CHAPTER II
[1] MS. Bibl. Nat., f. Franç. 12576 fo. 90.
[2] Ibid. fo. 90vo, 91.
[3] Diû Crône (ed. Stoll, Stuttgart, 1852). Cf. Sir Gawain of the
Grail Castle for both versions.
[4] Cf. MS. B.N. 12576, fo. 154.
[5] Perceval, ed. Hucher, p. 466; Modena, p. 61.
[6] Cf. Hucher, p. 482; Modena, p. 82.
[7] Perceval li Gallois, ed. Potvin, ll. 6048-52.
[8] Ib. ll. 6056-60.
[9] Potvin, Vol. I. p. 15.
[10] Ib. p. 26.
[11] Ib. p. 86.
[12] Ib. pp. 176, 178.
[13] MS. B.N. 12576, ff. 221-222vo.
[14] Mabinogion, ed. Nutt, p. 282.
[15] Cf. Peredur (ed. Nutt), pp. 282, 291-92.
[16] Parzival, Book v. ll. 947-50.
[17] Ib. Book VI. ll. 1078-80.
[18] Parzival, Book XVI, ll 275-86.
[19] Cf. Morte Arthure, Malory, Book XVII. Chap. 18. Note the remark of
Mordrains that his flesh which has waxen old shall become young again.
[20] Parzival, Bk. IX. ll. 1388-92.
[21] Sone de Nansai (ed. Goldschmidt, Stuttgart, 1899), ll 4775-76.
[22] Sone de Nansai, ll. 4841-56.
[23] It is evidently such a version as that of Sone de Nansai, and
Parzival, which underlies the curious statement of the Merlin MS.
B.N. f. Fr. 337, where the wife of the Fisher King is known as ‘la Veve Dame,’
while her husband is yet in life, though sorely wounded.
CHAPTER III
[1] Cf. Rig-Veda Sanhita, trans. H. H. Wilson, 6 vols. 1854-1888. Vol.
I. p. 88, v. 12. 172, v. 8 206, v. 10 Vol. III. p. 157, vv. 2, 5, 7, 8.
[2] Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Geschichte, Vols. XXXVII.
and XXXIX.
[3] Cf. Le Théatre Indien, Paris, 1890.
[4] Cf. Wiener Zeitsch, für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. XVIII.
1904.
[5] Leipzig, 1908.
[6] Op. cit. p. 105.
[7] Ib. p. 230.
[8] Ib. p. 292, for sources, and variants of tale.
[9] On this point cf. Cornford, Origin of Attic Comedy, pp. 8, 78, for
importance of this feature.
[10] Op. cit. pp. 161-170, for general discussion of question, and
summary of authorities. Also pp. 297 et seq.
[11] Cf. Legend of Sir Peceval, Vol. I. Chapter 3.
[12] MS. Bibl. Nat., f. Fr. 12576, fo. 173. Cf. also Legend of Sir
Perceval, I. Chap. 4.
[13] Malory, Le Morte Arthure, Book XIV. Chaps. 8 and 9. Potvin, ll.
40420 et seq.
CHAPTER IV
[1] Cf. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, p. 5.
[2] In this connection not only the epoch-making works of Mannhardt and Frazer,
which are more specifically devoted to an examination of Folk-belief and
practice should be studied, but also works such as The Mediaeval Stage,
E. K. Chambers; Themis, J. E. Harrison; The Origin of Attic
Comedy, F. Cornford; and Sir Gilbert Murray’s essay on the evolution of the
Greek Drama, published in Miss Harrison’s Themis. The cumulative
evidence is most striking.
[3] A full study of this evolutionary process will be found in Miss Harrison’s
Themis, A Study of Greek Social Origins, referred to above.
