha esp\u00e9e,\niamais ne sera resaud\u00e9e deuant ke chil te tenra qui les hautes auentures\ndel Saint Graal devra asoumir\" (II, 264); the delivery of Moys from out\nthe furnace where he burns, not for always \"ains trouuera enchore merchi\net pardon. Mais che qu'il a mesfait, espanira il en tel mani\u00e8re qu'il en\nsera en fu iusc' a tant ke li boines chiualiers uenra\" (II, 277). Moys\nlikewise speaks of Galahad as one who \"achieura les auentures de la grant\nbertaigne\" (II, 279-80). Finally, Pelleur wounded (mehaigni\u00e9s de ii\ncuisses) \"en vne bataille de rome\" is to be released, \"il ne peut garir de\nla plaie deuant ke galaad, li tres boins chiualers, le vint visiter. Mais\nlors sans faille gari il\" (II, p. 373).\n\nThe Queste knows nothing of Petrus, but in the Grand St. Graal he turns\nup at the end in the same casual way as Brons, and converts King Luces\n(II, 3356-3), _i.e._ is thus brought into connection with Geoffrey of\nMonmouth's form of the conversion of Britain legend.\n\nThe foregoing statement confirms all that has previously been urged as to\nthe lateness of both Queste and Grand St. Graal. The author of the former\nagain shows himself a daring, but not over skilful, adapter of older\nlegends, the author of the latter an unintelligent compiler, whose sole\naim it is to lengthen out his story by the introduction of every incident\nhe can lay his hands upon. But although late, they may nevertheless throw\nlight upon the question which, of the two strongly differentiated accounts\nof the object of the Grail quest which have been noted, has the better\nclaim to be looked upon as the older one. The Conte du Graal and the\nDidot-Perceval agree, as has been seen, against the Metrical Joseph, in\nmaking the main object of the Grail-seeker the healing of a maimed or the\nrelease from life of a supernaturally old King. This _motif_, it is not\ntoo much to say, is the pivot upon which in the Conte du Graal all turns;\nin the Metrical Joseph it is barely hinted at.\n\nThe Queste, if looked at closely, is found to bear witness to the Conte du\nGraal form. As is seen from the summary (_supra_, p. 41, Inc. 12) it has\nthe very incident upon which so much stress is laid in Chrestien's poem,\nthe visit to the Sick King, the omitted question, the consequent\nmisfortune. True, all this has been transferred from the original hero,\nPerceval, to the father of the new hero Galahad, and, true, the final\nobject which the Queste proposes, in so far as it proposes any definite\nobject, to its Grail-seeker is of a different character. But the fact that\nthis object is not stated in the same way as in the Metrical Joseph,\nwhilst that found in the Conte du Graal _is_ embodied though in a\ndifferent connexion, points unmistakably to what may be called the healing\n_motif_ as the older one. Here, again, the Metrical Joseph is in a\nminority, and it is not even followed by that very version, the\nDidot-Perceval, which has been ascribed to the same author, and claimed as\nan integral portion of the same trilogy.[56]\n\n\n_Qualifications of the Promised Knight._\n\nNeither Chrestien, Gautier, nor Manessier lay any stress upon special\nqualifications in the quest-hero for the achievement of his task. In\nChrestien, as already stated, (_supra_, p. 87), it is exclusively the sin\nof which Perceval has been guilty in leaving his mother which prevents his\nachieving the Quest at his first visit to the Grail Castle (v. 4,768-71\nand 7,766-74), whilst the continuator makes no attempt at any explanation\nof the hero's repeated failures. Not until Gerbert does a fresh _motif_\nshow itself in the poem, but then it is a remarkable one; if Perceval has\nbeen hitherto unable to attain the goal he has so long striven for, it is\nbecause he has been unfaithful to his first love, Blanchefleur (VI, p.\n182); he must return and wed her before he is fit to learn the full secret\nof the Grail.[57]\n\nThe other Quest versions are on this point in striking contrast to\nChrestien. The words of C, Didot-Perceval, have already been noted,\n(_supra_, p. 89). Again the damsel, reproaching the hero after his first\nfailure, addresses him thus:--\"M\u00e8s je sai bien por quoi tu l' \u00e1s perdu,\npor ceque tu ni es pas si sage ne si vaillant, ne n'as pas fet tant\nd'armes; ne n'ies si prodons que tu doies avoir le sanc nostre (sire) en\nguarde\" (p. 467).\n\nIt is significant to note in this connection that it is only after\nPerceval has overcome all the best knights of the Round Table, including\nGawain (the companion hero, as will be shown later, of the oldest form of\nthe story), and thereby approved himself the best knight of the world,\nthat Merlin appears and directs him to the Grail Castle.[58] The talk\nabout Holy Church would seem to be an addition, and the original ideal a\npurely physical one.\n\nIn the Queste the qualification of the hero has become the main feature\nof the legend, the pivot upon which everything turns. The one thing\nnecessary is that the hero should be a virgin, and the story is one long\nglorification of the supreme virtue of chastity. Yet even here the warlike\ndeeds of Galahad are dwelt upon in a way that points to a different ideal.\nTraces, though slight ones, may be found in C, Didot-Perceval, of the\nimportance attached to the chastity of the hero; thus his hermit uncle\nadmonishes him, \"ne vous chaille de g\u00e9sir aveuc fame, quar cest un pech\u00e9\nluxurious et bien sachiez, que la pichi\u00e9 que vous avez fait, vous ont neu\n\u00e0 trover la maison Bron,\" and in the adventure with the damsel of the\nhound, although he had (p. 440) solicited her favours, and she had\npromised them if he brought her the head of the white stag, yet (p. 470)\nwhen he returns to her and she offers herself to him, he pleads his quest\nas a reason for not even passing one night with her. In Gautier de\nDoulens, on the contrary, everything passes in accordance with the\northodox custom of the day--when knights were as punctual in demanding as\nladies scrupulous in granting the fulfilment of such bargains. But here,\nagain, references to chastity seem to be additions, and rather unskilful\nones, whilst in the Queste they are the vital spirit of the story.\n\nWhat results from the foregoing is much as follows:--\n\nThe Perceval form of the Quest is certainly the older of the two, and\nunderlies in reality the Galahad form. When cleared from the admixture of\nChristian mystic elements it appears as a coherent and straightforward\nstory, in which nothing necessarily presupposes the Early History. The\ninfluence of the latter is, however, distinctly traceable. As far as\nChrestien himself is concerned, nothing can be asserted with certainty as\nto the origin, extent, and nature of that influence; in the case of his\ncontinuators it can be definitely referred to that form of the Early\nHistory which is represented by the Queste and the Grand St. Graal (save\nin the solitary instance of the Berne fragment of Gautier de Doulens). The\nlater in date the sections of the Conte du Graal, the more strongly marked\nis the influence of the Early History, and _pari passu_ the increasing\nprominence given to the Christian mystic side of the Grail.\n\nOf the Early History two forms can be distinguished. In the one, Joseph\nand the group of persons whom he converts in the East are made the means\nof bringing Christianity to Britain. The Grail is dwelt upon almost solely\nin its most material aspect. This form is closely connected with the\nGalahad Quest, and its chronology has been elaborately framed to correctly\nbridge over the difference in time between the Apostolic and Arthurian\nages. It has also affected, as remarked above, the later versions of the\nPerceval Quest. The second or Brons form knows nothing of the companions\nof Joseph, who is only indirectly the means of the conversion of Britain,\nthe real evangelists being kinsmen of his who bear decided Celtic names.\nThese kinsmen are related as grandfather and father (or simply father or\nuncle), to a hero whose exploits are to be dealt with in a sequel. There\nis strong insistence upon the spiritual character of the Grail, which is\nobviously intended to play an important part in the promised sequel. No\ntraces of this form are to be found in any version (saving always the\nabove-mentioned fragment of Gautier), until we come to the Grand St.\nGraal, with which such portions as do not conflict with the Joseph form\nare embodied.\n\nThe Didot-Perceval, although formally in contact with the Brons Early\nHistory, is not really the sequel announced in that work. It differs\nprofoundly from it in the most essential feature of the story, the nature\nof the task laid upon the hero. Upon examination this appears to be of the\nsame nature as that of the Conte du Graal, with a seasoning of the\nChristian mystic element. It was, however, _intended_ for a sequel to the\nMetrical Joseph, a fact which may be taken as a proof that Borron never\ncompleted his plan of a Joseph-Merlin-Grail trilogy of which we possess\nthe first two parts.\n\nThe first of the two points marked for investigation at the outset of this\nchapter may thus be considered settled. The Quest is originally\nindependent of and older than the Early History. And although in no\ninstance can the versions of the former be said to be entirely free from\nthe influence of the latter, yet in the older forms the traces are such as\nto be easily separated from the primitive elements of the story.\n\nThe versions which have been examined may now be arranged in the following\norder:--\n\n (1) Chrestien's portion of the Conte du Graal. The oldest form of the\n Perceval Quest, but presupposing an Early History.\n\n (2) Gautier de Doulens followed Chrestien, in all probability, almost\n immediately. Even less can be gathered from him than from Chrestien\n respecting the earliest form of the Early History, but this is\n probably represented by\n\n (3) Pseudo-Gautier, which in all likelihood gives the outline of the\n work made use of by Queste and Grand St. Graal. Pseudo-Gautier is\n almost certainly some years later than Gautier, as the Berne MS.\n scribe found it necessary to seek for information in\n\n (4) Borron's poem, probably written towards the end of the twelfth\n century, but which for some reason remained unknown for a time,\n although it afterwards, as evidenced by the number of MSS., became\n popular. There is every reason to believe that Borron knew nothing of\n any other Early History. His work, as we have it, is abridged and\n arranged. Meanwhile\n\n (5) Queste had appeared. The author probably used the same Early\n History as Pseudo-Gautier. He knew the Conte du Graal, and wrote in\n opposition to it with a view to edification. He certainly knew nothing\n of Borron's poem, or he could not have failed, with his strong\n mystical tendencies, to dwell upon the spiritual and symbolic\n character of the Grail.\n\n (6) The Grand St. Graal, an earlier draft of the work, now known under\n that title. Probably an enlarged version of the hypothetical original\n Early History; wanting all the latter portions relating to Brons and\n his group, which were added to it when Borron's poem became known.\n This work must have appeared before 1204 (in which year it is referred\n to by Helinandus), and, as Chrestien wrote his poem about 1189-90, it\n follows that at least half-a-dozen works belonging to the Grail cycle\n came out in the last twelve years of the twelfth century.\n\n (7) Manessier and\n\n (8) Gerbert brought out independent endings to the Conte du Graal from\n 1216 to 1225. It was probably shortly after this time that Borron's\n poem became known, and that it was incorporated with the Grand St.\n Graal, which assumed the shape under which it has come down to us.\n\n (9) The Didot-Perceval is probably the latest in date of all the\n members of the cycle.\n\nBefore proceeding to examine our second point, which is whether the Grail\nitself really belongs to the original form of the Quest, or has been\nintroduced into the Quest versions from the Early History, it will be\nadvisable to summarise the opinions and researches of previous\ninvestigators. Light will thus be thrown upon many points of interest\nwhich have not received special examination in these pages. A theory of\nthe origin and development of the cycle, which is in many respects\ndirectly opposed to the conclusions we have reached, will also be fully\nset forth, and an opportunity will thus be given for testing by adverse\ncriticism the soundness of our method of investigation, and of the results\nto which it has led us.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nSKETCH OF THE LITERATURE CONNECTED WITH THE GRAIL CYCLE.\n\n Villemarqu\u00e9--Halliwell--San Marte (A. Schulz)--Simrock--Rochat--\n Furnivall's reprint of the Grand St. Graal and of Borron--J. F.\n Campbell--Furnivall's Queste--Paulin Paris--Potvin's Conte du\n Graal--Bergmann--Skeat's Joseph of Arimathea--Hucher: Grail Celtic,\n date of Borron--Zarncke, Zur Geschichte der Gralsage; Grail belongs\n to Christian legend--Birch-Hirschfeld develops Zarncke's views: Grand\n St. Graal younger than Queste, both presuppose Chrestien and an\n earlier Queste, the Didot-Perceval, which forms integral part of\n Borron's trilogy; Mabinogi later than Chrestien; various members of\n the cycle dated--Martin combats Birch-Hirschfeld: Borron later than\n Chrestien, whose poem represents oldest stage of the romance, which\n has its roots in Celtic tradition--Hertz--Criticism of\n Birch-Hirschfeld.\n\n\nMonsieur Th. de la Villemarqu\u00e9's researches form a convenient starting\npoint, both on account of the influence they exercised upon later\ninvestigation, and because he was the first to state with fulness and\nmethod the arguments for the Celtic origin of the legend. They appeared\noriginally in the volume entitled \"Contes populaires des anciens Bretons\npr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9s d'un essai sur l'origine des \u00e9pop\u00e9es chevaleresques de la Table\nRonde\" (Paris, 1842), and comprising a French translation of the\nMabinogion of Geraint and Peredur, with introductory essays and detailed\nexplanatory notes. The translation of Peredur is preceded by a study of\nChrestien's poem, in which the following conclusions are stated: The Grail\nis Celtic in origin, the French term being equivalent to the Welsh _per_,\nand having a like meaning, basin. It is the Druidic basin alluded to by\nTaliessin, the same which figures in the Mabinogi of Branwen, which\nappears in the oldest folk-tales of Brittany, and which is sought for in\nthe twelfth century Mabinogi by Peredur, _i.e._, the Basin-Seeker. The\noriginal occult character of the Druidic basin, and of the lance, the\nbardic symbol of undying hatred to the Saxon, disappears in the Mabinogi,\nthe tone and character of which are purely romantic. Composed among a\npeople comparatively unused to the chivalrous ideal, it breathes, however,\na rude and harsh spirit. But such as it is, it forms the groundwork of\nChrestien's poem. Comparison between the two demonstrates the simple\ncharacter of the Welsh romance, and shows how the French poet sought to\ntransform it by an infusion of feudal courtliness and religious mysticism.\nIn its last stage of development the story reverts to its pristine,\noccult, and mystic character.\n\nMuch of what M. de la Villemarqu\u00e9 says is sound and telling; but,\nunfortunately, although well aware that the French poem is the work of\nthree men and not of one, he yet treats it as an organic whole, and thus\ndeprives the larger part of his comparison of all value. Moreover, he\nsupports his thesis by arguments based upon a Breton poem (the story of\nwhich is similar to that of Perceval's youth), ascribed without the shadow\nof evidence to the end of the tenth century.\n\nIn 1861 M. de la Villemarqu\u00e9 reprinted his work with extensive additions,\nunder the title of \"Les Romans de la Table Ronde et les Contes des Anciens\nBretons.\" The section summarised above remained substantially unaltered,\nbut considerable extension was given to the author's views concerning the\nmode of development of the romances. The points chiefly insisted upon are:\nthe similarity of metre between the Welsh poem and the French metrical\nromances; the delight of the Plantagenet kings in the Welsh traditions and\nthe favour showed them; and the early popularity of the Welsh and Breton\nsingers. Villemarqu\u00e9's last word upon the subject is that the Welsh\nstorytellers received from the ancient bards a pagan tradition, which,\nchanged in character and confounded with the Mystery of the Sacrament,\nthey handed on to the romance writers of Northern France and Germany, who\ngave it a fresh and undying life.\n\nVillemarqu\u00e9's views were worked up by Mr. Baring Gould in his essay on the\nSangreal (\"Curious Myths of the Middle Ages,\" 1867) and in this form or in\ntheir original presentment won wide acceptance as the authoritative\nexposition of the Celtic origin of the cycle.\n\nIn England, Mr. Halliwell, when editing, in 1844, the Thornton Sir\nPerceval, derived it from Chrestien and his continuators, in spite of the\nomission of Lance and Grail, on account of the sequence of incidents being\nthe same. The Mabinogi is alluded to as an adaptation of Chrestien. The\nsupposition that Perceval's nick-name, \"le Gallois,\" implies the Welsh\norigin of the story is rejected as absurd.\n\nIn Germany the Grail-cycle formed the subject of careful investigation on\nthe part of San Marte (A. Schulz) for some years prior to 1840. From 1836\nto 1842 he brought out a modern German translation of Wolfram von\nEschenbach's Parzival, accompanied by an elaborate essay on the genesis of\nthe legend, and in 1841, \"Die Arthur-Sage und die M\u00e4hrchen des rothen\nBuchs von Hergest.\" In the latter work a careful analysis of the Mabinogi\nleads to the following conclusions:--Locale and persons are purely Welsh;\ntone and character are older than the age of the Crusades and Knighthood;\nit may be looked upon with confidence as the oldest known source of the\nPerceval _sage_. In comparing the Mabinogi with Kiot's (_i.e._, Wolfram's)\nversion, stress is laid upon the task imposed upon Peredur, which is held\nto be different in character and independent in origin from the Grail\nQuest in Kiot. The Thornton Sir Perceval is claimed as the representative\nof an early Breton _jongleur_ poem which knew nothing of the Grail story.\nIn the former work Wolfram von Eschenbach's poem is accepted, so far as\nits framework is concerned, as a faithful echo of Kiot's, the Provencal\norigin of which is proved by its Oriental and Southern allusions. The\nProvencals may have obtained the Peredur _sage_ direct from Brittany, they\nat any rate fused it with the Grail legend. Their version is an artistic\nwhole, whereas the North French one is a confused string of adventures.\nChrestien's share in the latter is rightly distinguished from that of his\ncontinuators, and these are dated with fair accuracy. Robert de Borron is\nmentioned, but as a thirteenth century adapter of earlier prose versions;\nthe Grand St. Graal is placed towards the middle of the thirteenth\ncentury. In analysing the Joseph of Arimathea form of the legend, the\nsilence of the earlier British historians concerning Joseph's\nevangelisation of Britain is noted, and 1140 is given as the earliest\ndate of this part of the legend. The captivity of Joseph arises probably\nfrom a confusion between him and Josephus. There is no real connection\nbetween the Joseph legend and that of the Grail. Wolfram's Templeisen\nagree closely with the Templars, one of the main charges against whom was\ntheir alleged worship of a head from which they expected riches and\nvictuals, and to which they ascribed the power of making trees and flowers\nto bloom.[59]\n\nSan Marte's translation of Wolfram was immediately (1842) followed by\nSimrock's, whose notes are mainly directed against his predecessor's views\non the origin and development of the Grail legend. The existence of Kiot\nis contested; the _differentia_ between Wolfram and Chrestien are unknown\nto Proven\u00e7al, but familiar to German, poetry. The Grail myth in its oldest\nform is connected with John the Baptist. Thus in the Mabinogi the Grail is\nrepresented by a head in a platter; the head the Templars were accused of\nworshipping has probably the same origin; the Genoese preserved the Sacro\nCatino, identified by them with the Grail, in the chapel of St. John the\nBaptist; Chrestien mentions with especial significance, St. John's Eve\n(Midsummer Eve). The head of St. John the Baptist, found, according to the\nlegend, in the fourth century, was carried later to Constantinople, where\nin the eleventh century it is apparently used to keep an emperor from\ndying (even as of the Grail, it is told, no one could die the day he saw\nit). If Wolfram cuts out the references to the Baptist, _en revanche_ he\nbrings Prester John into the story. The essential element in the Grail is\nthe blood in the bowl, symbol of creative power as is the Baptist's head,\nboth being referable to the summer equinox. Associated with John the\nBaptist is Herodias, who takes the place of an old Germanic goddess,\nAbundia, as John does of Odin or Baldur.[60] The essence of the myth is\nthe reproductive power of the blood of the slain god (Odin-Hackelberend,\nBaldur, Adonis, Osiris). As the Grail may only be seen by those to whom\nGod's grace is granted, so in the German folk-tale the entrance to the\nhollow mounds wherein lies treasure or live elves is only visible to\nSunday children or pure youths. Thus, too, no man may find the grave of\nHackelberg (Odin). Such caves, when entered, close upon the outgoing\nmortal as the Grail Castle portcullis closes upon Parzival. Many of\nGauvain's adventures appear in German folk-tradition. As to Parzival's\nyouth \"it cannot be doubted that we have here a variation of the Great\nFool folk-tale (Dummling's M\u00e4rchen) found among all people. It is hard to\nsay what people possessing this tale brought it into contact, either by\ntradition or in writing, with the Grail story, but that people would have\nthe first claim among whom it is found in an independent form.\" The\nMabinogi explanation of the Grail incident is unacceptable, and the\nMabinogi itself is later than Chrestien, as is shown by its foolish\ninvention of the witches of Gloucester, and by its misrendering the\nincident of the dwarves greeting Peredur. In the original folk-tale the\nungainly hero was _laughed at_, not greeted. The Thornton Sir Perceval may\npossibly contain an older version of Perceval's youth than any found\nelsewhere. Wolfram's poem represents, however, the oldest and purest form\nof the Grail myth, which, originally pagan, only became fully\nChristianised in the hands of the later North French poets.\n\nSimrock's speculations, though marred by his standing tendency to claim\nover much for German tradition, are full of his usual acute and ingenious,\nif somewhat fanciful, learning. His ignorance of Celtic tradition\nunfortunately prevented his following up the hint given in the passage\nquoted above which I have adopted as one of the mottoes of the present\nwork.\n\nIn 1855 Rochat published (\"Ueber einen bisher unbekannten Percheval li\nGallois,\" Zurich) selections from a Berne MS. containing part of Gautier\nde Doulens' continuation of Chrestien (v. 21,930 to end, with thirteen\nintroductory and fifty-six concluding original lines, _cf._ p. 19), and\nentered at some length into the question of the origin and development of\nthe Grail legend. The Mabinogi, contrary to San Marte's opinion, is placed\nafter Chrestien. Villemarqu\u00e9's ballad of Morvan le Breiz is the oldest\nform of the Perceval _sage_, then comes the Thornton Sir Perceval, a\ngenuine popular production derived probably from a Welsh original. In\nspite of what San Marte says, the Grail incident is found in the Mabinogi,\nand it might seem as if Chrestien had simply amplified the latter. On San\nMarte's theory of the (Southern) origin of the Grail myth, this, however,\nis impossible, and the fact that the Mabinogi contains this incident is a\nproof of its lateness.\n\nUp to 1861 all writers upon the Grail legend were under this disadvantage,\nthat they had no complete text of any part of the cycle before them,[61]\nand were obliged to trust largely to extracts and to more or less\ncarefully compiled summaries. In that year Mr. Furnivall, by the issue for\nthe Roxburghe Club of the Grand St. Graal, together with a reprint of\nRobert de Borron's poem (first edited in 1841 by M. Franc. Michel),\nprovided students with materials of first-rate importance. His\nintroductory words are strongly against the Celtic origin of the story,\nand are backed up by a quotation from Mr. D. W. Nash, in which that\n\"authority who really knows his subject\" gives the measure of his critical\nacumen by the statement that the Mabinogi of Peredur can have nothing to\ndo with the earliest form of the legend, because \"in Sir T. Malory,\nPerceval occupies the second place to Galahad.\" In fact, neither the\neditor nor Mr. Nash seems to have tried to place the different versions,\nand their assertions are thus of little value, though they contributed,\nnevertheless, to discredit the Celtic hypothesis. San Marte, in an essay\nprefixed to the first volume, repeated his well-known views respecting the\nsource of Wolfram's poems, and, incidentally, protested against the idea\nthat the Mabinogi is but a Welshified French romance.\n\nIn 1862 the accomplished editor of the \"Popular Tales of the West\nHighlands,\" Mr. J. F. Campbell, published in his second volume (p. 152)\nsome remarks on the Story of the Lay of the Great Fool, which ended thus,\n\"I am inclined ... to consider this 'Lay' as one episode in the adventures\nof a Celtic hero, who, in the twelfth century became Perceval le\nchercheur du basin. He too, was poor, and the son of a widow, and half\nstarved, and kept in ignorance by his mother, but, nevertheless ... in the\nend he became possessed of that sacred basin, le Saint Graal, and the holy\nlance, which, though Christian in the story, are manifestly the same as\nthe Gaelic talismans which appear so often in Gaelic tales, and which have\nrelations in all popular lore--the glittering weapon which destroys, and\nthe sacred medicinal cup which cures.\" I have taken these words as a motto\nfor my studies, which are, indeed, but an amplification of Mr. Campbell's\nstatement. Had the latter received the attention it deserved, had it, for\ninstance, fallen into the hands of a scholar to whom Simrock's words\nquoted on p. 101 were familiar, there would, in all probability, have been\nno occasion for the present work.\n\nThe publication of texts was continued by Mr. Furnivall's issue, in 1864,\nfor the Roxburghe Club, of the Qu\u00eate del Saint Graal from a British Museum\nMS. The opening of twelve MSS. from the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale is likewise\ngiven, and shows substantial unity between them and Mr. Furnivall's text.\nIn 1868 Mons. Paulin Paris published, in the first volume of his \"Romans\nde la Table Ronde,\" a general introduction to the Round Table cycle, and a\nspecial study upon the Metrical Joseph and the Grand St. Graal. A large\nshare of influence is assigned to Celtic traditions through the medium of\nBreton _lais_. The Early History of the Grail is a British legend, and\nembodies the national and schismatic aspirations of the British Church.\nThe date given in the prologue to the Grand St. Graal, and repeated by\nHelinandus, is accepted as the genuine date of a redaction of the legend\nsubstantially the same as that found later in the Grand St. Graal. The\nword \"Grail\" is connected with the Latin _gradale_, modern gradual, and\ndesignated the book in which the tradition was first written down. The\nGrand St. Graal is anterior to Chrestien's poem, and Robert de Borron's\npoem in the first draft preceded the Grand St. Graal, and was written\nbetween 1160 and 1170, but he subsequently revised it towards 1214, as is\nshown by his alluding, l. 3,490, \"O mon seigneur, Gauter _en peis_\" (where\nthe underlined words are equivalent to the Latin _in pace_) to Gautier of\nMontbeliard in the past tense. From 1868 to 1870 M. Potvin brought out\nhis edition of the Conte du Graal, and of the prose Perceval le Gallois\nfrom Mons MSS. In the after-words priority is claimed for the latter\nromance over all other members of the cycle, and three stages are\ndistinguished in the development of the legend--Welsh national--militant\nChristian--knightly--the prose romance belonging to the second stage, and\ndating substantially from the eleventh century. The lance and basin are\noriginally pagan British symbols, and between the lines of the Grail\nlegend may be read a long struggle between heretic Britain and orthodox\nRome. The Perceval form of the Quest is older than the Galahad one. The\nJoseph of Arimathea forms are the latest, and among these the Grand St.\nGraal the earliest.\n\nConclusions as paradoxical as some of these appear in Dr. Bergmann's \"The\nSan Gr\u00ebal, an Enquiry into the Origin and Signification of the Romance of\nthe S. G.,\" Edinburgh, 1870. The idea of the Grail is due entirely to\nGuyot, as also its connection with the Arthurian cycle. Chrestien followed\nGuyot, but alters the character of the work, for which he is reproved by\nWolfram, who may be looked upon as a faithful representative of the\nearlier poet. Chrestien's alterations are intended to render the poem more\nacceptable in knightly circles. On the other hand Walter Map found Guyot\ntoo secular and heretical, and wrote from a purely ecclesiastical\nstandpoint the Latin version of the legend in which the Grail is\nassociated with Joseph of Arimathea. This version forms the basis of\nRobert de Borron, author of the Grand St. Graal and of the continuators of\nChrestien. Although Bergmann denies the Celtic origin of the Grail itself,\nhe incidentally accepts the authenticity of the Mabinogi of Peredur, and\nadmits that the whole framework of the story is Celtic.\n\nIn the endeavour to prove the paradox that one of the latest, most highly\ndeveloped, and most mystic of all the versions of the legend (viz.,\nWolfram's) really represents the common source of them all, Bergmann is\ncompelled to make the most gratuitous assumptions, as a specimen of which\nmay be quoted the statement that the _roi-pecheur_ is originally the\n_sinner_ king, and that it is by mistake that the North French _trouv\u00e8res_\nrepresent him as a _fisher_.\n\nBergmann's views passed comparatively unnoticed. They are, indeed,\nalluded to with approval in Professor Skeat's edition of Joseph of\nArimathea, a fourteenth century alliterative abridgement of the Grand St.\nGraal (E. E. Text Soc., 1871). In the editor's preface the Glastonbury\ntraditions concerning the evangelisation of Britain by Joseph are taken as\na starting point, two parts being distinguished in them, the one\n_legendary_, tallying with William of Malmesbury's account, and, perhaps,\nof considerable antiquity, the other _fabulous_, introducing the\npersonages and incidents of the romances and undoubtedly derived from\nthem. Some twenty years after the publication of the \"Historia Britonum\"\nWalter Map probably wrote a Latin poem, from which Robert de Borron, the\nGrand St. Graal, and, perhaps, the other works of the cycle were derived.\n\"Grail\" is a bowl or dish. Chrestien may have borrowed his Conte du Graal\nfrom Map; the \"Quest\" is probably an after-thought of the romance writers.\n\nSpeculations such as these were little calculated to further the true\ncriticism of the Grail cycle. Some few years later, in 1875, the then\nexisting texts were supplemented by M. Hucher's work, so often quoted in\nthese pages. In an introduction and notes displaying great research and\ningenuity, the following propositions are laid down:--The Grail is Celtic\nin origin, and may be seen figured upon pre-Christian Gaulish coins.\nRobert de Borron's poem may be called the Petit St. Graal, and its author\nwas a lord of like-named territory near Fontainebleau, who between 1147\nand 1164 made large gifts to the Abbey of Barbeaux, which gifts are\nconfirmed in 1169 by Simon, son of said Robert. About 1169 Robert came to\nEngland, met Walter Map, and was initiated by him into the knowledge of\nthe Arthurian romance, and of the legend of the Holy Grail. Between 1170\nand 1199 he entered the service of Walter of Montbeliard and wrote (in\nprose) the Joseph of Arimathea and the Merlin. At a later period he\nreturned to England, and wrote, in conjunction with Map, the Grand St.\nGraal. This is shown by MS. 2,455 Bibl. Nat. (of the Grand St. Graal): \"Or\ndist li contes qui est estrais de toutes les ystoires, s\u00ee come Robers de\nBorons le translatait de latin en romans, \u00e0 l'ayde de maistre Gautier\nMap.\" But H\u00e9lie de Borron, author of the Tristan and of Guiron le\nCourtois, calls Robert his friend and kinsman. H\u00e9lie has been placed\nunder Henry III, who has been assumed to be the Henry to whom he dedicates\nhis work; if so can he be the friend of Robert, who wrote some fifty years\nearlier? H\u00e9lie should, however, be placed really under Henry II. Robert\nwrote originally in prose; the poem contains later etymological and\ngrammatical forms, though it has occasionally preserved older ones;\nbesides in v. 2,817 etc. (_supra_, p. 83) it refers to the deliverance of\nMoys by the Promised Knight, and thus implies knowledge of the Grand St.\nGraal; this passage is omitted by most of the prose versions, thus\nobviously older. Then the poem is silent as to the Christianising of\nBritain mentioned by one prose version (C.). We may accept Borron's\nstatement as to his having dealt later with the histories of Moys and\nPetrus, and as to his drawing his information from a Latin original.\nMerlin is the pivot of Borron's conception. In comparing the third part of\nhis trilogy (Joseph of Arimathea, Merlin, Perceval) with Chrestien it must\nbe born in mind that Chrestien reproduces rather the English\n(Joseph--Galahad), than the French (Brons--Perceval) form of the Quest,\nand this, although the framework of Chrestien and Robert's Perceval is\nsubstantially the same. Chrestien's work was probably preceded by one in\nwhich the Peredur story as found in the Mabinogi was already adapted to\nthe Christianised Grail legend. There are frequent verbal resemblances\nbetween Robert and Chrestien (_i.e._, Gautier, Hucher never distinguishing\nbetween Chrestien and his continuators) which show a common original for\nboth. It is remarkable that Chrestien should never mention Brons, and that\nthere should be such a difference in the stories of the Ford Perillous and\nthe Ford Amorous. It is also remarkable that Robert, in his Perceval,\nshould complain that the _trouv\u00e8res_ had not spoken of the Good Friday\nincident which is to be found in Chrestien.\n\nM. Hucher failed in many cases to see the full significance of the facts\nhe brought to light, owing to his incorrect conception of the development\nof the cycle as a whole, and of the relation of its component parts one to\nthe other. He made, however, an accurate survey of the cycle possible. The\nmerit of first essaying such a survey belongs to Zarncke in his admittedly\nrough sketch, \"Zur Geschichte der Gralsage,\" published in the third\nvolume (1876) of Paul and Braune's Beitraege.--The various forms may be\ngrouped as follows: (1) Borron's poem, (2) Grand St. Graal, (3) Qu\u00eate, (4)\nChrestien, (5 and 6) Chrestien's continuators, (7) Didot MS. Perceval, (8)\nProse Perceval li Gallois. Neither the Spanish-Provencal nor the Celtic\norigin of the legend is admissible; it has its source wholly in the\napocryphal legends of Joseph of Arimathea, in which two stages may be\ndistinguished; the first represented by the Gesta Pilati and the Narratio\nJosephi, which tell how Christ appeared to Joseph in prison and released\nhim therefrom; the second by the Vindicta Salvatoris, which combines the\nlegends of the healing of Tiberius with that of Titus or Vespasian. Joseph\nbeing thus brought into contact with Titus, the space of time between the\ntwo is accounted for by the forty years captivity, and the first hint was\ngiven of a miraculous sustaining power of the Grail. Borron's poem is\nstill purely legendary in character; the fish caught by the rich fisher is\nthe symbol of Christ; the incident of the waiting for the Promised Knight\nbelongs, however, not to the original tradition but to a later style of\nChristian mysticism. The Grand St. Graal and the Qu\u00eate extend and develop\nthe _donn\u00e9e_ of the poem, whilst in Chrestien tone, atmosphere, and\nframework are profoundly modified, yet there is no reason to postulate for\nChrestien any other sources than Nos. 1-3, the differences being such as\nhe was quite capable of deliberately introducing. As for No. 7 (the\nDidot-Perceval) it is later than Chrestien and his continuators, and has\nused both. Wolfram von Eschenbach had only Chrestien for his model, Kiot's\npoem being a feigned source. The legend of the conversion of Britain by\nJoseph is no genuine British tradition; William of Malmesbury's account of\nGlastonbury is a pamphlet written to order of the Norman Kings, and\nincapable of serving as a representative of Celtic tradition. The passages\ntherein relating to Joseph are late interpolations, disagreeing with the\nremainder of his work and disproved by the silence of all contemporary\nwriters.\n\nZarncke's acute article was a praiseworthy attempt to construct a working\nhypothesis of the growth of the cycle. But it is full of grave\nmisconceptions, as was, perhaps, inevitable in a hasty survey of such an\nimmense body of literature. The versions are \"placed\" most incorrectly.\nThe argumentation is frequently marred by _a priori_ reasoning, such as\nthat Chrestien, the acknowledged leading poet of the day, could not have\ncopied Kiot, and by untenable assertions, such as that Bran, in the\nMabinogi of Branwen, the daughter of Llyr, is perhaps a distant echo of\nHebron in Robert de Borron's poem. He had, however, the great merit of\nclearing the ground for his pupil, A. Birch-Hirschfeld, and urging him to\nundertake what still remains the most searching and exhaustive survey of\nthe whole cycle: \"Die Sage vom Gral,\" etc. As Birch-Hirschfeld's analysis\nis at present the only basis for sound criticism, I shall give his views\nfully:--The Grand St. Graal, as the fullest of the versions dealing with\nthe Early History of the Grail, is the best starting-point for\ninvestigation. From its pronounced religious tone monkish authorship may\nbe inferred. Its treatment of the subject is not original as is shown by\n(1) the repetition _ad nauseam_ of the same motive (_e.g._, that of the\nlance wound four times), (2) the pedigrees, (3) the allusions to\nadventures not dealt with in the book, and in especial to the Promised\nKnight. The testimony of Helinand (see _supra_, p. 52), which is of\nfirst-rate importance, does not allow of a later date for the Grand St.\nGraal than 1204. On turning to the Queste it is remarkable that though\nsometimes found in the MSS. in conjunction with the Grand St. Graal it is\nalso found with the Lancelot, and, when the hero's parentage is\nconsidered, it seems more likely that it was written to supplement the\nlatter than the former work. This supposition is adverse to any claim it\nmay lay to being held the earliest treatment of the subject, as it is\nhighly improbable that the Grail legend occupied at the outset such an\nimportant place in the Arthurian romance as is thus accorded to it. Such a\nclaim is further negatived by the fact that the Queste has three heroes,\nthe second of whom is obviously the original one of an older version. In\nestimating the relationship between the Grand St. Graal and the Queste it\nshould be borne in mind that the latter, in so far as it deals with the\nEarly History, mentions only Joseph, Josephe, Evelach (Mordrain) and\nSeraphe (Nascien), from whom descends Galahad; that it brings Joseph to\nEngland, and that it does not give any explanation of the nature of the\nGrail itself. It omits Brons, Alain, the explanation of the name \"rich\nfisherman,\" the name of Moys, although his story is found in substantially\nthe same shape as in the Grand St. Graal, and is silent as to the origin\nof the bleeding lance. If it were younger than and derived from the Grand\nSt. Graal alone, these points, all more important for the Early History\nthan the Mordrain episodes would surely have been dwelt upon. But then if\nthe Grand St. Graal is the younger work, whence does it derive Brons,\nAlain, and Petrus, all of whom are introduced in such a casual way? There\nwas obviously a previous Early History which knew nothing of Josephe or of\nMordrain and his group, the invention of the author of the Queste, whence\nthey passed into the Grand St. Graal, and were fused in with the older\nform of the legend. There is, moreover, a positive reference on the part\nof the Grand St. Graal to the Queste (vol. ii., p. 225). The author of the\nQueste introduced his new personages for the following reasons: He had\nalready substituted Galahad for the original hero, and to enhance his\nimportance gives him a fictitious descent from a companion of Joseph. From\nhis model he learnt of Joseph's wanderings in the East, hence the Eastern\norigin of the Mordrain group. In the older form the Grail had passed into\nthe keeping of Joseph's nephew, in the Queste the Promised Knight descends\nfrom the nephew of Mordrain; Brons, as the ancestor of the original Quest\nhero necessarily disappears in the Queste, and his place is in large\nmeasure taken by Josephe. The priority of the Queste over the Grand St.\nGraal, and the use of the former by the latter may thus be looked upon as\ncertain. But if Mordrain is the invention of the Queste, what is the\nmeaning of his illness, of his waiting for the Promised Knight, of the\nbleeding lance, and of the lame king whom it heals? These seem to have no\nreal connection with the Grail, and are apparently derived from an older\nwork, namely, Chrestien's Conte du Graal.\n\nChrestien's work, which ended at v. 10,601, may be dated as having been\nbegun not later than 1189 (_vide_ _supra_, p. 4). Its unfinished state\naccounts for its having so little positive information about the Grail, as\nChrestien evidently meant to reserve this information for the end of the\nstory. But this very freedom with which the subject is handled is a proof\nthat he had before him a work whence he could extract and adapt as he saw\nfit; moreover we have (Prologue, v. 475, etc.) his own words to that\neffect. With Chrestien's account of the Grail--a bowl bejewelled, of\nwondrous properties, borne by a maiden, preceded by a bleeding lance,\naccompanied by a silver plate, guarded by a king wounded through both\nankles (whose only solace is fishing, whence his surname), ministering to\nthe king's father, sought for by Perceval, nephew to the fisher king, its\nfate bound up with a question which the seeker must put concerning it--may\nbe compared that of the Queste, in which nothing is known of a question by\nwhich the Grail kingship may be obtained (although it relates the same\nincident of Lancelot), which knows not of one wounded king, centre of the\naction, but of two, both of secondary importance (though possibly\nChrestien's Fisher King's father may have given the hint for Mordrain), in\nwhich the lance is of minor importance instead of being on the same level\nas the Grail. Is it not evident that the Queste took over these features\nfrom Chrestien, compelled thereto by the celebrity of the latter's\npresentment? The Queste thus presupposes the following works: a Lancelot,\nan Early History, a Quest other than that of Chrestien's, and finally\nChrestien as the lame king and lance features show. It thus falls between\n1189 (Chrestien begun) and 1204 (Grand St. Graal ended).\n\nWith respect to the three continuators of Chrestien it would seem that\nGautier de Doulens' account of the Grail, as found in the Montpellier MS.,\nknowing as it does only of Joseph, and making the Fisher King and Perceval\ndescendants of his, belongs to an older stage of development than that of\nManessier and Gerbert, both of whom are familiar with the Mordrain group,\nand follows that of the original version upon which both the Queste and\nthe Grand St. Graal are based. There is nothing to show that Gautier knew\nof the Queste, whilst from Gautier the Queste may have possibly have taken\nPerceval's sister and the broken sword. Gautier would thus seem to have\nwritten immediately after Chrestien, and before the Queste, _i.e._, about\n1195. As for the date of the other two continuators, the fact of their\nhaving used the Queste is only one proof of the lateness of their\ncomposition (as to the date of which see _supra_, p. 4). It must be noted\nthat whilst in their account of the Grail Chrestien's continuators are in\nsubstantial accord with the Queste versions, and yet do not contradict\nChrestien himself, they add considerably to his account of the lance. This\nis readily explained by the fact that as Chrestien gave no information\nrespecting the origin of either of the relics, they, the continuators, had\nto seek such information elsewhere; they found all they could wish\nrespecting the Grail, but nothing as to the lance, the latter having been\nfirst introduced by Chrestien, and the Queste versions knowing nothing\nrespecting it beyond what he told. Thus, thrown upon their own resources,\nthey hit upon the device of identifying the lance with the spear with\nwhich Jesus was pierced as He hung on the Cross. This idea, a most natural\none, may possibly have been in Chrestien's intent, and _may_ have been\nsuggested to him by the story of the discovery of the Holy Lance in\nAntioch half a century before. It must, however, be admitted that the\nconnection of the lance with the Grail legend in its earliest form is very\ndoubtful, and that Celtic legends may possibly have furnished it to\nChrestien, and indicated the use to which he intended putting it. The\nanalysis, so far, of the romances has resulted in the presupposition of an\nearlier form; this earlier form, the source or basis of all the later\nversions of the legend, exists in the so-called Petit St. Graal of Robert\nde Borron. Of this work, found in two forms, a prose and a poetic one, the\npoetic form, _pace_ Hucher, is obviously the older, Hucher's proofs of\nlateness going merely to show that the sole existing MS. is a recent one,\nand has admitted new speech-forms;[62] moreover the prose versions derive\nevidently from one original. The greater simplicity of the poem as\ncompared with the Grand St. Graal proves its anteriority in that case;\nPaulin Paris' hypothesis that the poem in its present state is a second\ndraft, composed after the author had made acquaintance with the Grand St.\nGraal, is untenable, the poem's reference (v. 929 etc.) to the \"grant\nlivre\" and to the \"grant estoire dou Graal,\" written by \"nul home qui\nfust mortal\" (v. 3,495-6) not being to the Grand St. Graal, but having,\non the contrary, probably suggested to the writer of the latter his\nfiction of Christ's being the real author of his work. The Grand St. Graal\nused the poem conjointly with the Queste, piecing out the one version by\nhelp of the other, and thereby entirely missing the sequence of ideas in\nthe poem, which is as follows: Sin, the cause of want among the people;\nthe separation of the pure from the impure by means of the fish (symbol of\nChrist) caught by Brons, which fish does not feed the people, but, in\nconjunction with the Grail, severs the true from the false disciples;\npunishment of the self-willed false disciple; reward of Brons by charge of\nthe Grail. In the Grand St. Graal, on the contrary, the fish is no symbol,\nbut actual food, a variation which must be laid to the account of the\nQueste. In a similar way the two Alains in the Grand St. Graal may be\naccounted for, the one as derived from the poem, the second from the\nQueste. As far as conception is concerned, the later work is no advance\nupon the earlier one. To return to Borron's work, which consists of three\nsections; there is no reason to doubt his authorship of the second,\nMerlin, or of the third, Perceval, although one MS. only of the former\nmentions the fact, and it is, moreover, frequently found in connection\nwith other romances, in especial with the Lancelot; as for Perceval, the\nsilence of the unique MS. as to Borron is no argument, as it is equally\nsilent in the Joseph of Arimathea section. All outward circumstances go to\nshow that Borron divided his work into three parts, Joseph, Merlin,\nPerceval. But, if so, the last part must correspond in a fair measure to\nthe first one; recollect, however, that we are dealing with a poet of but\nlittle invention or power of giving unity to discordant themes, and must\nnot expect to find a clearly traced plan carried out in every detail. Thus\nthe author's promise in Joseph to speak later of Moses and Petrus seems\nnot to be fulfilled, but this is due to Borron's timidity in the invention\nof new details. What _is_ said of Moses does not disagree with the Joseph,\nwhereas a later writer would probably follow the Grand St. Graal account;\nas for Petrus he is to be recognised in the hermit Perceval's uncle. There\nmay be some inconsistency here, but Borron _can_ be inconsistent, as is\nshown by his treatment of Alain, who at first vows to remain virgin, and\nafterwards marries. But a graver argument remains to be met; the lance\noccurs in Perceval--now _ex hypothesi_ the first introduction of the lance\nis due to Chrestien. The lance, however, only occurs in two passages, both\nobviously interpolated. The identity of authorship is evident when the\nstyle and phraseology of the two works are compared; in both the Grail is\nalways _li graaux_ or else _li veissel_, not as with the later versions,\n_li saint graaux_; both speak of _la grace dou graal_; in both the Grail\nis _bailli_ to its keeper, who has it _en guarde_; the empty seat is _li\nliu vit_, not the _si\u00e8ge perilleux_. The central conception, too, is the\nsame--the Trinity of Grail-keepers symbolising the Divine Trinity. The\nsecret words given by Christ with the Grail to Joseph in prison, by him\nhanded on to Brons, are confided at the end of the Perceval by Brons to\nthe hero--and there is no trace of the Galahad form of the Quest, as would\ninevitably have been the case had the Perceval been posterior in date to\nthe Queste. As the Perceval is connected with the Joseph, so it is equally\nwith the Merlin; it is remarkable that neither Merlin nor Blaise play a\nprominent part in the Queste versions, but in Borron's poem Merlin is the\nnecessary binding link between the Apostolic and Arthurian ages. Again the\nwhole character of the Perceval speaks for its being one of the earliest\nworks of the cycle; either it must have used Chrestien and Gautier or they\nit; if the former, is it credible that just those adventures which were\nnecessary to supply the ending to the Joseph could have been picked out?\nBut it is easy to follow the way in which Chrestien used the Perceval;\nhaving the three-part poem before him he took the third only for his\ncanvas, left out all that in it related to the first two parts, all,\nmoreover, that related to the origin and early history of the Grail; the\nstory of the childhood is half indicated in the Perceval, and Chrestien\nmay have had Breton lays with which to help himself out; all relating to\nthe empty seat is left out as reaching back into the Early History; the\nvisit to Gurnemanz is introduced to supply a motive for the hero's conduct\nat the Grail Castle; the wound of the Fisher King is again only an attempt\nof Chrestien's to supply a more telling motive; as for the sword Chrestien\ninvented it; as he also did the Grail-messenger, whose portrait he copied\nfrom that of Rosette la Blonde. The order of the last episodes is altered\nby Chrestien sensibly for the better, as, with him, Perceval's doubt comes\nfirst, then the Good Friday reproof, then the confession to and absolution\nby the hermit; whereas in the Perceval the hero after doubt, reproof, and\nabsolution rides off again a-tourneying, and requires a second reproof at\nMerlin's hands. It is easy to see here which is the original, which the\ncopy. Chrestien thus took with clear insight just what he wanted in the\nPerceval to fit out his two heroes with adventures.[63] As for Borron's\nguiding conception, his resolve to have nothing to do with the Early\nHistory made him neglect it entirely; he only cared to produce a knightly\npoem, and we find, in consequence, that he has materialised all the\nspiritual elements of his model. Gautier de Doulens' method of proceeding\nwas much simpler: he took over all those adventures that Chrestien\npurposely left out, and they may be found brought together (verses\n22,390-27,390) with but few episodes (Perceval's visit to Blanchefleur,\netc.) entirely foreign to the model amongst them.[64] The Perceval cannot\nbe later than Gautier, as otherwise it could not stand in such close\nrelationship to the Joseph and Merlin; it must, therefore, be the source\nof the Conte du Graal, and a necessary part of Borron's poem, which in its\nentirety is the first attempt to bring the Joseph of Arimathea legend into\nconnection with the Arthur _sage_. The question as to the origin of the\nGrail would thus seem answered, the Christian legendary character of\nBorron's conception being evident; but there still remains the possibility\nthat that conception is but the Christianised form of an older folk-myth.\nSuch a one has been sought for in Celtic tradition. The part played by\nMerlin in the trilogy might seem to lend colour to such an hypothesis, but\nhis connection with the legend is a purely artificial one. Nor is the\ntheory of a Celtic origin strengthened by reference to the Mabinogi of\nPeredur. This knows nought of Merlin, and is nearer to Chrestien than to\nthe Didot-Perceval, and may, indeed, be looked upon as simply a clumsy\nretelling of the Conte du Graal with numerous additions. A knowledge of\nthe Didot-Perceval on Chrestien's part must be presupposed, as where could\nhe have got the Fisher King and Grail Castle save from a poem which dealt\nwith the Early History of the Grail, a thing the Mabinogi does not do.\nBut, it may be said, Chrestien used the Mabinogi conjointly with Borron's\npoem. That the Welsh tale is, on the contrary, only a copy is apparent\nfrom the following considerations:--It mixes up Gurnemanz and the Fisher\nKing; it puts in the mouth of Peredur's _mother_ an exclamation about the\nknights, \"Angels they are my son,\" obviously misread from Perceval's\nexclamation to the same effect in Chrestien's poem; _Perceval's_\nlove-trance over the three blood drops in the snow is explained in\nChrestien by the hero's passion for Blanchefleur, but is quite\ninexplicable in the Mabinogi; again, in the Welsh tale, the lance and\nbasin episode is quite a secondary one, a fact easily explained if it is\nlooked upon as a vague reminiscence of Chrestien's unfinished work;\nmoreover the Mabinogi lays great stress upon the lance, which has already\nbeen shown to belong to a secondary stage in the development of the\nlegend. Again the word Graal occurs frequently in old Welsh literature,\nand invariably in its French form, never translated by any equivalent\nWelsh term. As for the name Peredur, it is understandable that the Welsh\nstoryteller should choose the name of a national hero, instead of the\nforeign name Perceval; the etymology Basin-Seeker is untenable. There is\nno real analogy between the Grail and the magic cauldron of Celtic fable,\nwhich is essentially one of renovation, whereas the Grail in the second\nstage only acquires miraculous feeding, and in the third stage healing\npowers. It is of course not impossible that such adventures in the\nMabinogi, as cannot be referred directly to Chrestien, may belong to a\ngenuine Peredur _sage_.\n\nThe question then arises--was Robert de Borron a simple copyist, or is the\nlegend in its present form due to him, _i.e._, did _he_ first join the\nJoseph of Arimathea and Grail legends, or had he a predecessor? Now the\nolder Joseph legends know nothing of his wandering in company of a\nmiraculous vessel, Zarncke having shown the lateness of the one commonly\nascribed to William of Malmesbury. Nor is it likely Borron had before him\na local French legend as Paulin Paris (Romania, vol. i.) had supposed;\nwould he in that case have brought the Grail to England, and left Joseph's\nfate in uncertainty? The bringing the Grail to England is simply the\nlogical consequence of his conception of the three Grail-keepers (the\nthird of British blood), symbolising the Trinity, and of the relation of\nthe Arthurian group to this central conception; where the third\nGrail-keeper and the third of the three wondrous tables were, there the\nGrail must also be. What then led Borron to connect the sacramental vessel\nwith the Joseph legend? In answering this question the later miraculous\nproperties of the Grail must be forgotten, and it must be remembered that\nwith Borron it is only a vessel of \"grace;\" this is shown in the history\nof (Moys) the false disciple, which obviously follows in its details the\naccount of the Last Supper, and of the detection of Judas by means of the\ndish into which Jesus dips a sop, bidding the betrayer take and eat.\nBorron's first table being an exact copy of the Last Supper one, _his_\nholy vessel has the property of that used by Christ. In so far Borron was\nled to his conception by the story as told in the canonical books; what\nhelp did he get from the Apocrypha? His mention of the Veronica legend and\ncertain details in his presentment of Vespasian's vengeance on the Jews\n(_e.g._, his selling thirty for a penny) show him to have known the\nVindicta Salvatoris, in which Joseph of Arimathea appears telling of his\nformer captivity from which Christ Himself had delivered him. Thus Borron\nknew of Joseph's living when Vespasian came to Jerusalem. From the Gesta\nPilati he had full information respecting the imprisonment of Joseph; he\ncombined the accounts of these two apocryphal works, substituting a simple\nvisit of Christ to Joseph for the deliverance as told in the Gesta Pilati,\nand making Vespasian the deliverer, whereto he may have been urged by\nSuetonius' account of the freeing of _Josephus_ by Vespasian (Vesp. ch.