“James Dou
ah et Ummm
wT I
| f j ii i ii ii ii W | |
Q1TO HARRASSOWITZ BUCHHANDLUNG NIA SLEIPZIG:
‘O)afellet-)mineyan
Digitized by Oc! @ UNIVERSITY OF-VIRG
Ol aleliatelmigelas
Digitized by O UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Helperia Erganzungsreihe: Schriften 3ur englifden Philologie herausgegeben von James W. Bright
Ergdnzungsreihe 9. Heft
The
Evolution of Arthurian Romance From the Beginnings
Down to the Year 1300 by
James Douglas Bruce, Ph. D.
Professor of English Language and Literature in the University of Tennessee.
Second Edition with a supplement by Alfons Hilka (Goettingen) Volume II
Gottingen Dandenhoed & Rupredt 1928 Baltimore: The Johns Hoptins Press
ized ty Google
Virginiana
PRINTED BY OMNITYPIE GES. NACHF. L. ZECHNALL | STUTTGART, GERMANY
The announcement of Professor Bruce’s death, five months ago, was a shocking surprise to his academic colleagues. He was widely known as a man of that well — poised physical vigor which warrants plans reaching far into the future; and Professor Bruce had eagerly entertained plans for a longer life than was to be his. The completion of the work now published brought to a close a period of a dozen years in which he almost exclusively devoted his study and research to the execution of _ the purpose he has briefly described in the preface to the first volume. He was attracted to this task by the conviction that by no less laborious undertaking could the complex history of the study of his chosen subject be surveyed and made available as a stimulating guide to future investigation and interpretation.
Professor Bruce was stricken, while in his class-room, on Wednesday, February the fourteenth, and remained unconscious until his death five days later, February the nineteenth. Of the work now published the proofs of the second volume had not been corrected, and the manuscript of the Index of Subject- Matter and Index of Critics, in unrevised form, remained to be extended to include the references to the second volume. What was thus left to be done was also attended by delays and com- plications in bringing together the material for the second volume as it was found in Professor Bruce’s library. This con- siderable task of seeing the second volume through the press has been almost entirely performed by Dr. Morris Edmund Speare. He has exercised the required technical skill, and especially shown on admirable devotion to the memory of a true scholar.
16. July, 1923. JAMES W. BRIGHT
Contents of Vol. IL Part III: The Prose Romances (concluded).
Chapters Page X. Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero . 1 1. The Didot-Perceval . .......2.. 1 2. The Perlesvaus . . ee a 8 XJ. Palamedes and other late Howianced ee ae eS & a c& ~2O 1. The Palamedes . . i.-w2 ke 4 “20
2. The Compilation of Rusticiano da Piga re ae
Go ogle
IV
Contents of Vol. II.
Chapters
XII.
V~.
3. Les Prophecies de Merlin 4. Le Chevalier du Papegau
. Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuanii .
. The Influence of the Prose Romances on subsequent Liter- ature a a ca a ae oe a a
Part IV: Discussions.
. Date of the Battle of Badon Hill (Mount Badon) . . Brutus, Eponymus of the Britons . . : Supplementary Observations on the Question: Were there
Arthurian romances before Chrétien? .
. The Mabinogian Controversy .
. The Sources of Chrétien’s Yvain
. Date of Chrétien’s Perceval ..
. The Elucidation and Bliocadrans-Prologue
. Miss Weston’s Gawain-Complex .
. The Didot-Perceval .. . Robert de Boron, his Origin, the date of his poem, and
its relation to the Didot-Perceval .
. The Theories of Brugger and Lot concerning the Origin
of the Vulgate Cycle .. The Relation of the Perlesvaus to the Vulgate Cycle
Part V: Analyses and Bibliographies.
. Narrative Lays: Analyses and Bibliography .
1. French Arthurian Romances in Verse .
. Portuguese and Spanish Versions of Arthurian Romances . Italian Versions of Arthurian Romances . ee x . German Versions of Arthurian Romances .
Dutch Versions of Arthurian Romances
Vl. Analysis of the Prose Vulgate Cycle
VIL.
1. L'Estoire del Saint Graal
2. Vulgate Merlin .
3. Lancelot ..
i La Queste del Saint Graal . La Mort Artu
A Sosa Bibliography of Arthurian ‘Critical Literature
Bibliography for Part I Bibliography for Part II . Bibliography for Part III
Index Of Critics Index of Subject-Matter
Supplement by A. Hilke
Chapter X.
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero.
Besides the Pseudo-Robert cycle, in which, just as in the Vulgate, Galahad is represented as the Grail hero, there are two other romances, also, posterior in date to the Vulgate cycle,’ in which Perceval is restored to his old place of preeminence, which Galahad had usurped. The romances in question are the so-called Didot-Perceval and the Perlesvaus.2_ Leaving for another section of this work’ the justification of the views here expressed in re- gard to the respective dates of these romances and their relations to the Vulgate cycle, we shall now proceed to outline, as far as seems necessary, the contents of these works.‘
1. The Didot=Perceval.
This brief romance’ commences where Robert’s Merlin left off — namely, just after Arthur's coronation as king of Logres
‘The opposing views of Miss Weston, Brugger, etc., on this subject will be discussed, Part IV, below.
* The first of these romances was, in a certain sense, cyclic, inasmuch as its author attached it to Robert’s Joseph and Merlin; the latter, in the opinion of the present writer, was not cyclic. Cp. Part IV, below.
* Cp. Part IV, below.
* A pretty full analysis of the Perlesvaus is necessary, to make comprehensible the subsequent discussion, Part IV, concerning its true place | in the evolution of the prose cycles.
* In my analysis I follow the Modena MS. text, as published by Miss Weston, Legend of Sir Perceval, 1, 9— 112 (London, 1909). The Queste proper ends, p. 84. The remainder is a Mort Arthur. — For a fuller discussion of the problems concerning the place of the Didot-Perceval in the evolution of the Arthurian romances, see Part IV, below.
Tefperia, Ergtinsungsreihe: 9. 1
2 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
(Britain). Merlin now appears on the scene and informs the barons that the new king is really the son of his predecessor, Uther Pen- dragon. They, in turn, recommend Merlin to Arthur as the pro- phet who was his father’s friend and the originator of the Round Table. Merlin predicts to Arthur that the latter will be the third king of Britain to become, also, king of France and emperor of Rome,’ but declares that he (Arthur) must first render the Round Table glorious. The sage, then, tells briefly the history of the Grail and its wanderings and how its keeper, the Rich Fisher King, now sick, is awaiting the coming of the Grail Knight. This knight 1s to be a knight of the Round Table, and he is to ask the question that will heal the sick king of his infirmities and put an end to the enchantments of Britain. Having thus delivered himself, Merlin goes off to Northumberland — to Blayse, who had been the confessor to his (Merlin’s) mother and who was accustomed to record Merlin’s sayings (p. 13).8
The fame of Arthur’s court reaches Alain le Gros, Perceval’ 8 father, and the latter wishes to send his son thither, but dies, before he can do so. After his father’s decease, however, Perce- val goes there on his own account. Arthur dubs him knight, and, inspired by love of Elaine, Gawain’s sister, he proves himself superior to all of Arthur’s other knights, in a great tournament at Pentecost. After this, he occupies the vacant seat? at the Round Table, whereupon a great cry is heard and darkness fills the hall. A voice, then, denounces Perceval’s hardihood, foretells sufferings for him and for his fellow-knights of the Round Table, because of this act, and avers that, but for the merits of his father and grandfather (Bron), he would have been cast down into the abyss,
* Sommer’s Vulgate Version, II, 88.
7 According to the Didot. MS. (Miss W. II, p. 1], note 1), the Sibyl and Solomon had already made this prediction about Arthur before Merlin.
* This motif, adopted from Robert's Merlin, is repeated more than once in the romance. Cp. pp. 68, 84, 85 and, in its Mort Arthur section, pp. 102, 111, 112.
* As he does this, the seat — which is of stone — splits (p. 21), but joins together Jater on, when he wins the Grail (p. 84).
C0 ogle
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 3
as a punishment therefor. The voice announces, too, the presence of the Grail in the land, and repeats what Merlin had already said in regard to the Grail Knight, the Rich Fisher King, and the enchantments of Britain. Perceval and the other knights now vow that they will go on a quest for the Grail, never staying two conse- cutive nights in the same place. Arthur and his barons grieve sorely at their departure (p. 22).
The writer narrates only Perceval’s adventures on this quest, and these, which, in the main, are mere variations of motifs furnished him by Chrétien’s Perceval and Wauchier’s continuation of that work,’° have, in reality, little to do with the Grail. During his wanderings, however, he returns to his father’s house and hears from his sister of their mother’s death (p. 38). Having learned his identity, his sister takes him for confession to their hermit-uncle (Alain’s brother), who has told her that God had pre-ordained Perceval to be the Grail Winner. The hermit con- firms what she had said and warns his nephew, as the scion of a holy family, against the killing of knights and against other sins. The very next day, however, Perceval, in defending his sister, is compelled to kill a knight (p. 43). After two victorious en- counters on the way,!! he is told the direction of the Grail castle by two naked children (each six years old), whom he found dis- porting themselves in the branches of a tree at the crossing of
1° For the correspondences in detail, cp. Part IV, below. At the commencement of the quest the adventures are 1. the episode (pp. 23 ff.) of Perceval’s combat with Orguelleus de le Lande — Knight of the Tent — taken from Chrétien. 2. the first part of the long complex of Perceval’s adventures (pp. 31 ff.) which began at the castle of the magical chessboard and of the girl who grants him her love on con- dition that he will bring her a certain stag’s head — taken from Wauchier. These imitations of the poets in question are typical of the rest. |
** In the second of these — the adventure of the Perilous Ford (pp. 50ff.), suggested by Wanuchier — we have the striking incident of the sorceress transforming herself and her maidens into birds and coming to the assistance of Perceval’s adversary, her lover. For parallels to this incident in the Welsh Dream of Rhonabwy and other Celtic sources, cp. Miss Weston, LI, 207 ft.
1%
Go ogle
4 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
four roads (pp. 55f.). Proceeding towards the.castle, he comes upon his grandfather (as it later turns out), the Rich Fisher (Bron), in a+boat with two men. Despite his grandfather's directions about the road to the castle, Perceval only finds it with much difficulty. Whilst they are at dinner, the Grail procession — a girl, with a cloth about her neck and carrying two small silver plates, a valet bearing a bleeding lance, and another valet holding aloft the Grail in his hands — pass twice through the room, but Perceval, from a variety of motives (fear of troubling his host, remembrance of his mother’s warnings not to ask too many ques- tions, and, lastly, fatigue), failed to ask the necessary question (p. 59). The next morning the castle is empty, and when Perce- val goes forth into the forest, he comes upon a weeping girl, who upbraids him for the failure just mentioned and his consequent responsibility for the Grail king’s continued infirmity, but tells him that this is the castle of his grandfather, the Fisher King,'* and that he must return there for another trial. Perceval, how- ever, is unable to discover the Grail castle again. During the seven years of his continued wanderings that now follow, his ad- ventures are altogether secular in character, save that we have the motif repeated from Chrétien of his neglect of religion, his meeting with the penitents, the rebuke which he received from them for riding armed on Good Friday, and his subsequent confession to his hermit-uncle (p. 68). From this uncle, besides, he learns of his sister's death. After other adventures, he comes upon Merlin, who reproaches him for violating his vows in regard to the quest and puts him on the road to the Grail castle (p. 81). Perceval reaches this castle the same day and the Grail procession again passes through the hall, but this time he asks the fateful question and his grandfather, Bron, the Fisher King, is healed. After imparting to Perceval the secrets of the Grail which Christ had taught Joseph in prison, Bron places the vessel in his nephew’s hands and passes away. The enchantments of Britain now cease
and henceforth Perceval is the Grail king.
** All this is, of course, drawn from Chrétien.
Go ogle
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 5
The insignificant Mort Arthur which follows immediately upon this Perceval-Quest differs so little from the account of the last phase of Arthur’s career which we find in Wace!® that any further analysis of it seems unnecessary. The most striking de- parture from the Geoffreyan tradition which tne narrative offers is in placing the scene of Arthur’s last battle on an island'* near
‘® On this subject cp. F. Lot, Bibliotheque del’ Ecole des Chartes, LXX, 568 (1909) and Bruce, RR, IV, 448ff., including notes (1913).
4 Such seems to be the meaning of the passage, Miss Weston, II, 1, not Ireland. That the king of this isle should be a Saxon is not surprising; for Sazon (Saisne), as is well-known, was used as a general term in the mediaeval romances for “heathen”. The heathen of a somewhat later time, — viz. the Scandinavian vikings — did spread themselves all over these Western isles.
In Romama, XLV 16ff., F. Lot contends that this departure from the Geoffreyan tradition is due to a misunderstanding of Geoffrey's Vita Merlini, 1. 1115, where, after Mordred’s usurpation, Arthur is represented as returning to Britain and driving his nephew trans aequora diffugientem. Lot interprets aequora as referring to the river, Cambula, (Geoffrey, Book XI, ch. 2.), on which Arthur fought his last battle with Mordred. But, in the opinion of the present writer, there is no need of putting this (to say the least of it) unusual construction on the word, for in the context aequora can well mean the seas that lie between Britain and Germany. In Geoffrey's Historia (Book XI, ch. 1.), Mordred had sent Cheldric to Germany to gather together Saxon troops; in the Vita Merlini, he goes there, himself, for this purpose. The lines, 1112ff., of the Vita with which we are most immediately concerned are the following:
Ast ut fama mali tanti sibi venit ad aures
Distulit [Arthur] hanc belli curam patriamque revertens Applicuit multis cum milibus atque nepotem
Obpugnans pepulit trans aequora diffugientem.
Tlic collectis vir plenus proditione
Undique Saxonibus, coepit committere pugnam
Cum duce, set cecidit, deceptus gente prophana
In qua confisus tantos inceperat actus.
The true reason, then, we believe, for the change was the one stated in the text above. Lot, indeed, Lancelot, p. 195. note 1, already recognizes this. Possibly, too, the vague description in Robert’s " Joseph, ll. 3122, of the lands adjacent to Avalon (Avaron) may have had some influence with the author in this passage, as in the beginning of his
6 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
Ireland, instead of in Britain — probably, for the reason that the author wished to bring this scene nearer to the supposed site of Avalon (in the Western seas), whither the wounded Arthur was to be borne after the battle.
The Didot-Perceval was undeniably composed as a continua- tion of Robert de Boron’s Joseph-Merlin, and several distinguished Arthurian scholars have even regarded it as simply a prose ren- dering of a lost work of that writer’s,'* although no such claim is made for it in the two extant MSS. of the romance. Certain con- flicting conceptions, however, between its narrative and that of Robert’s genuine compositions prove that the assumption is un- warranted — e. g. 1. In Robert’s Merlin it is said that the knight who was to fill the vacant seat at the Round Table must first have filled the vacant seat at the Grail Table. But the order of things here indicated is exactly reversed in the Didot-Perceval. 2. In Robert the Grail Table and the Round Table are kept clearly apart; in the Didot-Perceval they are confused. 3. In the Didot- Perceval, owing to the influence of Chrétien’s continuators, the
romance, p. 12, where the Fisher King’s habitation is placed “en ces illes d'Irlande’. Altogether, we see no necessity of assuming with Lot, Romania, loc. cit., that the Vita Merlini was a source of the Mort Arthur section of the Didot-Perceval, unless we assume, also, that Morgan's attendance on Arthur in Avalon was an invention, pure and simple, of Geoffrey in this poem. But that is not probable. Cp. Vol. I, 79f. note, above. Contrary to Lot, Lancelot, p. 195, note 1, we believe that the location of the Fisher King's dwelling, just mentioned, was suggested rather by Robert than by the Vita Merlin.
** About the end of this Mort Arthur (p. 111), it is said that Arthur told the Britons that he would return — hence they waited forty years for him, before they elected a new king. Then the author adds: “Mais tant sacies vous que li auquant l'ont puis veu es fores cacier, et ont oi ses chiens avuec lui, et li auquant i ont eu esperance lonc tans qu'il revenist’’.
It will be seen from this last sentence that here, as elsewhere, the departed king has usurped the place of the Wild Huntsman in the famous storm-myth. On Arthur in this réle, in general, see J.D. Bruce, RR, HI, 191ff., and Archer Taylor, “Arthur and the Wild Hunt”, ibid., XII, 286ff. (1921).
** Cp. Part IV.
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 7
Grail is more imposing than in Robert.!* 4. Doubtless, under this same influence and under that of Chrétien, himself, the lance, which was wanting in Robert, appears in the Grail procession.'®
More telling, however, than even these inconsistencies is the difference of style. For the present romance, as stated above, is, in incident and outlook, like its chief sources, Chrétien and Wauchier, romantic, and, for the most part, secular, whereas Robert’s sober genius, to judge from his undisputed works, keeps within the bounds of Christian legend (in the Joseph) and pseudo- history (in the Merlin). Altogether, the Didot-Perceval is an unoriginal composition, in respect to both style and contents. As far as the latter are concerned, they are drawn, in the main, as we have seen, from Chrétien and Wauchier, although varied, nat- urally, in the re-telling. It is, accordingly, not the intrinsic merit of the romance that has made it the centre of so much discussion, but the place which it has filled in the theories of certain scho- lars concerning the evolution of the prose romances.'® There is, really, no valid reason, however, for viewing it as the archetype, so to speak, from which the Queste and Mort Arthur branches of the great Vulgate cycle developed. It is rather an independent romancer’s completion of the prose Robert,* and, in its brevity, it conforms to the latter.
*7 Cp. pp. 59, 82. ** Ibid.
** Cp. Part IV, for a full discussion of these matters. The motives which have led the scholars in question to give the romance this relatively early dating are, 1. their identification of it with the con- tinuation of Robert’s work which, as appears from the latter part of the Joseph, he was planning at the time that he wrote that poem. 2. their reluctance to acknowledge that Perceval could again become the Grail Winner, after having been once superseded by Galahad. On this subject, however, see Part IV. ?
*° In the Didot-Perceval, Alain (Perceval’s father) is always called Alains li Gros. Cp. pp. 12, 14, 17, 40f., 69, 82. This is an indication that its author used the (secondary) prose version of Robert, not the original metrical version, for the epithet, lt Gros, is attached to the name only in the former.
Lot’s discussion, Lancelot, pp. 183ff., implies that the Mort Arthur of the Didot-Perceval must have been composed before the
8 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
2. The Perlesvaus.
The story opens*! in Arthur’s palace at Carduel on Ascension Day, when the king discovers Guinevere in tears and learns, on inquiry, that her distress is caused by the decline in the splendor of the royal court. Formerly, on festival days, the knights that assembled there could hardly be numbered. Now they were shame- fully few and adventures seemed a thing of the past. Arthur acknowledges that he is to blame for the decline, since he has
battle of Bouvines — Aug. 27, 1214 — since the French play such a submissive part in it. But the writers of the time recognized that Arthur's continental conquests belonged to a world of the imagination and not of reality, so that our author may have very well followed the Geoffreyan tradition in these episodes, without feeling that patriotic susceptibilities were involved in the matter.
Evidence is wanting to determine even the relative date of the présént romance, but I see no obstacle to regarding it as subsequent to the Vulgate cycle, and belonging, say, to the third decade of the thirteenth century. An old line of tradition, as I have often had occasion to remark, frequently persists by the side of one of later origin, so that the absence of any certain influence on the romance from the Vulgate does not necessarily possess any significance. The prominence given to Lancelot, pp. 15ff., may, after all, be due to the influence of the prose Lancelot. See further on this subject Part IV, below.
*' Up to the present time there has been but one edition of the
- Perlesvaus, viz. C. Potvin's, in Vol. I (Mons, 1866) of his Perceval
le Gallows ou le Conte du Graal. Another, however, is being prepared by W.A. Nitze and others, including J. T. Lister, who has already published, on his own account, the opening section of the text with an introduction — in the form of a University of Chicago dissertation, Perles- vaus, Hatton Manuscript 82, Branch 1 (Menasha, Wisconsin, 1921). For descriptions of the Perlesvaus MSS. see E. Wechssler, ‘‘Handschriften des Perlesvaus’, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XX, 80ff. (1896) and the dissertations of Nitze and Lister. In the last-named the earlier literature of the subject is given. For errors in H. O. Sommer's article, “An unknown MS. and two early printed editions of the Prose-Perceval”, MLN, XXI, 225f. (1906) see Nitze, “Dr. Sommer’s alleged discovery of a new MS.”, op. cit. XXII, 27 (1907) and Sommer's “A note on the Prose- Perceval’, ibtd. pp. 94f. On the early prints (Paris) of 1516 and 1523, cp. Nitze, loc. cit.
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Gratl Hero 9
lost the spirit of largesse and has fallen into ‘‘a feebleness of heart.” On his wife’s advice, he decides to go to a chapel of St. Austin (Augustine) in the forest and pray to God that he may be reformed. Accordingly, he bids Chaus, a young man at court, the son of Yvain the Bastard, prepare to accompany him thither in the morning. That night, however, Chaus dreams that the king has already gone ahead of him and that, in hurrying to overtake him, he (Chaus) comes upon a chapel in a cemetery, dismounts, enters it, and finds therein the dead body of a knight covered with a rich cloth and surrounded by burning candles. The intruder carries off one of the golden candlesticks, but encounters in the forest a hideous, black man, of giant stature, who challenges him to surrender the stolen article. He refuses, and, intending to deliver it, instead, to Arthur, endeavors to outspeed the chal- lenger. He fails, however, and his enemy thrusts a knife into his side. At this point the young man awakens, and calls out that he has been slain. He tells the king his dream and, on examination, it is discovered that he has really received a mortal wound from a knife that is still sticking in his side, and, sure enough, when this knife is drawn out, the wounded man expires. At his father’s request the golden candlestick is presented to St. Paul’s church in London, in order that prayers might be said there for the dead man’s soul.
Warned by this marvellous incident, Arthur makes his jour- ney to St. Austin’s chapel, alone, but on the way thither he has an experience which illustrates the wonder-working power of Our Lady: In the chapel of a hermitage where he has turned in for the night, he over-hears a strife between angels and devils con- cerning the soul of the hermit, who, after forty years of a robber’s life and five years of repentance and penance therefor had died that night. The devils argued, plausibly, that the forty years of crime outweighed the few years of atonement, but Our Lady intervened, and, declaring that the decision in such cases depended on the character of the man’s life at the time of his decease, drove the fiends away. Similarly, when the king arrives at St. Austin’s, he sees the Christ-child and hie mother assisting the hermit of
10 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
the chapel in the celebration of the mass. Then, when the hermit is about to perform the sacramental rite, Our Lady places her son in his hands and the child becomes the bleeding Christ of the crucifixion, although later he resumes his former shape. ‘During all this scene in St. Austin’s chapel, Arthur is not permitted to cross the threshold, because of the sin of his recent decline in chivalry, as he learns from the hermit. He promises amendment, however, and learns from the holy man of the mis- fortunes which Perceval has latterly brought upon the land of the Fisher King by his failure to ask the questions concerning the Grail — what purpose it served and whence it came. Among other adventures, too long to recount here, which he has on his return to Carduel, Arthur again meets a girl who had directed him to St. Austin’s chapel and she relates to him the story of Perceval’s youth up to the time that he was knighted by Arthur.®?
** His father’s name, as given here by Perceval’s sister, is “Vilein le gros des vaus de Kamaaloth’, according to Potvin’s text (p. 19), which is based on the Brussels MS., but the form, Vilein, which occurs frequently in this text (pp. 139. 142, 145, et passim). is certainly a mere corruption of Alen. Another frequent corruption of the name in Potvin's text is Julien, pp. 3 et passim.
