Speculations such as these were little calculated to further the true criticism of the Grail cycle. Some few years later, in 1875, the then existing texts were supplemented by M. Hucher's work, so often quoted in these pages. In an introduction and notes displaying great research and ingenuity, the following propositions are laid down:--The Grail is Celtic in origin, and may be seen figured upon pre-Christian Gaulish coins.

Robert de Borron's poem may be called the Pet.i.t St. Graal, and its author was a lord of like-named territory near Fontainebleau, who between 1147 and 1164 made large gifts to the Abbey of Barbeaux, which gifts are confirmed in 1169 by Simon, son of said Robert. About 1169 Robert came to England, met Walter Map, and was initiated by him into the knowledge of the Arthurian romance, and of the legend of the Holy Grail. Between 1170 and 1199 he entered the service of Walter of Montbeliard and wrote (in prose) the Joseph of Arimathea and the Merlin. At a later period he returned to England, and wrote, in conjunction with Map, the Grand St.

Graal. This is shown by MS. 2,455 Bibl. Nat. (of the Grand St. Graal): "Or dist li contes qui est estrais de toutes les ystoires, si come Robers de Borons le translatait de latin en romans, a l'ayde de maistre Gautier Map." But Helie de Borron, author of the Tristan and of Guiron le Courtois, calls Robert his friend and kinsman. Helie has been placed under Henry III, who has been a.s.sumed to be the Henry to whom he dedicates his work; if so can he be the friend of Robert, who wrote some fifty years earlier? Helie should, however, be placed really under Henry II. Robert wrote originally in prose; the poem contains later etymological and grammatical forms, though it has occasionally preserved older ones; besides in v. 2,817 etc. (_supra_, p. 83) it refers to the deliverance of Moys by the Promised Knight, and thus implies knowledge of the Grand St.

Graal; this pa.s.sage is omitted by most of the prose versions, thus obviously older. Then the poem is silent as to the Christianising of Britain mentioned by one prose version (C.). We may accept Borron's statement as to his having dealt later with the histories of Moys and Petrus, and as to his drawing his information from a Latin original.

Merlin is the pivot of Borron's conception. In comparing the third part of his trilogy (Joseph of Arimathea, Merlin, Perceval) with Chrestien it must be born in mind that Chrestien reproduces rather the English (Joseph--Galahad), than the French (Brons--Perceval) form of the Quest, and this, although the framework of Chrestien and Robert's Perceval is substantially the same. Chrestien's work was probably preceded by one in which the Peredur story as found in the Mabinogi was already adapted to the Christianised Grail legend. There are frequent verbal resemblances between Robert and Chrestien (_i.e._, Gautier, Hucher never distinguishing between Chrestien and his continuators) which show a common original for both. It is remarkable that Chrestien should never mention Brons, and that there should be such a difference in the stories of the Ford Perillous and the Ford Amorous. It is also remarkable that Robert, in his Perceval, should complain that the _trouveres_ had not spoken of the Good Friday incident which is to be found in Chrestien.

M. Hucher failed in many cases to see the full significance of the facts he brought to light, owing to his incorrect conception of the development of the cycle as a whole, and of the relation of its component parts one to the other. He made, however, an accurate survey of the cycle possible. The merit of first essaying such a survey belongs to Zarncke in his admittedly rough sketch, "Zur Geschichte der Gralsage," published in the third volume (1876) of Paul and Braune's Beitraege.--The various forms may be grouped as follows: (1) Borron's poem, (2) Grand St. Graal, (3) Quete, (4) Chrestien, (5 and 6) Chrestien's continuators, (7) Didot MS. Perceval, (8) Prose Perceval li Gallois. Neither the Spanish-Provencal nor the Celtic origin of the legend is admissible; it has its source wholly in the apocryphal legends of Joseph of Arimathea, in which two stages may be distinguished; the first represented by the Gesta Pilati and the Narratio Josephi, which tell how Christ appeared to Joseph in prison and released him therefrom; the second by the Vindicta Salvatoris, which combines the legends of the healing of Tiberius with that of t.i.tus or Vespasian. Joseph being thus brought into contact with t.i.tus, the s.p.a.ce of time between the two is accounted for by the forty years captivity, and the first hint was given of a miraculous sustaining power of the Grail. Borron's poem is still purely legendary in character; the fish caught by the rich fisher is the symbol of Christ; the incident of the waiting for the Promised Knight belongs, however, not to the original tradition but to a later style of Christian mysticism. The Grand St. Graal and the Quete extend and develop the _donnee_ of the poem, whilst in Chrestien tone, atmosphere, and framework are profoundly modified, yet there is no reason to postulate for Chrestien any other sources than Nos. 1-3, the differences being such as he was quite capable of deliberately introducing. As for No. 7 (the Didot-Perceval) it is later than Chrestien and his continuators, and has used both. Wolfram von Eschenbach had only Chrestien for his model, Kiot's poem being a feigned source. The legend of the conversion of Britain by Joseph is no genuine British tradition; William of Malmesbury's account of Glas...o...b..ry is a pamphlet written to order of the Norman Kings, and incapable of serving as a representative of Celtic tradition. The pa.s.sages therein relating to Joseph are late interpolations, disagreeing with the remainder of his work and disproved by the silence of all contemporary writers.

Zarncke's acute article was a praiseworthy attempt to construct a working hypothesis of the growth of the cycle. But it is full of grave misconceptions, as was, perhaps, inevitable in a hasty survey of such an immense body of literature. The versions are "placed" most incorrectly.