\nv.). But why should Joseph become the Grail-keeper? Because the fortunes\nof the vessel used by the Saviour symbolise those of the Saviour's body;\nas _that_ was present at the Last Supper, was brought to Pilate, handed\nover to Joseph, was buried, and after three days arose, so with the Grail.\nCompare, too, Christ's words to Joseph (892, etc.) in which the symbolical\nconnection of the laying in the grave and the mass is fully worked out.\nThus Joseph who laid Christ's body in the grave is the natural guardian of\nthe symbol which commemorates that event, thus, too, the Grail is the\nnatural centre point of all the symbolism of mass and sacrament, and thus\nthe Grail found its place in the Joseph legend, ultimately becoming its\nmost important feature. Need Perceval's question detain us? May it not be\nexplained by the fact that as Joseph had to apply twice for Christ's body,\nso his representative, the Grail-seeker, had to apply twice for the symbol\nof Christ's body, the Grail? But it is, perhaps, best to consider the\nquestion and the Fisher King's weakness as inventions of Borron's,\npossibly derived from Breton sources, the ease with which the hero fulfils\na task explained to him beforehand favouring such a view. Borron, it must\nbe noticed, had no great inventive power; in the Joseph he is all right so\nlong as he has the legend to follow; in the Merlin and the Perceval he\nclings with equal helplessness to the Breton sagas, confining himself to\nweaving clumsily the adventures of the Grail into the regular Arthur\nlegend.\n\nThe question as to the authorship of the Grand St. Graal and the Queste,\nthe latter so confidently attributed to W. Map, may now profitably be\ninvestigated. Map, who we know flourished 1143-1210 (see _supra_, p. 5),\ntook part in all the political and social movements of his time. If we\nbelieve the testimony of the MSS. which ascribe to him the authorship of\nthe following romances: (1) the Lancelot, in three parts; (2) the Queste;\n(3) the Mort Artur; (4) the Grand St. Graal, he would seem to have shown a\nliterary activity quite incompatible with his busy life, when it is\nremembered how slow literary composition was in those days. Nor can it be\nreconciled with the words of Giraldus Cambrensis,[65] although Paulin\nParis (Rom. i. 472) has attempted such a reconciliation by the theory that\nthe words _dicere_ and _verba dare_ referred to composition in the\nvernacular, and that Map was opposing not his _oratorical_ to Gerald's\n_literary_ activity, but his _French_ to Gerald's _Latin_ works. Against\nthis initial improbability and Gerald's positive testimony must be set, it\nis true, the witness of writers of the time and of the MSS. The most\nimportant is that of H\u00e9lie de Borron in his prologue to Guiron le\nCourtois.[66] After telling how Luces de Gast was the first to translate\nfrom the Latin book into French, and he did part of the story of Tristan,\nhe goes on: \"Apri\u00e9s s'en entremist maistre Gautiers Map qui fu clers au\nroi Henry et devisa cil l'estoire de monseigneur Lancelot du Lac, que\nd'autre chose ne parla il mie gramment en son livre. Messiers Robers de\nBorron s'en entremist apr\u00e8s. Je Helis de Borron, par la pri\u00e8re monseigneur\nde Borron, et pour ce que compaignon d'armes fusmes longement, en\ncommen\u00e7ai mon livre du Bret.\" Again in the epilogue to the Bret,[67] \"Je\ncroi bien touchier sor les livres que maistres Gautiers Maup fist, qui fit\nlou propre livre de monsoingnour Lancelot dou Lac; et des autres granz\nlivres que messires Robert de Berron fit, voudrai-je prendre aucune flor\nde la mati\u00e8re ... en tel meniere que li livres de monsoingnour Luces de\nGant et de maistre Gautier Maapp et ciz de monsoingnour Robert de Berron\nqui est mes amis et mes paranz charnex s'acourderont au miens livres--et\nje qui sui appelex Helyes de Berron qui fui engendrez dou sanc des gentix\npaladins des Barres qui de tous tens ont \u00e9t\u00e9 commendeour et soingnor\nd'Outres en Rom\u00e9nie qui ores est appel\u00e9e France.\" Now H\u00e9lie cannot\npossibly belong to the reign of Henry II (+ 1189) as asserted by Hucher\n(p. 59), as he speaks of Map in the past tense (_fu_ clers), and Map\noutlived Henry, moreover the mention of Romenie proves the passage to have\nbeen written after the foundation of the Latin Empire in 1304. H\u00e9lie's\ntestimony is thus not that of an immediate contemporary, and it only shows\nthat shortly after Map's death the Lancelot was ascribed to him. It is,\nmoreover, in so far tainted, that he speaks with equal assurance\nrespecting the great Latin book which of course never existed; nor can we\nbelieve him when he says that he was the comrade of Robert de Borron, as\nthis latter wrote before Chrestien, and must have been at least thirty\nyears older than H\u00e9lie, who in the Guiron (written about 1220) calls\nhimself a young man. How is it with the testimony of the MSS.? Those of\nthe Lancelot have unfortunately lost their colophon, owing to the Queste\nbeing almost invariably added; those of the Queste show as a rule a\ncolophon such as the one quoted by Paulin Paris from the Bibl. Nat., MS.\n6,963 (MSS. Fran\u00e7 II., p. 361): \"Maistre Gautiers Map les estrait pour son\nlivre faire dou Saint-Graal, pour l'amor del roy Henri son seignor, qui\nfist l'estore translater dou latin en fran\u00e7ois.\" A similar statement\noccurs in a MS. of the Mort Artur (Bib. Nat. 6,782.). Both are equally\ncredible. Now as the King can only be Henry II (+ 1189) and as the Queste\npreceded the Mort Artur it must be put about 1185, and Chrestien's Conte\ndu Graal about 1180, an improbably early date when it is recollected that\nthe Conte du Graal is Chrestien's last work. The form, too, of these\ncolophons, expressed as they are in the third person, so different from\nthe garrulous first person complacency with which Luces de Gast and H\u00e9lie\nde Borron announce their authorship, excites the suspicion that we have\nhere not the author's own statement, but that of a copyist following a\ntraditional ascription. Whether or no Map wrote the Lancelot, it may\nsafely be assumed that he did not write the Queste, or _a fortiori_ the\nGrand St. Graal. The tradition as to his authorship of these romances may\nhave originated in Geoffrey's mention of the Gualterus archidiaconus\nOxenfordensis, to whom he owed his MS. of the Historia Regum Britanniae. A\nsimilar instance of traditional ascription on the part of the copyist may\nbe noted in the MSS. of the Grand St. Graal, the author of which is\ndeclared to be Robert de Borron. The ordinary formul\u00e6 (quoted _supra_, p.\n5) should be compared with Borron's own words in the Joseph (_supra_, p.\n5) and the difference in form noted. What proves these passages to be\ninterpolations is that the author of the Grand St. Graal especially\ndeclares in his prologue that his name must remain a secret. The colophons\nin question are simply to be looked upon as taken over from the genuine\nascription of Borron's poem, and there is no positive evidence as to the\nauthorship of either the Queste or the Grand St. Graal; both works are\nprobably French in origin, as is shown by the mention of Meaux in the\nGrand St. Graal. As for the date of Borron's poem, a _terminus ad quem_ is\nfixed by that of the Conte du Graal (1180); and as the poem is dedicated\nto Gautier of Montbeliard, who can hardly have been born before 1150, and\nwho must have attained a certain age before he could become Robert's\npatron, it must fall between the years 1170 and 1190.\n\nThe results of the investigation may be summed up as follows: the origin\nof the Grail romances must be sought for in a Christian legend based\npartly upon the canonical, partly upon the uncanonical, writings. This\nChristian legend was woven into the Breton sagas by the author of the\noldest Grail romance; the theories of Proven\u00e7al Spanish, or Celtic origin\nare equally untenable, nor is there any need to countenance the fable of a\nLatin original. Chronologically, the versions arrange themselves thus:--\n\n (1) Between 1170 and 1190 (probably about 1183) Robert de Borron wrote\n his trilogy: Joseph of Arimathea--Merlin--Perceval. Sources: Christian\n legend (Acta, Pilati, Descensus Christi, Vindicta Salvatoris) and\n Breton sagas (Brut?). Here the Grail is simply a vessel of grace.\n\n (2) About 1189 Chrestien began his Conte du Graal, the main source of\n which was the third part of Borron's poem. Marvellous food properties\n attributed to the Grail; introduction of the bleeding lance, silver\n dish, and magic sword.\n\n (3) Between 1190 and 1200 Gautier de Doulens continued Chrestien's\n poem. Main sources, third part of (1) and first part of same for Early\n History--introduction of broken sword.\n\n (4) Between 1190 and 1200 (but after Gautier?) the Queste du St. Graal\n written as continuation to the Lancelot. Sources (1) and (2) (for\n lance) and perhaps (3). New personages, Mordrain, Nascien, etc.,\n introduced into Early History.\n\n (5) Before 1204 Grand St. Graal written, mainly resting upon (4) but\n with use also of first part of (1).\n\n (6) Between 1214 and 1220. Manessier's continuation of the Conte du\n Graal. For the Early History (5) made use of.\n\n (7) Before 1225 Gerbert of Montreuil's additions to Manessier. Both\n (4) and (5) used.\n\n (8) About 1225 Perceval li Gallois; compiled from all the previous\n versions.[68]\n\nThat part of Birch-Hirschfeld's theory which excited the most attention in\nGermany bore upon the relationship of Wolfram to Chrestien (see _infra_,\nAppendix A). In other respects his theory won very general acceptance. The\ncommendatory notices were, however, of a slight character, and no new\nfacts were adduced in support of his thesis. One opponent, however, he\nfound who did more than rest his opposition upon the view of Wolfram's\nrelationship to Chrestien. This was E. Martin, who (\"Zeitschrift f\u00fcr d.\nAlterthumskunde,\" 1878, pp. 84 etc.) traversed most of Birch-Hirschfeld's\nconclusions. Whilst accepting the priority of Queste over Grand St. Graal\nhe did not see the necessity of fixing 1204 as a _terminus ad quem_ for\nthe latter work as we now have it, as Helinandus' statement might have\nreferred to an older version; if the Grand St. Graal could not be dated\nneither could the Queste. As for the Didot-Perceval there was nothing to\nprove that it was either Borron's work or the source of Chrestien and\nGautier. Birch-Hirschfeld's arguments to show the interpolation of the\nlance passages were unsound; it was highly improbable either that\nChrestien should have used the Perceval as alleged, or that Borron, the\npurely religious writer of the Joseph, should have changed his style so\nentirely in the Perceval. Moreover, Birch-Hirschfeld made Borron dedicate\na work to Gautier of Montbeliard before 1183 when the latter must have\nbeen quite a young man, nor was there any reason to discredit H\u00e9lie de\nBorron's testimony that he and Robert had been companions in arms, a fact\nincredible had the one written forty years before the other. The work of\nChrestien and his continuators must be looked upon as the oldest we had of\nthe Grail cycle. It was likely that older versions had been lost. A Latin\nversion might well have existed, forms such as Joseph de Barimaschie\n(_i.e._, ab Arimathea) pointed to it. Martin followed up this attack in\nhis \"Zur Gralsage, Untersuchungen,\" Strasburg, 1880. A first section is\ndevoted to showing that Wolfram must have had other sources than\nChrestien, and that in consequence such portions of his presentment as\ndiffer from Chrestien's must be taken into account in reconstructing the\noriginal form of the romance. The second and third sections deal with\nHeinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin's \"Die Crone,\" and with the earliest form of the\ntradition. Gawain's second visit to the Grail Castle, as told of by\nHeinrich (_supra_, p. 26) has features in common with the widely-spread\ntraditions of aged men slumbering in caves or ruined castles, unable to\ndie until the right word is uttered which breaks their spell. This\nconception differs from the one found in all the other versions inasmuch\nas in them the wonder-working question releases, not from unnaturally\nprolonged life, but from sore disease. Can a parallel be found in Celtic\ntradition to this sufferer awaiting deliverance? Does not Arthur, wounded\nwell nigh to death by his nephew Modred, pass a charmed life in Avalon,\nwhither Morgan la Fay carried him for his healing, and shall he not return\nthence to free his folk? The original conception is mythic--the summer god\nbanished by the winter powers, but destined to come back again. The _sage_\nof Arthur's waiting, often in some subterranean castle, is widely spread,\ntwo of the earliest notices (those of Gervasius of Tilbury, in the \"Otia\nImperialia,\" p. 12 of Liebrecht's edition, and of Caesarius of\nHeisterbach) connect it with Etna--the tradition had followed the Norman\nConquerors of Sicily thither--and from Sicily it would seem to have\npenetrated to Germany, being first found in German tradition as told of\nFrederick II. Again Gerald (A.D. 1188) in the \"Itinerarium Cambriae\"\n(Frankfort, 1603, p. 827, L. 48) tells of a mountain chain in the\nSouth-East of Wales: \"quorum principalis Cadair Arthur dicitur i. Cathedra\nArthuri, propter gemina promontorii cacumina in cathedrae modum se\npraeferentia. Et quoniam in alto cathedra et in ardua sita est, summo et\nmaximo Britonum Regi Arthuro vulgari nuncupatione est assignata.\" The\nEildon Hills may be noted in the same connection, \"in which all the\nArthurian chivalry await, in an enchanted sleep, the bugle blast of the\nadventurer who will call them at length to a new life\" (Stuart Glennie,\n\"Arthurian Localities,\" p. 60). If the Grail King is Arthur, the bleeding\nlance is evidently the weapon wherewith he was so sorely wounded. And the\nGrail? this is originally a symbol of plenty, of a joyous and bountiful\nlife, hence of Avalon, that land of everlasting summer beyond the waves,\nwherein, as the Vita Merlini has it, they that visit Arthur find\n\"planitiem omnibus deliciis plenam.\" Of those versions of the romance in\nwhich the Christian conception of the Grail is predominant, Robert de\nBorron's poem (composed about 1200) is the earliest, and in it, _maugre_\nthe Christianising of the story, the Celtic basis is apparent: the Grail\nhost go a questing Avalonwards; the first keepers are Brons and Alain,\npurely Celtic names, the former of which may be compared with Bran; the\nempty seat calls to mind the _Eren stein_ in Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's\nLanzelot, whereof (verse 5,178) _ist gesaget daz er den man niht vertruoc\nan dem was valsch oder haz_. Admitting the purely Christian origin of the\nGrail leads to this difficulty: the vessel in which Christ's blood was\nreceived was a bowl, not an open or flat dish like that used in\ncommemoration of the Last Supper. Evidently the identification of the\nGrail with the Last Supper cup is the latest of a series of\ntransformations. Nor can the Christian origin of the legend be held proved\nby the surname of Fisher given to the Grail-keeper. True, neither\nChrestien nor Wolfram explains this surname, whilst in Borron's poem there\nis at least a fish caught. But if the fish had really the symbolic meaning\nascribed to it would not a far greater stress be laid upon it? In any case\nthis one point is insufficient to prove the priority of Borron, and it is\nsimpler to believe that the surname of Fisher had in the original Celtic\ntradition a significance now lost. Birch-Hirschfeld's theory supposes,\ntoo, a development contrary to that observed elsewhere in medi\u00e6val\ntradition. The invariable course is from the racial-heathen to the\nChristian legendary stage. Is it likely that in the twelfth century, a\nperiod of such highly developed mystic fancy, an originally Christian\nlegend should lose its mystic character and become a subject for minstrels\nto exercise their fancy upon? In the earlier form of the romance there is\nan obvious contrast between the task laid upon the Grail quester and that\nlaid upon Gawain at Castle Marvellous. The first has suffered change by\nits association with Christian legend; but the second, even in those\nversions influenced by the legend, has retained its primitive Celtic\ncharacter. The trials which Gawain has to undergo may be compared with\nthose imposed on him who seeks to penetrate into the underworld, as\npictured in the Purgatorium S. Patricii, in the Visio Tnugdali, etc. This\nagrees well with the presentment of Castle Marvellous, an underworld realm\nwhere dwell four queens long since vanished from Arthur's court, and\nwhich, according to Chrestien (verse 9,388), Gawain, having once found,\nmay no longer leave. One of these queens is Arthur's mother, whom a\nmagician had carried off, a variant it would seem of the tradition which\nmakes Arthur's father, Uther, win Igerne from her husband by Merlin's\nmagic aid. Many other reminiscences of Celtic tradition may be found in\nthe romances--Orgeleuse, whom Gawain finds sitting under a tree by a\nspring, is just such a water fairy as may be met with throughout the whole\nrange of Celtic folk-lore, and differs profoundly from the Germanic\nconception of such beings.\n\nW. Hertz, in his \"Sage vom Parzival und dem Gral\" (Breslau, 1882)\nfollowing, in the main, Birch-Hirschfeld, lays stress upon the two\nelements, \"_legend_\" and \"_sage_\" out of which the romance cycle has\nsprung. He does not overlook many of the weak points in Birch-Hirschfeld's\ntheory, _e.g._, whilst fully accepting the fish caught by Bron as the\nsymbol of Christ, he notices that the incident as found in Robert de\nBorron, whom he accepts as the first in date of the cycle writers, is not\nof such importance as to justify the stress laid upon the nickname \"rich\nfisher,\" by all the _ex hypothesi_ later writers. The word \"rich\" must, he\nthinks, have originally referred to the abundant power of conversion of\nheathen vouchsafed to the Grail-keeper, but even Robert failed to grasp\nthe full force of the allusion. Against Birch-Hirschfeld he maintains that\nthe connection of Joseph with the conversion of Britain in all the\nversions shows that the legend must have assumed definite shape first on\nBritish soil, and he looks upon the separatist and anti-papal tendencies\nof the British Church as supplying the original impulse to such a legend.\nThe Grail belongs originally wholly to the \"Legend;\" only in the later\nversions and in Wolfram, owing to the latter's ignorance of its real\nnature, does it assume a magic and popular character. The lance, on the\nother hand, is partly derived from the Celtic _sage_. The boyhood of\nPerceval is a genuine folk-story, a great-fool tale, and had originally\nnothing to do with the Grail, as may plainly be seen by reference to the\nThornton Sir Perceval, the most primitive form of the story remaining, the\nMabinogi, and the modern Breton tale of Peronnik, deriving directly or\nindirectly from Chrestien. As for the question, although it presented much\nthat seemed to refer it to folk-tradition, as for instance in Heinrich von\ndem T\u00fcrlin's version, where Gawain's putting the question releases the\nlord of the castle and his retainers from the enchantment of\nlife-in-death, yet the form of the question, \"Je vos prie que vous me diez\nque l'en sert de cest vessel,\" shows its original connection with the\nGrail cultus, and necessitates its reference to the \"Legend.\" Existing\nversions fail, however, to give any satisfactory account of the question.\nIt is a matter of conjecture whether in the earliest form of the legend\n(which Hertz assumes to have been lost) it was found in the same shape as\nin the Didot-Perceval.\n\nBirch-Hirschfeld's theory has already been implicitly criticised in\nChapter III. The considerations adduced therein, as well as Martin's\ncriticisms and Hertz's admissions, preclude the necessity of examining it\nin further detail. Formally speaking, the theory rests upon the assumption\nthat we have Borron's work substantially as he wrote it, an assumption\nwhich, as shown by the difference in _motif_ between the Metrical Joseph\nand the Didot-Perceval, is inaccurate. Again, the theory does not account\nfor the silence of all the other versions respecting Brons and that\nspecial conception of the Grail found in Borron's poem. Nor does it offer\nany satisfactory explanation of the mysterious question which\nBirch-Hirschfeld can only conjecture to have been a meaningless invention,\n_eine harmlose Erfindung_, of Borron's. In fact, only such, portions of\nthe cycle are exhaustively examined as admit of reference to the alleged\noriginating idea, and a show of rigorous deduction is thus made, the\nemptiness of which becomes apparent when the entire legend, and not one\nportion only, is taken into account. Despite the learning and acuteness\nwith which it is urged, Birch-Hirschfeld's theory must be rejected, if it\nwere only because, as Martin points out, it postulates a development of\nthe legend which is the very opposite of the normal one. We cannot admit\nthat this vast body of romance sprang from a simple but lofty spiritual\nconception, the full significance of which, unperceived even by its\nauthor, was totally ignored, not only, were that possible, by Chrestien\nand his continuators, but by the theologising mystics who wrote the Grand\nSt. Graal and the Queste--aye, and even by the latest and in some respects\nthe most theologically minded of all the writers of the cycle, the author\nof the Prose Perceval le Gallois and Gerbert. We must say, with Otto K\u00fcpp\n(Zacher's Zeitschrift, XVII, 1, p. 68), \"die jetzt versuchte christliche\nMotivierung ist ganz ungl\u00fccklich geraten und kann in keiner Weise\nbefriedigen.\"\n\nThe field is thus clear for an examination of the Quest with a view to\ndetermining whether the Grail really belongs to it or not. The first step\nis to see what relationship exists between the oldest form of the Quest\nand what have been called the non-Grail members of the cycle--_i.e._, the\nMabinogi of Peredur ab Evrawc and the Thornton MS. Sir Perceval. As\npreliminary to this inquiry, an attempt must be made to determine more\nclosely the relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du\nGraal--whether it be wholly derived from the latter, or whether it may\nhave preserved through other sources traces of a different form of the\nstory than that found in Chrestien.[69]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n Relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal--The former\n not the source of the latter--Relationship of the Conte du Graal and\n the Mabinogi--Instances in which the Mabinogi has copied\n Chrestien--Examples of its independence--The incident of the blood\n drops in the snow--Differences between the two works--The machinery of\n the Mabinogi and the traces of it in the Conte du Graal--The\n stag-hunt--The Mabinogi and Manessier--The sources of the Conte du\n Graal and the relation of the various parts to a common original--Sir\n Perceval--Steinbach's theory--Objections to it--The counsels in the\n Conte du Graal--Wolfram and the Mabinogi--Absence of the Grail from\n the apparently oldest Celtic form.\n\n\nIn examining the relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal,\nthe sequence of the incidents is of importance. This is shown in the\nsubjoined table (where the numbers given are those of the incidents as\nsummarized, chapter II), in which the Didot-Perceval sequence is taken as\nthe standard.\n\n ---------------------------------------------------------------\n DIDOT-PERCEVAL. | CHRESTIEN. |\n --------------------------------|-----------------------------|\n Inc. |Inc. |\n 2. Perceval sets forth in |11. Only after the reproaches|\n quest of the rich fisher. | of the loathly damsel |\n | does Perceval first set |\n | forth in quest of the |\n | Grail. |\n | |\n 3. Finds a damsel weeping over | 8. In so far as finding a |\n a knight. Adventure with | damsel weeping over a |\n dwarf and the Orgellos | dead knight, and (9) for |\n Delande. | overcoming the Orgellous |\n | de la Lande. |\n | |\n 4. Arrival at the Chessboard | ... ... ... ... |\n Castle. Adventure of the | |\n stag hunt and loss of the | |\n hound. | |\n | |\n 5. Meeting with sister; | ... ... ... ... |\n instruction concerning the | |\n Grail; vow to seek it. | |\n | |\n 6. Meeting with, confession |15. _After_ the Good Friday |\n to, and exhortation from | incident. |\n hermit uncle. | |\n | |\n 7. Disregard of uncle's | ... ... ... ... |\n exhortations (slaying a | |\n knight), through thinking | |\n of damsel of the | |\n Chessboard. | |\n | |\n 8. Meeting with Rosette and | ... ... ... ... |\n Le Beau Mauvais (the | |\n loathly damsel). | |\n | |\n 9. Adventure at the Ford with | ... ... ... ... |\n Urbains. | |\n | |\n 10. The two children in the | ... ... ... ... |\n tree. | |\n | |\n 11. First arrival at Grail | 7. ... ... ... ... |\n Castle. | |\n | |\n 12. Reproaches of the wayside | 8. In so far as in both the |\n damsel. | hero is reproached by a |\n | wayside damsel. |\n | |\n 13. Meeting with the damsel who | ... ... ... ... |\n had carried off the stag's | |\n head and hound, and second | |\n visit to Castle of the | |\n Chessboard. | |\n | |\n 14. Period (7 years) of despair |15. ... ... ... ... |\n ended by the Good Friday | |\n incident. | |\n | |\n 15. Tournament at Melianz de |13. But told of Gawain not |\n Lis. Merlin's reproaches. | of Perceval. |\n | |\n 16. Second arrival at Grail | ... ... ... ... |\n Castle Achievement of Quest.| |\n ---------------------------------------------------------------\n\n ---------------------------\n GAUTIER DE DOULENS.\n ---------------------------\n Inc.\n ... ... ... ...\n\n\n\n\n\n 9. In so far as a damsel\n is foundlamenting over\n a knight.\n\n\n\n 7 and 8.\n\n\n\n\n 12.\n\n\n\n 12.\n\n\n\n 12. In so far as a knight\n is slain, but _before_\n the meeting with the\n hermit.\n\n\n 11.\n\n\n\n 9. Ford Amorous; _entirely\n different adventure_.\n\n 20. _One_ child.\n\n\n ... ... ... ...\n\n\n ... ... ... ...\n\n\n\n 13 and 18. Many adventures\n being intercalated.\n\n\n\n\n ... ... ... ...\n\n\n\n ... ... ... ...\n\n\n 22.\n\n ---------------------------\n\nThe different sequence in the Didot-Perceval and Chrestien may be\nexplained, as Birch-Hirschfeld explains it, by the freedom which Chrestien\nallowed himself in re-casting the work; but why should Gautier, who, _ex\nhypothesi_, simply took up from Chrestien's model such adventures as his\npredecessor had omitted, have acted in precisely the same way? If the\ntheory were correct we should expect to find the non-Chrestien incidents\nof the Didot-Perceval brought together in at least fairly the same order\nin Gautier. A glance at the table shows that this is not the case. In one\nincident, moreover, the Didot-Perceval is obviously right and Gautier\nobviously wrong, namely, in his incident 12, where the slaying of the\nknight before the hero's meeting the hermit takes away all point from the\nincident. An absolutely decisive proof that that portion of the Conte du\nGraal which goes under Gautier's name (though it is by no means clear that\nall of it is of the same age or due to one man), cannot be based upon the\nDidot-Perceval as we now possess it, is afforded by the adventure of the\nFord Amorous or Perillous, which in the two versions is quite dissimilar.\nThis incident stands out pre-eminent in the Didot-Perceval for its wild\nand fantastic character. It is a genuine Celtic _m\u00e4rchen_, with much of\nthe weird charm still clinging to it that is the birthright of the Celtic\nfolk-tale. It is inadmissible that Gautier could have substituted for this\nfine incident the commonplace one which he gives.\n\nIf, then, it is out of the question that Gautier borrowed directly from\nthe Didot-Perceval, how are the strong resemblances which exist in part\nbetween the two versions to be accounted for? Some of these resemblances\nhave already been quoted (_supra_, p. 75), the remainder may be usefully\nbrought together here.[70]\n\nFirst arrival at the Castle of the Chessboard--\n\n DIDOT-PERCEVAL. GAUTIER.\n\n Li plus biaux chasteaux del monde Le bel castiel que je vos dis\n et vit le pont abeissi\u00e9 et la . . . . .\n porte defferm\u00e9 (p. 439). Et vit si bi\u00e8les les entr\u00e9es\n Et les grans portes desfrem\u00e9es\n (22,395, etc.);\n\nThe damsel exhorts him not to throw the chessman into the water--\n\n Votre cors est esmeuz \u00e0 grant Car \u00e7ou serait grans vilonie (22,503).\n vilainie faire (p. 440).\n\nPerceval having slain the stag, sees its head carried off--\n\n Si vint une veille sor un palestoi Une puci\u00e8le de malaire\n grant al\u00e9ure et prist le brachet Vint cevau\u00e7ant parmi la lande\n et s'en ala or tot (p. 442). Voit le braket, plus ne demande\n Par le coler d'orfrois le prist\n . . . . . .\n Si s'en aloit grant al\u00e9ure\n (22,604, etc.).\n\nOn Perceval threatening to take it away from her by force she answers--\n\n Sire Chevalier, force n'est mie Force \u00e0 faire n'est mie drois\n droit et force me poez bien Et force me po\u00e9s vos faire (22,640).\n faire (p. 443).\n\nIn the subsequent fight with the Knight of the Tomb, he, overcome--\n\n Se torna vers le tonbel grant Que fuiant vait grant al\u00e9ure\n al\u00e9ure et li tombeaux s'enleva Vers l'arket et la sepouture\n contre moultet chevalier s'en Si est entr\u00e9s plus tost qu'il pot\n feri enz (p. 444). (22,723, etc.).\n\nIn the description of Rosette (the loathly damsel)--\n\n Ele avoit le col et les mains plus Le col avoit plus noir que fer\n noires et le vier, que fer... (25,409).\n (p. 453).\n\nWhen the loathly damsel and her knight come to Arthur's court, Kay jests\nas follows:--\n\n Lors pria (_i.e._, Kay) le chevalier Biaus sire,\n par la foi que il devoit, le roi, Dites moi, si Dex le vos mire,\n qui li d\u00e9ist o\u00f9 il l'avoit prise et Si plus en a en vostre terre,\n si en porroit une autre tele avoir, Une aut\u00e8le en iroie querre\n si il l'aloit querre (p. 457). Si jou le quidoie trover\n (25,691 etc.).\n\nThese similarities are too great to be accidental. It will be noticed,\nhowever, that they bear chiefly upon two adventures: that of the\nchessboard and stag hunt, and that of the loathly maiden. As to the\nlatter, it is only necessary to allude to Birch-Hirschfeld's idea that\nRosette is the original of the damsel who reproaches Perceval before the\ncourt with his conduct at the Grail Castle, a theory to state which is to\nrefute it. The former adventure will be closely examined in the following\nsection. There is no need to suppose direct borrowing on the part of one\nor the other versions to account for the parallel in these two incidents;\na common original closely followed at times by both would meet the\nrequirements of the case. It is difficult to admit that the author of the\nDidot-Perceval used Gautier's continuation and not Chrestien's original,\nespecially when the following fact, strangely overlooked by both\nBirch-Hirschfeld and Hucher, is taken into account: Perceval on his first\narrival at the Grail Castle keeps silence (as will be seen by a reference\nto the summary, _supra_, p. 31), because, \"li souvenoit du prodome qui li\navoit deffandu que ne fust trop pallier,\" etc. As a matter of fact, the\n\"prodome\" had forbidden nothing of the sort, and this casual sentence is\nthe first allusion to the motive upon which Chrestien lays so much stress\nas explaining his hero's mysterious conduct at the Grail Castle. Evidently\nthe Didot-Perceval, which, to whoever considers it impartially, is an\nobvious abridgment and piecing together of material from different\nsources, found in one of its sources an episode corresponding to that of\nGonemans in Chrestien. But its author, influenced probably by the Galahad\nversion of the Quest, substituted for the \"childhood\" opening of this\nhypothetical source the one now found in his version, and the Gonemans\nepisode went with the remainder of that part of the story. When the hero\ncomes to the Grail Castle, the author is puzzled; his hero knows\nbeforehand what he has to do, sets out with the distinct purpose of doing\nit, and yet remains silent. To account for this silence the author uses\nthe motive belonging to a discarded episode, but applies the words to his\nhermit, forgetting that he had put no such words into his mouth, and that,\nattributed to him, the injunction to keep silence became simply\nmeaningless. Is the model treated in this way by the Didot-Perceval\nChrestien's poem? Hardly, for this reason. After the Good Friday incident\noccurs the remarkable passage, quoted (_supra_, p. 31), as to the silence\nof the _trouv\u00e8res_ respecting it. Chrestien gives the incident in full,\nand the author of the Perceval could have had no reason for his stricture,\nor could not have ventured it had he been using Chrestien's work. Two\nhypotheses then remain; the unknown source may have been a version akin to\nthat used by Chrestien and Gautier, or it may have been a summary\nabridgment of the Conte du Graal, in which, _inter alia_, the Good Friday\nincident was left out. In either case the presence of the passage in the\nPerceval is equally hard of explanation; but the first hypothesis is\nfavoured by the primitive character of the incident of the Ford Perillous,\nand several other features which will be touched upon in their place. The\nDidot-Perceval would thus be an attempt to provide an ending for Borron's\npoem by adapting to its central _donn\u00e9e_ a version of the Perceval _sage_\nakin to that which forms the groundwork of the Conte du Graal, its author\nbeing largely influenced by the Galahad form of the Quest as found in the\n_Queste_. If this view be correct, the testimony of Perceval (wherever not\ninfluenced by Borron's poem or the _Queste_) is of value in determining\nthe original form of the story, the more so from the author's evident want\nof skill in piecing together his materials. It will, therefore, be used in\nthe following section, which deals with the relationship of the Conte du\nGraal and the Mabinogi of Peredur ab Evrawc.\n\n_Relationship of the Conte du Graal and the Mabinogi._--As was seen in\nChapter IV, opinion began with Monsieur de Villemarqu\u00e9 by accepting the\nMabinogi as the direct source of the Conte du Graal, and has ended with\nZarncke and Birch-Hirschfeld in looking upon it as a more or less direct\ncopy. The most competent of living scholars in this matter, M. Gaston\nParis, has expressed himself in favour of this opinion in his recent\narticle on the Lancelot story (Romania, 1886).[71] Before dealing with the\nquestion as presented in this form, Simrock's view, differing as it does\nfrom that of all other investigators, deserves notice. He, too, looks upon\nthe Mabinogi as derived from Chrestien, and yet bases his interpretation\nof the myth underlying the romance upon a feature, the bleeding head in\nthe dish, found only in it. But if the Mabinogi have really preserved here\nthe genuine form of the myth, it must represent an older version than\nChrestien's, and if, on the other hand, Chrestien be its only source, the\nfeature in question cannot belong to the earliest form of the story.\nSimrock's theory stands then or falls in this respect by the view taken of\nthe relationship between the two versions, and need not be discussed until\nthat view has been stated.\n\nTo facilitate comparison, the incidents common to the two stories are\ntabulated as under, those of the Mabinogi being taken as the standard:--\n\n MABINOGI. CONTE DU GRAAL.\n\n Inc. Inc. _Chrestien._\n 1. Encounter with the knights. 1.\n\n 2. Adventure with the damsel of 2.\n the tent.\n\n 3. Avenging of the insult to 3 and 4.\n Guinevere; incident of the\n dwarves; departure from Court.\n\n 5. Arrival at house of first uncle 5. Gonemans.\n (found fishing); instruction in\n arms.\n\n 6. Arrival at house of second uncle 7. Uncle found fishing;\n (Grail Castle). First sight of talismans, Grail and lance.\n the talismans (head in basin and\n lance).\n\n 7. Reproaches of foster-sister whom 8. Reproached by his cousin; also\n he finds lamenting over a dead instructed by her about the\n knight. magic sword.\n\n 8. Adventure with the damsel of the 6. Blanchefleur, Gonemant's\n besieged castle who offers niece.\n herself to hero.\n\n 9. Second meeting with the lady of 9.\n the tent.\n\n 10. First encounter with the\n sorceresses of Gloucester, who\n are forced to desist from\n assailing hero's hostess.\n\n 11. Adventure of the drops of blood 10.\n in the snow.\n\n 20. Reproaching of Peredur before 11.\n the Court by the loathly damsel.\n\n 21. Gwalchmai's adventure with the 14.\n lady whose father he had slain.\n\n 22. Peredur's meeting the knight on 15. Hermit, hero's uncle.\n Good Friday, and confession to\n priest.\n _Gautier._\n 24. Arrival at the Castle of Wonders Inc. 7, 8, and partly 13 and 18.\n (Chessboard Castle); stag hunt;\n loss of dog; fight with the\n black man of the cromlech.\n\n 25. Second arrival at the (Grail) 22. In so far as Gautier ends his\n castle; achievement of the Quest part of the story here with\n by destruction of sorceresses of the hero's second arrival at\n Gloucester. \"Thus it is related the Grail Castle, but no\n concerning the Castle of similarity in the incidents.\n Wonders.\"\n\nThe sequence is thus exactly the same in the Mabinogi and in Chrestien,\nwith the single exception of the Blanchefleur incident, which, in the\nFrench poem precedes, in the Welsh tale follows, the first visit to the\nGrail Castle. The similarity of order is sufficient of itself to warrant\nthe surmise of a relation such as that of copy to original. If the\nMabinogi be examined closely, much will be found to strengthen this\nsurmise. Thus, Birch-Hirschfeld has pointed out that when Peredur first\nsees the knights, and on asking his mother what they may be, receives the\nanswer, \"Angels, my son\"; this can only be a distorted reminiscence of\nPerceval's own exclamation,\n\n ... Ha! sire Dex, Merchi!\n Ce sont angle que je voi ci! (1,349-50).\n\nas the hero's mother would be the last person to describe thus the knights\nwhom she has done her best to guard her son from knowledge of. Again,\nSimrock has criticised, and with reason, the incident of Peredur's being\nacclaimed by the dwarf on his arrival at Arthur's court as the chief of\nwarriors and flower of knighthood. In the corresponding incident in\nChrestien, the hero is told laughingly by a damsel that he should become\nthe best knight in the world, and she had not laughed for ten years, as a\nfool had been wont to declare. This is an earlier form than that of the\nMabinogi, and closer to the folk-tale account. Thus, to take one instance\nonly, in Mr. Kennedy's Giolla na Chroicean Gobhar (Fellow with the\nGoat-skin) [Fictions of the Irish Celts, p. 23], the hero comes to the\nKing of Dublin, as Peredur to Arthur, clad in skins and armed with a club.\n\"Now, the King's daughter was so melancholy that she didn't laugh for\nseven years, but when she saw Tom of the Goat-skin knock over all her\nfather's best champions, then she let a great sweet laugh out of her,\" and\nof course Tom marries her, but not until he has been through all sorts of\ntrials, aye, even to Hell itself and back. In Chrestien, the primitive\nform is already overlaid; we hear nothing further of the damsel moved to\nlaughter nor of the prophetic fool; and in the Mabinogi it seems obvious\nthat the hailing of the hero, added in Chrestien to the older laughter,\nhas alone subsisted. Birch-Hirschfeld takes exception likewise to the way\nin which Peredur's two uncles are brought upon the scene, the first one,\ncorresponding to Gonemans in Chrestien, being found fishing instead of the\nreal Fisher King, the lord of the Castle of the Magic Talismans, whilst at\nthe latter's, Peredur has to undergo trials of his strength belonging\nproperly to his stay at the first uncle's. Evidently, says\nBirch-Hirschfeld, there has been a confusion of the two personages. Again,\nwhen Peredur leaves his second uncle on the morrow of seeing the bleeding\nhead and spear, it is said, \"he rode forth with his uncle's permission.\"\nCan these words be a reminiscence of Chrestien's?\n\n Et trueve le pont abaisci\u00e9,\n Con li avoit ensi laissi\u00e9\n Por ce que rien nel detenist,\n De quele eure qu'il venist\n Que il ne passat sans arriest (4,565-69).\n\nWe shall see later on that in the most primitive form of the unsuccessful\nvisit to the Castle of the Talismans the hero finds himself on the morrow\non the bare earth, the castle itself having vanished utterly. The idea of\npermission being given to leave is diametrically opposed to this earliest\nconception, and its presence in the Mabinogi seems only capable of\nexplanation by some misunderstanding of the story-teller's model.\n\nThe Blanchefleur incident shows some verbal parallels, \"The maiden\nwelcomed Peredur and put her arms around his neck.\"\n\n Et la damosele le prent\n Par le main d\u00e9bonnairement (3,025-26)\n Et voit celi ajenouillie\n Devant son lit qui le tenoit\n Par le col embraciet estroit (3,166-68).\n\nCan, too, the \"two nuns,\" who bring in bread and wine, be due to the \"Il\nAb\u00e9ies,\" which Perceval sees on entering Blanchefleur's town? It may be\nnoticed that in this scene the Welsh story-teller is not only more chaste,\nbut shows much greater delicacy of feeling than the French poet. Peredur's\nconduct is that of a gentleman according to nineteenth century standards.\nChrestien, however, is probably nearer the historical reality, and the\nconduct of his pair--\n\n S'il l'a sor le covertoir mise\n\n * * * *\n\n Ensi giurent tote la nuit.\n\nis so singularly like that of a Welsh _bundling_ couple, that it seems\nadmissible to refer the colouring given to this incident to Welsh sources.\nAnother scene presenting marked similarities in the two works is that in\nwhich the hero is upbraided before the court by the loathly damsel. In the\nMabinogi she enters riding upon a _yellow_ mule with _jagged thongs_: in\nChrestien--\n\n Sor une _fauve mule_ et tint\n En sa main destre une escorgie (5,991-2).\n\n\"Blacker were her face and her two hands than the blackest iron covered\nwith pitch.\"\n\n Ains ne v\u00e9istes si noir fer\n Come ele ot les mains et le cor (5,998-99).\n\n\"And she greeted Arthur and all his household except Peredur.\"\n\n Le roi et ses barons salue\n Tout ensamble comunalment\n Fors ke Perceval seulement (6,020-3).\n\nIn the Mabinogi, Peredur is reproached for not having asked about the\nstreaming spear; in Chrestien \"la lance qui saine\" is mentioned first\nalthough the Grail is added. Had Peredur asked the meaning and cause of\nthe wonders, the \"King would have been restored to health, and his\ndominions to peace.\"\n\n Li rices rois qui moult s'esmaie\n Fust or tos garis de sa plaie\n Et si tenist sa ti\u00e8re en pais (6,049-51).\n\nWhereas now \"his knights will perish, and wives will be widowed, and\nmaidens will be left portionless\"--\n\n Dames en perdront lor maris,\n Ti\u00e8res en seront essilies,\n Et puci\u00e8les desconsellies;\n Orfenes, veves en remanront\n Et maint chevalier en morront (6,056, etc.).\n\nIn the \"Stately Castle\" where dwells the loathly damsel, are five hundred\nand sixty-six knights, and \"the lady whom he loves best with each,\" in\n\"Castle Orguellos\" five hundred and seventy, and not one \"qui n'ait s'amie\navoeques lui.\" \"And whoever would acquire fame in arms and encounters and\nconflicts, he will gain it there if he desire it.\"\n\n Que la ne faut nus ki i alle,\n Qui la ne truist joste u batalle;\n Qui viout faire chevalerie,\n Si l\u00e0 le quiert, n'i faura mie (6,075, etc.).\n\n\"And whoso would reach the summit of fame and honour, I know where he may\nfind it. There is a castle on a lofty mountain, and there is a maiden\ntherein, and she is detained a prisoner there, and whoever shall set her\nfree will attain the summit of the fame of the world.\"\n\n Mais ki vorroit le pris avoir\n De tout le mont, je quie savoir\n Le liu et la pi\u00e8ce de terre\n U on le porroit mius conquerre;\n\n * * * *\n\n A une damoisi\u00e8le assise;\n Moult grant honor aroit conquise,\n Qui le si\u00e8ge en poroit oster\n Et la puci\u00e8le d\u00e9livrer (6,080, etc.).\n\nIn this last case certainly, in the other cases probably, a direct\ninfluence, to the extent at least of the passages quoted, must be\nadmitted. But before concluding hastily that the Welsh story-teller is the\ncopyist, some facts must be mentioned on the other side. Thus the incident\nof the blood drops in the snow, which Birch-Hirschfeld sets down as one of\nthose taken over by the Mabinogi, with the remark that the Welsh story\ncontains no trace of a passion as strong as Perceval's for Blanchefleur,\nhas been dealt with by Professor H. Zimmer in his \"Keltische Studien,\"\nvol. ii, pp. 200. He refers to the awakening of Deirdre's love to Noisi by\nsimilar means, as found in the Irish saga of the Sons of Usnech (oldest\nMS. authority, Book of Leinster, copied before 1164 from older MSS.) as\nevidence of the early importance of this _motif_ in Celtic tradition. The\npassage runs thus in English: \"As her foster-father was busy in winter\ntime skinning a calf out in the snow, she beheld a raven which drank up\nthe blood in the snow; and she exclaimed, 'Such a man could I love, and\nhim only, having the three colours, his hair like the raven, his cheeks\nlike the blood, his body like the snow.'\"\n\nNow the Mabinogi says, almost in the same words--the blackness of the\nraven and the whiteness of the snow, and the redness of the blood he\ncompared to the hair and the skin and the two red spots upon the cheek of\nthe lady that best he loved. In Chrestien there is no raven, and the whole\nstress is laid upon the _three_ drops of blood on the snow, which put the\nhero in mind of the red and white of his lady's face. As Zimmer justly\npoints out, the version of the Mabinogi is decidedly the more primitive\nof the two; and that, moreover, as the incident does not figure at all in\nwhat Birch-Hirschfeld presumes to be Chrestien's source, the\nDidot-Perceval, the following development of this incident must, _ex\nhypothesi_, have taken place. In the Didot-Perceval the hero is once upon\na time lost in thought. To explain this, Chrestien invents the incident of\nthe three drops of blood in the snow; the Mabinogi, copying Chrestien,\npresents the incident in almost as primitive a form as the oldest known\none! Here, then, the Mabinogi has preserved an older form than Chrestien,\nalleged to have been its source in all those parts common to both. Nor is\nit certain that the fact of Peredur's undergoing the sword-test in the\nTalisman Castle _does_ show, as Birch-Hirschfeld maintains, that the Welsh\nstory-teller confused the two personages whom he took over from Chrestien,\nGonemans and the Fisher King. The sword incident will be examined later\non; suffice here to say that no explanation is given in the Conte du Graal\nof the broken weapon; whereas the Mabinogi does give a simple and natural\none. But these two instances cannot weaken the force of the parallels\nadduced above. In determining, however, whether these may not be due to\nChrestien's being the borrower, the differences between the two versions\nare of even more importance than the similarities.\n\nWhat are these? The French romances belonging to the Perceval type of the\nGrail quest give two versions of the search for the magic talismans, that\nof the Conte du Graal and that of the Didot-Perceval. The latter\npre-supposes an early history which, as already shown, cannot be looked\nupon as the starting point of the legend without postulating such a\ndevelopment of the latter as is inadmissible on _a priori_ grounds, and as\nruns counter to many well-ascertained facts. The former is not consistent\nwith itself, Manessier's finish contradicting Chrestien's opening on such\nan essential point as the cause of the maimed king's suffering. Still the\nfollowing outline of a story, much overlaid by apparently disconnected\nadventures, may be gathered from it. A hero has to seek for magic\ntalismans wherewith to heal an uncle wounded by his brother, and at the\nsame time to avenge him on that brother. What, on the other hand, is the\nstory as told in the Mabinogi? A hero is minded by talismans to avenge\nthe death of a cousin (and the harming of an uncle); it is not stated that\nthe talismans pass into his possession. It is difficult to admit that\neither of these forms can have served as direct model to the other. If the\nMabinogi be a simple copy of the Conte du Graal, whence the altered\nsignificance of the talismans? whence also the machinery by means of which\nthe hero is at last brought to his goal, and which is, briefly, as\nfollows? The woe which has befallen Peredur's kindred is caused by\nsupernatural beings, the sorceresses of Gloucester; his ultimate\nachievement of the task is brought about by his cousin, who, to urge him\non, assumes the form (1) of the black and loathly damsel; (2) of the\ndamsel of the chessboard, who incites him to the Ysbydinongyl adventure,\nreproves him for not slaying the black man at once, and then urges him\ninto the stag hunt; (3) of the lady who carries off the hound and sends\nhim to fight against the black man of the cromlech; \"and the cousin it was\nwho came in the hall with the bloody head in the salver and the lance\ndripping blood.\" The whole of the incidents connected with the Castle of\nthe Chessboard, which appear at such length in both the Conte du Graal and\nthe Didot-Perceval, but without being in any way connected with the main\nthread of the story, thus form in the Mabinogi an integral portion of that\nmain thread. Would the authors of the Conte du Graal have neglected the\nstraight-forward version of the Welsh tale had they known it, or could, on\nthe other hand, the author of the Mabinogi have worked up the disconnected\nincidents of his alleged model into an organic whole? Neither hypothesis\nis likely. Moreover the Conte du Graal and the Didot-Perceval, if examined\nwith care, show distinct traces of a machinery similar to that of the\nWelsh story. Thus in Chrestien, Perceval, on arriving at the Fisher\nKing's, sees a squire bringing into the room a sword of such good steel\nthat it might break in but one peril, and this the King's niece (_i.e._,\nPerceval's cousin) had sent her uncle to bestow it as he pleased; and the\nKing gives it to the hero for--\n\n ... biaus fr\u00e8re ceste esp\u00e9e\n Vous fu jugie et destine\u00e9 (4,345-6).\n\nAfter Perceval's first adventure at the Grail Castle it is his \"germaine\ncousine\" (4,776) who assails him with her reproaches; she knows all about\nthe sword (4,835-38) and tells him, how, if it be broken he may have it\nmended (4,847-59). So far Chrestien, who furthermore, be it noted, makes\nBlanchefleur Perceval's lady-love, likewise his cousin, she being niece to\nGonemans (3,805-95). A cousin is thus beloved of him, a cousin procures\nfor him the magic sword, a cousin, as in the Mabinogi, incites him to the\nfulfilment of the quest, and gives him advice which we cannot doubt would\nhave been turned to account by Chrestien had he finished his poem. Turning\nnow to Gautier, in whose section of the poem are to be found the various\nadventures growing out of the chessboard incident, this difference between\nthe Mabinogi and himself may be noted. In the former, these adventures\ncaused by Peredur's cousin serve apparently as tests of the hero's\nstrength and courage. The loss of the chessboard is the starting-point of\nthe task, and the cousin reappears as the black maiden. Nothing of the\nsort is found in Gautier. True, the damsel who reproaches Perceval is in\nso far supernatural, as she is a kind of water-nix, but it is love for her\nwhich induces the hero to perform the task; she it is, too, who lends him\nthe dog, and she is not identified with the \"pucelle de malaire\" who\ncarries it off (22,604, etc.). But later on Perceval meets a knight who\ntells him that a daughter of the Fisher King's (thus also a cousin of\nPerceval) had related to him how a knight had carried off a stag's head\nand hound to anger another good knight who had been at her father's court,\nand had not asked as he should concerning the Grail, for which reason she\nhad taken his hound and had refused him help to follow the robber knight\n(23,163, etc.). This makes the \"pucelle de malaire\" to be Perceval's\ncousin, and she plays the same _r\u00f4le_ as in the Mabinogi. True, when later\non (Incident 13) Perceval finds the damsel, nothing is said as to her\nbeing the Fisher King's daughter; on the contrary, as will be seen by the\nsummary, a long story is told about the Knight of the Tomb, brother to her\nknight, Garalas, and how he lived ten years with a fay. She is here quite\ndistinct from the lady of the chessboard to whom Perceval returns later.\nThe version found in the Didot-Perceval agrees with the Mabinogi as\nagainst Gautier in so far that the hero is in love with the mistress of\nthe castle, and not with the damsel who reproaches him for throwing away\nthe chessmen. This reproaching damsel is not in any way identified with\nthe lady who carries off the hound, who is described as \"une vieille,\" and\nof whom it is afterwards told \"elle estoit quand elle voloit une des plus\nbelles damoiselles du monde. Et est cele meismes que mon fr\u00e8re (the\nbrother of the Knight of the Tomb, who here, as in Gautier, is the lover\nof a fay) amena \u00e0 la forest,\" _i.e._, she is the fay herself, sister to\nthe lady of the Chessboard Castle, who hated her and wished to diminish\nher and her knight's pride (p. 469). Here, again, a connection can be\npieced out between the various personages of the adventure; and it appears\nthat the hero is driven to his fight against the Knight of the Tomb by a\nfair damsel transformed into a mysterious hag.[72] The Mabinogi thus gives\none consistently worked-out conception--transformed hag = Peredur's\ncousin--which may be recovered partly from that one of the two discordant\nversions found in Gautier which makes the pucelle de malaire to be the\nFisher King's daughter, hence Perceval's cousin, and connects the stag\nhunt with the Grail incident, partly from the Didot-Perceval, which tells\nhow the same pucelle de malaire is but playing a part, being when she\nwills one of the fairest maids of the world. Now we have seen that the\nstag hunt is just one of those portions of the story in which are found\nthe closest verbal similarities between Gautier de Doulens and the\nDidot-Perceval. It is, therefore, perplexing to find that there is not\nmore likeness in the details of the incident. But the similarities pointed\nout concern chiefly the first part of the incident, and are less prominent\nin the latter part (the hero's encounter with the Knight of the Tomb).\nThis, taken together with the difference in the details of the incident\njust pointed out, strengthens the opinion expressed above, that the\nDidot-Perceval and Gautier are not connected directly but through the\nmedium of a common source, the influence of which can be seen distinctly\nin certain portions of either story, and that when this source fails they\ngo widely asunder in their accounts. That such an hypothesis is not\nunreasonable is shown by the fact that Gautier has two contradictory forms\nof this very story, one of which, that which makes the hound-stealing\ndamsel a daughter of the Fisher King, is on all fours with the Mabinogi,\nwhilst the other is more akin to, though differing in important respects\nfrom, that of the Didot-Perceval. In this case, at least, Gautier must\nhave had two sources, and if two why not more?\n\nIt may be urged in explanation of the similarities between Gautier and the\nMabinogi, that the author of the latter used Gautier in the same free way\nthat he did Chrestien, but that getting tired towards the close of his\nwork he abridged in a much more summary fashion than at first. If the\ncomparison of the versions of the stag hunt found in either work be not\nsufficient to refute this theory, the following consideration may be\nadvanced against it: if the Mabinogi derives entirely from the Conte du\nGraal, how can the different form given to the Grail episode be accounted\nfor?--if it only knew Chrestien, where did it get the chessboard adventure\nfrom, and if it knew Gautier as well as Chrestien why did it not finish\nthe Grail adventure upon the same lines as it began, _i.e._, partly in\nconformity with its alleged model?\n\nIs Manessier any nearer than Gautier to the Mabinogi in the later portion\nof the tale? The chief points of the story told by him may be\nrecapitulated thus:--The Grail damsel is daughter of the Fisher King, the\ndamsel of the salver, daughter of King Goon Desert, his brother (_i.e._,\nboth are cousins to Perceval); Goon Desert, besieged by Espinogre, defeats\nhim, but is treacherously slain by his nephew Partinal, the latter's sword\nbreaking in the blow. Goon's body is brought to the Fisher King's castle,\nwhither the broken sword is likewise brought by Goon's daughter to be kept\nuntil a knight should come, join together the pieces, and avenge Goon's\ndeath. In receiving the sword the Fisher King wounds himself through the\nthighs, and may not be healed until he be avenged on Partinal. Perceval\nasks how he may find the murderer, the blood vengeance (faide = O.H.G.