[4] Baudissin, in his exhaustive study of these cults, Adonis und Esmun,
comes to the conclusion that Tammuz and Adonis are different gods, owing their
origin to a common parent deity. Where the original conception arose is
doubtful; whether in Babylon, in Canaan, or in a land where the common
ancestors of Phoenicians and Babylonian Semites formed an original unit.
[5] Cf. Tammuz and Ishtar, S. Langdon, p. 5.
[6] It may be well to note here the the ‘Life’ deity has no proper name; he is
only known by an appellative; Damu-zi, Damu, ‘faithful son,’ or ‘son and
consort,’ is only a general epithet, which designates the dying god in a
theological aspect, just as the name Adōni, ‘my lord,’ certainly
replaced a more specific name for the god of Byblos. Esmun of Sidon,
another type of Adonis, is a title only, and means simply, ‘the name.’ Cf.
Langdon, op. cit. p. 7. Cf. this with previous passages on the evolution
of the Greek idea from a nameless entity to a definite god. Mr Langdon’s
remarks on the evolution of the Tammuz cult should be carefully studied in view
of the theory maintained by Sir W. Ridgeway—that the Vegetation deities were
all of them originally men.
[7] From a liturgy employed at Nippur in the period of the Isin dynasty.
Langdon, op. cit. p. 11. Also, Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms, p.
338.
[8] Cf. Langdon, Tammuz and Ishtar, p. 23.
[9] What we have been able to ascertain of the Sumerian-Babylonian religion
points to it rather as a religion of mourning and supplication, than of joy and
thanksgiving. The people seem to have been in perpetual dread of their gods,
who require to be appeased by continual acts of humiliation. Thus the 9th,
15th, 19th, 28th, and 29th of the month were all days of sack-cloth and ashes,
days of wailing; the 19th especially was ‘the day of the wrath of Gulu.’
[10] Cf. Langdon, op. cit. p. 24.
[11] Cf. Langdon, op. cit. p. 26.
[12] The most complete enquiry into the nature of the god is to be found in
Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun. For the details of the cult cf. Farnell,
Cults of the Greek States, Vol. II.; Vellay, Adonis (Annales
du Musée Guimet). For the Folk-lore evidence cf. Mannhardt, Wald un
Feld-Kulte; Frazer, The Golden Bough, and Adonis, Attis and
Osiris. These remarks apply also to the kindred cult of Attis, which as we
shall see later forms an important link in our chain of evidence. The two cults
are practically identical and scholars are frequently at a loss to which group
surviving fragments of the ritual should be assigned.
[13] In this connection note the extremely instructive remarks of Miss Harrison
in the chapter on Herakles in the work referred to above. She points out that
the Eniautos Daimon never becomes entirely and Olympian, but always
retains traces of his ‘Earth’ origin. This principle is particularly well
illustrated by Adonis, who, though, admitted to Olympus as the lover of
Aphrodite, is yet by this very nature forced to return to the earth, and
descend to the realm of Persephone. This agrees well with the conclusion
reached by Baudissin (Adonis und Esmun, p. 71) that Adonis belongs to
“einer Klasse von Wesen sehr unbestimmter Art, die wohl über den Menschen aber
unter den grossen Göttern stehen.”
[14] Cf. Vellay, op. cit. p. 93. Dulaure, Des Divinités
Génératrices. If Baudissin is correct, and the introduction of the Boar a
later addition to the story, it would seem to indicate the intrusion of a
phallic element into ritual which at first, like that of Tammuz, dealt merely
with the death of the god. The Attis form, on the contrary, appears to have
been phallic from the first. Cf. Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, p. 160.
[15] Op. cit. p. 83.
[16] Cf. L. von Schroeder, Vollendung den Arischen Mysterium, p. 14.
[17] It may be well to explain the exact meaning attached to these terms by the
author. In Professor von Schroeder’s view Mysterium may be held to
connote a drama in which the gods themselves are actors; Mimus on the
contrary, is the term applied to a drama which treats of the doings of mortals.
[18] Op. cit. Vol. II. p. 647.