The argumentation is frequently marred by _a priori_ reasoning, such as that Chrestien, the acknowledged leading poet of the day, could not have copied Kiot, and by untenable a.s.sertions, such as that Bran, in the Mabinogi of Branwen, the daughter of Llyr, is perhaps a distant echo of Hebron in Robert de Borron's poem. He had, however, the great merit of clearing the ground for his pupil, A. Birch-Hirschfeld, and urging him to undertake what still remains the most searching and exhaustive survey of the whole cycle: "Die Sage vom Gral," etc. As Birch-Hirschfeld's a.n.a.lysis is at present the only basis for sound criticism, I shall give his views fully:--The Grand St. Graal, as the fullest of the versions dealing with the Early History of the Grail, is the best starting-point for investigation. From its p.r.o.nounced religious tone monkish authorship may be inferred. Its treatment of the subject is not original as is shown by (1) the repet.i.tion _ad nauseam_ of the same motive (_e.g._, that of the lance wound four times), (2) the pedigrees, (3) the allusions to adventures not dealt with in the book, and in especial to the Promised Knight. The testimony of Helinand (see _supra_, p. 52), which is of first-rate importance, does not allow of a later date for the Grand St.

Graal than 1204. On turning to the Queste it is remarkable that though sometimes found in the MSS. in conjunction with the Grand St. Graal it is also found with the Lancelot, and, when the hero's parentage is considered, it seems more likely that it was written to supplement the latter than the former work. This supposition is adverse to any claim it may lay to being held the earliest treatment of the subject, as it is highly improbable that the Grail legend occupied at the outset such an important place in the Arthurian romance as is thus accorded to it. Such a claim is further negatived by the fact that the Queste has three heroes, the second of whom is obviously the original one of an older version. In estimating the relationship between the Grand St. Graal and the Queste it should be borne in mind that the latter, in so far as it deals with the Early History, mentions only Joseph, Josephe, Evelach (Mordrain) and Seraphe (Nascien), from whom descends Galahad; that it brings Joseph to England, and that it does not give any explanation of the nature of the Grail itself. It omits Brons, Alain, the explanation of the name "rich fisherman," the name of Moys, although his story is found in substantially the same shape as in the Grand St. Graal, and is silent as to the origin of the bleeding lance. If it were younger than and derived from the Grand St. Graal alone, these points, all more important for the Early History than the Mordrain episodes would surely have been dwelt upon. But then if the Grand St. Graal is the younger work, whence does it derive Brons, Alain, and Petrus, all of whom are introduced in such a casual way? There was obviously a previous Early History which knew nothing of Josephe or of Mordrain and his group, the invention of the author of the Queste, whence they pa.s.sed into the Grand St. Graal, and were fused in with the older form of the legend. There is, moreover, a positive reference on the part of the Grand St. Graal to the Queste (vol. ii., p. 225). The author of the Queste introduced his new personages for the following reasons: He had already subst.i.tuted Galahad for the original hero, and to enhance his importance gives him a fict.i.tious descent from a companion of Joseph. From his model he learnt of Joseph's wanderings in the East, hence the Eastern origin of the Mordrain group. In the older form the Grail had pa.s.sed into the keeping of Joseph's nephew, in the Queste the Promised Knight descends from the nephew of Mordrain; Brons, as the ancestor of the original Quest hero necessarily disappears in the Queste, and his place is in large measure taken by Josephe. The priority of the Queste over the Grand St.

Graal, and the use of the former by the latter may thus be looked upon as certain. But if Mordrain is the invention of the Queste, what is the meaning of his illness, of his waiting for the Promised Knight, of the bleeding lance, and of the lame king whom it heals? These seem to have no real connection with the Grail, and are apparently derived from an older work, namely, Chrestien's Conte du Graal.

Chrestien's work, which ended at v. 10,601, may be dated as having been begun not later than 1189 (_vide_ _supra_, p. 4). Its unfinished state accounts for its having so little positive information about the Grail, as Chrestien evidently meant to reserve this information for the end of the story. But this very freedom with which the subject is handled is a proof that he had before him a work whence he could extract and adapt as he saw fit; moreover we have (Prologue, v. 475, etc.) his own words to that effect. With Chrestien's account of the Grail--a bowl bejewelled, of wondrous properties, borne by a maiden, preceded by a bleeding lance, accompanied by a silver plate, guarded by a king wounded through both ankles (whose only solace is fishing, whence his surname), ministering to the king's father, sought for by Perceval, nephew to the fisher king, its fate bound up with a question which the seeker must put concerning it--may be compared that of the Queste, in which nothing is known of a question by which the Grail kingship may be obtained (although it relates the same incident of Lancelot), which knows not of one wounded king, centre of the action, but of two, both of secondary importance (though possibly Chrestien's Fisher King's father may have given the hint for Mordrain), in which the lance is of minor importance instead of being on the same level as the Grail. Is it not evident that the Queste took over these features from Chrestien, compelled thereto by the celebrity of the latter's presentment? The Queste thus presupposes the following works: a Lancelot, an Early History, a Quest other than that of Chrestien's, and finally Chrestien as the lame king and lance features show. It thus falls between 1189 (Chrestien begun) and 1204 (Grand St. Graal ended).