Perceval’s mother is Ygloas, (Yglai, Iglais): Cp. pp. 2f. In this text, moreover, the hero's own name is generally Percevax or Perceval (cp. pp. 105, 106, 181, 302, etc.), but sometimes Perlesvax (Perlevaz,) Perllesvax or Pellesvaus. Cp. respectively, for the latter pp. 19, 87 and 43, 56. The romance is entitled Pellesvaus in the explicit at the end. Perceval’s sister explains to Arthur the origin of the name, Perlesvazx, as follows (p. 19): “Sire, fet-ele, quant il fu nez, si demanda (on) son pere commant il: auroit non an droit bautesme. Et il dist qu'il vouloit qu'il eust non Perlesvax; quar li sires de Mores li toloit la greignor partie des vaus de Kamaaloth, si voloit qu'il an souvenist son fil par cel non, se Diex le monteploiot, tant qu'il fust chevaliers’’. Cp. too, p. 181.
Furthermore, Perceval is called Par-/ui by his. valet (p. 61) and Par-lui-fez (fet) by his hermit uncle pp. 87, 105. The first is pro- bably a mere MS. error for the second, which means’ “self-made”, — por ce qu'il c’estoit fet par lui memes (p. 105). — for Perceval had ho regular training in knight hood. P. 87, however, his sister declares that his true name is Perllesvax, not Par-lut-fez. Par-lui-fez is
Go ogle
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 11
She begs the king, moreover, to apprise Perceval, should he meet him, of the straits to which their mother has been reduced by the | King of the Moors and the brother of the Red Knight whom Perceval has slain. Arthur goes on his way, but before he reaches his destination, a voice proclaims to him in the depths of the forest (p. 22) that he must hold court as soon as possible; for the world which had deteriorated through his fault, is about to take a turn for the better. ©
As a result of his late miraculous experiences, Arthur under- goes now a thorough change of heart. His love of honor and of largesse return to him in full measure, and, obeying the in- junction of the voice, he appoints the next meeting of his court for St. John’s Day at “Pannenoisance qui siet sor la mer de Gales’ (p. 24) — doubtless, Penzance, on the English Channel. The barons and knights assemble in great numbers and the new era of Arthur's glory opens with a greater adventure than his court had ever known before — namely, the adventure of the Grail. It commences in the following manner (pp. 24ff.):
Whilst the king and his retinue were seated at the table and only the first course had been served, there rode into the hall a damsel on a white mule. It turned out that this damsel was bald — only she concealed her baldness with a chaplet — having lost her hair because of Perceval’s neglect to ask the questions touching the Grail, and that she would not recover her tresses until the Grail Winner should come to the Fisher King’s castle. A second: damsel, who accompanied her, carried on horseback a _ brachet (hound) and a richly bejewelled shield, which was striped with silver and azure bands and bore also a red cross. Still a . third damsel, the most beautiful of all, was on foot and was con- stantly urging on the mounts of her companions with a whip. As is later disclosed, the shield is that of Joseph of Arimathea, and, in compliance with the dameel’s directions, it is attached to a column im the hall, where it is to await the coming of the Grail Winner. The dog, too, is to remain in Arthur’s castle;
shortened, p. 63, to Parfez by the uncle, who declares here already that Perceval is self-made.
Go ogle
12 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
it will never show signs of joy until the Grail Winner arrives. The bald damsel now delivers to Arthur the greetings of the Fisher King and explains to him, also, how Perceval’s failure to ask the questions had caused the illness of that mysterious monarch and plunged his dominions in strife. Still further she calls Ar- thur’s attention to a strange wagon outside, drawn by three white stags, on which there lay the heads of one hundred and fifty knights, some sealed in gold, some in silver and some in lead.*$ These men had all been slain in consequence of Perceval’s failure (p. 27).
Having concluded their mission, the three damsels, followed by the strange wagon, disappeared into the forest. Here, how- ever, they soon meet Gawain (p. 30), whose steed and equipment were in wretched condition from his long wanderings and numerous combats. He, too, is on his way to the Fisher King’s country, and he grants the request of the bald damsel when she prays him to act as their escort until they have passed the Black Hermit’s castle. Gawain is touched by the sufferings of the damsel on foot and when he hears that these sufferings and other afflic- tions of the land would end, if he should ask the fateful questions and thereby undo the spell which rests on the land, he resolves to undertake the adventure. |
Space fails us to recount the exploits and experiences of Gawain on his journey to the Grail castle, in the company of the damsels and, afterwards, alone. Some of these episodes have no real connection with the Grail story. Of those that do have such @ connection, the most important is the one (pp. 84ff.) which tells how Gawain obtained through the gratitude of the pagan king, Gurgalan,** the sword with which St. John was beheaded.
** Nitze points out, MPh., XVII, 161, note, that this is imitated from Revelation, VII, 3.
** The name is probably an alteration of Murgalan(t) — a common name for pagan kings in the chansons de geste. Kittredge, Arthur and Gorlagon (Harvard Studies and Notes tn Philology and Literature, VIII, pp. 203f., tries to identify it with Gorlagon, which he derives from the Welsh.
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 13
This sword (the Grail sword) bled every day at midday, since it was at that hour that St. John was executed. No one could enter the Grail castle without it (p. 86), says the Fisher King, when Gawain presents it to him.
On his arrival at the Grail castle, Gawain finds the Fisher King, as in Chrétien, reclining on a bed,.and his niece, Perceval’s sister, is, also, in the hall (pp. 86ff.). The king tells his visitor how his illness was due to Perceval’s omission in regard to the questions, and begs him not to commit the same mistake. Peroe- val’s sister, furthermore, thanks Gawain for the protection which he had recently afforded her mother against the assaults of the Lord of the Moors, but declares that this warfare is on the point of being renewed. Whilst they are at dinner, a girl bearing the Grail and another bearing the bleeding lance pass through the hall, two angels with candlesticks accompanying them. They dis- appear in a chapel, but soon return through the hall — only this time, it seemed to. Gawain that the number of both girls and angels had increased to three. Moreover, he thinks now that he sees a child in the Grail, who soon undergoes the same transfor- mation into the crucified Christ that Arthur had witnessed at St. Austin’s chapel. This grievous sight had the unfortunate effect of so touching Gawain’s heart that he forgot all about the questions — to such a degree, indeed, that when the Grail pro- cession has again disappeared in the chapel and dinner is over, he indulges in an inopportune game with the chessmen of the magic chessboard*® which he observes at the end of the room. After he had suffered two defeats at the hands of the automatic chessmen, a damsel enters the room and has the chessboard taken away, and he falls into a profound slumber, which lasts until mor-
———ee =
** For a discussion of this motif, which occurs in five other Arthurian romances, cp. especially, Bruce, RR, IX, 375f. (1918). Cp., also, Vulgate Merlin, Il, 246, taken from Lancelot, V, 149ff. The source of the present passage is, doubtless, Wauchier de Denain’s con- tinuation of Chrétien’s Perceval, ll. 22442ff. The insertion of the incident at the most solemn point in Gawain’s Grail quest is a proof of our author’s bad judgment. |
14 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
ning. He hears in the early morning the services that are held in the Grail chapel on account of the sword of St. John, which Gawain has brought to the Fisher King, but he is not allowed to enter this chapel, and a damsel reproaches him with his neg- lect to ask the unspelling questions. Still further, a voice bids all that are in the castle depart; the drawbridge, it declares, must now be raised on account of the king of the Chastel Mortel, through whom “the lion” (Fisher King) is to die (p. 90). Thus, like Perceval, Gawain has failed in his quest.
After Gawain’s quest of the Grail (pp. 30—90) follows that of Lancelot (pp. 91—132), which is even more futile. The tran- sition from the one to the other is formed by an incident in which Gawain comes to Lancelot’s rescue in an unequal combat of the latter against four knights. The narrative of Lancelot’s quest, however, contains an even larger proportion of matter that is ex- traneous to the main theme than is the case with Gawain’s quest. Lancelot finally reaches the Grail castle and is introduced there to the Fisher King (p. 130), who inquires of him about Perceval and informs him that they (Lancelot and himself) are relatives. Owing, however, to his sinful love for Guinevere, Lancelot is not privileged to behold the Grail (p. 132).
The two knights who were most highly prized in Arthur’s court having failed in the Grail quest, it is now the turn of the successful hero of this adventure to occupy the stage. Apart from allusions — particularly to his abortive first visit to the Grail
** Cp., for example, the episodes (pp. 109ff.) in which Clamados des Ombres and Melyot de Logres figure — also, the incident of Lancelot and the beheading game (p. 103), which is not concluded, however, until much later in the romance (p. 233). On this incident cp. G. L. Kittredge, Study of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, pp. 52ff. (Cambridge, Mass., and London 1916). Cp., too, the episode of the Castle of Beards (Ritho motif, Geoffrey's Historia, X, 3) pp. 97ff. In his “Spenser and Two Old French Grail Romances”, PMLA, XXVIII, 539/f. (1913), E. A. Hall maintains (wrongly, I believe) that Spenser used this episode of the Perlesvaus in his Faerie Queene, Book VI, Cantos 1—2.
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 15
castle? — Perceval had already figured in the story (pp. 105ff.) as suffering pangs of distress at the house of his hermit uncle (King Pelles) on account of his failure on that occasion and con- sequently confessing himself to his uncle, at the same time that he disclosed to him his identity. Then, on quitting Pelles’ her- mitage, he had fought an indecisive combat with his cousin, Lance- lot (pp. 106f.), neither recognizing the other at first.
After many adventures, including those that render evident Perceval’s identity with the long expected “Good Knight”, who is to undo the spell of the Grail castle, he learns from his sister (p. 178) that the Fisher King is dead and that their wicked uncle, the King of the Chastel Mortel, has seized the Grail castle. She has just been informed of this by a miraculous voice at the chapel of the Perilous Cemetery, and the news is afterwards confirmed by a message from King Pelles (p. 185). Perceval, however, first slays his mother’s oppressor, the Lord of the Moors (pp. 183f.), and achieves still other adventures,?® before he settles down in
*7 Pp. 26, 30, 80, 86. Important, too, is the description of Perceval, though he is left unnamed, p. 37: “Il a chief d’or, et regart de Lion, et nombril de virge pucele et cuer d’acier et cors ‘d’olifant, et tesches sans vileinnie.’’ With some slight difference this description is repeated, too, pp. 197f. It has been taken over from the Perlesvaus _into the Livre d’Artus of MS. 337 (Sommer, VII, 52). In the prose-
Lancelot, 11, 27, besides, an interpolator has applied it to Galahad. Cp. Bruce, RR, IX, 267 (1918). This adaptation of the Perlesvaus passage to Galahad is not surprising, for two Paris MSS. adapt the opening episodes of that romance to the Galahad Queste. Cp. Nitze’s dissertation, p. 7. : :
** Especially noteworthy are his deliverance (pp. 200ff.) of the Castle of the Golden Circlet (Cescle d’Or) from the Knight of the Burning Dragon and his conquest of the Copper Castle (pp. 202 ff.). The golden circlet is really Our Savior’s crown of thorns, which is awarded to Perceval as the prize of his victory. The Burning Dragon is the image of a dragon on its owner's shield, but this image emits real flames. The Copper Castle was an enchanted stronghold of evil spirits and its entrance was defended by two copper men with iron mallets. The author had a fondness for such automatic and other magical contrivances of a mechanical kind. For example, compare the two copper men who defend the entrance to the Fisher King’s land
Go ogle
16 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
earnest to the redemption of the Grail castle. Nevertheless, he finally besieges the place-and the King of. the Chastel Mortel, driven to despair by the slaughter of his knights, commits suicide (p. 215). The knights of the Fisher King now return to the castle — also, the priests and damsels that were there before their lord’s death.
After the recovery of the Grail castle, Perceval’s mission was fulfilled and our author should have taken example from the Queste and transported his hero at once to the New Jerusalem on the Ile Plenteureusse (p. 330). On the contrary, he now plunges afresh into a series of adventures — many of them pointless and wholly out of harmony with the spirit of a true romance of the Grail — the heroes of which are, in turn, Arthur, Gawain and Lancelot, and not merely Perceval. Especially prominent among such adventures is the episode of Brians des Illes’ intrigues — temporarily successful — to undermine Lancelot with Arthur (pp. 273ff.\. At last, however, the ship which was destined to bear Perceval away from human sight appears at the Grail castle, where his mother and sister had already died and were buried. He em- barked in this vessel and the writer avers (p. 347) that no earthly man knew after that what had become of him. Moreover, the Grail disappeared from its wonted place and was seen no more. Notwithstanding these declarations of our author, it is manifest that the voyage of both the Grail knight and the Grail, according to his conception, was to the mysterious isle which Perceval had visited before (pp. 328ff.). Its inhabitants were all of one age and clad in white garments, marked with red crosses, that are reminiscent of the Knights Templars. Thence, doubtless, they passed to the adjacent isle, the Ille Plenteureusse (Bounteous Isle), where the good were separated from the wicked. These islands constitute, it would seem, a sort of mystic abode for the Grail
(p. 64) and the turning castle invented by Virgil (pp. 197f.). There are still other automata, pp. 71—73. On turning castles see G. Huet, “Le Chasteau Tournant dans la suite du Merlin” Romania, XL, 235 ft. (1911), and on copper men, Bruce, “Human Automata in Classical Tradition and Mediaeval Romance”, MPh., X, 511ff. (1913).
Prose Romances in which Perceval 1s the Grail Hero 17
company *® — an ante-chamber, as it were, to the New Jerusalem — but even here it was possible to miss eternal joy and there was another isle reserved for the wicked who had been expelled from the Bounteous Isle and filled with weeping and lamentation as that was with bliss.
The Perlesvaus, like the Vulgate Queste, was evidently written by an ecclesiastic and is strongly ascetic in its tendencies. Love ~ is, accordingly, totally excluded from its pages. Owing to his abhorrence of adultery, the author, as we shall see, makes only brief allusions to the loves of Lancelot and Guinevere and rejects the whole traditional conclueion of the Arthurian story. It was, indeed, this abhorrence, no doubt, that caused him, in the first instance, to dethrone the newcomer, Galahad, the child of an adul- terous connection, and restore Perceval to his original plece — a Perceval, however, wholly chaste, as was not the case with Chré- tien’s hero — at least, in the earlier phases of his career.
Apart from the ascetic, we observe a specifically ecclesiastical bias in every part of this romance. Not only are the Grail and the objects pertaining thereto here thoroughly Christianized,®° but in the Grail chapel there are still other holy relics (p. 217), and the hermits of the forest hold regular mass there three times a week (p. 249), as they might have done in any other.church. Simi- larly the ideal island realm*! whither Perceval and the Grail are
**° Two white-haired old men, who greeted Perceval there on his first visit, show adoration on beholding Perceval’s shield and tell him (p. 328) that they knew its former owner g oseph of Arimathea) even before the crucifixion of Christ.
*° It is not definitely stated anywhere in the romance whether the Grail was identified with the cup or the dish of the Last Supper. Probably the author, himself, had formed no clear conception on .the subject. P.54, the Grail receives the blood that flowed from the lance; p. 88, Gawain sees the Christ child in the sacred vessel, and later (p. 89) the vessel seems to have turned into the crucified Savior. The lance is obviously the lance of the crucifixion, but the Grail sword is here the weapon with which St. John was beheaded (pp. 74f. 86, 217). Our Lord, it is said (pp. 216f.) loved the Grail chapel.
*? Heinzel, p. 172, has plausibly surmised that the conception of the isles and the monastery was suggested by the legend of St. Brendan.
Refperia, Exgdnsungsrethe: 9. 2
18 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
transferred at the end of the romance and where they are to abide henceforth (pp. 330, 347) is plainly a monastic state, although the realm is a spiritual one.
Furthermore, the hero of the romance is a propagator of the Christian faith (New Law), even at the point of the sword (p. 217), and Arthur and his knights exhibit an equal zeal in proselyti- * gation (p. 3).
On the other hand, the Perlesvaus differs from the Queste, inasmuch as a large proportion of the narrative is given up to epi- sodes that are purely secular in character and that have no real bearing upon the Grail quest. This is true especially of the portion that follows upon the death of the Fisher King (pp. 176f.) — that is to say, the second half of the romance. After that event there was no valid reason why the story of the quest should not have been concluded in relatively few pages with Perceval’s capture of the Grail castle, but so brief an entertainment would have, doubtless, disappointed the expectations of the author’s noble pa- trons, so that he is obliged to extend his narrative by imitating Chrétien and his continuators and adding to the Grail story, which he had really exhausted, a series of virtually disconnected episodes, many of which not only have no relation to the Grail, but no relation even to the hero, himself. Thus an analysis that limits itself to the Grail episodes of the Perlesvaise gives a false idea of the work. Nevertheless, the writer evidently intended his ro- mance as primarily a Grail romance, for not only is the quest of the sacred vessel incomparably the most important element in the work, but he begins it with the Grail and ends it with the Grail, and it is the current interest in this theme, obviously, that prompted him to the composition of his romance. Through the prominence which he gives to the Grail theme, he attains a com- parative unity of design that is wanting in Chrétien’s poem, as in the other Arthurian romances of the biographical type.
From the point of view of style, the Perlesvaus is inferior to the Queste, not only in sombre strength, but in unity of spirit and design. A large proportion of its adventures are, in essentials, repetitions of well-known motifs of the Arthurian romances. More-
Prose Romances in which Perceval is the Grail Hero 19
over, these adventures are not merely of a secular nature, and hence out of harmony with the deep myeticism of the central theme, as has just been remarked, but they are insipid in themselves and manifestly inserted simply to lengthen out the romance.
As a good illustration of the author’s want of judgment and of the low level on which his imagination moves, one might cite the conclusion which he has given to the Grail Quest; for the Fisher King — the mystical figure who is the guardian of the sacred vessel and whose health is bound up in so strange a manner with the fateful questions — perishes here in war like any ordi- nary monarch and the final achievement of the Grail adventure contains no mystical elements, but consists merely of the capture of a castle (the Grail castle) by force of arms — such an incident as occurs in scores of other episodes in Arthurian romance, as well as in the actual life of the age. The magical motsf seems hardly worth inventing, if this was to be the end of the adventure.
Even worse is the writer’s réjection of the time-honored tra- dition concerning the destruction of Arthur and his knights as the consequence of Guinevere’s adultery — one of the finest tragical themes in European literature. Probably, reprobating, as an ec- clesiastic, the interest which this conception had generally inspired and the dominant place which love had held in Arthurian tradition, the author sets it aside altogether and represents Guinevere as dying from grief whilst her consort’s glory is at its height — because of the murder of her son, Lohot, by Kay.*?
** Cp. Perlesvaus, pp. 169f., 219, 221f. For a discussion of Lohot in Arthurian romance (including the Perlesvaus passages) cp. Bruce, “Arthuriana’”, RR, III, 179ff. (1912), and (less fully) G. Huet, “Deux Personnages Arturiens”, Romania, XLII, 100ff. (1914). — For the sources of the Perlesvaus, in general. cp. Part IV, below.
Chapter XI. Palamedes and Other Late Romances.
1. The Palamedes' is an offshoot of the prose Tristan, and, in respect to date, it falls, apparentiy, between the composition of that romance in its original form, and the cyclic redaction of the same.* Owing to the insignificant réle which Palamedes plays in the work, as it has survived to us, Paulin Paris* was led to conjecture that the current title of the romance became attached to it through
* For the MSS. and early prints of this romance cp. Liseth, Le roman en prose de Tristan, pp. 433ff. and Le Tristan et le Pala- méde des manuscrits francais du British Museum, pp. 29ff. Of the MSS. twelve are in the Bibliothéque Nationale, three in the Arsenal Library (Paris) and two in the British Museum. Only two — MS. 350, Bibl. Nat. and Arsenal 3325 — go back to the thirteenth cen- tury. For the early prints of the two divisions of Palamedes see note 5, below. The work has not been printed since the sixteenth century, so that we are dependent for our knowledge of it on Léseth’s analysis in his Le roman en prose de Tristan, etc. pp. 436ff. For a briefer analysis cp. Dunlop-Wilson, I, 188ff., 233 ff.
* The character, Palamedes, is drawn from the Tristan. So, too, Meliadus and many others. The dependence of the romance on the original prose TJ’ristan, indeed, is not open to question, although, as G. Paris, Huth-Merlin, 1, pp. XXXVff., has shown, the epilogue found in certain MSS. of the latter, which attribute the authorship to Helie de Borron, is modelled after the prologue to Palamedes. This epilogue, however, was plainly of late origin. — Tristan influences in the Palamedes, as far as has been pointed out, are none of them derived from the cyclic version of the former.
* Manuscrits Francois de la Bibliothéque du Roi, Il, 351 (Paris, 1838). He, consequently, always calls the romance Guiron le Courtois, since Guiron is the most prominent character in the book, and many scholars have followed him. In its prologue, however, the work is expressly named Palamedes. Cp. Hucher, I, 159. —- Even the MSS. do not preserve to us the romance in its original form; the earlier prints give us merely a selection of episodes from the MSS.
Palamedes 21
some misunderstanding. Even if this conjecture, however, is cor- rect, the error is one of long standing, for in a letter of the year 1240, the German emperor, Frederick II, refers to it by that title. In any event, at an early date, the work was divided into two parts, known, respectively, as Meliadus de Leonnoys and Gutron le Courtois, which in the sixteenth century were printed as sepa- rate romances. The author of Palamedes is unknown, for the ascription to a pretended Helie, which occurs in the prologue, is, without doubt, fraudulent.¢
* In this letter, dated Feb. 5, the emperor thanks the Segreto of Messina for sending him a book that had formerly belonged to one Johannes Romanzorius. The passage which concerns us — quoted in Ward’s Catalogue, I, 366 — reads: “De LIV quaternis scriptis de libro Palamidis qui fuerunt quondam magistri Johannis Romanzori, quos nobis per notarium Symonem de Petramajore mictere te scripsisti, gratum ducimus et acceptum.”’
* Guiron le Courtois was published at Paris by A. Verard about 1501, Meliadus in 1528 by Galliot du Pre, and in 1532, by D. Janot. P. Rajna, Le Fonti dell’ Orlando Furioso*, p. 61, mentions two other editions of Guiron, one of them from about 1501, the other from 1529. |
In the 1528 edition of Meltadus the prologue described above, I, 486f., is attributed by the publisher to Rusticien de Pise, instead of to Helie de Borron. The substitution is due to the fact, no doubt, that this publisher found in his MS. the preamble of Rusticien’s com- pilation inserted at the beginning of Guwiron and inferred from this circumstance that the above-mentioned prologue was, in reality, by the Italian writer. On these matters see, especially, Liseth, p. 435.
* Cp. G. Paris, Huth- Merlin, 1, pp. XXXHIff. The prologue has been printed in full by Hucher, I, 156ff. Cp., too (more briefly), P. Paris, Manuscrits Frangois de la Bibliothéque du Roi, I, 346¢t. and Ward’s Catalogue, I, 365. On its relation to the 7ristan epilogue, cp. I, p. 486, note 9, above. For a variant form of this prologue in a Turin MS. cp. P. Rajna, Romania, IV, 264. As G. Paris, loc. ctt., note 3, remarks, the “Gasse li blons”, referred to in the prologue vaguely as a writer of Arthurian romance, is, doubtless, Wace (Guace), author of the Brut.
