12. In so far as a knight is slain, but _before_ the meeting with the hermit.

11.

9. Ford Amorous; _entirely different adventure_.

20. _One_ child.

13 and 18. Many adventures being intercalated.

22.

The different sequence in the Didot-Perceval and Chrestien may be explained, as Birch-Hirschfeld explains it, by the freedom which Chrestien allowed himself in re-casting the work; but why should Gautier, who, _ex hypothesi_, simply took up from Chrestien's model such adventures as his predecessor had omitted, have acted in precisely the same way? If the theory were correct we should expect to find the non-Chrestien incidents of the Didot-Perceval brought together in at least fairly the same order in Gautier. A glance at the table shows that this is not the case. In one incident, moreover, the Didot-Perceval is obviously right and Gautier obviously wrong, namely, in his incident 12, where the slaying of the knight before the hero's meeting the hermit takes away all point from the incident. An absolutely decisive proof that that portion of the Conte du Graal which goes under Gautier's name (though it is by no means clear that all of it is of the same age or due to one man), cannot be based upon the Didot-Perceval as we now possess it, is afforded by the adventure of the Ford Amorous or Perillous, which in the two versions is quite dissimilar.

This incident stands out pre-eminent in the Didot-Perceval for its wild and fantastic character. It is a genuine Celtic _marchen_, with much of the weird charm still clinging to it that is the birthright of the Celtic folk-tale. It is inadmissible that Gautier could have subst.i.tuted for this fine incident the commonplace one which he gives.

If, then, it is out of the question that Gautier borrowed directly from the Didot-Perceval, how are the strong resemblances which exist in part between the two versions to be accounted for? Some of these resemblances have already been quoted (_supra_, p. 75), the remainder may be usefully brought together here.[70]

First arrival at the Castle of the Chessboard--

DIDOT-PERCEVAL. GAUTIER.

Li plus biaux chasteaux del monde Le bel castiel que je vos dis et vit le pont abeissie et la . . . . .

porte defferme (p. 439). Et vit si bieles les entrees Et les grans portes desfremees (22,395, etc.);

The damsel exhorts him not to throw the chessman into the water--

Votre cors est esmeuz a grant Car cou serait grans vilonie (22,503).

vilainie faire (p. 440).

Perceval having slain the stag, sees its head carried off--

Si vint une veille sor un palestoi Une puciele de malaire grant aleure et prist le brachet Vint cevaucant parmi la lande et s'en ala or tot (p. 442). Voit le braket, plus ne demande Par le coler d'orfrois le prist . . . . . .

Si s'en aloit grant aleure (22,604, etc.).

On Perceval threatening to take it away from her by force she answers--

Sire Chevalier, force n'est mie Force a faire n'est mie drois droit et force me poez bien Et force me poes vos faire (22,640).

faire (p. 443).

In the subsequent fight with the Knight of the Tomb, he, overcome--

Se torna vers le tonbel grant Que fuiant vait grant aleure aleure et li tombeaux s'enleva Vers l'arket et la sepouture contre moultet chevalier s'en Si est entres plus tost qu'il pot feri enz (p. 444). (22,723, etc.).

In the description of Rosette (the loathly damsel)--

Ele avoit le col et les mains plus Le col avoit plus noir que fer noires et le vier, que fer... (25,409).

(p. 453).

When the loathly damsel and her knight come to Arthur's court, Kay jests as follows:--

Lors pria (_i.e._, Kay) le chevalier Biaus sire, par la foi que il devoit, le roi, Dites moi, si Dex le vos mire, qui li deist ou il l'avoit prise et Si plus en a en vostre terre, si en porroit une autre tele avoir, Une autele en iroie querre si il l'aloit querre (p. 457). Si jou le quidoie trover (25,691 etc.).

