Part 7 (1/2)

Speculations such as these were little calculated to further the true criticism of the Grail cycle So texts were supplees In an introduction and notes displaying great research and ingenuity, the following propositions are laid down:--The Grail is Celtic in origin, and ured upon pre-Christian Gaulish coins

Robert de Borron's poem may be called the Petit St Graal, and its author was a lord of like-named territory near Fontainebleau, who between 1147 and 1164 ifts are confirmed in 1169 by Siland, e of the Arthurian roend of the Holy Grail Between 1170 and 1199 he entered the service of Walter of Montbeliard and wrote (in prose) the Joseph of Ariland, and wrote, in conjunction with Map, the Grand St

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

Graal; this passage is omitted by most of the prose versions, thus obviously older Then the poe of Britain mentioned by one prose version (C) Wedealt later with the histories of Moys and Petrus, and as to his drawing his inforinal

Merlin is the pivot of Borron's conception In coy (Joseph of Arimathea, Merlin, Perceval) with Chrestien it lish (Joseph--Galahad), than the French (Brons--Perceval) forh the framework of Chrestien and Robert's Perceval is substantially the same Chrestien's as probably preceded by one in which the Peredur story as found in the Mabinogi was already adapted to the Christianised Grail legend There are frequent verbal resemblances between Robert and Chrestien (_ie_, Gautier, Hucher never distinguishi+ng between Chrestien and his continuators) which show a coinal for both It is remarkable that Chrestien should never mention Brons, and that there should be such a difference in the stories of the Ford Perillous and the Ford Amorous It is also remarkable that Robert, in his Perceval, should complain that the _trouveres_ had not spoken of the Good Friday incident which is to be found in Chrestien

M Hucher failed in ht to light, owing to his incorrect conception of the development of the cycle as a whole, and of the relation of its component parts one to the other He made, however, an accurate survey of the cycle possible The s to Zarncke in his ade,” published in the third volue--The various forrouped as follows: (1) Borron's poem, (2) Grand St Graal, (3) Quete, (4) Chrestien, (5 and 6) Chrestien's continuators, (7) Didot MS Perceval, (8) Prose Perceval li Gallois Neither the Spanish-Provencal nor the Celtic origin of the legend is adends of Joseph of Ariuished; the first represented by the Gesta Pilati and the Narratio Josephi, which tell how Christ appeared to Joseph in prison and released him therefrom; the second by the Vindicta Salvatoris, which co of Tiberius with that of titus or Vespasian Joseph being thus brought into contact with titus, the space of time between the two is accounted for by the forty years captivity, and the first hint was given of apower of the Grail Borron's poeht by the rich fisher is the sy for the Proinal tradition but to a later style of Christian mysticism The Grand St Graal and the Quete extend and develop the _donnee_ of the poem, whilst in Chrestien tone, atmosphere, and framework are profoundly modified, yet there is no reason to postulate for Chrestien any other sources than Nos 1-3, the differences being such as he was quite capable of deliberately introducing As for No 7 (the Didot-Perceval) it is later than Chrestien and his continuators, and has used both Wolfram von Eschenbach had only Chrestien for his end of the conversion of Britain by Joseph is no genuine British tradition; William of Malmesbury's account of Glasobry is a pas, and incapable of serving as a representative of Celtic tradition The passages therein relating to Joseph are late interpolations, disagreeing with the remainder of his work and disproved by the silence of all contemporary writers

Zarncke's acute article was a praiseworthy atterowth of the cycle But it is full of grave misconceptions, as was, perhaps, inevitable in a hasty survey of such an immense body of literature The versions are ”placed” u, such as that Chrestien, the acknowledged leading poet of the day, could not have copied Kiot, and by untenable assertions, such as that Bran, in the Mabinogi of Branwen, the daughter of Llyr, is perhaps a distant echo of Hebron in Robert de Borron's poeround for his pupil, A Birch-Hirschfeld, and urging hi and exhaustive survey of the whole cycle: ”Die Sage vom Gral,” etc As Birch-Hirschfeld's analysis is at present the only basis for sound criticisive his views fully:--The Grand St Graal, as the fullest of the versions dealing with the Early History of the Grail, is the best starting-point for investigation Froious tone monkish authorshi+p inal as is shown by (1) the repetition _ad nausea_, that of the lance wound four tirees, (3) the allusions to adventures not dealt with in the book, and in especial to the Proht The testimony of Helinand (see _supra_, p 52), which is of first-rate importance, does not allow of a later date for the Grand St