Rusticien de Pise has been frequently spoken of by scholars as the author of Palamedes (Guiron le Courtois). Cp., for example, Dunlop-Wilson, I, 188, 233, Griber, Grundriss, Band II, Abt. I, p. 1008, Golther, Tristan und Isolde, p. 130. But, as we have seen,
Go ogle
22 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
According to the romance, the father of Palamedes is «a Babylonian nobleman, named Esclabor, who, as part of a tri- bute, is sent to the imperial court at Rome and wins the good graces of the emperor there by saving his life, .but, in so doing, excites the jealous ill-will of certain courtiers. These same cour- tiers murder the emperor’s nephew and try to fix the blame of the affair on the Babylonian. After the real murderer, however, has been exposed and executed, Esclabor, with the emperor's con- sent, sails for Logres (Britain), disembarks in Northumberland, saves the life of Pellinor (Perceval’s father), king of that coun- try, and goes on to Camelot. This was not long after the coro- nation of Arthur. At this point we are regaled with the ad- ventures of Pharamont, King of Gaul, an enemy of Arthur’s, who comes to his court in disguise, displays his prowess there, and, although finally recognized, continues to be treated with the great- est courtesy. Furthermore, we are told here of the brilliant ex- ploits of Meliadus (who gives his name to the first division of the romance), King of Leonois and father of Tristan — especially, how he had repulsed Uterpendragon’s army, when it was besieging Pharamont. We learn here, likewise, of Meliadus’s rival, Le Che- valier Sans Peur — one of the chief characters in the book —
Palamedes was already in existence by 1240 and Rusticien merely incorporated the romance into his compilation. Cp. G. Paris, Manuel, p. 110, and Liseth, pp. 432ff. Rusticien, himself, wrote the 7’ravels of Marco Polo in 1298, so belonged to the next generation. In its preamble and epilogue — cp. Léseth, pp. 433, 472, respectively — his compilation is called Meliadus — but that is, no doubt, in con- sequence of an error, like the one which has caused Malory’s compi- lation to go under a name (Morte Darthur) that belongs properly to only a part of the whole.
Having regard to the date of the composition of Palamedes (Guiron le Courtois) — the second quarter of the thirteenth cen- tury — we should na‘urally identify with Henry HI, the “noble roi Henry d‘Engleterre’, who is referred to as the author's patron in the prologue to that romance (Hucher I, 156). The reference, however, is, doubtless, purely fictitious and imitated from the end of the Vulgate Queste or opening of the Vulgate Mort Artu, where the King Henry referred to is Henry II.
Go ogle
Palamedes 23
a knight from the border of Gaul and Little Britain, on whom Uterpendragon had bestowed the kingdom of Estrangorre. In- cidents of a supernatural character are entirely excluded from the first division of Palamedes — otherwise, however, the adventures are of the usual type. Especially prominent in this first division are the abductions of noble ladies. Thus Meliadus, who is a skil- ful poet and musician, like his more famous son, Tristan, woos the queen of Scotland in lays, carries on a clandestine love-affair with her at Arthur’s court and when the husband discovers her adultery and tries to take her back to Scotland, waylays them and bears her off to Leonois. In the war that follows this ab- duction, Arthur joins the enemies of Meliadus and the abductor was on the point of being made captive, when the hero of the second part of the romance, Guiron le Courtois, intervenes and saves the situation. After this the figure of Meliadus is secon- dary in the story. |
In this first part of Palamedes, it was, of course, the ro- mancer’s aim, in the manner which was general with the authors of the cyclic romances, to exploit the interest of his public in an older popular hero — Tristan — in favor of his own inventions, by making the central character in his work the father of that hero. The influence of the Tristan poems, whether directly or indirectly (through the Mort Artu), is, moreover, manifest in de- tail even in the meagre outline given above. Similarly, the author introduces into his narrative the fathers of other famous charac- ters of Arthurian romance — e. g., Lac (Ereo’s father), Pellinor (here, as in the prose Tristan, represented as Perceval’s father)? — or confers on older knights in his story names that had been al- ready rendered illustrious in romance by heroes of the next gene- ration — e. g. Perceval and Lamorat.®
In the creation of Guiron le Courtois,® the author of Pala-
* Cp. e. g. pp. 450, 444, respectively, e¢ passim.
* Cp. e. g. pp. 444, 448ff., respectively, et passim.
* Guiron enters the story at Liseth, p. 447. His name is pro- bably derived from the hero, Goron (Gurun, etc.), of the famous lay. Cp. Bédier’s edition of Thomas's 7ristan, I, 51 ff.
24 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
medes set himself the praiseworthy task of drawing a type of perfect fidelity in love and friendship. The hero demonstrates his perfection in the latter relation by the self-restraint which | he exhibits in his conduct towards the wife of his unworthy friend, Danain of Maloaut (Maloanc). When she has been consigned to his care by her husband, in the latter’s absence, he not only pro- tects her against the violence of an importunate lover (Lac), but, what was far more difficult, he was able to resist the temptations of his own and her passion and preserve his loyalty to his friend.’ It is true that he was on the point of succumbing, when an ac- cident drew his attention to the hilt of his sword and he read there the fortifying inscription: ‘‘Loyalty surpasses everything; falsity dishonors everything.’”’ Overcome with remorse at the thought of the act of disloyalty which he had been about to commit, he plunges his sword into his own bosom, but, fortunately, without fatal effects. At this juncture, Danain, having heard a false report concerning the relations of his friend and his wife, returns. Guiron avows his part in the affair, whilst suppressing that of the lady, and so receives the husband’s pardon. Unaffected, however, by this example of loyal friendship Danain does not scruple some time later to carry off Bloie, Guiron’s lady-love. In rescuing her, Guiron again gives a proof of his generosity by dismissing his false friend unharmed — a favor which the latter subsequently requites in a more honorable fashion than might have been ex- pected by delivering the former as well as Bloie from an enemy.
Guiron, on his father’s side, was a descendant of Clovis, King of Gaul, through Febus, a famous warrior, who abandoned the throne of that country to pursue the life of a knight-errant. On his mother’s side, he belonged to the Grail family. The scene in the cavern of the aged anchorites — Guiron’s grandfather, father, and cousin (once king of Gaunes) — where these revelations con- cerning the hero’s ancestry are made to Brehus sans Pitie is one of the most striking in the book and serves to connect the hero with the most hallowed traditions of Arthurian romance.
*° Pp. 4496.
Palamedes 25
Dunlop has spoken of the earlier part of Guiron le Courtois as ‘‘perhaps the finest of all the old fabulous histories of Britain.” Certainly, it was one of the most popular of the Arthurian ro- mances, being exceeded in this respect, if at all, only by the Trestan and Lancelot. Like these romances, it supplied materials to the genius of Boiardo'! and Ariosto'!® in the age of the Renaissance. Indeed, it was Ariosto’s favorite among all the Arthurian ro- - mances.!8§ Still further, it furnished the basis for a poem'* by another Italian poet of the same period, Luigi Alamanni, which was undertaken at the request of Francis I, King of France, Even as late as the eighteenth century this expression of the ideals of a society that had vanished centuries before still had the power to captivate the fancy of Wieland and inspire him to one of the most charming narrative efforts'® of the Romantic Revival in Ger- many.'¢ .
‘! All the chief Old French Arthurian romances in prose were accessible at the library of the princes of Este in Ferrara in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For the fifteenth century catalogues of this library cp. Giulio Bertoni’s Nuovi Studi su Matteo Maria Boiardo, ch. VII (Bologna, 1904), and for the indebtedness of Boiardo’s LD’ Orlando Innamorato to Palamedes (Guiron le Courtots) see ibid., ch. VII.
** Cp. the Index to Pio Rajna’s Le Fonti dell’ Orlando Furioso* (Firenze, 1900) under Palamedes.
* Cp. Rajna, pp. 60ff. First came Palamedes, next Tristan, thirdly, longo intervallo, Lancelot.
* Gyrone il Cortese (1548). The author followed almost sla- vishly the 1501 print (A. Verard). For everything pertaining to this poem cp. H. Hauvette, Luigi Alamannt, pp. 319ff. (Paris, 1903). For two early Italian prose translations of Gutrun le Courtots ep. Rajna, p. 62. Only one has been printed (Firenze, 1855, edited by F. Tassi). Melsadus was, also, translated into Italian prose and published at Venice, 1558—1560.
** Geron der Adelige (1777), based on the version of the Old French romance as given in Comte de Tressan’s Bibliothéque Uni- verselle des Romans (1775—89).
- *© Another offshoot of the prose Tristan, which, since it was composed in the fourteenth century, falls outside of the limit of the present work is Isaie (Ysaye) le Triste. On the date of the romance,
26 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
2. The Compilation of Rusticiano da Pisa.
The bulk of this vast compilation,’ in the fragmentary form in which it has come down to us, is made up, in a large measure, of the Palamedes, so that, as has already been stated above,}® through misunderstandings, the compilation has appropriated to itself even in the MSS. the name — Melsadus — of the first division of that romance, and, vice versa, the Palamedes has been often ascribed to the author of the compilation.
According to its preamble'® the work was compiled by Rusti- cien de Pise (Rusticiano da Pisa) — designated here, also, “‘le maistre’” — who “translated” it from a book of “my lord, Ed- ward, King of England, at the time that he [ Edward I] went overseas in the service of our Lord God to conquer the Holy Se- pulchre.” It is further declared that the author is going to deal especially with Lancelot and Tristan, since they were the most distinguished knights of their age, and that he will tell a good deal more about them than one will find in any other books.
The Rusticien de Pise, here mentioned, is, obviously, identi- cal with the person of that name who, whilst a fellow-cap- tive of Marco Polo’s at Genoa in 1298, wrote down in French
ep. Julius Zeidler, Der Prosaroman Ysaye le Triste, p.6 (Halle diss. 1901). Zeidler has, also, given a full analysis of this romance in the Zs. f. rom. Ph. XXV, 175ff., 472ff., 641ff. (1901). For briefer analyses cp. Dunlop-Wilson, I, 212ff., and Golther, 7'ristan und Isolde, pp. 131ff., and for the critical literature pertaining to it cp. Grdber’s Grundriss, Band II, Abt. I, p. 1010, note 2. On the early prints of this romance see, especially, Romania, XXIII, 86. — Isaie le Triste is the son of Tristan and Iseult of Cornwall. He is born shortly after his mother has heard of the fatal wounding of Tristan by Marc. In her sorrow she directs that her son shall be baptized with the above- mentioned name, which is suggestive of the names of both parents, and, at the same time, suits the sorrowful circumstances of his birth. A few days later both Tristan and Iseult die. A hermit rears the hero, whose adventures, of course, make up the romance.
*7 For an analysis of it cp. Léseth, pp. 423ff. For indications regarding the MSS. and regarding the early prints of Meliadus and Gutron that contain parts of the compilation, cp. tbid., p. 423, note 1.
** Pp. 21f., note 6. ** Ldeeth, pp. 423f.
Rusticiano da Pisa 27
- the latter’s recital of his Oriental travels. Moreover, Edward I, here referred to, went on his crusade in August, 1270, and did not return to England until August, 1274, although he became king on the death of his father, Henry III, in November, 1272. He was in Palestine from May, 1271 to August, 1272. Now, there | is no reason to question the accuracy of the statement which we have just quoted or to doubt that Rusticien, writing certainly after November, 1272, and most probably after August, 1274, had before him one of the Arthurian compilations that had begun to come into existence about the middle of the thirteenth cen- tury.** He probably acquired it during Edward’s stay in Sicily in 1271. To what degree, however, he may have modified his original or how much he may have added to it either from other works or from the resources of his own imagination must remain a matter of conjecture. We know that his compilation, as it stands, embraces, besides the Palamedes, considerable portions of the Tristan? On the other hand, what is not taken over from these - two romances, whether it be the production of Rusticien, him- self, or another’s, is so destitute of originality that the question of its provenience possesses little or no importance. Perhaps, the episode of most interest in the work is the curious one with which it opens*® — the adventures of Branor le Brun, the giant knight, one hundred and twenty years old, who wishes to test the valor of the younger generation and so appears at Arthur’s court with a crowned damsel, beautiful and richly clad, challenges Arthur's
** We have no means of determining the downward limit of date. One would judge, however, from the tone of the reference to Edward's crusade that that expedition already belonged to a rather distant past. The compilation, however, doubtless, antedates the Travels of Marco Polo (1298).
"? The cyclic Tristan is, in reality, sach a compilation. MS. 112 (Bibl. Nat.) and Malory are fifteenth century specimens of the same genre.
** Cp., for example, Loseth, p. 468. |
*? Luseth, pp. 424ff. The preamble states expressly that the episode is taken from the “livre eaters — i.e King Ed- ward’s book.
Go ogle
28 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
chief knights to enter into a contest with him for this damsel, and vanquishes them all in succession — Gawain, Tristan, Lancelot, along with the rest. By a singular fortune, this extravagant episode is the only specimen of Arthurian romance, as far as we know, that penetrated into Byzantine literature. There, in a ver- sion of about the year 1300,?4 we find it presented in Greek verses (306 lines), which are so strongly colored with Homeric phrasing and imagery that the lines produce the impression of a bombastic travesty of the style of the Iliad.
3. Les Prophécies de Merlin.
The prose work which bears the above name, although usu- ally referred to as a romance,® is entitled only in part to that
** It was first edited (with a Latin translation) from the unique Vatican MS. (about 1300), under the title of Poema graecum de rebus gestis regis Arturi Tristan Lanceloti, Galbani Palamedis aliorumque equitum Tabulae Rotundae, by F. H. von der Hagen, Berlin, 1821. The text has since been reprinted by 1. its first editor (Berlin, 1824), 2. F. Michel, in his edition of the Tristan poems, Il, 267 ff. (1835), 3. L. G. Visscher, in his edition of the thirteenth century Dutch romance, Ferguut, pp. 198ff. (Utrecht, 1836), 4. A. Ellissen: Nachtrag zum ersten Teil des Versuchs einer Poly- lotte der europdischen Poesie (Leipzig, 1846), under the title, O neéoBus inndtys. Ellissen gives the most correct text and his introduction is very valuable. The poem is written in the so-called political” verse (catalectic iambic tetrameter), the favorite metre of Greek popular poetry. The first person to point out the true source of the work wav L. K. Struve, in a review of von der Hagen’s edition, Kritische Bibliothek. For an analysis of the poem see M. A. C. Gidel: Etudes sur la littérature grecque moderne; imitations en grec de nos romans de chevalerie depuis le XIIe siecle, pp. T9Hf. (Paris, 1866). The Greek poet has altered and shortened his French original. See, still further, on this work Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzan- tinischen Literatur’, pp. 866f. (Munich, 1897). Both Gidel and Krumbacher, however, wrongly assign the French romance to the twelfth century. ** So, for instance, in Miss L. A. Paton’s “Notes on Manuscripts of the Prophecies de Merlin", PMLA, XXVIII, 121ff. (1913), which is much the most instructive study of the book that has yet appeared.
Prophécies de Merlin 29
designation, and, consequently, a summary description of its con- tents will suffice for our purpose. It is not to be confounded with Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Libellus Merling (later incorporated in his Historia as Book VII) or with the numerous pseudo-prophet- ic writings of a political nature, ascribed to Merlin and imitated from Geoffrey's Lebellus, that were issued during the Middle Ages.26 According to the principal authority on the subject, ‘‘the Prophecies consists of historical prophecies and teachings derived from the stock of encyclopaedic material of the Middle Ages, deli- vered by Merlin either in dialogue form or in writing to various definitely named personages; among these prophecies and teach- ings are interspersed anecdotes usually designed to set forth the weaknesses of the clergy or to illustrate the supernatural gifts of Merlin, and also romantic episodes recounting adventures of Arthurian heroes — a unique production even in an age of extra- ordinary compilations.” *7
The items that make up this strange medley differ very con- siderably in the different MSS. and early prints.** This applies, particularly, to the romantic episodes that are interspersed among
Cp., too, Ward’s Catalogue, I, 3711f. (1883), and Ireneo Sanesi, Storia di Merlino, pp. LVI ff. (Biblioteca storica della letteratura, IU, Bergamo, 1898). For MSS. and early prints see Paton, pp. 122 ff. It was first printed in 1498 (Paris, A. Verard) as Vol. 3 of the Ro- mans de Merlin — 80, too, likewise, in the sixteenth century. For the fifteenth and sixteenth century Italian translations, cp. Paton, p. 124. One of them has been edited by Sanesi, op. cit. Miss Paton cites, also, as a Spanish version, Las Profecias del sabio Merlin, printed by A. Bonilla y San Martin in the Libros de Caballerias Primera Parte: Ciclo — arturico = ciclo carolingio, pp. 155—162 (Madrid, 1907). This, however, is very brief. She enumerates, pp. 122ff., twelve MSS. of the French work, the earliest of which seems to be- long to the latter part of the thirteenth century.
Miss Paton in her study mentions that she is preparing an edition of the Prophecies, but it has not yet appeared.
** For those of English origin, cp. Rupert Taylor, The Political Prophecy in England (New York, 1911).
*7 Paton, op. cit., p. 122.
** Cp. Paton, pp. 125f.
Go ogle
30 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
the prophecies, although they have no real connection with the latter. The only portions of the book that have been printed since the sixteenth century are two such episodes — viz., the adventures of Alexandre |’Orphelin (Alexander the Orphan) and the great tournament of Galehaut (Lancelot’s friend). In both Palamedes plays a part and both are, by origin, merely, late additions to the prose T'ristan.® In the first— which alone possesses any interest — we have a narrative of the adventures in fighting and in love of Alexander, a nephew of King Marc of Cornwall, whose father (Marc’s brother) had been killed by the latter and whose own life that monarch, also, vainly endeavored to take through a series of years.
The book purports to be a translation from a Latin original by a certain Master Richard of Ireland at the command of the Emperor F'rederick II (1215—1250). The first assertion is merely the customary fiction which we meet with in virtually all the prose romances and the declaration as to the author and the cir- cumstances under which the work was written may be equally un- trustworthy. Some color of credibility, however, is given to this declaration by the fact that the prophecies which the compilation contains, when they are not purely romantic, usually relate, for the most part, to Italy and the Holy Land.*
** Sommer has edited them, from the British Museum MSS. Add. 25434 and Harley 1629, in his edition of Malory's Morte Darthur, II, 295ff. (1891). The episodes in question are, also, to be found in Malory, Book X, ch. 32—39 and ibid, ch. 40, etc., respectively.
* For Alexandre LOrphelin in Tristan and Palamedes MSS., cp. Liseth, pp. 186, 481.
Cp. Ward, p. 371. We know, too, that there was a Magister Riccardus attached to Frederick's court. But many of the prophecies, as Miss Paton observes, p. 128, would have been unpleasing to Fre- derick. Whether we accept the above-mentioned declaration as authentic or not, the work was probably composed in the second quarter of the thirteenth century. The two episodes edited by Sommer are, beyond question, dependent on the prose 7'ristan. With our present information, however, one cannot say positively that they belonged to the book in its original form.
Chevalier du Papegau 31
4. Le Chevalier du Papegau.
This insignificant romance*® is to be numbered among the later prose romances of the Arthurian cycle. The only MS. in which it has survived belongs to the fifteenth century and there is little likelihood that the date of its composition was much earlier. - In the main, we have here a mere rehash of the old familiar motsfs — the deliverance of distressed damsels, the slaying of giants and dragons, etc. — and almost the only originality to which the work may lay claim is through the occasional addition of some new absurdity. Two such additions are, perhaps, especially worth recording — namely, (1) the conception of the Fish-Knight, a sea monster which is made up of a knight, his horse and equip- ment — all of flesh, and all of one piece, so that when the shield, for example, is pierced, it drips blood, (2) the dwarf’s son who becomes a giant, because he is suckled in the forest by a kindly unicorn. The hero of the romance is King Arthur himself — here represented as going forth just after his coronation and having the same sort of career as a knight-errant that in the other Arthurian romances is ascribed to his knights. He acquires his nickname (Knight of the Parrot) from a parrot which he cap- tures from a knight and which, with a dwarf as its keeper, he carries about with him in his travels. Both the parrot and the
** In the unique MS. 2154 (f. fr., Bibl. Nat.) it is entitled, in a later hand, Le Conte du Papegaulz qui contient les premieres Aventures qui auindrent au bon Roy Artus. G. Paris was the first person to call attention to it — viz. in his analysis of the romance HLF, XXX, 103ff. Since then it has been edited by Ferdinand Heuckenkamp under the title of Le Chevalier du Papegau (Halle, 1896). In this edition the text covers 90 pages. The editor (p. LVI) is inclined to - assign the work to the fourteenth century. The author seems to have drawn, in part, from a lost French metrical romance, which was used, also, by the German poet, Wirnt von Grafenberg, in his Wigalois, Cp. F. Saran, “Uber Wirnt von Grafenberg und den Wigalois’, PBB, XXI, 253ff. (1896) — especially, pp. 336ff. — and Heuckenkamp, pp. XXIXff. — The romance, doubtless, falls in a period later than that with which the present treatise deals, but I include it here be- cause G. Paris discusses it in his well-known work on the Arthurian romances.
32 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
dwarf are great cowards and there is some humor in the reproaches of the bird, when the dwarf takes to his heels at the first scent of danger, forgetting completely his charge, which, however, is fully as much frightened as its keeper. In ordinary times, however, the parrot regales Arthur in his wanderings with the most beautiful songs that were ever heard.
(Oo ogle
Chapter XII. Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuanili
We may assign to the middle or second half of the thirteenth century the above-named romances in Latin prose,! both of which reveal, clearly a dependence on the prose T'ristan — more particularly, in respect to nomenclature.* That they are the productions of a single author — probably an Englishman — is manifest, still further, from considerations of language, style and narrative method.’ Just as in the later stages of the devel-
* Edited by J.D. Bruce in Ergdnzungsrethe, 2. Heft, of the Johns Hopkins Press series, Hesperia (Gittingen and Baltimore, 1913). This edition supersedes, in every respect, the same editor’s previous editions of these romances in PMLA, XIII, 365ff. (1898) and XV, 327 ff. (1900). In the former place, the De Ortw was published; in the latter the Historia Meriadoci, under the erroneous title, Vita Meriadoci. Both romances are preserved in the Cottonian MS. of the British Museum, Faustina B. VI, (early fourteenth century); the Meriadoc is contained, also, in the Bodleian MS., Rawlinson — B. 149 (written about the year 1400).
* Leaving aside names of Welsh origin, the author of the Meriadoc, imitating the opening episodes of the prose 77istan, draws the names of his characters partly from Arthurian sources, partly from early French history. It is particularly significant that both the French and the Latin romance should, each, contain a king of Cornwall, named Meroveus and a subject of Meroveus named Sadoc. These names, of course, do not occur in the authentic history of Cornwall. On the name, Sadoc, cp. I, 492, note 26, above.
Similarly the names Nabor and Buzafarnan (corruption of Nabu- zardan) in the De Ortu are derived from the prose Tristan.
On these questions of nomenclature, cp. Bruce, pp. XXIff. — H. Suchier, Literarisches Zentralblatt for 1898, col. 980, derives the name Egesarius (alternative name of the pagan chieftain, Buzarfarnan, from the Eishere of the Monk of St. Gall (ninth century). Eishere was a giant who spitted his foes on a spear, like little birds.
* Cp. Bruce’s edition, pp. VIIff. The Welsh mountains give the background of the Meriadoc, and the distinctive names in this romance
Hefperia, Exgdngsungsrethe : 9. 8
Go ogle
34 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
opment of the Charlemagne epic, the theme of the Chanson de Roland acquires standing in learned circles and receives at the hands of a cleric, in the poem, Carmen de Proditione, a Latin dress, so here in the decline of Arthurian romance we find certain themes of this species- of literature passing, likewise, into similar hands. In both cases, very likely, the authors were inspired with the mistaken notion that, by clothing these subjects in a learned language, they would impart to them a dignity and permanence which they could not attain in the vernacular. In any event, the author of the two Arthurian fictions is intoxicated with the eru- berance of his own rhetoric and is quite unaware of the fact that the main interest of his compositions is that they preserve for us in translation the materials of romances in the vernacular which other- wise would have perished. It must be said, too, that they possess
are Welsh (cp. Bruce, p. XXVIII, note 1) but, as Ward, Catalogue, I, 375, points out, the author could not have been a Welshman, since he says that Snowdon is the Welsh name of the famous mountain. As a matter of fact, in Welsh it is called Eryri. On the other hand, the following circumstances favor the supposition that the work origi- nated in Great Britain: 1. The only extant MSS. are in England. 2. The word chiula, for ship, which is here employed (De Ortu, p. 74), occurs apparently only in writings of British origin.