These similarities are too great to be accidental. It will be noticed, however, that they bear chiefly upon two adventures: that of the chessboard and stag hunt, and that of the loathly maiden. As to the latter, it is only necessary to allude to Birch-Hirschfeld's idea that Rosette is the original of the damsel who reproaches Perceval before the court with his conduct at the Grail Castle, a theory to state which is to refute it. The former adventure will be closely examined in the following section. There is no need to suppose direct borrowing on the part of one or the other versions to account for the parallel in these two incidents; a common original closely followed at times by both would meet the requirements of the case. It is difficult to admit that the author of the Didot-Perceval used Gautier's continuation and not Chrestien's original, especially when the following fact, strangely overlooked by both Birch-Hirschfeld and Hucher, is taken into account: Perceval on his first arrival at the Grail Castle keeps silence (as will be seen by a reference to the summary, _supra_, p. 31), because, "li souvenoit du prodome qui li avoit deffandu que ne fust trop pallier," etc. As a matter of fact, the "prodome" had forbidden nothing of the sort, and this casual sentence is the first allusion to the motive upon which Chrestien lays so much stress as explaining his hero's mysterious conduct at the Grail Castle. Evidently the Didot-Perceval, which, to whoever considers it impartially, is an obvious abridgment and piecing together of material from different sources, found in one of its sources an episode corresponding to that of Gonemans in Chrestien. But its author, influenced probably by the Galahad version of the Quest, subst.i.tuted for the "childhood" opening of this hypothetical source the one now found in his version, and the Gonemans episode went with the remainder of that part of the story. When the hero comes to the Grail Castle, the author is puzzled; his hero knows beforehand what he has to do, sets out with the distinct purpose of doing it, and yet remains silent. To account for this silence the author uses the motive belonging to a discarded episode, but applies the words to his hermit, forgetting that he had put no such words into his mouth, and that, attributed to him, the injunction to keep silence became simply meaningless. Is the model treated in this way by the Didot-Perceval Chrestien's poem? Hardly, for this reason. After the Good Friday incident occurs the remarkable pa.s.sage, quoted (_supra_, p. 31), as to the silence of the _trouveres_ respecting it. Chrestien gives the incident in full, and the author of the Perceval could have had no reason for his stricture, or could not have ventured it had he been using Chrestien's work. Two hypotheses then remain; the unknown source may have been a version akin to that used by Chrestien and Gautier, or it may have been a summary abridgment of the Conte du Graal, in which, _inter alia_, the Good Friday incident was left out. In either case the presence of the pa.s.sage in the Perceval is equally hard of explanation; but the first hypothesis is favoured by the primitive character of the incident of the Ford Perillous, and several other features which will be touched upon in their place. The Didot-Perceval would thus be an attempt to provide an ending for Borron's poem by adapting to its central _donnee_ a version of the Perceval _sage_ akin to that which forms the groundwork of the Conte du Graal, its author being largely influenced by the Galahad form of the Quest as found in the _Queste_. If this view be correct, the testimony of Perceval (wherever not influenced by Borron's poem or the _Queste_) is of value in determining the original form of the story, the more so from the author's evident want of skill in piecing together his materials. It will, therefore, be used in the following section, which deals with the relationship of the Conte du Graal and the Mabinogi of Peredur ab Evrawc.

_Relationship of the Conte du Graal and the Mabinogi._--As was seen in Chapter IV, opinion began with Monsieur de Villemarque by accepting the Mabinogi as the direct source of the Conte du Graal, and has ended with Zarncke and Birch-Hirschfeld in looking upon it as a more or less direct copy. The most competent of living scholars in this matter, M. Gaston Paris, has expressed himself in favour of this opinion in his recent article on the Lancelot story (Romania, 1886).[71] Before dealing with the question as presented in this form, Simrock's view, differing as it does from that of all other investigators, deserves notice. He, too, looks upon the Mabinogi as derived from Chrestien, and yet bases his interpretation of the myth underlying the romance upon a feature, the bleeding head in the dish, found only in it. But if the Mabinogi have really preserved here the genuine form of the myth, it must represent an older version than Chrestien's, and if, on the other hand, Chrestien be its only source, the feature in question cannot belong to the earliest form of the story.

Simrock's theory stands then or falls in this respect by the view taken of the relationship between the two versions, and need not be discussed until that view has been stated.

To facilitate comparison, the incidents common to the two stories are tabulated as under, those of the Mabinogi being taken as the standard:--

MABINOGI. CONTE DU GRAAL.

Inc. Inc. _Chrestien._ 1. Encounter with the knights. 1.

2. Adventure with the damsel of 2.

the tent.

3. Avenging of the insult to 3 and 4.

Guinevere; incident of the dwarves; departure from Court.

5. Arrival at house of first uncle 5. Gonemans.

(found fishing); instruction in arms.

6. Arrival at house of second uncle 7. Uncle found fishing; (Grail Castle). First sight of talismans, Grail and lance.

the talismans (head in basin and lance).

7. Reproaches of foster-sister whom 8. Reproached by his cousin; also he finds lamenting over a dead instructed by her about the knight. magic sword.