With respect to the three continuators of Chrestien it would seem that Gautier de Doulens' account of the Grail, as found in the Montpellier MS., knowing as it does only of Joseph, and making the Fisher King and Perceval descendants of his, belongs to an older stage of development than that of Manessier and Gerbert, both of whom are familiar with the Mordrain group, and follows that of the original version upon which both the Queste and the Grand St. Graal are based. There is nothing to show that Gautier knew of the Queste, whilst from Gautier the Queste may have possibly have taken Perceval's sister and the broken sword. Gautier would thus seem to have written immediately after Chrestien, and before the Queste, _i.e._, about 1195. As for the date of the other two continuators, the fact of their having used the Queste is only one proof of the lateness of their composition (as to the date of which see _supra_, p. 4). It must be noted that whilst in their account of the Grail Chrestien's continuators are in substantial accord with the Queste versions, and yet do not contradict Chrestien himself, they add considerably to his account of the lance. This is readily explained by the fact that as Chrestien gave no information respecting the origin of either of the relics, they, the continuators, had to seek such information elsewhere; they found all they could wish respecting the Grail, but nothing as to the lance, the latter having been first introduced by Chrestien, and the Queste versions knowing nothing respecting it beyond what he told. Thus, thrown upon their own resources, they hit upon the device of identifying the lance with the spear with which Jesus was pierced as He hung on the Cross. This idea, a most natural one, may possibly have been in Chrestien's intent, and _may_ have been suggested to him by the story of the discovery of the Holy Lance in Antioch half a century before. It must, however, be admitted that the connection of the lance with the Grail legend in its earliest form is very doubtful, and that Celtic legends may possibly have furnished it to Chrestien, and indicated the use to which he intended putting it. The a.n.a.lysis, so far, of the romances has resulted in the presupposition of an earlier form; this earlier form, the source or basis of all the later versions of the legend, exists in the so-called Pet.i.t St. Graal of Robert de Borron. Of this work, found in two forms, a prose and a poetic one, the poetic form, _pace_ Hucher, is obviously the older, Hucher's proofs of lateness going merely to show that the sole existing MS. is a recent one, and has admitted new speech-forms;[62] moreover the prose versions derive evidently from one original. The greater simplicity of the poem as compared with the Grand St. Graal proves its anteriority in that case; Paulin Paris' hypothesis that the poem in its present state is a second draft, composed after the author had made acquaintance with the Grand St.

Graal, is untenable, the poem's reference (v. 929 etc.) to the "grant livre" and to the "grant estoire dou Graal," written by "nul home qui fust mortal" (v. 3,495-6) not being to the Grand St. Graal, but having, on the contrary, probably suggested to the writer of the latter his fiction of Christ's being the real author of his work. The Grand St. Graal used the poem conjointly with the Queste, piecing out the one version by help of the other, and thereby entirely missing the sequence of ideas in the poem, which is as follows: Sin, the cause of want among the people; the separation of the pure from the impure by means of the fish (symbol of Christ) caught by Brons, which fish does not feed the people, but, in conjunction with the Grail, severs the true from the false disciples; punishment of the self-willed false disciple; reward of Brons by charge of the Grail. In the Grand St. Graal, on the contrary, the fish is no symbol, but actual food, a variation which must be laid to the account of the Queste. In a similar way the two Alains in the Grand St. Graal may be accounted for, the one as derived from the poem, the second from the Queste. As far as conception is concerned, the later work is no advance upon the earlier one. To return to Borron's work, which consists of three sections; there is no reason to doubt his authorship of the second, Merlin, or of the third, Perceval, although one MS. only of the former mentions the fact, and it is, moreover, frequently found in connection with other romances, in especial with the Lancelot; as for Perceval, the silence of the unique MS. as to Borron is no argument, as it is equally silent in the Joseph of Arimathea section. All outward circ.u.mstances go to show that Borron divided his work into three parts, Joseph, Merlin, Perceval. But, if so, the last part must correspond in a fair measure to the first one; recollect, however, that we are dealing with a poet of but little invention or power of giving unity to discordant themes, and must not expect to find a clearly traced plan carried out in every detail. Thus the author's promise in Joseph to speak later of Moses and Petrus seems not to be fulfilled, but this is due to Borron's timidity in the invention of new details. What _is_ said of Moses does not disagree with the Joseph, whereas a later writer would probably follow the Grand St. Graal account; as for Petrus he is to be recognised in the hermit Perceval's uncle. There may be some inconsistency here, but Borron _can_ be inconsistent, as is shown by his treatment of Alain, who at first vows to remain virgin, and afterwards marries. But a graver argument remains to be met; the lance occurs in Perceval--now _ex hypothesi_ the first introduction of the lance is due to Chrestien. The lance, however, only occurs in two pa.s.sages, both obviously interpolated. The ident.i.ty of authorship is evident when the style and phraseology of the two works are compared; in both the Grail is always _li graaux_ or else _li veissel_, not as with the later versions, _li saint graaux_; both speak of _la grace dou graal_; in both the Grail is _bailli_ to its keeper, who has it _en guarde_; the empty seat is _li liu vit_, not the _siege perilleux_. The central conception, too, is the same--the Trinity of Grail-keepers symbolising the Divine Trinity. The secret words given by Christ with the Grail to Joseph in prison, by him handed on to Brons, are confided at the end of the Perceval by Brons to the hero--and there is no trace of the Galahad form of the Quest, as would inevitably have been the case had the Perceval been posterior in date to the Queste. As the Perceval is connected with the Joseph, so it is equally with the Merlin; it is remarkable that neither Merlin nor Blaise play a prominent part in the Queste versions, but in Borron's poem Merlin is the necessary binding link between the Apostolic and Arthurian ages. Again the whole character of the Perceval speaks for its being one of the earliest works of the cycle; either it must have used Chrestien and Gautier or they it; if the former, is it credible that just those adventures which were necessary to supply the ending to the Joseph could have been picked out?