In the sixteenth century John Bale, Index Britanniae Scriptorum, pp. 384f. (edited by R. L. Poole and Mary Bateson as Part IX of the Anecdota Oxontensia: Mediaeval and Modern Series, Oxford, 1902), ascribed these romances to Robertus de Monte or Robert de Torigni, as he is variously called — the well-known chronicler and abbot of Mont Saint Michel in Normandy from 1154 to 1186. An attempt to establish the correctness of this ascription was made by Miss M. S. Morriss in her paper, “The authorship of the De Ortu Waluuant and the Historia Meriadoci”’, PMLA, XXIU, 599ff. (1908). The difference of language, style, etc. and the dependence of the Latin romances on French prose romances of the thirteenth centary — Tristan and Lancelot, in particular — prove, however, that her thesis is untenable. Cp. Bruce, op. ctt., pp. Xff. It is a pity that so erroneous an idea — for, in that case, these Latin romances would be the earliest of all extant Arthurian romances — should have found ac- ceptance in a standard work, like the Suchier-Birch-Hirschfeld, Ge- schichte der franzésischen Literatur*, I, 112 (Leipzig, 1918).
Go ogle
Lattin Romances 35
no little value as literary curiosities, for they are the only Ar- thurian romances, properly speaking, in Latin that have descended to modern times. Arthur and Gorlagon® is a striking Welsh folk-tale in Latin form, but it does not fall in the category of the romances. |
In thé Historta Meriadoci, Meriadoc and his sister, Orwen, are the children of Caradoc, king of Wales, who is murdered on a hunt by his brother, Griffith. The latter succeeds his brother and orders them to be secretly taken to the forest of Arglud and hanged there. Out of compassion, however, the executioners fail to carry out their wicked master’s commands, and the children finally get into the hands of Ivor, the king’s huntsman, and his wife, Morwen, both favorable to the royal orphans. Whilst they are all hiding in the forest, Urien, king of Scotland, who happens to be passing that way, carries off Orwen and marries her, whilst Kay, Arthur's seneschal, conveys Meriadoc to his sovereign’s court. Later, Morwen and Ivor, however, rejoin Orwen and Meriadoc, respect- ively. Arthur and Urien besiege Griffith at Mount Snowdon, capture him and slay him, and make Meriadoc king in his place. The young prince, however, turns over his kingdom to Urien and himself goes forth in search of adventure. He first aids the Em- peror of Germany in his war with Gundebald ‘King of the land from which no one returns,’* who had abducted the emperor’s only daughter. In pursuit of the enemy he and his followers cross a river and enter a vast forest, haunted by wild beasts and
* Cp. Bruce, p. XXXV, note 3.
* Edited by G. L. Kittredge, [Harvard] Studies and Notes in Philology and Interature, VIII, 149ff. (1903). It is, primarily, a werewolf tale, affiliated with Btsclavret and Melton, but contains, besides, other folk-tale elements. Kittredge’s edition contains an ela- borate study of the sources. There is only one known MS. of the work — the Bodleian MS. Rawlinson B. 149 (about 1400) which, as we have seen, also, includes the Mertadoc. The date of composition
is undetermined.
* This motif comes to our aathor, ultimately, from Chrétien's Lancelot, L. 645, but it is here thoroughly rationalized, since Gunde- bald’s stronghold is represented (p. 43) as an island in the Rhine
Cp., on these matters, Bruce, pp. XXXIVf. , s
36 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
phantasms — a sort of Otherworld. Here he has a series of fan- tastic adventures — mainly in splendid fairy castles with super- natural inhabitants. In the end, by a stratagem, he gets into communication with the imprisoned princess and, with her assis- tance, overcomes Gundebald and liberates her. The Emperor now proves faithless to his promises and wishes his daughter to wed the King of Gaul in order to settle a war with the latter. On learning, however, of the princese’s condition in consequence of her secret relations with Meriadoc, the king declines the honor, and, assisted by his rival, renews the war, in which Meriadoc soon slays the Emperor. Nevertheless, he later marries the princess. Moreover, the King of Gaul establishes our hero next to himself in authority in his dominions and the latter enjoys a long and prosperous life.
According to the second of these romances, Gawain was the offspring of a secret love-affair between Loth, nephew of the King of Norway, and Anna, daughter of Uther Pendragon, during the former’s sojourn as a hostage at the British court. To save the princess's reputation, as soon as the child is born, it 1s committed to some foreign merchants, along with certain valuables, which include, tzter alia, the means of its future identification. On disembarking near Narbonne, after their voyage from Britain, the merchants unwarily leave their ship in charge of a boy and go off to the city. The boy forthwith falls asleep and a neighboring fisherman, Viamundus, uses the opportunity to steal the child and the valuables. He brings up the boy as his adopted son, and, after seven years, goes to Rome with his ill-gotten wealth, and, pretending to be of a noble Roman family, receives from the Emperor the former palace of Scipio Africanus as his dwelling and becomes a leading citizen of Rome. Only when he is on his death-bed does he confess to the Emperor and the Pope Sulpicius his true history and beg them to take charge of the child and educate him for knighthood. The Emperor accepts the care of the boy and knights him when he is fifteen years old. Up to that time the dying injunction of Viamundus had been obeyed and no definite name had .been conferred upon the hero, so that he was known merely as the “Boy Without a Name.‘‘ On the day,
Latsen Romances 37
however, that he was knighted, he appeared wearing a surcoat — the first person ever to do so — and so won the nickname by which he is known up to the closing scenes of the romance, viz. “The Knight of the Surcoat.”
Soon after this Gawain sails for Jerusalem in order to assist the Christians there in their war with the Persians. On the way out, however, the expedition stops at an island in the Aegean Sea, whose pagan inhabitants, as Gawain and his companions had ascertained, were planning to intercept the Roman fleet. In the course of this episode, we have, what is unique in Arthurian ro- mance, a description of a naval engagement — moreover, an ac- count of the terrible effect of Greek fire, together with a pre- scription for its preparation. It is, perhaps, needless to say that the Romans were victorious in this affair and that Gawain led all the rest in valor. Similarly, on his arrival at Jerusalem, as the champion of the Christians, in a duel which, according to agree- ment, was to determine the issues between the opposing hosts, he slew the Persian champion and delivered the city.
After receiving appropriate honors on his return to Rome, Gawain resolved to seek further adventures at Arthur’s court. On his departure the Emperor turns over to him the documents which are to identify him, but commands him not to look at them until he has seen the British king. On the night before our hero reaches Caerleon, Arthur’s wife, here called Gwendolen,’ foretells that a knight who is superior to the king, himself, is on the point of arriving. Whilst the queen is asleep, Arthur goes forth to test, according to his custom, the strength and skill of strange knights. He happens to encounter Gawain in the night and suffers a humi- hating overthrow at his hands. In a later affair before Maidens’ Castle in North Britain the latter subjects the king to an additional humiliation, but all soon ends happily, when the true story of the young knight’s birth is brought to light and he is acknowledged by his parents to be their son.
* The name is probably taken from Geoffrey's Vita Merlini, where Merlin’s lady-love is so called.
38 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
The discovery of the Enfances Gauvain,® a fragmentary poem on Gawain’s youth, a few years ago, has confirmed the conjecture, which had been already advanced,® that the De Ortu was based on a lost romance in that language. Both of these ro- mances, it would seem, go back to still a third French romance, which is no longer known to exist.!° The distinctive feature of the lost romance, which has been inherited by its descendants, is the rationalized adaptation to Gawain of the legend of Pope Gregory, who was set adrift on the sea in a cask, was picked up by fishermen, and brought up by an abbot, who gave him his own name. The author has also appropriated ideas from Geof- frey’s Historia and from various French romances, some of them lost, and he has effected the union of these disparate elements with no little skill.
The sources of the Historia Meriddoci are of the same gene- ral description as those of the De Ortu — only, in this case, more plainly than the other, Arthurian names have been used to give éclat to stories that, originally, had no real connection with Ar- thurian tradition." The pseudo-historical account of Meriadoc’s youth is as purely fictitious as that of his adventures in the fairy forest, and, indeed, seems to be a mere variant of the Havelok story.!?
* Two fragments were discovered. and edited by Paul Meyer, Romania, XXXIX, 1ff. (1910). The MS. (Bibl. Nat.) belongs to the middle of the thirteenth century and the poem, itself, probably, to the beginning of the century. H. Gelzer has shown, “Zu den Enfances Gauvain’, Zs. f. rom. Ph. XXXVIII, 614 (1914), that, contrary to Meyer, no third fragment ever existed.
* In my first edition of the romance.
*° Cp. Bruce, pp. XLV#f. On its connection with the Gregory legend and with the cognate episodes of the Perlesvaus, pp. 252f. and Huth-Merlin, I, 204ff. cp. ibid. pp. XXXVf. — The motive of incest which is so important in the Gregory legend is here omitted, although utilized, as we have seen, in the Huth-Merlin passage and in the Lancelot, V, 284{., with reference to Mordred.
‘* For the sources of the Meriadoc, cp. Bruce, pp. XXIV ft.
'* Cp. Bruce, p. XXX — also, Max Deutschbein, Studien zur Sagengeschichte Englands, Teil I, Die Wikingersagen, pp. 134¢t. (Cdthen, 1906).
Go ogle
Chapter XIII.
The Influence of the prose Romances on subsequent Literature.
The subject which is indicated in the above heading is too large a one to dilate upon here and would require, indeed, a sepa- rate volume for adequate treatment... We cannot conclude our long discussion of the prose-romances, however, without adding a brief note on the momentous influence of these romances upon the development of narrative literature throughout Europe in later ages — more especially, during the Renaissance.
As has been already remarked above, long before the end of the Middle Acss the prose romances had completely eclipsed the metrical romances in popularity, and it was not until the Ro- mantic Revival in the latter part of the eighteenth century that interest in the latter began to be reawakened. On the other hand, during the period of the Renaissance, the prose romances con- tinued to enjoy an undiminished favor with the readers of the time, as is sufficiently attested by the numerous editions, which have been recorded in the notes above.? The Lancelot, Tristan, and the other prose romances determined, indeed, the character of subsequent prose fiction of the larger sort in France far on into the sixteenth century, and, to a certain degree, indirectly, beyond.
1 F. Lot, Lancelot, pp. 280ff., has given a chapter to the subject, as far as the Vulgate cycle is concerned.
* On this subject, see, too, A. Tilley, “Les romans de chevalerie en prose”, Revue Gu seiziéme stécle, VI, 45ff. (1919). It appears from this article, however, that the popularity of the Arthurian ro- mances in the Renaissance was confined to the noble and bourgeois classes. On the other hand, the prose versions of the chansons de geste were much more popular, generally speaking, and, accordingly, were much more frequently reprinted. Tilley gives the dates of the first editions of the fifteenth and sixteenth century prints of the various prose romances, but only of the first.
Go ogle
40 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
Many a Frenchman, doubtless, agreed with Clément Marot® that Lancelot was a ‘‘trés-plaisant menteur’’. Still more important, however, was the influence which these romances exercised outside of France. |
First in Italy: The French prose romances, — more parti- cularly, the Lancelot, Tristen and Guiron le Courtois — were the direct models of Boiardo’s great romance-epic in verse, the Or- lando Innamorato* (1486 et seqg.). Moreover, as is well-known, Ariosto’s still more famous Orlando Furtoso (first edition, 1516) is @& mere continuation of Boiardo and in the features which most concern us here, the incoherence, the abrupt transitions, the inter- weaving of a whole series of narratives that have no. vital con- nection with one another, it is similar to his predecessor's poem. In its turn, the Orlando Furioso served as a model for Spenser’s Faerie Queene, for it was the English poet’s ambition, as we know from Gabriel -Harvey, even to ‘‘overgo’”’ the excellence of his great Italian original. Hence those features of Spenser’s narra- tive which have proved so often a stumbling-blook to the modern reader are due, in the last analysis, to the tradition which was established by the Lancelot and its companion-romances.
Hardly less fateful than the relation of Boiardo and Ariosto to the prose romances in the history of Italian literature was Luigi Alamanni’s innovation — the most audacious, perhaps, in European literature — in his Avarchide (1570), of Arthurizing the Iliad. |
Although the poet retains the main outlines of the Homeric epic, despite the change in the name of the besieged city,* we
* Elégie, XVI. |
* The main characters were drawn from the Charlemagne cycle, but the whole spirit of the work is that of the Arthurian romances. Cp. A. Gaspary, Geschichte der Italtenischen [iteratur, U, 281 ff. (Berlin, 1888).
* On the Avarchide and its sources and on Tasso’s debt to Alamanni, cp., especially, H. Hauvette, Luigi Alamanni, pp. 357 ft. (Paris, 1903). ,
* In Alamanni the city is called Avarco — Latin Avaricum (i.e. modern Bourges). The action is laid about 500, A. D.
Go ogle
Influence of Prose Romances 41
have here the heroes’ of the Arthurian romances — Lancelot, Tristan, and the rest — stalking in the shoes of Achilles, Ajax, etc. It was on the model of the Avarchéde that a few years later, Torquato Tasso, in his Gerusalemme Liberata (1581), offered to the world a far happier combination of classical and romantic elements.
Secondly, in Spain: The influence of the prose romances is also of the first importance in the literature of Spain and Portu- gal. The immense body of romances of chivalry which was pro- duced in the Iberian peninsula from the thirteenth to the six- teenth century — from the Amadis de Gaula’ (late thirteenth) to the Espejo de Principes y Caballeros (1580) — simply con- tinues the traditaon of the French romances, and it is undeniable that Don Qutzote (Part I, 1605), itself, though one of its ob- jects was the extinction of the genre, inherits its narrative tech- nique, in a large measure, from these same French romances. In any event, the Spanish romances of chivalry and their offspring, the pastoral romances, like Cervantes’ Galatea (1585) and the Diana (about 1588) of Montemayor, exerted an influence on contemporary France and England, and even later. Apart from translations the latter especially influenced the huge French romances of the seventeenth century — the productions of La Calprenéde, Scudéry, and others, which found their echo in England — more particularly, in the Heroic Drama of the Age of the Restoration.®
" For the immense indebtedness of the Amadis to the Lancelot, seo Miss G. S. Williams, The Amadis Question, in the Revue Hispanique, XXI.
~* Comprehensive studies on the influence of the prose romances on the literature of the Renaissance are still wanting. I have men- tioned in the text the great outstanding examples of this influence. It penetrated, however, even the Italian novelle. Three such instances have been recently noted (not all, for the first time, to be sure) by E. Winkler, in the second section — “Die Quellen der Lanzelot- Erzihlungen der Cento Novelle Antiche’ — of his article “Arturiana’, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XLI, 193ff. (1921). In the first section of the article, the author points out an imitation of the storm-making spring of Chrétien’s Yvoain in King René of Anjou’s De la Queste de la tres Doulce Merci au Cuer d’Amours espris (1457).
Original from
Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
PART IV.
DISCUSSIONS.
Original from
Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Chapter L Date of the Battle of Badon Hill (Mount Badon).
The date of the battle of Badon Hill is of prime importance for fixing the date of the historical Arthur, and hence of the legends that are connected with his name. Gildas, to whom we owe the first mention of the battle, says, ch. 26, in regard to the wars between the Saxons and the Britons after the time of the British leader, Ambrosius Aurelianus:
““Ex eo tempore nunc cives, nunc hostes, vincebant, ut in ista gente experiretur dominus solito more praesentem Israelem, utrum diligat eum an non; usque ad annum obsessionis Badonici montis, novissimaeque ferme de furciferis non minimae stragis, quique quadragesimus quartus, ut novi, orditur annus, mense iam uno emenso, qui et meae nativitatis est.” |
These words have been variously interpreted. Some modern scholars have followed Bede, Historia Ecclestastica, Book I, ch. 16, in taking the ambiguous passage to mean that the battle of Badon Hill was fought in the year of the author’s birth, forty-four years after the coming of the Saxons. Cp., for example, A. de la Bor- derie, Revue Celtique, VI, 1ff. (1885), and E. Windisch, Das keltische Britannien bis zu Katser Arthur, p. 39 (1912). On the other hand, a more likely interpretation is that Gildas means that Mount Badon was fought forty-four years before the time when the author penned this passage (and in the year of his nati- vity). This is the interpretation, for instance, of H. Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus, p. 286 (1913), Mommeen, in his edition of Gildas, III, 8 (1896), C. Plummer, edition of Bede, II, 31 (Ox- ford, 1896), and Hugh Williams, p. 63, note 1, of his edition of Gildas (London, 1899—1901) in the Cymmrodorion Record Series, No. 3. Mommsen, however, emends the text and substitutes for “ut novi’ “est ab eo qui’, whilst Williams merely puts “ut
46 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
novi” in brackets. Inasmuch as, according to the Annales Cam- briae, Gildas died in 570 and Maglocunus, one of the British princes whom he inveighs against in the De Excidio as still living, died in 547, it is probavle that Gildas’s birth, and hence the battle of Badon Hill, fell in the first years of the sixth century.
On the other hand, if Gildas meant that the battle was fought forty-four years after the coming of the Saxons, it would not be possible to fix the date with quite the same certainty; for the date of this coming is in dispute. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book I, ch. 15, V, ch. 24, who is followed by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, places it in, or about, the year 449 A.D.1 But Bede’s dating has no genuine authority; for, as R. Thurneysen has shown in his article, “Wann sind die Germanen nach England gekom- men ?’’, Englische Studien, XXII, 174f. (1895), the Anglo-Saxon historian arrives at this date by merely combining the statement of some continental source that the Roman rule in Britain ended in 409 with the statement of the lost Annales Romanorum (cited by Nennius, ch. 10, and apparently of Irish origin) that the Saxons invaded Britain forty years after the Roman rule termi- nated, although this latter source, doubtless, like Nennius, who is dependent on it, dated the end of the Roman power with the death of Maximus in 388. The date in Nennius thus indicated for the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon conquest (i. e. the landing of certain Anglo-Saxon bands at the invitation of a British king to aid him in his wars against the Picts and the Irish), viz. 428, is, doubtless, correct, since the Annales Romanorum to which he refers was of a considerably earlier time. Cp. Thurneysen, Zs. f. d. Ph., XXVIII, 92f. (1896), (review of Zimmer’s Nenntus Vindicatus) and Zs. f. celt. Ph., I, 166f. (1896), (review of Mommeen’s edition of Gildas and Nennius). The contemporary Chronica Gallica? (p. 660), which was compiled before 452, re-
* Elsewhere in Bede's history (e. g. I, 23, V, 23) other dates (447 or 448) are implied, and in his Chronica, 452. See Williams’ edition of Gildas, p. 53, note.
* Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctorum Antiquis-
Date of the Battle of Badon Hill (Mount Badon) 47
cords that Britain passed under Saxon rule in 441 or 442.3 This record is, no doubt, accurate, as applied to the part of Britain with which the author would be naturally best acquainted, namely, the southeastern coast. Taken in this sense, the statement would harmonize well enough with 428, as the date of the first perma- nent landing of the Anglo-Saxon tribes. On this subject com- pare, besides, Thurneysen’s articles already cited. Of less value is the discussion of these matters by N. J. Krom in his Leiden thesis: De populis Germanis antiquo tempore patriam nostram in- colentibus Anglosaxonumque migrationibus, pp. 115ff. (Leiden, 1908). Strange to say, Krom seems entirely ignorant of Thur- neysen’s article in Englische Studien, XXII.
The enemies against whom the Britons appealed to Aetius for help in the letter of 446 A.D. were, no doubt, really the Anglo- Saxon invaders, and not the Picts and Scots, as Gildas (ch. 20) thought. Cp. Thurneysen, Englische Studien, XXII, 177.
If we take 428, then, as the date of the arrival of the Anglo- Saxons in Britain, the battle of Badon Hill was fought in 472 or 478. As I have stated above, however, the alternative inter- pretation of the passage in Gildas is preferable, and the real date of the battle probably falls in the first four or five years of the sixth century.®
simorum, Tomus LX. Chronicorum Minorum Saec. IV, V, VI, VII. Vol. 1, edited by Theodor Mommsen, Berlin, 1892.
* V. H. Friedel, in his article, “L’arrivée des Saxons en Angleterre d’aprés le texte de Chartres et l'Historia Britonum’, Foerster-Fest- gabe, pp. 280ff. (1901), argues for the date 418/419, but Thurneysen’s argument is to me the most satisfactory on the subject. — The worthlessness of the traditional dates in relation to the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England has been recently emphasized by F. Lot in his valuable article, “Les migrations saxonnes en Gaule et en Grande- Bretagne du III® au V® siécle”, Revue Historique, vol. 119, pp. 1ff. (1915).
“ This correction of Gildas is much more acceptable than An- scombe’s Zs. f. celt..Ph., VH, 435 (1907). He thinks that the “Bri- tanni” who addressed the appeal to Aetius were really Armorican Britons’.
* A. Anscombe, “Date of the First Settlement of the Saxons in
48 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
Turning now from the question of the date of the battle of Badon Hill to that of the place where it was fought, we are con- fronted with a hopeless uncertainty. It has been customary to identify the site of the battle with Bath,’ and in Nennius (ch. 68) there is, indeed, a mention of “balnea Badonis”’, which seems to mean the battle at the city of Bath; but the old Roman Aquae Solis could only have received the Anglo-Saxon name of ‘‘Bath”’ after the battle of Deorham (a few miles distant) in 577, through which the Anglo-Saxons for the first time got possession of the place and surrounding district — hence, the identification is obviously base- less. The same thing may be said of the identification of Badon Hill with Badbury in Dorset;* for, as W. H. Stevenson has pointed out,® the latter derives its name from some Anglo-Saxon, the
Britain”, Zs. f. celt. Ph., I, 492ff. (1901), VI, 339ff., XII, 419ff., tries to reconcile the two dates. Bede’s 449, he says, really means 450, for in those ages, he contends, chroniclers often designated the year by the sum of years, completed up to date. Moreover, this 450 was the annuary number, not according to the orthodox (Dionysian) system of computation, but according to that which is called the system secundum evangelicam veritatem by the person with whom it is commonly identified, Marianus Scotus (11th century), which would involve a retardation of 22 years. He tries to show by examples that Marianus’s system of computation was really in use before Bede's time. E. W. B. Nicholson, ibtd., VI, 439ff., VI, 121ff., replying to An- scombe, shows that the instances with which he supports these conten- tions are merely chroniclers’ blunders. Besides, Thurneysen, as we have seen above, explains satisfactorily Bede's date, 449. Anscombe has written still further on the subject in Eriu, I, 117ff. (1907).
* The best brief summary of the discussion as to both place and date is that of W. H. Stevenson in The English Historical Review, XVII, 632 ff. (Oct. 1902). The date given by the Annales Cambriae, 516, is now accepted by no one. For further discussion of the date of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, see H. M. Chadwick, The Origin of the English Nation, 35ff. (Cambridge, 1907). |
* The most elaborate defence of this view is E. W. B. Nicholson's, in his articles, “Mons Badonicus and Geoffrey of Monmouth”, The Academy, March 14 (pp. 220ff.) and April 11 (pp. 305ff.), 1896..
* Proposed by E. Guest, Origines Celticae, II, 189 (London, 1883), and accepted by the historians, Freeman, J. R. Green, etc.
° English Historical Review, XVII, 634 (1902).
Date of the Battle of Badon Hill (Mount Badon) 49
Anglo-Saxon form, ‘‘Baddanbyrig’’, being, of course, a combi- nation of the genitive form of “‘Badda” (a personal name) with the Anglo-Saxon word for ‘“‘town’’. Now, no town in Dorset could have received an Anglo-Saxon name until the conquest of that part of England — that is to say, until at least as late as the above-mentioned battle of Deorham.