[19] Op. cit. p. 115. Much of the uncertainty as to date is doubtless
due to the reflective influence of other forms of the cult; the Tammuz
celebrations were held from June 20th, to July 20th, when the Dog-star Sirius
was in the ascendant, and vegetation failed beneath the heat of the summer sun.
In other, and more temperate, climates the date would fall later. Where,
however, the cult was an off-shoot of a Tammuz original (as might be the case
through emigration) the tendency would be to retain the original date.
[20] Cf. Vellay, op. cit. p. 55; Mannhardt, Vol. II. pp. 277-78, for a
description of the feast. With regard to the order and sequence of the
celebration cf. Miss Harrison’s remark, Themis, p. 415: “In the cyclic
monotony of the Eniautos Daimon it matters little whether Death follows
Resurrection, or Resurrection, Death.”
[21] Cf. Mannhardt, supra, p. —-.
[22] Cf. Vellay, op. cit. p. 103. This seems also to have been the case
with Tammuz, cf. Ezekiel, Chap. viii. v. 14.
[23] Cf. Frazer, The Golden Bough, under heading Adonis.
[24] Vellay, p. 130, Mannahrdt, Vol. II. p. 287; note the writer’s suggestion
that the women here represent the goddess, the stranger, the risen Adonis.
[25] Cf. Vellay, p. 93.
[26] Vide supra, pp. —-. —-.
[27] Supra, p. 21.
[28] Cf. Potvin, appendix to Vol. III.; Sir Gawain and the Grail Castle,
pp. 41, 44, and note.
[29] My use of this parallel has been objected to on the ground that the prose
Lancelot is a late text, and therefore cannot be appealed to as evidence
for original incidents. But the Lancelot in its original form was held
by so competent an authority as the late M. Gaston Paris to have been one of
the earliest, if not the very earliest, of French prose texts. (Cf. M. Paris’s
review of Suchier and Birch-Hirschfield’s Geschichte der Franz. Litt.)
The adventure in question is a ‘Gawain’ adventure; we do not know whence it was
derived, and it may well have been included in an early version of the romance.
Apart from the purely literary question, from the strictly critical point of
view the adventure is here obviously out of place, and entirely devoid of
raison d’être. If the origins of the Grail legend is really to be found
in these cults, which are not a dead but a living tradition (how truly living,
the exclusively literary critic has little idea), we are surely entitled to
draw attention to the obvious parallels, no matter in which text they appear. I
am not engaged in reconstructing the original form of the Grail story,
but in endeavoring to ascertain the ultimate source, and it is surely
justifiable to point out that, in effect, no matter what version we take, we
find in that version points of contact with one special group of popular belief
and practice. If I be wrong in my conclusions my critics have only to suggest
another origin for this particular feature of the romance—as a matter of fact,
they have failed to do so.
[30] Cf. Perlesvaus, Branch II. Chap. I.
[31] Throwing into, or drenching with, water is a well known part of the
‘Fertility’ ritual; it is a case of sympathetic magic, acting as a rain charm.
CHAPTER V
[1] Ancient Greek Religion, and Modern Greek Folk-Lore, J. C. Lawson,
gives some most interesting evidence as to modern survivals of mythological
beliefs.
[2] Wald und Feld-Kulte, 2nd edition, 2 vols., Berlin, 1904. Cf. Vol.
II. p. 286. The Golden Bough, 3rd edition, 5 vols.
[3] I cite from Mannhardt, as the two works overlap in the particular line of
research we are following: the same instances are given in both, buyt the
honour of priority belongs to the German scholar.
[4] Op. cit. Vol. I. p. 411.
[5] See G. Calderon, ‘Slavonic Elements in Greek religion,’ Classical
Review, 1918, p. 79.
[6] Op. cit. p. 416.
[7] Op. cit. pp. 155 and 312.
[8] Op. cit. p. 353.