But it is easy to follow the way in which Chrestien used the Perceval; having the three-part poem before him he took the third only for his canvas, left out all that in it related to the first two parts, all, moreover, that related to the origin and early history of the Grail; the story of the childhood is half indicated in the Perceval, and Chrestien may have had Breton lays with which to help himself out; all relating to the empty seat is left out as reaching back into the Early History; the visit to Gurnemanz is introduced to supply a motive for the hero's conduct at the Grail Castle; the wound of the Fisher King is again only an attempt of Chrestien's to supply a more telling motive; as for the sword Chrestien invented it; as he also did the Grail-messenger, whose portrait he copied from that of Rosette la Blonde. The order of the last episodes is altered by Chrestien sensibly for the better, as, with him, Perceval's doubt comes first, then the Good Friday reproof, then the confession to and absolution by the hermit; whereas in the Perceval the hero after doubt, reproof, and absolution rides off again a-tourneying, and requires a second reproof at Merlin's hands. It is easy to see here which is the original, which the copy. Chrestien thus took with clear insight just what he wanted in the Perceval to fit out his two heroes with adventures.[63] As for Borron's guiding conception, his resolve to have nothing to do with the Early History made him neglect it entirely; he only cared to produce a knightly poem, and we find, in consequence, that he has materialised all the spiritual elements of his model. Gautier de Doulens' method of proceeding was much simpler: he took over all those adventures that Chrestien purposely left out, and they may be found brought together (verses 22,390-27,390) with but few episodes (Perceval's visit to Blanchefleur, etc.) entirely foreign to the model amongst them.[64] The Perceval cannot be later than Gautier, as otherwise it could not stand in such close relationship to the Joseph and Merlin; it must, therefore, be the source of the Conte du Graal, and a necessary part of Borron's poem, which in its entirety is the first attempt to bring the Joseph of Arimathea legend into connection with the Arthur _sage_. The question as to the origin of the Grail would thus seem answered, the Christian legendary character of Borron's conception being evident; but there still remains the possibility that that conception is but the Christianised form of an older folk-myth.

Such a one has been sought for in Celtic tradition. The part played by Merlin in the trilogy might seem to lend colour to such an hypothesis, but his connection with the legend is a purely artificial one. Nor is the theory of a Celtic origin strengthened by reference to the Mabinogi of Peredur. This knows nought of Merlin, and is nearer to Chrestien than to the Didot-Perceval, and may, indeed, be looked upon as simply a clumsy retelling of the Conte du Graal with numerous additions. A knowledge of the Didot-Perceval on Chrestien's part must be presupposed, as where could he have got the Fisher King and Grail Castle save from a poem which dealt with the Early History of the Grail, a thing the Mabinogi does not do.

But, it may be said, Chrestien used the Mabinogi conjointly with Borron's poem. That the Welsh tale is, on the contrary, only a copy is apparent from the following considerations:--It mixes up Gurnemanz and the Fisher King; it puts in the mouth of Peredur's _mother_ an exclamation about the knights, "Angels they are my son," obviously misread from Perceval's exclamation to the same effect in Chrestien's poem; _Perceval's_ love-trance over the three blood drops in the snow is explained in Chrestien by the hero's pa.s.sion for Blanchefleur, but is quite inexplicable in the Mabinogi; again, in the Welsh tale, the lance and basin episode is quite a secondary one, a fact easily explained if it is looked upon as a vague reminiscence of Chrestien's unfinished work; moreover the Mabinogi lays great stress upon the lance, which has already been shown to belong to a secondary stage in the development of the legend. Again the word Graal occurs frequently in old Welsh literature, and invariably in its French form, never translated by any equivalent Welsh term. As for the name Peredur, it is understandable that the Welsh storyteller should choose the name of a national hero, instead of the foreign name Perceval; the etymology Basin-Seeker is untenable. There is no real a.n.a.logy between the Grail and the magic cauldron of Celtic fable, which is essentially one of renovation, whereas the Grail in the second stage only acquires miraculous feeding, and in the third stage healing powers. It is of course not impossible that such adventures in the Mabinogi, as cannot be referred directly to Chrestien, may belong to a genuine Peredur _sage_.

The question then arises--was Robert de Borron a simple copyist, or is the legend in its present form due to him, _i.e._, did _he_ first join the Joseph of Arimathea and Grail legends, or had he a predecessor? Now the older Joseph legends know nothing of his wandering in company of a miraculous vessel, Zarncke having shown the lateness of the one commonly ascribed to William of Malmesbury. Nor is it likely Borron had before him a local French legend as Paulin Paris (Romania, vol. i.) had supposed; would he in that case have brought the Grail to England, and left Joseph's fate in uncertainty? The bringing the Grail to England is simply the logical consequence of his conception of the three Grail-keepers (the third of British blood), symbolising the Trinity, and of the relation of the Arthurian group to this central conception; where the third Grail-keeper and the third of the three wondrous tables were, there the Grail must also be. What then led Borron to connect the sacramental vessel with the Joseph legend? In answering this question the later miraculous properties of the Grail must be forgotten, and it must be remembered that with Borron it is only a vessel of "grace;" this is shown in the history of (Moys) the false disciple, which obviously follows in its details the account of the Last Supper, and of the detection of Judas by means of the dish into which Jesus dips a sop, bidding the betrayer take and eat.

Borron's first table being an exact copy of the Last Supper one, _his_ holy vessel has the property of that used by Christ. In so far Borron was led to his conception by the story as told in the canonical books; what help did he get from the Apocrypha? His mention of the Veronica legend and certain details in his presentment of Vespasian's vengeance on the Jews (_e.g._, his selling thirty for a penny) show him to have known the Vindicta Salvatoris, in which Joseph of Arimathea appears telling of his former captivity from which Christ Himself had delivered him. Thus Borron knew of Joseph's living when Vespasian came to Jerusalem. From the Gesta Pilati he had full information respecting the imprisonment of Joseph; he combined the accounts of these two apocryphal works, subst.i.tuting a simple visit of Christ to Joseph for the deliverance as told in the Gesta Pilati, and making Vespasian the deliverer, whereto he may have been urged by Suetonius' account of the freeing of _Josephus_ by Vespasian (Vesp. ch.

v.). But why should Joseph become the Grail-keeper? Because the fortunes of the vessel used by the Saviour symbolise those of the Saviour's body; as _that_ was present at the Last Supper, was brought to Pilate, handed over to Joseph, was buried, and after three days arose, so with the Grail.