\nFehde) being on him. Perceval fights with Partinal, slays him, cuts off\nhis head as token of his victory, returns to the Fisher King's castle,\nlighting upon it by chance, heals the Fisher King by the mere sight of the\nhead, which is fixed on a pike on the highest battlements. At the death of\nhis uncle Perceval succeeds him as King of the Grail Castle. Here, then,\nas in the Mabinogi, the story turns definitely upon a blood feud; the same\nact which brings about the death of one relative of the hero, also causes,\nindirectly, it is true, the laming of another, even as in the Mabinogi the\nsame supernatural beings kill Peredur's cousin and lame his uncle; the\ncousin reappears again, bringing the magic sword by whose aid alone the\nhero can accomplish the vengeance, and uttering the prediction the\nfulfilment of which will point out the destined avenger. Finally, if the\nMabinogi seems to lay special stress upon the head of the murdered man,\nManessier lays special stress upon the head of the murderer. Now it is\nquite evident that the Mabinogi cannot have copied Manessier. It has been\nalleged that the Welsh story-teller, adapting Chrestien to the taste of\nhis fellow countrymen, substituted a blood feud for the Grail Quest, but\nwhat reason would he have had for thus dealing with Manessier? He had\nsimply to leave out the Christian legendary details, which in Manessier\nare, one can hardly say, adapted to the older form of the story, to find\nin that older form a clear and straightforward account with no admixture\nof mystical elements. It is impossible to explain the strong general\nsimilarity of outline with the equally marked divergences of detail\n(Sorceresses of Gloucester instead of Partinal, etc.,) except by saying\nthat both, though going back to a common legendary source, are unconnected\none with another.\n\nThe facts thus dealt with may be recapitulated as follows:--There is\nmarked similarity in general outline between the Mabinogi and the Conte du\nGraal in the adventures common to both; in that portion of the Conte du\nGraal due to Chrestien there occur, moreover, many and close verbal\nparallels, and the corresponding part of the Mabinogi is told at greater\nlength than the remainder of the incidents common to both works. That\nwhich answers in the Mabinogi to the Grail Quest forms a clear and\nstraightforward whole, the main features of which may be recovered from\nthe Conte du Graal, but in varying proportions from the various sections\nof that work. Thus the indications of this Mabinogi talisman quest, the\ncentral intrigue, as it may be called, of the tale, are in Chrestien of\nthe slightest nature, being confined to passing hints; in Gautier they are\nfuller and more precise, though pointing to a version of the central\nintrigue different, not only in details but in conception, from that of\nthe Mabinogi; in Manessier alone is there agreement of conception,\nalthough the details still vary. Finally, those portions of the Mabinogi\nwhich are in closest verbal agreement with Chrestien contain statements\nwhich cannot easily be reconciled with this central intrigue.\n\nThese facts seem to warrant some such deductions as these. Bearing in mind\nthat the Mabinogi is an obvious piecing together of all sorts of incidents\nrelating to its hero, the only connecting link being that of his\npersonality, its author may be supposed, when compiling his work, to have\nstretched out his hand in all directions for material. Now a portion of\nthe Peredur _sage_ consisted of adventures often found elsewhere in the\nfolk-tale cycles of the Great Fool and the Avenging Kinsman--cycles which,\nin Celtic tradition, at least, cover almost the same ground as the one\ndescribed by J. G. von Hahn under the title, \"Die Arische Aussetzung und\nR\u00fcckkehr-Formel.\" In the original of the Mabinogi this portion probably\ncomprised the childhood and forest up-bringing, the visit to Arthur with\nthe accompanying incidents, the training by the uncle (who _may_ have been\nthe Fisher King), the arrival at the (bespelled) castle, where the hero is\nto be minded of his task by the sight of certain talismans and of his\ncousin's head, the reproaches of the loathly damsel, her subsequent\ntesting of the hero by the adventures of the chessboard, stag hunt, etc.,\nthe hero's final accomplishment of the task, vengeance on his kindred's\nenemies, and removal of the spells. There would seem to have been no such\nlove story as that frequently found in stories of the Great Fool class,\n_e.g._, in the Irish one (_supra_, p. 134). This original was probably\nsome steps removed from being a genuine popular version; the incidents\nwere presented in a way at once over-concise and confused, and some which,\nas will be seen in the next chapter, the living folk-tale has preserved\nwere left out or their significance was not recognized. What more natural\nthan that the author of the Mabinogi in its present form, knowing\nChrestien, should piece out his bare, bald narrative with shreds and\npatches from the Frenchman's poem? The moment Chrestien fails him, he\nfalls back into the hurried concision of his original. His adaptation of\nChrestien is done with singularly little skill, and at times he seems to\nhave misunderstood his model. He confines his borrowing to matters of\ndetail, not allowing, for instance, Chrestien's presentment of the Grail\nincident to supersede that of his Welsh original. In one point he may,\nfollowing Chrestien, have made a vital change. It seems doubtful whether\nthe Welsh source of the Mabinogi knew of a maimed king, an uncle to be\nhealed through the hero's agency; the sole task may have been the avenging\nthe cousin's death. True the \"lame uncle\" appears at the end, but this may\nbe due to some sudden desire for consistency on the arranger's part. But\nwhether or no he was found in the Welsh story preserved in the Mabinogi,\nhe certainly played no such leading part as in the Conte du Graal. The two\nstories deal with the same cycle of adventures, but the object of the hero\nis not the same in both, and, consequently, the machinery employed is not\nquite the same. The present Mabinogi is an unskilful fusion of these two\nvariations upon the one theme.[73]\n\nLight is also thrown by this investigation upon the question of\nChrestien's relationship to his continuators. Birch-Hirschfeld's theory\nthat the Didot-Perceval was the source of Chrestien and Gautier has\nalready been set aside. Apart from the reasons already adduced, the fact\nthat it does not explain from whence Manessier got his ending of the story\nwould alone condemn it. It must now be evident that Chrestien and two of\nhis continuators drew from one source, and this a poem of no great length\nprobably, the main outlines of which were nearly the same as those of the\nWelsh proto-Mabinogi given above, with this difference, that the story\nturned upon the healing of the uncle and not the avenging the cousin's\ndeath. This poem, which seems also to have served, directly or indirectly,\nas one of the sources of the Didot-Perceval, had probably departed from\npopular lines in many respects, and _may_, though this would be an\nexceedingly difficult question to determine, have begun the incorporation\nof the Joseph of Arimathea legend with its consequent wresting to purposes\nof Christian symbolisms of the objects and incidents of the old folk-tale.\n\nSuch an incorporation had almost certainly begun before Chrestien's time,\nand was continued by him. There can be little doubt that he dealt with his\nmodel in a free and daring spirit, altering and adding as seemed best to\nhim. This alone explains how Manessier, slavishly following the common\noriginal, tells differently the cause of the lame king's wound. Gautier,\nwho lacked Chrestien's creative power, though he often equals him in the\ngrace and vivacity of his narrative, seems to have had no conception of a\nplan; the section of Conte du Graal which goes under his name is a mere\ndisorderly heap of disconnected adventures brought together without care\nfor consistency. But for this very reason he is of more value in restoring\nthe original form of the story than Chrestien, who, striving after\nconsistency, harmony, and artistic development of his tale, alters, adds\nto, or retrenches from the older version. Gautier had doubtless other\nsources besides the one made use of by Chrestien. This does not seem to be\nthe case with Manessier, who, for this portion of the story, confined\nhimself to Chrestien's original, without taking note of the differences in\n_motif_ introduced by his predecessor. What is foreign to it he drew from\nsources familiar to us, the Queste and Grand S. Graal, from which more\nthan two-thirds of his section are derived.\n\nIn working back to the earliest form of the Perceval-_sage_, Mabinogi and\nConte du Graal are thus of equal value and mutually complementary. Both\nare second-hand sources, and their testimony is at times sadly corrupt,\nbut it is from them chiefly that information must be sought as to the\nearlier stages of development of this legendary cycle. They do not by\nthemselves give any satisfactory explanation of the more mysterious\nfeatures of the full-blown legend, but they do present the facts in such a\nway as to put out of court the hypothesis of a solely Christian legendary\norigin. Before proceeding further it will be well to see if the English\nSir Perceval has likewise claims to be considered one of the versions\nwhich yield trustworthy indications as to the older form of the story.\n\nThis poem, described by Halliwell as simply an abridged English version of\nthe Conte du Graal, has, as may be seen by reference to Ch. IV, been\ntreated with more respect by other investigators, several of whom, struck\nby its archaic look, have pronounced it one of the earliest versions of\nthe Perceval _sage_. It has quite lately been the object of elaborate\nstudy by Paul Steinbach in his dissertation: \"Uber dem Einfluss des\nCrestien de Troies auf die altenglische literatur,\" Leipzig, 1885. The\nresults of his researches may be stated somewhat as follows: the two works\ncorrespond incident for incident down to the death of the Red Knight, the\nchief differences being that Perceval is made a nephew of King Arthur,\nthat the death of his father at the hands of the Red Knight is explained\nas an act of revenge on the part of the latter, that Arthur recognizes his\nnephew at once, and tells him concerning the Red Knight, and that the\nburning of the Red Knight, only hinted at in Chrestien's lines--\n\n Ains auroie par carbonees.\n Trestout escarbelli\u00e9 le mort, etc. (2,328-9).\n\nis fully told in the English poem. After the Red Knight incident the\nparallelism is much less close. The English poem has incidents to itself:\nthe slaying of the witch, the meeting with the uncle and nine cousins, the\nfight with the giant for the ring, the meeting with and restoring to\nhealth the mother. Of the remaining incidents, those connected with\nLufamour are more or less parallel to what Chrestien relates of his hero's\nadventure with Blanchefleur, and that of the Black Knight, with that of\nthe Orgellous de la Lande in Chrestien. Of the 2,288 verses of the English\npoem the greater part may be paralleled from Chrestien, thus:--\n\n P. of G. Cr.\n 1-160 485-940\n 161-188 941-1,206\n 189-256 1,207-82\n 257-320 1,283-1,554\n 321-432 1,555-1,828\n 433-80 1,829-1,970\n 481-600 2,091-2,170\n {2,055-90\n 601-56 {2,135-59\n {2,171-2,225\n 657-740 2,268-2,312\n 741-820 2,313-2,398\n 1,061-1,108 4,000-4,060\n 1,109-1,124 5,511-553\n 1,381-1,540 5,600-5,891\n 953-1,012}\n 1,125-1,380} {2,900-3,960\n 1,541-1,760} {4,088-94\n 1,761-1,808 4,095-4,150\n 1,809-1,951 4,865-5,375\n\nthe incidents comprised v. 821-952 and 1,953-2,288, being the only one\nentirely unconnected with Chrestien. This general agreement between the\ntwo works shows the dependence of the one on the other. But while\nevidently dependent, the English poem, as is shown by the differences\nbetween it and its French original, belongs at once to a less and to a\nmore highly developed stage of the Perceval _sage_. The differences are\nthus of two kinds, those testifying to the writer's adherence to older,\nprobably Breton, popular traditions and those due to himself, and\ntestifying to the skill with which he has worked up his materials and\nfitted portions of Chrestien's poem into an older framework. Of the first\nkind are: the statement that Perceval meets with three knights instead of\nfive as in Chrestien, the English poem agreeing here with the Mabinogi;\nthe mention of his riding on a _mare_ and of his being clad in goat-skins,\nthe English poem again agreeing rather with the Mabinogi than with\nChrestien, and showing likewise points of contact with the Breton ballads\nabout Morvan lez Breiz, printed by Villemarqu\u00e9 in the Barzaz Breiz. The\ncombat with the giant may likewise be paralleled from the Lez Breiz cycle\nin that hero's fight with the Moorish giant. These points would seem to\nindicate knowledge on the author's part of popular traditions concerning\nPerceval forming a small cycle, of which the departure from, and return to\nthe mother were the opening and closing incidents respectively. This form\nof the story must have been widely spread and popular to induce the author\nto leave out as much as he has done of Chrestien's poem in order to bring\nit within the traditional framework. He accomplished his task with much\nskill, removing every trace of whatever did not bear directly upon the\nmarch of the story as he told it. In view of this skill differences which\ntend to make the story more consequent and logical may fairly be ascribed\nto him. Such are: the making Perceval a nephew of Arthur, the mention of a\nfeud between the Red Knight and Perceval's father, the combat with the\nwitch arising out of Perceval's wearing the Red Knight's armour, and the\nother adventures which follow eventually from the same cause, the feature\nthat the ring taken by Perceval from the lady in the tent is a magic one,\nendowing its wearer with supernatural strength, the change made between\nthis ring and his mother's which prepares the final recognition, etc. The\noriginal poem probably ended with the reunion of mother and son, the last\nverse, briefly mentioning the hero's death, being a later addition. To sum\nup, Sir Perceval may be looked upon as the work of a folk-singer who\nfitted into the old Breton framework a series of adventures taken partly\nfrom Chrestien, partly from the same Breton traditions which were\nChrestien's main source, and with remarkable skill avoided all such\nincidents as would not have accorded with the limits he had imposed upon\nhimself.\n\nAgainst this view of Steinbach's it might be urged that a writer as\nskilful as the author of Sir Perceval is assumed to be could easily have\nworked Chrestien's Grail episode into his traditional framework. A more\nplausible explanation, assuming the theory to be in the main correct,\nmight be found in the great popularity in this country of the Galahad form\nof the Quest, and the consequent unwillingness on the author's part to\nbring in what may have seemed to him like a rival version. Steinbach has\nnot noticed one curious bit of testimony to the poem's being an abridgment\nof an older work, more archaic in some respects than Chrestien. When the\nhero has slain the Red Knight he knows not how to rid him of his armour,\nbut he bethinks him--\n\n ... \"My moder bad me\n Whenne my dart solde brokene be,\n Owte of the irene brenne the tree,\n Now es me fyre gnede\" (749-52).\n\nNow the mother's counsel, given in verses xxv-vi are solely that he should\nbe \"of mesure,\" and be courteous to knights; nothing is said about burning\nthe tree out of the iron, nor does any such counsel figure either in\nChrestien or in the Mabinogi, which in this passage has copied, with\nmisunderstandings, the French poet.[74] The use of Chrestien by the author\nof Sir Perceval seems, however, uncontestable; and, such being the case,\nSteinbach's views meet the difficulties of the case fairly well. It will\nbe shown farther on, however, that several of the points in which the\nGerman critic detects a post-Chrestien development, are, on the contrary,\nremains of as old and popular a form of the story as we can work back to.\nAccepting, then, the hypothesis that Sir Perceval, like the Mabinogi, has\nbeen influenced by Chrestien, what is the apparent conclusion to be drawn\nfrom the fact that the former omits the Grail episode altogether, whilst\nthe latter joins Chrestien's version to its own, presumably older one, so\nclumsily as to betray the join at once? May it not be urged that\nChrestien's account is obviously at variance with the older story as he\nfound it? may not the fact be accounted for by the introduction of a\nstrange element into the thread of the romance? This element would,\naccording to Birch-Hirschfeld, be the Christian holy-vessel legend, and it\nwould thus appear that the Grail is really foreign to the Celtic\ntradition. Let me recapitulate briefly the reasons already urged against\nsuch a view. The early history of the Grail, that part in which the\nChristian element prevails, must certainly be regarded as later than the\nQuest, to which it could not have given rise without assuming such a\ndevelopment of the romance as is well nigh incredible--the Quest versions,\nmoreover, all hang together in certain respects, and point unmistakably to\nCeltic traditions as their source. These traditions must then be examined\nfurther to see if they contain such traces of the mystic vessel as are\nwanting in the Mabinogi and the English poem, and as may have given rise\nto the episode as found in the French romances. As Perceval is the oldest\nhero of the Quest, and as the boyhood of Perceval, forming an integral\npart of all the oldest Quest versions presents the strongest analogies\nwith the folk-tale of the Great Fool, it is this tale which must now be\nexamined.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n The Lay of the Great Fool--Summary of the Prose Opening--The Aryan\n Expulsion and Return Formula--Comparison with the Mabinogi, Sir\n Perceval, and the Conte du Graal--Originality of the Highland\n tale--Comparison with the Fionn legend--Summary of the Lay of the\n Great Fool--Comparison with the stag hunt incident in the Conte du\n Graal and the Mabinogi--The folk-tale of the twin brethren--The fight\n against the witch who brings the dead to life in Gerbert and the\n similar incident in the folk-tale of the Knight of the Red\n Shield--Comparison with the original form of the Mabinogi--Originality\n of Gerbert.\n\n\nOne of the most popular of the poetic narratives in the old heroic\nquatrain measure still surviving in the Highlands is the \"Lay of the Great\nFool\" (Laoidh an Amadain Mhoir), concerning which, according to Campbell,\nvol. iii., p. 150, the following saying is current:--\"Each poem to the\npoem of the Red; each lay to the Lay of the Great Fool; each history to\nthe history of Connal\" (is to be referred as a standard). This Lay, as\nwill be shown presently, offers some remarkable similarities with the\ncentral Grail episode of the quest romances, but before it is investigated\na prose opening often found with it must be noticed. This prose opening\nmay be summarised thus from Campbell, vol. iii., pp. 146, _et seq._\n\nThere were once two brothers, the one King over Erin, the other a mere\nknight. The latter had sons, the former none. Strife broke out between the\ntwo brothers, and the knight and his sons were slain. Word was sent to the\nwife, then pregnant, that if she bore a son it must be put to death. It\nwas a lad she had, and she sent him into the wilderness in charge of a\nkitchen wench who had a love son. The two boys grew up together, the\nknight's son strong and wilful. One day they saw three deer coming towards\nthem; the knight's son asked what creatures were these--creatures on which\nwere meat and clothing 'twas answered--it were the better he would catch\nthem, and he did so, and his foster-mother made him a dress of the deer's\nhide. Afterwards he slew his foster-brother for laughing at him, caught a\nwild horse, and came to his father's brother's palace. He had never been\ncalled other than \"Great fool,\" and when asked his name by his cousin,\nplaying shinty, answered, \"Great Fool.\" His cousin mocked at him, and was\nforthwith slain. On going into the King's (his uncle's) presence, he\nanswered in the same way. His uncle recognised him, and reproaching\nhimself for his folly in not having slain the mother with the father, went\nwith him, as did all the people.\n\nIn my article on the Aryan Expulsion and Return Formula among the Celts\n(\"Folk-Lore Record,\" vol. iv.), I have shown that this tale is widely\ndistributed in the Celtic Heldensage as well as in the Celtic folk-tale.\nBefore noticing the variants, a word of explanation may be necessary. The\nterm, Arische Aussetzungs-und R\u00fcckkehr-Formel, was first employed by J. G.\nv. Hahn in his Sagwissenschaftliche Studien (Jena, 1876), to describe a\ntale which figured in the heroic literature of every Aryan race known to\nhim. He examined fourteen stories, seven belonging to the Hellenic\nmythology, Perseus, Herakles, Oedipus, Amphion and Zethos, Pelias and\nNeleus, Leukastos and Parrhasius, Theseus; one to Roman mythic history,\nRomulus and Remus; two to the Teutonic Heldensage, Wittich-Siegfried,\nWolfdietrich; two to Iranian mythic history, Cyrus, Key Chosrew; two to\nthe Hindu mythology, Karna, Krishna. I was able to recover from Celtic\nliterature eight well-defined variants, belonging to the Fenian and\nUltonian cycles of Irish Heldensage (heroes, Fionn and Cu-Chulaind); to\nIrish mythic history, Labraidh Maen; to the folk-tale still living in the\nHighlands, Conall and the Great Fool; to the Kymric Heldensage,\nPeredur-Perceval, Arthur, and Taliesin. An examination of all these tales\nresulted in the establishing of the following standard formula, to the\nentirety of which it will of course be understood none of the tales\nanswer:--\n\n I. Hero born--\n (_a_) Out of wedlock.\n (_b_) Posthumously.\n (_c_) Supernaturally.\n (_d_) One of twins.\n\n II. Mother, princess residing in her own country.\n\n III. Father--\n (_a_) God }\n (_b_) Hero } from afar.\n\n IV. Tokens and warning of hero's future greatness.\n\n V. He is in consequence driven forth from home.\n\n VI. Is suckled by wild beasts.\n\n VII. Is brought up by a (childless couple), or shepherd, or widow.\n\n VIII. Is of passionate and violent disposition.\n\n IX. Seeks service in foreign lands.\n\n IXA. Attacks and slays monsters.\n\n IXB. Acquires supernatural knowledge through eating a fish, or other\n magic animal.\n\n X. Returns to his own country, retreats, and again returns.\n\n XI. Overcomes his enemies, frees his mother, seats himself on the\n throne.\n\nI must refer to my article for a full discussion of the various Celtic\nforms of this widely-spread tale, and for a tabular comparison with the\nremaining Indo-European forms analysed by J. G. von Hahn. Suffice to say\nhere that the fullest Celtic presentment of the _motif_ is to be found in\nthe Ossianic Heldensage, the expelled prince being no other than Fionn\nhimself. The Celtic form most closely related to it is that of the Great\nFool summarised above, the relationship of Peredur-Perceval with which is\nevident. In both, the father being slain, the mother withdraws or sends\nher son into the wilderness; in both he grows up strong, hardy, ignorant\nof the world. Almost the same instances of his surpassing strength and\nswiftness are given; in the Mabinogi by celerity and swiftness of foot he\ndrives the goats and hinds into the goat-house; in the Highland folk-tale\nhe catches the wild deer, and seeing a horse, and learning it is a beast\nupon which sport is done, stretches out after it, catches and mounts it;\nin Sir Perceval he sees--\n\n ... A fulle faire stode\n Offe coltes and meres gude,\n Bot never one was tame (v. xxi.).\n\nand \"smertly overrynnes\" one.--The Great Fool then comes to his uncle, in\nwhom he finds the man who has killed his father. Sir Perceval likewise\ncomes to his uncle, and gets knowledge from him of his father's slayer; in\nChrestien and the Mabinogi no relationship is stated to exist between\nArthur and the hero. The manner of the coming deserves notice. In the\nConte du Graal, entering the hall the hero salutes the King twice,\nreceives no answer, and, turning round his horse in dudgeon, knocks off\nthe King's cap.\n\nIn the English poem--\n\n At his first in comynge,\n His mere withowtenne faylynge,\n Kiste the forehevede of the Kynge,\n So nerehande he rade (v. xxxi.).\n\nHe then demands knighthood or--\n\n Bot (unless) the Kyng make me knyghte,\n I shall him here slaa (v. xxxiii.).\n\nIn the Great Fool the horse incident is wanting, but the hero's address to\nhis uncle is equally curt: \"I am the great fool ... and if need were it is\nthat I could make a fool of thee also.\" The incident then follows of the\ninsult offered to Arthur by the Red Knight. Here, be it noted, the\nMabinogi version is much the ruder of the three, \"the knight dashed the\nliquor that was in the goblet upon her (Gwenhwyvar's) face, and upon her\nstomacher, and gave her a violent blow in the face, and said,\" &c.; in\nChrestien the incident is not directly presented, but related at\nsecond-hand, and merely that the discourteous knight took away the goblet\nso suddenly that he spilt somewhat of its contents upon the queen, and\nthat she was so filled with grief and anger that well nigh she had not\nescaped alive; in Sir Perceval the knight takes up the cup and carries it\noff. Now it is a _lieu commun_ of Celtic folk-tales that as a King is\nsitting at meat, an enemy comes in mounted, and offers him an insult, the\navenging of which forms the staple of the tale. A good instance may be\nfound in Campbell's lii., \"The Knight of the Red Shield.\" As the King is\nwith his people and his warriors and his nobles and his great gentles, one\nof them says, \"who now in the four brown quarters of the Universe would\nhave the heart to put an affront on the King?\"--then comes the rider on a\nblack filly, and, \"before there was any more talk between them, he put\nover the fist and he struck the King between the mouth and the nose.\" It\nis noteworthy that this tale shows further likeness to the Mabinogi-Great\nFool series, generally, in so far as it is the despised youngest who out\nof the three warriors that set off to avenge the insult succeeds, even as\nit is the despised Peredur who slays the Red Knight, and specially in what\nmay be called the prophecy incident. With the exception of the opening\nincidents, this is the one by which the \"formula\" nature of the Perceval\n_sage_ is most clearly shown. In the Mabinogi it is placed immediately\nafter the hero's first encounter with the sorceresses of Gloucester: \"by\ndestiny and foreknowledge knew I that I should suffer harm of thee,\" says\nthe worsted witch. The Conte du Graal has only a trace of it in the Fisher\nKing's words as he hands the magic sword to Perceval--\n\n ... Biaus fr\u00e8re, ceste esp\u00e9e\n Vous fu jugie et destin\u00e9e (4345-6),\n\nwhilst in Sir Perceval a very archaic turn is given to the incident by\nArthur's words concerning his unknown nephew--\n\n The bokes say that he mone\n Venge his fader bane (v. xxxvi.).\n\nThis comparison is instructive as showing how impossible it is that\nChrestien's poem can be the only source of the Mabinogi and Sir Perceval.\nIt cannot be maintained that the meagre hint of the French poet is the\nsole origin of the incident as found in the Welsh and English versions,\nwhilst a glance at my tabulation of the various forms of the Aryan\nExpulsion and Return formula (\"Folk-Lore Record,\" vol. iv.) shows that the\nforetelling of the hero's greatness is an important feature in eight of\nthe Celtic and five of the non-Celtic versions, _i.e._, in more than\none-third of all the stories built up on the lines of the formula. It is\nevident that here at least Mabinogi and Sir Perceval have preserved a\ntrait almost effaced in the romance. In the above-mentioned Highland tale\nthe incident is as follows: the hero finds \"a treasure of a woman sitting\non a hill, and a great youth with his head on her knee asleep\"; he tries\nto wake the sleeper, even cuts off his finger, but in vain, until he\nlearns how it was in the prophecies that none should rouse the sleeping\nyouth save the Knight of the Red Shield, and he, coming to the island,\nshould do it by striking a crag of stone upon his breast. This tale, as\nalready remarked, shows affinity to the Perceval saga in two incidents,\nand is also, as I have pointed out (\"Folk-Lore Record,\" vol. v.,\nMabinogion Studies), closely allied to a cycle of German hero and\nfolk-tales, of which Siegfried is the hero. Now Siegfried is in German\nthat which Fionn is in Celtic folk-lore, the hero whose story is modelled\nmost closely upon the lines of the Expulsion and Return formula. We thus\nfind not only, as might be expected, affinity between the German and\nCeltic hero-tales which embody the formula, but the derived or allied\ngroups of folk-tales present likewise frequent and striking\nsimilarities.[75]\n\nAnother Highland tale (Campbell, lviii., The Rider of Grianaig) furnishes\na fresh example of this fact. Here, also, the deeds to be done of the hero\nwere prophesied of him. But these deeds he would never accomplish, save he\nwere incited thereto and aided therein by a raven, who in the end comes\nout as a be-spelled youth, and a steed, a maiden under spells, and the\nspells will not go off till her head be off. Even so Peredur is urged on\nand helped by the bewitched youth. In other respects, there is no likeness\nof plan and little of detail[76] to the Mabinogi, certainly no trace of\ndirect influence of the Welsh story upon the Highland one.\n\nIt may, however, be asserted that all of these tales are derived more or\nless directly from the French romance. This has been confidently stated of\nthe Breton ballad cycle of Morvan le Breiz (Barzaz Breiz) and of the\nBreton M\u00e4rchen, Peronik l'idiot (Souvestre, Foyer Breton), and I have\npreferred making no use of either. In the matter of the Scotch and Irish\ntales a stand must be made. The romance, it is said, may have filtered\ndown into the Celtic population, through the medium of adaptations such as\nthe Mabinogi or Sir Perceval. Granted, for argument sake, that these two\nworks are mere adaptations, it must yet follow that the stories derived\nfrom them will be more or less on the same lines as themselves. Is this\nso? Can it be reasonably argued that the folk-tale of the Great Fool is a\nweakened copy of certain features of the Mabinogi, which itself is a\nweakened copy of certain features of the French poem? Is it not the fact\nthat the folk-tale omits much that is in the Mabinogi, and on the other\nhand preserves details which are wanting not alone in the Welsh tale but\nin Chrestien. If other proof of the independent nature of these tales were\nneeded it would be supplied by the close similarity existing between the\nGreat Fool opening and the Fionn legend. This is extant in several forms,\none of which, still told in the Highlands (Campbell's lxxxii.), tells how\nCumhall's son is reared in the wilderness, how he drowns the youth of a\nneighbouring hamlet, how he slays his father's slayer, and wins the magic\ntrout the taste of which gives knowledge of past and to come, how he gets\nback his father's sword and regains his father's lands, all as had been\nprophesied of him. Another descendant of the French romance it will be\nsaid. But a very similar tale is found in a fifteenth century Irish MS.\n(The Boyish Exploits of Finn Mac Cumhall, translated by Dr. J. O'Donovan\nin the Transactions of the Ossianic Society, vol. iv.); Cumhall, slain by\nGoll, leaves his wife big with a son, who when born is reared by two\ndruidesses. He grows up fierce and stalwart, overcomes all his age-mates,\novertakes wild deer he running, slays a boar, and catches the magic salmon\nof knowledge. An eighteenth century version given by Kennedy (\"Legendary\nFictions,\" p. 216) makes Cumhall offer violence to Muirrean, daughter of\nthe druid Tadg, and his death to be chiefly due to the magic arts of the\nincensed father. It will hardly be contended that these stories owe their\norigin to adaptations of Chrestien's poem. But in any case no such\ncontention could apply to the oldest presentment of Fionn as a formula\nhero, that found in the great Irish vellum, the Leabhar na h'Uidhre,\nwritten down from older materials at the beginning of the twelfth century.\nThe tract entitled \"The cause of the battle of Cnucha\" has been translated\nby Mr. Henessey (\"Revue Celtique,\" vol. ii., pp. 86, _et seq._). In it we\nfind Cumhall and Tadhg, the violence done to the latter's daughter, the\nconsequent defeat and death of Cumhall, the lonely rearing of Fionn by his\nmother, and the youth's avenging of his father. I must refer to my paper\nin the \"Folk-Lore Record\" for a detailed argument in favour of the L.n.H.\naccount being an euhemerised version of the popular tradition, represented\nby the Boyish Exploits, and for a comparison of the Fionn _sage_ as a\nwhole with the Greek, Iranian, Latin, and Germanic hero tales, which like\nit are modelled upon the lines of the Expulsion and Return formula. I have\nsaid enough, I trust, to show that the Fionn _sage_ is a variant (a far\nricher one) of the theme treated in the boyhood of Perceval, but that it,\nand _a fortiori_ the allied folk-tales are quite independent of the French\npoem. It then follows that this portion of Chrestien's poem must itself be\nlooked upon as one of many treatments of a theme even more popular among\nthe Celts than among any other Aryan race, and that its ultimate source is\na Breton or Welsh folk-tale.\n\nThe genuine and independent nature of the Great Fool prose opening being\nthus established, it is in the highest degree suggestive to find in the\naccompanying Lay points of contact with the Grail Legend as given in\nChrestien. Three versions of this Lay have been printed in English, that\nedited by Mr. John O'Daly (Transactions of the Ossianic Society, vol. vi.,\npp. 161, _et seq._); Mr. Campbell's (West Highland Tales, vol. iii. pp.\n154, _et seq._) and Mr. Kennedy's prose version (Bardic Stories of\nIreland, pp. 151, _et seq._). O'Daly's, as the most complete and\ncoherent, forms the staple of the following summary, passages found in it\nalone being italicised.[77]\n\n_Summary of the Lay of the Great Fool._--(1) There was a great fool who\nsubdued the world by strength of body; (2) _He comes to the King of\nLochlin to win a fair woman, learns she is guarded by seven score heroes,\noverthrows them, and carries her off_; (C. and K. plunging at once _in\nmedias res_, introduce the Great Fool and his lady love out walking); (3)\nThe two enter a valley, are meet by a \"Gruagach\" (champion, sorcerer), in\nhis hand a goblet with drink; (4) The Great Fool thirsts, and though\nwarned by his lady love drinks deep of the proffered cup; the \"Gruagach\"\ndeparts and the Great Fool finds himself minus his two legs; (5) The two\ngo onward, and (\"swifter was he at his two knees than six at their\nswiftness of foot;\" C.) A deer nears them followed by a white hound, the\nGreat Fool slays the deer and seizes the hound; (6) whose owner coming up\nclaims but finally yields it, and offers the Great Fool food and drink\nduring life; (7) The three fare together (the glen they had passed through\nhad ever been full of glamour) till they come to a fair city filled with\nthe glitter of gold, dwelt in solely by the owner of the white hound and\nhis wife, \"whiter than very snow her form, gentle her eye, and her teeth\nlike a flower\"; (8) She asks concerning her husband's guests, and,\nlearning the Great Fool's prowess, marvels he should have let himself be\ndeprived of his legs; (9) The host departs, leaving his house, wife, and\nstore of gold in the Great Fool's keeping, he is to let no man in, no one\nout should any come in, nor is he to sleep; (10) Spite his lady love's\nurgings the Great Fool yields to slumber, when in comes a young champion\nand snatches a kiss from the host's wife, (\"She was not ill pleased that\nhe came,\" C.); (11) The Great Fool's love awakening him reproaches him for\nhaving slept--he arises to guard the door, in vain does the intruder offer\ngold, three cauldrons full and seven hundred townlands, he shall not get\nout; (12) _At the instigation of the host's wife_ the intruder restores\nthe Great Fool's legs, but not then even will the hero let him go--pay for\nthe kiss he must when the host returns; threats to deprive him of his legs\nare in vain, as are likewise the entreaties of the host's wife (All this\nis developed with great prolixity in O'Daly, but there is nothing\nsubstantial added to the account in C.); (13) Finally the intruder\ndiscloses that he himself is the host, and he was the Gruagach, whose\nmagic cup deprived the Great Fool of his legs, and he is, \"_his own gentle\nbrother long in search of him, now that he has found him he is released\nfrom sorcery_.\" The two kiss (C. and K. end here). (14) The two brothers\nfare forth, encounter a giant with an eye larger than a moon and an iron\nclub, wherewith he hits the Great Fool a crack that brings him to his\nknees, but the latter arising closes with the giant, kills him and takes\nhis club, the two then attack four other giants, three of whom the Great\nFool slays with his club, and the fourth yields to him. The brothers take\npossession of the giant's castle and all its wealth.\n\nThere are obvious similarities between the Lay and the story found in the\nMabinogi and the Conte du Graal. A stag hunt is prominent in both, and\nwhilst engaged in it the hero falls under \"illusion,\" in both too the\nincident of the seizure of the hound appears, though in a different\nconnection. Finally in the Lay, as in the Mabinogi, the mover in the\nenchantment is a kinsman whose own release from spells depends upon the\nhero's coming successfully out of the trials to which he exposes him. But\nwhile the general idea is the same, the way in which it is worked out is\nso different that it is impossible to conceive of the one story having\nbeen borrowed from the other. What can safely be claimed is that the\nGreat Fool, counterpart of Peredur-Perceval in the adventures of his youth\nand up-bringing, is also, to a certain extent, his counterpart in the most\nprominent of his later adventures, that of the stag hunt. It is thus\nfairly certain that all this part of the Conte du Graal is, like the\n_Enfances_, a working up of Celtic folk-tales. The giant fight which\nconcludes the Lay may be compared with that in Sir Perceval and in Morvan\nle Breiz, and such a comparison makes it extremely likely that the\nincident thus preserved by independent and widely differing offshoots from\nthe same folk-tale stem, belongs to the oldest form of the story.\n\nThe analogies of the Lay with the Perceval _sage_ are not yet exhausted.\nIn virtue of the relationship between the two chief characters, the Lay\nbelongs to the \"twin-brother cycle.\" This group of folk-tales, some\naccount of which is given below,[78] is closely related on the one hand\nto the \"dragon slayer\" group of _m\u00e4rchen_, on the other hand to the\nExpulsion and Return formula tales. In many versions of the latter (the\nmost famous being that of Romulus and Remus) the hero is one of twins,\nand, after sharing for a while with his brother, strife breaks out between\nthem. In the folk-tale this strife leads to final reconciliation, or is\nindeed a means of unravelling the plot. In the hero-tale on the other hand\nthe strife mostly ends with the death or defeat of the one brother. It\nwould seem that when the folk-tale got associated with a definite hero\n(generally the founder and patron of a race) and became in brief a\nhero-tale, the necessity of exalting the race hero brought about a\nmodification of the plot. If this is so the folk-tale group of the \"two\nbrothers\" must be looked upon as older than the corresponding portion of\nthe Expulsion and Return hero-tales, and not as a mere weakened echo of\nthe latter. To return to the twin-brother features. The Peredur-Perceval\n_sage_ has a twin-sister, and is parallel herein to the Fionn _sage_ in\none of its forms (\"How the Een was set up\"), though curiously enough not\nto the Great Fool folk-tale (otherwise so similar to \"How the Een was set\nup\"), which, as in the Lay, has a brother. But beyond this formal\nrecognition of the incident in the Perceval _sage_, I am inclined to look\nupon the Perceval-Gawain dualism as another form of it. This dualism has\nbeen somewhat obscured by the literary form in which the _sage_ has been\npreserved and the tendency to exalt and idealise _one_ hero. In the\npresent case this tendency has not developed so far as to seriously\ndiminish the importance of Gawain; _his_ adventures are, however, left in\na much more primitive and _m\u00e4rchenhaft_ shape, and hence, as will be shown\nlater on, are extremely valuable in any attempt to reach the early form of\nthe story.[79]\n\nIf Simrock's words quoted on the title page were indeed conclusive--\"If\nthat race among whom the 'Great Fool' folk-tale was found independent of\nthe Grail story had the best claim to be regarded as having wrought into\none these two elements\"--then my task might be considered at an end. I\nhave shown that this race was that of the Celtic dwellers in these\nislands, among whom this tale is found not only in a fuller and more\nsignificant form than elsewhere, but in a form that connects it with the\nFrench Grail romance. But the conclusion that the Conte du Graal is in the\nmain a working up of Celtic popular traditions, which had clustered round\na hero, whose fortunes bore, in part, a striking resemblance to those of\nFionn, the typical representative of the Expulsion and Return formula\ncycle among the Celts, though hardly to be gainsaid, does not seem to help\nmuch towards settling the question of the origin of the Grail itself. The\nstory would appear to be Celtic except just the central incident upon\nwhich the whole turns. For the English Sir Perceval, which undoubtedly\nfollows older models, breathes no word of search for any magic talisman,\nlet alone the Grail, whilst the Mabinogi, which is also older in parts\nthan the Conte du Graal, gives a different turn to and assigns a\ndifferent _motif_ for the hero's conduct. The avenging of a kinsman's harm\nupon certain supernatural beings, and the consequent release from\nenchantment of another kinsman, supply the elements of a clear and\nconsistent action to which parallels may easily be adduced from\nfolk-tales, but one quite distinct from the release of a kinsman through\nthe medium of certain talismans and certain magic formul\u00e6. Numerous as\nhave been the points of contact hitherto established between Celtic folk\nbelief and the French romance, the parallel would seem to break down at\nits most essential point, and the contention that the Grail is a foreign\nelement in the Celtic legend would still seem to be justified. Before,\nhowever, this can be asserted, what I have called the central episode of\nthe romance requires more searching and detailed examination than it has\nhad, and some accessory features, which, on the hypothesis of the\nChristian legendary origin of the Grail, remain impenetrable puzzles must\nbe commented upon. And another instructive point of contact between\nromance and folk-tale must be previously noticed, connected as it is with\nstories already dealt with in this chapter.\n\nIn the latest portion of the Conte du Graal, the interpolation of Gerbert,\nthe following incident occurs:--The hero meets four knights carrying their\nwounded father, who turns out to be Gonemans, the same who armed him\nknight. He vows vengeance upon Gonemans' enemies, but his efforts are at\nfirst of no avail. As fast as in the daytime he slays them, at night they\nare brought back to life by \"Une vieille\" who is thus described:--\n\n La poitrine ot ag\u00fce et s\u00e8che;\n Ele arsist ausi come une esche\n Si on boutast en li le fu.[80]\n\n * * * *\n\n La bouche avoit grant \u00e0 merveilles\n Et fendue dusqu'as oreilles,\n Qu'ele avoit longues et tendans;\n Lons et lez et gausnes les dans\n Avoit. (Potvin vi., 183, 184.)\n\nShe carries with her\n\n II. barisiax d'ivoire gent;\n\ncontaining a \"poison,\" the same whereof Christ made use in the Sepulchre,\nand which serves here to bring the dead back to life and to rejoin heads\ncut off from bodies. She goes to work thus:--\n\n A la teste maintenant prise,\n Si l'a desor le bu assise;\n\nthen taking the balm\n\n Puis en froie celui la bouche\n \u00c0 cui la teste avoit rajointe;\n Sor celui n'ot vaine ne jointe\n Qui lues ne fust de vie plaine.\n\nPerceval stops her when she has brought back three of her men to life; she\nrecognises in him her conqueror:\n\n Bien vous connois et bien savoie\n Que de nului garde n'avoie\n Fors que de vous; car, par mon chief\n Nus n'en p\u00e9ust venir \u00e0 chief\n Se vous non ...\n\nSo long as she lives, Perceval shall be powerless to achieve his Quest.\nShe wars against Gonemant by order of the King of the Waste City, who ever\nstrives against all who uphold the Christian faith, and whose chief aim it\nis to hinder Perceval from attaining knowledge of the Grail. Perceval gets\npossession of somewhat of the wonder-working balm, brings to life the most\nvaliant of his adversaries, slays him afresh after a hard struggle, in\nwhich he himself is wounded, heals his own hurt, and likewise Gonemant's,\nwith the balsam. Compare now Campbell's above-cited tale, the Knight of\nthe Red Shield. The hero, left alone upon the island by his two\ntreacherous companions, sees coming towards him \"three youths, heavily,\nwearily, tired.\" They are his foster-brothers, and from the end of a day\nand a year they hold battle against the Son of Darkness, Son of Dimness,\nand a hundred of his people, and every one they kill to-day will be alive\nto-morrow, and spells are upon them they may not leave this (island) for\never until they kill them. The hero starts out on the morrow alone\nagainst these enemies, and he did not leave a head on a trunk of theirs,\nand he overcame the Son of Darkness himself. But he is so spoilt and torn\nhe cannot leave the battle-field, and he lays himself down amongst the\ndead the length of the day. \"There was a great strand under him below; and\nwhat should he hear but the sea coming as a blazing brand of fire, as a\ndestroying serpent, as a bellowing bull; he looked from him, and what saw\nhe coming on the shore of the strand, but a great toothy carlin ... there\nwas the tooth that was longer than a staff in her fist, and the one that\nwas shorter than a stocking wire in her lap.\" She puts her finger in the\nmouth of the dead, and brings them alive. She does this to the hero, and\nhe bites off the finger at the joint, and then slays her. She is the\nmother of the Son of Darkness, and she has a vessel of balsam wherewith\nthe hero's foster-brothers anoint and make him whole, and her death frees\nthem from her spells for ever.[81] This \"toothy carlin\" is a favourite\nfigure in Celtic tradition. She re-appears in the ballad of the\nMuilearteach (probably Muir Iarteach, _i.e._, Western Sea), Campbell,\niii., pp. 122, _et seq._, and is there described as \"the bald russet one,\"\n\"her face blue black, of the lustre of coal, her bone tufted tooth like\nrusted bone, one deep pool-like eye in her head, gnarled brushwood on her\nhead like the clawed-up wood of the aspen root.\" In another version of the\nballad, printed in the Scottish Celtic Review, No. 2, pp. 115, _et seq._,\nthe monster is \"bald red, white maned, her face dark grey, of the hue of\ncoal, the teeth of her jaw slanting red, one flabby eye in her head, her\nhead bristled dark and grey, like scrubwood before hoar.\"[82] The editor\nof this version, the Rev. J. G. Campbell, interprets the ballad, and\ncorrectly, no doubt, \"as an inroad of the Personified Sea.\" There is no\nconnection, save in the personage of the \"toothy carlin,\" between the\nballad and the folk-tale.[83]\n\nIt is impossible, I think, to compare Gerbert's description of the witch\nwith that of the Highland \"Carlin\" without coming to the conclusion that\nthe French poet drew from traditional, popular Celtic sources. The wild\nfantasy of the whole is foreign in the extreme to the French temperament,\nand is essentially Celtic in tone. But the incident, as well as one\nparticular feature of it, admits of comparison: the three foster-brothers\nof the Highland tale correspond to the four sons of Gonemant, who be it\nrecollected, represents in the Conte du Graal, Peredur-Perceval's uncle in\nthe Mabinogi; in both, the hero goes forth alone to do battle with the\nmysterious enemy; the Son of Darkness answers to the King of the Waste\nCity; the dead men are brought back to life in the same way; the release\nof the kinsman, from spells, or from danger of death, follows upon the\nwitch's discomfiture. And yet greater value attaches to the incident as\nconnected with the Mabinogi form of the story; in Gerbert, as in the\nMabinogi, the hero's uncle is sick to death, his chief enemy is a\nmonstrous witch (or witches), who foreknows that she must succumb at the\nhero's hands.[84] Something has obviously dropped out from the Mabinogi.\nMay it not be those very magic talismans, the winning of which is the\nchief element of the French romances, and may not one of the talismans\nhave been the vessel of life-restoring balsam which figures in Gerbert and\nthe Highland tales?[85] The study of subsidiary versions and incidents may\nthus throw upon the connection of the Grail with the Perceval romance a\nlight which the main Celtic forms of the latter have not hitherto yielded.\n\nThe Thornton MS. Sir Perceval differs in this incident from both Manessier\nand Gerbert. As in Gerbert and the Highland Tale the hero meets his uncle\nand cousins; there is the same fight with the mother of the enemy of his\nkin, the hideous carlin, but it precedes, as does also the slaying of that\nenemy, the meeting of uncle and nephews. There is thus no room for the\nhealing _motif_ for which the unconscious avenging of the father's death\nis substituted. These differences bear witness both to the popular and\nshifting nature of the traditions upon which the romances are based, and\nto the fact that the avenging of a blood feud was the leading incident of\nits earliest form.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n The various forms of the visit to the Grail Castle in the\n romances--Conte du Graal: Chrestien; Gautier-Manessier;\n Gautier-Gerbert--Didot-Perceval--Mabinogi--Conte du Graal: Gawain's\n visit to the Grail Castle--Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin--Conte du Graal:\n Perceval's visit to the Castle of Maidens--Inconsistency of these\n varying accounts; their testimony to stories of different nature and\n origin being embodied in the romances--Two main types: feud quest and\n unspelling quest--Reasons for the confusion of the two types--Evidence\n of the confusion in older Celtic literature--The Grail in Celtic\n literature: the gear of the Tuatha de Danann; the cauldron in the\n Ultonian cycle; the Mabinogi of Branwen; vessel of balsam and glaive\n of light in the contemporary folk-tale--The sword in Celtic\n literature: Tethra; Fionn; Manus--Parallels to the Bespelled Castle;\n the Brug of Oengus, the Brug of Lug, the Brug of Manannan Mac Lir,\n Bran's visit to the Island of Women, Cormac Mac Art, and the Fairy\n Branch; Diarmaid and the Daughter of King Under the Waves--Unspelling\n stories: The Three Soldiers; the waiting of Arthur; Arthur in Etna;\n the Kyffh\u00e4user Legend, objections to Martin's views concerning\n it--Gawain's visit to the Magic Castle and Celtic parallels; The Son\n of Bad Counsel; Fionn in Giant Land; Fionn in the House of Cuana;\n Fionn and the Yellow Face--The Vanishing of the Bespelled\n Castle--Comparison with the Sleeping Beauty cycle--The \"Haunted\n Castle\" form and its influence on Heinrich's version--The Loathly\n Grail Messenger.\n\n\nThe analysis of the various versions has shown that the Conte du Graal is\nthe oldest portion of the vast body of French romance which deals with the\nGrail, and that it presents the earliest form of the story. The\nexamination of the theories put forward to explain the genesis and growth\nof the legend has shown how untenable is that hypothesis which makes the\nChristian legend the starting point of the cycle. The comparison of the\nConte du Graal with Celtic legends and folk-tales has shown that the\nformer is in the main a North French retelling of tales current then, as\nnow, among the Celtic peoples of Britain, and probably of Brittany. One\nthing alone remains unexplained, the mysterious Grail itself. Nor has any\nlight been thrown from Celtic sources upon the incident of the hero's\nvisit to the Castle of Talismans, his silence, and the ensuing misfortune\nwhich overtakes him. Where this incident does appear in a Celtic version,\nthe Mabinogi, it is not brought in connection with the Grail, and it bears\nobvious traces of interpolation. The utmost we have been able to do is to\nreconstruct from scattered indications in different Celtic tales a\nsequence of incidents similar to that of the French romance. Let us, then,\nreturn to what may be called the central incident of the Grail legend in\nits older and purer form. And let us recall the fact that the hypothesis\nwhich finds a Christian origin for the whole legend has no explanation to\noffer of this incident. Birch-Hirschfeld can merely suggest that\nPerceval's question upon which all hinges is \"eine harmlose Erfindung\nBorron's,\" a meaningless invention of Borron's. It is, indeed, his failure\nto account for such an essential element of the story that forms one of\nthe strongest arguments against his hypothesis.\n\nIn the first place it must be noticed that the incident of a hero's visit\nto a magic castle, of his omission whilst there to do certain things, and\nof the loss or suffering thereby caused, occurs not once, but many times;\nnot in one, but in many forms in the vast body of Grail romance, as is\nseen by the following list, which likewise comprises all the occasions on\nwhich one or other of the questers has come near to or succeeded in seeing\nthe Grail:--\n\n (1) CHRESTIEN: (Inc. 7). Perceval's first visit to the Grail Castle.\n Question omitted.\n\n (2) GAUTIER: (Inc. 22). Perceval's second visit to the Grail Castle.\n Question put--\n\n _Incident breaks off in middle, and is continued in one version by_:--\n\n (2A) MANESSIER, who sends off the hero on a fresh quest, which is\n finished in\n\n (3) MANESSIER: (Inc. 21). Perceval's third visit to Grail Castle.\n The question is not mentioned. Hero's final success.\n\n _In another version by_:--\n\n (4) GERBERT: (Inc. 1-3). Perceval is sent forth anew upon Quest. He\n has half put the question and been partially successful.\n\n (5) GERBERT: (Inc. 21). Perceval's third visit to Grail Castle.\n Question not mentioned. Hero's success.\n\n _Besides these forms of the episode in the Conte du Graal of which\n Perceval is the hero, we have_:--\n\n (6) GAUTIER: (Inc. 3). Gauvain's first visit according to one, second\n visit according to another version. Question half put, partial\n success.\n\n _And finally a somewhat similar incident of which Perceval is the hero\n in_:--\n\n (7) GAUTIER: (Inc. 12). Visit to the Castle of Maidens. Untimely sleep\n of hero.\n\n So far the Conte du Graal. Of the versions closely connected with it\n we have:\n\n (8 & 9) WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH: Two visits of Perceval to Grail\n Castle. Question omitted at first, put in second, and crowned with\n success.\n\n (10 & 11) MABINOGI OF PEREDUR: (Inc. 6-25). Two visits of hero to\n Grail Castle. Question omitted at first. Second visit successful. No\n mention of question.\n\n (12 & 13) DIDOT-PERCEVAL: (Inc. 11-16). Two visits of Perceval to\n Grail Castle. Question omitted at first, put at second, and crowned\n with success.\n\n In a German romance, which presents many analogies with that portion\n of the Conte du Graal which goes under Gautier's name:\n\n (14) HEINRICH VON DEM T\u00dcRLIN: Gawain's first visit to Grail Castle.\n Question put. Success. Allusion to previous unsuccessful visit of\n Perceval.\n\n Finally in the QUESTE versions we have four variants of the incident--\n\n (15) QUESTE: (Inc. 12). Lancelot at the cross-road, omission to ask\n concerning the Grail.\n\n (15) QUESTE: (Inc. 15). Perceval heals Mordrains.\n\n \" (Inc. 43). Lancelot comes to Grail Castle. Partial\n fulfilment of his Quest.\n\n \" (Inc. 48). The three questers come to the Grail Castle.\n\nOn looking at the list we notice that the Conte du Graal knows of three\nvisits on the part of the principal hero to the Castle of Talismans: 1, 2,\n3, or 1, 2-4, 5, and of one visit (or two) of the secondary hero; whilst\nWolfram, the Mabinogi, and the Didot-Perceval know of two only. Heinrich\nvon dem T\u00fcrlin gives only one visit to _his_ chief hero, though he\nmentions a former one by the secondary hero. In Wolfram, and the\nDidot-Perceval, the incident may be compared in the Conte du Graal with 1\nand 2; in the Mabinogi with 1 and 5; in Heinrich with 6. The Queste forms\nof the incident are obviously dependent upon those of the Conte du Graal,\nalthough they have been strongly modified. As for 7, it would seem to be a\nform of the incident which has been entirely unaffected by the Christian\nsymbolism which has influenced all the others.\n\nIt will be advisable to recapitulate the leading features of the incident\nas found in the different versions. Where the summaries in Chapter II\nafford detailed information about it, the recapitulation will be brief,\nbut it will be necessary to give at least one version at much greater\nlength than heretofore.\n\nIn the Conte du Graal (1) the hero finds a King fishing, who directs him\nto his castle. Just as he deems the fisher has deceived him the castle\nbursts upon his sight. He enters, is led into a square room wherein is a\nbed sitting on which is an old man wrapped in sables; before him is a\ngreat fire of dry wood; 400 men might sit in the hall. The King rises to\ngreet him; as they sit, a squire enters with a sword which had but two\nfellows, sent by the King's niece for the hero to whom it was destined.