For different reasons the iden tifieation with Acornbury (Aconbury), in Herefordshire proposed by A. Anscombe, Zs. f. celt. Ph., V, 116 (1905), is, likewise, to be rejected. His line of argument is that Badonicus is really a mere scribal corruption of an hypothetical Hagonis, Mons Hagonis being the Latin equi- valent of Mynydd Agned (= Hill in the land of Agon or Acon), which is in some MSS. of Nennius the name of the ele- venth in the list of Arthur’s twelve battles. The scribe of the archetype of these MSS., according to this view, did not re- cognize the identity of Mynydd Agned with Mons Badonicus, so made two battles out of one. The corruption, Anscombe thinks, began in the MSS. of Gildas, passed thence into MSS. of Bede, and from Bede into Nennius. All this, however, is too purely speculative for acceptance. One can, at most, only admit that Anscombe’s identifications of the scenes of Arthur's eleven other battles with places in Upper Britain, in this same article,!° if
© “Tocal Names in the ‘Arthuriana’ in the Historia Brittonum’, Z. f. celt. Ph., V, 103ff. (1905).
"* It is, perhaps, advisable to mention that Anscombe, and, later, A. W. Wade-Evans, have attacked, although futilely, the authenticity of Gildas’s De Excidio Britanniae. For the argument of the former on the subject, cp. his articles in The Academy, Sept. 14, 28, Oct. 5, 19, Nov. 16, 1895. He bases his criticism on supposed inconsistencies of statements in the work with sixth century conditions, 6. g. Gildas's allusion, ch. 24, to the Saxons having reached already the west coast of Britain. A raid, however, extending to that coast is not unlikely even in the first half of the sixth century. See the excellent replies to Anscombe by W. H. Stevenson, tbid., Oct. 26, Dec. 14, 1895 — also, E. W. B. Nicholson, Nov. 2. Stevenson lays stress on our meagre knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon conquest. Besides; why should any one between 640 and 641 (limits of the date of the De Excidio according to Anscombe, ibid., Oct. 5, 1895) be interested in ane so bitterly
Hefperia, Ergdnsungsteike: 9.
50 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
correct, would go to prove that Badon Hill, too, was in that part of the island."
against British princes of the fifth and sixth centuries? Wade-Evans’s main articles on the subject appeared in The Celtic Review, I, 289 ft. (1905), Il, 46ff., 126ff. (1905), IX, 35ff. (1913), 314ff. (1914), x, 215ff. (1915), 322ff. (1916). — See also his “The Chronology of Arthur”, Y Cymmrodor, XXII, 125ff. (1910). For a reply to the earlier articles of this long series, see E. W. B. Nicholson, The Celtic Review, I, 369 ff. (1906). This answers pretty well the whole series; for, in the main, the argument is merely repeated. Wade-Evans’s final result (X, 329f.), is that Mount Badon (Badon Hill) was fought in 665 and the De Excidio Britaniae written in 708. The only real battle of Mount Badon, he argues, was that which is entered as the second of the name in the Annales Cambriae under the year CCXXI (i. e. 665 or 666 A. D.). This is the battle mentioned in Gildas (ch. 23) — “Badonici Montis’”. The battle of this name, entered under the year LXXII (i.e. 516 or 517 A.D.) in the Annales Cambriae, ac- cording to Wade-Evans, never occurred, the name being adopted from Gildas, or ‘“pseudo-Gildas”, as Wade-Evans calls the author of the De Ezxcidio. Arthur really flourished and died, he maintains, in the latter part of the fifth century.
Most of Wade-Evans's argument hinges on his interpretation of the prophecy which Gildas (ch. 23) mentions as firmly relied on by the Saxons, when they invaded Britain, viz. that they should occupy the country for three hundred years, and that for one hundred and fifty years of this period they should make frequent devastations (“sae- pius devastaret’”) in it. Wade-Evans assumes that this is a prophecy after the event. Gildas (ch. 26) represents that active hostilities ceased after the battle of Mount Badon (the year of Gildas’s own birth) and that forty-three years of peace had already passed at the time that. he was writing. Consequently, Wade-Evans concludes that the De Excidio was written 150 plus 43 years after the Anglo-Saxon invasion began. But Gildas explicitly says that the prophecy in question was a Saxon prophecy and he neither expresses nor implies any belief in it, himself. Wade-Evans’s conclusion, therefore, is unwarranted. So, too, I may add, is his assertion that Gildas implies a long interval between the appeal to Aetius and the landing of the Anglo-Saxons.
Chapter II. Brutus, Eponymus of the Britons. .
Brutus, as the eponymus of the Britons, Geoffrey found al- ready in Nennius, ch. 18 (Mommsen’s edition, p. 161). For the manner in which this notion grew up with the growth of the Historia Brittonum see, especially, G. Heeger: Uber die Trojaner- sage der Britten, 9ff. (Munich, 1886), H. Zimmer, Nennius Vin- dicatus, 245ff. (Berlin, 1893), and, above all, R. Thurncysen, Zs. f. d. Ph., XXVIII, 86ff. (1896). W. W. Newell, PMLA, XX, 628ff.. (1905), is largely based on Thurneysen.
The starting-point was given by an entry in the chronicle of Eusebius-Jerome, which was a popular historical handbook in the Middle Ages. Here, under the date of the year of Abraham 1875 (i. e. 188, B. C.), it is stated: ‘Brutus Hiberiam usque ad Oceanum subigit.’””’ This Brutus was a Roman consul of the year in question, D. Junius Brutus, surnamed Callaicus. The compiler of the Historia Brittonum in its earliest form (679), tempted by the similarity of the names Brutus and Britannia, — and few mediaeval chroniclers could have resisted the temptation — tacitly extended the conquests of this consul to Britain, also, and inserted in the Historia the statement (ch. 7): ‘‘Britannia insula a quodam -Bruto consule Romano dicta.” The author of this etymology may or may not have known the uncomplimentary derivation of ‘‘Bri- tones” from the Latin adjective “brutus” (stupid, brutish), which had already been incorporated into another popular handbook of the time, the Htymologiae (written in 628) of Isidore of Seville, who says, Book IX, ch. 12: “Britones quidam Latine nominatos suspicantur, eo quod bruti sint.”’
_ This same compiler added (ch. 17), still further, a genealogy of the Britons, the origin of which is as follows: 4*
52 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
In the pseudo-learned genealogy of the Romans and the Ger- manic nations which was drawn up in France somewhere about 520 A. D. and which has been best edited, under the title of ‘Die frinkische Vélkertafek”, by K. Miallenhoff, in the Abhand- lungen der Koéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlén, aus dem Jahre, 1862, pp. 532ff., these nations are said to be descended from three brothers, Erminus, Inguo and Istio (i. e. the eponymi respectively of the Herminones, Ingaevones, and Istaevones, the three great divisions of the Germanic tribes ac-_ cording to Tacitus, Germania, ch. 2, and Pliny, Naturalis Hes- toria, Book IV, ch. 14.). In the text as printed by Millenhoff it is said of the third of these brothers: ‘‘Istio frater eorum genuit — Romanos, Brittones, Francus, Alamannus.” Now in ch. 17 (Mommeen, pp. 159‘f.) of the Héstoria Brittonum, we have an attempt in the true mediaeval style to run the genealogical line of the Britons back to Adam. The author follows the method of the genealogies in the Bible, which had also, no doubt, been the model of the Frankish “‘Vélkertafel’’, and boldly connects the Istio of the latter, through his father, Alanus (already included in the Frankish document) and a few intervening fictitious an- cestors, with the Old Testament genealogies. He carries out the system of his sources, however, still further, and partly influenced by the Old Testament and partly adopting, perhaps, the sug- gestion of the “Francus, Alemannus”’ of the Frankish document,! gives the name of each of the nations concerned in the singular as that of a national eponymus. Thus he says sbid.: ‘‘Hissitio [ MS. corruption for Histio = Istio] autem habuit filios quattuor: Francus Romanus Britus Albanus [MS. corruption for Ale- mannus |.”
The Romans and Britons now stood together in this genealogi- cal list, and this fact stimulated later interpolators to still further inventions connecting the two more intimately, which resulted in
7 In the barbarous Latin of the time, « often stood for long 0. Cp. M. Bonnet, Le latin de Gregoire de Tours, pp. 126ff. (Paris, 1890). Hence these accusative plurals had the same forms as nomi-
native singulars.
Brutus, Eponymus of the Britons 53
ch. 10—11. For these inventions the chronicle of Eusebius-Jerome again furnished the starting-point: |
In that chronicle, under the year of Abraham 878 (cp. Thur- neysen, pp. 87f.), the compiler makes certain statements about the “reges Albanorum, Sylvii”, descendants of Aeneas, the Trojan leader, who was so: well-known through Virgil as an ancestor of the Romans. The author of the source of the part of the. Historia Brittonum with which we are now dealing (apparently, an [rish- man) misinterpreted (wilfully, it may be) these “Albani” (who were, of course, really Italians of the region near Rome) as the inhabitants of ‘‘Albion” (Britain). The author of ch. 10—11 in the Historia, itself, on the strength of this confusion, identi- fies Brutus, the first Roman consul — whom, as the first consul, he chooses to make a brother of Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, and hence a descendant of Aeneas and the ‘‘Albanorum reges” — with the Brutus after whom, according to ch. 7, already Britannia had been named. Consequently, we have Silvius As- canius, Aeneas, and their Trojan ancestors now introduced into the genealogy of Brutus.* Lastly, he makes this Brutus, after whom Britannia was named, absorb also the function of the Britto (Britus) who had developed as the eponymus of the Britons out of the Frankish genealogy of the nations in the manner that we have seen. Henceforth, we shall hear, then, in the mediaeval chro- nicles only of Brutus.
* This part, doubtless, underwent expansion at different times.
Chapter IIL.
Supplementary Observations on the Question: Were there Arthurian romances before Chrétien?
Many eminent Arthurian scholars have answered this question in the affirmative — e. g., G. Paris, Manuel, pp. 100f., E. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., XX XI?, 143f. (1907) and Miss J. L. Weston, The Legend of Sir Perceval, I, 230f., (1909). Let us now examine the evidence on the subject.
We have already considered the bearing on this question of the Italian names to which P. Rajna called attention, and of the figures on the Cathedral at Modena, — also, of the Wolfram-Guiot and Mabinogion controversies.* Leaving these matters aside, we may say that, perhaps, the best statement which has been presented of the reasons for believing that there were romances before Chré- tien is that of Eduard Wechssler, Sage vom heiligen Gral, pp. 156f. (Halle, 1898). Of the five reasons advanced by Wechssler two are obviously of little force. The first indeed, rests on a blunder. He cites as evidence of a French Lancelot romance before Chrétien a supposed episode in Malory’s Morte Darthur of the woman who is turned into a dragon for not obeying the re- quirements of the amour courtois. But the episode here refer- red to is really in the Middle High German Lanzelet, not in Malory. Gaston Paris, to be sure, expresses the belief, Romania,
* The chief representatives of the opposing view have been W. Foerster in the prefaces to his various editions of Chrétien’s works — especially, the Lancelot, W. W. Newell, The Legend of the Holy Grail (Cambridge, Mass., 1902), and W. Golther in numerous reviews.
* Cp. I, 12 ff. 313ff., above.
* Foerster has subjected Wechssler’s argument to an elaborate refutation in the Introduction to his edition of Chrétien's Lancelot, pp. XCIi ff.
Supplementary Observations 55
XII, 503ff. that in his Book XIX, where Lancelot rescues Guine- vere from Mellyagraunce, Malory was following a more primitive version than Chrétien’s of the incident which we may call the Rape of Guinevere. But this is surely an error, for Malory’s work is based on the prose romances, and, i no ascertained case, on any French poem, whether early or late.
Wechseler’s second reason has hardly greater force than his first — namely, Chrétien’s-mention of a book as the source of his Perceval. But, even if the statement is not intentionally mis-. leading, the term “book” is indefinite and does not necessarily imply a French romance.
~The following points cited by Wechssler are the ones that have most weight:
1. The list of Round Table heroes given by Chrétien in his Erec, 11. 1691ff., implies a fully developed literature on the sub- ject already. When Erec brings his bride to Arthur’s court, the poet introduces this long list of the knights who were there — Gawain, Lancelot, and a host of others.
2. The supposed fact that the Tristan legend had already been treated in French verse. |
3. The supposed priority over Chrétien of the French original of the Middle High German poem Lanzelet by Ulrich von Zatzik- hoven, who wrote at the end of the twelfth century.
Now, the third point is so doubtful that it can hardly be used in the controversy. For the considerations that tell against this assumed priority, cp. I, 2104f., above.
As far as the first point is concerned, Foerster (p. XCI of Introduction to Lancelot) has rightly urged that there is no reason to suppose that Chrétien was here using written sources of any kind. At the beginning of the Erec he says: ‘The story is of Erec, the son of Lac. Those who wish to live by telling stories are in the habit of tearing it to pieces and perverting it before kings and counts.” These words evidently refer to oral reci- tation.‘
* It should be mentioned here that the eminent Celticist, J. Loth, has tried to show by the forms of the French names Yvatn, Loth, etc.,
56 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
The one point in Wecehssler’s list that has real force is, in my judgment, the second. If we grant that a great poem on Tristan existed in the first half of the twelfth century, that would create, undeniably, a presumption that there were Arthurian romances before Chrétien, for it is not at all likely that such a poem stood isolated in the poetical literature of the time. Foerster, Lence- lot, p..xciv, meets this point with the observation that the Tristan saga had originally nothing to do with the Arthurian cycle and was first connected with it after Geoffrey of Monmouth and Wace had established the stories of this cycle in contemporary litera- ture. So this is no argument, he says, for the supposed Arthurian romances before Chretien.
It is undoubtedly true that Tristan was originally unconnected. with Arthur, yet if similar poems were written about the charac- ters whom we find associated with the great king in Chretien, these would constitute substantially Arthurian romances. We need not suppose that the lost poems exhibited the artificial ideal of the amour courtois like Chrétien or followed his methods of psycho- logical analysis — they would, nevertheless, remain Arthurian ro- mances — that is, narrative poems embodying romantic tales con- cerning Arthurian heroes.
As a matter of fact, however, Miss Schoepperle’s investigations (cp. I, 152f., note, above) prove that the lost romance on Tristan from which our extant versions are descended was not composed before the second half of the century, and only a short time, if at all, before Chrétien began to write.’ Chrétien’s own knowledge of the in relation to their Celtic originals, that Chrétien must have used written Welsh sources. Cp. his articles, “Des nouvelles théories sur l‘origine des romans arthuriens” in the Revue Celtique, XIII, 475tt. (1892) and “Le roi Loth des romans de la Table Ronde”, XVI, 84, (1895). But his arguments have been successfully refuted by Zimmer. See Foerster, pp. CXXIIIff. These names had been long current among the French-speaking populations who transmitted the matiére de Bretagne from Brittany to the French poets, and apparent coin- cidences with Welsh in slightly differentiated matters of pronunciation, such as 5 against « in twelfth century Breton, in Caradoc Briebras
(Brechbras) and the like, can claim no importance. * Cp. I, 152f,, note 1, above.
Supplementary Observations. 57
Tristan story need not, then, have been derived from a formal ro- mance — it may have come from oral recitations. Consequently, in this case, as in the case of his other works, there is no convincing proof that he drew on poems earlier than his own — or, in any event, on a narrative poem of considerable extent.
It would be special pleading, however, to deny that the lost Tristan romance may have been anterior to Chrétien. But this relatively late work is the only definite romance of which, on the basis-of positive data, one may maintain not unreasonably that it was composed before Chrétien began to write. There may have been a few more such narrative poems of whose existence we pos- sess now no evidence, but in the present writer's opinion, in any event, there is nothing to justify the assumption of a fully devel- oped genre of Arthurian romance before the great master whom we have just named.® . |
In addition to Wechssler’s arguments in favor of the existence of Arthurian romances before Chrétien, it is well to mention the following also: 1. A. Jeanroy’s (cp. Faral, p. 395) to the effect that the love-episodes in the romances of antiquity (absent from their main Latin sources) must have been suggested by pre-Chré- tien Arthurian romances. E. Faral, however, has shown that cer- tain Latin writings, especially Ovid’s, are the true sources of these episodes. Cp. his Recherches sur les sources latines des contes et romans courtois du moyen age, pp. 406ff. (Paris, 1913). 2. The supposed French origin of the forms Walgainus, Hiderus, in Geof-
* In my edition of the De Ortu Waluuantt, p. 111, I have pointed out a detail towards the end of Chrétien's Perceval, ll. 8057 ft. (Baist’s edition) which would lead one to infer that Chrétien was using here a lost romance on Gawain’s youth — the common source of the De Ortu and the Enfances Gauvain — whose existence seems assured. The episode in the Perceval takes it for granted that Gawain was separated from his mother from his infancy onwards, but how this came about and its consequences constitute the theme of the two ro- mances just named — so the common source of these romances was, doubtless, older than the Perceval. It may have been later, however, than some of Chrétien’s other romances.
58 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
frey’s Historia. Cp. Lot, Romania, XXV, 2ff. But this con- jectured French origin is too little assured to be used as evidence.
Latterly, W. Meyer-Liibke in his “Crestien von Troyes Erec und Enide,” Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XLIV!, 129ff., especially, pp. 159ff., has re-examined the question of pre-Chrétien romances, taking the Erec as the basis of his investigation. He is inclined to answer the question affirmatively, but his results seem to me wholly indefinite. His discussion of the names, pp. 163ff., strikes ‘me as the best part of the work.
Go ogle
Chapter IV. The Mabinogion Controversy.
I.
It may be said, in general, that the scholars who look upon the Welsh tales as independent of Chrétien have based their argu- ment mainly on the ground that the former, in some important points, exhibit a more logical narrative than the latter and hence represent a more primitive form of the story — in other words, are not derived directly from Chrétien, but from a common source. Apart from the fact that opinions differ very much in individual cases, as experience abundantly shows, as to which of two variants im any given narrative is the more logical, the whole principle -must be regarded as possessing only a limited validity. Even great writers have been occasionally guilty of inconsistencies or inadequate motivation which an adapter of far inferior powers might remove or improve. The line of argument which is taken by the above-mentioned scholars — and at the same time, I be- lieve, its weakness — can best be illustrated, however, by a con- crete example:
In the case of Geratnt and Enid the main objection urged is that, unlike Chrétien, the Welsh here offers a satisfactory motive in respect to the matter which is, as it were, the very raison d'étre of almost the whole story, viz. the hero’s harsh treatment of his wife (Enid), from the time that he is awakened by her lament over his neglect of knightly activities, for which she has, as she repeats to him, heard him blamed by other knights and for which she recognizes his excessive affection for herself as the cause, down to the point (near the end of the tale) where after her display of devotion to him in many trying circumstances he changes his mood. The motive for the hero’s conduct in Geraint and Enid is
Go ogle
60 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
expressly stated to be jealousy;! in Chrétien we are left to infer for ourselves what it is.* A few lines of explanatory comment would undoubtedly have helped to clarify Chrétien’s handling of the situation at this point. In the main, however, in his narrative the motives of Erec’s conduct are sufficiently clear. His wife's implied criticism of his sloth in arms has awakened his suspicions of her love for him, and, it may be added, also, of her conformity to the spirit of obedience which the men of the Middle Ages, high and low, were, as a rule, accustomed to exact from their womenkind. Jealousy was not in question, for there is nothing in the etory to suggest it, and, bésides, Chrétien distinctly says that Erec was not jealous.» That the harshness with which he treats his wife was undeserved goes, of course, without saying; but there is plenty of precedent in actual life for this picture of a man who vents the self-dissatisfaction which springs from the: stings of his own conscience upon an innocent victim — es- pecially, upon the wife who has unwittingly aroused him to a sense of his delinquencies. The whole story of Enid’s trials, then, is a characteristic test of a woman’s love by her husband in the mediaeval vein. In the case of the Patient Griselda, who, like Enid, was raised from poverty to high station by her marriage, three leading writers of the Middle Ages, in succession — Boc- caccio, Petrarch and Chaucer — took even less pains than Chre- tien to supply a plausible motive for the hero’s brutality.‘ It
* Loth, 1*, 152. * ll. 2576ft. * 1, 3804.
“I had written the above lines before I observed that E. Phi- lipot had already drawn the comparison (Romania, XXV, 264) between Enid and Griselda. The same scholar declares, Annales de Bretagne, XXVIII, 149 (1911) — in a review of Edens’s dissertation — that he would be suspicious of any form of the Griselda story that would justify the Marquis’s conduct to his wife. This seems to me to be a just observation.
In arguing against the fairy mistress origin of the Erec-Enid story, M.B. Ogle, “The Sloth of Erec”, RR, IX, iff. (1918), has shown by numerous examples that the opposition of endeavour and marital love was a commonplace in Latin literature, both in antiquity and in the Middle Ages. He is right, I believe, in his criticism of
The Mabtnogion Controversy 61
was on the éncidents of the test and the pathos of the victim’s patience and devotion that they concentrated the resources of their art. These were the matters that really interested them.
The only passages in Chrétien which, at first blush, would appear to conflict with the interpretation of Erec’s conduct to- wards Enid that I have just given are one in which Erec ao- - knowledges the justice of the criticism of his uxorious indolenc? (2576f.) and another in which on setting out on the journey that is to test Enid’s love and constancy, he recommends her to the care of his father-in-law, in case he, himself, should die (2725ff.). A modern writer here would, doubtless, have added in each in- stance some two or three lines to prevent the impression of in- consistency. In the first passage, he would have explained that, in confessing his fault, the hero was revealing only a part of his true mood. As it is, Chrétien leaves us to draw this inference from the fear of the consequences of her imprudence which the unfortu- nate Enid feels (2484ff.) after that confession has been made as well as before. In the second passage, he might have added, though the addition would not have been imperative, that, in spite of the test to which he was about to subject her, the husband did not desire in any event to leave his wife an outcast on the world.
It will be seen from the above that from the point of view of the readers or hearers of twelfth century France, for whom Chrétien was writing, the story of Erec’s conduct towards Enid called for little explanation. But what judgment shall we pass on the treatment of the same theme in the Welsh tale which Zenker and his followers find so logical and satisfactory? As a matter of fact, nothing could be more illogical than the conception here of jealousy as the cause of the hero’s conduct. There is not the trace of an incident in the story that might arouse such a passion, and the author who did not understand the more complex emotions of Chrétien’s characters in this central situation is simply falling back on the motive which will nearly always pass muster in pic-
Nitze, Sheldon and B. R. Woodbridge. For the interpretation of the first two, pp. 68—9, below. For Woodbridge’s interpretation see his “Chrétien’s Erec as a Cornelian Hero”, RR, VI, 434ff. (1915).
62 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
tures of matrimonial discord — namely, jealousy. But did any one ever hear of a story of jealousy in which there is not even the slightest allusion to the identity of the third party? The introduction of this motive into the economy of the tale, as it stands, is merely a crass blunder.
I. :
For a review of the debate, in its earlier phases, on the re- lations of the Welsh tales to Chrétien cp. R. Edens, Hrec-Gerasnt ; Der Chrétsen’sche Versroman und das walsche Mabinogi, pp. 1 ff. (Rostock diss., 1910). San Marte and H. de la Villemarqué, the first scholars to consider the matter, regarded the Mabénogion as Chrétien’s source for his Erec, Yvain and Perceval, and this untenable opinion prevailed for many years. The view, however, that the two sets of works had a common source was advanced at an early date, notably by W. L. Holland, the editor of Chre- tien, but first gained prominence, when G. Paris espoused it, Ro- mania, X, 467f. (1881), in connection with his well-known hypo- thesis of the Anglo-Norman origin of the Arthurian romances. In a more detailed study of the matter than had hitherto appeared, Karl Othmer, Das Verhdlinis von Christian's von Troyes ‘ Erec et Entde” zu dem Mabmogion (sic) des roten Buches von Her- gest ‘Geraint ab Erbin’ (Bonn diss. 1889), maintained that the Welsh tales were directly derived from Chrétien. This study led G. Paris, Romania, XX, 166 (1891),5 to modify his previous opinion and acknowledge Chrétien’s Erec as a source of Geraint
° Paris is reviewing Foerster’s edition of the Hrec (1890). The review is very important as expressing the writer's estimate of the literary value of the Erec as well as his opinions in regard to its sources.