[9] Op. cit. p. 358.
[10] Op. cit. p. 358.
[11] Op. cit. p. 359. Cf. the Lausitz custom given supra, which
Mannhardt seems to have overlooked.
[12] In the poem, besides the ordinary figures of the Vegetation Deity, his
female counterpart, and the Doctor, common to all such processions, Laubfrosch,
combining the two first, and Horse. Cf. Mannhardt, Mythol. Forsch. pp.
142-43; Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 408 et seq.; also, pp. 443-44.
Sir W. Ridgeway (op. cit. p. 156) refers slightingly to this
interpretation of a ‘harmless little hymn’—doubless the poem is harmless; until
Prof. von Schroeder pointed out its close affinity with the Fertility
processions it was also meaningless.
[13] Op. cit. Chap. 17, p. 253.
[14] Cf. Folk-Lore, Vol. XV. p. 374.
[15] Op. cit. Vol. V. The Dying God, pp. 17 et seq.
[16] See Dr Seligmann’s study, The Cult of Nyakang and the Divine Kings of
the Shilluk in the Fourth Report of the Wellcome Research Laboratories,
Kkartum, 1911, Vol. B.
[17] Cf. Address on reception into the Academy when M. Paris succeeded to
Pasteur’s fauteuil.
CHAPTER VI
[1] Op. cit. Vol. I. p. 94.
[2] The Legend of Longinus, R. J. Peebles (Bryn Mawr College monographs,
Vol. IX.).
[3] I discussed this point with Miss Lucy Broadwood, Secretary of the Folk-Song
Society, who has made sketches of these Crosses, and she entirely agrees with
me. In my Quest of the Holy Grail, pp. 54 et seq., I have pointed
out the absolute dearth of ecclesiastical tradition with regard to the story of
Joseph and the Grail.
[4] Cf. Littaturzeitung, XXIV. (1903), p. 2821.
[5] Cf. The Bleeding Lance, A. C. L. Brown.
[6] Cf. Brown, op. cit. p. 35; also A. Nutt, Studies in the Legend of
the Holy Grail, p. 184.
[7] Cf. Brown, Notes on Celtic Cauldrons of Plenty, p. 237.
[8] Cf. Queste, Malory, Book XIII. Chap. 7, where the effect is the
same.
[9] Cf. Germanische Elben und Götter beim Estenvolker, L. von Schroeder
(Wien, 1906).
[10] I suggested this point in corrspondence with Dr Brugger, who agreed with
me that it was worth working out.
[11] Before leaving the discussion of Professor Brown’s theory, I would draw
attention to a serious error made by the author of The Legend of
Longinus. On p. 191, she blames Professor Brown for postulating the
destructive qualities of the Lance, on the strength of ‘an unsupported passage’
in the ‘Mons’ MS., whereas the Montpellier text says that the Lance shall bring
peace. Unfortunately, it is this latter version which is unsupported, all the
MSS., without even excepting B.N. 1429, which as a rule agrees with
Montpellier, give the ‘destructive’ version.
[12] Cf. Dulaure, Des Divinités Génératrices, p. 77. Also additional
chapter to last edition by Van Gennep, p. 333; L. von Schroeder, Mysterium
und Mimus, pp. 279-80, for symbolic use of the Spear. McCulloch,
Religion of the Celts, p. 302, suggests that it is not impossible that
the cauldron=Hindu yoni, which of course would bring it into line with
the above suggested meaning of the Grail. I think however that the real
significance of the cauldron is that previously indicated.
[13] It is interesting to note that this relative position of Lance and Grail
lingers on in late and fully Christianized versions; cf. Sommer, The Quest
of the Holy Grail, Romania, XXXVI. p. 575.
[14] My informant on this point was a scholar, resident in Japan, who gave me
the facts within his personal knowledge. I referred the question to Prof. Basil
Hall Chamberlain, who wrote in answer that he had not himself met with the
practice but that the Samurai ceremonies differed in different provinces, and
my informant might well be correct.