\nThe hall is light as it may be. A squire enters holding a lance by the\nmiddle; all can behold the drop of blood which flows from the point upon\nthe holder's hand. There follow him two squires with candlesticks, each\nwith ten candles, in either hand; a damsel holding a Grail, which gives\nout a light as greater than that of the candles as the sun outshines the\nstars; and another damsel with a plate of fine gold. The procession passes\nfrom one into the other room. The hero refrains from asking who is served\nby the Grail. After playing at chess with the King they dine, and again\nthe Grail passes, uncovered, at each dish. The hero would fain ask what\nwas done with it, and is about to do so, but puts off the question. On the\nmorrow he sees no one in the castle, the doors of the rooms he had been in\nthe eve before are shut, no one answers; and, mounting his horse, which he\nfinds ready saddled, he sets forth over the drawbridge, which closes of\nitself behind him, without learning why lance bleeds or whither the Grail\nis borne. (2) At the second visit the hero comes into a magnificent room,\nornamented with fine gold and stars of silver, wherein on a vermeil couch\nthe rich King is sitting. The hero is fain forthwith to ask about Grail\nand bleeding lance, but must sit him down by the rich King and tell of his\nadventures, about the chapel in which lay the dead Knight, and the black\nhand, the child in the tree and the tree full of candles. The King makes\nhim eat before answering his questions. Whilst at meat a damsel, fairer\nthan flowers in April, enters with the Holy Grail, another with the lance,\na squire with the broken sword. The hero asks about these talismans. But\nfirst the King answers the questions about the earlier wonders; the\ntalismans he will tell of after meat. The hero insists to know about the\nsword. The King bids him put it together--can he do so he will learn about\nthe Knight in the Chapel, and after that about the talismans. Save for one\nflaw the hero succeeds, whereupon the King says he knows no one in the\nworld better than he, embraces him, and yields him up all in his house.\nThe squire who brought the sword returns, wraps it in a cendal, and\ncarries it off.\n\n 2A. The King bids the hero eat. 4. The hero would hold it sin if\n Lance and Grail, and a fair silver he did not ask concerning the\n dish pass before them, the latter Grail. The King first submits him\n held by a damsel. The hero sighs to the sword test.[86] The\n and begs to learn about these existence of the flaw is\n three. He is told about lance, apparently held to constitute\n Grail, Grail-bearing damsel, failure, due to the hero's sin in\n dish-bearing damsel, and in quitting his mother so abruptly.\n answer to further questions, In the night the hero has a\n learns the history of the broken vision, which warns him to hasten\n sword, and of the chapel haunted to his sister's aid. On the morrow\n by the black hand. After sleeping the Grail Castle has vanished.\n in a splendid bed[87] he sets Mounting his horse, which stands\n forth on the morrow on the sword ready saddled, he rides forth.\n quest (the slaying of Partinal). After a vain essay to gain\n entrance to a magnificent castle,\n 3. Having accomplished which, and in which he breaks his sword, and\n lighted chancewise upon the Grail thereby loads upon himself seven\n Castle, the King, apprised by a further years of adventure, but\n squire and forthwith healed, meets learns how the sword may be made\n the hero who shows him head and whole again, he finds the land\n shield. At table lance and Grail which the day before was waste\n pass, borne by two maidens; fertile and peopled. The peasants\n delectable meats fill the dishes-- hail him: the townsmen come forth\n all are filled and satisfied who in his honour--for through him the\n behold the Holy Grail and the lance folk have won back lands and\n that bleeds. Thereafter enters a riches. A damsel tells him how: at\n squire holding a silver dish the Court of the Fisher King he\n covered with red samite; the had asked about the Grail. At her\n talismans pass thrice; the King castle he has his sword mended.\n thanks the hero for having slain (Later the hero learns that his\n his enemy and thereby rid him of failure to win the Grail comes\n great torment. Asks his name, from his not having wedded his\n learns that he is his nephew, and lady-love).\n offers him his kingdom.\n 5. Hero is directed by a cross to\n the Court of the Fisher King. The\n latter makes him sit by his side\n and tell his adventures, when he\n would fain learn about the Grail.\n The same procession then passes\n as in (2), save that sword instead\n of being broken is simply\n described as not resoldered. The\n hero says he has been twice before\n with the King, and reproaches him\n for not having answered his\n questions, although he had\n resoldered the sword to the King's\n great joy. The King then bids him\n shake the sword, which he does,\n and the flaw disappears. The King\n is overjoyed, and the hero is now\n worthy of knowing everything.[88]\n\nIn comparing with these versions of the incident that found in the\nDidot-Perceval, we find that the hero at his first visit is welcomed by\nthe squires of the castle, clad in a scarlet cloak, and placed upon a\nrich bed, whilst four sergeants apprise Brons of his arrival, and the\nlatter is carried into the hall where sits the hero, who rises to greet\nhim. Brons questions him before they sit down to meat. The mystic\nprocession is formed by squire with lance bleeding, damsel with silver\ndish, squire with the vessel holding our Lord's blood. On the morrow the\nhero sees no one, and finds all the doors open. At his second visit there\nis no mention of difficulty in finding the castle. This time the King\nrises to greet him; they talk of many things and then sit down to meat.\nGrail and worthy relics pass, and the hero asks who is served by the\nvessel which the squire holds in his hands. Straightway the King is healed\nand changed; overjoyed he first asks the hero who he is, and, on learning\nit, tells him concerning lance and Grail, and afterwards, at the bidding\nof a heavenly voice, the secret words which Joseph taught him, Brons.\n\nIn the Mabinogi the castle lies on the other side of a meadow. At his\nfirst visit the hero finds the gates open, and in the hall a hoary-headed\nman sits, around whom are pages who rise to receive the hero. Host and\nguest discourse and eat, seated beside one another. The sword trial\nfollows, and the hero is declared to have arrived at two-thirds of his\nstrength. The two youths with the dripping spear enter, amid the\nlamentation of the company, are followed by the two maidens with the\nsalver wherein is a man's head, and the outcry redoubles. On the morrow\nthe hero rides forth unmolested.\n\nAt the second visit the castle is described as being in a valley through\nwhich runs a river. The grey-headed man found sitting in the hall with\nGwalchmai is described as lame.\n\nSo far we have recapitulated the leading features of Perceval's dealings\nat the Talismans Castle in the Conte du Graal and in the most closely\nallied versions. But Perceval, the chief hero, has, as we have already\nseen, an under-study in Gauvain. And the Gauvain form of the incident\ndeserves as close examination as the Perceval form.\n\n(6) Gauvain has met a knight, stranger to him, with whom he travels to\nCaerleon. Whilst in his company the stranger is slain by a dart cast by\nwhom no one knows. Before dying he bids Gauvain take his arms and his\nhorse; he knows not why he has been slain, he never harmed anyone. Gauvain\nsuspects and accuses Kex, upon whom he vows to prove the murder, and sets\nforth to learn the unknown's name. After affronting the adventure of the\nblack hand[89] in the chapel and long wanderings, he finds himself one\nevening at the opening of a dark, tree-covered road at whose further end\nhe spies a light. Tired and fasting he lets his horse go at its will, and\nis led to a castle where he is received with great honour as though he\nwere expected. But when he has changed his dress the castle folk see it is\nnot he whom they thought. In the hall is a bier whereupon lie cross and\nsword and a dead knight. Canons and priests raise a great lamentation over\nthe body. A crowned knight enters and bids Gauvain sit by his side. Then\nthe Grail goes through the room, serving out meats in plenty, and acting\nthe part of a steward, whereat Gauvain is astounded. He next sees a lance\nwhich drips blood into a silver cup. From out the same room whence come\nthe talismans, the King issues, a sword in his hand, the sword of the dead\nknight, over whom he laments--on his account the land languishes. He bids\nGauvain essay to make the sword whole, but Gauvain cannot, and is told his\nquest may not be accomplished. After his toils and wanderings Gauvain is\nsleepy, but he struggles against sleep, and asks about bleeding lance and\nsword and bier. Whilst the King is answering him he goes to sleep. On\nawakening he is on the sea shore, arms and steed by his side.[90] He then\nmeets with the peasantry, and is told of the changed condition of the\nland in a passage already quoted (p. 87). Had he asked about the Grail\n\"por coi il servoit,\" the land had been wholly freed.\n\nHeinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin's account of Gauvain's visit to the Grail Castle\ndiffers, as will be seen by the Summary, p. 27, which it is unnecessary to\nrepeat, more from that of Gautier than from the Perceval visit of the\nConte de Graal, with which it has the common feature, that the person\nbenefitted by the transaction is the Lord of the Magic Castle. As will\nalready have been noticed it stands alone in the conception that the\ninmates of the castle are under the enchantment of death-in-life from\nwhich the question frees them.\n\nThere still remains to be noticed (7) the incident of Perceval's visit to\nthe Castle of Maidens, so closely analogous in certain details to the\nGrail Castle visit, and yet wholly disassociated from it in the conduct of\nthe story. Perceval, wandering, sees across a river in fair meadow land a\nrich castle built of marble, yellow and vermeil. Crossing a bridge he\nenters, and the door at once closes behind him. No one is in the hall, in\nthe centre of which is a table, and hanging to it by a steel chain a\nhammer. Searching the castle he still finds no one, and no one answers to\nhis call. At length he strikes upon the table three blows with the hammer.\nA maiden appears, reproaches him, and disappears. Again he waits, and\nagain he strikes three blows. A second damsel appears, and tells him if he\nstrike afresh the tower will fall, and he be slain in its fall. But as he\nthreatens to go on, the damsel offers to open the door and let him forth.\nHe declares he will stay till morning, whereupon the damsel says she will\ncall her mistress. The hero bids her haste as he is not minded to wait\nlong, and warns her that he still holds the hammer. Other damsels then\nshow themselves, disarm and tend the hero, and lead him through a splendid\nhall into a still more splendid one, wherein a hundred fair and courteous\nmaidens, all of like age and mien, and richly dressed, rise at his\napproach and hail him as lord. The hero deems himself in paradise, and\n\"sooth 'tis to be in paradise to be with dames and maids; so sweet they\nare, the devil can make naught of them, and 'tis better to follow them\nthan to hearken to sermons preached in church for money.\" The dame of the\ncastle bids the hero sit him down by her. \"White she is as a lily, rosier\nthan on a May morn a fresh blown rose when the dew has washed it.\" She\nasks him his name, and on hearing how he had wandered lonely three days\nere meeting with the castle, tells him he might have wandered seven ere\nfinding where to partake of bread and meat. He is well feasted. In reply\nto his questions about the castle, and how is it no man may be seen in it,\nhe learns he is in the Maidens' Castle, all the inmates of one kin and\nland, of gentle birth; no mason put his hand to the castle, no serf toiled\nat it. Four maids built it, and in this wise: Whatever knight passed, and\nentering, beheld the door closed, and no man meeting him--if craven he\nstruck no blow with the hammer, and on the morrow he went forth unheeded;\nbut if wise and courteous he struck the table, and was richly entertained.\nAs the lady tells this tale the hero, overcome with much journeying, falls\nasleep and is laid to bed by the maidens. On the morrow he wakes beneath a\nleafy oak, and never a house in sight.\n\nIt is surely superfluous to point out that the foregoing recapitulation of\nthe various forms under which this incident has come down to us gives the\nlast blow to the theory which makes Christian symbolism the starting\npoint, and the Didot-Perceval the purest representative of the legend. We\nshould have to admit not only that the later romance writers entirely\nmisunderstood the sense of their model, but that, whilst anxiously casting\nabout in every direction for details with which to overlay it, they\nneglected one of its most fertile hints--that of the secret words handed\ndown through Joseph from Christ Himself to the successful Grail quester.\nWhat a mine of adventures would not Gautier, Gerbert, and all the other\nunknown versifiers, who added each his quota to the Conte, have found in\nthose \"secret words?\" Nay, more, we must admit that so much in love were\nthey with this incident they misunderstood, that they repeated it in\nhalf-a-dozen varying forms, and finally eliminated from it every trace of\nits original element. There are theories which ask too much and which must\nbe set on one side, even if one has nothing equally ingenious and\nsymmetrical to set in their place.\n\nThree things strike one in considering this incident apart from the other\nadventures with which it is associated; the want of consistency in those\nversions which, formally, are closely related, an inconsistency which we\nhave already noted in dealing with the legend as a whole; the repetition\nof the same incident with almost similar details, but with a different\nanimating conception; and the fact that some of the secondary forms\ntestify to that same thread of story which we have already extracted from\nthe comparison of the Mabinogi and the Conte du Graal in their entirety.\nNot only is the conception of the Quest different in Chrestien and\nManessier or Chrestien-Gerbert, but the details are different, the centre\nof interest being shifted from the omitted question to the broken sword.\nIn Manessier the _d\u00e9no\u00fbment_ is brought about without any reference to the\nquestion, in Gerbert the reference is of the most perfunctory kind. Again\nwe find the same machinery of Grail, lance, and other talismans, which in\nChrestien-Manessier serves to bring about the hero's vengeance on his\nuncle's murderer, in Chrestien-Gerbert the re-union of the lovers and the\nwinning of the Grail Kingship, used in the Gawain quest with the evident\nobject of compassing vengeance upon the slayer of the unknown knight. And,\nthirdly, this secondary form is in close agreement with the\nMabinogi--here, as there, the sword test takes place at the Fisher King's;\nhere, as there, it immediately precedes the passing of the talismans;\nhere, as there, it is only partially successful; here, as there, is a\ntangible reminder of the object of the quest, in the dead body of the\nunknown knight in the one case, in the head swimming in blood in the\nother. And here we may note that of the two forms in which the _Queste_\nreproduces this incident, the one which holds the more prominent position\nin the narrative, the one of which Lancelot is the hero, closely resembles\nthat secondary form in the Conte du Graal which is connected with Gawain.\nThe wounded knight whom Lancelot beholds at the crossways borne into the\nchapel upon a bier, and clamouring for the succour of the Grail, recalls\nforcibly the dead knight of the Gawain quest. It is, perhaps, still more\nsignificant that when the Queste does reproduce the Perceval form, it is\nonly in its externals, and the mystic vessel, which in the older version\nis obviously a means of achieving the quest, has, in the later one,\nbecome the end of that quest.\n\nIt seems impossible to resist the following conclusions:--The many forms\nof the incident found in the Grail romances are not variants of one, and\nthat an orderly and logical original; they testify to the fact that in the\nbody of popular tradition which forms the basis of these romances the\nincident of the visit to a magic castle was a common one, that it entered\ninto the thread of stories, somewhat similar in outline and frequently\ncentered in the same hero, but differing essentially in conception, and\nthat the forms in the romances which are most likely to keep close to the\ntraditional model are those secondary ones with which the innovating\nspirit, whether due to the genius of the individual artist, or to\nintruding Christian symbolism, has least concerned itself. There is\napparently but one case in the Conte du Graal, that of Perceval's visit to\nthe Castle of Maidens, which has been modified by neither of these\ninfluences.\n\nTo accept these conclusions is to clear the ground. If we rid our minds of\nthe idea that there is _a Grail legend_, a definite fixed sequence of\nincidents, we need not be discouraged if we fail to find a prototype for\nit in Celtic tradition or elsewhere. We shall be prepared to examine every\nincident of which the Grail is a feature upon its own merits, and\nsatisfied if we can find analogies to this or that one. And by so doing we\nare more likely to discover the how and why of the development of the\nlegends as we find them in the romances.\n\nLeaving subsidiary details out of account, we may bring all the instances\nin which the Grail appears under two formulas: that of the kinsman\navenging a blood feud by the means of the three magic talismans, sword and\nlance and vessel; and that of the visit to the Bespelled Castle, the\ninmates of which enjoy, thanks to the magic vessel, a supernaturally\nprolonged life, from which they are released by the hero's question\nconcerning that vessel. The one we may call the feud quest, the other the\nunspelling quest. The Proto-Mabinogi belonged, as we have already seen\n(_supra_, p. 139), to the first class, and accordingly we find that all\nrelating to the question is obviously interpolated from Chrestien.\nChrestien's model belonged, in all probability if not wholly, chiefly to\nthe first class, and accordingly we find that Manessier, certainly more\nfaithful than Chrestien to that original, lays no stress upon the\nquestion. But in Chrestien himself there is a mixture of the two formulas;\nthe question and the food-producing qualities of the magic vessel have\nbeen incorporated in the feud formula. Once started upon this track the\nlegend continues to mingle the formulas. The mystic procession, which\nprobably owes its form to Chrestien, is repeated with monotonous sameness\nby his continuators; the machinery of the feud quest almost invariably\ndoubles that of the visit to the Bespelled Castle, and _vice vers\u00e2_. Thus\nHeinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin, along with the most archaic presentment of the\nunspelling quest, has that procession of the talismans which properly\nbelongs to the feud quest; and, to complete his conception, we must turn\nto incidents at present set in the framework of the other formula. For the\neffect upon the land produced by the hero's action at the Castle of\nTalismans is obviously analagous to, though of directly contrary nature\nto, that produced upon the inmates of the Bespelled Castle. They are dead\nthough they seem quick, the land is full of life though it seems waste.\nThe question which frees the one from the spell of life-in-death, frees\nthe other from the spell of death-in-life.[91] The Didot-Perceval has the\ncomplete conception. Perceval's question not only releases Brons, who may\nnot die until then, but it also ends the enchantment of Britain.\n\nThe identity of hero in stories originally dissimilar was one reason for\nthe confusion between the two formulas; the nature of the Grail was\nanother. Its attributes were in all probability not very clearly defined\nin the immediate models of the French romance writers; these found it\nenveloped in mysterious haze, which simple story-tellers, such as Gautier,\ndid not try to clear up, and which gave free play to the mystic\nimaginings of those writers who used romance as a vehicle for edification.\nThe one tangible thing about it in stories of the one class, its food\nproducing-power, has left its trace upon every one of the romances. But we\nshall also find in our survey of Celtic literature that this attribute, as\nwell as that of healing or restoring to life, is found indifferently in\nstories of both the classes, to the fusion of which we refer the Grail\nlegends in their present form. Another link between the two formulas is\nformed by the sword. It is almost invariably found associated with the\nhealing vessel of balsam in task stories connected with the feud quest of\nthe Mabinogi and the Conte du Graal; it is also a frequent feature in the\nlegend of the unsuccessful visit to the Bespelled Castle.[92] Finally, the\nmost important reason for running into one the stories derived from these\ntwo formulas, and the one which could hardly fail to lead to the fusion,\nis to be found in the identity of the myth which underlies both\nconceptions. The castle to which the avenger must penetrate to win the\ntalismans, and that to which the hero comes with the intent of freeing its\nlord, are both symbols of the otherworld.\n\nBearing in mind this double origin of the Grail, and reviewing once more\nthe entire cycle, we note that, whilst it is that presentment of the magic\nvessel due to the second formula which is most prominent in the romances,\nthe feud quest has furnished more and more varied sequences of incident,\nand is the staple of the oldest literary Celtic form (the Proto-Mabinogi)\nand of those North French forms which are most closely akin to it. Here\nthe magic vessel is at best one of three equally potent treasures; as a\nmatter of fact its _r\u00f4le_ in this section of the romances is, as we have\nseen, inferior to that of the sword. Obviously intended to be the\nimmediate cause of restoration to life or health of the hero's kinsman,\nits functions have been minimised until they have been forgotten. If this\nis so already in the Proto-Mabinogi and in the model of the Conte du\nGraal, we may expect to find that elsewhere in Celtic tradition the magic\nvessel is of less account than sword or lance.\n\nWe should likewise misconceive the character of popular tradition if we\nexpected to find certain attributes rigidly ascribed to the mystic vessel\nin this or that set of stories. The confusion we have noted in the\nromances may be itself derived from older traditions. Certain it is that\nin what maybe looked upon as the oldest account of the vessel[93] in\nCeltic literature (although the form in which it has reached us is\ncomparatively modern), there is a vessel of abundance associated with\nthree other talismans, two of them being sword and lance. The Tuatha de\nDanann (the race of fairies and wizards which plays a part in Irish\ntradition analogous to that of Gwydion ap Don, Gwynn ap Nudd, and their\nkin in Welsh) so runs the tradition preserved by Keating in his History of\nIreland (Book I, ed. by Joyce, Dublin, 1880, p. 117), had four treasures:\nThe Lia Fail, the stone of Fate or Virtue (\"now in the throne upon which\nis proclaimed the King of the Saxons,\" _i.e._, the stone brought by Edward\nI., from Scone); the sword that Lug[94] Lamhfhada (Lug the Longhanded) was\nwont to use; the spear the same Lug used in battle; the cauldron of the\nDagda, \"_a company used not ever go away from it unsatisfied_.\" Keating\nfollowed old and good sources, and although the passage I have underlined\nis not to be found in all MSS. of his work (_e.g._, it is missing in that\ntranslated by Halliday), and although the verse which he quotes, and which\nprobably goes back to the eleventh century, whilst the traditions which\nit embodies may be regarded as a couple of centuries older, does not\nmention this property of the Dagda's[95] Cauldron, it may, I think, be\nassumed that the tradition here noticed is genuine, and that a vessel akin\nto the Grail, as well as talismans akin to those that accompany the Grail,\nformed part of the gear of the oldest Celtic divinities.[96]\n\nThis conclusion appears no rash one when we consider the further\nreferences to the cauldron in Middle Irish Literature. The Battle of Magh\nRath, a semi-historical romance relating to events which took place in the\nseventh century, is ascribed by its editor, Dr. J. O'Donovan, to the\nlatter half of the twelfth century. It relates (pp. 51, _et seq._) how the\nsons of the King of Alba sought to obtain from their father the \"Caire\nAinsicen\" so called, because \"it was the caire or cauldron which was used\nto return his own proper share to each, and no party ever went away from\nit unsatisfied, for whatever quantity was put into it there was never\nboiled of it but what was sufficient for the company according to their\ngrade or rank.\" The medi\u00e6val story-teller then goes on to instance similar\ncauldrons to be met with in the older history of Ireland. These may nearly\nall be referred to the oldest heroic Irish cycle, the Ultonian, of which\nCuchulainn is the most prominent figure. This cycle, in its origin almost\nif not wholly mythic, was at an early date (probably as early as the\neighth century) euhemerised, and its gods and demi-gods made to do duty as\nhistorical personages living at the beginning of the Christian era. It is,\nindeed, not improbable that actual historical events and personages of\nthat period may have coloured and distorted the presentment of the myth;\nand it is highly probable that the substance of these stories does go back\nto that age, as they are almost entirely free from any admixture of\nChristian elements, and such admixture as there is can be readily detected\nas the handiwork of the tenth and eleventh century monks by whom these\ntales were written in MSS. which have for the most part come down to us.\nThe cauldron is found with the same properties as those set forth in the\nBattle of Magh Rath, in two of the most celebrated tales of this cycle,\nthe Toghail Bruighne da Derga, and the Tale of Mac Datho's pig.\n\nTurning from Irish to Welsh literature we may note that the Grail has\nfrequently been compared with the cauldron of Bran in the Mabinogi of\nBranwen, the daughter of Llyr. I have dealt with this tale fully\n(Folk-Lore Record, Vol. V.), and see no reason to depart from the\nconclusion I then arrived at; namely, that it goes back in the main to the\neleventh or tenth century. Here, the revivifying power of the vessel is\ndwelt upon, \"The property of it is that if one of thy men be slain to-day,\nand be cast therein, the morrow he will be as well as ever he was at his\nbest, except that he will not regain his speech.\" We cannot fail to recall\nthat in the Queste which, as far as the Grail itself is concerned, must be\nreferred on the whole to the feud quest formula, when the sacred vessel\nappears the assembled company is struck dumb.[97]\n\nLater Celtic folk-literature has followed the Mabinogi rather than the\nolder Irish legend in its account of the mystic vessel. Where it appears\nin the folk-tale its function is to heal or to bring back to life. We may\nleave out of account for the present the references in the Welsh \"bardic\"\nliterature to the cauldron of Ceridwen, chief among which is that in the\nMabinogi of Taliesin. I am far from thinking that this literature deserves\nthe wholesale condemnation that has been passed upon it, but it has been\ntoo little and too uncritically studied to afford, as yet, a firm basis\nfor investigation. We are on surer ground in dealing with the living\nfolk-tale. Thus the tale of Fionn's Enchantment, although belonging more\nproperly to the other formula, may be noticed here as containing a cup of\nbalsam, the washings of which restore the maimed Fionn to complete health.\nMr. Campbell, who has noted the tale, remarks that the cup of healing is\ncommon in all the Fenian stories, which is what we should naturally\nexpect, seeing the close connection between Fionn and Peredur (Rev. Celt.\nI., p. 194). Other instances have already been given in Chapter VI. of the\nappearance of the vessel of balsam in connection with the glaive of light,\nand of its use in bringing back to life the hero's enemies. And here it\nmaybe noted that almost the very mode in which it is introduced in the\nfolk-tales may be paralleled from the romances. The Grail appears to\nPerceval and Hector, lying well nigh dead upon the field of battle, and\nmakes them whole, even as the vessel of balsam revivifies the dead\nwarriors whom Conall Gulban has just slain, and heals the latter. It is,\nperhaps, only a coincidence that the angel in the one, the Carlin in the\nother case, appear in a great flashing of light. But, as a rule, in those\ntask-stories which otherwise present such close similarities to the feud\nquest of the Proto-Mabinogi and the Conte du Graal, the mystic vessel has\ndropped out altogether, and the sword is the chief if not the only\ntalisman. This is the case in Campbell, I., the young King of Easaidh\nRuadh, and in XLVI. Mac Iain Direach. In one instance the glaive of light\nis met with outside the task group, in Campbell XLI., the Widow and her\nDaughters, variant ii (a Bluebeard story), and here it is found associated\nwith the vessel of balsam. In the folk-tales, then, as in one section of\nthe Conte du Graal, the healing vessel is decidedly of less account than\nthe avenging or destroying weapon. This, as the sword, plays such an\nimportant part in the French romances that an examination of its _r\u00f4le_ in\nCeltic literature will repay examination.\n\nBesides the already quoted instances in which the sword of light\naccompanies the vessel of balsam as one of the treasures which reward the\nhero's quest, but in which it does not otherwise affect the march of the\nstory, we find others in which the sword is either that weapon which\ncauses the woe, the subject of the story, or else is the one means of\ntesting the hero's fitness for his quest. In either case it is parallel to\nthe sword of the Grail romances. Apart from these special instances there\nare general references in the oldest Irish literature to the\nquasi-supernatural nature attributed to the sword. Thus the Leabhar\nGabhala, or Book of Invasions, the tenth and eleventh century tract in\nwhich Irish mythology was euphemerised into an historical relation of the\npre-Christian invasion of Ireland, has a passage relating to the sword of\nTethra, King of the Fomori,[98] which spake, and, adds the Christian\nscribe, the ancient Irish adored swords.[99] This is borne out by a\npassage in the Seirglige Conculainn, a story belonging to the Ultonian\ncycle, which Mr. Whitley Stokes has translated (Rev. Celt. I., 260). The\nmen of Ulster, when showing their trophies, had their swords upon their\nthighs, \"for their swords used to turn against them where they made a\nfalse trophy.\"\n\nThe Christian transcriber notes that it was reasonable for the pagan Irish\nto trust their swords \"because demons used to speak from out them.\" To\nreturn to the sword of Tethra. The most famous battle of Irish mystic\nhistory is that of Mag-Tured, in which the Tuatha de Danann, the gods of\nlight and life, overcome their enemies the Fomori. Ogma, the champion of\nthe Tuatha de Danann, wins the sword of Tethra, and as he cleans it it\ntells him the many and great feats it had wrought.\n\nIt is, however, in the second of the great heroic cycles of the ancient\nIrish, the Fenian or Ossianic, that we find the sword put to a use which\nstrongly recalls that of the romances. Not until the hero is able to wield\nthe weapon so that it break not in his hand, or to weld it together so\nthat no flaw appears,[100] is he fit to set forth on the quest. In\nCampbell's LXXVII., \"How the Een was set up,\" Fionn applies for his sword\nto Ullamh Lamhfhada[101] (Ullamh the Longhanded), who gives him the most\nlikely sword and the best he found. The hero takes it, shakes it, casts it\nout of the wooden handle and discards it. Thrice is this repeated, and\nwhen the right weapon is in Fionn's hand, he quells utterly all he\nsees.[102] Now how had Fionn obtained this sword originally? By slaying\nblack Arcan, his father's slayer. It may, I think, be looked upon as\ncertain that in an earlier form of the story, the weapon in question would\nturn out to be the one with which the treacherous deed was done, and\nFionn, a counterpart of Peredur in his bringing up, would also be his\ncounterpart in this incident.[103] For the sword with which Partinal slew\nGoon Desert is treasured up for the use of Perceval, but only after a\nrepeated essay is he held worthy of it.[104]\n\nThe sword incident reappears in a tale of Campbell's, Manus (Vol. III.),\nwhich presents some very remarkable analogies with the romances. Manus is\ndriven into various adventures by his aunt; an armourer of his\ngrandfather offers to get him a sword; but all given to him he breaks save\nthe armourer's old sword, and it beat him to break that. The armourer then\ngives him a cloth, \"When thou spreadest it to seek food or drink, thou\nwilt get as thou usest.\" Subsequently, helped by a lion, he achieves many\nfeats. He comes to the help of the White Gruagach by fetching the blood of\na venemous horned creature belonging to the King over the Great World, by\nwhich alone the White Gruagach could be restored to life when the magic\ntrout with which his life was bound up had been slain. Afterwards he\naccompanies him against his enemy the Red Gruagach, who is slain, and his\nhead stuck on a stake. This Red Gruagach is apparently the father of the\naunt who so persecutes Manus.[105]\n\nThis examination of the sword incident shows that the Mabinogi has\npreserved the original form of the story, and links afresh this portion of\nthe Conte du Graal with the other Celtic stories belonging to the\nExpulsion and Return formula group, with which it has so much else in\ncommon. In all the formula-stories, except those of the Conte du Graal and\nthe Proto-Mabinogi, the hero has to avenge his father, not his uncle; and\nit is highly suggestive that at least one version of the Perceval cycle\n(the Thornton romance) follows suit. With this remark we may take leave of\nthe feud quest.\n\nMany and interesting as have been the parallels from the older Celtic\nliterature to the feud quest, they are far outweighed by those which that\nliterature affords to the second formula--the visit to the Bespelled\nCastle--which we have noted in the romances.\n\nFrom the recapitulation (_supra_, pp. 173, _et. seq._) we may learn\nseveral things. The castle lies, as a rule, on the other side of a river;\nthe visitor to it is under a definite obligation; he must either do a\ncertain thing, as, _e.g._, in Perceval's visit to the Castle of Maidens,\nstrike on the table three blows with the hammer, or he must put a certain\nquestion, or again he must abstain from certain acts, as that of falling\nasleep (Perceval and Gawain) or drinking[106] (Gawain, in Heinrich von dem\nT\u00fcrlin). Disregard of the obligation is punished in various ways. In the\ncase of the Castle of Maidens the craven visitor is allowed to fare forth\nunheeded without beholding the marvels of the castle; but, as a rule, the\nhero of the adventure finds himself on the morrow far away from the\ncastle, which has vanished completely. The inmates of this castle fall\ninto two classes--they are supernatural beings like the maidens, who have\napparently no object to gain from their mortal visitor, but who love\nheroism for its own sake, and are as kindly disposed towards the mortal\nhero in the folk-lore and mythology of the Celts as gods, and especially\ngoddesses, are in the mythic lore of all other races; or they suffer from\nan over-lengthened life, from which the hero alone can release them. This\nlatter feature, seen to perfection only in Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin, is\napparent in the Didot-Perceval, and has, in the Conte du Graal, supplied\nthe figure of the old man, father to the Fisher King, nourished by the\nGrail.\n\nThese features sufficiently indicate that the Magic Castle is the realm of\nthe other world. The dividing water is that across which lies T\u00edr-na n-Og,\nthe Irish Avalon, or that Engelland dwelt in by the shades which the\ninhabitants of the Belgian coast figured in the west.[107] In Celtic lore\nthe earliest trace of this realm is found, as is the earliest trace of\nGrail and sword, in connection with the Tuatha de Danann, that race of\ndispossessed immortals which lives on in the hollow hill sides, and is\never ready to aid and cherish the Irish mythic heroes. The most famous\nembodiment of this conception in Irish myth is the Brug na Boine, the\ndwelling place of Oengus,[108] son of the Dagda, and the earliest account\nof it is that contained in the Book of Leinster, the second of the two\ngreat Irish vellums written down in the twelfth century. It is a land of\nCockayne; in it are fruit trees ever loaded with fruit, on the board a pig\nready roasted which may not be eaten up, vessels of beer which may not be\nemptied, and therein no man dies.[109] But Oengus is not the only one of\nthe Tuatha de Danann who has such a fairy palace. The dwelling place of\nLug is of the same kind, and in the story of the Conception of\nCuchulainn,[110] which tells how the god carried off Dechtire, sister of\nConchobor, and re-incarnated himself in her as the great Ulster hero, we\nlearn that when Conchobor and his men go in search of Dechtire and her\nfifty maidens, they first come to a small house wherein are a man and\nwoman; the house suddenly becomes a splendid mansion,[111] therein are the\nvanished maidens in the shape of birds (and all sorts of goods, and dishes\nof divers sorts, known and unknown; never did they have a better night, in\nthe morning they found themselves houseless, birdless in the east of the\nland, and they went back to Emain Macha).[112] Although no prohibition is\nmentioned the similarity in parts of this story, which, it must be\nrepeated, is older than the introduction of Christianity in Ireland, to\nthe romances is evident. Another famous Brug of the Tuatha de Danann is\nthat of Manannan Mac Lir. Among the visitors was Bran, the son of Febal,\nwhose story may be found in the Leabhar na h' Uidhre, the oldest of the\ngreat Irish vellums.[113] One day as he was alone in his palace there came\nto him soft, sweet music, and he fell asleep. When he awoke a silver\nbranch, covered with flowers, was at his side. A short while after, as he\nwas in the midst of his kinsfolk, his chiefs, and his nobles, an unknown\ndamsel appeared, and bid him to her in the land of _Sidhe_, and then\nvanished, and with her the branch. Bran set sail, and with him thirty men.\nAfter two days' wandering they met Manannan Mac Lir. They continued their\njourney until they came to an island dwelt in solely by women; their queen\nit was who had sent for Bran. He stayed with her a while, and then came\nback to Ireland.\n\nBut the most famous of the visits to the Brug of Manannan is that of\nCormac Mac Art, whom the Irish legendary annals place in the third century\nof our era, and bring into connection with Fionn. The story, though only\nknown to us from later MSS., can be traced back to the tenth century at\nleast, as the title of it figures in a list preserved in the Book of\nLeinster, and as it is apparently alluded to by the eleventh century\nannalist, Tighernach.[114] The following summary is from a version, with\nEnglish translation by Mr. Standish Hayes O'Grady, in the third volume of\nthe Ossianic Society's publications.\n\nOf a time that Cormac was in Liathdruim he saw a youth having in his hand\na glittering fairy branch, with nine apples of red gold upon it.[115] And\nthis was the manner of that branch, that when any one shook it, men\nwounded and women with child would be lulled to sleep by the sound of the\nvery sweet fairy music which those apples uttered, and no one on earth\nwould bear in mind any want, woe, or weariness of soul when that branch\nwas shaken for him. Cormac exchanged for this branch his wife and son and\ndaughter, overcoming their grief by shaking the branch. But after a year,\nCormac went in search of them. And he chanced upon a land where many\nmarvels were wrought before his eyes, and he understood them not. At\nlength he came to a house wherein was a very tall couple, clothed in\nclothes of many colours, and they bade him stay. And the man of the house\nbrought a log and a wild boar, and if a quarter of the boar was put under\na quarter of the log, and a true story was told, the meat would be cooked.\nAt Cormac's request the host told the first story, how that he had seven\nswine with which he could feed the world, for if the swine were slain, and\ntheir bones put in the sty, on the morrow they would be whole again; and\nthe hostess the second, how that the milk of her seven white kine would\nsatisfy the men of the world. Cormac knew them for Manannan and his wife,\nand then told his story how he had lost and was seeking for wife and\nchildren. Manannan brought in the latter, and told Cormac it was he who\ngave him the branch, that he might bring him to that house. Then they sat\ndown to meat, and the table-cloth was such that no food, however delicate,\nmight be demanded of it, but it should be had without doubt; and the\ndrinking cup was such that if a false story was told before it, it went in\nfour pieces, and if a true one, it came whole again, and therewith was the\nfaith of Cormac's wife made evident. And Manannan gave branch and cloth\nand goblet to Cormac, and thereafter they went to slumber and sweet sleep.\nWhere they rose upon the morrow was in the pleasant Liathdruim.\n\nThe foregoing examples have been akin to the incident of the Maiden\nCastle. We have seen the race of immortals caring for the sons of men,\nsignalling out and alluring to themselves the brave and wise hero. In the\ntales we are now about to examine the benefit conferred by the visitor\nupon the inmates of the Magic Castle is insisted upon. But we must first\nnotice a tale which presents many of the incidents of the Grail romances,\nwithout actually belonging to the same story group as they. In Campbell's\nNo. LXXXVI, the Daughter of King Under the Waves, Diarmaid, the fairest\nand bravest of the Fenian heroes, weds a fay who, as her description\nindicates, belongs to the same order of beings as the damsels who lure\naway Connla and Bran, the son of Febal. She comes to him in loathly guise,\nand the other heroes shrink from her; but Diarmaid, courteous as he is\nbrave, gives her the shelter of tent and bed and has his reward. She\nbuilds for him such a castle as the fay mistress of the Knight of the\nBlack Tomb (_supra_, p. 17) builds for her lover. But she warns him that\nafter a threefold reproach as to how he found her she would have to leave\nhim. Through the cunning of Fionn he is led to break the taboo and \"it was\nin a mosshole he awoke on the morrow. There was no castle, or a stone left\nof it on another.\" Diarmaid sets forth to seek his wife, he finds her\nailing to death, and to be cured she must have three draughts from the cup\nof the King of the Plain of Wonder. Helped by a little russet man, he gets\nthe talisman, as was prophesied of him; but, advised by the little russet\nman, he gives the maiden to drink out of a certain well, which changes\ntheir love into aversion, and he returns to the light of day.\n\nThis last feature should be noted as characteristic. The mortal lover\nalways tires sooner than the fay mistress. Oisin cannot stay in T\u00edr-na\nn-Og. Perceval gives but one night to the Lady of the Chessboard.\n\nWe now come to the \"unspelling\" stories, and I will cite in the first\nplace one which is the most striking testimony I know of to the influence\nof this formula upon Celtic mythic lore. There is a widely spread\nfolk-tale of a hero robbed of three magic gifts and getting them back\nthus; by chance he eats some fruit or herb which changes him into an ass,\ncauses his nose to grow, sets horns upon his head, or produces some\nequally unpleasant result. Another herb he finds heals him. Armed with\nspecimens of either, he wins back his talismans. In Grimm it is No. 122,\nDer Krautesel, and in Vol. III., p. 201, variants are given. In one the\nhero is one of three soldiers, and he receives the gifts from a little\ngrey man. But neither here nor in the variants given by Dr. R. K\u00f6hler\n(Orient und Occident, II., p. 124) is the opening the same as in\nCampbell's No. X.--The Three Soldiers.\n\nThe three come to a house in the wilderness dwelt in by three girls who\nkeep them company at night, but disappear during the day. In the house is\na table, overnight they eat off it, and when they rise the board is\ncovered, and it would not be known that a bit had ever come off it. At the\nfirst night's close one soldier gets a purse never empty; at the second,\nthe next one a cloth always filled with meat; and the third, the youngest\n(the hero), a transporting whistle. But as they leave he must needs ask\nthem who they are, and they burst out crying, \"They were under charms till\nthey could find three lads who would spend three nights with them without\nputting a question--had he refrained they were free.\"\n\nIn one variant the time of probation lasts a year, and the talismans are:\na cup that empties not, and a lamp of light, the table-cloth of meat, and\na bed for rest. In another the damsels are swanmaids,[116] and the\nvisitors are bidden \"not to think nor order one of us to be with you in\nlying down or rising up.\"[117]\n\nThere can, I think, be little doubt that this last variant represents the\noldest form of the story, and that the swanmaid damsels belong to the\notherworld, as do the daughter of King Under the Waves and the maiden who\nfetches Connla. There is nothing surprising in swanmaids being the object\nof a taboo, this is so invariably the case in myth and folk-lore that it\nis needless to accumulate instances; what is unique to my knowledge, I\nspeak under correction, is the fact of these damsels being in possession\nof the talismans, one of which is so obviously connected with the Grail.\nIt may be noted that the obligation laid upon the hero is the direct\nopposite of that in the Grail romances, in the one case a question must\nnot be asked, in the other it must. In this respect Campbell's tale of\ncourse falls into line with all the widely spread and varying versions of\nthe Melusine legend. The supernatural wife always forbids her husband some\nspecial act which, as is perhaps natural, he can never refrain from doing.\n\nThe next form of the Bespelled Castle legend is one which has attained far\ngreater celebrity than any other on account of its traditional association\nwith historical personages. It pictures the inmate of the castle as a\nKing, with his warriors around him, sunk into magic sleep, and awaiting a\nsignal to come forth and free his folk. To many English readers this\nlegend will be more familiar in connection with Frederick Barbarossa[118]\nor with Holger the Dane than with any Celtic worthy. Yet the oldest\nhistoric instance is that of Arthur.[119] I have quoted (_supra_, p. 122)\nGerald's words relating to the mountain seat of Arthur. A more definite\ntradition, and one closely resembling the episode in the Grail romances,\nis the one noted by Gervasius of Tilbury[120] (c. 1211 A.D.). A groom of\nthe Bishop of Catania, following a runaway horse even to the summit of\nMount Etna, found himself in a far reaching plain, full of all things\ndelightful. A marvellous castle rose before him, wherein lay Arthur on a\nroyal bed, suffering from the wound inflicted upon him by Modred his\nnephew, and Childeric the Saxon, and this wound broke out afresh each\nyear. The King caused the horse to be given to the groom, and made him\nmany rich presents.[121]\n\nThis tradition of Arthur in Sicily raises some very interesting questions.\nFor one thing it is a fresh example of the tremendous and immediate\npopularity of the Arthurian legend. It also shows with what rapidity a\ntradition, however remote in its origin from a particular spot, may\nassociate itself with that. Of more immediate interest to us is the\nquestion whether this tradition has any direct connection with the Grail\nromances, whether it has shaped or been shaped by them. Martin refers the\nMaimed King of the romances to the same myth-root as the wounded Arthur\nwaiting in Etna or in Avalon till his wound be healed and he come forth.\nIt seems to me more likely that in so far as the wound is concerned there\nis a coincidence merely between the two stories, and that the Wounded King\nbelongs properly to the feud quest. I do not, however, deny that the fact\nof the Lord of the Bespelled Castle, of the otherworld, being sometimes\npictured as suffering from an incurable wound, may have aided that fusion\nof the two strains of legend which we find in the romances.\n\nIt is not my purpose to examine here in detail the innumerable versions of\nthis widely-spread tradition[122], the more so as I have been able to\ntrace no exact parallel to that presentment of the story found in Heinrich\nvon dem T\u00fcrlin and in the Didot-Perceval. No other version of this form of\nthe legend, to my knowledge, pictures the Bespelled King as awaiting the\ndeliverance of death at the hands of his visitor. Before endeavouring to\nfind a reason for the singularity of Heinrich's account, I will first\nquote one variant of the common form of the legend which has not been\nprinted before save by myself in the Folk-Lore Journal, Vol. I., p.\n193.[123] King Arthur sleeps bespelled in the ruins of (Richmond) Castle.\nMany have tried to find him but failed. One man only, Potter Thompson by\nname, wandering one night among the ruins chanced upon the hall wherein\nsat the King and his men around a table upon which lay a horn and a sword.\nTerrified, he turned and fled, and as he did so a voice sounded in his\nears--\n\n \"Potter Thompson, Potter Thompson,\n Had'st thou blown the horn,\n Thou had'st been the greatest man\n That ever was born.\"\n\nfor then he would have freed Arthur from his magic sleep. Never again\ncould he reach that hall.\n\nThis version, besides being practically inedited has the merit of\nexemplifying that association of the sword with the Lord of the Bespelled\nCastle to which I have already alluded.\n\nThe instances of the visit to the otherworld which have thus far been\ncollected from Celtic mythic literature, and which have been used as\nparallels to the unspelling quest of the romances, are more closely akin\nto one example of this incident, Perceval's visit to the Castle of\nMaidens, than to that found in Heinrich and the Didot-Perceval. None,\nindeed, throw any light upon that death-in-life which is the special\nfeature in these two works. All are of one kind in so far as the\ndisposition of the inmates towards the visitor is concerned; he is\nreceived with courtesy when he is not actually allured into the castle,\nand the trials to which he is subjected are neither painful nor\nhumiliating. But it will not have escaped attention that the Conte du\nGraal contains another form of the visit, one which I have hitherto left\nunnoticed, in Gawain's visit to the Magic Castle. A new conception is here\nintroduced: the Lord of the Castle[124] is an evil being, who holds\ncaptive fair dames and damsels; they it is, and not he, whom the hero must\ndeliver, and the act of deliverance subjects him to trial and peril\n(_supra_, p. 14, Chr. Inc. 17). Let us see if this form affords any\nexplanation of the mysterious features of Heinrich's version. This\nincident may, it is easily conceivable, be treated in two ways; the hero\nmay be a worthy knight and succeed, or a caitiff and fail. A story of this\nlatter kind may throw some light upon Gawain's adventures at the Magic\nCastle. The story in question (The Son of Bad Counsel) is ascribed by\nKennedy, Legendary Fictions, pp. 132, _et seq._, to an author of the\nearly eighteenth century, Brian Dhu O'Reilly, and traced back to an older\nOssianic legend--Conan's delusions in Ceash, of which Kennedy prints a\nversion, pp. 232, _et seq._ The hero of the story comes to the Castle of a\nGruagach, named the Giant of the Unfrequented Land, and his wife, daughter\nto the King of the Lonesome Land. The name of the castle is the Uncertain\nCastle. Very fair is their daughter, and she is proffered to the hero for\nhis promised aid against other fairy chieftains. After playing at\nbackgammon with the Gruagach, the hero lays himself to bed. He is\nassailed, as he fancies, by great dangers from which he hastens to flee,\nand, waking, finds himself in a ridiculous plight with his lady-love, and\nthe other folk of the castle laughing at him. In the morning he awakes,\n\"and his bed was the dry grass of a moat.\"\n\nThe names of the personages in the story at once recall those of the\nromances--the Waste Land or Forest, the Castle Perillous, and the\nlike--and one of the trials, the being shot at with fairy darts, is the\nsame as that to which Gawain is exposed in the Conte du Graal. But it is\ninteresting chiefly as being a version of a wide-spread tale of how gods\nor heroes penetrating to the other world are made mock of by its inmates.\nIn Scandinavian mythology the story is well-known as Thor's visit to\nUtgarth Loki. It is equally well-known in the Fionn saga, and, considering\nthe many points of contact we have hitherto found between Fionn and the\nGrail hero, the Fenian form claims our notice. The oldest preserved form\nof the story, that in the Book of Leinster, has been printed with\ntranslation by Mr. Whitley Stokes, Revue Celt., Vol. VII., pp. 289, _et\nseq._--Fionn comes at nightfall with Cailte and Oisin to a house he had\nnever heard of in that glen, knowing though he was. A grey giant greets\nthem; within are a hag with three heads on her thin neck, and a headless\nman with one eye protruding from his breast. Nine bodies rise out of a\nrecess, and the hideous crew sing a strain to the guests; \"not melodious\nwas that concert.\" The giant slays their horses; raw meat is offered them,\nwhich they refuse; the inmates of the house attack them; they had been\ndead had it not been for Fionn alone. They struggle until the sun lights\nup the house, then a mist falls into every one's head, so that he was dead\nupon the spot. The champions rise up whole, and the house is hidden from\nthem, and every one of the household is hidden.--In the later Fenian saga\n(later that is as far as the form in which it has come down to us is\nconcerned) the story closely resembles Thor's visit. Kennedy (Bardic\nStories, pp. 132, _et seq._) has a good version.[125]--Fionn and his\ncomrades follow a giant, on his shoulders an iron fork with a pig\nscreeching between the prongs, behind him a damsel scourging him. They\nfollow them to a house wherein is an aged hoary-headed man and a beautiful\nmaid, a rough giant cooking the hog, and an old man having twelve eyes in\nhis head, a white-haired ram, and a hag clad in dark ash coloured garment.\nTwo fountains are before the house: Fionn drinks of one which at first\ntastes sweet, but afterwards bitter to death; from the other, and though\nhe never suffered as much as while drinking, when he puts the vessel from\nhis lips he is as whole as ever he was. The hog is then shared; the ram\nleft out of count revenges itself by carrying out the guest's share, and\nsmite it with their swords as they may, they cannot hurt it. The hag then\nthrows her mantle over the guests, and they become four withered\ndrooping-headed old men; on the mantle being removed they resume their\nfirst shape. These wonders are explained. The giant is _sloth_, urged on\nby _energy_; the twelve-eyed old man is the _world_; and the ram the\n_guilt of man_; the wells are _truth_ and _falsehood_; the hag _old age_.\nThe warriors sleep and in the morning find themselves on the summit of\nCairn Feargaill with their hounds and their arms by them.\n\nThis tale betrays its semi-literary origin at once; and, though there is\nno reason to doubt that the Irish Celts had a counterpart to Thor's\njourney to Giantland, I am inclined to look upon the version just\nsummarised as influenced by the Norse saga. Certain it is that the popular\nversion of Fionn's visit to Giantland is much more like the eleventh\ncentury poem, preserved in the Book of Leinster, than it is like the\nmedi\u00e6val, \"How Fionn fared in the House of Cuana.\" I have already alluded\n(_supra_, p. 186) to one feature of the tale of Fionn's enchantment, but\nthe whole tale is of interest to us.--As Fionn and his men are sitting\nround the fire boasting of their prowess in comes a slender brown hare and\ntosses up the ashes, and out she goes. They follow her, a dozen, to the\nhouse of the Yellow Face, a giant that lived upon the flesh of men. A\nwoman greets them, and bids them begone before the Face returns, but Fionn\nwill not flee. In comes the Face and smells out the strangers. Six of the\nFenians he strikes with a magic rod, \"and they are pillars of stone to\nstop the sleety wind.\" He then cooks and devours a boar, and the bones he\nthrows to the Fenians. They play at ball with a golden apple, and the Face\nputs an end to Fionn's other comrades. Hereafter he wrestles with Fionn,\nand the griddle is put on the fire till it is red hot, and they all get\nabout Fionn and set him on the griddle till his legs are burnt to the hips\n('twas then he said, \"a man is no man alone\"), and stick a flesh-stake\nthrough both his hams, so that he could neither rise nor sit, and cast him\ninto a corner. But he manages to crawl out and sound his horn, and\nDiarmaid hears it and comes to his aid, and does to the Face as the Face\ndid to Fionn, and with the cup of balsam which he wins from him makes\nFionn whole.--It is not necessary to dwell on the parallel between\nDiarmaid healing his uncle Fionn, wounded with a stake through the two\nthighs, by winning the cup of balsam, and Perceval healing his uncle\n(mehaigni\u00e9 des II cuisses) by the question as to the Grail. This, alone,\nwould be sufficient to show us what _r\u00f4le_ the Grail played in the oldest\nform of the feud quest before the latter was influenced by the visit to\nthe Bespelled Castle.