Graal than 1204 On turning to the Queste it is reh sometimes found in the MSS in conjunction with the Grand St Graal it is also found with the Lancelot, and, when the hero's parentage is considered, it seems more likely that it ritten to supplement the latter than the former work This supposition is adverse to any clai held the earliest treathly iend occupied at the outset such an important place in the Arthurian roatived by the fact that the Queste has three heroes, the second of whoinal one of an older version In esti the relationshi+p between the Grand St Graal and the Queste it should be borne in mind that the latter, in so far as it deals with the Early History, mentions only Joseph, Josephe, Evelach (Mordrain) and Seraphe (Nascien), froland, and that it does not give any explanation of the nature of the Grail itself It omits Brons, Alain, the explanation of the nah his story is found in substantially the same shape as in the Grand St Graal, and is silent as to the origin of the bleeding lance If it were younger than and derived from the Grand St Graal alone, these points, all more important for the Early History than the Mordrain episodes would surely have been dwelt upon But then if the Grand St Graal is the younger work, whence does it derive Brons, Alain, and Petrus, all of whom are introduced in such a casual way? There was obviously a previous Early History which knew nothing of Josephe or of Mordrain and his group, the invention of the author of the Queste, whence they passed into the Grand St Graal, and were fused in with the older forend There is, moreover, a positive reference on the part of the Grand St Graal to the Queste (vol ii, p 225) The author of the Queste introduced his new personages for the following reasons: He had already substituted Galahad for the original hero, and to enhance his iives him a fictitious descent from a companion of Joseph Fros in the East, hence the Eastern origin of the Mordrain group In the older for of Joseph's nephew, in the Queste the Proht descends froinal Quest hero necessarily disappears in the Queste, and his place is in large measure taken by Josephe The priority of the Queste over the Grand St

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

Chrestien's work, which ended at v 10,601, un not later than 1189 (_vide_ _supra_, p 4) Its unfinished state accounts for its having so little positive information about the Grail, as Chrestien evidently meant to reserve this information for the end of the story But this very freedom hich the subject is handled is a proof that he had before him a hence he could extract and adapt as he saw fit; ue, v 475, etc) his oords to that effect With Chrestien's account of the Grail--a bowl bejewelled, of wondrous properties, borne by alance, accoh both ankles (whose only solace is fishi+ng, whence his surnaht for by Perceval, nephew to the fisher king, its fate bound up with a question which the seekerit-- is known of a question by which the Grail kingshi+p h it relates the sa, centre of the action, but of two, both of secondary i's father iven the hint for Mordrain), in which the lance is ofon the same level as the Grail Is it not evident that the Queste took over these features from Chrestien, compelled thereto by the celebrity of the latter's present works: a Lancelot, an Early History, a Quest other than that of Chrestien's, and finally Chrestien as the la and lance features show It thus falls between 1189 (Chrestien begun) and 1204 (Grand St Graal ended)

With respect to the three continuators of Chrestien it would seem that Gautier de Doulens' account of the Grail, as found in the Montpellier MS, knowing as it does only of Joseph, and s to an older stage of development than that of Manessier and Gerbert, both of whoroup, and follows that of the original version upon which both the Queste and the Grand St Graal are based There is nothing to show that Gautier knew of the Queste, whilst from Gautier the Queste may have possibly have taken Perceval's sister and the broken sword Gautier would thus seem to have written immediately after Chrestien, and before the Queste, _ie_, about 1195 As for the date of the other two continuators, the fact of their having used the Queste is only one proof of the lateness of their composition (as to the date of which see _supra_, p 4) It must be noted that whilst in their account of the Grail Chrestien's continuators are in substantial accord with the Queste versions, and yet do not contradict Chrestien himself, they add considerably to his account of the lance This is readily explained by the fact that as Chrestien gave no inforin of either of the relics, they, the continuators, had to seek such infor the Grail, but nothing as to the lance, the latter having been first introduced by Chrestien, and the Queste versions knowing nothing respecting it beyond what he told Thus, thrown upon their own resources, they hit upon the device of identifying the lance with the spear hich Jesus was pierced as He hung on the Cross This idea, a most natural one, may possibly have been in Chrestien's intent, and _ested to him by the story of the discovery of the Holy Lance in Antioch half a century before It must, however, be adend in its earliest forends may possibly have furnished it to Chrestien, and indicated the use to which he intended putting it The analysis, so far, of the romances has resulted in the presupposition of an earlier form; this earlier forend, exists in the so-called Petit St Graal of Robert de Borron Of this work, found in two forms, a prose and a poetic one, the poetic form, _pace_ Hucher, is obviously the older, Hucher's proofs of lateness goingMS is a recent one, and has admitted new speech-forms;[62] inal The greater simplicity of the poem as compared with the Grand St Graal proves its anteriority in that case; Paulin Paris' hypothesis that the poem in its present state is a second draft, composed after the author had made acquaintance with the Grand St