In an important article, ‘Une épisode d’Erec et Enide: La Joie de la Cour’, Romania, XXV, 258ff. (1896) E. Philipot expresses agreement (p. 294) with Othmer as to the relations of the Welsh tale and Erec. In this article Philipot discusses the relations of the Joie de la Cour episode in Erec to the similar episode of the Bel Inconnu romances and concludes that the latter is not dependent on the former. The conclusion, however, is very questionable.
Go ogle
The Mabinogion Controversy 63
and Enid, but he still assumed that the author of the Welsh tale drew, also, from another lost French source. In his editions of Chrétien’s romances, and, especially, in his edition (1899) of Chre- tien’s Lancelot (Karrenritter), pp. oxxviiff., W. Foerster held to Othmer’s position. With the appearance of Edens’s above-men- tioned dissertation, however, the debate on the relation of the Erec to Geraint and Enid passed into the stage of a furious controversy. Following are the titles of the publications that pertain thereto, arranged in chronological order:
1. 2.
3.
Edens’s dissertation (1910).
Foerster’s review of Edens, Literarisches Zentralblatt (LZ), Aug. 26, 1911, cols. 1120ff.
Edens’s reply to Foerster, LZ, Nov. 18, 1911, cols. 1522 ff. and Foerster’s rejoinder tbid., cols. 1525 ff.
. Foerster’s more elaborate reply to Edens in his ree
‘Noch einmal die sogenannte Mabinogionfrage,” Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Tatt., XXVIII, 149ff. (Dec. 1, 1911).
. Joint reply of Edens and R. Zenker to Foerster, LZ,
Dec. 2, cols. 1590f. and ibid., col. 1591, Foerster’s answer thereto.
. R. Zenker, Zur Mabinogionfrage (Halle,, 1912). . A. Smirnov, review of Edens, Revue Celtique, XXXITI,
130ff. (1912).
. P. A. Becker’s review of No. 6 in Literaturblatt fur germ.
u. roman. Ph. (LB), Jan., 1918, cols. 19ff.
. Zenker’s reply to Smirnov in “Nochmals Erec-Geraint,”’
Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt. XL', 186ff. (Feb. 17, 1913).
. Zenker’s reply to Becker, LB, May, 1918, cols. 180f. - Genker’s fuller reply to Becker in ‘“Weiteres zur Mabi-
nogionfrage, I,” Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., XLI, 181 ff.
_ (Nov. 10, 1913).
12.
13.
W. Gaede, Die Bearbeitungen von Chrétien's Erek und die Mabtnogionfrage, Minster diss., 1913, in substantial agreement with Foerster.
Zenker’s reply to Gaede, “‘Weiteres zur Mabinogtonfrage, II,” Ze. f. frz. Spr. u. Latt., XLII, 11ff. (1914).
64 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
14. Foerster, Chrétien Worterbuch, 1389*(1914).
In the course of the controversy Zenker yielded some points, and No. 13 represents his maturest conclusions on the subject. Sifting this article, then, we find that he rests his case for the independence of the Welsh substantially on the following evidence:
1. pp. 33ff.. In W (Geratnt and Enid), as, partly, in Hart- mann von Aue’s Krek,* the equipment which Enid’s father lends
* For the relation of Hartmann to Chrétien cp. K. Bartsch, “Uber Christians von Troyes und Hartmanns von Aue ‘Erec und Enide’”, Pteiffer's Germania, VII, 141ff. (1862). He concludes that, despite differences, Chrétien was Hartmann’s sole source, although the MS. which the latter used did not always offer the same readings as any of our extant MSS. of Chrétien’s poem. E. Kilbing arrived at similar conclusions with regard to the Norse version of this poem. Cp. his “Die nordische Erexsaga und ihre Quelle”, thid., XVI, 381ff. (1871), — also, Foerster’s large Hrec, pp. XVII ff., XLII ff. (Halle, 1890). As against Bartsch, Foerster, op. cit. pp. XVUf., attributes to Hartmann’s invention the variations in his narrative. For a continuation of the controversy concerning Hartmann’s relation to Chrétien see (in addition to articles cited above, which deal primarily with the question of the Mabinogion) Karl Dreyer: Hartmanns von Aue Erec und seine alt- franzésische Quelle. Programm Kinigsberg, 1893 — also, Paul Hagen, “Zum Erec”, Zs. f. deutsche Ph., XXVII, 463ff. (1897), and F. Piquet,
ude sur Hartmann d’ Aue (Paris thesis, 1898). Dreyer’s conclusion is that Hartmann’s source is Chrétien’s poem, but in a different re- daction from that which we possess. Hagen and Piquet believe that he used some other (unknown) source, in addition to Chrétien, and G. Paris, in reviewing Piquet, Romania, XXVIII, 167 (1899), regards that scholar’s result as plausible, though not assured. For a criticism of Piquet by Foerster cp. the latter’s edition of Chrétien’s Lancelot, pp. CXLIVff., note 1. In my opinion, Foerster is nearer the truth than any of the other participants in this controversy.
Since Foerster’s death, Zenker, ‘“Weiteres zur Mabinogionfrage: II, Die Bearbeitungen von Chrétien’s Erec in ihrem Verh<nis zu diesem, und zu dem kymrischen Mabinogi”, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Ltt. XLV', 47ff. (1917), has argued that Hartmann used a form of the Erec story which was, in many respects, different from Chrétien's. Some of his points are worthy of attention, but, on the whole, they are, in my opinion, susceptible of explanation on the same principles as the instances which I have discussed in the text. The Anhang (pp. 95ff.) to this article consists of a reply to W. Meyer-Libke,
The Mabinogion Controversy 65
Erec for the sparrow-hawk contest is poor and rusty, as accorded with the owner’s poverty; in Chrétien it is fine and bright. The Welsh is more logical and hence preserves a more primitive form of the incident. |
In reply one might say that armor is the last thing that a knight would neglect, and, as Zenker concedes, there is no ab- solute reason for condemning Chrétien’s version. On the. other hand, the Welsh author might naturally have changed Chrétien, in order to harmonize the armor with the general poverty of Erec’s host. This is all the more likely, inasmuch as the suggestion lay ready to hand in the terms of Erec’s request for arms (ll. 609f.):
D’unes armes viez ou noveles. Ne me chaut ou leides ou beles. |
As regards the partial agreement with W in H (Hartmann), who represents the armor as bright, but the shield, spear, and covering of the horse as obsolete and unsuitable, on which Zenker lays stress, this is, no doubt, a half-hearted attempt on the part of the German poet in the same direction as W. Zenker’s expla- nation, however, seems to me forced, viz. that H had two versions before him, one like Chrétien’s, the other like W’s, and that he took the description of the shield and spear from the latter and the rest from the former.
2. pp. 35ff.. In the duel between Erec (Geraint) and Yder, according to W and H, both break several lances, before they begin the fight with swords on foot, and in the end the hero only unhorses his opponent with a lance given him by Enid’s father. In Chrétien, too, the old man gives Erec a lance (implied in le
“Chrestien von Troyes Erec und Enide”, +bid., XLI, 129ff., who, among other things, had expressed his agreement with Foerster and Becker as to the direct dependence of the Welsh Gereint on Chrétien.
The present work was about to go to press, when Zenker’s Forschungen zur Artusepik I. Ivainstudien (Halle, 1921) reached me. In this volume he maintains, of course, the same side in the Mabinogion controversy as in his previous writings — more especially, with reference to the Yvain. As I have said above, I regret that his book arrived too late for me to take account of it in the present treatise. .
Helperia, Exgdngungsrethe: 9. 5
66 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
soreplus, 1. 629) beforehand, but the weapon is not mentioned specifically in the account of the combat. Moreover, after a single tilt both combatants are unhorsed and resume the fight with swords on foot.
The agreement between W and H is not perfect, for in the former Ynywl steps forward during the fight and presents tho spear to the hero, whereas in H Erec already has it and merely reserves it to the last. Descriptions of combats in the Arthu- rian romances are rarely so brief as this one in Chrétien, and it was quite natural for two writers independently to try to enhance the interest of the narrative by the device of retardation. There is always the possibility, too, which Foerster emphasizes, Karren- ritter, pp. cxxxvf., that they were using MSS. that contained variant readings not preserved in our extant MSS. In view of the wholesale agreement of W and Chrétien throughout their. narra- tives. it would be unjustifiable to attach any importance to this. partial coincidence in respect.to a minute detail between W and H.
3. pp. 39ff., 62ff. The motive of jealousy which is found in W, but not in C. [ have already discussed this above.
4. pp. 44ff. When the importunate count in Chretien (ll. 3522 ff.) comes to abduct Enid, he finds that she and Erec have departed and he sets out in pursuit, but nothing is said of his questioning the host in regard to their flight. In both W and H, however, we have a dialogue of this sort, although different in detail. In W the count asks in anger why the innkeeper did not warn him of their departure, to which the man replies that the count had not ordered him to do so. Moreover, he can only tell the nobleman that the pair took the high road on leaving the inn. In H the host is as high-tempered as the count, and a heated col- loquy ensues, in which the former denies any knowledge as to the whereabouts of the supposed fugitives. The dialogue here is longer and the count more suspicious of the host.
It is quite possible that Foerster’s theory, mentioned in the discussion of No. 2, applies also in this case. But, after all, such a dialogue is naturally suggested by the situation, and Chrétien's treatment of the count’s deecent upon the inn is, perhaps, unduly
The Mabtnogion Controversy 67
abrupt. There is, consequently, nothing arbitrary in assuming with Gaede that W and H hit upon their additions independently here. As a parallel example, take the coincidence between W and the Old French prose version (cp. Zenker, p. 55) in respect to the dwarf at the beginning of the story. Chrétien (ll. 225ff.) says that when the dwarf struck Erec, the latter failed to resent it, because the dwarf’s master, standing by, was armed, as Erec was not. In addition, both W and the Old French prose declare that he was also restrained by the feeling that for a knight to slay a dwarf would have done dishonor to the knight. Now, no one has ever maintained that the prose had any other source than Chrétien, yet here it agrees with W. The reason is that the situation sug- gested this appeal to what was a common mediaeval sentiment.
5. pp. 48ff. In Chrétien (ll. 4045ff.), Erec, with the butt of his spear, unhorses Kay (Keu), but when he learns that the horse which Kay was riding belonged to Gawain he at once sur- renders it. Kay takes the steed back to court and recounts the affair there. Arthur’s curiosity 1s aroused, and he sends Gawain to fetch the stranger to him. Erec, however, being wounded and, generally, in bad condition, declines, but Gawain sends a ‘‘vaslet”’ to tell the king to pitch his tent at a point on the road where he will have the chance of making the acquaintance of “the best knight, of a truth, that he might ever expect to see.” Presumably, because of his armor, Gawain does not recognize Erec. On the contrary, in W he does recognize him, and so Zenker contends that here again we have in W a logical, primitive trait which proves its independence of Chrétien; for how could Gawain speak of a knight that he did not know in such terms? The expression, however, is obviously hyperbolical —- purposely so on Gawain’s part, probably, as Becker, LB, XX XIV, 25, has observed, in order to excite Arthur’s curiosity all the more — and is not at all un- natural, when one considers the impression which Kay’s report of the stranger’s prowess and courtesy (the latter, nota bene, shown especially to Gawain) had made at court and how this impression
was deepened by the sight of Erec, himself. We may take the 5*
68 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
alteration in W, then, as simply another example of the literal tendency of the author’s mind.
It will be observed that only Nos. 2 and 4 among Zenker’s objections are based on concrete evidence. The rest are, to all ‘intents and purposes, subjective.
The controversy is continued, in part, by W. A. Nitze in “The Romance of Erec, son of Lac,’ MPh., XI, 445ff. (1914), especially, pp. 471ff., where the author, though believing that Chrétien was using a Celtic source, maintains, versus Edens, that Erec is more primitive than Geratnt. For the rest, Nitze explains Erec’s treatment of Enid as due to his desire to assert the principle of the husband’s “sovereignty” in marriage, at all costs (p. 448). I cannot agree with Nitze (pp. 459ff.) in acoepting the theory of E. Philipot, Romania, XXV, 264,’ (1896) and M. Roques, sbid., XXXIX, 379ff.2 (1910), that the story of Enid is simply an adaptation of the Joie de la Cort story near the end of the Erec.® There is not a trace of the supernatural in the former, as we have it, and where the incidents are so totally different, there is no basis for the idea that Chrétien gave a new and rationalized shape to the original Joie de la Cort story with the aim of pre-
* In the article “Un episode d’Erec et Enide: La Joie de la Cour-Mabon l’enchanteur’, Romania, XXV, 258ff. The author dis- cusses its relations to the Bel Inconnu romances, especially. He regards (pp. 293f.) Geraint as derived directly from Erec. © In his review of Myrrha Borodine’s La femme et l'amour au XII siécle d’aprés les poémes de Chrétien de Troyes (Paris, 1909), where, p. 76, Erec’s conduct to his wife is explained on the principle that the duties of knighthood must be superior to love. Roques objects to the current view that the Joie de la Cort episode is an “hors- d’oeuvre’’; but the looseness of structure of the Arthurian romances permitted such an episode.
° In his article, “The Sloth of Erec’, Romanic Review, IX, 1. (1918), M. B. Ogle, answering Nitze, disputes (rightly, I believe) any connection between the Erec-Enide story and the fairy mistress theme. He cites (pp. 9ff.) examples from Latin literature and from mediaeval works that continue the classical tradition to prove that the opposition of love to endeavor was a commonplace of such literature. Cp. Nitze’s rejoinder, “Erec’s Treatment of Enide”’, ibid. X, 26ff. (1919).
The Mabinogion Controversy or
senting an intentional contrast ‘“‘entre la sage Enide et sa ro- manesque cousine” (Roques). A brief summary of the story of the ‘“‘cousine” (ll. 6052ff.) will reveal the difference: A knight (Mabonagrain) unwarily binds himself, by a don, to his lady-love never to leave the marvelous garden, in which his uncle Evrain had conferred on him the order of knighthood, until be is over- come by some challenger. She did not believe that this would ever happen, and, on the other hand, she told him that she would abandon him, should he violate his pledge. He slays many knights who attempt the adventure, but is, at last, vanquished by Erec, who then blows a magic horn and dissolves the enchantment, thereby liberating the knight. A wall, as it were, of air (ll. 5739ff.), created by necromancy, had cut off the garden from the surrounding world.
We have evidently here in partly rationalized form the story of a fay who keeps her mortal lover in her power by a spell,!° but in what point has it any relation to the story of Enid? | Furthermore, in RR. V, 115ff. (1914), in his article, “Why
does Chrétien’s Erec treat Enid so harshly?,” E. S. Sheldon re- jects Nitze’s solution and argues that in the passage, ll. 2493ff., Ereo only heard Enid’s “Con mar i fus!” (1. 2507) and, ob serving her weeping, asked her the cause, and that, when she evaded a direct answer, until she was forced to give one, her husband’s confidence in her sincerity was shaken — hence his harsh conduct towards her. This, however, seems hardly an adequate motive, even from the mediaeval point of view, for so long a course of ill- treatment."
*° The Calypso-Ulysses motif, which is frequent, too, in Celtic tales. Foerster, Wérterbuch, p.116*, interprets it as a variant of the motif of the liberation of a girl whom a giant has made captive, bat the girl here is evidently the dominant figure.
2 J. H. Kool: “Le probléme Erec-Geraint”, Neophilologus, 10, 167#f. (Groningen, 1918), examines Chrétien’s method of paraphrasing Ovid in his Philomena and tries to apply the results to the Hrec problem. This is all beside the mark, however, and the article is negligible. _.
In MLN, XVID, 220ff. (1903) A. J. Morrison has pointed out an apparent imitation of Erec — decayed gentleman motif — in Sone
pa Evolution of Arthurian Romance
The name, ‘“‘Erec’’, is Breton. Cp. J. Loth, Revue Celtique, XIII, 482ff. (1892), and Mabinogion®, I, 56 (1913). F. Lot,
de Nausay, ll. 12673ff. and thid., XX, 222f. (1905), a Modern Welsh parallel, in Allen Raine’s Heart of Wales (London, 1905), pp. 2ff., for the same motif.
‘* Zimmer, Zs. f. frz. Spr. «. Litt., XIl', 26ff.. had wrongly argued that “Erec’’ was a Germanic name and had identified the character with Eoric, King of the Westgoths (466—485), who were established in Southern Gaul. Zimmer wished still further to discard Outre-Gales, the name of Erec’s conntry, which Foerster adopts in | his edition of the poem (ll. 1874, 3881), and substitutes therefor Estregales, which in some MSS. takes the place of Outregales (1. 3881). This Estregales Zimmer derives from an hypothetical Deztra Gallia, which he interprets as Southern Gaul. Through a misunderstanding of the original, Destregales, he thinks, came to be interpreted as @’ Estr'e- gales (Estregales meaning “Beyond Wales”) — hence in the MSS. just referred to we have (1. 3881): “Rois est mes pere d’Estregales”’. Space prevents me from summarizing the “evidence” with which he supports this hypothesis. Suffice it to say that it is of the flimsiest character. Destregales is not found anywhere, except once (conti- nuation to Chrétien's Perceval, 1. 13725), and that in a passage so corrupt that nobody knows what it means. The only thing certain about the line is that the form Destregales in it is due merely to a scribe’s blunder. On the other hand, Dextra Gallia is purely hypo- thetical. F. Lot, Romania, XXV, 7ff. (1896), accepts, however, Zimmer's Destregales and Dextra Gallia — only he interprets them as referring to South Wales and cites in favor of his interpretation from Welsh writings, dextralts Walliae pars, dextralis Kambria, dextralis Britannia. G. Paris, however, in a note at the end of Lot's article (p. 32), disputes the whole basis of his and Zimmer's specu- lations, viz. that d’Estregales in Erec, ll. 1874, 3881, is not the correct reading. His own suggested reading, @’Osteregales (= Au- stralis Wallia of Giraldus Cambrensis), however, has no manuscript authority. Lot's interpretation is, no doubt, a consequence of his theory that Chrétien’s source for Hrec was Welsh. I have commented, above, on the other supposed evidence for this theory which he has adduced.
In the Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXVIII", 78 ff. (1804) E. Brugger has offered some effective criticism of Zimmer and Lot, and would himself identify Estregales with Strathclyde (‘Valley of the Clyde”), the old Celtic kingdom, which extended from the Derwent (in England) to the Clyde (in Scotland). He derives the name, Estregales, from —
The Mabinogion Controversy 71
Romania, XXV, 588 ff. (1896), has identified him with an ac- tual Count of Nantes of the same name who died about 990, but historical conditions render it probable that the Bretons regarded this personage as an enemy, rather than as a national hero, and so Lot thinks that he is a substitute for the original hero, Ge- raint, who ruled (cp. sbid., pp. 10f.) over Devon and Cornwall .in the latter part of the seventh century. In Foerster’s edition, however, of Chrétien’s '‘Karrenritter (Lancelot, pp. cxvf.), Zimmer points out that there were two earlier princes named ‘Weroc”’ (= ‘‘Erec’’) in the sixth century in south-east Brittany (including Nantes) and that the second (last quarter of the century) was famous on account of his battles with the Franks. The objec- tion to the tenth century Erec would not apply in these cases. In any event, the substitution of the unpopular Erec of the tenth century for an earlier hero would be hard to explain.
In Romania, XXX, 21 (1901), Lot, also, identifies Enide with “‘enit”’, the Welsh word for “woodlark’’, which he says does not exist in Breton, as far as he knows. In the absence of early Breton records, however, one cannot say whether this was true of the period with which we are particularly concerned or not,!5 and, besides, the similarity between the forms just named may be purely accidental.’
According to Lot (Romania, XXV, 9ff.) certain names of
places in Chrétien’s poem (Rotelan-Ruddlan, Caradigan, etc.) prove Celtic Stratcloith through an hypothetical Estregalo(u) (-1). His conclusions, however, depend on the validity of a long chain of spe- culations (pp. 97ff.) and are anything but convincing. _ '* In Romania, XXIV, 321 ff. (1895) F. Lot, also, interprets the name, “Mabonagrain”, as a combination of “Mabon” and “Evrain’, names of two magicians who figure in Le Bel Inconnu (which is, itself, of course, of much later date than the Erec), “Evrain” being really a distortion of “Eunain’’ (= “Owain"). It seems to me, how- ever, more likely that the author of Le Bel Inconnu (Li Biaus Descouneus) took the name “Evrain” direct from Mabonagrain’s uncle in the Erec and that he shortened Mabonagrain’s own name into “Mabon”, because the latter was easier té handle in the verse.
“ Cp. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt, XXVIL', 89 (1904) — also, W. Meyer-Liibke, ibid., XLIV", 144f. (including note 19).
Go ogle
72 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
that the story came from Cornwall to Brittany by way of Wales — which, one may. remark, would accord with the (now) abandoned theory of Anglo-Norman origin of the Arthurian romances, but would be a singularly indirect route for a tale actually to take in passing from tle one country to the other. Besides, as Lot five years later himself observes, Romania XXX, 19f. (1901), Cardigan (Caradigan), as the name of a town, is not Welsh, but Norman, the place to this day being known to the Welsh as A berteivi. .
These names play, also, an important part in the argument of Edens and Zenker. Chrétien, however, would naturally locate the plot of an Arthurian romance in Great Britain and conse- quently make the place-names, in some degree, conform with this conception. Similarly, the Welsh, in adapting Chrétien’s roman- ces, would cymricise names of all kinds more completely, sub- stituting, for example, “Geraint” for ‘‘Erec’’, with which they were not familiar. :
In addition to the scholars who have taken an active part in this controversy, J. Loth and A Nutt have also accepted the hypo- thesis of a common French source for W and Chrétien. Cp., respectively, Les Mabinogion’, I, 53ff. (Paris, 1913), and the re- print of Lady Charlotte Guest’s Mabinogion (London, 1902), with notes by Alfred Nutt, pp. 351—354. Nutt here expresses the opi- nion that G. Paris’s earlier theory of common Anglo-Norman sources for Chrétien and the so-called Mabinogion is “probably very near the truth” (p. 353). F. Lot, Romania, XXV, 8, 12 (1896), seems disposed, also, to believe in the complete indepen- dence of the Mabinogion, and E. Windisch, in the work already cited, pp. 221ff., goes furthest of all in taking up the impossible position that the Mabinogion show no French influence at all.
J. Loth was unfortunate in declaring, op. cit., I, 51, that ‘En dehors de l’ecole de Foerster, dont le plus remarquable tenant est W. Golther, on ne voit plus dans les romans gallois une tra- duction des romans francajs.’’ (One has to take ‘‘traduction”’ here in the sense of ‘‘adaptation”’, since it is not contended that the Welsh stories were literal translations of Chrétien.) For certainly
The Mabtnogion Controversy 73
Brugger and Nitze, to say nothing of P. A. Becker, do not belong to Foerster’s school, and yet within a few years of the publication of Loth’s work (the second edition) both had expressed the opinion that Peredur was merely an adaptation of the Conte del Graal. For the articles in question see my discussion of Peredur, above. Every probability of course, favors the supposition that, if one of these tales is derived from Chrétien, the others are, too.'®
The controversy which has been carried on with such ardor and, frequently, with such acrimony, in regard to the relations of Chré- tien’s Hrec and the Welsh Geratnt and Enid has extended, of course, to the similar question in regard to the relations of his Yvain to the Welsh Owain (i. e. Lady of the Fountain). It is impossible for us, however, in this place, to discuss the questions at issue so fully as we have done in the case of Erec. Suffice it to say that the following are the most important contributions to the Yvain-Owain controversy: 1. Foerster’s large edition of the Yvain, pp. xixff. (1886). 2. A.C. L. Brown, “On the independent cha- . racter of the Welsh Owain,” RR., ITI, 143ff. (1912), advocating & common source, an Anglo-French metrical or Latin prose ro- mance (p. 157). 3. A. Smirnov’s review of Brown’s article in Revue Celtique, XXXIV, 337ff. (1913). 4. Walter Greiner’s Leipzig diss.,1*° Owetn-Ivain: Neue Bettrage zur Frage nach der Unabhangigkeit der Kymrischen Mabtnogion von den Romanen - Chrestiens. Erster Teil (Halle, 1917). 5. R. Zenker, Ivain- Studien (Halle, 1921). :
Both nos, 4 and 5 conclude that Chrétien and the Welsh go back independently to an ultimate common source.