\n\nIf we look at the stories we have just summarised, we shall easily\nunderstand the meaning of the Magic Castle vanishing at dawn. As sleep is\nbrother to death, so are night and its realm akin to the otherworld; many\nphantoms haunt them and seem quick and strive with and often terribly\noppress the mortal wanderer through this domain, but with the first gleam\nof sunlight they vanish, leaving no trace behind them, and the awakening\nhero find himself in his own place. The conditions of the visit to the\notherworld are thus partly determined by man's nightly experience in that\ndreamland which he figures to himself as akin to, if not an actual\nportion of the land of shades. This visit, as we have seen, is conceived\nof in several ways. Its object is almost invariably to win precious\ntalismans; all we have comes to us from our forefathers, and it is natural\nto suppose that in the world whence they came, and whither they go back,\nis to be found all that man seeks here, only in a form as more wonderful\nthan earthly objects as the dwellers in the otherworld are mightier and\ncleverer than man. At times the talismans are held by beneficent beings,\nwho either gladly yield them to the mortal visitor, or from whom they may\nbe won by the exhibition of valour and magnanimity; at times by evil\nmonsters with whom the mortal must strive. In either case the visitor\narrives at nightfall and in the morning awakes to the life of this earth.\n\nThe secondary or Gawain form of the myth, as found in the Conte de Graal,\nmay help us to understand Heinrich's version. It is to free imprisoned\ndamsels that Gauvain undergoes the trials of the Magic Castle. Now the\neffect of his visit in the German poem is to free the sister of\nGansguoter, who, with her maidens, remains when the other inmates of the\ncastle, released by the question, have utterly vanished.[126] But what\nmeans the death-in-life condition of the King and his men? Is it merely an\nexpedient to account for their sudden vanishing at daylight? I rather see\nhere the influence of another form of the unspelling myth, one that mixed\nwith Christian elements has powerfully impressed the popular imagination,\nand is in many European countries the only one in which this old myth\nstill lives on.[127]\n\nThe inmates of the Magic Castle or house are in this form figured as men\ndoomed for some evil deed to haunt that particular spot, until some mortal\nis bold enough to win their secret and bring them rest. One would think\nthat under the circumstances they would be as amiable as possible to any\nvisitor. But the older form of the story persists, and they have not\nterrors or trials enough for the man who is to be their deliverer. I will\nonly quote one version, from Irish sources.[128]\n\nA youth engages to sleep in a haunted castle. If he is alive in the\nmorning he will get ten guineas and the farmer's daughter to wife. At\nnightfall he goes thither, and presently three men in old-fashioned dress\ncome down in pieces through a hole in the ceiling, put themselves\ntogether, and begin playing at football. Jack joins them, and towards\ndaybreak he judges they wish him to speak, so he asks them how he can give\nthem rest if rest they want. \"Them is the wisest words you ever spoke,\" is\nanswered to him. They had ground the poor and heaped up wealth evilly.\nThey show him their treasure, and tell him how to make restitution. As\nthey finish, \"Jack could see the wall through their body, and when he\nwinked to clear his sight the kitchen was as empty as a noggin turned\nupside down.\" Of course Jack does as he is told, and has the daughter to\nwife, and they live comfortably in the old castle.[129]\n\nWe have here, it seems to me, the last echo of such a story as one of\nthose which enter into the Grail romances. In Heinrich's version, as\nelsewhere in these romances, different story types can be distinguished,\ndifferent conceptions are harmonised. Many, indeed, are both the early\nconceptions and the varying shapes in which they embodied themselves, to\nbe traced in the complex mass of the romances. That a kinsman is bound to\navenge a blood feud, and that until he does so his kin may suffer from\nailment or enchantment and their land be under a curse; that the\notherworld is a land of feasting and joyousness and all fair things; that\nit contains magic treasures which he who is bold may win; that it is\npeopled with beings whom he may free by his courage; that it is fashioned\nlike dreamland--all these ideas find expression.\n\nIf the foregoing exposition be accepted we have a valuable criterion for\nthe age of the immediate originals of the romances. That famous version of\nthe legend which pictured the dwellers in the otherworld as Kings, spell\nbound, awaiting the releasing word to come forth and aid their folk, to\nwhich special circumstances gave such wide popularity in the later middle\nages, causing it to supplant older tales of gods dwelling in the hollow\nhills, this version has left no trace upon the romances. These must,\ntherefore, be older than the full-blown Arthurian legend. One or two minor\npoints may be briefly noticed. The ship in which is found the magic sword\nwhich wounds all bold enough to handle it save the destined Knight may be\nthought to have taken the place of an older island. The loathly Grail\nmessenger shows the influence of the two formulas: as coming from the\nBespelled Castle,[130] type of the otherworld, she should be radiantly\nfair; as the kinswoman of the destined avenger, under spells until the\nvengeance be accomplished, she is hideous in the last degree.\n\nBut before we take leave of this incident we must examine two features\nupon which, as yet, no light has been thrown, the meaning of the epithet\nthe _Fisher_ King, and the hero's silence upon his first visit to the\nCastle of Talismans.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n The Fisher King in the Conte du Graal, in the Queste, and in Borron\n and the Grand St. Graal--The accounts of latter complete each\n other--The Fish is the Salmon of Wisdom--Parallel with the Fionn\n Saga--The nature of the Unspelling Quest--The Mabinogi of Taliesin and\n its mythological affinities--Brons, Bran, Cernunnos--Perceval's\n silence: Conte du Graal explanation late; explanation from the Fionn\n Saga--Comparison of incident with _geasa_; nature of latter;\n references to it in Celtic folk-tales and in old Irish literature,\n Book of Rights, Diarmaid, Cuchulainn--_Geasa_ and _taboo_.\n\n\nThe Conte du Graal, as we have seen, offers no satisfactory explanation of\nthe Fisher King. By Chrestien he is represented on Perceval's first\nmeeting with him as angling from a boat steered by his companion (v.\n4,187); he directs Perceval to his castle. Perceval is afterwards informed\nthat, being wounded and consequently unable to mount on horseback, fishing\nis his only solace, whence the name applied to him (vv. 4,681, _et seq._).\nThis is practically all the Conte du Graal has to say about him, as the\ncontinuators, whilst repeating the epithet, add no fresh details. Indeed\nin none of the after-visits of Perceval is the King represented as\nfishing, or is there the slightest reference to, let alone insistence\nupon, this favourite occupation of his. It is another proof of the\ninadequacy of Birch-Hirschfeld's theory of the development of the legend,\nthat it represents Chrestien, who, _ex hypothesi_, divested Borron's poem\nof its religious character, as retaining this feature due wholly to\nreligious symbolism, whilst the continuators with their obvious fondness\nfor such symbolism entirely neglected it. The Queste, which in so far as\nthe quest portion is concerned is formally connected with the Conte du\nGraal, says nothing about the Fisher, nor does that section of the Grand\nSt. Graal which presents the same Early History as the Queste. In\nBorron's poem, on the other hand, and in that later section of the Grand\nSt. Graal which agrees with it, an explanation is given of the epithet.\nAccording to Borron, Brons catches a fish at Joseph's bidding; Joseph,\nhaving placed the vessel on the table and covered it with a towel, takes\nthe fish and lays it opposite the vessel; the people are then called\ntogether, and it is possible to distinguish the sinners from the righteous\n(vv. 2,500-2,600). Joseph is afterwards told by an angel, that, as Brons\nwas a good man, it was the Lord's will he should catch the fish (vv.\n3,310, _et seq._), and he is to be called the Rich Fisher (v. 3,348). In\nthe Grand St. Graal (Vol. II., pp. 248, _et seq._) not Brons but his son\nAlain is bidden by Joseph to fish, and this with a view to providing food\nfor the sinners of the company whom the Holy Vessel leaves unsatisfied.\nAlain fishes from a boat with a net. He catches but one fish, and there\nare at first murmurs, but Joseph, by virtue of Alain's prayers, multiplies\nthe fish so that it feeds the host, and thus Alain wins the name of Rich\nFisher.\n\nThese accounts complete each other. Chrestien dwells upon the continued\nact of fishing which, for aught to the contrary we learn from him or his\ncontinuators, is always fruitless. Borron and the Grand St. Graal dwell\nupon the one successful haul, and especially upon the miraculous\nproperties of the one fish caught. Reading the two accounts together, we\nfind that the Fisher King passes his life seeking for a fish which, when\ncaught, confers upon him the power of distinguishing good from evil, or\nenables him to furnish an inexhaustible meal to his men.\n\nThe Conte du Graal has been shown to derive more of its substance from the\nfeud quest--the Didot-Perceval from the unspelling quest. Borron's poem,\nas far as its primitive Celtic elements are concerned, is probably to be\nranged with the Didot-Perceval, to which many links unite it. We may,\ntherefore, turn to Celtic stories belonging to either of these formulas\nfor parallel features. The inexhaustible nature of the fish at once\nrecalls the pigs of Manannan Mac Lir (_supra_, p. 194); they, too, can\nfeed a multitude. But it is in stories formally connected with the feud\nquest that we find what I venture to suggest is an adequate explanation of\nthe nature of the Fisher King and of the fish. The latter is, I think,\nthe Salmon of Wisdom,[131] which appears so often and so prominently in\nIrish mythic lore; and the former is that being who passes his life in\nvain endeavours to catch the wonderful fish, and who, in the moment of\nsuccess, is robbed of the fruit of all his long toils and watchings. I am\nprepared to admit that the incident as found in Borron's poem has been\nrecast in the mould of medi\u00e6val Christian symbolism, but I think the older\nmyth can still be clearly discerned and is wholly responsible for the\nincident as found in the Conte du Graal.[132]\n\nLet us first look at the Irish story. This is found in an account, to\nwhich allusion has already been made, of the Boyish Exploits of Finn Mac\nCumhail.[133] It is there told how Finn seeks his namesake, Finn-eges, to\nlearn poetry from him, as until then he durst not stay in Ireland for fear\nof his foes. Now Finn-eges had remained seven years by the Boyne, watching\nthe salmon of Linn-Feic, which it had been foretold Finn (himself as he\nthought) should catch and know all things afterwards. Finn, who conceals\nhis name, takes service with him and the salmon is caught. Finn is set to\nwatch it while it roasts, but warned not to eat of it. Inadvertently he\ntouches it with his thumb, which he burns, and carries to his mouth to\ncool. Immediately he becomes possessed of all knowledge, and thereafter he\nhad only to chew his thumb to obtain wisdom. Finn-eges recognises that the\nprophecy has been fulfilled, and hails his pupil as Finn.\n\nIt is needless to dwell upon the archaic features of this tale, which\nrepresents the hero seeking service of a powerful magician, from whom he\nhopes to learn the spells and charms that may guard him against his foes.\nHere, as in many other portions of the Ossianic saga, Fionn is strikingly\nlike a Red Indian medicine man, or the corresponding wizard among other\nsavage tribes. It is more to our purpose to note that this tale contains\nthe fullest presentment of Fionn as hero of the Expulsion and Return\nFormula, and that a similar incident is to be found in the lives of other\nheroes of the formula (notably Siegfried: the Adventure with Mimir.) Now,\nas we have already seen that Peredur-Perceval is a formula hero, there is\nnothing remarkable in finding an analogous incident in his _sage_. A\nformal connection is thus at once made out. But we must look into the\nmatter a little closer, as the incident found in the romances is but a\nfaint echo, and that in part distorted by alien conceptions, of the\noriginal story.\n\nThe unspelling quest in one form resolves itself ultimately into the\nhero's search for riches, power, or knowledge, in prosecution of which he\npenetrates to the otherworld. This is figured in the Grail romances both\nby Brons' or Alain's (who here answers to Fionn) catching the wonderful\nfish, and by Peredur-Perceval coming to the house of Brons, the Fisher\nKing (who here answers to Finn-eges), winning from him the mysterious\nvessel of increase, and learning the secret words which put an end to the\nenchantments of Britain. In the Grail romances the idea of wisdom is not\nassociated with the Grail, the vessel, at all; it is either bound up with\nthe fish, as in the Irish tale, or is the possession of the Fisher King as\nthe wonder-working spells are the possession of Finn-eges.\n\nBut in the Welsh tradition which corresponds to that of Fionn and the\nsalmon, it is the vessel, the cauldron, or rather the drink which it\nholds, which communicates the gift of wisdom and knowledge. I allude, of\ncourse, to the story of Gwion, set by Ceridwen to watch the cauldron of\ninspiration, inadvertently tasting its contents, becoming thereby filled\nwith knowledge, pursued by Ceridwen, who swallows him, and in whom he\nre-incarnates himself as Taliesin, the Allwise Bard. Campbell had already\n(Vol. IV., p. 299) drawn attention to the similarity of the two stories,\nand equated Fionn, father of Oisin, with Gwion, father of Taliesin; and,\nas Professor Rhys has now (Hibbert Lectures, p. 551) given the equation\nhis sanction, it may be accepted as philologically sound.\n\nI have hitherto refrained in the course of these studies from making any\nuse of the Mabinogi of Taliesin, or of references to the cauldron of\nCeridwen of a like nature with those contained in that tale; but it will,\nI think, be admitted now that the Welsh Mabinogi, however late in form,\nand however overlaid it may be with pseudo-archaic bardic rubbish, does go\nback to a primitive stratum of Celtic mythology.\n\nIn connection with this myth the name Brons is of high import. This\ncatcher of the fish, this lord of the Grail, at once suggests Bran, who is\nalso a guardian of the magic cauldron. Professor Rhys (pp. 85-95) shows\nreason for looking upon Bran (as he is presented in the Mabinogi of\nBranwen) as the representative of an old Celtic god, Cernunnos, that\nCeltic Dis from whom, as C\u00e6sar reports, the Gauls claimed descent, and\nwho, as god of the otherworld and the shades was also god of knowledge and\nriches. We are thus brought back again to the fundamental conception of\nthe Grail quest.\n\nIt is to this tale that I would turn for one of the possible explanations\nof Perceval's silence at the Court of the Fisher King. That the romance\nwriters did not understand this incident is evident from the explanation\nthey give.\n\nGonemans' moral advice to his nephew on the evil of curiosity may have its\nfoundation in a possible feature of the original, about which I shall\nspeak presently; or it may simply be an expedient of Chrestien's or of his\nimmediate model. In either case its present form is obviously neither old\nnor genuine. The silence of Perceval may, perhaps, be referred to the same\nmyth-root as Fionn's concealment of his name whilst in the service of\nFinn-eges.[134] This prohibition might extend not only to the disclosing\nof his name by the mortal visitor to the realm of the shades, but to the\nutterance of any words at all. As he might not eat or drink in the\nunderworld, so he might not speak lest he lose the power to return to the\nland of the living. One tale we have seen (_supra_, p. 195) does contain\nthis very injunction to say no word whilst in company of the dwellers in\nthe Bespelled Castle. In this case we should have to assume that two\nvarying redactions of the theme have been maladroitly fused into one in\nthe romances--that, namely, which bids the visitor to the otherworld\nabstain from a certain act, and that which, on the contrary, bids him\nperform a certain act, failure of compliance with the injunction being\npunished in either case. The positive injunction of one form of the story\nis used as an explanation of the hero's failure in another.\n\nAn alternative hypothesis is that whilst the hero's unreadiness of speech,\nthe cause of his want of success at his first visit, comes wholly from the\nunspelling quest, the motive by which the romances seek to account for\nthat unreadiness comes from the feud quest. The latter, as has been shown,\nis closely akin to many task-stories; and it is a frequent feature in such\nstories, especially in the Celtic ones, that the hero has to accomplish\nhis quest in spite of all sorts of odd restrictions which are laid upon\nhim by an enemy, generally by a step-mother or some other evil-disposed\nrelative. In the language of Irish mythic tradition Perceval would be\nunder _geasa_ to ask no questions, and Gonemans' advice would be the last\nfaint echo of such an incident. The form which such prohibitions take in\nCeltic folk-tales is very curious. The _gess_ is generally embodied in a\nmagical formula, the language of which is very old and frequently\nunintelligible to the narrators themselves. As a rule, the hero, by advice\nof a friendly supernatural being, lays a counterspell upon his enemy.\nThus, in \"How the Great Tuairsgeul was put to Death\" (Scot. Celt. Rev. I.,\np. 70) the magician \"lays it as crosses and charms that water leave not\nyour shoe until you found out how the Great Tuairsgeul was put to death.\"\nThe hero retorts by laying the same charms that the magician leave not the\nhillock until he return. In Campbell, No. XLVII., Mac Iain Direach, the\nstepmother, \"sets it as crosses, and as spells, and as the decay of the\nyear upon thee; that thou be not without a pool of water in thy shoe, and\nthat thou be wet, cold, and soiled until, etc.;\" and the hero bespells\nher, \"that thou be standing with the one foot on the great house and the\nother foot on the castle: and that thy face be to the tempest whatever\nwind blows, until I return back.\" The formula in Campbell, No. LI, the\nFair Gruagach is very archaic. \"I lay thee under spells, and under\ncrosses, under holy herdsmen of quiet travelling, wandering woman, the\nlittle calf, most feeble and powerless, to take thy head and thine ear and\nthy wearing of life from off thee if thou takest rest by night or day;\nwhere thou takest thy breakfast that thou take not thy dinner, and where\nthou takest thy dinner that thou take not thy supper, in whatsoever place\nthou be, until thou findest out in what place I may be under the four\nbrown quarters of the globe.\"\n\nThese instances will suffice to show the nature of the _gess_ in Celtic\nfolk-lore, but some references to older Irish literature are necessary to\nshow its great importance in the social and religious life of the race.\nO'Donovan (Book of Rights, p. xlv.) explains the word _geasa_ as \"any\nthing or act forbidden because of the ill luck that would result from its\ndoing;\" also \"a spell, a charm, a prohibition, an interdiction or\nhindrance.\" This explanation occurs in the introduction to a poem on the\nrestrictions (_geasa_) and prerogatives (_buada_) of the Kings of Eire,\nfound in the Book of Ballymote (late fourteenth century) and Book of Lecan\n(early fifteenth century). The poem is ascribed to Cuan O'Lochain (A.D.\n1024), and, from the historical allusions contained in it, O'Donovan looks\nupon it as in substance due to that poet, and as embodying much older\ntraditions. Some of these _geasa_ may be quoted. For the King of Eire,\n\"that the sun should rise upon him on his bed in Magh Teamhrach;\" for the\nKing of Leinster, \"to go round Tuath Laighean left hand-wise on\nWednesday;\" for the King of Munster, \"to remain, to enjoy the feast of\nLoch Lein from one Monday to another;\" for the King of Connaught, \"to go\nin a speckled garment on a grey speckled steed to the heath of Luchaid;\"\nfor the King of Ulster, \"to listen to the fluttering of the flocks of\nbirds of Luin Saileach after sunset.\"[135] Even these instances do not\nexhaust the force or adequately connote the nature of this curious\ninstitution. In the Irish hero-tales _geasa_ attach themselves to the hero\nfrom his birth up, and are the means by which fate compasses the downfall\nof the otherwise invincible champion; thus it is a _gess_ of Diarmaid that\nhe never hunt a swine, and when he is artfully trapped into doing it by\nFionn he meets his death; it is a _gess_ of Cuchulainn's that he never\nrefuse food offered him by women, and as he goes to his last fight he\naccepts the poisoned meal of the witches though he full well knows it will\nbe fatal to him.[136] But, besides this, _geasa_ may also be an appeal to\nthe hero's honour as well as a magic charm laid upon him, and it is\nsometimes difficult to see by which of the two motives the hero is moved.\nThus Graine, wife of Fionn, lays _geasa_ upon Diarmaid that he carry her\noff from her husband, and though he is in the last degree unwilling he\nmust comply.[137]\n\nEnough has been said to show that we have in the _geasa_ a cause quite\nsufficient to explain the mysterious prohibition to ask questions laid\nupon Perceval, if the first explanation I have offered of this prohibition\nbe thought inadequate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n Summing up of the elements of the older portion of the\n cycle--Parallelism with Celtic tradition--The Christian element in the\n cycle: the two forms of the Early History; Brons form older--Brons and\n Bran--The Bran conversion legend--The Joseph conversion legend: Joseph\n in apocryphal literature--Glastonbury--The head in the platter and the\n Veronica portrait--The Bran legend the starting point of the Christian\n transformation of the legend--Substitution of Joseph for\n Bran--Objections to this hypothesis--Hypothetical sketch of the growth\n of the legend.\n\n\nI have now finished the examination of all those incidents in the Grail\nQuest romances which are obviously derived from some other sources than\nChristian legend, and which are, indeed, referred by pronounced adherents\nof the Christian-origin hypothesis to Celtic tradition. I have also\nclaimed a Celtic origin for features hitherto referred to Christian\nlegend. This examination will, I trust, convince many that nearly all the\nincidents connected with the Quest of the Grail are Celtic in their\norigin, and that thus alone can we account for the way in which they\nappear in the romances. The latter are, as we have seen, in the highest\ndegree inconsistent in their account of the mystic vessel and its\nfortunes; the most cursory examination shows the legend to be composed of\ntwo parts, which have no real connection with each other; the older of\nthese parts, the Quest, can easily be freed from the traces of Christian\nsymbolism; this older part is itself no homogeneous or consistent tale,\nbut a complex of incidents diverse in origin and character. These\nincidents are: the rearing of the hero in ignorance of the world and of\nmen; his visit to the court of the King, his uncle; his slaying of his\nfather's murderer, the trial made of him by means of the broken sword; his\nservice with the Fisher King; his quest in search of the sword and of the\nvessel by means of which he is to avenge the death or wounding of his\nkinsman; his accomplishment of this task by the aid of a kinsman who is\nunder spells from which he will not be loosed until the quest be ended;\nthe adventure of the stag-hunt, in which the bespelled kinsman tests the\nhero's skill and courage; the hero's visit to the Castle of Talismans; the\nprohibition under which he labours; his failure to accomplish certain\nacts; the effects of his failure; his visit to the Magic Castle, the lord\nof which is under the enchantment of death-in-life; his visit to the\nCastle of Maidens; his visit to the Castle Perillous; and his deliverance\nof the captive damsels by means of the trials which he successfully\nundergoes. To one and all of these incidents Celtic parallels have been\nadduced; these have in each case been drawn from stories which present a\ngeneral similarity of outline with the Grail romances, or share with them\nsimilar guiding conceptions, whilst at the same time they are so far\ndisconnected with them that no hypothesis of borrowing can account for the\nfeatures they have in common. The inconsistencies of the romances have\nbeen explained by the fusion into one of two originally distinct groups of\nstories, and this explanation is confirmed by the fact that traces of this\nfusion may readily be found in the parallel Celtic tales. These latter,\nwhen studied by scholars who never thought of comparing them with the\nGrail romances, have been found to contain mythical elements which other\nscholars had detected independently in the romances. Those features of the\nromances which have perplexed previous students, the Fisher King and the\nomitted question, have been explained from the same group of Celtic\ntraditions, and in accordance with the same scheme of mythical\ninterpretation which have been used to throw light upon the remainder of\nthe cycle. Finally, the one Celtic version of the Grail Quest, the\nMabinogi, which presents no admixture of Christian symbolism, has been\nshown, when cleared of certain easily distinguishable interpolations, to\nbe genuine in character, and to present the oldest form of one of the\nstories which enters into the romances.\n\nI have tried not to force these parallels, nor to go one step beyond what\nthe facts warrant. I have also tried to bear in mind that a parallel is of\nno real value unless it throws light upon the puzzling features in the\ndevelopment of the romances. I thus rest my case, not so much upon the\naccumulative effect of the similarities which I have pointed out between\nthe romances and Celtic tradition, as upon the fact that this reference of\nthe romances to certain definite cycles of Celtic myth and legend makes us\nunderstand, what otherwise we cannot do, how they came by their present\nshape. It now remains to be seen if this reference, can in any way explain\nthe Christian element in the legend, which I have hitherto left almost\nentirely out of account. Birch-Hirschfeld's hypothesis is condemned, in my\nopinion, by its failure to account for the Celtic element; although I do\nnot think an explanation of a late and intruding feature is as incumbent\nupon me as that of the original Celtic basis of the legend is upon him, I\nyet feel that an hypothesis which has nothing to say on such a vital point\ncan hardly be considered satisfactory. It is the Christian transformation\nof the old Celtic myths and folk-tales which gave them their wide vogue in\nthe Middle Ages, which endowed the theme with such fascination for the\npreachers and philosophers who used it as a vehicle for their teaching,\nand which has endeared it to all lovers of mystic symbolism. The question\nhow and why the Celtic tales which I have tried, not unsuccessfully I\ntrust, to disentangle from the romances were ever brought into contact\nwith Christ and His disciples, and how the old mystic vessel of healing,\nincrease, and knowledge became at last the sacramental cup, must,\ntherefore, be faced. The hypotheses set forth in the preceding page might\nbe accepted in their entirety, and the merit of this transformation still\nbe claimed, as Birch-Hirschfeld claims it, for the North French poets, to\nwhom we owe the present versions of the romances. On first reading\nBirch-Hirschfeld's book, I thought this claim one of the flaws in his\nargument, and, as will be seen by reference to Chapter IV., other\ninvestigators, who accept the Christian origin of the larger part of the\nlegend, hold that it has been shaped in these islands, or in accordance\nwith Celtic traditions now lost. I think we can go a step farther. A\nnumber of myths and tales have been used to illustrate the romances. In\nthem may be found the personages through whom probably took place the\nfirst contact between Celtic mythic tradition and Christian legend.\n\nWe must revert for one moment to the results obtained in Chapter III. by\nan examination of the way in which the Grail and its fortunes are\nmentioned in the romances. We there distinguished two forms of the\ndistinctively Christian portion of the legend, the Early History. In both\nJoseph is the first possessor and user of the holy vessel, but in one its\nfarther fortunes are likewise bound up with him or with his seed. He, or\nhis son, it is who leads the Grail host to Britain, who converts the\nisland, and by whom the precious vessel is handed down through a chosen\nline of kings in anticipation of the promised Knight's coming. In the\nother form, on the contrary, Joseph has nothing to do with Britain, which\nis converted by Brons and his son, Alain; Brons is the guardian of the\nholy vessel, and, in one version, the fisher of the mystic fish, whilst in\nanother his son takes this part. There is repeated insistence upon the\nconnection between the Grail host and Avalon. Finally Brons is the\npossessor of \"secret words,\" and may not die until he has revealed them to\nhis grandson.\n\nThis account is, we saw, later in form than the Joseph one. As we have it,\nit was written after the greater portion of the Conte du Graal, after that\nredaction of the Early History made use of by the author of the Queste and\nof the first draft of the Grand St. Graal. Its influence only makes itself\nfelt in the later stages of development of the legend. But none the less\nit clearly represents an older and purer form of the Early History than\nthat of the Queste and of Chrestien's continuators. It has not been\ndoctored into harmony with the full-blown Arthurian legend as the Joseph\nEarly History has. It is still chiefly, if not wholly, a legend, the main\npurport of which is to recount the conversion of Britain.\n\nSuch a legend is surely more likely to have been shaped by Welsh or Breton\nmonks than by North French _trouv\u00e8res_. And when we notice the Celtic\nnames of the personages, and their connection with the Celtic paradise,\nAvalon, there can remain little, if any, doubt respecting the first home\nof the story. We may thus look upon Brons, owner of a mystic vessel,\nfisher of a mystic fish, as the hero of an early conversion legend. But\nthe name Brons has at once suggested to most students of the cycle that of\nBran. The latter is, as we saw in the last Chapter, the representative of\nan old Celtic god of the otherworld. He is the owner of the cauldron of\nrenovation. He is also the hero in Welsh tradition of a conversion legend,\nand is commonly known as Bran the Blessed. Unfortunately the only\nexplanation we have of this epithet occurs in a late triad, to which it is\nnot safe to assign an earlier date than the fourteenth century. He is\ndescribed therein as son of Llyr Llediath, \"as one of the three blissful\nRulers of the Island of Britain, who first brought the faith of Christ to\nthe nation of the Cymry from Rome, where he was seven years a hostage for\nhis son Caradawc.\"[138] But if late in form this triad may well embody an\nold tradition. It gives the significant descent of Bran from Llyr, and\nthereby equates him with Mannanan Mac Lir, with whom he presents otherwise\nso many points of contact. It is quite true that the Bran legend, as is\npointed out to me by Professor Rhys, is mentioned neither in the earliest\ngenealogies nor in Geoffrey. But it should be noted that the Grand St.\nGraal does bring one member of the Brons group, Petrus, into contact with\nKing Luces, the Lucius to whom Geoffrey ascribes the conversion. Again,\nthe epithet \"blessed\" is applied to Bran in the Mabinogi of Branwen,\ndaughter of Llyr. I have placed this tale as a whole as far back as the\neleventh-tenth centuries, and my arguments have met with no opposition,\nand have won the approval of such authorities as Professor Windisch and\nMonsieur Gaidoz. But the Mabinogi, as we have it, was written down in the\nfourteenth century; the last transcriber abridged it, and at times did not\napparently understand what he was transcribing. By his time the full-blown\nBran legend of the triad was in existence, and it may be contended that\nthe epithet was due to him and did not figure in his model. On the other\nhand, Stephens (Lit. of the Cymry, p. 425) quotes a triad of Kynddelw, a\npoet of the twelfth century, referring to the three blessed families of\nthe Isle of Britain, one of which is declared by a later tradition to be\nthat of Bran.[139] Again, the triads of Arthur and his Warriors, printed\nby Mr. Skene, Four Ancient Books, Vol. II., p. 457, from MS. Hengwrt, 566,\nof the beginning of the fourteenth century, and probably at least fifty\nyears older, mentions the \"blessed head of Bran.\"[140] On the whole, in\nspite of the silence of older sources, I look upon the epithet and the\nlegend which it presupposes as old, and I see in a confusion between Bran,\nLord of the Cauldron, and Bran the Blessed, the first step of the\ntransformation of the Peredur _sage_ into the Quest of the Holy Grail. In\nthe first capacity Bran corresponds to the Lord of the Castle of\nTalismans. From the way in which the fish is dwelt upon in his legend, it\nmay, indeed, be conjectured that he stood to Peredur in some such relation\nas Finn-eges to Fionn. As hero of a conversion legend he came into contact\nwith Joseph. We do not know how or at what date the legend of the\nconversion of Britain by Joseph originated. It is found enjoying wide\npopularity in the latter half of the twelfth century, the very time in\nwhich the romances were assuming their present shape. W\u00fclcker (Das\nEvangelium Nicodemi in der abendl\u00e4ndischen Literatur, Paderborn, 1872)\nshows that the legend is not met with before William of Malmesbury; and\nZarncke, as already stated (_supra_, p. 107), has argued that the passage\nin William is a late interpolation due to the popularity of the\nromances.[141] But to accept Zarncke's contention merely shifts back the\ndifficulty. If William did not first note and give currency to the\ntradition, the unknown predecessor of Robert de Borron and of the authors\nof the Queste and Grand St. Graal did so; and the question still remains\nhow did he come by the tradition, and what led him to associate it with\nGlastonbury. Birch-Hirschfeld, it is true, makes short work of this\ndifficulty. The fact that there is no earlier legend in which Joseph\nfigures as the Apostle of Britain is to him proof that Borron evolved the\nconception of the Grail out of the canonical and apocryphal writings in\nwhich Joseph appears, and then devised the passage to Britain in order to\nincorporate the Arthurian romances with the legend he had invented. It is\nneedless to repeat that this theory, unacceptable on _a priori_ grounds,\nis still more so when tested by facts.\n\nBut Joseph under other aspects than that of Apostle of Britain is worthy\nof notice. The main source whence the legend writers drew their knowledge\nof him was the Evangelium Nicodemi, the history of which has been\ninvestigated by W\u00fclcker. The earliest allusion in western literature to\nthis apocryphal gospel is that of Gregory of Tours (W\u00fclcker, p. 23), but\nno other trace of its influence is to be met with in France until we come\nto the Grail romances, and to mystery-plays which relate Christ's\nHarrowing of Hell. In Provence, Italy, and Germany the thirteenth and\ntwelfth centuries are the earliest to which this gospel can be traced. In\nEngland, on the contrary, it was known as far back as the latter quarter\nof the eighth century; Cynewulf based upon it a poem on the Harrowing of\nHell, and alludes to it in the Crist; the ninth century poem, \"Christ and\nSatan,\" likewise shows knowledge of it, and there is a West-Saxon\ntranslation dating from the early eleventh century.\n\nWhence this knowledge and popularity of the gospel in England several\ncenturies before it entered prominently into the literature of any other\nEuropean people? W\u00fclcker can only point by way of answer to the early\nspread of Christianity in these Islands, and to the possibility of this\ngospel having reached England before it did France or Germany. He also\ninsists upon the early development of Anglo-Saxon literature.\n\nWhether the fact that the apocryphal writings which told of Joseph were\nknown here when they were unknown on the Continent be held to warrant or\nno the existence of a specifically British Joseph legend, they at all\nevents prove that he was a familiar and favourite legendary figure on\nBritish soil. It would be rash to go any farther, and to argue from the\ninadequacy of the reasons by which W\u00fclcker seeks to account for the early\nknowledge of the Evangelium Nicodemi in England, that Joseph enjoyed\nparticular favour among the British Christians, and that it was from them\nthe tidings of him spread among their Saxon conquerors.\n\nThe legendary popularity of Joseph in these islands, though not in any\nspecial capacity of Apostle of Britain, is thus attested. Let us admit for\nargument's sake that the conversion legend did first take shape in the\ntwelfth century, is it not more likely to have done so here, where the\napocryphal writings about him were widely spread, than in France, where\nthey were practically unknown? And why if Borron, or any other French\npoet, wanted to connect the Holy Vessel legend which he had imagined with\nArthur, should he go out of his way to invent the personages of Brons and\nAlain? The story as found in the Queste would surely have been a far more\nnatural one for him. And why the insistence upon Avalon? We have plain\nproof that Borron did not understand the word, as he explains it by a\nridiculous pun (_supra_, p. 78).[142]\n\nThese difficulties are met in a large measure if we look upon Bran\n(Brons) as the starting point of the Christian transformation of the\nlegend. In any case we may say that a conversion legend, whether\nassociated with Joseph or anyone else, would almost inevitably have\ngravitated towards Glastonbury, but there are special reasons why this\nshould be the case with a Bran legend. Avalon is certainly the Welsh\nequivalent of the Irish T\u00edr na n-Og, the land of youth, the land beyond\nthe waves, the Celtic paradise. When or how this Cymric myth was localised\nat Glastonbury we know not.[143] We only know that Glastonbury was one of\nthe first places in the island to be devoted to Christian worship. Is it\ntoo rash a conjecture that the Christian church may have taken the place\nof some Celtic temple or holy spot specially dedicated to the cult of the\ndead, and of that Lord of the Shades from which the Celts feigned their\ndescent? The position of Glastonbury, not far from that western sea beyond\nwhich lie the happy isles of the dead, would favour such an hypothesis.\nAlthough direct proof is wanting, I believe that the localisation is old\nand genuine: Bran, ruler of the otherworld, of Avalon, would thus come\ninto natural contact with Glastonbury; and if, as I assume, Joseph took\nhis place in the conversion legend the association would extend to him.\nThe after development of the legend would then be almost a matter of\ncourse. Bran, the ruler in Avalon, would pass on his magic gear (cauldron,\nspear, and sword, as in the case of the Tuatha de Dannan) to Bran the\nBlessed, who would in his turn transfer them to Joseph. And once the\nlatter had entered into the legend, he would not fail to recall that last\nscene of the Lord's life with which he was so closely associated, not by\nany pseudo-gospel but by the canonical writings themselves, and thus the\ngear of the old Celtic gods became transformed into such objects as were\nmost prominent in the story of the Passion and of the scene that\nimmediately preceded it. The spear became that one wherewith Christ's side\nwas pierced. As for the vessel, the sacramental nature is the last stage\nof its Christian development; its original object was merely to explain\nthe sustenance of Joseph in prison, and to provide a miraculous\nrefreshment for the Grail host, as is shown by the Early History portion\nof the Conte du Graal and by the Queste. In a dim and confused way the\ncircumstances of the Resurrection helped to effect the change of the pagan\nresuscitation-cauldron into a symbol of the risen Lord. And some now lost\nfeature of the original legend--some insistence upon the _contents_ of the\nvessel, some assimilation of them to blood--may have suggested the use to\nwhich the vessel was first put.\n\nThis hypothesis assumes many things. It assumes a Bran conversion legend,\nof which the only evidence of anything like the same date as the romances\nis a single epithet; it assumes that the hero of this legend was\noriginally an old Celtic divinity; it assumes a Joseph conversion legend,\nfor which there is really no other evidence than that of the romances; it\nassumes the amalgamation of the two legends, and that Joseph took over in\na large measure the _r\u00f4le_ and characteristics of Brons. And when it is\nrecollected that the primary assumption, the identification of the two\nBrans, rests in a large measure upon the appearance of the fish in the\nBrons legend, that this fish is nowhere in Celtic tradition associated\nwith Bran, that it is associated on the other hand with a being, Fionn,\nwhom we have compared with Peredur, but that it is absent from the\nPeredur-saga, the hypothesis must be admitted to be of a tentative nature.\nI fully appreciate the force of the objections that can be urged against\nit; at the same time it has the merit of accounting for many puzzling\nfeatures in the legend. When in the same story two personages can be\ndistinguished whose _r\u00f4le_ is more or less of the same nature, when the\none personage is subordinated in one version and has disappeared\naltogether from the other, it is quite legitimate to conclude that two\noriginally independent accounts have become blended, and that one has\nabsorbed the other. The hypothesis is on safe ground so far. It thus\nexplains the presence of Brons in the legend, as well as his absence from\nsome versions of it; it has something to say in explanation of the\nconnection with Glastonbury; it explains in what way the Celtic traditions\nwere started on their path of transformation; and it provides for that\ntransformation taking the very course it did. There is nothing to be urged\nagainst it on _a priori_ grounds; once admit the premisses, and the rest\nfollows easily and naturally. Its conjectural character (the main\nobjection to it) is shared in an even higher degree by the other\nhypotheses, which have essayed to account for the growth and origin of the\nlegend, and _they_ have the disadvantage of being inherently impossible.\n\nIn the light of the foregoing investigations and hypotheses we may now\namplify the sketch history of the whole cycle given in Chapter III. The\nPeredur-saga probably came into existence in much its later form at an\nearly date in the Middle Ages. A number of older mythical tales centered\nin a, perhaps, historical personage. The circumstances of his life and\nadventures may have given them not only cohesion, but may also have\ncoloured and distorted them; nevertheless they remained, in the main,\nmythical tales of the same kind as those found all over the world. One of\nthese tales was undoubtedly a Cymric variant of the Celtic form of the\nExpulsion and Return formula; another dealt with the hero's journey to the\nLand of Shades; traces of many others are to be found in the Mabinogi.\nAnother Celtic worthy, Gwalchmai, was early associated with Peredur, and\nthe two stood in some such relation to each other as the twin brethren of\na widely spread folk-tale group. Curiously enough, whilst comparatively\nfew incidents in the Peredur-saga were worked up into the version which\nserved as immediate model to the North French romances, that version\ncontained many adventures of Gwalchmai's which have not been preserved in\nWelsh. We can trace three main crystallizations of the original saga-mass;\none represented by the Proto-Mabinogi contained the feud quest, and,\nprobably, some only of the other adventures found in the present Mabinogi;\nthe second, based more on the lines of the Expulsion and Return formula,\nis represented by the Thornton MS. romance; in the third the feud quest\nwas mixed up with the hero's visit to the Bespelled Castle, and those\nportions of the Gwalchmai-saga which told of his visit to Castle Perillous\nas well as to the Bespelled Castle. Whilst the Proto-Mabinogi was probably\nin prose, the Proto-Conte du Graal was probably in verse, a collection of\nshort _lais_ like those of Marie de France. Meanwhile, one of the chief\npersonages of the older mythic world which appear in the Peredur-saga,\nBran, the Lord of the Land of Shades, of the Bespelled Castle, of the\ncauldron of healing, increase and wisdom, and of the knowledge-giving\nsalmon, had become the Apostle of Britain, his pagan attributes thus\nsuffering a Christian change, which was perfected when Joseph took the\nplace of Brons, bringing with him his gospel associations and the\napocryphal legends that had clustered round his name. Thus a portion of\nthe saga was Christianised, whilst the other portion lost its old, fixed\npopular character, owing to the fusion of originally distinct elements,\nand the consequent unsettling both of the outlines and of the details of\nthe story. Incidents and features which in the earlier folk-tale stage\nwere sharply defined and intelligible became vague and mysterious. In this\nstate, and bearing upon it the peculiarly weird and fantastic impress of\nCeltic mythic tradition, the story, or story-mass rather, lay ready to the\nhand of courtly poet or of clerical mystic. At first Christian symbolism\nwas introduced in a slight and meagre way--the Brons-Joseph legend\nsupplied the Christian meaning of the talismans, and that was all. But the\nJoseph legend was soon vigorously developed by the author of the work\nwhich underlies the Queste and the Grand St. Graal. He may either not have\nknown or have deliberately discarded Brons, the old Celtic hero of the\nconversion, as he certainly deliberately thrust down from his place of\npre-eminence Perceval, the Celtic hero of the Quest, substituting for him\na new hero, Galahad, and for the adventures of the Conte du Graal, based\nas they were upon no guiding conceptions, fresh adventures intended to\nglorify physical chastity. With all his mystic fervour he failed to see\nthe full capacities of the theme, his presentment of the Grail itself\nbeing in especial either over-material or over-spiritual. But his work\nexercised a profound influence, as is seen in the case of Chrestien's\ncontinuators. Robert de Borron, on the other hand, if to him the merit\nmust be assigned, if he was not simply transcribing an older, forgotten\nversion, was a more original thinker, if a less gifted writer. Although he\nwas not able to entirely harmonise the conflicting accounts of which he\nmade use, he yet succeeded in keeping close to the old lines of the legend\nwhilst giving a consistent symbolical meaning to all its details. His work\ncame too late, however, to exercise the influence it should have done upon\nthe development of the legend; the writers who knew it were mere heapers\ntogether of adventures, and the very man who composed a sequel to it\nabandoned Robert's main conception.\n\nThe history of the Legend of the Holy Grail is, thus, the history of the\ngradual transformation of old Celtic folk-tales into a poem charged with\nChristian symbolism and mysticism. This transformation, at first the\ninevitable outcome of its pre-Christian development, was hastened later by\nthe perception that it was a fitting vehicle for certain moral and\nspiritual ideas. These have been touched upon incidentally in the course\nof these studies, but they and their manifestation in modern as well as in\nmedi\u00e6val literature deserve fuller notice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n Popularity of the Arthurian Romance--Reasons for that\n Popularity--Affinities of the Medi\u00e6val Romances with early Celtic\n Literature; Importance of the Individual Hero; Knighthood; the _r\u00f4le_\n of Woman; the Celtic Fairy and the Medi\u00e6val Lady; the Supernatural--M.\n Renan's views--The Quest in English Literature, Malory--The earliest\n form of the Legend, Chrestien, his continuators--The Queste and its\n Ideal--The Sex-Relations in the Middle Ages--Criticism of Mr.\n Furnivall's estimate of the moral import of the Queste--The Merits of\n the Queste--The Chastity Ideal in the later versions--Modern English\n Treatments: Tennyson, Hawker--Possible Source of the Chastity Ideal in\n Popular Tradition--The Perceval Quest in Wolfram; his Moral\n Conception; the Question; Parzival and Conduiramur--The Parzival Quest\n and Faust--Wagner's Parsifal--The Christian element in the\n Legend--Ethical Ideas in the folk-tale originals of the Grail\n Romances: the Great Fool, the Sleeping Beauty--Conclusion.\n\n\nFew legends have attained such wide celebrity, or been accepted as so\nthoroughly symbolical of one master conception, as that of the Holy Grail.\nPoets and thinkers from medi\u00e6val times to our own days have used it as a\ntype of the loftiest goal of man's effort. There must be something in the\nromances which first embodied this conception to account for the enduring\nfavour it has enjoyed. Nor is it that we read into the old legend meanings\nand teachings undreamt of before our day. At a comparatively early stage\nin the legend's existence its capacities were perceived, and the works\nwhich were the outcome of that perception became the breviary and the\nexemplar of their age. There are reasons, both general and special, why\nthe Celtic mythic tales grew as they did, and had such overwhelming vogue\nin their new shapes. In no portion of the vast Arthurian cycle is it more\nneedful or more instructive to see what these reasons were than in that\nwhich recounts the fortunes of the Grail.\n\nThe tales of Peredur and Gwalchmai, bound up with the Arthurian romance,\nshared its success, than which nothing in all literary history is more\nmarvellous. It was in the year 1145 that Geoffrey of Monmouth first made\nthe legendary history of Britain accessible to the lettered class of\nEngland and Continent. He thereby opened up to the world at large a new\ncontinent of romantic story, and exercised upon the development of\nliterature an influence comparable in its kind to that of Columbus'\nachievement upon the course of geographical discovery and political\neffort. Twenty years had not passed before the British heroes were\nhousehold names throughout Europe, and by the close of the century nearly\nevery existing literature had assimilated and reproduced the story of\nArthur and his Knights. Charlemagne and Alexander, the sagas of Teutonic\ntribes, the tale of Imperial Rome itself, though still affording subject\nmatter to the wandering jongleur or monkish annalist, paled before the\nfame of the British King. The instinct which led the twelfth and\nthirteenth centuries thus to place the Arthurian story above all others\nwas a true one. It was charged with the spirit of romance, and they were\npre-eminently the ages of the romantic temper. The West had turned back\ntowards the East, and, although the intent was hostile, the minds of the\nwestern men had been fecundated, their imagination fired by contact with\nthe mother of all religions and all cultures. The achievements of the\nCrusaders became the standard of attainment to the loftiest and boldest\nminds of Western Christendom. For these men Alexander himself lacked\ncourage and Roland daring. The fathers had stormed Jerusalem, and the\nsons' youth had been nourished on tales of Araby the Blest and Ophir the\nGolden of strife with the Paynim, of the sorceries and devilries of the\nEast. Nothing seemed impossible to a generation which knew of toils and\nquests greater than any minstrel had sung, which had beheld in the East\nsights as wondrous and fearful as any the jongleur could tell of.\nMoreover, the age was that of Knight Errantry, and of that phase of love\nin which every Knight must qualify himself for the reception of his lady's\nfavours by the performance of some feat of skill and daring. Such an age\nand such men demanded a special literature, and they found it in\nadaptations of Celtic tales.\n\nThe mythic heroic literature of all races is in many respects alike. The\nsagas not only of Greek or Persian, of Celt or Hindu, of Slav or Teuton,\nbut also of Algonquin or Japanese, are largely made up of the same\nincidents set in the same framework. But each race shapes this common\nmaterial in its own way, sets upon it its own stamp. And no race has done\nthis more unmistakably than the Celtic. Stories which go back to the first\ncentury, stories taken down from the lips of living peasants, have a\nkinship of tone and style, a common ring which no one who has studied this\nliterature can fail to recognise. What stamps the whole of it is the\nprevailing and abiding spirit of romance. To rightly urge the Celtic\ncharacter of the Arthurian romances would require the minute analysis of\nmany hundred passages, and it would only be proving a case admitted by\neveryone who knows all the facts. It will be more to the point to dwell\nbriefly upon those outward features which early (_i.e._, pre-eleventh\ncentury) Celtic heroic literature has in common with the North French\nromances of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, especially as we thus\ngain a clue to much that is problematic in the formal and moral growth of\nthe Arthurian cycle in general and of the Grail cycle in particular.\n\nIn Celtic tradition, as little as in medi\u00e6val romance, do we find a record\nof race-struggles such as meets us in the Nibelungenlied, in the Dietrich\nsaga, or the Carolingian cycle.[144] In its place we have a glorification\nof the individual hero. The reason is not far to seek. The Celtic tribes,\nwhether of Ireland or Britain, were surrounded by men of their own speech,\nof like institutions and manners. The shock of opposing nations, of rival\ncivilisations, could not enter into their race-tradition. The\nstory-teller had as his chief theme the prowess and skill of the\nindividual \"brave,\" the part he took in the conflicts which clan\nincessantly waged with clan, or his encounters with those powers of an\nolder mythic world which lived on in the folk-fancy. To borrow Mr.\nFitzgerald's convenient terminology, the \"constants\" of this tradition may\nbe the same as in that of other Aryan races, the \"resultants\" are not. To\ngive one instance: the conception of a chief surrounded by a picked band\nof warriors is common to all heroic tradition, but nowhere is it of such\nmarked importance, nowhere does it so mould and shape the story as in the\ncycles of Conchobor and the Knights of the Red Branch, of Fionn and the\nFianna, and of Arthur and his Knights. The careers of any of the early\nIrish heroes, the single-handed raids of C\u00e9t mac Magach or Conall\nCearnach, above all the fortunes of Cuchullain, his hero's training in the\nAmazon-isle, his strife with Curoi mac Daire, his expeditions to\nfairy-land, his final holding of the ford against all the warriors of\nErinn, breathe the same spirit of adventure for its own sake, manifest the\nsame subordination of all else in the story to the one hero, that are such\nmarked characteristics of the Arthurian romance.\n\nAgain, in the bands of picked braves who surround Conchobor or Fionn, in\nthe rules by which they are governed, the trials which precede and\ndetermine admission into them, the duties and privileges which attach to\nthem, we have, it seems to me, a far closer analogue to the knighthood of\nmedi\u00e6val romance than may be found either in the Peers of Carolingian saga\nor in the chosen warriors who throng the halls of Walhalla.\n\nIn the present connection the part played by woman in Celtic tradition is\nperhaps of most import to us. In no respect is the difference more marked\nthan in this between the twelfth century romances, whether French or\nGerman, and the earlier heroic literature of either nation. The absence of\nfeminine interest in the earlier _chansons de geste_ has often been noted.\nThe case is different with Teutonic heroic literature, in which woman's\n_r\u00f4le_ is always great, sometimes pre-eminently so. But a comparison of\nthe two strains of traditions, Celtic and Teutonic, one with the other,\nand again with the romances, may help to account for much that is\notherwise inexplicable to us in the medi\u00e6val presentment of the\nsex-feelings and sex-relations.\n\nThe love of man, and immortal, or, if mortal, semi-divine maid is a\n\"constant\" of heroic tradition. Teuton and Celt have handled this theme,\nhowever, in a very different spirit. In the legends of the former the man\nplays the chief part; he woos, sometimes he forces the fairy maiden to\nbecome the mistress of his hearth. As a rule, overmastered by the prowess\nand beauty of the hero, she is nothing loth. But sometimes, as does\nBrunhild, she feels the change a degradation and resents it. It is\notherwise with the fairy mistresses of the Celtic hero; they abide in\ntheir own place, and they allure or compel the mortal lover to resort to\nthem. Connla and Bran and Oisin must all leave this earth and sail across\nocean or lake before they can rejoin their lady love; even Cuchullain,\nmightiest of all the heroes, is constrained, struggle as he may, to go and\ndwell with the fairy queen Fand, who has woed him. Throughout, the\nimmortal mistress retains her superiority; when the mortal tires and\nreturns to earth she remains, ever wise and fair, ready to welcome and\nenchant a new generation of heroes. She chooses whom she will, and is no\nman's slave; herself she offers freely, but she abandons neither her\nliberty nor her divine nature. This type of womanhood, capricious,\nindependent, severed from ordinary domestic life, is assuredly the\noriginal of the Vivians, the Orgueilleuses, the Ladies of the Fountain of\nthe romances; it is also one which must have commended itself to the\nknightly devotees of medi\u00e6val romantic love. Their \"_dame d'amour_\" was,\nas a rule, another man's wife; she raised in their minds no thought of\nhome or child. In the tone of their feelings towards her, in the character\nof their intercourse with her, they were closer akin to Oisin and Neave,\nto Cuchullain and Fand, than to Siegfried and Brunhild, or to Roland and\nAude. Even where the love-story passes wholly among mortals, the woman's\n_r\u00f4le_ is more accentuated than in the Teutonic sagas. She is no mere\nlay-figure upon a fire-bound rock like Brunhild or Menglad, ready, when\nthe destined hero appears, to fall straightway into his arms. Emer, the\none maiden of Erinn whom Cuchullain condescends to woo, is eager to show\nherself in all things worthy of him; she tests his wit as well as his\ncourage, she makes him accept her conditions.