Compare, too, Christ's words to Joseph (892, etc.) in which the symbolical connection of the laying in the grave and the ma.s.s is fully worked out.

Thus Joseph who laid Christ's body in the grave is the natural guardian of the symbol which commemorates that event, thus, too, the Grail is the natural centre point of all the symbolism of ma.s.s and sacrament, and thus the Grail found its place in the Joseph legend, ultimately becoming its most important feature. Need Perceval's question detain us? May it not be explained by the fact that as Joseph had to apply twice for Christ's body, so his representative, the Grail-seeker, had to apply twice for the symbol of Christ's body, the Grail? But it is, perhaps, best to consider the question and the Fisher King's weakness as inventions of Borron's, possibly derived from Breton sources, the ease with which the hero fulfils a task explained to him beforehand favouring such a view. Borron, it must be noticed, had no great inventive power; in the Joseph he is all right so long as he has the legend to follow; in the Merlin and the Perceval he clings with equal helplessness to the Breton sagas, confining himself to weaving clumsily the adventures of the Grail into the regular Arthur legend.

The question as to the authorship of the Grand St. Graal and the Queste, the latter so confidently attributed to W. Map, may now profitably be investigated. Map, who we know flourished 1143-1210 (see _supra_, p. 5), took part in all the political and social movements of his time. If we believe the testimony of the MSS. which ascribe to him the authorship of the following romances: (1) the Lancelot, in three parts; (2) the Queste; (3) the Mort Artur; (4) the Grand St. Graal, he would seem to have shown a literary activity quite incompatible with his busy life, when it is remembered how slow literary composition was in those days. Nor can it be reconciled with the words of Giraldus Cambrensis,[65] although Paulin Paris (Rom. i. 472) has attempted such a reconciliation by the theory that the words _dicere_ and _verba dare_ referred to composition in the vernacular, and that Map was opposing not his _oratorical_ to Gerald's _literary_ activity, but his _French_ to Gerald's _Latin_ works. Against this initial improbability and Gerald's positive testimony must be set, it is true, the witness of writers of the time and of the MSS. The most important is that of Helie de Borron in his prologue to Guiron le Courtois.[66] After telling how Luces de Gast was the first to translate from the Latin book into French, and he did part of the story of Tristan, he goes on: "Apries s'en entremist maistre Gautiers Map qui fu clers au roi Henry et devisa cil l'estoire de monseigneur Lancelot du Lac, que d'autre chose ne parla il mie gramment en son livre. Messiers Robers de Borron s'en entremist apres. Je Helis de Borron, par la priere monseigneur de Borron, et pour ce que compaignon d'armes fusmes longement, en commencai mon livre du Bret." Again in the epilogue to the Bret,[67] "Je croi bien touchier sor les livres que maistres Gautiers Maup fist, qui fit lou propre livre de monsoingnour Lancelot dou Lac; et des autres granz livres que messires Robert de Berron fit, voudrai-je prendre aucune flor de la matiere ... en tel meniere que li livres de monsoingnour Luces de Gant et de maistre Gautier Maapp et ciz de monsoingnour Robert de Berron qui est mes amis et mes paranz charnex s'acourderont au miens livres--et je qui sui appelex Helyes de Berron qui fui engendrez dou sanc des gentix paladins des Barres qui de tous tens ont ete commendeour et soingnor d'Outres en Romenie qui ores est appelee France." Now Helie cannot possibly belong to the reign of Henry II (+ 1189) as a.s.serted by Hucher (p. 59), as he speaks of Map in the past tense (_fu_ clers), and Map outlived Henry, moreover the mention of Romenie proves the pa.s.sage to have been written after the foundation of the Latin Empire in 1304. Helie's testimony is thus not that of an immediate contemporary, and it only shows that shortly after Map's death the Lancelot was ascribed to him. It is, moreover, in so far tainted, that he speaks with equal a.s.surance respecting the great Latin book which of course never existed; nor can we believe him when he says that he was the comrade of Robert de Borron, as this latter wrote before Chrestien, and must have been at least thirty years older than Helie, who in the Guiron (written about 1220) calls himself a young man. How is it with the testimony of the MSS.? Those of the Lancelot have unfortunately lost their colophon, owing to the Queste being almost invariably added; those of the Queste show as a rule a colophon such as the one quoted by Paulin Paris from the Bibl. Nat., MS.

6,963 (MSS. Franc II., p. 361): "Maistre Gautiers Map les estrait pour son livre faire dou Saint-Graal, pour l'amor del roy Henri son seignor, qui fist l'estore translater dou latin en francois." A similar statement occurs in a MS. of the Mort Artur (Bib. Nat. 6,782.). Both are equally credible. Now as the King can only be Henry II (+ 1189) and as the Queste preceded the Mort Artur it must be put about 1185, and Chrestien's Conte du Graal about 1180, an improbably early date when it is recollected that the Conte du Graal is Chrestien's last work. The form, too, of these colophons, expressed as they are in the third person, so different from the garrulous first person complacency with which Luces de Gast and Helie de Borron announce their authorship, excites the suspicion that we have here not the author's own statement, but that of a copyist following a traditional ascription. Whether or no Map wrote the Lancelot, it may safely be a.s.sumed that he did not write the Queste, or _a fortiori_ the Grand St. Graal. The tradition as to his authorship of these romances may have originated in Geoffrey's mention of the Gualterus archidiaconus Oxenfordensis, to whom he owed his MS. of the Historia Regum Britanniae. A similar instance of traditional ascription on the part of the copyist may be noted in the MSS. of the Grand St. Graal, the author of which is declared to be Robert de Borron. The ordinary formulae (quoted _supra_, p.