No. 2 is valuable for the parallels (pp. 157ff.) which the author has collected from Celtic literature to features of Owatn. | This does not conflict, however, with the hypothesis that Owatn
** The sparrow-hawk adventure (Il. 342ff.) was borrowed from Erec by some of the later romances. Cp. W. H. Schofield, Studies on the Libeaus Desconus, 164 ff. (Boston, 1895) and W. A. Nitze, MPh. XI, 450 ff. (1914).
** This has been published, also, in the Zs. f. celt. Ph., XII, 1ff. (1918).
74 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
is dependent on Yvain. We should simply have here the same method of cymricisation of the French original that is observable in @ somewhat more marked degree in Peredur. Brown’s effort to prove that the Welsh tale is more primitive than Yvain, be- cause it is (supposedly) more logical in some points, has been successfully refuted, in my opinion, by Smirnov. Moreover, as Foerster has remarked, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXXVI, 734, note 1 (1912) and Chrétien Worterbuch, 140ff. (1914), if Laudine, the easily consoled widow, is imitated from Jocaste in the Roman de Thebes, then, Owain is certainly dependent on Yvain. Now, the Imitation in question seems undeniable, and has been accepted as such by a number of especial students of the subject. Cp. Worter- buch, 107*, note 1.
In closeness to the corresponding romance of Chrétien, Owasm, though much condensed, stands midway between Geraint and Pere- dur, the last-named showing (in certain sections) the widest de- partures from the French, through the addition of new materials. The episode of the Pesme Avanture (Yvam, ll. 5109ff.) is in Owain placed at the end of Yvain’s exploits, but the story is the same.!?
For the relation of Peredur to Chrétien’s Perceval and its continuations, cp. I, 342ff., above.
‘' The three romances of Chrétien discussed above have come down to us, also, in mediaeval Scandinavian versions: Hrexsaga, Ivent- saga, Parztwvalsaga, edited by E. Kilbing in his Riddaraségur (Strassburg, 1872). Chrétien is generally acknowledged to be the sole source of these Old Norse prose tales. For detailed comparisons with the French, besides the work just named, see E. Kilbing, “Die nordische Erexsaga und ihre Quelle’, Pfeiffer's Germania, XVI, 381ff. (1871), and on the Parzivalsaga, ibid. XIV, 129ff. (1869) — also, in- troductions to Foerster’s large editions of the Hrec and Yvain, re- spectively. The analogy of these Norse sagas has been often cited in support of the view that Chrétien was, likewise, the only source of the three Welsh tales.
Chapter V. The Sources of Chrétien’s Yvain.
As Nitze has observed,! we have in Laudine’s story neither the heroine’s luring on of the hero to the adventure (enticement motsf) nor the liberation of the heroine by the hero, which are fundamental characteristics of the fairy mistress theme. Yvain goes to the fountain to avenge his cousin, Calogrenant (1. 589). He knows nothing of Laudine, and she knows nothing of him, until he invades the castle under the circumstances which we have seen, and, as the story stands, she is not in need of liberation. Then, we have the complete divergence between the Yvaim and Cuchullin’s Sick Bed concerned in respect to accessory details.
* MPh., VII, 160, note 5 (1909). G. Ehrismann, PBB, XXX, 14ff. (“Marchen im hdfischen Epos”) distinguishes as the most im- portant motifs in the Arthurian romances (1) the Verlockungsmotiv (the fairy’s enticement of the hero into fairy-land), (2) the Befreiungs- motiv (liberation from the fairy’s power), and regards both as drawn from Celtic — more particularly, Irish — Mdrchen. For a list of scholars, beginning with Osterwald in 1853, who have derived the Yvoain from a Celtic fairy tale cp. Brown, Iwain, pp. 19ff. and MPh. IX, 109, note 4 (1911). Especially noteworthy is G. Paris’s idea, Romania, XVII, 334f. (1888) that the Yoain story is of the same type as that of Guingamor, Ogter le Danois, Tannhduser etc.: A mortal marries a fay, leaves her, intending to return, but forgets his promise or breaks her commands. In Chrétien, however, Laudine is not called “the lady of the fountain”, as Paris asserts. This epithet is found only in the corresponding Welsh tale. Ahlstrim makes the same mistake in his “Sur l’origine du Chevalier an Lion”, Mélanges de Philologie romane dédiés & Carl Wahlund” (Macon, 1896), p. 297. His interpretation (p. 301) of Laudine as a “femme-cygne”’ (cp. the Wieland saga) is entirely baseless. G. Baist interprets her as a ‘““Wasserfrau” whose story Chrétien attached to the spring in the forest of Broceliande. Cp. Baist's article, “Die Quellen des Yvain”, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXI, 402ff. (1897).
76 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
In rejecting Professor Brown’s solution of the problem,* one must confess that none of the alternate hypotheses are wholly satisfactory. The basis of the plot is, no doubt, a marchen. Chre- tien, however, has altered his source to such a degree that the outlines of the original are no longer recognizable. Professor Nitze* had endeavored to explain the fountain story as derived | from the myth of the Arician Diana, whose armed priest guarded the grove and lake‘ of the goddess in the Alban hills near Aricia
* Cp. I, 94ff., above. — In his article, “Chrétien’s ‘Yvain’”, MPh., IX, 109ff. (1911), Brown adds to his original theory of the fairy mistress theme a feud motive. The “Hospitable Host, to whose party doubtless were attached both Lunete and Laudine, was oppressed by a tyrannical fairy foe, Esclados the Red, who had got Laudine into his power. Lunete went to Arthur's court in the interests of the Hospitable Host to persuade some mortal into undertaking the ad- venture of the Fountain Perilous” (p. 111). But, this is substituting for the actual story preserved in Chrétien’s text one so entirely different that I see no profit in discussing it.
Even in his comparison of the Yvain with the Serglige Cuchulain Brown has been criticised by G. Ehrismann (who, in the main, agrees with him) for stressing the resemblances between the two and ne- glecting the differences. Cp., too, PBB, XXX, 42, and more strongly A. Jeanroy, Revue Critique, for Jan. 2, 1905, p. 4. For a similar criticism of this defect of Brown's method im re Holy Grail, cp. A. Nutt, The Academy, May 7, 1910, and tn re Yvain, Windisch, Das Kelttsche Britannien bis zu Katser Arthur, p. 181 (Leipzig, 1912).
* First in his review of Brown's Jwain in MLN, XIX, 84 (1904), and more fully in hig articles, “A New Source of the Yvain", MPh., Ill, 267 ff. (1965) and “The Fountain Defended”, «bid. VII, 145 ff. (1909). In the latter article (p. 160), however, he assumes that the myth was combined or confounded with the fairy mistress theme. In this new form, then, his theory would relate only to the ultimate source of the Yoain. In MPh. IX, 116ff. Brown has offered some good criticism of this theory. I agree with Brown, ibtd., p. 127, that in attempting to go behind the immediate sources of the Yvatn (whatever they may be) Nitze is undertaking the impossible.
“ Not fountain. The interpretation of this myth forms, of course, the starting-point of Sir J. G. Frazer's famous treatise, The Golden
Bough.
The Sources of Chrétien’s Yvain. 77
until some intruder — usually a runaway slave — challenged the priest by breaking a sacred bough near her temple, and, if victor in the combat that ensued, became the defender of the lake. _ Apart, however, from the fact that there is no storm-making quality associated with the Arician lake, there is no evidence that this myth was ever localized in Brittany or that any native Gallic
fountain-cult ever assumed this form, under the influence of the Arician myth, and, in the absence of such evidence, the theory is unacceptable. On the other hand, according to the interpretation of Foerster,’ the mdrchen involved is the familiar one of the girl whom a giant has captured and who is liberated by the hero — a motsf, of course, which is, in no way, specifically Celtic. The storm-making spring was then foreign to the original story, but was introduced by Chrétien from the description which Wace gives in his Roman de Rou, ll. 6395ff., of the spring of Berenton in the famous Breton forest of Broceliande,* just as he
* Cp. his Yvain, pp. XXXIVff. (1902) and Chrétien Wéorter- buch, pp. 109*ff. (1914). Pp. 95*ff. of the latter work offer a comprehensive discussion of all Yvatn problems and the critical lite- ratare pertaining thereto down to 1914. So, too, — from the opposite point of view — does R. Zenker’s [vainstudien (Halle, 1921), which reached me too late to be used in this book.
* Wace, Joc. cit., says that, according to the Bretons, huntsmen would pour water from the spring on a perron by its side and a rain would fall on the forest and surrounding region. He says scornfully, however, that he went to Berenton and that he did not see verified this or any of the other marvels which the Bretons tell of the forest. For the passage in Wace and other testimony to this Berenton fable cp. Foerster, Chrétien Worterbuch, pp. 99*ff. For parallel stories else- where, cp. Louise B. Morgan “The Source of the Fountain Story in Ywain", MPh., VI, 331ff. and Nitze, ibid., 148 ff. (1908). G. L. Hamilton is bringing out in the Romanic Review a study entitled “Storm-making Springs: Studies on the sources of the Yvain”, in which he is to deal with all such stories in popular tradition throughout the world. He has published two sections of the study, ibtd., I, 355 ft. (1911) and V, 213 ff. (1914), but has not yet reached the more im- mediate parallels to the Yvatn spring. In his “Christian von Troyes Yvain und die Brandanuslegende”, Zs. f. vergl. Litteraturgeschichte, — N. F., XI, 442 ff. (1897), E. Kélbing thinks that the birds in the
Go ogle
78 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
also introduced from the Roman de Thebes, ll. 223ff., the motif of the widow, easily consoled, who marries her husband’s slayer almost immediately after the event.?’ Like Jocaste, the widow
Yoain, ll. 460ff., who sing their “servise’, after the storm at the spring has passed away, were taken from a similar description in the legend of the Irish St. Brendan, and Nitze, MPh., III, 274, note 2, agrees with him. But the ecclesiastical image involved (the birds singing a service) might occur to a writer in any age or country. Cp. the elaborate use of the motif in the pseudo-Chaucerian Court of Love, jl. 1352 ff. An example from the Arabian Nights is given by John C. Hodges, MLN, XXXII, 282, (1917). It is a similar conception _ when Salvator Rosa, condemning in his First Satire the custom of the Italian princes of the seventeenth century in maintaining eunuchs in their households as singers, says:
“EK in vece di un castrato ingordo e rio
Tenete un rusignol che nulla chiede,
E forse i canti suoi son inni a Dio.”
* A. G. Van Hamel first pointed this out in Romanische For- schungen, XXIII (volume entitled Mélanges Chabineau), 911 ff. (1907). His observation, which, I believe, is certainly right, has beeu widely accepted. Cp. Foerster, Worterbuch, p.107*, note 1. In his first small edition of Yvain, pp. XVf. (1891), Foerster had compared the character of Laudine with that of the Widow of Ephesus, so well- known from Petronius’s Satyricon, ch. 111—112, and studied in all the variants of the motif by E. Grisebach, Die Wanderung der No- velle von der treulosen Wittwe durch‘ die Weltlitteratur (2nd. ed. Berlin, 1889). The characters unquestionably are very much alike, but the circumstances of their stories are too widely different to be con- nected historically, since in the Widow of Ephesus group, to mention only one fundamental divergence, the second husband is not the slayer of the first. Foerster’s idea that Chrétien's picture of Laudine’s fickleness was suggested by some contemporary incident is not very probable. In his article, “Byzantinisch-Geschichtliches im Cliges und Yvain", Zs. (f. rom. Ph., XXXII, 400 ff. Franz Settegast goes so far as to identify her with the Byzantine empress, Eudoxia, and Yvain with this empress's husband, Romanos IV Diogenes (1068—1071); but there is really no analogy between the two sets of incidents. Nitze, MPh. XI, 459, note, pertinently calls attention to the actual practice of Chrétien's contemporaries in regard to re-marriage. Even women of the highest birth were less squeamish than is usually the case now in such matters. One does not have to go back to Irish analogues like that which
The Sources of Chrétten’s Yvain. 79
of Laius in the Roman de Thébes, who marries Oedipus, her first husband’s slayer, Laudine, too, is aware of the identity of her first husband’s slayer, as her vassals are not, but she pretends to yield to their entreaties to marry him, because she wants to have a defender for her possessions.* For the rest of the story, Foerster argues that in conscious contrast to Erec, who, from uxori- ousness, fell into a neglect of arms, Chrétien makes his new hero scorn such slackness and continue to devote his life to deeds of knighthood. It is true that the fickle lady, being angered by his neglect, breaks with him and so throws him into a state of mad- ness, but after his marvelous cure he still devotes himself to knight- ly adventure up to the reconciliation at the end. The particular adventures had no original connection with one another and are here linked together for the first time.® One of them, indeed,
Windisch, Das keltische Britannien bis zu Kaiser Arthur, p. 167, points out: Cuchullin marries Aiffe, whose husband he had just slain.
* As I have said in the text, I believe that Foerster is right in his identification of Laudine with the heroine of the mdrchen indicated above, but I cannot agree with him when he reads this same mottf, Yvain*, pp. XXXIVff., and Worterbuch, pp. 109*ff. into the Joie de la Cort episode of Hrec. The predominance of the girl in the latter shows, it seems to me, that we have here a real instance of the fairy mistress theme. Moreover, I cannot share Foerster’s opinion (loc. cit.) as to the importance of the passages in the Lanzelet and Huon de Bordeaux. Nitze, MPh., VII, 161, note (1909) has already remarked that the Huon passage is clearly an imitation or reminiscence of the Yvain, and believes that the same thing is true of the Lanzelet — a third-rate poem that is made up of borrowings from every quarter, including Chrétien’s romances, as Foerster, himself, /oc. cst. observes.
* This is the view expressed by Baist in the article, cited above. The first part (the fountain-story) he thinks (pp. 404f.) “hat stofflich den Charakter eines Lais, nicht den eines Romans’. In contrast with Baist and Foerster, — and, I may add, Golther, Zs: f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXVOI*, 36 (1904) — we have A. C. L. Brown’s effort, “The Knight of the Lion”, PMLA, XX 673 ff. (1905) above-mentioned to force all the varied incidents of the part that follows the fountain story into the pattern. of a single Celtic fairy tale (type of Cuchullin’s Sickbed), which, in my judgment, is impossible. As far as Yvain's love-madness is concerned, one does not have to go to Irish saga for this motif. In-
Go ogle
80 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
the episode of the Pesme Avanture (= Worst Adventure) is, in- deed, merely a variant of the marchen on which the first part of the poem is based — viz. that of a girl, the captive of a giant, who is liberated by the hero. There can be little doubt that Foerster
sanity on account of love was a regularly recognized disease in me- diaeval practice. Cp. J. L. Lowes’ well-known article, “The Lover's Maladye of Hereos”, MPh., XI, 491ff. (1914). As Baist says (loc. cit.) Chrétien, no doubt, really took the conception from the Folie de Tristan.
Baist is also, no doubt, right in deriving the motif of the grateful lion; which gave its name to the poem, from the classical story of Androclus and the lion. In the original form of the story the cause of the beast’s gratitude was that the hero had drawn a thorn from his paw. Already by the first half of the eleventh century, a serpent had superseded the thorn, and it is in this form that Chrétien uses the story. Cp. on the whole subject G. Baist “Der dankbare Liwe”’, Roman. Forsch., XXIX, 317ff. (1910). He quotes an example from Petri Damiani Epistol. VI, 5 (first half of the eleventh century). The best account of this motif (including cognate forms) has been given by O. M. Johnston, “The Episode of Ivain, the Lion and the Serpent in Chrétien de Troyes”, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXI', 157ff. (1907). Whether the motif is of oriental origin (as Johnston maintains) or not, is, I believe, of little consequence with reference to Chrétien, for he knew it, no doubt, merely in its (modified) classical form. The story was told, indeed, of an actual knight, Golfier de las Tors (from the Limousin), who participated in the first crusade. Various legends attached themselves to his name — among others, that of the grateful lion whom he delivered from a serpent. This last-named legend was connected with him, it would seem, at least, as early as the latter part of the twelfth century. The earliest record of it is found in the Latin chronicle of Jaufré, prior of Vigeois, and is quoted by P. Meyer, _ Chanson de la Croisade contre les Albigeots, II, 379, note 1 (Paris, 1879). For repetitions of this story about Golfier and his lion and allusions thereto see Meyer, loc. cit., A. Thomas, Romania, XXXIV, 55 ff. (1905), XL, 446ff. (1911) — also, A. Pillet, Bettrdge zur Kritik der dltesten Troubadours, (Breslau, 1911). The story passed into the Italian, too. Cp. “Unpublished Manuscripts of Italian Bestiaries”, by K. Mackenzie, PMLA, XX, 395f. (1905).
Brown had contended that Chrétien's lion came from the Celts. Cp. his list of lions and guiding beasts in Celtic Otherworld tales, PMLA, XXV, 688 ff. (1905).
The Sources of Chrétien’s Yvain. 81
is correct in crediting Chrétien with the combination of this series of adventures which make up the greater part of the Yvaim. If the poem were, indeed, developed from a single source, it would constitute an exception among the Arthurian romances.
As regards the cardinal episode of the poem, Yvain’s combat at the spring and his winning of the heroine, it will be objected here again that in the actual story, as told by Chrétien, there is no suggestion that Laudine required liberation. This is, of course, true, yet on no other mdrchen mottf could the somewhat cynical idea of the easily consoled widow, borrowed from the Roman de Thébes, be so easily grafted as on this one. In such mérchen the girl captive passes at once, of course, from the possession of her captor into that of the hero, as is the case in Chreétien’s poem, although the treatment of the incident in the former instance is; of course, purely naive.
W. Foerster, who suggested this Saterpretstion of the story of Laudine, denies that Chreétien’s source was Celtic. The setting of the story, however, seems Celtic, and so, in all probability, it was a Celtic form of this wide-spread motif that Chrétien em- ployed.1°
The closest. parallel to the capital episode’ of Yvain — the fountain story — is to be found in the Irish tale, In Gilla Decair, where we have a fight between the hero and a water-spirit who de- fends his fountain. This was first pointed out by F. Lot, “Le Chevalier au Lion: comparaison avec une légende irlandaise’, Romanta, XXI, 67 ff. (1892). Cp. Brown's Iwain, pp. 104 ff. for an analysis of the tale. In other respects, however, the two stories are unlike. We have no copy of this tale earlier than the eighteenth century, and so I agree with Nitze, MPh., VII, 155f., as against G. L. Hamilton, RR, I, 355 and Brown, MPh., IX, 122¢ff. in regarding the story as too late to afford a safe basis for the study of Yvain origins, although he is wrong in asserting that we have preserved an Irish translation of Chrétien's romance, also from the eighteenth century. Cp. Brown, loc. cit., p. 120, note 4. For Welsh marvellous springs, see, especially, G. Dottin, Annales de Bretagne, XXIII, 469 ff. (1907— 8).
Brown, Jwain, pp. 70ff., lays stress on the parallel of a similar herdsman in the Irish Imram Maelduin (Vi oyage of Maelduin). But Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXII", 62 (1908), asserts that
Refpecia, Ergdnzungsreihe: 8. 6
Go ogle
82 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
this figure is not peculiar to Celtic Otherworld tales — that it is even commoner in similar stories in the Germanic languages. I do not find, however, anything quite similar in Hans Siuts’s Jensettsmotive im deutschen Volksmdrchen (Leipzig, 1911), which contains a pretty exhaustive list of everything pertaining to Otherworld conceptions in specifically German territory. Giants of one sort or another, filling such réles, are, of course, frequent (cp. ibid., pp. 161ff.), but there appear to be no herdsmen among them. Only the tale, W 269 (p. 163), is a possible exception.
Recently, in the Dutch journal, Neophilologus, TI, 122ff. (1918), “Ober die Jaudinefigur’, H. Sparnaay has argued that the fountain motif (combat with fountain guardian) was originally separate and was only later combined with the fairy mistress theme (Laudine story). If Chrétien was to combine the two, says Sparnaay, he had to represent the heroine of the latter as an easily consoled widow. This scholar acknowledges, however, the influence of Jocaste on the cha- racterization of Laudine.
Sparnaay in his “Laudine bei Crestien und bei Hartmann”, ibid. IV, 310ff. (1919), has compared in detail the French and German poems in all that relates to Laudine. He concludes that Hartmann made changes in his original (Chrétien) for the purpose of elevating the character of this heroine from the moral point of view, but was not always successful.
In her “Die ktinstlerische Stoffgestaltung in Chrétien’s Ivain’, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXXIX, 3865 ff. (1918), Elise Richter maintains that Chrétien, in his portrayal of Laudine, tried to adapt the theory of the amour courtots to everyday conditions — more especially, to conditions of bourgeois married life. The poem was to contrast with the same poet’s Lancelot, in which the above-mentioned theory operates in an ideal world, without any of the restrictions of actual life. The article is an interesting one, but I question whether Chrétien was consciously drawing any such contrast.
Miss Richter (pp. 393ff.) also contends that Chrétien purposely duplicates all the chief features of the narrative in the Yvain, his object being to heighten the effect: Lunette twice advises Laudine (ll. 1666ff. and 6586 ff.), Laudine is twice angry with Lunette (Il. 1710ff. and 6760ff.), etc.
Chapter VI. Date of Chrétien’s Perceval.
1. For the date of composition of Chrétien’s Perceval see es- pecially A. Birch-Hirschfeld, Die Sage vom Gral, pp. 81f. (Leip- zig, 1877), G. Paris, Mélanges de Littérature Francaise du Moyen Age, publiés par Mario Roques, I, 263ff. (Paris, 1910) and W. Foerster, Kristian von Troyes: Wérterbuch zu seinen saémtlichen Werken, pp. 38f., 151f. of the Introduction (Halle, 1914). In view of the considerations which I have urged in my text, I be- lieve that Foerster, p. 173, is unjustified in declaring that Chré- tien’s Perceval may just as well have been written about 1190 as about 1180. In his Die Sage vom Heiligen Gral, 148ff. (Halle, 1898), E. Wechssler has given interesting details concerning the life and character of Philip of Flanders, in connection with the question of Chrétien’s relations to him and the date of the Perce- val — also, a useful list of authorities for Philip’s life — but his argument that Chrétien must have written his dedication whilst Philip was regent of France (1180—1182), during the minority of his godson, Philip II of France, is, as Gaston Paris (loc. ctt. p- 264, note 1) has remarked, anything but convincing -— as little so as his previous argument, 146ff., that the poet was a Cancel- larius or Magister Scholae at the Cathedral of St. Peter in Beau- vais. The substance of Wechssler’s argument is that Chrétien’s extravagant laudation of his patron as surpassing even Alexander the Great could not have been applied to a simple count: Philip must have occupied the quasi-rcyal position of regent, when he was extolled in this style, and Chrétien’s assertion that no such tale was ever told in court roial, he thinks, confirms this supposition. But Chrétien’s assertion is obviously a mere piece of réclame which might have been employed anywhere — even in a recitation in the market-place — and as for the praise lavished on Philip, who has
6*
84 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
ever discovered in the literature of dedications down to the nine- teenth century any sense of proportion in flattery? Besides, it is to be remembered, after all, that Philip of Flanders was a power- ful nobleman. G. Paris remarks justly, too, p. 164, that Chrétien would doubtless have alluded to the fact, if his patron had, indeed, occupied such a high position as that of regent of France at the time that this prologue was written. Paris observes, still further, that the poet’s silence in regard to Philip’s expedition (‘‘assez ridicule d’ailleurs’’) to Palestine in 1177 would seem to show that Chrétien wrote his Perceval before that affair. This, however, seems to me about as feeble as anything in Wechasler’s argument.