[145] In the great tragic\ntale of ancient Ireland, the Fate of the Sons of Usnech, Deirdre--born\nlike Helen or Gudrun, to be a cause of strife among men, of sorrow and\nruin to whomsoever she loves--Deirdre takes her fate into her own hands,\nand woos Noisi with outspoken passionate frankness. The whole story is\nconceived and told in a far more \"romantic\" strain than is the case with\nparallel stories from Norse tradition, the loves of Helgi and Sigrun, or\nthose of Sigurd and Brunhild-Gudrun. And if the lament of Deirdre over her\nslain love lacks the grandeur and the intensity with which the Norse\nheroines bewail their dead lords, it has, on the other hand, an intimate,\na personal touch we should hardly have looked for in an eleventh century\nIrish epic.[146]\n\nAnother link between the Celtic sagas and the romances is their treatment\nof the supernatural. Heroic-traditional literature is made up of mythical\nelements, of scenes, incidents, and formulas which have done service in\nthat account of man's dealings with and conceptions of the visible world\nwhich we call mythology. All such literature derives ultimately from an\nearly, wholly animistic stage of culture. Small marvel, then, if in the\nhero-tales of every race there figure wonder-working talismans and\nbespelled weapons, if almost every great saga has, as part of its\n_dramatis person\u00e6_, objects belonging to what we should now call the\ninanimate world. Upon these a species of life is conferred, most often by\npower of magic, but at times, it would seem, in virtue of the older\nconception which held all things to be endowed with like life. All heroic\nliteratures do not, however, accentuate equally and similarly this magic\nside of their common stock. Celtic tradition is not only rich and varied\nbeyond all others in this respect, it often thus secures its chief\nartistic effects. The talismans of Celtic romance, the fairy branch of\nCormac, the Ga-bulg of Cuchullain, the sounding-hammer of Fionn, the\ntreasures of the Boar Trwyth after which Prince Kilhwch sought, the\nglaives of light of the living folk-tale, have one and all a weird,\nfantastic, half-human existence, which haunts and thrills the imagination.\nNo Celtic story-teller could have \"mulled\" the Nibelung-hoard as the poet\nof the Nibelungenlied has done. How different in this respect the twelfth\ncentury romances are from the earlier German or French sagas, how close to\nthe Irish tales is apparent to whomsoever reads them with attention.[147]\n\nI do not for one moment imply that the romantic literature of the Middle\nAges was what it was, wholly or even mainly in virtue of its Celtic\naffinities. That literature was the outcome of the age, and something akin\nto it would have sprung up had Celtic tradition remained unknown to the\nContinent. The conception of feudal knighthood as a favoured class, in\nwhich men of different nations met on a common footing; the conception of\nknightly love as something altogether disassociated from domestic life,\nmust in any case have led to the constitution of such a society as we find\nportrayed in the romances. What is claimed is that the spirit of the age,\nakin to the Celtic, recognised in Celtic tales the food it was hungering\nfor. It transformed them to suit its own needs and ideas, but it carried\nout the transformation on the whole in essential agreement with tradition.\nIn some cases a radical change is made; such a one is presented to us in\nthe Grail cycle.\n\nThe legend thus started with the advantages of belonging to the popular\nliterature of the time, and of association through Brons with Christian\ntradition. Its incidents were varied, and owing to the blending of diverse\nstrains of story vague enough to be plastic. The formal development of the\ncycle has been traced in the earlier chapters of these studies; that of\nits ideal conceptions will be found to follow similar lines. Various\nethical intentions can be distinguished, and there is not more difference\nbetween the versions in the conduct of the story than in the ideals they\nset forth.\n\nTo some readers it may have seemed well nigh sacrilegious to trace that\n\n ... vanished Vase of Heaven\n That held like Christ's own Heart an Hin of Blood,\n\nto the magic vessels of pagan deities. In England the Grail-legend is\nhardly known save in that form which it has assumed in the Queste. This\nFrench romance was one of those which Malory embodied in his _rifacimento_\nof the Arthurian cycle, and, thanks to Malory, it has become a portion of\nEnglish speech and thought.[148] In our own days our greatest poet has\nexpressed the quintessence of what is best and purest in the old romance\nin lines of imperishable beauty. As we follow Sir Galahad by secret shrine\nand lonely mountain mere until\n\n Ah, blessed vision! Blood of God,\n The spirit beats her mortal bars,\n As down dark tides the glory slides,\n And star-like mingles with the stars.\n\nwe are under a spell that may not be resisted. And yet of the two main\npaths which the legend has trodden that of Galahad is the least fruitful\nand the least beautiful. Compared with the Perceval Quest in its highest\nliterary embodiment the Galahad Quest is false and antiquated on the\nethical side, lifeless on the \u00e6sthetic side.\n\nAs it first meets us in literature the legend has barely emerged from its\npure and simple narrative stage. There is a temptation to exaggerate\nChrestien's skill of conception when speculating how he would have\nfinished his work, but we know enough, probably, to correctly gauge his\nintentions. It has been said he meant to portray the ideal knight in\nPerceval. As was formerly the wont of authors he presents his hero in a\ngood light, and he may be credited with a perception of the opportunity\nafforded him by his subject for placing that hero in positions wherein a\nknight could best distinguish himself. In so far his work may be accepted\nas his picture of a worthy knight. But I can discover in it no scheme of a\nquest after the highest good to be set forth by means of the incidents at\nhis command. Perceval is brave as a matter of course, punctual in obeying\nthe counsels of his mother and of his teachers, Gonemans and the\nhermit-uncle, unaffectedly repentant when he is convicted of having\nneglected his religious duties. But it cannot be said that the hermit's\nexhortations or the hero's repentance, confession, and absolution mark, or\nare intended to mark, a definite stage in a progress towards spiritual\nperfection. The explanation of the hero's silence as a consequence of his\nsin in leaving his mother, shows how little real thought has been bestowed\nupon the subject. This explanation, whether wholly Chrestien's, as I am\ntempted to think, or complacently reproduced from his model, gives the\nmeasure of his skill in constructing an allegory. Beyond insistence upon\nsuch points (the hero's docility) as were indicated to him by his model,\nor, as in the case of his religious opinions, were a matter of course in a\nwork of the time, Chrestien gives Perceval no higher morality, no loftier\naims than those of the day. The ideal of chastity, soon to become of such\nimportance in the development of the legend, is nowhere set forth.\nPerceval, like Gawain, takes full advantage of what _bonnes fortunes_ come\nin his way. And if the Quest connotes no spiritual ideal, still less does\nit one of temporal sovereignty. Had Chrestien finished his story he would\nhave made Perceval heal the Maimed King and win his kingdom, but that\nkingdom would not have been a type of the highest earthly magnificence. We\nhave seen reason to hold that Chrestien made one great change in the story\nas he found it in his model; he assigns the Fisher-King's illness to a\nwound received in battle. This he did, I think, simply with a view to\nshortening the story by leaving out the whole of the Partinal episode. No\nmystical conception was floating in his mind. Yet, as we shall see, the\nshape which he gave to this incident strongly influenced some of the later\nversions, and gave the hint for the most philosophical _motif_ to be found\nin the whole cycle.\n\nThe immediate continuators of Chrestien lift the legend to no higher\nlevel. I incline to think that Gautier, with less skill of narrative and\nfar greater prolixity, yet trod closely in Chrestien's footsteps. In the\nlove episodes he is as full of charm as the more celebrated poet. The\nsecond meeting of Perceval and Blanchefleur is told with that graceful\nlaughing _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ of which French literature of the period has the\nsecret. But of a plan, an animating conception even such slight traces as\nChrestien had introduced into the story are lacking. Here, as in\nChrestien, the mysterious talismans themselves in no way help forward the\nstory. Chrestien certainly had the Christian signification of them in his\nmind, but makes no use of it. The Vessel of the Last Supper, the Spear\nthat pierced Christ's side might be any magic spear or vessel as far as he\nis concerned. The original Pagan essence is retained; the name alone is\nchanged.\n\nThus far had the legend grown when it came into the hands of the author of\nthe Queste. The subject matter had been partly shaped and trimmed by a\nmaster of narrative, the connection with Christian tradition had been\nsomewhat accentuated. It was open to the author of the Queste to take the\nstory as it stood, and to read into its incidents a deep symbolical\nmeaning based upon the Christian character of the holy talismans. He\npreferred to act otherwise. He broke entirely with the traditional\nframework, dispossessed the original hero, and left not an incident of his\nmodel untouched. But his method of proceeding may be likened to a shuffle\nrather than to a transformation. The incidents reappear in other\nconnection, but do not reveal the author's plan any more than is the case\nin the Conte du Graal. The Christian character of the talismans is dwelt\nupon with almost wearisome iteration, the sacramental act supplies the\nmatter of many and of the finest scenes, and yet the essence of the\ntalismans is unchanged. The Holy Grail, the Cup of the Last Supper, the\nSacramental Chalice is still when it appears the magic food-producing\nvessel of the old Pagan sagas. What is the author's idea? Undoubtedly to\nshow that the attainment of the highest spiritual good is not a thing of\nthis world; only by renouncing every human desire, only by passing into a\nland intermediary between this earth and heaven, is the Quest achieved. In\nthe story of the prosecution of that Quest some attempt may be traced at\nportraying the cardinal virtues and deadly sins by means of the adventures\nof the questers, and of the innumerable exhortations addressed to them.\nBut no skill is shown in the conduct of this plan, which is carried out\nchiefly by the introduction of numerous allegorical scenes which are made\na peg for lengthy dogmatic and moral expositions. In this respect the\nauthor compares unfavourably with Robert de Borron, who shapes his story\nin full accord with his conception of the Grail itself, a conception\nderiving directly from the symbolic Christian nature he attributed to it,\nand who makes even such unpromising incidents as that of the Magic Fisher\nsubserve his guiding idea.[149]\n\nIf the author's way of carrying out his conception cannot be praised, how\ndoes it stand with the conception itself? The fact that the Quest is\nwholly disassociated from this earth at once indicates the standpoint of\nthe romance. The first effect of the Quest's proclamation is to break up\nthe Table Round, that type of the noblest human society of the day, and\nits final achievement brings cheer or strengthening to no living man. The\nsuccessful questers alone in their unhuman realm have any joy of the\nGrail. The spirit in which they prosecute their quest is best exemplified\nby Sir Bors. When he comes to the magic tower and is tempted of the\nmaidens, who threaten to cast themselves down and be dashed to pieces\nunless he yield them his love, he is sorry for them, but unmoved, thinking\nit better \"they lose their souls than he his.\" So little had the Christian\nwriter apprehended the signification of Christ's most profound saying. The\ncharacter of the principal hero is in consonancy with this aim, wholly\nremote from the life of man on earth. A shadowy perfection at the outset,\nhe remains a shadowy perfection throughout, a bloodless and unreal\ncreature, as fit when he first appears upon the scene as when he quits it,\nto accomplish a quest, purposeless, inasmuch as it only removes him from a\nworld in which he has neither part nor share. Such human interest as there\nis in the story is supplied by Lancelot, who takes over many of the\nadventures of Perceval or Gawain in the Conte du Graal. In him we note\ncontrition for past sin, strivings after a higher life with which we can\nsympathise. In fine, such moral teaching as the Queste affords is given us\nrather by sinful Lancelot than by sinless Galahad.\n\nBut the aversion to this world takes a stronger form in the Queste, and\none which is the vital conception of the work, in the insistence upon the\nneed for physical chastity. To rightly understand the author's position we\nmust glance at the state of manners revealed by the romances, and in\nespecial at the sex-relations as they were conceived of by the most\nrefined and civilised men and women of the day. The French romances are,\nas a rule, too entirely narrative to enable a clear realisation of what\nthese were. Wolfram, with his keener and more sympathetic eye for\nindividual character--Wolfram, who loves to analyse the sentiments and to\ndepict the outward manifestations of feeling of his personages--is our\nbest guide here. The manners and customs of the day can be found in the\nFrench romances; the feelings which underlie them must be sought for in\nthe German poet.\n\nThe marked feature of the sex-relations in the days of chivalry was the\ninstitution of _minnedienst_ (love-service). The knight bound himself to\nserve a particular lady, matron or maid. To approve himself brave, hardy,\ndaring, patient, and discreet was his part of the bargain, and when\nfulfilled the lady must fulfil hers and pay her servant. The relation must\nnot for one moment be looked upon as platonic; the last favours were in\nevery case exacted, or rather were freely granted, as the lady, whether\nmaid or wedded wife, thought it no wrong thus to reward her knight. It\nwould have been \"bad form\" to deny payment when the service had been\nrendered, and the offender guilty of such conduct would have been scouted\nby her fellow-women as well as by all men. Nothing is more instructive in\nthis connection than the delightfully told episode of Gawain and\nOrgueilleuse. The latter is unwedded, a great and noble lady, but she has\nalready had several favoured lovers, as indeed she frankly tells Gawain.\nHe proffers his service, which she hardly accepts, but heaps upon him all\nmanner of indignity and insult, which he bears with the patient and\nresourceful courtesy, his characteristic in medi\u00e6val romance. Whilst the\ntime of probation lasts, no harsh word, no impatient gesture, escapes him.\nBut when he has accomplished the feat of the Ford Perillous he feels that\nhe has done enough, and taking his lady-love to task he lectures her, as a\ngrave middle-aged man might some headstrong girl, upon the duties of a\nwell-bred woman and upon the wrong she has done knighthood in his person.\nTo point the moral he winds up, at mid-day in the open forest, with a\nproposition which the repentant scornful one can only parry by the na\u00efve\nremark, \"Seldom she had found it warm in the embrace of a mail-clad arm.\"\nNot only was it the lady's duty to yield after a proper delay, but at\ntimes she might even make the first advances and be none the worse thought\nof. Blanchefleur comes to Perceval's bed with scarce an apology.[150]\nOrgueilleuse, overcome with admiration at the Red Knight's prowess, offers\nhim her love. True, she has doubts as to the propriety of her conduct, but\nwhen she submits them to Gawain, the favoured lover for the time being, he\nunhesitatingly approves her--Perceval's fame was such that had he accepted\nher proffered love she could have suffered naught in honour.\n\nCustoms such as these, and a state of feelings such as they imply, are so\nremote from us, that it is difficult to realise them, particularly in view\nof the many false statements respecting the nature of chivalrous love\nwhich have obtained currency. But we must bear in mind that the age was\npre-eminently one of individual prowess. The warlike virtues were all in\nall. That a man should be brave, hardy, and skilful in the use of his\nweapons was the essential in a time when the single hero was almost of as\nmuch account as in the days of Achilles, Siegfried, or Cuchullain. That\n_minnedienst_ tended to this end, as did other institutions of the day\nwhich we find equally blamable, is its historical excuse. Even then many\nfelt its evils and perceived its anti-social character. Some, too, there\nwere who saw how deeply it degraded the ideal of love.\n\nA protest against this morality was indeed desirable. Such a one the\nQueste does supply. But it is not enough to protest in a matter so\nprofoundly affecting mankind as the moral ideas which govern the\nsex-relations. Not only must the protest be made in a right spirit, and on\nthe right lines, but a truer and loftier ideal must be set up in place of\nthe one attacked. In how far the Queste fulfils these conditions we shall\nsee. Meanwhile, as a sample of the feelings with which many Englishmen\nhave regarded it, and as an attempt to explain its historical and ethical\n_raison d'\u00eatre_, I cannot do better than quote Mr. Furnivall's\nenthusiastic words: \"What is the lesson of it all? Is the example of\nGalahad and his unwavering pursuit of the highest spiritual object set\nbefore him, nothing to us? Is that of Perceval, pure and tempted, on the\npoint of yielding, yet saved by the sight of the symbol of his Faith, to\nbe of no avail to us? Is the tale of Bohors, who has once sinned, but by a\nfaithful life ... at last tasting spiritual food, and returning to devote\nhis days to God and Good--is this no lesson to us?... On another point,\ntoo, this whole Arthur story may teach us. Monkish, to some extent, the\nexaltation of bodily chastity above almost every other earthly virtue is;\nbut the feeling is a true one; it is founded on a deep reverence for\nwoman, which is the most refining and one of the noblest sentiments of\nman's nature, one which no man can break through without suffering harm to\nhis spiritual life.\"\n\nIt would be hard to find a more striking instance of how the \"editorial\nidol\" may override perception and judgment. He who draws such lofty and\nnoble teachings from the Queste del Saint Graal, must first bring them\nhimself. He must read modern religion, modern morality into the medi\u00e6val\nallegory, and on one point he must entirely falsify the medi\u00e6val\nconception. Whether this is desirable is a question we can have no\nhesitation in deciding negatively. It is better to find out what the\nauthor really meant than to interpret his symbolism in our own fashion.\n\nThe author of the Queste places the object and conditions of his mystic\nquest wholly outside the sphere of human action or interest; in a similar\nspirit he insists, as an indispensable requirement in the successful\nquester, upon a qualification necessarily denied to the vast majority of\nmankind. His work is a glorification of physical chastity. \"Blessed are\nthe pure--in body--for they shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven,\" is the\ntext upon which he preaches. In such a case everything depends upon the\nspirit of the preacher, and good intent is not enough to win praise. His\nconception, says Mr. Furnivall, is founded upon a deep reverence for\nwoman. This is, indeed, such a precious thing that had the medi\u00e6val\nascetic really felt it we could have forgiven the stupidity which ignores\nall that constitutes the special dignity and pathos of womanhood. But he\nfelt nothing of the kind. Woman is for him the means whereby sin came into\nthe world, the arch stumbling-block, the tool the devil finds readiest to\nhis hands when he would overcome man. Only in favour of the Virgin Mother,\nand of those who like her are vowed to mystical maidenhood, does the\nauthor pardon woman at all. One single instance will suffice to\ncharacterize the medi\u00e6val standpoint. When the Quest of the Holy Grail was\nfirst proclaimed in Arthur's Court there was great commotion, and the\nladies would fain have joined therein, \"car cascune dame ou damoiselle\n(qui) fust espous\u00e9e ou amie, dist \u00e0 son chiualer qu'ele yroit od lui en la\nqueste.\" But a hermit comes forward to forbid this; \"No dame or damsel is\nto accompany her knight lest he fall into deadly sin.\" Wife or leman, it\nwas all one for the author of the Queste; woman could not but be an\noccasion for deadly sin, and the sin, though in the one case less in\ndegree (and even this is uncertain), was the same in kind. Fully one-half\nof the romance is one long exemplification of the essential vileness of\nthe sex-relation, worked out with the minute and ingenious nastiness of a\nJesuit moral theologian. The author was of his time; it was natural he\nshould think and write as he did, and it would be uncritical to blame him\nfor his degrading view of womanhood or for his narrow and sickly view of\nlife. But when we are bidden to seek example of him, it is well to state\nthe facts as they are.[151]\n\nIf his transformation of the story has been rudely effected without regard\nto its inherent possibilities, if the spirit of his ideal proves to be\nmiserably ascetic and narrow, what then remains to the Queste, and how may\nwe account for its popularity in its own day, and for the abiding\ninfluence which its version of the legend has exercised over posterity.\nIts literary qualities are at times great; certain scenes, especially such\nas set forth the sacramental nature of the Grail, are touched with a\nmystical fervour which haunts the imagination. It has given some of the\nmost picturesque features to this most picturesque of legends. But I see\nin the idea of the mystic quest proclaimed to and shared in by the whole\nTable Round the real secret of the writer's success. This has struck the\nimagination of so many generations and given the Queste an undeserved\nfame. In truth the conception of Arthur's court, laying aside ordinary\ncares and joys, given wholly up to one overmastering spiritual aim, is a\nnoble one. It is, I think, only in a slight degree the outcome of definite\nthought and intent but was dictated to the writer by the form into which\nhe had recast the story. Galahad had supplanted Perceval, but the latter\ncould not be suppressed entirely. The achievement of the quest involved\nthe passing away out of this world of the chief heroes, hence a third less\nperfect one is joined to them to bring back tidings to earth of the\nmarvels he had witnessed. Lancelot, to whom are assigned so many of\nPerceval's adventures, cannot be denied a share in the quest; it is the\nsame with Gawain, whose character in the older romance fits him, moreover,\nexcellently for the _r\u00f4le_ of \"dreadful example.\" By this time the\nArthurian legend was fully grown, and the mention of these Knights called\nup the names of others with whom they were invariably connected by the\nromance writers. Well nigh every hero of importance was thus drawn into\nthe magic circle, and the mystic Quest assumed, almost inevitably, the\nshape it did.\n\nThis conception, to which, if I am right, the author of the Queste was led\nhalf unconsciously, seems to us the most admirable thing in his work. It\nwas, however, his ideal of virginity which struck the idea of his\ncontemporaries, and which left its mark upon after versions. An age with\nsuch a gross ideal of love may have needed an equally gross ideal of\npurity. Physical chastity plays henceforth the leading part in the moral\ndevelopment of the cycle. With Robert de Borron it is the sin of the flesh\nwhich brings down upon the Grail host the wrath of Heaven, and\nnecessitates the display of the Grail's wondrous power. Here may be noted\nthe struggle of the new conception with the older form of the story.\nAlain, the virgin knight, would rather be flayed than marry, and yet he\ndoes marry in obedience to the original model. Robert is consistent in all\nthat relates to the symbolism of the Grail, but in other respects, as we\nhave already seen, he is easily thrown off his guard. In the\nDidot-Perceval, written as a sequel to Robert's poem, the same struggle\nbetween old and new continues, and the reconciling spirit goes to work in\nna\u00efve and unskilful style. The incidents of the Conte du Graal are kept,\nalthough they accord but ill with the hero's ascetic spirit. In the\nportion of the Conte du Graal itself which goes under Manessier's name,\nalong with adventures taken direct from Chrestien's model, and far less\nChristianised than in the earlier poet's work, many occur which are\nsimply transferred from the Queste. No attempt is made at reconciling\nthese jarring elements, and the effect of the contrast is at times almost\ncomic. In two of the later romances of the cycle the fusion has been more\ncomplete, and the result is, in consequence, more interesting. The prose\nPerceval le Gallois keeps the original hero of the Quest as far as name\nand kinship are concerned, but it gives him the aggressive virginity and\nthe proselytising zeal of Galahad. Gerbert's finish to the Conte du Graal\nis, perhaps, the strangest outcome of the double set of influences to\nwhich the later writers were exposed. Without doubt his model differed\nfrom the version used by Gautier and Manessier. It is more Celtic in tone,\nand is curiously akin to the hypothetical lost source of Wolfram von\nEschenbach. The hero's absence from his lady-love is insisted upon, and\nthe need of returning to her before he can find peace. The genuineness of\nthis feature admits of little doubt. Many folk-tales tell of the severance\nof lover and beloved, and of their toilful wanderings until they meet\nagain; such a tale easily lends itself to the idea that separation is\ncaused by guilt, and that, whilst severed, one or other lover must suffer\nmisfortune. Often, as in the case of Diarmaid and the Daughter of King\nUnder the Waves (_supra_, p. 194), definite mention is made of the guilt,\nas a rule an infringed taboo. Such an incident could scarcely fail to\nassume the ethical shape Gerbert has given it. Thus he had only to listen\nto his model, to take his incidents as he found them, and he had the\nmatter for a moral conception wholly in harmony with them. The chastity\nideal has been too strong for him. His lovers do come together, but only\nto exemplify the virtue of continence in the repulsive story of their\nbridal night. After Gerbert the cycle lengthens, but does not develop. The\nQueste retains its supremacy, and through Malory its dominant conception\nentered deeply into the consciousness of the English race.\n\nHow far the author of the Queste must be credited with the new ideal he\nbrought into the legend is worth enquiry. Like so much else therein, it\nmay have its roots in the folk and hero tales which underlie the romances.\nThe Castle of Talismans visited by Perceval is the Land of Shades. In\npopular tradition the incident takes the form of entry into the hollow\nhill-side where the fairy king holds his court and hoards untold riches.\nPoverty and simplicity are the frequent qualifications of the successful\nquester; oftener still some mystic birthright, the being a Sunday's child\nfor instance, or a seventh son; or again freedom from sin is required,\nand, perhaps, most frequently maidenhood.[152] The stress which so many\npeoples lay upon virginity in the holy prophetic maidens, who can\ntransport themselves into the otherworld and bring thence the commands of\nthe god, may be noted in the same connection. No Celtic tale I have\nexamined with a view to throwing light upon the Grail romances insists\nupon this idea, but some version, now lost, may possibly have done so.\nCeltic tradition gave the romance writers of the Middle Ages material and\nform for the picture of human love; it may also have given them a hint of\nthe opposing ideal of chastity.[153]\n\nAll this time it should be noted that no real progress is made in the\nsymbolical machinery of the legend. The Holy Grail becomes superlatively\nsacrosanct, but it retains its pristine pagan essence, even in the only\nversion, the Grand St. Graal, which knew of Borron and of his mystical\nconception.\n\nSuch, then, had been the growth of the legend in one direction. The\noriginal incidents were either transformed, mutilated, or, where they kept\ntheir first shape, underwent no ethical deepening or widening. The\ntalismans themselves had been transferred from Celtic to Christian\nmythology, but their fate was still bound up with the otherworld. He who\nwould seek them must turn his back upon this earth from which the Palace\nSpiritual and the City of Sarras were even more remote than Avalon or\nTir-na n-Og. Was no other course open? Could not framework and incidents\nof the Celtic tales be retained, and yet, raised to a loftier, wider\nlevel, become a fit vehicle for philosophic thought and moral exhortation?\nOne side of popular tradition figured the hero as wresting the talismans\nfrom the otherworld powers for the benefit of his fellow men. Could not\nthis form of the myth be made to yield a human, practical conception of\nthe Quest and Winning of the Holy Grail?\n\nWe are luckily not reduced to conjecture in this matter. A work largely\nfulfilling these hypothetical requirements exists in the Parzival of\nWolfram von Eschenbach. On the whole it is the most interesting individual\nwork of modern European literature prior to the Divina Commedia, and its\nauthor has a better claim than any other medi\u00e6val poet to be called a man\nof genius. He must, of course, be measured by the standard of his time. It\nwould be useless to expect from him that homogeneity of narrative, that\nartistic proportion of style first met with 150 years later in Italy, and\nwhich from Italy passed into all European literatures. Compared with the\nunknown poets who gave their present shape to the Nibelungenlied or to the\nChanson de Roland he is an individual writer, but he is far from deserving\nthis epithet even in the sense that Chaucer deserves it. His subject\ndominates him. Even when his philosophic mind is conceiving it under a new\naspect he anxiously holds to the traditional form. Hence great\ninconsistencies in his treatment of the theme, hence, too, the frequent\ndifficulty in interpreting his meaning, the frequent doubt as to how far\nthe interpretation is correct. Here, as in the discussion respecting the\n_origines_ of the Grail legend, resort must often be had to conjecture,\nand any solution of the fascinating problems involved is necessarily and\nlargely subjective.\n\nWolfram's relation to his predecessors must be taken into account in\nestimating the value of the Parzival. The earlier portion of his work\ndiffers entirely, as we have seen, from any existing French romance; so\ndoes the finish in so far as it agrees with the opening. The greater part\nof the story is closely parallel to Chrestien; there are points of\ncontact, peculiar to these two writers, with Gerbert. Little invention,\nproperly so called, of incident can be traced in the Parzival. The part\ncommon to it and Chrestien is incomparably fuller and more interesting in\nthe German poet, but the main outlines are the same. Wolfram has, however,\nbeen at some pains to let us know what was his conception of the legend.\nThat much is allowed to remain at variance therewith is a clear proof of\nhis timidity of invention.\n\nDoubt, he says, is the most potent corrupter of the soul. Whoso gives\nhimself over to unfaith and unsteadfastness treadeth in truth the downward\npath. God Himself is very faithfulness. Strife against Him, doubt of Him,\nis the highest sin. But humility and repentance may expiate it, and he who\nthus repents may be chosen by God for the Grail Kingship, the summit of\nearthly holiness. Peace of soul and all earthly power are the chosen\none's; alone, unlawful desire and the company of sinners are denied him by\nthe Grail.\n\nHow is this leading conception worked out? The framework and the march of\nincidents are the same as in the Conte du Graal. One capital change at\nonce, however, lifts the story to a higher level. The Fisher King suffers\nfrom a wound received in the cause of unlawful love, in disobedience to\nthose heavenly commands which govern the Grail community. The healing\nquestion can be put only by one worthy to take up the high office Amfortas\nhas dishonoured, in virtue of having passed through the strife of doubt,\nand become reconciled to God by repentance and humble trust. If Parzival\nneglected to put the question on his first arrival at the Grail Castle, it\nwas that in the conceit of youth he fancied all wisdom was his. Childish\ninsistence upon his mother's counsels had brought down reproof upon him;\nhe had learnt the world's wisdom from Gurnemanz, he had shown himself in\ndefence of Conduiramur a valiant knight, worthy of power and woman's love.\nWhen brought into contact with the torturing sorrow of Amfortas, he is too\nfull of himself, of his teacher's wisdom, to rightly use the opportunity.\n\nThe profound significance of the question which at once releases the\nsinner, and announces the one way in which the sin may be cancelled,\nnamely, by the coming of a worthier successor, is due, if we may credit\nBirch-Hirschfeld, to an accident. Wolfram only knew Chrestien. The latter\nnever explains the real nature of the Grail, and the German poet's\nknowledge of French was too slight to put him on the right track. The\nquestion, \"Whom serve they with the Grail?\" which he found in Chrestien,\nwas necessarily meaningless to him, and he replaced it by his, \"Uncle,\nwhat is it tortures thee?\" The change _may_ be the result of accident as\nis so much else in this marvellous legend, but it required a man of genius\nto turn the accident to such account. It is the insistence upon charity as\nthe herald and token of spiritual perfection that makes the grandeur of\nWolfram's poem, and raises it so immeasureably above the Queste.\n\nThe same human spirit is visible in the delineation of the Grail Kingship\nas the type of the highest good. Wolfram's theology is distinctively\nantinomian--no man may win the Grail in his own strength; it choseth whom\nit will--and has been claimed on the one hand[154] as a reflex of orthodox\nCatholic belief, on the other as a herald of the Lutheran doctrine of\ngrace.[155] Theological experts may be left to fight out this question\namong themselves. Apart from this, Wolfram has a practical sense of the\nvalue of human effort. With him the Quest is not to be achieved by utter\nisolation from this earth and its struggles. The chief function of the\nGrail Kingdom is to supply an abiding type of a divinely ordered Society;\nit also trains up leaders for those communities which lack them. It is a\ncivilising power as well as a Palace Spiritual.\n\nIn the relation of man to Heaven, Wolfram, whilst fully accepting the\ndoctrines of his age, appeals to the modern spirit with far greater power\nand directness than the Queste. In the other great question of the legend,\nthe relation of man to woman, he is likewise nearer to us, although it\nmust be confessed that he builds better than he knows. To the love ideal\nof his day, based wholly upon passion and vanity and severed from all\nfamily feeling, he opposes the wedded love of Parzival and Conduiramur.\nThe hero's recollection of the mother of his children is the one saving\ninfluence throughout the years of doubt and discouragement which follow\nKundrie's reproaches. Whilst still staggering under this blow, so cruelly\nundeserved as it seems to him, he can wish his friend and comrade, Gawain,\na woman chaste and good, whom he may love and who shall be his guardian\nangel. The thought of Conduiramur holds him aloof from the offered love of\nOrgeluse. In his last and bitterest fight, with his unknown brother, when\nit had nigh gone with him to his death, he recalls her and renews the\ncombat with fresh strength. She it is for whom he wins the highest earthly\ncrown, of which her pure, womanly heart makes her worthy. Reunion with her\nand with his children is Parzival's first taste of the joy that is\nhenceforth to be his.\n\nPassages may easily be multiplied that tally ill with the ideas of the\npoem as here briefly set forth. But the existence of these ideas is patent\nto the unprejudiced reader. Despite its many shortcomings, the poem which\ncontains them is the noblest and most human outcome of that mingled strain\nof Celtic fancy and Christian symbolism whose history we have traced.[156]\n\nIn Wolfram, equally with the majority of the French romance writers, there\nis little consistency in the formal use of the mystic talismans. Be the\nreason what it may, Wolfram certainly never thought of associating the\nGrail with the Last Supper. But its religious character is, at times, as\nmarked with him as with Robert de Borron or the author of the Queste. It\nis the actual vehicle of the Deity's commands; it restrains from sin; it\nsuffers no unchaste servant; it may be seen of no heathen; the simple\nbeholding of it preserves men from death. This last characteristic would\nbe thought in modern times a sufficient tribute to the original nature of\nthe old pagan cauldron of increase and rejuvenescence. But Wolfram was of\nhis time, and followed his models faithfully. Along with the lofty\nspiritual attributes of his Grail, he pictures in drastic fashion its\nfood-dispensing powers. The mystic stone, fallen from Heaven itself,\nrenewed each Good Friday by direct action of the Spirit, becomes all at\nonce a mere victual producing machine. We can see how little Wolfram liked\nthis feature of his model, and how he felt the contrast between it and his\nown more spiritual conception. But here, as elsewhere in the poem, he\nallowed much to stand against which his better judgment protested. His own\nshare in the development of the legend must be gauged by what is\ndistinctively his, not by what he has in common with others. Judged thus,\nhe must be said to have developed the Christian symbolic side of the\nlegend as much as the human philosophic side. If in Robert de Borron the\nGrail touches its highest symbolic level through its identification with\nthe body of the dead and risen Lord, we can trace in Wolfram the germ of\nthat approximation of the Grail-Quester to the earthly career of the\nSaviour which Wagner was to develop more than 600 years later.[157]\n\nWhat influence Wolfram's poem, with its practical, human enthusiasm, its\ntrue and noble sexual morality, might have had on English literature is an\ninteresting speculation. It would have appealed, one would think, to our\nrace with its utilitarian ethical instinct, with its lofty ideal of wedded\nlove. The true man, Parzival, should, in the fitness of things, be the\nEnglish hero of the Quest, rather than the visionary ascetic Galahad.\nMedi\u00e6val England was dominated by France and knew nothing of Germany, and\nwhen in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries we can trace German\ninfluence on English thought and writ, taste had changed, and the Parzival\nwas well-nigh forgotten in its own land. It remained so almost until our\nown days. The Quest after Perfection still haunted the German mind, but it\nwas conceived of on altogether different lines from those of the twelfth\ncentury poet. The nation of scholars pictured the quester as a student,\nnot as a knight. When it took shape in the dreary period of Protestant\nscholasticism the quest is wholly cursed. Faust's pursuit of knowledge is\nunlawful, a rebellion against God, which dooms him irrevocably. Not until\nGoethe's day is the full significance of the legend perceived, is the\ntheme widened to embrace the totality of human striving. Thus the last\nglimpse we have of Faust is of one devoted to the service of man; the last\nwords of the poem are a recognition of the divine element in the love of\nman and woman.[158]\n\nIn Germany, as in England, the old legend has appealed afresh to poets and\nthinkers, and then, as was natural, they turned to Germany's greatest\nmedi\u00e6val poet. Wagner's Parsifal would, in any case, be interesting as an\nexpression of one of the strongest dramatic geniuses of the century.\nConsidered purely as a work of literature, apart from the music, it has\nrare beauty and profound significance. The essentially dramatic bent of\nWagner's mind, the stage destination of the poem, must be borne in mind\nwhen considering it. Wolfram's conception--youthful folly and inexperience\nchastised by reproof, followed by doubt and strife, cancelled by the\nfaithful steadfastness of the full-grown man--is obviously unsuited for\ndramatic purposes. At no one point of Wolfram's poem do we find that clash\nof motives and of characters which the stage requires. In building up\n_his_ conception Wagner has utilised every hint of his predecessor with\nwonderful ingenuity. Klinschor, the magician, becomes with him the active\nopponent of the Grail King, Amfortas, from whom he has wrested the holy\nspear by the aid of Kundry's unholy beauty. Kundry is Wagner's great\ncontribution to the legend. She is the Herodias whom Christ for her\nlaughter doomed to wander till He come again. Subject to the powers of\nevil, she must tempt and lure to their destruction the Grail warriors. And\nyet she would find release and salvation could a man resist her love\nspell.[159] She knows this. The scene between the unwilling temptress,\nwhose success would but doom her afresh, and the virgin Parsifal thus\nbecomes tragic in the extreme. How does this affect Amfortas and the\nGrail? In this way. Parsifal is the \"pure fool,\" knowing nought of sin or\nsuffering. It had been foretold of him he should become \"wise by\nfellow-suffering,\" and so it proves. The overmastering rush of desire\nunseals his eyes, clears his mind. Heart-wounded by the shaft of passion,\nhe feels Amfortas' torture thrill through him. The pain of the physical\nwound is his, but far more, the agony of the sinner who has been unworthy\nhis high trust, and who, soiled by carnal sin, must yet daily come in\ncontact with the Grail, symbol of the highest purity and holiness. The\nstrength which comes of the new-born knowledge enables him to resist\nsensual longing, and thereby to release both Kundry and Amfortas.\n\nIn the latest version of the Perceval Quest, as in the Galahad Quest, the\nideal of chastity is thus paramount. This result is due to Wagner's\ndramatic treatment of the theme. The conception that knowledge of sin and\nfellowship in suffering are requisite to enable man to resist temptation,\nand that thus alone does he acquire the needful strength to assist his\nfellows, however true and profound, can obviously only be worked out on\nthe stage through the medium of one form of sin and suffering. The long\npsychological process of Wolfram's poem, the slow growth of the unthinking\nyouth into the steadfast, faithful man, is replaced by a mystic,\ntranscendental conversion. From out a world of human endeavour, human\nmotive, we have stepped into one wholly ascetic and symbolical. The love\nof man for woman only appears in the guise of forbidden desire; the aims\nand needs of this world are not even thought of. Every incident has been\nremoulded in accord with Christian tradition. Wagner fully accepts the\nsacramental nature of the Grail, and the Grail feast is with him a\nfaithful reproduction of the Last Supper. Holiness and purity are the\nessence of the Grail, which is cleared from every taint of its pagan\norigin. And whilst Wagner, following the French models, identifies the\nGrail with the most sacred object of Christian worship, he also,\ndeveloping hints of Wolfram's, reshapes the career of his Grail-seeker in\naccord with that of Christ. Parsifal, the releaser of sin-stricken Kundry,\nof sin-stricken Amfortas--Parsifal, the restorer of peace and holiness to\nthe Grail Kingdom--becomes a symbol of the Saviour.\n\nIn the reasoned, artistic growth of the legend, the plastic, living\nelement is that supplied by Christian tradition. From the moment that the\nCeltic lord of the underworld is identified with the evangelist of Britain\nwe see the older complex of tales acquire consistency, life, and meaning.\nEven where the direct influence of the intruding element is slightest, as\nin the Conte du Graal, we can still perceive that it is responsible for\nthe germs of after development. Sometimes violently and unintelligently,\nsometimes with a keen feeling for the possibilities of the original\nromance, sometimes with the boldest introduction of new matter, sometimes\nwith slavish adherence to pre-Christian conceptions, the transformation of\nthe Celtic tales goes on. The cauldron of increase and renovation, the\nglaive of light, the magic fish, the visit to the otherworld, all are\ngradually metamorphosed until at last the talisman of the Irish gods\nbecomes the symbol of the risen Lord, its seeker a type of Christ in His\ndivinest attributes.\n\nThe ethical teaching of the legend becomes also purely Christian as the\nMiddle Ages conceived Christianity. Renunciation of the world and of the\nflesh is its key-note. Once only in Wolfram do we find an ideal human in\nits essence, though dogmatic in form; the path thus opened is not trodden\nfurther, and the legend remains as a whole, on the moral side, a monument\nof Christian asceticism.\n\nWe have seen reason to surmise that the folk-tales which underlie the\nromances themselves gave the hint for the most characteristic\nmanifestation of this ascetic ideal. It is worth enquiry if these tales\nhave developed themselves independently from the Christianised legend, and\nif such development shows any trace of ethical conceptions comparable with\nthose of the legend. Can we gather from the tales as fashioned by the folk\nteaching similar to that of the preachers, philosophers, and artists by\nwhom the legend has been shaped? Few enquiries can be more interesting\nthan one which traces such a conception as the Quest after the highest\ngood as pictured by the rudest and most primitive members of the race.\n\nMany of the tales which formed a part of the (hypothetical) Welsh original\nof the earliest Grail romances have been shown to come under the Aryan\nExpulsion and Return Formula (_supra_, Ch. VI). Among most races this\nformula has connected itself with the national heroes, and has given rise\nto hero-tales in which the historical element outweighs the ethical.\nSometimes, as in the tale of Perseus, the incidents are so related as to\nbring out an ethical _motif_; Perseus is certainly thought of as avenging\nhis mother's undeserved wrongs. I cannot trace anything of the kind among\nthe Celts. All the incidents of the formula in Celtic tradition which I\nknow of are purely historical in character. This element of the old\nSaga-mass thus yields nothing for the present enquiry. Others are more\nfruitful. Perceval is akin not only to Fionn, but also to the Great Fool.\nThe Lay of the Great Fool was found to tally closely with adventures in\nthe Mabinogi and in the Conte du Graal (_supra_, Ch. VI). It also sets\nforth a moral conception that admits of profitable comparison with that of\nthe Grail romances.\n\nUltimately, the Lay is, I have little doubt, one of the many forms in\nwhich a mortal's visit to the otherworld was related. Wandering into the\nGlen of Glamour, the hero and his love encounter a magician; the hero\ndrinks of the proffered cup, despite his love's remonstrances, and\nforthwith loses his two legs. This is obviously a form of the\nwidely-spread myth which forbids the visitant to the otherworld to partake\nof aught there under penalty of never returning to earth. But this\nmythical _motif_ has taken an ethical shape in popular fancy. According to\nKennedy's version, it is the hero's excess in draining the cup to the\ndregs which calls for punishment. This change is of the same nature as\nthat noted with regard to a similar incident in the Grail romances. There,\nthe old mythic taboo of sleeping or speaking in the otherworld called at\nlast for an explanation, and found one in Wolfram's philosophic\nconception. The parallel does not end here. Perceval may retrieve his\nfault, and so may the Great Fool; Wolfram makes his hero win salvation by\nsteadfast faith, the folk-tale makes its hero in the face of every form of\ntemptation a pattern of steadfast loyalty to the absent friend and to the\npledged word. It may, or may not, be considered to the advantage of the\nfolk-tale that, unlike the medi\u00e6val romance, it deals neither in mysticism\nnor in asceticism. The sin and atonement of the Great Fool are such as the\npopular mind can grasp; he is an example of human weakness and human\nstrength. The woman he loves is no temptress, no representative of the\nevil principle--on the contrary, she is ever by his side to counsel and to\ncheer him.\n\nWhen it is remembered that the two off-shoots, romantic-legendary and\npopular, from the one traditional stem have grown up in perfect\nindependence of each other, the kinship of moral idea is startling. The\nfolk-lorist has often cause to wonder at the spontaneous flower-like\ncharacter of the object of his study; folk-tradition seems to obey fixed\nlaws of growth and to be no product of man's free thought and speech. The\nfew partisans of the theory that folk-tradition is only a later and\nweakened echo of the higher culture of the race are invited to study the\npresent case. A Celtic tale, after supplying an important element to the\nChristianised Grail legend, has gone on its way entirely unaffected by the\nnew shape which that legend assumed, and yet it has worked out a moral\nconception of fundamental likeness to one set forth in the legend. It\nwould be difficult to find a more perfect instance of the spontaneous,\nevolutional character of tradition contended for by what, in default of a\nbetter name, must be called the anthropological school of folk-lorists.\n\nWe must quit Celtic ground to find another example of an element in the\noriginals of the Grail romances, embodying a popular ethical idea. This\ninstance is such an interesting one that I cannot pass it by in silence.\nAs was shown in Chapter VII, one of the many forms of the hero's visit to\nthe otherworld has for object the release of maidens held captive by an\nevil power. A formal connection was established between this section of\nthe romance and the folk-tale of the Sleeping Beauty. As a whole, too,\nthis tale admits of comparison with the legend. Its origin is mythic\nwithout a doubt. Whether it be regarded as a day or as a year myth, as the\nrescue of the dawn from night, or of the incarnate spring from the bonds\nof winter, it equally pictures a victory of the lord of light and heat and\nlife over the powers of darkness, cold, and death. With admirable fidelity\nfolk-tradition has preserved the myth, so that its true nature can be\nrecognised without fail. It would be wrong, though, to conclude that\nretention of the mythic framework implied any recognition of its mythic\ncharacter on the part of those who told or listened to the story. Some\ninvestigators, indeed, hold it idle to consider it otherwise than as a\ntale told merely for amusement. But a story, to live, must appeal to moral\nas well as to \u00e6sthetic emotions. In the folk-mind this story sets forth,\ndimly though it may be, that search for the highest human felicity which\nis likewise a theme of the Grail romances. What better picture of this\nquest could be found than the old mythic symbol of the awakening of life\nand increase beneath the kiss of the sun-god. The hero of the folk-tale\nmakes his way through the briars and tangle of the forest that he may\nrestore to the deserted castle life and plenty; so much has the tale\nretained of the original mythic signification. As regards the quester\nhimself, the maiden he thus woos is his reward and the noblest prize earth\nhas to offer him. Where the romance writers made power, or riches, or\nlearning, or personal salvation the goal of man's effort, the folk-tale\nbids him seek happiness in the common human affections.\n\nSuch, all too briefly sketched, has been the fate and story of these\ntales, first shaped in a period of culture wellnigh pre-historic, gifted\nby reason of their Celtic setting with a charm that commended them to the\nromantic spirit of the middle ages, and made them fit vehicles for the\nembodiment of medi\u00e6val ideas. Quickened by Christian symbolism they came\nto express and typify the noblest and the most mystic longings of man. The\nlegend, as the poets and thinkers of the twelfth century fashioned it, has\nstill a lesson and a meaning for us. It may be likened to one of the\ndivine maidens of Irish tradition. She lives across the western sea. Ever\nand again heroes, filled with mysterious yearning for the truth and beauty\nof the infinite and undying, make sail to join her if they may. They pass\naway and others succeed them, but she remains ever young and fair. So long\nas the thirst of man for the ideal endures, her spell will not be\nweakened, her charm will not be lessened. But each generation works out\nthis Quest in its own spirit. This much may be predicted with some\nconfidence: henceforth, whosoever would do full justice to the legend must\ntake pattern by Wolfram von Eschenbach rather than by any of his rivals;\nhe must deal with human needs and human longings; his ideal must be the\nwidening of human good and human joy. Above all, he must give reverent yet\nfull expression to all the aspirations, all the energies of man and of\nwoman.\n\n\nFINIS.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A.\n\nTHE RELATIONSHIP OF WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH AND CHRESTIEN.\n\n\nThe various arguments for and against the use of any other French source\nthan Chrestien by Wolfram have been clearly summed up by G. B\u00f6tticher, Die\nWolfram Literatur seit Lachmann, Berlin, 1880. The chief representative of\nthe negative opinion is Birch-Hirschfeld, who first gives, Chapter VIII.\nof his work, a useful collection of passages relating to the Grail, the\nCastle, and the Quest, from both authors. His chief argument is this:--The\nGrail in all the romances except in Wolfram is a cup or vessel, but in\nWolfram a stone, a peculiarity only to be explained by Wolfram's ignorance\nof any source than Chrestien, and by the fact that the latter, in\naccordance with his usual practice of leaving objects and persons in as\nmysterious an atmosphere as possible, nowhere gives a clear description of\nthe Grail. He undoubtedly would have done so if he had finished his work.\nSuch indications as he gave led Wolfram, who did not understand the word\n_Graal_, to think it was a stone. It is inconceivable that Kyot, if such a\npersonage existed, should have so far departed from all other versions as\nnot to picture the Grail as a vessel, inconceivable, again, that his\naccount of it should have been just as vague as Chrestien's, that he\nshould have afforded Wolfram no hint of the real nature of the object. In\nChrestien Perceval's question refers to the Grail, but Wolfram, missing\nthe significance of the holy vessel owing to the meagreness of the\ninformation respecting it given to him by Chrestien, was compelled to\ntransform the whole incident, and to refer it solely to the sufferings of\nthe wounded King. Again, Chrestien meant to utilise the sword, and to\nbring Gawain to the Grail Castle; but his unfinished work did not carry\nout his intention, and in Wolfram Gawain also fails to come to the Grail\nCastle; the sword is passed over in silence in the latter part of the\npoem.--Simrock, jealous for the credit of Wolfram, claimed for him the\ninvention of all that could not be traced to Chrestien, resting the claim\nchiefly upon consideration of a sentimental patriotic nature.--In\nopposition to these views, although the fact is not denied that Wolfram\nfollowed Chrestien closely for the parts common to both, it is urged to be\nincredible that he, a German poet, should invent a prologue to Chrestien's\nunfinished work connecting with an Angevin princely genealogical legend.\nIt was also pointed out, with greatest fulness by Bartsch, Die Eigennamen\nim Parcival und Titurel, Germanist. Studien, II., 114, _et seq._, that the\nGerman poet gives a vast number of proper names which are not to be found\nin Chrestien, and that these are nearly all of French, and especially\nSouthern French and Proven\u00e7al origin.--Simrock endeavoured to meet this\nargument in the fifth edition of his translation, but with little\nsuccess.