Graal, is untenable, the poerant estoire dou Graal,” written by ”nul ho to the Grand St Graal, but having, on the contrary, probably suggested to the writer of the latter his fiction of Christ's being the real author of his work The Grand St Graal used the poe out the one version by help of the other, and thereby entirelythe sequence of ideas in the poe the people; the separation of the pure froht by Brons, which fish does not feed the people, but, in conjunction with the Grail, severs the true from the false disciples; punishment of the self-willed false disciple; reward of Brons by charge of the Grail In the Grand St Graal, on the contrary, the fish is no symbol, but actual food, a variation which must be laid to the account of the Queste In a similar way the two Alains in the Grand St Graal may be accounted for, the one as derived from the poem, the second from the Queste As far as conception is concerned, the later work is no advance upon the earlier one To return to Borron's work, which consists of three sections; there is no reason to doubt his authorshi+p of the second, Merlin, or of the third, Perceval, although one MS only of the former mentions the fact, and it is, moreover, frequently found in connection with other romances, in especial with the Lancelot; as for Perceval, the silence of the unique MS as to Borron is no argument, as it is equally silent in the Joseph of Ario to show that Borron divided his work into three parts, Joseph, Merlin, Perceval But, if so, the last part must correspond in a fair measure to the first one; recollect, however, that we are dealing with a poet of but little invention or power of giving unity to discordant themes, and must not expect to find a clearly traced plan carried out in every detail Thus the author's promise in Joseph to speak later of Moses and Petrus seems not to be fulfilled, but this is due to Borron's timidity in the invention of new details What _is_ said of Moses does not disagree with the Joseph, whereas a later writer would probably follow the Grand St Graal account; as for Petrus he is to be recognised in the hermit Perceval's uncle There may be some inconsistency here, but Borron _can_ be inconsistent, as is shown by his treatin, and afterwards ument remains to be met; the lance occurs in Perceval--now _ex hypothesi_ the first introduction of the lance is due to Chrestien The lance, however, only occurs in two passages, both obviously interpolated The identity of authorshi+p is evident when the style and phraseology of the torks are coraaux_ or else _li veissel_, not as with the later versions, _li saint graaux_; both speak of _la grace dou graal_; in both the Grail is _bailli_ to its keeper, who has it _en guarde_; the ee perilleux_ The central conception, too, is the sa the Divine Trinity The secret words given by Christ with the Grail to Joseph in prison, by him handed on to Brons, are confided at the end of the Perceval by Brons to the hero--and there is no trace of the Galahad form of the Quest, as would inevitably have been the case had the Perceval been posterior in date to the Queste As the Perceval is connected with the Joseph, so it is equally with the Merlin; it is remarkable that neither Merlin nor Blaise play a prominent part in the Queste versions, but in Borron's poe link between the Apostolic and Arthurian ages Again the whole character of the Perceval speaks for its being one of the earliest works of the cycle; either it must have used Chrestien and Gautier or they it; if the former, is it credible that just those adventures which were necessary to supply the ending to the Joseph could have been picked out?

But it is easy to follow the way in which Chrestien used the Perceval; having the three-part poem before him he took the third only for his canvas, left out all that in it related to the first two parts, all, in and early history of the Grail; the story of the childhood is half indicated in the Perceval, and Chrestien may have had Breton lays hich to help hi to the e back into the Early History; the visit to Gurnemanz is introduced to supply a motive for the hero's conduct at the Grail Castle; the wound of the Fisher King is again only an atte motive; as for the sword Chrestien invented it; as he also did the Grail-er, whose portrait he copied from that of Rosette la Blonde The order of the last episodes is altered by Chrestien sensibly for the better, as, with him, Perceval's doubt comes first, then the Good Friday reproof, then the confession to and absolution by the hermit; whereas in the Perceval the hero after doubt, reproof, and absolution rides off again a-tourneying, and requires a second reproof at Merlin's hands It is easy to see here which is the original, which the copy Chrestien thus took with clear insight just what he wanted in the Perceval to fit out his two heroes with adventures[63] As for Borron's guiding conception, his resolve to have nothing to do with the Early History htly poem, and we find, in consequence, that he has materialised all the spiritual ele was much simpler: he took over all those adventures that Chrestien purposely left out, and they ether (verses 22,390-27,390) with but few episodes (Perceval's visit to Blanchefleur, etc) entirely foreign to the st them[64] The Perceval cannot be later than Gautier, as otherwise it could not stand in such close relationshi+p to the Joseph and Merlin; it must, therefore, be the source of the Conte du Graal, and a necessary part of Borron's poe the Joseph of Arie_ The question as to the origin of the Grail would thus seeendary character of Borron's conception being evident; but there still remains the possibility that that conception is but the Christianised forht for in Celtic tradition The part played by Merlin in the trilogy ht seem to lend colour to such an hypothesis, but his connection with the legend is a purely artificial one Nor is the theory of a Celtic origin strengthened by reference to the Mabinogi of Peredur This knows nought of Merlin, and is nearer to Chrestien than to the Didot-Perceval, andof the Conte du Graal with nue of the Didot-Perceval on Chrestien's part ot the Fisher King and Grail Castle save from a poe the Mabinogi does not do