It has been suggested that Gerbert’s statement, Potvin, VI, 212, that Chrétien died before he could finish his Perceval may be a mere guess based on the incomplete condition of the poem. But this is not likely. The statement is made in the most positivo form and appears to be confirmed by the fact that we have no work from Chrétien’s pen of later date than the Perceval. There is no ground for believing that he was an old man when he composed this poem. On the other hand, he had been a prolific writer. Why, then, after such productivity should he have suddenly stop- ped writing? There is no parallelism here with the case of the Lancelot, which, likewise, Chrétien did not finish; for, as Foerster, loc. cit., p. 152, remarks, another poet, Godefroi de Leigni, did carry that romance to a conclusion and with Chrétien’s consent.
Chapter VII. The Elucidation and Bliocadrans-Prologue.
In the Mons MS. of Chrétien’s Perceval and its continuations, which has been pripted by Potvin, we have a spurious introduc- tion! of 1282 lines, which consists really of two independent parts: (a) ll. 1—484, (b) 485—1282. These parts had, doubtless, diffe- rent authors. It is convenient to call the first, as Miss Weston does, by the name which it bears in its prose form,? found in most copies of the 1530 print of the prose Perceval, viz. Elucidation, and the second by the name which scholars have generally adopted for it, viz. the Bliocadrans-prologue (Bliocadrans being the name which is here given to Perceval’s father).
The first part is very obscure, and the title, Hluctdation, af- fixed to it in the 1530 print, might well strike the reader as ironical. It would seem to be the introduction to some compi- lation concerning the Grail which the author was planning, and
* In his review of Potvin’s edition of Chrétien’s Perceval, Revue ‘Critique (No. 35) for Sept. 1. 1866, Paul Meyer accepted ll. 485— 1282 as Chrétien’s, whilst rejecting ll. 1—484. Birch-Hirschfeld, pp. 69ff., has shown, however, by a detailed examination of language and style that this, too, is spurious, and his conclusions have been generally, approved. In Potvin’s edition the genuine prologue of Chrétien has been relegated to the notes, II, 307 ff.
In the above-mentioned review P. Meyer declares (p. 130) that of all the MSS. of Chrétien’s poems the one chosen by Potvin (i. e. the Mons MS.) is least suited to constitute the basis of an edition. Nutt, p. 8, note, rejects this introduction as spurious, but believes that it embodies a genuine tradition.
* This prose form (from the edition of 1530) has been reprinted by Ch. Potvin, Bibliographie de Chrestien de Troyes, pp. 171 ff., (Bruxelles, Leipzig, Gand, Paris, 1863).
86 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
we infer that he intended to make it embrace seven branches? — each corresponding to a separate visit to the Grail Castle by some knight who participated in the Grail quest. He gives in the pas- sage just cited hardly intelligible indications as to the subjects of the individual branches, but only one of them (the reference to the dead knight in the swan-drawn boat that came to Glamorgan, Pseudo-Wauchier, ll. 20857ff.) can be positively identified with an incident in the extant romances. On the other hand, in ILL. 215ff. the writer speaks of Gawain’s visit to the castle of the Fisher King (here represented as a magician, as nowhere else) and, also, at considerably greater length, of Perceval’s experiences there. The reference in the former case is to Gawain’s visit in Chrétien — only among the sacred objects of the procession we have here in- cluded certain things (broken sword, denief{r]s, silver cross) that are not found in Chrétien’s description. It is obvious that the author knew both Pseudo-Wauchier and Chrétien, and when he shows departures from the narrative of either in various details, it is because, like all other Arthurian romancers, he gave the reins to his own invention, whenever it pleased him. In her article, ‘‘Wauchier de Denain, as a continuator of Perceval and the Pro- logue of the Mons MS.,” Romania, XX XIII (1904), 333ff., Miss Weston speaks (p. 334) of the “‘account of Gawain’s visit to the Grail Castle . . . related in close accordance with the version of
* Instead of “branches”, the writer employs the terms, “sou- _ viestemens” (ll. 341, 343) — “formes que vevét le conte” (as Potvin explains) — and “gardes” (ll. 344, 345, 349). But “gardes” pro- perly applies to the heroes of the branches, — “guardians” of the Grail — not to the branches themselves, and is actually so used in ll. 17—22. — F. Lot, Etude sur le Lancelot en prose, p. 285, note 3, has pointed out that the prose Lancelot is, also, used in the Elucidation.
* Miss Weston, Legend of Sir Perceval, I, 280, is probably right in identifying “l’aventure de l’escu” (1. 379) with the magic shield episode in Wauchier, ll. 31598 ff., but one cannot decide positi- vely, since the reference is so indefinite. See also Heinzel (p. 80) and Miss Weston (279f.) for conjectures as to the references to “l’ire et le perte de Huden” (1. 360) and to Lancelot, “la ou il perdi sa vertu” (I. 374).
The Elucidation and Bliocadrans-Prologue. 87
Wauchier,” and even of the “close verbal correspondence” in cer- tain lines, but, as she does virtually always in such instances, explains this close agreement on the hypothesis of a common source (her Chastel Orguellous complex). The direct dependence of the Elucidation on Pseudo-Wauchier here, however, has been recog- nized by Heinzel (p. 71) and is too plain to require argument.5
The most interesting feature of ll. 1—484 is the account of how the blight fell upon the land of the Grail Castle: Formerly there were “‘puceles” in this land who lived in the springs (evi- dently, water-fairies) and who refreshed travellers with whatever food they might ask for. Each of them, moreover, bore a cup of gold. After a while King Amangon® ravished one of these “puceles’’ and carried off her golden cup. Many of his men followed his evil example, and the girls retired to the springs and ceased their benevolent offices. In consequence of the crimes of Amangon and his men the country fell into a decline, the king himself had a bad end, the kingdom became a desert, etc., and the court of the Fisher King could no longer be found. — In the course of time Arthur’s knights went forth to redress the wrongs
° Cp., too, G. Grober, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXIX, 148 (1905) in his review of Miss Weston'’s book. Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXI*, 149 (1907), accepts Miss Weston’s theory that the Elucidation is derived from her hypothetical Chastel Orguellous complex. When he regards the allusion to Lancelot and (apparently) to the dog Huden (in the Tristan legend), as interpolations (p. 148), that is simply be- cause these allusions conflict with this theory. There is, however, no ground for considering them interpolations.
* Heinzel has pointed out, p. 78, note 1, that Amangon is a character in the following romances: Le Bel Inconnu, Meraugis de Portlesquez, Vengeance Raguidel (as “Amangins’’), Chevalier as Deus Espees (as king of the land whence no one returns). He should have included Chrétien’s Erec, 318, 1726, whence the romances that he cites, doubtless, derived the name (Amaugin, Amangon). The present author, no doubt, derived the name from one of these romances. — F. Lot, Romania, XXIV, 325 ff. (1895) identifies “Amargon’”, a variant of “Amangon” in Meraugis, with “Amorgen”, name of Conall Cernach's father in the Irish saga of Conchobar. Even if this identification, however, is correct, it would not affect the question we are now dealing with.
88 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
of the above-mentioned “‘puceles”’ and to destroy all who had harm- ed them. As it turned out, they could not discover the ‘“‘puceles’’ whom they sought. They came upon others, however, who were accompanied by knights, and they engaged in combats with the latter. In some instances Arthur’s men were killed; in others they were victorious and sent their vanquished adversaries, in the approved style of the romances, to report at Arthur’s court. One of these, named Blihos Bliheris,’ whom Gawain had conquered, relates at the court that the knights and the girls whom Arthur’s ‘knights had encountered in the forests have sprung from the dameels that were ravished by King Amangon and his followers, and that they were destined to wander thus up and down through the forests and elsewhere, until they discover the Fisher King’s court. This story of Blihos Bliheris pleased Arthur’s knights greatly and after a meeting on the subject they go forth in search of the Fisher King’s court. Gawain and Perceval find it. There is no need to seek beyond the Elucidation, itself, for the origin of this tale of how the Grail country fell under an evil spell. Whether the account of the water-fays was an invention of the author of the Elucidation or not, the very imperfect welding of the story with the Grail theme proves that it had originally no connection with that theme. The writer seems to imply (IL 201 ff.) that the discovery of the Grail would be enough to lift the spell, but, as Heinzel (p. 71) has observed, when we have, I]. 225ff. an allusion to Gawain’s undoing of this spell, the author evidently has in mind here Pseudo-Wauchier (ll. 20238 ff., 20339ff.), where, after all, it 1s not the mere discovery of the
* In Romania, XXXII, 338f., and Legend of Sir Perceval, I, 288ff., Miss Weston identifies this person with “Blihis” of 1. 12 and “Bliheris” of Pseudo-Wauchier (]. 19434) in MS. 794 (Bibl. Nat.). As she points out, Legend of Sir Perceval, 1, 241, note, two MSS. have “Bleobleheris” in the line from Pseudo-Wauchier. No doubt, Brugger is right, however, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXXI*, 154, in asserting that we have here a case of substitution — Bliobliheris (and variants) being the name of an Arthurian knight, who is found in se- veral romances —, just. as the Mons MS. substitutes in the same line the name of another Arthurian knight, Brandelis.
The Elucidation and Bltocadrans-Prologue. 89
Grail Castle, but the asking of the question that produces the happy result. There is, besides, no real logical connection between the cause of the blight that afflicted the land (the wrong done the ““puceles”’) and the means of its removal (the discovery of the Grail Castle). |
As we have seen, the author of the Elucidation knew pseudo- Wauchier, as well as Chrétien. There is no sign, however, that he knew Chretien’s other continuators, except, perhaps, Wauchier.® It would be hasty, however, to conclude from this circumstance with Heinzel (p. 81) that he wrote earlier than Gerbert, to say nothing of Manessier. His manuscript of the Conte del Graal may have happened to contain merely Chrétien and the first con- tinuation.
In ll. 12f. our author cites “Maistre Blihis” as authority for the assertion that nobody should tell the secret of the Grail Miss Weston, Legend of Sir Perceval, I, 281f., assumes that this is a reference to her hypothetical common source of Wauchier (or Pseudo-Wauchier) and the Elucidation. But, as has been observed above, other passages make it plain that the author of the Eluci- dation drew directly from Pseudo-Wauchier, and the present line is merely another instance of this borrowing. To be sure, the ““Bleheris’’, of Pseudo-Wauchier |]. 19434, is here shortened to ‘Blehis”, but that might be easily due to faulty recollection or even to arbitrary mutilation of the name to suit the exigencies of this particular line.®
The second part of the spurious introduction to Chrétien’s Perceval, viz. \l. 485—1282, is not marred by the obscurities and
* See note above. (p. 86, note 4).
* Similarly, Pseudo-Waucbier, when he wishes to get a rhyme, does not hesitate to change the name of Gifflet, one of the best known knights in the Arthurian. romances, to “Giefloi”, “Gyfloi”. Cp. Il. 16259, 19542. Cp., too, the shortening of “Abrioris” to “Brioris” and “Escavallon” to ‘“Cavallon’’ in Wauchier, and of “Hebron” to “Bron”, which I have discussed pp. 130f. — In addition to the alter- natives which I have stated above, there is also the possibility. sug- gested by Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXX1*, 150, that the-er in “Bleheris” was represented by a sign of contraction in the MS. used by the author of the Elucidation, and chanced to be overlooked.
90 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
inconsistencies of Il. 1—484; on the other hand, it is not bright- ened by the same gleams of the romantic spirit. It is a perfectly commonplace account of how Bliocadrans, Perceval’s father, was slain in a tournament and of how his wife thereafter, with all the retinue of a feudal dame, moved to the Waste Forest, her pur- pose being to bring up there in seclusion and security her son, Perceval, her only child, to whom she had given birth only a few days after Bliocadrans’s departure for the fatal tournament. She tries to rear him in the belief that there are no houses and people except those that he sees about him in the Waste Forest, When he is old enough, she permits him to hunt goats and stags in the forests, but warns him against men clad in iron — for she avers they are devils.
This so-called Bliocadrans-prologue is the invention of a third- rate poet who wishes to explain how Perceval and his widowed mother came to be living in the Waste Forest, as we find them at the beginning of Chrétien’s Perceval. The Tristan poems and Chrétien’s Cliges, not to mention other romances, might have sug- gested to him the idea of supplying such an introduction con- cerning the hero’s parents. The author knew nothing of Perceval except what he found in Chretien, and there is not a trace of folk- lore sources in the whole composition.'°
*° The name of Perceval's father here, Bliocadrans, is puzzling, as is the case with many Arthurian names. It is probably, like Bliobleheris (Bliobleris, Blioberis), ultimately, of Welsh origin. J. Loth, Contributions @ [Etude des Romans de la Table Ronde, pp. 36f. (Paris, 1912), connects the latter with an hypothetical Old Welsh Bled-cobret, which is the same as Bled-cuurit of the Book of Llandaff (elcventh century) and Blegobred (Bredgabred) of Geoffrey of Monmouth, DI, 19. The corresponding Modern Welsh form is Blegwryd (Blegywrd) or Bleddgwryd. On the other hand, in Y Cymmrodor, X, 219, note 1 (1891) and XI, 45f. (1892), E. Philli- more identifies the forms just enumerated (and the Bledkenred of Annales Cambriae, anno 1018) not with Bloberis, but with Blio- cadrans, the hypothetical Old Welsh original form which he postulates being Bledcabrat (not Bledcobrit). Phillimore’s derivation, however, does not appear to me satisfactory. Bliocadrans has probably suffered corruption at the hands of the scribes, until the true form is no longer recognizable.
Chapter VIII. Miss Weston’s Gawain=Complex.
In her Legend of Str Perceval, I, ch. VI—X, Mise Weston develops a vast speculation concerning the sources of the contin- uation (or continuations) of Chrétien’s Perceval from the pomt where he left off down through 1. 34394, with which Wauchier’s contribution to the Conte del Graal ends. She is inclined (p. 215), as we have seen, to ascribe to the copyists what precedes the epi- sode of Arthur’s war against Brun de Branlant (which begins l. 11597) and everything (barring interpolations) from there on through 1. 34934 to Wauchier. The main sources of these ad- ditions (from the conclusion of Chrétien through 1. 34934), in her opinion, are two (p. 178) — both, of course, purely hypothetical — 1. “a group of short episodic poems,” which she designates “the Chastel Orguellous group,” 2. “an elaborate poem of con- siderable literary merit,” which she designates the ‘‘Chastel Mer- veilleus.’’ Both were “independent versions of the Gawain legend’”’, and the Perceval story, before Chrétien wrote his poem, had already been contaminated with both. This theory of Miss Weston’s is, of course, intimately connected with her idea that Chrétien, whose romances are the earliest of the Arthurian cycle that we possess, came after the period of the really great Arthurian romances, all of which, in her opinion, have perished. Miss Weston is un- able to produce-a single item of objective evidence in support of this theory of hers concerning the sources of the continuations which I have attributed to Pseudo-Wauchier and Wauchier respectively, and, for my own part, I regard the whole speculation as base- less and unnecessary. Though restricted by considerations of space, I will endeavor to deal with the main points of Miss Weston’s theory. It will be more convenient to discuss No. 2 first. 1. The section of the Conte del Graal for which her hypothetical Chastel
92 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
Merveslleus is here supposed to be, especially, the source consists of ll. 6125—11596 and deals with Gawain’s visit to the fairy- castle, where he finds his mother and sister and Arthur's mother, and the incidents connected therewith. Chrétien began this epi- sode, but he broke off in the middle of it (1. 10601), and it was completed by some one else. This continuator would, of course, complete it according to the indications of Chrétien’s unfinished portion and there is no need to conjure up any imaginary source.! Within the lines 10602—11596, as, indeed, throughout the di- vision of the Conte del Graal which has been commonly assigned to Pseudo-Wauchier, the MSS. show some considerable variants; but when Miss Weston wishes to see in certain of these variants (p. 198) remnants of her hypothetical Chastel Mervetlleus poem, this is, on the face of it, purely subjective, and even if we should concede that her genealogy of the MSS. is correct, the cross agree- ments between different versions (longer and shorter) which she speaks of (p. 213) would merely show the contamination of dif- ferent lines of manuscript tradition — one of the commonest pheno- mena that editors of mediaeval texts have to deal with.?
As regards the supposed coincidences (pp. 210ff.), between Wolfram’s Parzival and ll. 10602ff. of the Conte del Graal, they
> Miss Weston rightly rejects G. Paris's suggestion (Manuel, p. 105) that Chrétien’s first continuator used notes left by Chrétien which indicated how the story should develop. As Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt. XXXI*, 141, well says, this method of composition is not mediaeval, but modern. |
* I am discussing here merely the relation of Chrétien's conti- nuator to this incident of the so-called Chastel Merveilleus. The question of Chrétien’s own sources for the incident is another matter. In my Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuanii, p. LII (Gottingen and Baltimore, 1913), I have pointed out that in this final episode Chrétien seems to have used, inter alia, a lost French romance on the subject of Gawain’s youth. This hypothetical romance, however, could not have been of popular origin, since it contained conceptions borrowed from Geoffrey of Monmouth and the legend of Pope Gregory. The marvellous castle, moreover, unquestionably has Other-world features, but there is no reason to believe that before Chrétien Gawain was connected with this conception.
Miss Weston’s Gawain-Compler. 93
arc so slight as to be negligible. When two writers are completing an unfinished episode on indications furnished by that episode, there are bound to be some coincidences in their respective works. If Martin, as Miss Weston notes (p. 212, note 1), in his edition of Wolfram, merely records these parallels without comment, it is, no doubt, because he very properly attached no significance to them. : Since the basis of her theory concerning this hypothetical Chastel Merveilleus poem, as set forth in her Chapter VII, which I have just examined, has so little solidity, there is no need of going into her more hazardous speculations in Chapter VIII as to still other drafts on this imaginary poem which she supposes to have been made in the continuation of Chretien’s Perceval.
2. According to Miss Weston’s hypothesis, the Gawain ad- ventures of ll. 15795—21917 (end of Pseudo-Wauchier) and Il. 31520—33 754 (point in Wauchier where the narrative turns to Perceval’s adventure at the Grail castle) are derived from the ““Chastel Orguellous group” of episodic poems. “‘This group,” she says (p. 178), “represents, I believe, the earliest stratum of the Arthurian romantic tradition we as yet possess, and may not improbably go back as far as the tenth century.”
It is a mistake, in the first place, for Miss Weston to group together ll. 15975ff., on the one hand, and ll. 31520ff., on the other. They do not belong in the same category, properly speak- ing, the difference between the two being in conformity with the usual difference between Pseudo-Wauchier and Wauchier. The passage, ll. 31520ff., is really made up of threadbare Arthurian commonplaces — the Little Knight who defends the shield that hangs on a tree by a fountain, Gawain incognito at the tourna- ment etc.2 On the other hand, whatever one may think as to the sources of ll. 15795ff., we have here at any rate, incidents of a distinctive character, which are, besides, admirably told. Take,
* The Little Knight, with whom we may compare Guivret le Petit in Chrétien's Erec, defends the fountain, ll. 32 130 ff. (here shield by the fountain), like Chrétien's Yvain; the Pensive Knight (ll. 32 906 ff.) is plunged in revery about his amie, like Chrétien's Perceval, and so on.
94 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
for example, Gawain’s narrative (IL 15885ff.) of his affair with Brandelis’s sister and the dramatic manner — hard to parallel elsewhere in Arthurian romance — in which he gradually reveals the strange story only under constant pressure from Arthur (Il. 17011 ff., 17187ff.). Really, it is only in {its relation to ll. 15795—21917 (all in the Pseudo-Wauchier section) that Miss Weston’s theory requires discussion.
In the case of these lines, there is in ll. 16626ff., as Miss Weston, p. 238, has noted, an appeal, it would seem, to a defi- nite source. The author tells how Arthur took his companions along with him on the expedition to Chastel Orguellous, but, in the midst of his narrative, says:
Desor est li romans trop lons, Mais je le vos voel abreger. II. jours errerent sans mangier C’onques ne peurent liu trover U il eussent .i. disner Jusqu’el vergier des sepoutures U on trueve les aventures;
La mangierent avoec enclus Dont il i avoit. XXX. u plus, La mervelle del cimentire
Ne me loist ore mie dire Dont les sepoutures estoient N’establissement qu'il trovoient Des enclus, car trop longement I metroie, mon ensient.
The first line of this quotation, by itself, would not mean much, for the romancers often speak of their own works as “li romans”’ etc., but in connection with what follows it would seem that the writer is really here referring to an external source. If so, that source, however, was, doubtless, a regular Arthurian ro- mance, with the siege of the Chastel Orguellous as the main sub- ject — that is to say, it was a formal literary production like Chrétien’s romances, and not an episodic poem, or group of epi- sodic poems, such as Miss Weston supposes, that had: lived in oral tradition for centuries. Certainly, the narrative that follows in Peeudo-Wauchier obviously derives one of its cardinal incidents
in a
Miss Weston’s Gawain-Complez. 95
from Chrétien’s Perceval, viz. that which forms the starting-point for the whole story of Gawain’s affair with Brandelis’s sister (ll. 16954ff.). He finds her alone in a tent and, despite her warnings of the consequences, deflowers her. This is plainly imi- tated from the incident in Chrétien’s Perceval, ll. 1829ff., about the amie (in a tent) of Orguellous de la Lande, whom Perceval kisses by force, despite similar warnings — only in Pseudo-Wau- chier Gawain actually justifies the suspicions expressed by the jealous lover in the former case (ll. 5031ff.) and the combat that ensues develops differently in the two instances. The only question here is whether the borrowing is due to Pseudo-Wauchier or his source. The question is not of the first importance, but for my own part, I think that it was probably Pseudo-Wauchier, him- self, that made the combination, for in the cases where we can control with precision his use of sources, actually extant, viz. in the case of the Bel Inconnu episode (based on Li Biaus Descon- neus) and the incident of the swan-drawn boat (from Le Chevalier au Cygne) we do not find him following his original through any long stretch of narrative.
It is to be observed that, after all, there is not a great deal to connect this Chastel Orguellous episode with popular tradition, even in respect to ultimate origin. The castle of Brandelis, where most of the action develops, is given fairy-tale features (the girls by the fountain who disappear so suddenly, the rich feast laid in the hall, yet no one visible etc.),“ in order to render the setting more romantic, but otherwise there is nothing supernatural about the story, and above all, the effort of Brandelis’s sister to induce
* Arthur’s revery (Jl. 15892ff.) over Gifflet’s vacant place and his cutting himself heedlessly with the knife, whilst plunged in thought, may belong to folk-lore. The passage has been imitated in the prose Lancelot, Il, 272, and in Lt Atre Perillos, ll. 298 ff. (Herrig's Archiv, XLII, 151).
It should be remarked that Chrétien (cp. his Perceval, ll. 6099 ff.) planned an episode which was to deal with an adventure of Gifflet’s at the Chastel Orguellous, but, of course, never came to it. This, in itself, was an invitation (so to speak) to later romancers to make it the theme of their inventions.
96 Evolution of Arthurian Romance
her brother and her lover (Gawain) to stop their duel by bringing forth the little child of Gawain and herself — the fruit of the violence done her by Gawain which has so enraged her brother against him — is obviously not of folklore origin. Still further, the incident of Le Riche Sodoier (ll. 18997ff.), which is the culmination of the whole Chastel Orguellous episode, evidently has no basis in folklore, for we have here a most fantastic exhibition of the chivalric courtesy which formed a part of the French ideal of conduct in the aristocratic society of the time. Nothing could be more artificial or further removed from primitive simplicity. After the adventure of the Chastel Orguellous has been dis- posed of with the liberation of Gifflet and Lucan and the ac- ceptance of Arthur as his suzerain by Le Riche Sodoier (Il. 19355 ff.), we have next (ll. 19735ff.) the Grail adventure. As I have elsewhere remarked, the starting-point — illustrating the power of Gawain’s courtesy as contrasted with Kay's rudeness — is imitated, beyond dispute, from the similar incident in Chretien’s Perceval, ll. 5796ff., where Perceval plays the role that is here