--B\u00f6tticher, whilst admitting the weight of Birch-Hirschfeld's\narguments, points out the difficulties which his theory involves. If\nWolfram simply misunderstood Chrestien and did not differ from him\npersonally, why should he be at the trouble of inventing an elaborately\nfeigned source to justify a simple addition to the original story? If he\nonly knew of the Grail from Chrestien, what gave him the idea of endowing\nit, as he did, with mystic properties? Martin points out in addition (Zs.\nf. d. A., V. 87) that Wolfram has the same connection of the Grail and\nSwan Knight story as Gerbert, whom, _ex hypothesi_, he could not have\nknown, and who certainly did not know him.--In his Zur Gralsage, Martin\nreturned to the question of proper names, and showed that a varying\nredaction of a large part of the romance is vouched for by the different\nnames which Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin applies to personages met with both in\nChrestien and in Wolfram. If, then, one French version, that followed by\nHeinrich, who is obviously a translator, is lost, why not another?\n\nThe first thorough comparison of Chrestien and Wolfram is to be found in\nOtto K\u00fcpp's Unmittelbaren Quellen des Parzival, (Zs. f. d. Ph. XVII., l).\nHe argues for Kyot's existence. Some of the points he mentions in which\nthe two poems differ, and in which Wolfram's account has a more archaic\ncharacter, may be cited: The mention of Gurnemanz's sons; the food\nproducing properties of the Grail on Parzival's first visit; the\nreproaches of the varlet to Parzival on his leaving the Grail Castle, \"You\nare a goose, had you but moved your lips and asked the host! Now you have\nlost great praise;\"[160] the statement that the broken sword is to be made\nwhole by dipping in the Lake Lac, and the mention of a sword charm by\nvirtue of which Parzival can become lord of the Grail Castle; the mention\nthat no one seeing the Grail could die within eight days. In addition K\u00fcpp\nfinds that many of the names in Wolfram are more archaic than those of\nChrestien. On the other hand, K\u00fcpp has not noticed that Chrestien has\npreserved a more archaic feature in the prohibition laid upon Gauvain not\nto leave for seven days the castle after he had undergone the adventure of\nthe bed.\n\nK\u00fcpp has not noticed that some of the special points he singles out in\nWolfram are likewise to be found in Chrestien's continuators, _e.g._, the\nmention of the sons of Gurnemanz, by Gerbert.\n\nI believe I have the first pointed out the insistence by both Wolfram and\nGerbert upon the hero's love to and duty towards his wife.\n\nThe name of Parzival's uncle in Wolfram, Gurnemanz, is nearer to the form\nin Gerbert, Gornumant, than to that in Chrestien, Gonemant.\n\nThe matter may be summed up thus: it is very improbable that Wolfram\nshould have invented those parts of the story found in him alone; the\nparts common to him and Chrestien are frequently more archaic in his case;\nthere are numerous points of contact between him and Gerbert. All this\nspeaks for another French source than Chrestien. On the other hand, it is\nalmost inconceivable that such a source should have presented the Grail as\nWolfram presents it.\n\nI cannot affect to consider the question decidedly settled one way or the\nother, and have, therefore, preferred to make no use of Wolfram. I would\nonly point out that if the contentions of the foregoing studies be\nadmitted, they strongly favour the genuineness of the non-Chrestien\nsection of Wolfram's poem,[161] though I admit they throw no light upon\nhis special presentment of the Grail itself.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\nTHE PROLOGUE TO THE GRAND ST. GRAAL AND THE BRANDAN LEGEND.\n\n\nI believe the only parallel to this prologue to be the one furnished by\nthat form of the Brandan legend of which Schr\u00f6der has printed a German\nversion (Sanct Brandan) at Erlangen, in 1871, from a MS. of the fourteenth\ncentury, but the first composition of which he places (p. 15) in the last\nquarter of the twelfth century. The text in question will be found pp. 51,\n_et seq._: Brandan, a servant of God, seeks out marvels in rare books, he\nfinds that two paradises were on earth, that another world was situated\nunder this one, so that when it is here night it is day there, and of a\nfish so big that forests grew on his back, also that the grace of God\nallowed some respite every Saturday night to the torments of Judas. Angry\nat all these things he burnt the book. But the voice of God spake to him,\n\"Dear friend Brandan thou hast done wrong, and through thy wrath I see My\nwonders lost.\" The holy Christ bade him fare nine years on the ocean,\nuntil he see whether these marvels were real or a lie. Thereafter Brandan\nmakes ready a ship to set forth on his travels.\n\nThis version was very popular in Germany. Schr\u00f6der prints a Low German\nadaptation, and a chap book one, frequently reprinted during the\nfifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. But besides this form\nthere was another, now lost, which can be partially recovered from the\nallusions to it in the Wartburg Krieg, a German poem of the thirteenth and\nearly fourteenth century, and which is as follows:--An angel brings\nBrandan a book from heaven: Brandan finds so many incredible things in it\nthat he taxes book and angel with lying, and burns the book. For his\nunfaith he must wander till he find it. God's grace grants him this at\nlast; an angel gives him the sign of two fires burning, which are the eyes\nof an ox, upon whose tongue he shall find the book. He hands it to\nUranias, who brings it to _Scotland_ (_i.e._, of course Ireland) Schr\u00f6der,\np. 9.\n\nThe closeness of the parallel cannot be denied, and it raises many\ninteresting questions, which I can here only allude to. The Isle of\nBrandan has always been recognized as a Christian variant of the Celtic\nT\u00edr-na n-Og, the Land of the Shades, Avalon. Schr\u00f6der has some instructive\nremarks on this subject, p. 11. The voyage of Brandan may thus be\ncompared with that of Bran, the son of Febal (_supra_, p. 232), both being\nversions of the wide-spread myth of a mortal's visit to the otherworld. It\nis not a little remarkable that in the Latin legend, which differs from\nthe German form by the absence of the above-cited prologue, there is an\naccount (missing in the German), of a \"conopeus\" (\"cover\" or \"canopy,\")\n_cf._ Ducange and Diez, _sub voce_; the old French version translates it\nby \"Pavillon of the colour of silver but harder than marble, and a column\ntherein of clearest crystal.\" And on the fourth day they find a window and\ntherein a \"calix\" of the same nature as the \"conopeus\" and a \"patena\" of\nthe colour of the column (Schr\u00f6der, p. 27, and Note 41).\n\nThus there is a formal connection between the Brandan legend and the Grail\nromances in the prologue common to two works of each cycle, and there is a\nlikeness of subject-matter between the Brandan legend and the older Celtic\ntraditions which I have assumed to be the basis of the romances. But\nGerman literature likewise supplies evidence of a connection between\nBrandan and Bran. Professor Karl Pearson has referred me to a passage in\nthe Pfaffe Amis, a thirteenth century South German poem, composed by Der\nStricker, the hero of which, a prototype of Eulenspiegel, goes through the\nworld gulling and tricking his contemporaries. In a certain town he\npersuades the good people to entrust to him their money, by telling them\nthat he has in his possession a very precious relic, the head of St.\nBrandan, which has commanded him to build a cathedral (Lambl's Edition,\nLeipzig, 1872, p. 32). The preservation of the head of Bran is a special\nfeature in the Mabinogi. I have instanced parallels from Celtic tradition\n(Branwen, p. 14), and Professor Rhys has since (Hibb. Lect., p. 94)\nconnected the whole with Celtic mythological beliefs. This chance\nreference in a German poem is the only trace to my knowledge of an earlier\nlegend in which, it may be, Bran and Brandan, the visitor to and the lord\nof the otherworld, were one and the same person.\n\nIt is highly desirable that every form of or allusion to the Brandan\nlegend should be examined afresh, as, perhaps, able to throw fresh light\nupon the origin and growth of the Grail legend. In Pseudo-Chrestien\nPerceval's mother goes on a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Brandan.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX I.\n\nDRAMATIS PERSON\u00c6.\n\n\n[This Index is to the Summaries contained in Chapter II, and the\nreferences are not to page and line, but to Version and Incident. The\nVersions are distinguished by the following abbreviations:--\n\nConte du Graal =Co=, Pseudo-Chrestien =PC=, Chrestien =C=, Gautier =G=,\nManessier =Ma=, Gerbert =Ge=, Wolfram =W=, Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin =H=,\nMabinogi of Peredur =M=, Thornton MS. Sir Perceval =T=, Didot-Perceval\n=D=, Borron's poem =B=, Queste =Q= (=Q={1} and =Q={2} refer to the\ndifferent drafts of the romance distinguished p. 83) Grand St. Graal =GG=.\nWith the less important entries, or when the entries are confined to one\nversion, a simple number reference is given. But in the case of the more\nimportant personages, notably Perceval, Gawain, and Galahad, an attempt\nhas been made to show the life history, by grouping together references to\nthe same incident from different versions; in this case each incident\ngroup is separated from other groups by a long dash ----. Any speciality\nin the incident presented by a version is bracketed _before_ the reference\ninitial, and, when deemed advisable, reference has been made to allied as\nwell as to similar incidents. This detail, to save space, is, as a rule,\ngiven only once, as under Perceval, and not duplicated under other\nheadings, the number reference alone being given in the latter cases. The\nfullest entry is Perceval, which practically comprises such entries as\nFisher King, Grail, Sword, Lance, etc.]\n\n=ABEL= =Q=37, =GG=24.\n\n=ABRIORIS= =G=9.\n\n=ACHEFLOUR= =T=1.\n\n=ADAM= =Q=37, =GG=24.\n\n=ADDANC OF LAKE= =M=16, 19.\n\n=AGARAN= =Q=23.\n\n=AGRESTES= =GG=40.\n\n=AGUIGRENONS= =Co=, _Kingrun_ =W=, anonymous =M=, =C=6, =W=, =M=8.\n\n=ALAINS=, Celidoine's son =GG=43.\n\n=ALAINS= or =ALEIN= (=li Gros= =D=, =Q=, =GG=) =B=12----=Dprol=, 1, 6, 12,\n=Q=26, =GG=30, 43, 45, 51, 58, 59.\n\n=ALEINE=, Gawain's niece, =D=1.\n\n=ALFASEM= =GG=51, 58.\n\n=AMANGONS= =PC=1, 2, 4.\n\n=AMFORTAS=, see Fisher King.\n\n=AMINADAP= =GG=58.\n\n=ANGHARAD= Law Eurawc, =M=12, 14.\n\n=ANTIKONIE=, see Facile Damsel.\n\n=ARGASTES= =Q=27.\n\n=ARIDES= of Cavalon =Ma=14, 16 (a King of Cavalon mentioned =C=12\ncorresponds to _Vergulat_ of Askalon in =W=).\n\n=ARTHUR= =PC=2, 3, 5, =C=1, =Dprol=----arrival of Perceval at his court\n=C=3, =W=, =M=3, =T=4, =Dprol=----=C=6, 9, 10, =W=, =M=9, 10, 11----=M=13,\n14----=C=11, =W=, =M=20----=T=7----=C=18, =W=----=G=1, =W=----=G=2, 3, 6,\n9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, =Ma=10, 16, 23, =Ge=5, =H=, =D=1, 3, 5, 8, 14, 16,\n=M=25, =Q=3, 5, 13, =GG=33, 45, 48.\n\n=AUGUSTUS C\u00c6SAR= =GG=11.\n\n=AVALON= or =AVARON= =B=12, 13, =D=9.\n\n=BAGOMMEDES= =G=19, 20.\n\n=BANDAMAGUS= =Q=5, 6, 43.\n\n=BANS= =Q=26, =GG=30, 59.\n\n=BEAU MAUVAIS=, le, =G=11, =D=8.\n\n=BEDUERS= =D=2.\n\n=BLAISE= =Dprol=, 14.\n\n=BLANCHEFLEUR= =Co=, Conduiramur =W=, anonymous =M=, _cf._ Lufamour\n=T=----Perceval's cousin =Co=, =W=----first meeting with Perceval =C=6,\n=W=, =M=8----second meeting with Perceval =G=10----third meeting\n=Ma=13-16----third meeting and marriage with Perceval =Ge=8-10, _cf._ =W=.\n\n=BLIHIS= =PC=1 = Blaise?\n\n=BLIHOS BLIHERIS= =PC=2.\n\n=BLIOCADRANS= (of Wales, Perceval's father), =PC=6.\n\n=BORS, BOHORS, BOORT= =Q=1, 3, 13, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, =Ma=18----=Q=35,\n48-52.\n\n=BRANDALIS= =G=1, 2.\n\n=BRIOS= =G=16.\n\n=BRONS, BRON=, or =HEBRON=. =B=7, 8, 12, 14, =Dprol=, 6, 16, =GG=41, 42,\n_cf._ p. 19.\n\n=BRUILLANT= =GG=58 = Urlain =Q=35.\n\n=BRUN DE BRANLANT= =G=1.\n\n=CAIN= =Q=37, =GG=24.\n\n=CAIPHAS= =GG=2, 3.\n\n=CAIUS= =GG=3.\n\n=CALIDES= =Ma=9.\n\n=CALOGRENANT= =Q=33. =CALOGRINANT= =Ma=18----_Calocreant_ in =H=, one of\nthe three Grail-seekers.\n\n=CARAHIES= =G=5.\n\n=CARCHELOIS= =Q=39.\n\n=CARDUEL= =C=3----_Carduel_ of Nantes =G=1.\n\n=CASTRARS= =PC=4.\n\n=CATHELOYS= =GG=58.\n\n=CAVALON= =C=12----=Ma=14, 16.\n\n=CELIDOINE= =GG=22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 39, 59, =Q=26.\n\n=CHANAAN= =GG=45, 47.\n\n=CHESSBOARD CASTLE= =G=7, =D=4, =M=24----=G=14----=G=18, =D=13.\n\n=CHRIST= =B=1-3, 5, 6, 8, 11, =Q=7, 10, 13, 15, 20, 26, 50, =Dprol=, 16,\n=Ge=15, =GG=1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 21, 23, 30, 37, 41, 45.\n\n=CLAMADEX= =C=6, Clamide =W=, the earl =M=8 = the Sowdane =T=7.\n\n=CLARISSE= =Co= Mons MS. or _Clarissant_ Montpellier MS., ITONJE\n=W=----=C=18, =G=1, =W=.\n\n=CLAUDIUS= =GG=3.\n\n=CLAUDIUS=, son of Claudas =Q={2}51.\n\n=CORBENIC= =Q=, =GG=, =CORBI\u00c8RE= =Ma=23, =Q=13, 43, 48, =GG=51.\n\n=CORSAPIAS= =GG=22.\n\n=COWARD KNIGHT= =Ma=17, 19.\n\n=CRUDEL= =Q=6, 15, =Ge=15, =GG=36-38.\n\n=DAVID= =Q=37.\n\n=DODINEL= =Ma=14.\n\n=ELIEZER= =Q=27.\n\n=EMPTY SEAT=, see Seat Perillous.\n\n=ENYGEUS=, =ENYSGEUS=, or =ANYSGEUS= =B=7, 8, 11, 12.\n\n=EREC= =D=2.\n\n=ERNOUS= =Q=39.\n\n=ESCORANT= =Q={2}51.\n\n=ESCOS= =GG=47.\n\n=ESPINOGRE= =Ma=5.\n\n=ESTROIS DE GARILES= =Q={2}51.\n\n=ETLYM GLEDDYV COCH= =M=16-18.\n\n=EVALACH.= Evalach li mescouncus =GG=, Eualac =Q= (Anelac 26), Evelac\n=Ma=, =Ge=. Overcoming Tholomes =GG=6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, =Q=6, 15, 26,\n=Ma=3, =Ge=15, name changed to _Mordrains_, which see.\n\n=EVE= =Q=37, =GG=24.\n\n=FACILE DAMSEL=, Anonymous =Co=, =H=, =M=, _Antikonie_ =W=, =C=14, =W=,\n=H=, =M=21.\n\n=FEIREFIZ= =W=.\n\n=FELIX= =GG=3, 11.\n\n=FISHER KING.= Anonymous =Co=, Amfortas =W=, Brons =B=, =D=, Alain =GG=.\nAnonymous (?), =Q={1}, Pelles =Q={2}. In =M= the Fisher corresponds to\nGonemans. In all the French works of the cycle the adjective rich is\ncommonly applied to the Fisher. Splendour of court =PC=1----learned in\nblack art =PC=3----old and sick =Dprol=, First meeting with Perceval =C=7,\n=W=, =D=11, _cf._ =PC=3, =M=6----=C=8, =W=, _cf._ =D=2, 12----=C=11, =W=,\n_cf._ =D=15, =M=21----=G=7, 8, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20----Second meeting with\nPerceval =G=22, =Ma=1-7 or =Ge=1-5, =D=16, _cf._ =M=25----=Ma=10----Third\nmeeting with Perceval =Ma=22, =Ge=22, =W=----Grandfather of Galahad\n=Q={1}2, 26. See also Maimed King.\n\n Surname given to Brons =B=12, to Alain =GG=43.\n\n Vessel given to him =D=1----commanded to go to the West =D=6.\n\n=FLEGENTYNE= =GG=22, 29, 31, 37, 59.\n\n=GAHMURET= =W=.\n\n=GALAHAD= (GALAAD). _Father_: Lancelot =Q=, =GG=----_Mother_: daughter of\nKing Pelles =Q={1}, =GG=, or Fisher King =Q={2}----Seat Perillous\n=Q=2----Sword =Q=3----Quest proclaimed =Q=5----Evelac's Shield =Q=6,\n=GG=50----Devil-inhabited tomb =Q=7, _cf._ =Ge=17----Melians'\ndiscomforture =Q=8----Castle of Maidens =Q=9----overcoming of Lancelot and\nPerceval =Q=11----destined achiever of Quest =Q=13----rescue of Perceval\n=Q=16----Genealogy =Q=26, =GG=21, 30, 58----likening to a spotless bull\n=Q=29----overcoming of Gawain =Q=34----stay on ship =Q=35, 36----sword\n=Q=36----Maimed King =Q={2} 36----capture of Castle Carchelois\n=Q=39----stag and lions =Q=40, _cf._ =GG=45----castle of the evil custom\n=Q=41----stay with father =Q=42----healing of Mordrains =Q=44, _cf._\n=GG=39----cooling of fountain =Q=45----making white the Cross\n=GG=40----release of Symeu =Q=46, =GG=49----making whole sword\n=GG=44----release of Moys =GG=46----five years' wanderings\n=Q=47----arrival at King Peleur's =Q={1}, Maimed King's =Q={2}, witnessing\nof Grail and healing of Maimed King =Q=48-50----Sarras, crowning, death\n=Q=51, 52.\n\n=GALAHAD= (GALAAD) son of Joseph =GG=8, 31, 34----King of Hocelice and\nancestor of Urien =GG=49----founding of abbey for Symeu =GG=49.\n\n=GANSGUOTER= =H=.\n\n=GANORT= =GG=33, 35.\n\n=GARALAS= =G=13.\n\n=GAWAIN.= Gauvain =Co=, =Q=, =GG=, Gwalchmai =M=, Gawan =W=, Gawein =H=,\nGawayne or Wawayne =T=----of the seed of Joseph of Arimathea =GG=48,\nArthur's nephew =Co=, =Q=----conquers Blihos Bliheris =PC=2----allusion to\nhis finding the Grail =PC=3----one of the knights met by Perceval in wood\n=M=1, =T=2----helps Perceval to disarm Red Knight =T=4----meeting with\nPerceval after blood-drops incident =C=10, =W=, =M=11----vow to release\nimprisoned maiden =C=11, =M=20----reproached by Guigambresil =C=12,\n(Kingrimur) =W=, (anonymous) =M=20----tournament at Tiebaut's =C=13,\n(Lippaot) =W=, (Leigamar) =H=, _cf._ =D=15, where Perceval is hero but\nGawain best knight after him----adventure with the facile damsel =C=14,\n(Antikonie) =W=, =H=, =M=21----injunction to seek bleeding lance =C=14,\n=W=, (Grail) =H=----adventure with Griogoras =C=16, (Urjan) =W=, (Lohenis)\n=H=----meeting with scornful damsel, Orgeuilleuse, arrival at ferryman's\n=C=16, =W=----Magic Castle =C=17, =W=, _cf._ =GG=51----may not leave\ncastle =C=17----second meeting with Orgueilleuse =C=18, =W=,\n(Mancipicelle) =H=----Ford Perillous, Guiromelant =C=18, (Gramoflanz) =W=,\n(Giremelanz) =H=----marriage with Orgueilleuse =W=, (?) =C=18----arrival\nof Arthur to witness combat with Guiromelant =C=18 continued by =G=1, =W=,\n=H=----fight with Perceval =W=, _cf._ =T=7----reconciliation with\nGuiromelant =G=1, =W=, =H=----departure on Grail Quest and winning various\ntalismans =H=----[first arrival at Grail Castle according to Montpellier\nMS. of =Co=]----Brun de Branlant, Brandalis =G=1 and 2----slaying of\nunknown knight and Quest to avenge him =G=3----Chapel of Black Hand\n=G=3----arrival at Grail Castle (first according to Mons MS. of =Co=),\nhalf successful =G=3, wholly successful =H=, _cf._ =M=25 found by Peredur\nat Castle of Talismans, and reference in =Q=51 Welsh version----greetings\nof country folk =G=3, _cf._ =Ge=3----meeting with his son =G=4----Mount\nDolorous Quest =G=19----renewed Grail Quest, reproached for conduct at\nFisher King's, slaying of Margon =Ma=10----rescue of Lyonel\n=Ma=18----rescue by Perceval =Ge=16.\n\n Joins in search for Grail with remainder of Table Round =D={2}, =Q=,\n betraying knowledge of Maimed King =Q=5.\n\n Meeting with Ywain, Gheheris and confession to hermit =Q=10.\n\n Meeting with Hector de Mares =Q=29.\n\n Overcoming at Galahad's hand =Q=34.\n\n=GHEHERIES= =Q=10.\n\n=GIFL\u00c8S= =C=11, =G=2.\n\n=GONEMANS= or =GONEMANT= =Co=, Gornumant =Ge=, Gurnemanz =W=, Fisher Uncle\n=M=, =C=5, =W=, =M=5, uncle to Blanchefleur =C=6, =C=7, =W=, second\nmeeting with Perceval =Ge=8-9, _cf._ =T=6.\n\n=GOON DESERT= =Ma=4.\n\n=GRAIL=, Early History of. Last Supper cup given to Joseph =B=2, 3, 4,\n=GG=2, =Q=50, =Ma=3----Solace of Joseph =B=5, 6, =GG=2, =D=16, =Ma=3\n(Montpellier MS.)----Grail and Fish =B=8, 9 _cf._ =GG=43----Directs Joseph\nwhat to do with Alain =B=12, _cf._ =GG=42, confided to Brons =B=14,15,\n=Dprol= 6, (Alain) =GG=51----=D=6, 10----feeds host =GG=5, =Q=13, also\n=GG=32----Blinding of Nasciens =GG=16, 21, 23, 30, passage to England 31,\n=D=6, =Q=6, 13, 15----Crudel =GG=38, =Q=15, =Ge=15----Blinding of\nMordrains =GG=38, 39, 42, only feeds the sinless 43, 44, refuses meat to\nChanaan and Symeu 47, resting-place, Castle Corbenic =GG=51.\n\n Book of, revealed to hermit =GG=2.\n\n=GRAIL=, Quest of _by Perceval_: first seen at Fisher King's =PC=3, =C=7,\n=W=, =D=11----properties of =C=8, =W=, =D=12----=C=11, =W=----=C=15,\n=W=----lights up forest =G=14----=G=21----seen for second time\n=G=22-=Ma=1-7 or =Ge=1-3, =D=16----heals Hector and Perceval\n=Ma=20----taken from earth =Ge=6, _cf._ =W=----opposed by witch, =Ge=8,\n9----connection with Shield =Ge=13----seen for third time =Ma=23, 24,\n=Ge=22; _by Gawain_: =H= and =G=3; _by Lancelot_: =Q=12, 22, 43; _by\nGalahad_: =Q=2, feeds Arthur's court =Q=4, quest proclaimed =Q=5, feeds\nhost =Q=13, =GG=32, denied to Gawain and Hector =Q=29, 30, accomplished\n=Q=50-52.\n\n=GRAIL-MESSENGER=, see Loathly Damsel.\n\n=GRAMOFLANZ= see Guiromelant.\n\n=GRIOGORAS= =C=16 = Lohenis =H=.\n\n=GUIROMELANT= =Co=, Gramoflanz =W=, Giremelanz =H=, =C=18-=G=1, =W=, =H=.\n\n=HECTOR= (de =MARES= =Q=) =Q=29, 34, 43, =Ma=20.\n\n=HELAIN= =Q=27.\n\n=HELICORAS= =GG=22.\n\n=HELYAB= =GG=2, 8, 34.\n\n=HELYAS= =Q=26 = Ysaies =GG=30, 38.\n\n=HERZELOYDE= =W=.\n\n=HUDEN= =PC=4.\n\n=HURGAINS= or =HURGANET= =D=2, 3.\n\n=JONAANS= =Q=26, =JONANS= =GG=30, =JONAS= =GG=59.\n\n=JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA.= D'Arymathye =B=, de Arimathie =GG=, d'Abarimathie\nor d'Arimathie =Q=, de Barimacie =G=, and =Ma= (Montpellier MS.), Josep\n(without mention of town =Ma=, Mons MS.), de Barismachie =Ge=----care of\nChrist's body, captivity, solace, release =B=2-7, =GG=2, 3, =D=16, _cf._\n=Q=6, =Ma=2----stay in Sarras =GG=4-11, =Q=6, 26, =Ge=15,\n=Ma=3----=B=7----Passage to England =GG=31, =Q=6----feeding by Grail\n=GG=32, =Q=13, _cf._ =B=8, 9----Moys =B=11, 12, =Dprol=, _cf._\n=GG=41----=B=12-15----=GG=34, 36, =Q=15, =Ge=15----=GG=38, 44, 45, 48,\n50--=D=1, 6, 12.\n\n=JOSEPHES=, =JOSEPHE=, =JOSEPHUS=, or =JOSAPHES=, son of Joseph of\nArimathea, =GG=2, 5, 9, 10, 11 =Q=6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 31 =Q=6, 13 and 32,\n36 =Q=6, 38 =Q=6 and 15, 40, 41 =Q=13 _cf._ =D=6, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50\n=Q=6, =Q=50, 51.\n\n=JOSUE= =GG=51, 58.\n\n=KALAFIER= =GG=20, 22.\n\n=KARDEIZ= =W=.\n\n=KAY.= Kex =Co=----=T=2----=C=3, =W=, =M=3----=C=4, =W=, =M=4----=C=6,\n=C=9----=C=10, =W=, =M=11----=M=14----=T=7----=G=3, 19, =Ma=10, =Ge=21,\n=D=8----one of the three Grail-questers =H=.\n\n=KLINSCHOR= =W.=\n\n=LABAN= =Q=35 (query variant of Lambar?).\n\n=LABEL= =GG=26.\n\n=LABEL'S DAUGHTER= =GG=28, 29, 37, 39.\n\n=LAMBAR= or =LABRAN= =Q=35, =LAMBOR= =GG=58.\n\n=LANCE= (Spear) =PC=3, 4, =C=7, 8, =M=6, =C=11, 14, 15, =G=3, 22, =Ma=1,\n2, 24, =Ge=22, =H=, =D=11, 12, 16, =Q=50, 51, =GG=9, 15, 16.\n\n=LANCELOT=, Lancelot of Lake's grandfather =Q=26, =GG=30, 59.\n\n=LANCELOT.= Galahad's father =Q=, =GG=, =Q=1, 2, 4 (_cf._ =C=11), 5, 11,\n12 (_cf._ =C=7 and =G=3), 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (_cf._ =GG=58) 27, 28, 29,\n42, 43, =GG=30, 33, 40, 45, 58, 59, =PC=4.\n\n=LEUCANS= =GG=10.\n\n=LIONEL Q=1, 3, attacks Bors =Q=33, =Ma=18.\n\n=LOATHLY DAMSEL.= Anonymous =Co=, Kundrie =W=, Perceval's cousin =M=,\nreproaches Perceval =C=11, =W=, =M=20----announces end of Quest, =Ma=23,\n=M=25.\n\n=LOGRES= =PC=1, =G=3, =Q=12, 35, 47.\n\n=LOHENIS= =H= = Griogoras =C=16.\n\n=LOHERANGRIN= =W=.\n\n=LONGIS= =PC=4, =Ma=2, =D=16.\n\n=LOT= =GG=48.\n\n=LUCES= =GG=48.\n\n=LUFAMOUR= =T=7, _cf._ Blanchefleur.\n\n=MAIDENS' CASTLE= =PC=5, =G=12=a=, =Ge=6----=Q=9.\n\n=MAIMED= or =LAME KING=. Same personage as Fisher King. Designated in this\nway _only_ =M=, almost entirely so =Q={2} (5, 13, also =Q={1} 36, 39, 47,\n50), never so =B=, =D=. =GG=58 applies the designation to Pelleans.\n\n=MANAAL= =GG=58.\n\n=MANCIPICELLE=, see Orgueilleuse.\n\n=MARGON= =Ma=10.\n\n=MARIE LA VENISSIENNE= =GG=3 = Verrine, =B=6, =W=.\n\n=MARPUS= (=WARPUS= =Q=26) =GG=30, 59.\n\n=MEAUX= =GG=11.\n\n=MELIANS=, Galahad's companion =Q=8, 10.\n\n=MELIANS DE LIS= =C=13, =D=15.\n\n=MERLIN= (see p. 64D) =G=20, =Dprol=, 14, 15, =Q=13.\n\n=MORDRAINS= =GG=, Mordains =Q=, _once_ Noodrans =Ma=, _once_ Mordrach\n=Ge=----Baptism =GG=14, 15, =Q=6, 26, =Ma=3 =Ge=15----=GG=16, 17, vision\nof descendants 18, =Q=26----=GG=19, 20, stay on island 21, _cf._\n=Q=19----=GG=27, =Q=36----=GG=29 Crudel, and blinding by Grail 37, 38,\n=Q=15, =Ge=15----retires to hermitage =GG=39, =Q=44----his shield =GG=50,\n=Q=6.\n\n=MORDRED= =GG=45.\n\n=MORDRET= =Ge=6, 7.\n\n=MORGHE LA F\u00c9E= =G=18.\n\n=MORONEUS= =Q={2}26.\n\n=MORS DEL CALAN= =PC=4.\n\n=MOUNT DOLOROUS= =G=19, 20, =Ge=5.\n\n=MOYS=, =MOYSES= (=B=). Seat Perillous =B=10, 11, 12, =Dprol=, 1, =GG=41,\n46.\n\n=NASCIENS= =GG=, =Q=, Natiien =Ma=----Baptism =GG=14, =Q=6, 26,\n=Ma=3----Blinded by Grail =GG=16----=GG=18, 19, 20, 21, 22, turning isle\nand Solomon's ship, 23-27, =Q=35-37----=GG=28, 29, 30, 32, 33, Crudel 37,\n38, (called Seraphe) =Q=15----=GG=39----his tomb =GG=50----death\n=GG=59----appears as hermit in Arthur's time =Q=4, 5, 6, 29.\n\n=NASCIENS=, son of Celidoine, =GG=39.\n\n=NASCIENS=, grandson of Celidoine =GG=30, 59.\n\n=NICODEMUS= =B=3, 4, 5.\n\n=NOIRONS=, _i.e._, Nero =GG=3.\n\n=ORCANZ= =GG=48.\n\n=ORGUEILLEUSE.= Orguellouse =C=, Orgeluse =W= = Mancipicelle =H=,\n=C=16----=G=1, =W=, =H=.\n\n=OWAIN= =M=, =EWAYNE= =T=, =YONES= =C=4, =YWAIN= \"li aoutres\" =Q=6, 9, 10,\n29, =GG=49----meets Perceval =M=1, =T=2----helps him =M=3, =C=4.\n\n=PARTINAL= =Ma=5, 8, 21, 22.\n\n=PECORINS= =PC=4.\n\n=PELEUR= =Q={1}5, 47, 48.\n\n=PELLEANS= =GG=58.\n\n=PELLEHEM= =Q={2}35.\n\n=PELLES= =Q={2}1-3, 14, 27, 36, 44, 48, 50, =GG=59.\n\n=PERCEVAL= =Co=, =D=, =Q=, =GG=; PARZIVAL =W=, =H=; PEREDUR =M=;\nPERCYVELLE =T=.--_Father_: Bliocadrans =PC=; anonymous =Co=, =Q=; Alain\n=D=; Gahmuret =W=; Evrawe =M=; Percyvelle =T=; Pellehem =Q={2}. _Mother_:\nAnonymous =Co=, =D=, =Q=, =M=; Herzeloyde =W=; Acheflour (Arthur's sister)\n=T=----brought up in wood =C=1, =W=, =M=, =T=1----meets knights (5) =C=1,\n=W=, (3) =M=1, =T=2----leaves mother =C=1, =W=, =D=, =M=1, =T=2----first\nmeeting with lady of tent =C=2, (Ieschute) =W=, =M=2, =T=3----arrival at\nArthur's Court =C=3, =W=, =D=, =M=3, =T=4----laughing prophetic damsel\n=C=3, =W=, dwarves =M=3----slays _red_ knight =C=4, (Ither of Gaheviez)\n=W=, (colour not specified) =M=3, =T=4----overcomes 16 Knights\n=M=4----burns witch =T=5----arrival at house of first uncle, Gonemans\n=C=5, Gurnemanz =W=, Anonymous =M=5, and (different adventure partly\ncorresponding to =Ge=8) =T=6----first arrival at castle of lady love,\nBlanchefleur =C=5, Conduiramur =W=, Anonymous =M=8, Lufamour =T=7----first\narrival at Fisher King's =C=7, =W=, =D=11, =M=6----is reproached by\nwayside damsel, cousin: (Anonymous) =C=8, (Sigune) =W=, =D=12, foster\nsister =M=7----second meeting with lady of tent =C=9, =W=,\n=M=9----overcoming of Sorceresses of Gloucester =M=10----blood drops in\nthe snow =C=10, =W=, =M=11----Adventures with Angharad Law Eurawc; at the\ncastle of the huge grey man; serpent on the gold ring; Mound of Mourning;\nAddanc of the Lake; Countess of Achievements =M=12-19----reproaches of the\nloathly damsel =C=11, (Kundrie) =W=, =M=20----Good Friday incident and\nconfession to uncle =C=15, (Trevrezent) =W=, =D=14, =M=22----the Castle of\nthe Horn =G=6----the Castle of the Chessboard =G=7, =D=4, =M=24----meeting\nwith brother of Red Knight =G=8----Ford _amorous_ =G=9, _perillous_\n=D=9----second meeting with Blanchefleur =G=10----meeting with Rosette and\nLe Beau Mauvais =G=11, =D=8----meeting with sister and visit to hermit\n=G=12, =D=5 and 6----the Castle of Maidens =G=12=a=----meeting with the\nhound-stealing damsel =G=13, =D=13, =M=24----meeting with the damsel of\nthe white mule =G=14----tournament at Castle Orguellous =G=16 = =D=15\n(Melianz de Lis) and =M=19 (?)----Deliverance of knight in tomb\n=G=17----second visit to the Castle of the Chessboard =G=18,\n=D=13----delivery of Bagommedes =G=19----arrival at Mount Dolorous\n=G=20----the Black Hand in the Chapel =G=21----second arrival at Grail\nCastle =G=22-=Ma=1-7 and =Ge=1, =D=16, (with final overcoming of\nSorceresses of Gloucester) =M=25.\n\n Puts on red armour for love of Aleine, accomplishes the feat of the\n Seat Perillous, and sets forth on Quest =D=1 and 2.\n\n Slays the red knight, Orgoillous Delandes, =D=3.\n\n Overcomes Black Knight, slays giant and finds mother =T=9.\n\nPerceval and Saigremors =Ma=8----Second visit to Chapel of the Black Hand\n=Ma=11----the demon horse =Ma=12, =Q=18----Stay on the island =Q=19, and\n20, and temptation by damsel 21, =Ma=13----Delivery of Dodinel's lady love\n=Ma=14----Tribuet =Ma=15----third meeting with Blanchefleur\n=Ma=16----meeting with coward knight =Ma=17----combat with Hector\n=Ma=20----slaying of Partinal =Ma=21----third arrival at Grail Castle\n=Ma=22----learns death of his uncle the Fisher King from loathly damsel\n=Ma=23, =W=----retires into wilderness =Q=52, =Ma=24----dies =Q=52, goes\nto Palestine and dies (?) =T=.\n\n Encounter, unknown to either, with Galahad =Q=11. Meeting with recluse\n aunt =Q=13.\n\n Assistance at the hands of the Red Knight =Q=16.\n\n Adventure of the ship =Q=33, essay to draw sword =Q=35.\n\n Receives Galahad's sword =Q=41, bears Galahad company for five years\n =Q=47----adjusts the sword at the Court of Pelles =Q={2}48.\n\nBreaking of sword at the Gate of Paradise =Ge=2----Blessings of the\ncountry folk for putting question =Ge=3----Mending of sword at forge of\nthe serpent =Ge=4----Accomplishment of the feat of the Perillous Seat\n=Ge=5----adventures at sister's Castle, with Mordret, and at cousin's,\nCastle of Maidens =Ge=6----encounter with Kex, Gauvain, and Tristan =Ge=7,\n_cf._ =T=7----meeting with Gornumant =Ge=8 (_cf._ =T=6) and fight with the\nresuscitating hag----third arrival at Blanchefleur's Castle, marriage\n=Ge=9----deliverance of maiden, abolition of evil custom, knight on fire\n=Ge=10-12----obtains the promised shield =G=13----combat with the Dragon\nKing =Ge=14----arrival at abbey and story of Mordrains =Ge=15,\n=Q=15----the swan-drawn coffin =Ge=16----Devil in tomb =Ge=17, _cf._\n=Q=7----deliverance of maiden from fountain =Ge=18----punishment of\ntraitress damsel =Ge=19----combat with giant =Ge=20, _cf._\n=T=9----encounters Kex =Ge=21----third arrival at Grail Castle =Ge=22.\n\n=PERCEVAL'S AUNT= =Q=13, 14.\n\n=PERCEVAL'S SISTER=, daughter to Pellehem =Q={2}, =G=12, =D=5-7, =Q=35,\n36, 38, 41, 42----_cf._ =M=7.\n\n=PERCEVAL'S UNCLE=, see Gonemans, Fisher King.\n\n=PETRONE= =GG=29.\n\n=PETRUS= =B=8, 12, 13, 14, =PETER= =GG=43, =PIERRON= =GG=45, 47, 48.\n\n=PHILOSOPHINE= =Ge=6, 15.\n\n=PILATE= =B=1, =GG=2, =B=3, 6.\n\n=PRIADAM THE BLACK= =Q=30.\n\n=QUIQUAGRANT= =Ma=5.\n\n=RED KNIGHT.= Slain by Perceval =C=3, 4, =T=1, 5, who takes his arms, and\nis mistaken for him =C=6, =T=6, transferred to Galahad when latter takes\nPerceval's place =Q=14, 16----=G=8, 9.\n\n=ROSETTE=, Loathly Maiden, =G=11, =D=8.\n\n=SAIGREMORS= =C=10, =Ma=8, 9, 18, =D=2.\n\n=SARRAQUITE= =GG=13, 16, 22, 28, 29, 59.\n\n=SARRAS= =GG=5, 11, 13, 15, 18, =Ma=3, =Q=26, 41, 50, =GG=30.\n\n=SEAT PERILLOUS= (empty) =B=10, =Dprol=, 1----=Q=2, =GG=41, =Ge=5, =Q=13.\n\n=SERAPHE= =GG=, =Q=, =Ge=, _once_ Salafr\u00e8s =Ma=----Battle with Tholomes\n=GG=12, 14, =Q=6, 26, =Ma=3, =Ge=15, renamed _Nasciens_, which see.\n\n=SEVAIN OF MEAUX= =GG=11.\n\n=SOLOMON'S SHIP= =Q=35-38, =GG=24, 27, 30, 58.\n\n=SOLOMON'S SWORD= =Q=35, 38, =GG=27, _cf._ =Q=48.\n\n=SORCERESSES OF GLOUCESTER= =M=10, 25.\n\n=STAG HUNT= =G=7, 8, 16, 18, =D=4, 13, =M=24.\n\n=SWORD= =PC=3, =C=7, 8, =M=6, =G=3, 12, 22, =Ma=5, 22, =Ge=1, 2, 4, 15,\n22, =H=, =Q=2, 3, 48, =GG=33, 44, 58. See also Solomon's sword.\n\n=SYMEU= =Q=46, =GG=31, 47, 49.\n\n=THOLOMES= =Q=6, =Ge=15, =GG=11, 12, 14.\n\n=THOLOME CERASTRE= =GG=11.\n\n=TIBERIUS C\u00c6SAR= =GG=3, 11, =Ma=3.\n\n=TITUS= =GG=3.\n\n=TREBUCET= or =TRIBUET= =C=8, =W=, =Ma=15.\n\n=URBAN OF THE BLACK THORN= =D=9, =Co=.\n\n=URLAIN= or =URBAN= =Q=35 = Bruillant =GG=58.\n\n=UTHER PENDRAGON= =GG=9, _cf._ p. 64D.\n\n=VERRINE= =B=6 = Marie la Venissienne =GG=3.\n\n=VESPASIAN= =B=6, =GG=3, 4, =Ma=3, =Q=7.\n\n=WASTE CITY=, King of the, =Ge=8.\n\n=WASTE LAND= =PC=1, (forest) 6, =Q=13, 35, =GG=58.\n\n=YSAIES= =GG=30, 59 = Helyas, =Q=26.\n\n=YWAIN=, see Owain.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX II.\n\n\n[This Index comprises the whole of the work with exception of the\nSummaries, for which see Index I. The references are to the pages. The\nentries apply solely to the page number or page group-number which they\nimmediately precede, and not to all the pages between themselves and the\nnext entry. In the majority of cases a simple number reference is given,\nand the fuller entries are to those points which the author wishes\nspecially to emphasise.]\n\n Abundia and Herodias, 100.\n\n Adonis, 101.\n\n Alain (son of Brons), 66, 77, 79, 82, 83, 84, 89, 109, 112, 123,\n as Fisher King, 208, 210, 218, 222, 245.\n\n Amfortas, Fisher King in Wolfram, 249,\n in Wagner's Parsifal, 253-55, 263.\n\n Aminadap, 84.\n\n Arbois de Jubainville, 184-85, 188, 192-93.\n\n Arthur, Arthur saga, Arthurian romance or legend, 108, 114, 116, 117,\n Martin's interpretation of, 122-24, 130, 134, 136, 144, 147, 148, 153,\n 155, 156, 188,\n A's waiting, 197-98,\n A and Potter Thompson, 198, 205, 218, 219, 221, 222,\n popularity of, 228-29,\n Celtic character of, 230, 231, 236, 243, 244, 245.\n\n Avalon (Avaron), 77,\n punning explanation of, 78,\n parallel to the Grail, 122-23 and 188,\n with the Magic Castle, 191, 198, 218, 222,\n connection with Glastonbury, 223, 248,\n parallel with Brandan's isle, 264.\n\n\n Baldur, 100.\n\n Ban, 83, 84.\n\n Baring-Gould, 98.\n\n Bartsch, 261.\n\n Battle of Magh Rath, 185, 186.\n\n Bergmann's San Gr\u00ebal, 104.\n\n Bespelled Castle in Celtic tradition, 190-206.\n\n Birch-Hirschfeld, 4, 5, 6, 38, 52, 64_d_, 84,\n full analysis of his work, 108-121,\n Martin's criticism, 121-23, 124,\n objections to his hypothesis, 125-126, 128, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138,\n 145, 151, 168, 171, 174, 207, 217, 220, 250,\n Wolfram and Chrestien, 261-62.\n\n Blaise, 113.\n\n Blanchefleur, 92, 114, 115, 133,\n comparison of Chrestien and Mabinogi, 135, 140, 147, 204, 238,\n example of sex-relations of the time, 241.\n\n Blood-drops in the snow, 137-38.\n\n Books of Rights and Geasa, 213.\n\n Borron, Robert de, author of the Joseph d'Arimathie, bibliographical\n details, 2,\n MS. statements respecting, 4-6, 19,\n passage of Grail to England, 79-80, 94, 95, 96,\n Hucher's views, 105-6,\n relation to other versions according to Birch-Hirschfeld, 111-115,\n 116, 118-20,\n Martin's views, 121-124, 125, 131, 171,\n secret words, 186, 188,\n Fisher King in, 207-9, 220, 221, 222,\n his conception, 239,\n chastity ideal in, 245, 247, 251, 252.\n\n Bors, 66,\n exemplification of spirit of Queste, 239.\n\n B\u00f6tticher, Wolfram and Chrestien, 261.\n\n Bran (the Blessed), 108,\n and Cernunnos, 211,\n connection with conversion of Britain, 218-20, 226,\n connection with Brandan legend, 265.\n\n Bran the Son of Febal, 192, 194, 232, 265.\n\n Brandan legend, 264-65.\n\n Branwen (Mabinogi of), 76, 97, 108, 167, 168,\n cauldron, 186, 211, 219, 260.\n\n Britain, evangelisation of, 80, 91, 95, 105-106, 107, 124, 218,\n connection with the Brons and Joseph legends, 219-24.\n\n Brons, 66, 70, 72, 75, 77,\n special form of Early History, 78-79, 80, 81,\n two accounts respecting, 82-83, 84, 85, 86, 88,\n in the Didot-Perceval, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 106, 109, 112, 113, 123,\n 124, 125, 182,\n as Fisher King, 208-11,\n as Apostle of Britain, 218-26, 235.\n\n Bruillans, 84.\n\n Brunhild, 232.\n\n Bundling, 135.\n\n\n Caesarius of Heisterbach, 122.\n\n Campbell, J. F., 102-03, 152, 159-60,\n cup of healing, 187, 210.\n\n Campbell,\n No. 1 Young King of Easaidh Ruadh, 187;\n No. 10 The Three Soldiers, 195-96;\n No. 41 The Widow and her Daughters, 187;\n No. 47 Mac Iain Direach, 187, 212;\n No. 51 The Fair Gruagach, 213;\n No. 52 The Knight of the Red Shield, 156-57,\n the resuscitating carlin, 166-67;\n No. 58 The Rider of Grianaig, 157, 209;\n No. 76 Conall Gulban, 167, 187;\n No. 82 How the Een was set up, 158, 189;\n No. 84 Manus, 189-90;\n No. 86 The Daughter of King Under the Waves, 194-95, 246.\n\n Campbell, J. G., Muilearteach, 167.\n\n Catheloys, 84.\n\n Celidoine, 83, 84.\n\n Celtic tradition, origin of or elements in Grail legend, 7,\n how affected by placing of versions, 68-69,\n opinions of previous investigators, 97-107,\n Birch-Hirschfeld, 111-113-14-15-17-20,\n Martin, 121-24,\n Hertz, 125,\n Grail apparently foreign to, 151, 164-65,\n Carlin in, 167-69, 170-71, 181, 183-84,\n Vessel in, 184-88,\n Sword in, 188-90, 191, 195, 197, 199, 208,\n origin of legend, 215-18, 223-27,\n relation to medi\u00e6val romance, 230,\n individualism in, 231,\n woman in, 231-33,\n the supernatural in, 234, 235,\n chastity ideal, 247, 248, 251,\n transformation of, 255, 265.\n\n Ceridwen, 186, 210-11.\n\n Cernunnos, 211.\n\n C\u00e9t mac Magach, 231.\n\n Chanson de Roland, 248.\n\n Charlemagne, Carolingian Saga, 197, 229, 230, 231.\n\n Chastity ideal in the Queste, 243-44,\n in later versions, 245-46,\n in popular and Celtic tradition, 246-47.\n\n Chessboard Castle, 127-30, 139-41.\n\n Chrestien, bibliographical description, 1, 2,\n statements of MSS. respecting, 4, 5, 8, 66, 69, 70, 74, 76, 80, 81,\n 85, 86, 91, 92, 93, 95,\n views of previous investigators, 98-108,\n Birch-Hirschfeld, 108-121, 122, 124, 125, 126,\n relation to Didot-Perceval, 127-131,\n to Mabinogi, 132-145,\n nature of model, 145-46,\n relation to Sir Perceval, 147-51,\n relation to Great Fool, 155-56-58-59, 164, 168,\n visit to Grail Castle in, 171-74, 175,\n represents mainly feud quest, 180-82, 199, 207, 208, 211, 218,\n his ideal, 237-38, 245, 249, 250,\n relation to Wolfram, 261-63.\n\n Christian origin of or elements in Grail legend, Christian tradition,\n legend, etc.;\n as affected by placing of versions, 68, 80, 123, 143, 146, 165,\n 170-73, 179, 181, 186, 209,\n as affected by my hypothesis, 215-18, 220, 224, 226-27,\n relation to the talismans, 238-39, 251-52,\n influence on the legend as a whole, 255.\n\n Chronological arrangement of versions, 6,\n Author's, 95-96,\n Zarncke's, 107,\n Birch-Hirschfelds', 120-21.\n\n Conall Cearnach, 231.\n\n Conan's delusions, 200.\n\n Conchobor, 192, 231, 233.\n\n Conduiramur, 204,\n and Parzival, 249-51.\n\n Connla, 188, 194, 196, 232.\n\n Constituent elements in the romances, 215-16.\n\n Corbenic, 83, 84.\n\n Cormac's visit to the otherworld, 193-94, 234.\n\n Counsels, the, in the romances, 150.\n\n Crestiens, p. 83 = Nasciens, p. 84.\n\n Cuchulainn, 153, 185, 188, 189,\n conception of, 192,\n _gess_ of, 214,\n parallel of legend to medi\u00e6val romances, 231-34.\n\n Cumhall, father of Fionn, 158-59.\n\n Curoi mac Daire, 231.\n\n Cynewulf, 221.\n\n\n Dagda, the, and the cauldron, 184-85, 192.\n\n Deirdre, 137,\n and the Sons of Usnech, 233.\n\n Diarmaid, 202,\n _gess_ of, 214.\n\n Didot-Perceval, prose sequel to Borron's poem, numbered as C 2, 65, 66,\n 68, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82,\n the Quest in, 89-91, 92, 93, 94, 96,\n Zarncke's opinion of, 107,\n Authorship of according to Birch-Hirschfeld, 112-15, 117, 120, 121,\n 125, 126,\n relationship to Conte du Graal, 127-30,\n origin of, 131, 138, 139,\n stag hunt in, 141-42, 145-46, 172-73, 179, 182, 191, 198-99, 208, 245.\n\n Dietrich Saga, 230.\n\n Domanig, Parzival-Studien, 250.\n\n Duvau, 192.\n\n Dwarves incident in Chrestien and Mabinogi, 134.\n\n\n Elton, 219.\n\n Emer, wooing of, 232-33.\n\n Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 126.\n\n England, arrival of Grail in 76-80,\n Birch-Hirschfeld 116,\n Joseph legend in 221-22.\n\n Enygeus (Brons' wife), 81, 82.\n\n Evangelium Nicodemi, 221-22.\n\n Espinogre, 142.\n\n Expulsion and Return Formula (Aryan), 144, 153-54, 156, 159, 163-64,\n 190, 210, 225, 256.\n\n\n Fand, 232.\n\n Faust, 253.\n\n Fenian saga or cycle, sword in, 188-90, 230.\n\n Feud-Quest in the romances and in Celtic tradition, 181-90.\n\n Finn-eges, 209-11, 220.\n\n Fionn (Finn), Fionn-saga, 153-54, 157,\n connection with Great Fool and boyhood of Peredur, 158-59, 163-64,\n Fionn's enchantment, 186-87,\n and sword, 189-90, 195,\n in the otherworld, 200-03,\n and salmon, 209-11, 214, 220, 224, 231, 234, 256.\n\n Fish, according to Birch-Hirschfeld, 112,\n Martin, 123-24, 224.\n See also Salmon.\n\n Fisher King, Fisher or Rich Fisher, 77, 78,\n as Grail-Keeper, 80-86,\n relation the Promised Knight, 87-89, 107, 110, 113, 115,\n accounted for by Birch-Hirschfeld, 117, 123, 124, 134, 138, 139, 140,\n 142, 143, 144, 180, 206,\n Author's explanation of, 207-11, 237,\n in Wolfram, 249.\n\n Fisher King's daughter, 140-42.\n\n Fisher King's father, 74, 81, 110, 191.\n\n Fitzgerald, 198, 231.\n\n Fomori, 188, 230.\n\n F\u00f6rster on Peredur, 132.\n\n Frederick II, 122,\n in the Kyffh\u00e4user, 196-97.\n\n Frederick I (Barbarossa), 196-97.\n\n Furnivall, 2, 3, 102-03,\n estimate of Queste criticised, 242-43.\n\n\n Gaelic talismans = Grail and lance, 103.\n\n Gaidoz, 219.\n\n Galahad, Galahad Quest, 66, 67, 83-86,\n as Promised Knight, 90-94, 102, 104, 106, 108, 109, 113, 131, 149, 226,\n comparison with Perceval Quest, 236,\n morality of, 240, 245-46, 252, 254.\n\n Gaston Paris on relation between Chrestien and Mabinogi, 132.\n\n Gautier (de Doulens), Pseudo-Gautier, numbered A II., 1-2,\n statements respecting in MS., 4,\n Berne MS. of, 19, 69-70, 72, 74-75, 76-77, 81, 87, 92-95, 101, 106,\n 110, 113, 114, 120-21,\n relation to Didot-Perceval, 128-30,\n to Mabinogi ,133 and 140-44, 145, 146,\n visit to Grail Castle in, 171-72,\n Gawain Quest in, 174 and 178-79, 182, 189, 199, 237, 246.\n\n Gautier (Walter) de Montbeliart and Borron, 5, 103, 105, 120, 121.\n\n Gawain (Gauvain), 2, 67, 69,\n visit to Grail King, 87, 92, 101,\n Martin's view of, 122 and 124, 125, 164, 172,\n special form of Quest, 176-78, 180, 189, 191,\n visit to Magic Castle, 199-200,\n in Heinrich, 203-05, 237,\n and Orgueilleuse, 240-41, 245, 251, 261-62.\n\n Geasa, 212-14.\n\n Geoffrey of Monmouth, 91, 119, 219, 229.\n\n Gerald (Giraldus Cambrensis), testimony respecting Map's authorship,\n 117-18, 122.\n\n Gerbert, numbered A IV., 1, 5, 69,\n love _motif_ in, 92, 95, 110, 121, 126,\n the witch who brings the dead to life in, 165-69, 172, 174-75, 179,\n 180, 199,\n chastity ideal in, 246, 249,\n relation to Wolfram, 262-63.\n\n Gervasius of Tilbury, 122, 197.\n\n Glastonbury, Skeat's view, 105,\n Zarncke, 107, 220,\n and Avalon, 223-25.\n\n Goethe, 253.\n\n Gonemans, 130-34,\n and Fisher King, 138, 140,\n and the witch, 165-68,\n advice to Perceval, 211-12.\n See also Gurnemanz.\n\n Goon Desert, 81, 142.\n\n Grail, 66,\n hypothetical Christian origin of, 68,\n first possessor of, 69-70,\n solace of Joseph, 70-72,\n connection with Sacrament, 71 and 73,\n and Trinity, 72,\n properties and effect of, 74-76,\n name, 76,\n arrival in England, 76-79, 83-84, 89-90, 94, 96, 99, 100-112,\n phraseology used by romances in mentioning it, 113, 114-16,\n symbol of Christ's body, 117, 120,\n symbol of Avalon, 123, 124-26, 136, 140-142,\n absence of from Mabinogi and Thornton Sir P., 164,\n apparently foreign to Celtic legend, 165, 169,\n various forms of visit to castle of, 170-79,\n double nature of, 182-83,\n parallel to magic vessel of Celtic tradition, 185-96,\n and Fionn, 202, 218, 221,\n mode of transformation, 224, 245, 247,\n in Wolfram, 250-52,\n in Wagner, 254-55, 261-63.\n\n Grail (Early History of), two forms, 65-66,\n Joseph form, 67,\n relation to Christian origin hypothesis, 68, 69,\n Brons form, 80, 86,\n two forms in French romances, 93-94,\n later than Queste, 93, 95-96, 103,\n according to Birch-Hirschfeld, 108-21, 151, 208,\n origin of, 218 and 224.\n\n Grail (Quest of), two forms, 65-67,\n Perceval form, 67,\n relation to Celtic origin hypothesis, 68, 69, 80, 83, 86,\n object of according to different versions, 88-90,\n original form of, 91, 92,\n Perceval form older, 93-94, 95-96, 105-06, 109-26, 131, 138,\n Mabinogi form of, 139-44, 151,\n inconsistency of accounts respecting, 180-81,\n two formulas fused in, 181,\n constituent elements in, 215-16,\n mode of transformation, 220, 237-39, 243, 245, 248, 251, 252.\n\n Grail legend, romance or cycle, origin of according to Birch-Hirschfeld,\n 120, 159,\n Christian element in, 217,\n genesis and growth of, 225-27,\n popularity of, 228, 230,\n development of ethical ideas in, 235 _et seq._, 248,\n future of, 259, 265.\n\n Grail-Keeper and Promised Knight, 80-81.\n\n Grail-Messenger and Rosette, 114.\n See also Loathly Damsel.\n\n Graine, 214.\n\n Gramoflanz, 193.\n\n Grand St. Graal, numbered E 3, authorship ascribed to Borron, 5,\n Helinandus' testimony, 52, 65-67, 70, 72-73, 75-76, 79,\n conflicting accounts respecting Promised Knight in, 84-86, 90, 91, 93,\n 94-96, 99, 102-112, 117,\n authorship of, 119-20, 121, 126, 146, 207-08, 219, 220, 247,\n prologue of and Brandan legend, 264-65.\n\n Great Fool, lay or tale of the, 101-02, 144,\n prose opening, 152-53,\n comparison with romances, 154-56,\n originality of, 158,\n relation to Fionn legend, 159,\n Lay, 159-162, 163, 164,\n ethical import of, 256-57.\n\n Gregory of Tours and Evangelium Nicodemi, 221.\n\n Greloguevaus, 81.\n\n Grimm, No. 122, Der Krautesel, 195, 197, 198, 204-05, 247.\n\n Gudrun, 233.\n\n Guinevere, 83.\n\n Gurnemanz, 113, 115, 249, 262-63.\n See also Gonemans.\n\n Guyot = Kiot, 104.\n\n Gwalchmai, 225-26, 228.\n See Gawain.\n\n Gwion and Fionn, 210.\n\n\n Hahn, J. G. von, 153-54.\n\n Halliwell, 98, 147.\n\n Haunted Castle, 204-05.\n\n Hawker, 244.\n\n Hebron, 108 = Brons, which see.\n\n Hector, 187.\n\n Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin, numbered K, 4,\n citation of Chrestien, 6, 69, 91,\n Martin's view of, 122, 125,\n visit to Grail Castle in, 172-73 and 178,\n double origin, 182, 191,\n special form of Quest, 198-99 and 203,\n parallel with Sleeping Beauty, 203.\n\n H\u00e9lie de Borron, 105-06,\n testimony of, 118-19, 121.\n\n Helinandus, 52, 95, 103, 121.\n\n Helyas, 83 = Ysaics, 84.\n\n Hennessy, 159.\n\n Henry II, 118-19.\n\n Herodias, 100, 254.\n\n Hertz' views, 124-25.\n\n How the Great Tuairsgeul etc., 212.\n\n Hucher, 2,\n attempt to harmonise conflicting accounts in Borron, 82,\n statement of views, 105-06,\n criticised by Birch-Hirschfeld, 111 and 118, 130,\n and cauldron, 184.\n\n\n Iduna, apples of, 182.\n\n\n John the Baptist, 100.\n\n Jonaans, 83, 84.\n\n Joseph of Arimathea, Joseph legend, 65-67, 69, 70,\n and Grail, 70-73, 74, 77,\n and England, 78-80, 81, 82, 84, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 99, 100, 104-109,\n 112-117, 124, 146,\n and the Fisher, 208, 218,\n Apocryphal legend of, 220-24, 226.\n\n Joseph, Metrical, poem by Robert de Borron, numbered B 2, author of, 5,\n 65-66, 68, 70-73, 74-76, 77-80,\n two accounts in, 81-82, 88, 91, 93-94, 102-103,\n relation to Didot-Perceval according to Birch-Hirschfeld, 112-14, 125.\n\n Josephes (son of Joseph), and Veronica, 79, 84-86, 109.\n\n Josue, 66, 84, 85.\n\n\n Kay, 130.\n\n Keating and the treasures of the Tuatha de Danann, 184.\n\n Kennedy's Fellow with the Goat-skin, 134,\n Castle Knock, 159,\n Great Fool, 159-61,\n Son of Bad Counsel, 199-200,\n Fionn's visit to Cuana, 201,\n haunted castle tale, 204, 257.\n\n Kiot, 6,\n San Marte's view, 99-100, 107-08, 121,\n and Wolfram, 261-63.\n\n Klinschor, 253, 263.\n\n Knight Errantry, 229.\n\n Knighthood, prototype of in Celtic tradition, 231.\n\n Knights of the Red Branch, 231.\n\n Knowles' Said and Saiyid, 196.\n\n Koch, Kyffh\u00e4user Sage, 197.\n\n K\u00f6hler, 195.\n\n Kundry in Wagner, 254-55, 263.\n See Loathly Damsel.\n\n K\u00fcpp on Pseudo-Chrestien, 8, 126,\n and the branch, 193, 262.\n\n Kynddelw, 219.\n\n\n Lambar, 83-84, 86, 183.\n\n Lame King, see Maimed King.\n\n Lance, 109,\n and Grail legend according to Birch-Hirschfeld, 111, 113, 121.\n\n Lancelot, 83, 84, 108, 110, 112, 118, 119, 123, 172-173, 180, 240, 245.\n\n Latin original of French romances probable, 122.\n\n Liebrecht, 197-98.\n\n Llyr Llediath, 219-20.\n\n Loathly Damsel, 87,\n and Rosette, 114,\n in Mabinogi and Chrestien, 136,\n hero's cousin, 139-41,\n double origin of in romances, 205-06,\n and Wagner, 254.\n\n Longis, 70.\n\n Luces de Gast, 118-19.\n\n Luces (Lucius), 91, 219.\n\n Lufamour, 147.\n\n Lug Lamhfhada, 184, 189, 192.\n\n Mabinogi of Peredur (generally Mabinogi sometimes Peredur) numbered H 3,\n 5, 66, 68, 69,\n Villemarqu\u00e9 on, 97-98, 89,\n Simrock on, 100, 101,\n Nash, 102, 104,\n Hucher, 106,\n lateness of according to Birch-Hirschfeld, 114-115, 125-26,\n relation to Conte du Graal, 131-37,\n dwarves incident in, 134,\n greater delicacy in Blanchefleur incident, 135,\n blood drops incident, 137-38,\n differences with Chrestien, 138-39,\n machinery of Quest in, 139-42,\n relation to Manessier, 142-44,\n origin and development of, 143-145,\n special indebtedness to Chrestien, 145, 146,\n relation to Sir Perceval, 148-49,\n counsels in, 150,\n apparent absence of Grail from, 151,\n comparison with Great Fool tale, 154-57,\n with Great Fool Lay, 161-62, 164,\n with Gerbert's witch incident, 168-69, 171,\n visit to Talismans Castle in, 172-73 and 176, 180, 181, 183, 184, 190,\n 216,\n fusion of numerous Celtic tales in, 225-26,\n Sex-relations in, 241, 256.\n\n Maidens' Castle, parallels to in Celtic tradition, 191-94.\n\n Maimed or Lame or Sick King, 66, 83-88, 90, 91, 109,\n parallel with Arthur, 122,\n probable absence from Proto Mabinogi, 145,\n belongs to Feud Quest, 198,\n parallel to Fionn, 202, 237.\n\n Malory, 236.\n\n Manaal, 84.\n\n Manannan mac Lir, 192-94, 208,\n and Bran, 219.\n\n Manessier, numbered A III, 1-2,\n date etc., 4-5, 69-71, 73-74, 77, 81, 88, 92, 95, 110, 121, 138,\n relation to the Mabinogi, 142-46, 168-69, 171, 175,\n disregard of question, 180-82, 199, 245-46.\n\n Manus, 189-90.\n\n Mapes or Map, 5, 104, 105,\n not author of Queste or Grand St. Graal according to Birch-Hirschfeld,\n 117-19.\n\n Martin's views, 121-26,\n Kyffh\u00e4user hypothesis criticised, 197, 198,\n Wolfram and Gerbert, 262.\n\n Meaux, 120.\n\n Menglad, 232.\n\n Merlin, 92, 114, 124.\n\n Merlin, Borron's poem, 2, 64D, 105, 106, 112-13, 117.\n\n Meyer, Kuno, 209, 233.\n\n Minnedienst, 240-41.\n\n Modred, 122.\n\n Montsalvatch, 66.\n\n Mordrains, 90, 109-10, 120, 173.\n\n Morgan la Fay, 122.\n\n Morvan lez Breiz, 148, 158, 162.\n\n Moys or Moses, 88-90, 106, 109, 112, 116.\n\n Mythic conceptions in the romances, 205.\n\n\n Nasciens, 76, 83, 85, 120.\n\n Nash, 102.\n\n Nibelungenlied, 230, 234, 248.\n\n Nicodemus, 71.\n\n Noisi, 137, 233.\n\n\n O'Daly, 159-61, 163.\n\n Odin, 100-01.\n\n O'Donovan, 185, 209, 213.\n\n Oengus of the Brug, 191-92,\n and swanmaid, 196.\n\n O'Flanagan, 233.\n\n Ogma, 188.\n\n Oisin, 195, 200,\n and Gwion, 210, 232.\n\n O'Kearney, 201.\n\n Orgueilleuse, Celtic character of, 124 and 232,\n illustrates medi\u00e6val morality, 240-41, 263.\n\n Osiris, 101.\n\n\n Pagan essence of Grail etc. in the Christianised romances, 238.\n\n Partinal, 81, 88, 142-43.\n\n Parzival, 101, 252-53.\n See Perceval and Wolfram.\n\n Paulin-Paris, 5,\n explanation of word Grail, 103, 111, 116-17, 119.\n\n Pearson on the Veronica legend, 222,\n and St. Brandan, 265.\n\n Peleur, 83.\n\n Pelleans or Pellehem, 83-86, 90.\n\n Pelles, 83-86, 90.\n\n Perceval, Perceval-Quest, type hero of Quest, 66-67, 72, 78,\n relation to the Grail-keeper, 80-86, 88-89, 91-92,\n oldest hero of Quest, 93, 94, 98, 101, 102-04,\n according to Birch-Hirschfeld, 110-119, 125,\n in Didot-Perceval and Conte du Graal, 127-31,\n in Mabinogi and Conte du Graal, 131-45,\n relation to (bespelled) cousin, 139-42,\n relation of existing versions to earliest form, 146,\n in the Thornton MS. romance, 147-51,\n hero of Expulsion and Return Formula, 153-56,\n parallel with Highland folk-tales, 157-58,\n relation to Twin Brethren folk-tale and dualism in, 162-64, 169,\n versions of Quest, 171-76,\n visit to the Maidens' Castle, 178-79, 180, 181,\n significance of Didot-Perceval form, 182, 187,\n and sword, 189,\n Castle of Maidens, 191, 195, 199,\n parallel with Diarmaid, 202,\n possible hero of Haunted Castle form, 204-05,\n relation to Fisher, 207,\n his silence, 211-14, 226,\n superiority to Galahad Quest, 236, 237-38, 240-41, 245, 247, 254, 256,\n 261-62.\n See also Parzival and Peredur.\n\n Perceval's aunt, 79.\n\n Perceval's sister, 83-84, 163.\n\n Perceval's uncle, 78.\n\n Perceval le Gallois, numbered G 3, authorship, 6, 65-66, 69, 104, 121,\n 126, 246.\n\n Peredur (hero of Mabinogi = Perceval), Peredur-saga, 106,\n mother of, 115, 132-36,\n parallel to Tom of the Goat-skin, 134,\n the sword test, 138,\n hero of the stag hunt, 139-42, 143,\n original form of saga, 144-45, 153-54, 157, 162, 163, 164, 168-69,\n and Fionn, 187 and 203, 220,\n fish absent from, 224,\n genesis and growth of, 225-227, 228,\n Blanchefleur incident in, 241.\n See Perceval.\n\n Peronnik l'idiot, 125, 158.\n\n Perseus, 256.\n\n Petrus, 77, 82, 88-90, 106, 109, 112,\n connection with Geoffrey conversion legend, 219.\n\n Pfaffe Amis, 265.\n\n Pilate, 65, 70.\n\n Potter Thompson and Arthur, 198, 262.\n\n Potvin, 1, 2, 6,\n his views, 104, 174, 177.\n\n Prester John, 100.\n\n Procopius, 191.\n\n Promised or Good Knight, and Grail Keeper, 80-86,\n Galahad as, 85-86\n work of, 86-91,\n qualifications of, 92-93, 107, 109.\n\n Prophecy incident in Grail romances, 156.\n\n Pseudo-Chrestien, 8, 209.\n\n Pseudo-Gautier, numbered AII_a_, 2, 15-16, 70, 72, 74, 77, 79, 81, 95.\n\n Pseudo-Manessier, numbered AIII_a_, 2, 19, 72-73.\n\n\n Queste del St. Graal, numbered D 2-3, varying redactions distinguished\n typographically, 38, 65-67, 72, 75-76, 79,\n three drafts of, 83-86, 90-91,\n glorification of virginity in, 93, 95, 103, 107,\n relation to Grand St. Graal, 108-09,\n to Conte du Graal, 110-11, 112, 113,\n authorship of, 117-20, 121, 126, 131, 146,\n visit to Grail Castle in, 172-73, 180, 183, 186, 207, 218, 220, 222,\n 224, 226, 236,\n ideal of, 238-40 and 243-44,\n ideal criticised, 243-44,\n merits of, 244-45, 246,\n inferiority to Wolfram, 250, 251.\n\n Question, Birch-Hirschfeld's opinion, 171, 180,\n belongs to Unspelling Quest, 181-82, 191, 196, 203,\n Wolfram's presentment, 249-50.\n\n\n Red Knight, 147-49, 155-56, 162, 189.\n\n Renan on Celtic poetry, 234-35.\n\n Rhys, 198, 209, 211,\n Bran legend, 219-20, 265.\n\n Rich Fisher or King. See Fisher King.\n\n Riseut, 141.\n\n Robert de Borron. See Borron.\n\n Rochat, 19,\n his views, 101-02.\n\n Roland, 229, 232.\n\n Rom\u00e9nie, 118.\n\n Rosette, 130, 141.\n See Loathly Damsel.\n\n\n Salmon of Wisdom, 209-10.\n\n San Marte, views, 99-100, 101-02,\n and Wolfram, 250-5.\n\n Sarras, 72, 77, 79.\n\n Schr\u00f6der, Brandan legend, 264-65.\n\n Seat, empty or Perillous, 81-82, 88-90.\n\n Secret words, 73, 89, 179.\n\n Seraphe, 108.\n\n Sex-relations in Middle Ages, 240-42.\n\n Siegfried, 157, 162, 203, 210, 232-33.\n\n Simei, 90.\n\n Simrock, views, 100-101, 103, 132, 134, 164, 251, 261-62.\n\n Skeat, 104.\n\n Skene, 219-20.\n\n Sleep and the Magic Castle myth, 202-03.\n\n Sleeping Beauty, parallel with Heinrich's version, 203,\n ethical import of, 258.\n\n Solomon's sword, 84.\n See Sword.\n\n Sons of Usnech, 137, 233.\n\n Sorceresses of Gloucester, 101, 139, 156.\n\n Spontaneity of folk tradition, 254, 257-58.\n\n Stag Hunt in Conte du Graal and Mabinogi, 139-40,\n in Didot-Perceval, 141,\n parallel with Lay of Great Fool, 162.\n\n Steinbach on Sir Perceval, 147-50.\n\n Stephens, 219-20.\n\n Stokes, 188, 200, 233.\n\n Suetonius, 116.\n\n Sword, 113, 142,\n belongs more to Feud Quest, 180-82,\n found also in Unspelling Quest, 183,\n of Lug, 184,\n in Celtic myth, 187-90, 198-99.\n\n Taboo and Geasa, 214.\n\n Taliesin, 97, 186,\n and Oisin, 210-11.\n\n Templars, 100.\n\n Tennyson, 236, 244.\n\n Tethra, 188.\n\n Thor, Irish parallels to, 200-01.\n\n Thornton MS. Sir Perceval (often simply Sir Perceval), numbered I 4, 66,\n 68-69, 101-02, 125, 126,\n Steinbach's theory of, 147-50,\n criticised, 149,\n absence of Grail from, 151,\n connection with Great Fool tale, 154-58, 162, 164-65,\n witch incident, 169, 190, 225.\n\n T\u00edr-na n-Og, 191, 195, 223, 248, 264.\n\n Titurel, 66.\n\n Titus, 107.\n\n Trinity, symbolizing of, 88.\n\n Tuatha de Danann, treasures of, 184-85, 189-92, 223, 230.\n\n Two Brothers tale, 157, 162-63.\n\n\n Ultonian cycle, 185.\n\n Unspelling Quest, 181,\n Celtic parallels to, 190-206, 208.\n\n Urban (Urlain), 83, 84, 183.\n\n\n Van Santen, 252.\n\n Vanishing of Bespelled Castle, 202-03.\n\n Veronica (Verrine), 79, 116,\n Ward's theory, 222.\n\n Vespasian, 107, 116.\n\n Vessel in Celtic myth, 184,\n in Ultonian cycle, 185,\n in Welsh myth, 186,\n in Celtic folk-tales, 187.\n See Grail.\n\n Villemarqu\u00e9, views 97-98, 101, 131, 148.\n\n Virginity, 247.\n\n\n Wagner, 252-54.\n\n Ward, 220, 222.\n\n Wartburg Krieg and Brandan legend, 264.\n\n William of Malmesbury, 105,\n Zarncke's opinion of, 107, 115,\n Ward's opinion of, 220.\n\n Windisch, 188, 219.\n\n Witch who brings the dead to life, 165-69.\n\n Wolfram von Eschenbach, numbered F 3, sources, 6, 25-26, 65-67, 69,\n and Gerbert, 92, 99-102, 104, 107, 121-25, 150, 157,\n brother incident in, 164, 172-73,\n branch in, 193,\n magician lord, 199,\n account of medi\u00e6val morality, 240-41, 246,\n ideal of, 248-52, 254, 255, 256,\n pattern for future growth of legend, 261,\n relation to Chrestien, 261-63.\n\n Woman in Celtic tradition, 231-33.\n\n W\u00fclcker, Evangelium Nicodemi, 220-21.\n\n\n Zarncke, views, 106-07, 115, 132, 220.\n\n\n HARRISON AND SONS,\n PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HER MAJESTY,\n ST. MARTIN'S LANE, LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Fully described by Potvin, VI, lxix, etc.\n\n[2] Potvin, VI, lxxv, etc.\n\n[3] Birch-Hirschfeld: Die Sage vom Gral, 8vo., Leipzig, 1877, p. 81.\n\n[4] Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 89.\n\n[5] Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 110.\n\n[6] Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 232, quoting the colophon of a Paris MS., after\nPaulin Paris, Cat. des MSS. fran\u00e7ais, vol. ii, pp. 361, etc.\n\n[7] Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 143.\n\n[8] This prologue is certainly not Chrestien's work; but there is no\nreason to doubt that it embodies a genuine tradition, and affords valuable\nhints for a reconstruction of the original form of the story. _Cf._ Otto\nK\u00fcpp in Zeitschrift f\u00fcr deutsche Philologie, vol. xvii., No. 1.\n\n[9] Potvin's text, from the Mons MS., is taken as basis.\n\n[10] Several MSS. here intercalate the history of Joseph of Arimathea:\nJoseph of Barimacie had the dish made; with it he caught the blood running\nfrom the Saviour's body as it hung on the Cross, he afterwards begged the\nbody of Pilate; for the devotion showed the Grail he was denounced to the\nJews, thrown into prison, delivered thence by the Lord, exiled together\nwith the sister of Nicodemus, who had an image of the Lord. Joseph and his\ncompanions came to the promised land, the White Isle, a part of England.\nThere they warred against them of the land. When Joseph was short of food\nhe prayed to the Creator to send him the Grail wherein he had gathered the\nholy blood, after which to them that sat at table the Grail brought bread\nand wine and meat in plenty. At his death, Joseph begged the Grail might\nremain with his seed, and thus it was that no one, of however high\ncondition, might see it save he was of Joseph's blood. The Rich Fisher was\nof that kin, and so was Greloguevaus, from whom came Perceval.