5) should be compared with Borron's own words in the Joseph (_supra_, p.

5) and the difference in form noted. What proves these pa.s.sages to be interpolations is that the author of the Grand St. Graal especially declares in his prologue that his name must remain a secret. The colophons in question are simply to be looked upon as taken over from the genuine ascription of Borron's poem, and there is no positive evidence as to the authorship of either the Queste or the Grand St. Graal; both works are probably French in origin, as is shown by the mention of Meaux in the Grand St. Graal. As for the date of Borron's poem, a _terminus ad quem_ is fixed by that of the Conte du Graal (1180); and as the poem is dedicated to Gautier of Montbeliard, who can hardly have been born before 1150, and who must have attained a certain age before he could become Robert's patron, it must fall between the years 1170 and 1190.

The results of the investigation may be summed up as follows: the origin of the Grail romances must be sought for in a Christian legend based partly upon the canonical, partly upon the uncanonical, writings. This Christian legend was woven into the Breton sagas by the author of the oldest Grail romance; the theories of Provencal Spanish, or Celtic origin are equally untenable, nor is there any need to countenance the fable of a Latin original. Chronologically, the versions arrange themselves thus:--

(1) Between 1170 and 1190 (probably about 1183) Robert de Borron wrote his trilogy: Joseph of Arimathea--Merlin--Perceval. Sources: Christian legend (Acta, Pilati, Descensus Christi, Vindicta Salvatoris) and Breton sagas (Brut?). Here the Grail is simply a vessel of grace.

(2) About 1189 Chrestien began his Conte du Graal, the main source of which was the third part of Borron's poem. Marvellous food properties attributed to the Grail; introduction of the bleeding lance, silver dish, and magic sword.

(3) Between 1190 and 1200 Gautier de Doulens continued Chrestien's poem. Main sources, third part of (1) and first part of same for Early History--introduction of broken sword.

(4) Between 1190 and 1200 (but after Gautier?) the Queste du St. Graal written as continuation to the Lancelot. Sources (1) and (2) (for lance) and perhaps (3). New personages, Mordrain, Nascien, etc., introduced into Early History.

(5) Before 1204 Grand St. Graal written, mainly resting upon (4) but with use also of first part of (1).

(6) Between 1214 and 1220. Manessier's continuation of the Conte du Graal. For the Early History (5) made use of.

(7) Before 1225 Gerbert of Montreuil's additions to Manessier. Both (4) and (5) used.

(8) About 1225 Perceval li Gallois; compiled from all the previous versions.[68]

That part of Birch-Hirschfeld's theory which excited the most attention in Germany bore upon the relationship of Wolfram to Chrestien (see _infra_, Appendix A). In other respects his theory won very general acceptance. The commendatory notices were, however, of a slight character, and no new facts were adduced in support of his thesis. One opponent, however, he found who did more than rest his opposition upon the view of Wolfram's relationship to Chrestien. This was E. Martin, who ("Zeitschrift fur d.

Alterthumskunde," 1878, pp. 84 etc.) traversed most of Birch-Hirschfeld's conclusions. Whilst accepting the priority of Queste over Grand St. Graal he did not see the necessity of fixing 1204 as a _terminus ad quem_ for the latter work as we now have it, as Helinandus' statement might have referred to an older version; if the Grand St. Graal could not be dated neither could the Queste. As for the Didot-Perceval there was nothing to prove that it was either Borron's work or the source of Chrestien and Gautier. Birch-Hirschfeld's arguments to show the interpolation of the lance pa.s.sages were unsound; it was highly improbable either that Chrestien should have used the Perceval as alleged, or that Borron, the purely religious writer of the Joseph, should have changed his style so entirely in the Perceval. Moreover, Birch-Hirschfeld made Borron dedicate a work to Gautier of Montbeliard before 1183 when the latter must have been quite a young man, nor was there any reason to discredit Helie de Borron's testimony that he and Robert had been companions in arms, a fact incredible had the one written forty years before the other. The work of Chrestien and his continuators must be looked upon as the oldest we had of the Grail cycle. It was likely that older versions had been lost. A Latin version might well have existed, forms such as Joseph de Barimaschie (_i.e._, ab Arimathea) pointed to it. Martin followed up this attack in his "Zur Gralsage, Untersuchungen," Strasburg, 1880. A first section is devoted to showing that Wolfram must have had other sources than Chrestien, and that in consequence such portions of his presentment as differ from Chrestien's must be taken into account in reconstructing the original form of the romance. The second and third sections deal with Heinrich von dem Turlin's "Die Crone," and with the earliest form of the tradition. Gawain's second visit to the Grail Castle, as told of by Heinrich (_supra_, p. 26) has features in common with the widely-spread traditions of aged men slumbering in caves or ruined castles, unable to die until the right word is uttered which breaks their spell. This conception differs from the one found in all the other versions inasmuch as in them the wonder-working question releases, not from unnaturally prolonged life, but from sore disease. Can a parallel be found in Celtic tradition to this sufferer awaiting deliverance? Does not Arthur, wounded well nigh to death by his nephew Modred, pa.s.s a charmed life in Avalon, whither Morgan la Fay carried him for his healing, and shall he not return thence to free his folk? The original conception is mythic--the summer G.o.d banished by the winter powers, but destined to come back again. The _sage_ of Arthur's waiting, often in some subterranean castle, is widely spread, two of the earliest notices (those of Gervasius of Tilbury, in the "Otia Imperialia," p. 12 of Liebrecht's edition, and of Caesarius of Heisterbach) connect it with Etna--the tradition had followed the Norman Conquerors of Sicily thither--and from Sicily it would seem to have penetrated to Germany, being first found in German tradition as told of Frederick II. Again Gerald (A.D. 1188) in the "Itinerarium Cambriae"