But, it i conjointly with Borron's poem That the Welsh tale is, on the contrary, only a copy is apparent fro considerations:--It ; it puts in the hts, ”Angels they are my son,” obviously misread from Perceval's exclamation to the same effect in Chrestien's poem; _Perceval's_ love-trance over the three blood drops in the snow is explained in Chrestien by the hero's passion for Blanchefleur, but is quite inexplicable in the Mabinogi; again, in the Welsh tale, the lance and basin episode is quite a secondary one, a fact easily explained if it is looked upon as a vague reminiscence of Chrestien's unfinished work; reat stress upon the lance, which has already been shown to belong to a secondary stage in the developain the word Graal occurs frequently in old Welsh literature, and invariably in its French form, never translated by any equivalent Welsh term As for the name Peredur, it is understandable that the Welsh storyteller should choose the nan nay Basin-Seeker is untenable There is no real analogy between the Grail and the ic cauldron of Celtic fable, which is essentially one of renovation, whereas the Grail in the second stage only acquirespowers It is of course not ii, as cannot be referred directly to Chrestien, e_

The question then arises--was Robert de Borron a siend in its present form due to him, _ie_, did _he_ first join the Joseph of Ariends, or had he a predecessor? Now the older Joseph legends know nothing of his wandering in co shown the lateness of the one commonly ascribed to William of Malmesbury Nor is it likely Borron had before hiend as Paulin Paris (Roht the Grail to England, and left Joseph's fate in uncertainty? The bringing the Grail to England is siical consequence of his conception of the three Grail-keepers (the third of British blood), syroup to this central conception; where the third Grail-keeper and the third of the three wondrous tables were, there the Grail must also be What then led Borron to connect the sacra this question the later otten, and it race;” this is shown in the history of (Moys) the false disciple, which obviously follows in its details the account of the Last Supper, and of the detection of Judas bythe betrayer take and eat

Borron's first table being an exact copy of the Last Supper one, _his_ holy vessel has the property of that used by Christ In so far Borron was led to his conception by the story as told in the canonical books; what help did he get froend and certain details in his present thirty for a penny) show him to have known the Vindicta Salvatoris, in which Joseph of Ari of his former captivity from which Christ Hi when Vespasian came to Jerusale the imprisonment of Joseph; he combined the accounts of these two apocryphal works, substituting a simple visit of Christ to Joseph for the deliverance as told in the Gesta Pilati, and ed by Suetonius' account of the freeing of _Josephus_ by Vespasian (Vesp ch

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

Compare, too, Christ's words to Joseph (892, etc) in which the syrave and the mass is fully worked out

Thus Joseph who laid Christ's body in the grave is the natural guardian of the symbol which commemorates that event, thus, too, the Grail is the natural centre point of all the symbolism of mass and sacraend, ulti its most important feature Need Perceval's question detain us? May it not be explained by the fact that as Joseph had to apply twice for Christ's body, so his representative, the Grail-seeker, had to apply twice for the symbol of Christ's body, the Grail? But it is, perhaps, best to consider the question and the Fisher King's weakness as inventions of Borron's, possibly derived from Breton sources, the ease hich the hero fulfils a task explained to hi such a view Borron, it reat inventive power; in the Joseph he is all right so long as he has the legend to follow; in the Merlin and the Perceval he clings with equal helplessness to the Breton sagas, confining hi cluend

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

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

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

5) and the difference in fores to be interpolations is that the author of the Grand St Graal especially declares in his prologue that his name must remain a secret The colophons in question are sienuine ascription of Borron's poem, and there is no positive evidence as to the authorshi+p of either the Queste or the Grand St Graal; both works are probably French in origin, as is shown by the mention of Meaux in the Grand St Graal As for the date of Borron's poem, a _terminus ad quem_ is fixed by that of the Conte du Graal (1180); and as the poem is dedicated to Gautier of Montbeliard, who can hardly have been born before 1150, and who e before he could become Robert's patron, it must fall between the years 1170 and 1190

The results of the investigation in of the Grail roend based partly upon the canonical, partly upon the uncanonical, writings This Christian legend oven into the Breton sagas by the author of the oldest Grail roin are equally untenable, nor is there any need to countenance the fable of a Latin original Chronologically, the versions arrange themselves thus:--