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to point out that this must be an interpolation, as\nif Gauvain had really learnt all there was to be told concerning the\nGrail, there would have been no point in the reproaches addressed him by\nthe countryfolk. The gist of the episode is that he falls asleep before\nthe tale is all told.\n\n[11] The existence of this fragment shows the necessity of collating all\nthe MSS. of the Conte du Graal and the impossibility of arriving at\ndefinite conclusions respecting the growth of the work before this is\ndone. The writer of this version evidently knew nothing of Queste or Grand\nSt. Graal, whilst he had knowledge of Borron's poem, a fact the more\nremarkable since none of the other poets engaged upon the Conte du Graal\nknew of Borron, so far, at least, as can be gathered from printed sources.\nIt is hopeless in the present state of knowledge to do more than map out\napproximately the leading sections of the work.\n\n[12] It is by no means clear to me that Gerbert's portion of the Conte du\nGraal is an interpolation. I am rather inclined to look upon it as an\nindependent finish. As will be shown later on, it has several features in\ncommon with both Mabinogi and Wolfram, features pointing to a common\nprototype.\n\n[13] In the solitary MS. which gives this version, it follows, as has\nalready been stated, prose versions of Robert de Borron's undoubted poems,\n\"Joseph of Arimathea\" and \"Merlin.\"\n\n[14] Birch-Hirschfeld, in his Summary (p. 37, l. 22) or his MS. authority,\nB.M., xix, E. iii., has transposed the relationships.\n\n[15] And buried it, adds B. H. in his Summary, whether on MS. authority or\nnot I cannot say, but the Welsh translation has--\"there was a period of\n240 years\" (an obvious mistake on the part of the translator) \"after the\npassion of J. C. when Jos. of A. came; he who buried J. C. and drew him\ndown from the cross.\"\n\n[16] Thus was Evelach called as a Christian, adds B. H. Here W. agrees\nwith Furnivall.\n\n[17] Here Birch-Hirschfeld's Summary agrees with W.\n\n[18] B. H. agrees with W.\n\n[19] According to B. H., the recluse tells him he has fought with his\nfriends, whereupon, ashamed, he hurries off.\n\n[20] B. H. here agrees with W.\n\n[21] B. H. has _five_ candles.\n\n[22] B. H.: \"When will the Holy Vessel come to still the pain I feel?\nNever suffered man as I.\"\n\n[23] B. H. agrees with W.\n\n[24] B. H. agrees with Furnivall.\n\n[25] B. H., the _ninth_.\n\n[26] B. H., the vision is that of a crowned old man, who with two knights\nworships the cross.\n\n[27] B. H., Nasciens.\n\n[28] B. H. has all this passage, save that the references to the vision at\nthe cross-ways seem omitted.\n\n[29] B. H., the latter.\n\n[30] B. H., in Chaldee.\n\n[31] B. H., Labran slays Urban.\n\n[32] The 1488 text has Urban.\n\n[33] B. H., Thus was the King wounded, and he was Galahad's grandfather.\n\n[34] It does not appear from B. H.'s Summary whether his text agrees with\nF. or W.\n\n[35] B. H., seven knights.\n\n[36] B. H., that was the Castle of Corbenic where the Holy Grail was kept.\n\n[37] B. H., the Castle of the Maimed King.\n\n[38] B. H., ten. Obviously a mistake on the part of his text, as the nine\nwith the three Grail questers make up twelve, the number of Christ's\ndisciples.\n\n[39] B. H., three.\n\n[40] B. H. agrees with F.\n\n[41] One cannot see from B. H. whether his text agrees with F. or W.\n\n[42] B. H. agrees with F.\n\n[43] It will be advisable to give here the well-known passage from the\nchronicle of Helinandus, which has been held by most investigators to be\nof first-rate importance in determining the date of the Grand St. Graal.\nThe chronicle ends in the year 1204, and must therefore have been finished\nin that or the following year, and as the passage in question occurs in\nthe earlier portion of the work it may be dated about two years earlier\n(Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 33). \"Hoc tempore (717-719) in Britannia cuidam\nheremitae demonstrata fuit mirabilis quaedam visio per angelum de Joseph\ndecurione nobili, qui corpus domini deposuit de cruce et de catino illo\nvel paropside, in quo dominus caenavit cum discipulis suis, de quo ab\neodem heremita descripta est historia quae dicitur gradale. Gradalis autem\nvel gradale gallice dicitur scutella lata et aliquantulum profunda, in qua\npreciosae dapes divitibus solent apponi gradatim, unus morsellus post\nalium in diversis ordinibus. Dicitur et vulgari nomine greal, quia grata\net acceptabilis est in ea comedenti, tum propter continens, quia forte\nargentea est vel de alia preciosa materia, tum propter contentum .i.\nordinem multiplicem dapium preciosarum. Hanc historiam latine scriptam\ninvenire non potui sed tantum gallice scripta habetur a quibusdem\nproceribus, nec facile, ut aiunt, tota inveniri potest.\"\n\nThe Grand St. Graal is the only work of the cycle now existing to which\nHelinandus' words could refer; but it is a question whether he may not\nhave had in view a work from which the Grand St. Graal took over its\nintroduction. Helinandus mentions the punning origin of the word \"greal\"\n(_infra_, p. 76), which is only hinted at in the Grand St. Graal, but\nfully developed elsewhere, _e.g._, in the Didot-Perceval and in Borron's\npoem.\n\nAnother point of great interest raised by this introduction will be found\ndealt with in Appendix B.\n\n[44] The MS. followed by Furnivall has an illustration, in which Joseph is\nrepresented as sitting under the Cross and collecting the blood from the\nsides and feet in the basin.\n\n[45] MS. reading.\n\n[46] I have not thought it necessary to give a summary of the prose\nromance Perceval le Gallois. One will be found in Birch-Hirschfeld, pp.\n123-134. The version, though offering many interesting features, is too\nlate and unoriginal to be of use in the present investigation.\n\n[47] _Cf._ p. 78 as to this passage.\n\n[48] It is forty-two years, according to D. Queste (p. 119), after the\nPassion that Joseph comes to Sarras.\n\n[49] It is plain that B I is abridged in the passage dealt with, from the\nfollowing fact: Joseph (v. 2,448, etc.) praying to Christ for help,\nreminds Him of His command, that when he (Joseph) wanted help he should\ncome \"devant ce veissel precieus O\u00f9 est votre sans glorieus.\" Now Christ's\nwords to Joseph in the prison say nothing whatever about any such\nrecommendation; but E, Grand St. Graal, does contain a scene between our\nLord and Joseph, in which the latter is bidden, \"Et quant tu vauras \u00e0 moi\nparler si ouuerras l'arche en quel lieu que tu soies\" (I, 38-39) from\nwhich the conclusion may be drawn that B I represents an abridged and\ngarbled form of the prototype of E.\n\n[50] In the Mabinogi of Branwen, the daughter of Llyr, the warriors cast\ninto the cauldron of renovation come forth on the morrow fighting men as\ngood as they were before, except that they are not able to speak (Mab., p.\n381).\n\n[51] The version summarised by Birch-Hirschfeld.\n\n[52] Curiously enough this very text here prints Urban as the name of the\nMaimed King; Urban is the antagonist of Lambar, the father of the Maimed\nKing in the original draft of the Queste, and his mention in this place in\nthe 1488 text seems due to a misprint. In the episode there is a direct\nconflict of testimony between the first and second drafts, Lambar slaving\nUrlain in the former, Urlain Lambar in the latter.\n\n[53] This account agrees with that of the second draft of the Queste, in\nwhich Urlain slays Lambar.\n\n[54] Only _one_ beholder of the Quest is alluded to, although in the\nQueste, from which the Grand St. Graal drew its account, _three_ behold\nthe wonders of the Grail.\n\n[55] This, of course, belongs to the second of the two accounts we have\nfound in the poem respecting the Promised Knight, the one which makes him\nthe grandson and not the son merely of Brons.\n\n[56] The object of the Quest according to Heinrich von dem T\u00fcrlin will be\nfound dealt with in Chapter VII.\n\n[57] This is one of a remarkable series of points of contact between\nGerbert and Wolfram von Eschenbach.\n\n[58] It almost looks as if the author of C were following here a version\nin which the hero only has to go once to the Grail Castle; nothing is said\nabout Perceval's first unsuccessful visit, and Merlin addresses Perceval\nas if he were telling him for the first time about matters concerning\nwhich he must be already fully instructed.\n\n[59] It is remarkable, considering the scanty material at his disposal,\nhow accurate Schulz' analysis is, and how correct much of his\nargumentation.\n\n[60] Wagner has admirably utilised this hint of Simrock's in his Parsifal,\nwhen his Kundry (the loathly damsel of Chrestien and the Mabinogi) is\nHerodias. _Cf._ _infra_, Ch. X.\n\n[61] Excepting, of course, the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century\nParis imprints, which represented as a rule, however, the latest and most\ninterpolated forms, and Mons. Fr. Michel's edition of Borron's poem.\n\n[62] Hucher's argument from v. 2817 (_supra_ p. 106) that the poem knew of\nthe Grand St. Graal is, however, not met.\n\n[63] _Vide_ p. 200, for Birch-Hirschfeld's summary comparison of the two\nworks, and _cf._ _infra_ p. 127.\n\n[64] _Cf._ _infra_ p. 128, for a criticism of this statement.\n\n[65] Opera V. 410: Unde et vir ille eloquio clarus W. Mapus, Oxoniensis\narchidiaconus (cujus animae propitietur Deus) solita verborum facetia et\nurbanitate praecipua dicere pluris et nos in hunc modum convenire solebat:\n\"Multa, Magister Geralde, scripsistis et multum adhue scribitis, et nos\nmulta diximus. Vos scripta dedistis et nos verba.\"\n\n[66] Printed in full, Hucher, I. 156, etc.\n\n[67] Printed by Hucher, I. p. 35, etc.\n\n[68] The remainder of Birch-Hirschfeld's work is devoted to proving that\nChrestien was the only source of Wolfram von Eschenbach, the latter's Kiot\nbeing imagined by him to justify his departure from Chrestien's version;\ndepartures occasioned by his dissatisfaction with the French poet's\ntreatment of the subject on its moral and spiritual side. This element in\nthe Grail problem will be found briefly dealt with, Appendix A.\n\n[69] I have not thought it necessary, or even advisable, to notice what\nthe \"Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica\" (Part XLI, pp. 34, 35) and some other\nEnglish \"authorities\" say about the Grail legends.\n\n[70] They are brought together by Hucher, vol. i, p. 383, etc.\n\n[71] In the preface to the second volume of his edition of Chrestien's\nworks (Halle, 1887), W. F\u00f6rster distinguishes Peredur from the Lady of the\nFountain and from Geraint, which he looks upon as simple copies of\nChrestien's poems dealing with the same subjects. Peredur has, he thinks,\nsome Welsh features.\n\n[72] It is perhaps only a coincidence that in Gautier the \"pucelle de\nmalaire\" is named Riseut la Bloie, and that Rosette la Blonde is the name\nof the loathly damsel whom Perceval meets in company of the Beau Mauvais,\nand whom Birch-Hirschfeld supposes to have suggested to Chrestien _his_\nloathly damsel, the Grail messenger. But from the three versions one gets\nthe following:--Riseut (Gautier), loathly damsel (Didot-Perceval), Grail\nmessenger (Chrestien), = Peredur's cousin, who in the Mabinogi is the\nloathly Grail messenger, and the protagonist in the stag-hunt.\n\n[73] I have not thought it necessary to discuss seriously the hypothesis\nthat Chrestien may have used the Mabinogi as we now have it. The foregoing\nstatement of the facts is sufficient to negative it.\n\n[74] THE COUNSELS. _Chrestien_ (v. 1,725, etc.): aid dames and damsels,\nfor he who honoureth them not, his honour is dead; serve them likewise;\ndisplease them not in aught; one has much from kissing a maid if she will\nto lie with you, but if she forbid, leave it alone; if she have ring, or\nwristband, and for love or at your prayer give it, 'tis well you take it.\nNever have comradeship with one for long without seeking his name; speak\never to worthy men and go with them; ever pray in churches and monasteries\n(then follows a dissertation on churches and places of worship generally).\n_Mabinogi_ (p. 83): wherever a church, repeat there thy Paternoster; if\nthou see meat and drink, and none offer, take; if thou hear an outcry,\nespecially of a woman, go towards it; if thou see a jewel, take and give\nto another to obtain praise thereby; pay thy court to a fair woman,\n_whether she will or no_, thus shalt thou render thyself a better man than\nbefore. (In the italicised passage the Mabinogi gives the direct opposite\nof Chrestien, whom he has evidently misunderstood.) _Sir Perceval_ (p.\n16): \"Luke thou be of mesure Bothe in haulle and boure, And fonde to be\nfre.\" \"There thou meteste with a knyghte, Do thi hode off, I highte, and\nhaylse hym in hy\" (He interprets the counsel to be of measure by only\ntaking half the food and drink he finds at the board of the lady of the\ntent. The kissing of the lady of the tent which follows is in no way\nconnected with his mother's counsel.) _Wolfram_: \"Follow not untrodden\npaths; bear thyself ever becomingly; deny no man thy greeting; accept the\nteaching of a greybeard; if ring and greeting of a fair woman are to be\nwon strive thereafter, kiss her and embrace her dear body, for that gives\nluck and courage, if so she be chaste and worthy.\" Beside the mother's\ncounsels Perceval is admonished by Gonemans or the personage corresponding\nto him. In _Chrestien_ (2,838, _et seq._) he is to deny mercy to no knight\npleading for it; to take heed he be not over-talkful; to aid and counsel\ndames and damsels and all others needing his counsel; to go often to\nchurch; not to quote his mother's advice, rather to refer to him\n(Gonemans). In the _Mabinogi_ he is to leave the habits and discourse of\nhis mother; if he see aught to cause him wonder not to ask its meaning. In\n_Wolfram_ he is not to have his mother always on his lips; to keep a\nmodest bearing; to help all in need, but to give wisely, not heedlessly;\nand in especial not to ask too much; to deny no man asking mercy; when he\nhas laid by his arms to let no traces thereof be seen, but to wash hands\nand face from stain of rust, thereby shall ladies be pleased; to hold\nwomen in love and honour; never to seek to deceive them (as he might do\nmany), for false love is fleeting and men and women are one as are sun and\ndaylight.--There seems to me an evident progression in the ethical\ncharacter of these counsels. Originally they were doubtless purely\npractical and somewhat primitive of their nature. As it is, Chrestien's\nwords sound very strange to modern ears.\n\n[75] In the notes to my two articles in the \"Folk-Lore Record\" will be\nfound a number of references establishing this fact.\n\n[76] The hero renews his strength after his various combats by rubbing\nhimself with the contents of a vessel of balsam. He has moreover to enter\na house the door of which closes to of itself (like the Grail Castle\nPortcullis in Wolfram), and which kills him. He is brought to life by the\nfriendly raven. The mysterious carlin also appears, \"there was a turn of\nher nails about her elbows, and a twist of her hoary hair about her toes,\nand she was not joyous to look upon.\" She turns the hero's companions into\nstone, and to unspell them he must seek a bottle of living water and rub\nit upon them, when they will come out alive. This is like the final\nincident in many stories of the Two Brothers class. _Cf._ note, p. 162.\n\n[77] O'Daly's version consists of 158 quatrains; Campbell's of 63. The\ncorrespondence between them, generally very close (frequently verbal), is\nshown by the following table:--\n\n O'D., 1, 2. C., 1, 2.\n -- C., 3.\n O'D., 3. C., 4.\n O'D., 4-15. --\n O'D., 16. C., 4.\n O'D., 17-24. C., 5-12.\n O'D., 25. --\n -- C., 13-15.\n O'D., 26-47. C., 16-36.\n O'D., 48-56. --\n O'D., 57-61. C., 37-40.\n O'D., 62. --\n O'D., 63-65. C., 41-43.\n O'D., 66. C., 45.\n O'D., 67. C., 44.\n O'D., 68, 69. C., 46, 47.\n O'D., 70. C., 49.\n O'D., 71. C., 48.\n -- C., 50.\n O'D., 72. C., 52.\n O'D., 73. --\n O'D., 74. C., 53.\n O'D., 75. C., 54.\n O'D., 76-80. C., 55-59.\n O'D., 81-134. --\n O'D., 135, 136. C., 60, 61.\n -- C., 62.\n O'D., 137. --\n O'D., 138. C., 63.\n O'D., 139-158. --\n\n[78] Of this widely spread group, Grimm's No. 60, Die zwei Br\u00fcder, may be\ntaken as a type. The brethren eat heart and liver of the gold bird and\nthereby get infinite riches, are schemed against by a goldsmith, who would\nhave kept the gold bird for himself, seek their fortunes throughout the\nworld accompanied by helping beasts, part at crossways, leaving a life\ntoken to tell each one how the other fares; the one delivers a princess\nfrom a dragon, is cheated of the fruit of the exploit by the Red Knight,\nwhom after a year he confounds, wins the princess, and, after a while,\nhunting a magic hind, falls victim to a witch. His brother, learning his\nfate through the life token, comes to the same town, is taken for the\nyoung king even by the princess, but keeps faith to his brother by laying\na bare sword twixt them twain at night. He then delivers from the witch's\nspells his brother, who, learning the error caused by the likeness, and\nthinking advantage had been taken of it, in a fit of passion slays him,\nbut afterwards, hearing the truth, brings him back to life again. Grimm\nhas pointed out in his notes the likeness between this story and that of\nSiegfried (adventures with Mimir, Fafnir, Brunhilde, and Gunnar). In India\nthe tale figures in Somadeva's Katha Sarit Sagara (Brockhaus' translation,\nii., 142, _et seq._). The one brother is transformed into a demon through\naccidental sprinkling from a body burning on a bier. He is in the end\nreleased from this condition by his brother's performing certain exploits,\nbut there is no similarity of detail. Other variants are _Zingerle_ (p.\n131) where the incident occurs of the hero's winning the king's favour by\nmaking his bear dance before him; this I am inclined to look upon as a\nweakened recollection of the incident of a hero's making a princess\n_laugh_, either by playing antics himself or making an animal of his play\nthem (_see_ _supra_, p. 134, Kennedy's Irish Tale). Grimm also quotes\n_Meier_ 29 and 58, but these are only variants of the dragon-killing\nincident. In the variant of 29, given p. 306, the hero makes the king\nlaugh, and in both stories occurs the familiar incident of the hero coming\nunknown into a tournament and overcoming all enemies, as in Peredur (Inc.\n9). _Wolf._, p. 369, is closer, and here the hero is counselled by a grey\nmannikin whom he will unspell if he succeeds. _Stier_, No. I. (not p. 67,\nas Grimm erroneously indicates) follows almost precisely the same course\nas Grimm's 60, save that there are three brothers. _Graal_, p. 195, has\nthe magic gold bird opening, but none of the subsequent adventures tally.\n_Schott_, No. 11, is also cited by Grimm, but mistakenly; it belongs to\nthe faithful-servant group. Very close variants come from Sweden\n(Cavallius-Oberleitner, V_a_, V_b_) and Italy (Pentamerone, I. 7 and I.\n9). The Swedish tales have the miraculous conception opening, which is a\nprominent feature in tales belonging to the Expulsion and Return group\n(_e.g._, Perseus, Cu-Chulaind, and Taliesin), but present otherwise very\nnearly the same incidents as Grimm. The second of the Italian versions has\nthe miraculous conception opening so characteristic of this group of\nfolk-tales, and of the allied formula group, the attainment of riches\nconsequent upon eating the heart of a sea dragon, the tournament incident\n(though without the disguise of the hero), the stag hunt, wherein the\nstag, an inimical wizard haunting the wood, is a cannibal and keeps the\ncaptured hero for eating. In the story of the delivery by the second\nbrother, the separating sword incident occurs. The first version opens\nwith what is apparently a distorted and weakened form of the hero's\nclearing a haunted house of its diabolical inmates (_see_ _infra_ Ch.\nVII., Gawain) and then follows very closely Grimm's Two Brothers, save\nthat the alluring witch is young and fair, the whole tale being made to\npoint the moral, \"more luck than wit.\" Straparola, _a_ 3, is a variant of\nthe dragon fight incident alone. It is impossible not to be struck by the\nfact that in this widely spread group of tales are to be found some of the\nmost characteristic incidents of the Perceval and allied Great Fool group.\nThe only version, however, which brings the two groups into formal contact\nis O'Daly's form of the Great Fool.\n\n[79] The brother feature appears likewise in Wolfram von Eschenbach, where\nParzival's final and hardest struggle is against the unknown brother, as\nthe Great Fool's is against the Gruagach. This may be added to other\nindications that Wolfram _did_ have some other version before him besides\nChrestien's.\n\n[80] I cannot but think that these words have connection with the incident\nin the English Sir Perceval of the hero's throwing into the flames and\nthus destroying his witch enemy.\n\n[81] I must refer to my Mabinogion Studies, I. Branwen for a discussion of\nthe relation of this tale with Branwen and with the Teutonic Heldensage.\n\n[82] Another parallel is afforded by the tale of Conall Gulban (Campbell,\nIII., 274). Conall, stretched wounded on the field, sees \"when night grew\ndark a great Turkish carlin, and she had a white glaive of light with\nwhich she could see seven miles behind her and seven miles before her; and\nshe had a flask of balsam carrying it.\" The dead men are brought to life\nby having three drops of balsam put into their mouths. The hero wins both\nflask and glaive.\n\n[83] _Cf._ my Branwen for remarks on the mythological aspect of the\nballad. It should be noted that most of the ballads traditionally current\nin the Highlands are of semi-literary origin, _i.e._, would seem to go\nback to the compositions of medi\u00e6val Irish bards, who often sprinkled over\nthe native tradition a profusion of classical and historical names. I do\nnot think the foreign influence went farther than the \"names\" of some\npersonages, and such as it is is more at work in the ballads than in the\ntales.\n\n[84] This may seem to conflict with the statement made above (p. 145),\nthat the Mabinogi probably took over the maimed uncle from Chrestien. But\nthere were in all probability several forms of the story; that hinted at\nin Chrestien and found in Manessier had its probable counterpart in Celtic\ntradition as well as that found in Gerbert. It is hardly possible to\ndetermine what was the form found in the proto-Mabinogi, the possibility\nof its having been exactly the same as that of Gerbert is in no way\naffected by the fact that the Mabinogi, as we now have it, has in this\nrespect been influenced by Chrestien. Meanwhile Birch-Hirschfeld's\nhypothesis that Gerbert's section of the Conte du Graal is an\ninterpolation between Gautier and Manessier is laid open to grave doubt.\nIt is far more likely that Gerbert's work was an independent and original\nattempt to provide an ending for Chrestien's unfinished poem, and that he\nhad before him a different version of the original from that used by\nGautier and Manessier.\n\n[85] It occurs also in Peredur (Inc. 16), where the hero comes to the\nCastle of the Youths, who, fighting every day against the Addanc of the\nCave, are each day slain, and each day brought to life by being anointed\nin a vessel of warm water and with precious balsam.\n\n[86] For the second time, if Gerbert's continuation be really intended for\nour present text of Gautier, and if Potvin's summary of Gerbert is to be\nrelied upon; Birch-Hirschfeld seemingly differs from him here, and makes\nthe King at once mention the flaw.\n\n[87] It may be worth notice that v. 35,473 is the same as Chrestien, v.\n4,533.\n\n[88] It is evident that, although in the MS. in which this version is\nfound it is followed by Manessier's section, the poem was intended by\nGerbert to end here.\n\n[89] Told at other times, and notably by Gautier himself (Inc. 21), of\nPerceval, where the feature of a dead knight lying on the altar is added.\n\n[90] According to the Montpellier MS., which here agrees substantially\nwith Potvin's text (the Mons MS.), this is Gauvain's second visit to the\nGrail Castle. At his first visit he had been subjected to the sword test\nand had slept. The mystic procession is made up as follows:--Squire with\nlance; maidens with plate; two squires with candlesticks; fair maiden\nweeping, in her hands a \"graal;\" four squires with the bier, on which lies\nthe knight and the broken sword. Gauvain would fain learn about these\nthings, but is bidden first to make the sword whole. On his failure he is\ntold\n\n Vous n'avez par encore tant fet\n D'armes, que vous doiez savoir, etc.,\n\nand then goes to sleep. His awakening finds him in a marsh.\n\n[91] It may be conjectured that the magic vessel which preserves to this\nenchanted folk the semblance of life passes into the hero's possession\nwhen he asks about it, and that deprived of it their existence comes to an\nend, as would that of the Anses without the Apples of Iduna. I put this\ninto a note, as I have no evidence in support of the theory. But read in\nthe light of this conjecture some hitherto unnoticed legend may supply the\nnecessary link of testimony.\n\n[92] Nearly all the objections to the view suggested in the text may be\nput aside as due to insufficient recognition of the extent to which the\ntwo formulas have been mingled, but there is one which seems to me of real\nmoment. The wasting of the land which I have looked upon as belonging to\nthe unspelling formula, is traced by the Queste to the blow struck by King\nLambar against King Urlain, a story which, as we have seen, is very\nsimilar to that which forms the groundwork of one at least of the models\nfollowed by the Conte du Graal in its version of the feud quest. It does\nnot seem likely that the Queste story is a mere echo of that found in the\nConte du Graal, nor that the fusion existed so far back as in a model\ncommon to both. But the second alternative is possible.\n\n[93] I do not follow M. Hucher upon the (as it seems to me) very insecure\nground of Gaulish numismatic art. The object which he finds figured in\npre-Christian coins may be a cauldron--and it may not--and even if it is a\ncauldron it may have no such significance as he ascribes to it.\n\n[94] _Cf._ as to Lug D'Arbois de Jubainville, Cycle Mythologique\nIrlandais; Paris, 1884, p. 178. He was revered by all Celtic races, and\nhas left his trace in the name of several towns, chief among them\nLug-dunum = Lyons. In so far as the Celts had departmental gods, he was\nthe god of handicraft and trade; but _cf._ as to this Rhys, Hibb. Lect.,\np. 427-28.\n\n[95] _Cf._ D'Arbois de Jubainville, _op. cit._, p. 269-290. The Dagda--the\ngood god--seems to have been head of the Irish Olympus. A legend anterior\nto the eleventh century, and belonging probably to the oldest stratum of\nCeltic myth, ascribes to him power over the earth: without his aid the\nsons of Miledh could get neither corn nor milk. It is, therefore, no\nwonder to find him possessor of the magic cauldron, which may be looked\nupon as a symbol of fertility, and, as such, akin to similar symbols in\nthe mythology of nearly every people.\n\n[96] _Cf._ as to the mythic character of the Tuatha de Danann, D'Arbois de\nJubainville, _op. cit._, and my review of his work, Folk-Lore Journal,\nJune, 1884.\n\n[97] I at one time thought that the prohibition to reveal the \"secret\nwords,\" which is such an important element in Robert de Borron's version,\nmight be referred to the same myth-root as the instances in the text.\nThere is little or no evidence to sustain such a hazardous hypothesis.\nNevertheless it is worth while drawing attention in this place to that\nprohibition, for which I can offer no adequate explanation.\n\n[98] Powers of darkness and death. Tethra their king reigns in an island\nhome. It is from thence that the maiden comes to lure away Connla of the\nGolden Hair, as is told in the Leabhar na-h-Uidhre, even as the Grail\nmessenger comes to seek Perceval--\"'tis a land in which is neither death\nnor old age--a plain of never ending pleasure,\" the counterpart, in fact,\nof that Avalon to which Arthur is carried off across the lake by the fay\nmaiden, that Avalon which, as we see in Robert de Borron, was the earliest\nhome of the Grail-host.\n\n[99] _Cf._ D'Arbois de Jubainville, _op. cit._ p. 188.\n\n[100] When Cuchulainn was opposing the warriors of Ireland in their\ninvasion of Ulster one of his feats is to make smooth chariot-poles out of\nrough branches of trees by passing them through his clenched hand, so that\nhowever bent and knotted they were they came from his hands even,\nstraight, and smooth. _Tain bo Cualgne_, quoted by Windisch, Rev. Celt.,\nVol. V.\n\n[101] This epithet recalls Lug, of whom it is the stock designation. Now\nLug was _par excellence_ the craftsman's god; he, too, at the battle of\nMag Tured acted as a sort of armourer-general to the Tuatha de Danann. A\ndim reminiscence of this may be traced in the words which the folk-tale\napplies to Ullamh l.f., \"he was the one special man for taking their\narms.\"\n\n[102] _Cf._ my Aryan Expulsion and Return formula, pp. 8, 13, for variants\nof these incidents in other stories belonging to this cycle and in the\nallied folk-tales.\n\n[103] This incident is only found in the living Fionn-_sage_, being absent\nfrom all the older versions, and yet, as the comparison with the allied\nPerceval sage shows, it is an original and essential feature. How do the\nadvocates of the theory that the Ossianic cycle is a recent mass of\nlegend, growing out of the lives and circumstances of historical men,\naccount for this development along the lines of a formula with which, _ex\nhypothesi_, the legend has nothing to do? The Fionn-_sage_, it is said,\nhas been doctored in imitation of the Cuchulainn-_sage_, but the assertion\n(which though boldly made has next to no real foundation) cannot be made\nin the case of the Conte du Graal. Medi\u00e6val Irish bards and unlettered\nHighland peasants did not conspire together to make Fionn's adventures\nagree with those of Perceval.\n\n[104] In the Gawain form of the feud quest found in Gautier, the knight\nwhose death he sets forth to avenge is slain by the cast of a dart. Can\nthis be brought into connection with the fact that Perceval slays with a\ncast of his dart the Red Knight, who, according to the Thornton romance,\nis his father's slayer.\n\n[105] This prose tale precedes an oral version of one of the commonest\nFenian poems, which in its present shape obviously goes back to the days\nwhen the Irish were fighting against Norse invaders. The poem, which still\nlives in Ireland as well as in the Highlands, belongs to that later stage\nof development of the Fenian cycle, in which Fionn and his men are\ndepicted as warring against the Norsemen. It is totally dissimilar from\nthe prose story summarised above, and I am inclined to look upon the prose\nas belonging to a far earlier stage in the growth of the cycle, a stage in\nwhich the heroes were purely mythical and their exploits those of mythical\nheroes generally.\n\n[106] The prohibition seems to be an echo of the widely-spread one which\nforbids the visitor to the otherworld tasting the food of the dead, which,\nif he break, he is forfeit to the shades. The most famous instance of this\nmyth is that of Persephone.\n\n[107] _Cf._ Procopius quoted by Elton, Origins of English History, p. 84.\n\n[108] Prof. Rhys, Hibbert Lectures for 1886, looks upon him as a Celtic\nZeus. He dispossessed his father of the Brug by fraud, as Zeus\ndispossessed Kronos by force.\n\n[109] D'Arbois de Jubainville, _op. cit._, p. 275. Rhys, _op. cit._, p.\n149.\n\n[110] M. Duvau, Revue Celtique, Vol. IX., No. 1, has translated the\nvarying versions of the story.\n\n[111] Like many of the older Irish tales the present form is confused and\nobscure, but it is easy to arrive at the original.\n\n[112] The part in brackets is found in one version only of the story. Of\nthe two versions each has retained certain archaic features not to be\nfound in the other.\n\n[113] Summarised by D'Arbois de Jubainville, _op. cit._, p. 323.\n\n[114] D'Arbois de Jubainville, p. 326.\n\n[115] Otto K\u00fcpp, Z.f.D. Phil. xvii, i, 68, examining Wolfram's version\nsees in the branch guarded by Gramoflanz and broken by Parzival a trace of\nthe original myth underlying the story. Gramoflanz is connected with the\nMagic Castle (one of the inmates of which is his sister), or with the\notherworld. K\u00fcpp's conjecture derives much force from the importance given\nto the branch in the Irish tales as part of the gear of the otherworld.\n\n[116] This recalls the fact that Oengus of the Brug fell in love with a\nswanmaid. See text and translation Revue Celtique, Vol. III., pp. 341,\n_et. seq._ The story is alluded to in the catalogue of epic tales (dating\nfrom the tenth century) found in the Book of Leinster.\n\n[117] In a variant from Kashmir (Knowles' Folk-tales of Kashmir, London,\n1888, p. 75, _et. seq._), Saiyid and Said, this tale is found embedded in\na twin-brethren one.\n\n[118] Frederick (I.) Barbarossa is a mistake, as old as the seventeenth\ncentury (_cf._ Koch, Sage vom Kaiser Friedrich in Kyffh\u00e4user, Leipzig,\n1886), for Frederick II., the first German Emperor of whom the legend was\ntold. The mistake was caused by the fact that Frederick took the place of\na German red-bearded god, probably Thor, hence the later identification\nwith the _red-bearded_ Frederick, instead of with that great opponent of\nthe Papacy whose death away in Italy the German party refused for many\nyears to credit.\n\n[119] Unless the passage relating to Carl the Great quoted by Grimm (D.M.,\nIII., 286) from Mon. Germ. Hist., Vol. VIII., 215, \"inde fabulosum illud\nconfictum de Carolo Magno, quasi de mortuis in id ipsum resuscitato, et\nalio nescio quo nihilominus redivivo,\" be older.\n\n[120] Liebrecht's edition of the Otia Imperialia, Hanover, 1856, p. 12,\nand note p. 55.\n\n[121] Martin Zur Gralsage, p. 31, arguing from the historical connection\nof Frederick II. with Sicily, thinks that the localisation of this\nArthurian legend in that isle was the reason of its being associated with\nthe Hohenstauffen; in other words, the famous German legend would be an\nindirect offshot of the Arthurian cycle. I cannot follow Martin here. I\nsee no reason for doubting the genuineness of the traditions collected by\nKuhn and Schwartz, or for disbelieving that Teutons had this myth as well\nas Celts. It is no part of my thesis to exalt Celtic tradition at the\nexpense of German; almost all the parallels I have adduced between the\nromances and Celtic mythology and folk-lore could be matched from those of\nGermany. But the romances are historically associated with Celtic\ntradition, and the parallels found in the latter are closer and more\nnumerous than those which could be recovered from German tradition. It is,\ntherefore, the most simple course to refer the romances to the former\ninstead of to the latter.\n\n[122] See Grimm, D.M., Ch. XXXII.; Fitzgerald, Rev. Celt., IV., 198; and\nthe references in Liebrecht, _op. cit._\n\n[123] Personally communicated by the Rev. Mr. Sorby, of Sheffield.\n\n[124] In Chrestien the part of the Magician Lord is little insisted upon.\nBut in Wolfram he is a very important personage. It may here be noted that\nthe effects which are to follow in Chrestien the doing away with the\nenchantments of this Castle, answer far more accurately to the description\ngiven by the loathly Grail-Maiden of the benefits which would have accrued\nhad Perceval put the question at the Court of the Fisher King than to\nanything actually described as the effect of that question being put,\neither by Gautier, Manessier, or Gerbert. This castle seems, too, to be\nthe one in which lodge the Knights, each having his lady love with him,\nwhich the loathly maiden announces to be her home.\n\n[125] Kennedy follows in the main Oss. Soc., Vol. II, pp. 118, _et. seq._,\nan eighteenth century version translated by Mr. O'Kearney. This particular\nepisode is found, pp. 147, _et. seq._ I follow the Oss. Soc. version in\npreference to Kennedy's where they differ.\n\n[126] The story as found in Heinrich may be compared with the folk-tale of\nthe Sleeping Beauty. She is a maiden sunk in a death-in-life sleep\ntogether with all her belongings until she be awakened by the kiss of the\ndestined prince. May we not conjecture that in an older form of the story\nthan any we now possess, the court of the princess vanished when the\nreleasing kiss restored her to real life and left her alone with the\nprince? The comparison has this further interest, that the folk-tale is a\nvariant of an old myth which figures prominently in the hero-tales of the\nTeutonic race (Lay of Skirni, Lay of Swipday and Menglad, Saga of Sigurd\nand Brunhild), and that in its most famous form Siegfried, answering in\nTeutonic myth to Fionn, is its hero. But Peredur is a Cymric Fionn, so\nthat the parallel between the two heroes, Celtic and Teutonic, is closer\nthan at first appears when Siegfried is compared only to his Gaelic\ncounterpart.\n\n[127] I have not examined Gawain's visit to the Magic Castle in detail, in\nthe first place because it only bears indirectly upon the Grail-Quest, and\nthen because I hope before very long to study the personality of Gawain in\nthe romances, and to throw light upon it from Celtic mythic tradition in\nthe same way that I have tried in the foregoing pages to do in the case of\nPerceval.\n\n[128] Kennedy, Legendary Fictions, p. 154, _et. seq._\n\n[129] Grimm, Vol. III., p. 9 (note to M\u00e4rchen von einem der auszog das\nF\u00fcrchten zu lernen), gives a number of variants. It should be noted that\nin this story there is the same mixture of incidents of the Magic Castle\nand Haunted Castle forms as in the romances. Moreover, one of the trials\nto which the hero's courage is subjected is the bringing into the room of\na coffin in which lies a dead man, just as in Gawain's visit to the Grail\nCastle. Again, as Grimm notes, but mistakenly refers to Perceval instead\nof to Gawain, the hero has to undergo the adventures of the magic bed,\nwhich, when he lays himself down in it, dashes violently about through the\ncastle and finally turns topsy turvy. In connection with this story, and\nwith the whole series of mythical conceptions noted in the Grail romances,\nChapter XXXII. of the Deutsche Mythologie deserves careful study. Grimm\ncompares Conduiramur's (Blanchefleur's) nightly visit to Percival's\nchamber to the appearance at the bedside of the delivering hero of that\nwhite maiden, who is so frequently figured as the inmate of the Haunted\nCastle. As niece of the Lord of the Grail Castle, Blanchefleur is also a\ndenizen of the otherworld, but I hardly think that the episode of\nPerceval's delivering her from her enemies can be looked upon as a version\nof the removal of the spells of the Haunted Castle. In a recent number of\nthe Revue des Traditions Populaires (III., p. 103), there is a good Breton\nversion of the Bespelled Castle sunk under the waves. A fair princess is\ntherein held captive; once a year the waves part and permit access, and he\nwho is bold enough to seize the right moment wins princess and castle,\nwhich are restored to earth.\n\n[130] Whether it be the Castle of the Fisher King, _i.e._, the Castle of\nthe Perceval Quest; or the Magic Castle, _i.e._, the Castle of the Gawain\nQuest.\n\n[131] For fuller information about this mysterious fish, see Rhys, Hibbert\nLectures, pp. 553-54.\n\n[132] In an already quoted tale of Campbell's (LVIII., the Rider of\nGrianaig) allusion is made to the \"black fisherman working at his tricks.\"\nCampbell remarks that a similar character appears in other tales. Can this\nwizard fisher be brought into contact with the Rich Fisher of\nPseudo-Chrestien (_supra_, p. 8), who knew much of black art, and could\nchange his semblance a hundred times?\n\n[133] Complete text, edited by Kuno Meyer, Revue Celt., Vol. V. Major\nportion of text with English translation by Dr. J. O'Donovan, Oss. Soc.,\nVol. IV. The tract as a whole is only known to us from a fifteenth century\nMS.; but the earlier portion of it appears in the L.n.H., in a strongly\neuhemerised form, only such incidents being admitted as could be presented\nhistorically, and these being divested of all supernatural character. See\nmy paper, \"Folk-Lore Record,\" Vol. IV., for a discussion of the genuine\nand early character of the tract.\n\n[134] A reason for this concealment may be found in the idea, so\nfrequently met with in a certain stage of human development, that the name\nis an essential portion of the personality, and must not be mentioned,\nespecially to possible enemies or to beings possessed of magical powers,\nlest they should make hurtful use of it.\n\n[135] _Cf._ the whole of the Book of Rights for an exemplification of the\nway in which the pre-Christian Irishman was hedged and bound and fettered\nby this amazingly complicated system of what he might and what he might\nnot do.\n\n[136] They offer him dog's-flesh cooked on rowan spits, and, it has been\nconjectured that the _gess_ has a totemistic basis, Culann's Hound\n(Cuchulainn) being forbidden to partake of the flesh of his totem.\n\n[137] It is only within the last 100 years that our knowledge of savage\nand semi-savage races has furnished us with a parallel to the \"geasa\" in\nthe \"taboo\" of the Polynesian. I am not advancing too much in the\nstatement that this institution, although traces of it exist among all\nAryan races, had not the same importance among any as among the Irish\nGael. It is another proof of the primitive character of Irish social life,\na character which may, perhaps, be ascribed to the assimilation by the\ninvading Celts of the beliefs and practices of much ruder races.\n\n[138] Mr. Elton (Origins, pp. 291, 292) looks upon Bran and Caradoc as\noriginal war gods. Caradoc, he thinks, was confounded with Caractacus,\nBran with Brennus, and hence the two personages were sent to Rome in\nimitation of the presumed historical prototypes.\n\n[139] Kynddelw's triad does not really refer to the \"blessed\" families at\nall, but to the \"faithful\" or \"loyal\" families. Stephen's mistake arose\nfrom the fact of the name Madawc occurring in two sets of triads, one\nrelating to the \"lordly\" families of Britain in which the family of Llyr\nLlediath also figures, and one to the faithful families. In both triads\nthe name is probably a mistake for Mabon. (Note communicated by Professor\nRhys.)\n\nI let the statement in the text stand, to exhort myself and others to that\nfear of trusting authorities which in scholarship is the beginning of\nwisdom.\n\n[140] Professor Rhys tells me this passage can only mean \"Blessed Bran's\nhead.\"\n\n[141] Mr. Ward endorses Zarncke's contention. According to him there is no\ntrace of any connection between Joseph and the evangelisation of Britain\nwhich can be said to be older than the romances. The statements of the \"De\nant. eccl. Glast.\" are, he thinks, no guide to the knowledge or opinions\nof William of Malmesbury.\n\n[142] I may here notice a theory to which my attention has only just been\ncalled. It is found cited in a work of great research, _Die Fronica_, by\nProfessor Karl Pearson, Strassburg, 1887. The author quotes an opinion of\nMr. Jenner, of the British Museum, that the head in the platter of the\nMabinogi may be derived from a Veronica portrait. Professor Pearson\nexpresses doubt, because such a procession of the Veronica portrait and\nthe Passion Instruments as the scene in the Mabinogi would, _ex\nhypothesi_, imply is not known to him before the fourteenth century,\nwhereas the Mabinogi must be attributed, at latest, to the middle of the\nthirteenth century. Mr. H. L. D. Ward informs me that the suggestion was\nhis. Noting the connection of the Veronica and Grail legends, testified to\nby Borron, it occurred to him that the whole scene at the Wounded King's\nmight be derived from the former legends. The Wounded King, healed by the\nGrail, would thus be a counterpart of the leprous Vespasian healed by the\nVeronica portrait, which some wandering \"jongleur\" turned boldly into an\nactual head. But it must be noted that in Borron, our authority for the\nconnection of the two legends, there is no Wounded King at all; in the\nConte du Graal the Maimed King is not healed by any special talisman, but\nby the death of his enemy, the visible sign of which is that enemy's head,\nwhilst in the \"procession\" (which Mr. Ward thinks to have been intended as\na vision), the Grail is certainly a vessel, and has no connection whatever\nwith any head or portrait. The theory thus requires that the version which\ngives the oldest form of the hypothetical remodelled Veronica legend\nomitted the very feature which was its sole _raison d'\u00eatre_.\n\n[143] Mr. Ward thinks the localisation a late one, and that practically\nthere is no authority for it of an older date than the romances. He points\nout in especial that Geoffrey's Vita Merlini, which has so much to say\nabout the \"insula pomorum\" in no way connects it with Glastonbury. There\nis considerable doubt as the etymology of Glastonbury, but there is\nsubstantial unanimity of opinion among Celtic scholars of the present day\nin referring it to a Celtic rather than to a Saxon source. Be this as it\nmay, the fact remains that at sometime in the course of the twelfth\ncentury the old Christian site of Glastonbury took, as it were, the place\nof the Celtic paradise, and it seems far more likely that the\ntransformation was effected in virtue of some local tradition than wholly\nthrough the medium of foreign romances.\n\n[144] The pre-Christian Irish annals, which are for the most part\neuhemerised mythology, contain also a certain amount of race history; thus\nthe struggle between the powers of light and darkness typified by the\nantagonism between Tuatha de Danann and Fomori, is doubled by that between\nthe fair invading Celts and the short dark aborigines. But the latter has\nonly left the barest trace of its existence in the national sagas. Not\nuntil we come to that secondary stage of the Fenian saga, which must have\nbeen shaped in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and which represents\nthe Fenians as warring against the harrying Northmen, does the foreign\nelement reappear in Irish tradition.\n\n[145] The Tochmarc Emer, or the Wooing of Emer by Cuchullain, has been\ntranslated by Professor Kuno Meyer in the Arch\u00e6ological Review, Nos. 1-4\n(London, 1888). The original text is found partly in the Leabhar na\nh-Uidhre, partly in later MSS.\n\n[146] The fate of the Sons of Usnech is known to us in two main\nredactions, one found in the Book of Leinster (compiled in the middle of\nthe twelfth century from older MS.) printed by Windisch, Irische Texte\n(first series) pp. 67-82, and translated by M. Poinsignon, Revue des\nTraditions Populaires, III, pp. 201-207. A text printed and translated by\nJ. O'Flanagan (Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Dublin, 1808, pp.\n146-177), agrees substantially with this. The second redaction has only\nbeen found in later MSS. Mr. Whitley Stokes has given text and translation\nfrom a fifteenth century MS. (Irische Texte, II. 2, pp. 109-178), and\nO'Flanagan has edited a very similar version (_loc. cit._ pp. 16-135).\nThis second version is fuller and more romantic; in it alone is to be\nfound Deirdre's lament on leaving Scotland, one of the earliest instances\nin post-classic literature of personal sympathy with Nature.\n\nBut the earlier version, though it bear like so much else in the oldest\nIrish MS. obvious traces of abridgment and euhemerism, is also full of the\nmost delicate romantic touches. Part of Deirdre's lament over the slain\nNoisi may be paraphrased thus:--\"Fair one, loved one, flower of beauty;\nbeloved, upright and strong; beloved, noble and modest warrior. When we\nwandered through the woods of Ireland, sweet with thee was the night's\nsleep! Fair one, blue-eyed, beloved of thy wife, lovely to me at the\ntrysting place came thy clear voice through the woods. I cannot sleep;\nhalf the night my spirit wanders far among throngs of men. I cannot eat or\nsmile. Break not to-day my heart; soon enough shall I lie within my grave.\nStrong are the waves of the sea, but stronger is sorrow, Conchobor.\"\n\n[147] M. Renan's article \"De la Po\u00e9sie des Races Celtiques\" (Revue des\nDeux Mondes, 1854, pp. 473-506) only came into my hands after the bulk of\nthis chapter was printed, or I should hardly have dared to state in my own\nwords those conclusions in which we agree. It may be useful to indicate\nthose points in which I think this suggestive essay no longer represents\nthe present state of knowledge. When M. Renan wrote, the nature of popular\ntradition had been little investigated in France--hence a tendency to\nattribute solely to the Celtic genius what is common to all popular\ntradition. Little or nothing was then known in France of early Irish\nhistory or literature--hence the wild, primitive character of Celtic\ncivilization is ignored. The \"bardic\" literature of Wales was still\nassigned wholesale to the age of its alleged authors--hence a false\nestimate of the relations between the profane and ecclesiastical writings\nof the Welsh. Finally the three Mabinogion (The Lady of the Fountain,\nGeraint, Peredur), which correspond to poems of Chrestien's, are\nunhesitatingly accepted as their originals. The influence of Welsh fiction\nin determining the courtly and refined nature of medi\u00e6val romance is, in\nconsequence, greatly exaggerated. It is much to be wished that M. Renan\nwould give us another review of Celtic literature based on the work of the\nlast thirty years. His lucid and sympathetic criticism would be most\nwelcome in a department of study which has been rather too exclusively\nleft to the specialist.\n\n[148] Malory is a wonderful example of the power of style. He is a most\nunintelligent compiler. He frequently chooses out of the many versions of\nthe legend, the longest, most wearisome, and least beautiful; his own\ncontributions to the story are beneath contempt as a rule. But his\nlanguage is exactly what it ought to be, and his has remained in\nconsequence the classic English version of the Arthur story.\n\n[149] See p. 112 for a brief summary of Borron's conception; Sin the cause\nof want among the people; the separation of the pure from the impure by\nmeans of the fish (symbol of Christ); punishment of the self-willed false\ndisciple; reward of Brons by charge of the Grail; symbolising of the\nTrinity by the three tables and three Grail Keepers.\n\n[150] The greater delicacy of the Welsh tale has already been noted. \"To\nmake him such a offer before I am wooed by him, that, truly, can I not\ndo,\" says the counterpart of Blanchefleur in the Mabinogi. \"Go my sister\nand sleep,\" answers Peredur, \"nor will I depart from thee until I do that\nwhich thou requirest.\" I cannot help looking upon the prominence which the\nWelsh story-teller has given to this scene as his protest against the\nstrange and to him repulsive ways of knightly love. The older, mythic\nnature of Peredur's beloved, who might woo without forfeiting womanly\nmodesty, in virtue of her goddesshood, had died away in the narrator's\nmind, the new ideal of courtly passion had not won acceptance from him.\n\n[151] The perplexities which beset the modern reader of the Queste are\nreflected in the Laureate's retelling of the legend. Nowhere else in the\nIdylls has he departed so widely from his model. Much of the incident is\ndue to him, and replaces with advantage the nauseous disquisitions upon\nchastity which occupy so large a space in the Queste. The artist's\ninstinct, rather than the scholar's respect for the oldest form of the\nstory, led him to practically restore Perceval to his rightful place as\nhero of the quest. _His_ fortunes we can follow with an interest that\npassing shadow, Galahad, wholly fails to evoke. Nor, as may easily be\nseen, is the fundamental conception of the twelfth century romance to the\nLaureate's taste. Arthur is his ideal of manhood, and Arthur's energies\nare practical and human in aim and in execution. What the \"blameless king\"\nspeaks when he first learns of the quest represents, we may guess, the\nauthor's real attitude towards the whole fantastic business.\n\nIt is much to be regretted by all lovers of English poetry that Hawker's\nQuest of the Sangraal was never completed. The first and only chant is a\nmagnificent fragment; with the exception of the Laureate's Sir Galahad,\nthe finest piece of pure literature in the cycle. Hawker, alone, perhaps\nof moderns, could have kept the medi\u00e6val tone and spirit, and yet brought\nthe Quest into contact with the needs and ideas of to-day.\n\n[152] _Cf._ Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, II, 811, and his references.\n\n[153] The ideas held by many peoples in a primitive stage of culture\nrespecting virginity are worthy careful study. Some physiological basis\nmay be found for them in the phenomena of hysteria, which must necessarily\nhave appeared to such peoples evidences of divine or demoniac possession,\nand at that stage are hardly likely to have been met with save among\nunmarried women. In the French witch trials these phenomena are often\npresented by nuns, in whose case they were probably the outcome of a life\nat once celibate and inactive. On the other hand the persons accused of\nwitchcraft were as a rule of the most abandoned character, and it is a,\nmorally speaking, degraded class which has furnished Professor Charcot and\nhis pupils with the subjects in whom they have identified all the\nphenomena that confront the student of witch trials.\n\n[154] Domanig, Parzival-Studien, I, II, 1878-80.\n\n[155] San-Marte, Parzival-Studien, I-III, 1861-63.\n\n[156] Some readers may be anxious to read Wolfram's work to whom\ntwelfth-century German would offer great difficulties. A few words on the\ntranslation into modern German may, therefore, not be out of place.\nSan-Marte's original translation (1839-41) is full of gross blunders and\nmistranslations, and, what is worse, of passages foisted into the text to\nsupport the translator's own interpretation of the poem as a whole.\nSimrock's, which followed, is extremely close, but difficult and\nunpleasing. San Marte's second edition, corrected from Simrock, is a great\nadvance upon the first; but even here the translator has too often allowed\nhis own gloss to replace Wolfram's statement. A thoroughly faithful yet\npleasing rendering is a desideratum.\n\n[157] J. Van Santen, Zur Beurtheilung Wolfram von Eschenbach, Wesel, 1882,\nhas attacked Wolfram for his acceptance of the morality of the day, and\nhas, on that ground, denied him any ethical or philosophic merit. The\npamphlet is useful for its references, but otherwise worthless. The fact\nthat Wolfram does accept _Minnedienst_ only gives greater value to his\npicture of a nobler and purer ideal of love, whilst to refuse recognition\nof his other qualities on this account is much as who should deny Dante's\nclaim to be regarded as a teacher and thinker because of his acceptance of\nthe hideous medi\u00e6val hell.\n\n[158] In the Geheimnisse Goethe shows some slight trace of the Parzival\nlegend, and the words in which the teaching of the poem are summed up:\n\"Von der Gewalt, die alle Wesen bindet, Befreit _der_ Mensch sich der sich\n\u00fcberwindet,\" may be looked upon as an eighteenth century rendering of\nWolfram's conception.\n\n[159] We may here note an admirable example of the inevitable, spontaneous\ncharacter of the growth of certain conceptions, especially of such as have\nbeen partly shaped by the folk-mind. There is nothing in Wolfram or in the\nFrench romances to show that the fortunes of the loathly damsel (Wagner's\nKundry) are in any way bound up with the success of the Quest. But we have\nseen that the Celtic folk-tales represent the loathly damsel as the real\nprotagonist of the story. She cannot be freed unless the hero do his task.\nPrecisely the same situation as in Wagner, who was thus led back to the\nprimitive _donn\u00e9e_, although he can only have known intermediary stages in\nwhich its signification had been quite lost.\n\n[160] _Cf._ the reproaches addressed to Potter Thompson (_supra_, p. 198).\nThat the visitor to the Bespelled Castle should be reproached, at once,\nfor his failure to do as he ought, seems to be a feature of the earliest\nforms of the story. _Cf._ Campbell's Three Soldiers (_supra_, p. 196). If\nWolfram had another source than Chrestien it was one which partook more of\nthe unspelling than of the feud quest formula. Hence the presence of the\nfeature here.\n\n[161] In Wolfram's work there is a much closer connection between the\nGawain quest and the remainder of the poem than in Chrestien.\nOrgueilleuse, to win whose love Gawain accomplishes his feats, is a former\nlove of Amfortas, the Grail King, who won for her a rich treasure and was\nwounded in her service. Klinschor, too, the lord of the Magic Castle, is\nbrought into contact with Orgueilleuse, whom he helps against Gramoflanz.\nIt is difficult to say whether this testifies to an earlier or later stage\nof growth of the legend. The winning of Orgueilleuse as the consequence of\naccomplishing the feat of the Ford Perillous and plucking the branch is\nstrongly insisted upon by Wolfram and not mentioned by Chrestien, though\nit is possible he might have intended to wed the two had he finished his\npoem. In this respect, however, and taking these two works as they stand,\nWolfram's account seems decidedly the earlier. In another point, too, he\nseems to have preserved the older form. Besides his Kundrie la Sorci\u00e8re\n(the loathly damsel) he has a Kundrie la Belle, whom I take to be the\nloathly damsel released from the transforming spell.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nPassages in bold are indicated by =bold=.\n\nSuperscripted characters are indicated by {superscript}.","title":"Studies on the Legend of the Holy Grail: With Especial Reference to the Hypothesis of Its Celtic Origin","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":127180}