(Frankfort, 1603, p. 827, L. 48) tells of a mountain chain in the South-East of Wales: "quorum princ.i.p.alis Cadair Arthur dicitur i. Cathedra Arthuri, propter gemina promontorii cac.u.mina in cathedrae modum se praeferentia. Et quoniam in alto cathedra et in ardua sita est, summo et maximo Britonum Regi Arthuro vulgari nuncupatione est a.s.signata." The Eildon Hills may be noted in the same connection, "in which all the Arthurian chivalry await, in an enchanted sleep, the bugle blast of the adventurer who will call them at length to a new life" (Stuart Glennie, "Arthurian Localities," p. 60). If the Grail King is Arthur, the bleeding lance is evidently the weapon wherewith he was so sorely wounded. And the Grail? this is originally a symbol of plenty, of a joyous and bountiful life, hence of Avalon, that land of everlasting summer beyond the waves, wherein, as the Vita Merlini has it, they that visit Arthur find "planitiem omnibus deliciis plenam." Of those versions of the romance in which the Christian conception of the Grail is predominant, Robert de Borron's poem (composed about 1200) is the earliest, and in it, _maugre_ the Christianising of the story, the Celtic basis is apparent: the Grail host go a questing Avalonwards; the first keepers are Brons and Alain, purely Celtic names, the former of which may be compared with Bran; the empty seat calls to mind the _Eren stein_ in Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's Lanzelot, whereof (verse 5,178) _ist gesaget daz er den man niht vertruoc an dem was valsch oder haz_. Admitting the purely Christian origin of the Grail leads to this difficulty: the vessel in which Christ's blood was received was a bowl, not an open or flat dish like that used in commemoration of the Last Supper. Evidently the identification of the Grail with the Last Supper cup is the latest of a series of transformations. Nor can the Christian origin of the legend be held proved by the surname of Fisher given to the Grail-keeper. True, neither Chrestien nor Wolfram explains this surname, whilst in Borron's poem there is at least a fish caught. But if the fish had really the symbolic meaning ascribed to it would not a far greater stress be laid upon it? In any case this one point is insufficient to prove the priority of Borron, and it is simpler to believe that the surname of Fisher had in the original Celtic tradition a significance now lost. Birch-Hirschfeld's theory supposes, too, a development contrary to that observed elsewhere in mediaeval tradition. The invariable course is from the racial-heathen to the Christian legendary stage. Is it likely that in the twelfth century, a period of such highly developed mystic fancy, an originally Christian legend should lose its mystic character and become a subject for minstrels to exercise their fancy upon? In the earlier form of the romance there is an obvious contrast between the task laid upon the Grail quester and that laid upon Gawain at Castle Marvellous. The first has suffered change by its a.s.sociation with Christian legend; but the second, even in those versions influenced by the legend, has retained its primitive Celtic character. The trials which Gawain has to undergo may be compared with those imposed on him who seeks to penetrate into the underworld, as pictured in the Purgatorium S. Patricii, in the Visio Tnugdali, etc. This agrees well with the presentment of Castle Marvellous, an underworld realm where dwell four queens long since vanished from Arthur's court, and which, according to Chrestien (verse 9,388), Gawain, having once found, may no longer leave. One of these queens is Arthur's mother, whom a magician had carried off, a variant it would seem of the tradition which makes Arthur's father, Uther, win Igerne from her husband by Merlin's magic aid. Many other reminiscences of Celtic tradition may be found in the romances--Orgeleuse, whom Gawain finds sitting under a tree by a spring, is just such a water fairy as may be met with throughout the whole range of Celtic folk-lore, and differs profoundly from the Germanic conception of such beings.

W. Hertz, in his "Sage vom Parzival und dem Gral" (Breslau, 1882) following, in the main, Birch-Hirschfeld, lays stress upon the two elements, "_legend_" and "_sage_" out of which the romance cycle has sprung. He does not overlook many of the weak points in Birch-Hirschfeld's theory, _e.g._, whilst fully accepting the fish caught by Bron as the symbol of Christ, he notices that the incident as found in Robert de Borron, whom he accepts as the first in date of the cycle writers, is not of such importance as to justify the stress laid upon the nickname "rich fisher," by all the _ex hypothesi_ later writers. The word "rich" must, he thinks, have originally referred to the abundant power of conversion of heathen vouchsafed to the Grail-keeper, but even Robert failed to grasp the full force of the allusion. Against Birch-Hirschfeld he maintains that the connection of Joseph with the conversion of Britain in all the versions shows that the legend must have a.s.sumed definite shape first on British soil, and he looks upon the separatist and anti-papal tendencies of the British Church as supplying the original impulse to such a legend.

The Grail belongs originally wholly to the "Legend;" only in the later versions and in Wolfram, owing to the latter's ignorance of its real nature, does it a.s.sume a magic and popular character. The lance, on the other hand, is partly derived from the Celtic _sage_. The boyhood of Perceval is a genuine folk-story, a great-fool tale, and had originally nothing to do with the Grail, as may plainly be seen by reference to the Thornton Sir Perceval, the most primitive form of the story remaining, the Mabinogi, and the modern Breton tale of Peronnik, deriving directly or indirectly from Chrestien. As for the question, although it presented much that seemed to refer it to folk-tradition, as for instance in Heinrich von dem Turlin's version, where Gawain's putting the question releases the lord of the castle and his retainers from the enchantment of life-in-death, yet the form of the question, "Je vos prie que vous me diez que l'en sert de cest vessel," shows its original connection with the Grail cultus, and necessitates its reference to the "Legend." Existing versions fail, however, to give any satisfactory account of the question.

It is a matter of conjecture whether in the earliest form of the legend (which Hertz a.s.sumes to have been lost) it was found in the same shape as in the Didot-Perceval.

Birch-Hirschfeld's theory has already been implicitly criticised in Chapter III. The considerations adduced therein, as well as Martin's criticisms and Hertz's admissions, preclude the necessity of examining it in further detail. Formally speaking, the theory rests upon the a.s.sumption that we have Borron's work substantially as he wrote it, an a.s.sumption which, as shown by the difference in _motif_ between the Metrical Joseph and the Didot-Perceval, is inaccurate. Again, the theory does not account for the silence of all the other versions respecting Brons and that special conception of the Grail found in Borron's poem. Nor does it offer any satisfactory explanation of the mysterious question which Birch-Hirschfeld can only conjecture to have been a meaningless invention, _eine harmlose Erfindung_, of Borron's. In fact, only such, portions of the cycle are exhaustively examined as admit of reference to the alleged originating idea, and a show of rigorous deduction is thus made, the emptiness of which becomes apparent when the entire legend, and not one portion only, is taken into account. Despite the learning and acuteness with which it is urged, Birch-Hirschfeld's theory must be rejected, if it were only because, as Martin points out, it postulates a development of the legend which is the very opposite of the normal one. We cannot admit that this vast body of romance sprang from a simple but lofty spiritual conception, the full significance of which, unperceived even by its author, was totally ignored, not only, were that possible, by Chrestien and his continuators, but by the theologising mystics who wrote the Grand St. Graal and the Queste--aye, and even by the latest and in some respects the most theologically minded of all the writers of the cycle, the author of the Prose Perceval le Gallois and Gerbert. We must say, with Otto Kupp (Zacher's Zeitschrift, XVII, 1, p. 68), "die jetzt versuchte christliche Motivierung ist ganz unglucklich geraten und kann in keiner Weise befriedigen."

The field is thus clear for an examination of the Quest with a view to determining whether the Grail really belongs to it or not. The first step is to see what relationship exists between the oldest form of the Quest and what have been called the non-Grail members of the cycle--_i.e._, the Mabinogi of Peredur ab Evrawc and the Thornton MS. Sir Perceval. As preliminary to this inquiry, an attempt must be made to determine more closely the relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal--whether it be wholly derived from the latter, or whether it may have preserved through other sources traces of a different form of the story than that found in Chrestien.[69]

CHAPTER V.

Relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal--The former not the source of the latter--Relationship of the Conte du Graal and the Mabinogi--Instances in which the Mabinogi has copied Chrestien--Examples of its independence--The incident of the blood drops in the snow--Differences between the two works--The machinery of the Mabinogi and the traces of it in the Conte du Graal--The stag-hunt--The Mabinogi and Manessier--The sources of the Conte du Graal and the relation of the various parts to a common original--Sir Perceval--Steinbach's theory--Objections to it--The counsels in the Conte du Graal--Wolfram and the Mabinogi--Absence of the Grail from the apparently oldest Celtic form.

In examining the relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal, the sequence of the incidents is of importance. This is shown in the subjoined table (where the numbers given are those of the incidents as summarized, chapter II), in which the Didot-Perceval sequence is taken as the standard.

--------------------------------------------------------------- DIDOT-PERCEVAL. | CHRESTIEN. | --------------------------------|-----------------------------| Inc. |Inc. | 2. Perceval sets forth in |11. Only after the reproaches| quest of the rich fisher. | of the loathly damsel | | does Perceval first set | | forth in quest of the | | Grail. | | | 3. Finds a damsel weeping over | 8. In so far as finding a | a knight. Adventure with | damsel weeping over a | dwarf and the Orgellos | dead knight, and (9) for | Delande. | overcoming the Orgellous | | de la Lande. | | | 4. Arrival at the Chessboard | ... ... ... ... | Castle. Adventure of the | | stag hunt and loss of the | | hound. | | | | 5. Meeting with sister; | ... ... ... ... | instruction concerning the | | Grail; vow to seek it. | | | | 6. Meeting with, confession |15. _After_ the Good Friday | to, and exhortation from | incident. | hermit uncle. | | | | 7. Disregard of uncle's | ... ... ... ... | exhortations (slaying a | | knight), through thinking | | of damsel of the | | Chessboard. | | | | 8. Meeting with Rosette and | ... ... ... ... | Le Beau Mauvais (the | | loathly damsel). | | | | 9. Adventure at the Ford with | ... ... ... ... | Urbains. | | | | 10. The two children in the | ... ... ... ... | tree. | | | | 11. First arrival at Grail | 7. ... ... ... ... | Castle. | | | | 12. Reproaches of the wayside | 8. In so far as in both the | damsel. | hero is reproached by a | | wayside damsel. | | | 13. Meeting with the damsel who | ... ... ... ... | had carried off the stag's | | head and hound, and second | | visit to Castle of the | | Chessboard. | | | | 14. Period (7 years) of despair |15. ... ... ... ... | ended by the Good Friday | | incident. | | | | 15. Tournament at Melianz de |13. But told of Gawain not | Lis. Merlin's reproaches. | of Perceval. | | | 16. Second arrival at Grail | ... ... ... ... | Castle Achievement of Quest.| | ---------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------- GAUTIER DE DOULENS.

--------------------------- Inc.

9. In so far as a damsel is foundlamenting over a knight.

7 and 8.

12.

12.