[15] This explanation has at least the merit of simplicity as compared with
that proposed by the author of The Legend of Longinus, pp. 209 et seq.,
which would connect the feature with an obscure heretical practice of the early
Irish church. It would also meet Professor Brown’s very reasonable objections,
The Bleeding Lance, p. 8; cf. also remarks by Baist quoted in the
foot-note above.
[16] Cf. my Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. II. pp. 314-315, note.
[17] Mr A. E. Waite, who has published a book on the subject, informs me that
the 17 cards preserved in the Bibliothèque du Roi (Bibl. Nationale?) as
specimens of the work of the painter Charles Gringonneur, are really Tarots.
[18] Falconnier, in a brochure on Les XXII Lames Hermetiques du Tarot,
gives reproductions of these Egyptian paintings.
[19] Journal of the Gipsy-Lore Society, Vol. II. New Series, pp. 14-37.
[20] From a private letter. The ultimate object of Magic in all ages was, and
is, to obtain control of the sources of Life. Hence, whatever was the use of
these objects (of which I know nothing), their appearance in this connection is
significant.
CHAPTER VII
[1] Mysterium und Mimus, p. 50. This work contains a most valuable and
interesting study of the Maruts, and the kindred groups of Sword Dancers.
[2] Op. cit. pp. 47 et seq.
[3] Rig-Veda, Vol. III. p. 337.
[4] Mysterium und Mimus, p. 48.
[5] Op. cit., Indra, die Maruts, und Agastya, pp. 91 et seq.
[6] Rig-Veda, Vol. III. pp. 331, 334, 335, 337.
[7] Mysterium un Mimus, p. 121.
[8] Vollendung des Arische Mysterium, p. 13. The introductory section of
this book, containing a study of early Aryan belief, and numerous references to
modern survivals, is both interesting and valuable. The latter part, a
panegyric on the Wagnerian drama, is of little importance.
[9] Mysterium und Mimus, p. 131.
[10] Cf. Röscher’s Lexikon, under heading Kureten.
[11] Op. cit.
[12] Cf. Preller, Graechishe Mythologie, p. 134.
[13] Quoted by Preller, p. 654.
[14] Themis, A Study in Greek Social Origins (Cambridge, 1912), pp. 6
et seq.
[15] Mysterium un Mimus, p. 23.
[16] Themis, p. 24.
[17] Cf. Mysterium und Mimus, section Indra, die Maruts, und
Agastya specially pp. 151 et seq.
[18] Cf. von Schroeder, op. cit. pp. 141 et seq. for a very full
account of the ceremonies; also, Themis, p. 194; Mannhardt, Wald und
Feld-Kulte, and Röscher’s Lexikon, under heading Mars, for
various reasons.
[19] Folk-Lore, Vols. VII., X., and XVI. contain interesting and fully
illustrated accounts of some of these dances and plays.
[20] The Mediaeval Stage, Vol. III. p. 202. It would be interesting to
know the precise form of this ring; was it the Pentangle?
[21] Cf. also Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 110, 111, for a general
description of the dance, minus the text of the speeches.
[22] Pp. 186-194.
[23] Cf. Folk-Lore, Vol. XVI. pp. 212 et seq.
[24] I would draw attention to the curious name of the adversary, Golisham; it
is noteworthy that in one Arthurian romance Gawain has for adversary Golagros,
in another Percival fights against Golerotheram. Are these all reminiscences of
the giant Goliath, who became the synonym for a dangerous, preferably heathen,
adversary, even as Mahomet became the synonym for an idol?
[25] Cf. Mannhardt, Wald und Feld-Kulte, Vol. II. pp. 191 et seq.
for a very full account of the Julbock (Yule Buck).
[26] Cf. Folk-Lore, Vol. VIII. ‘Some Oxfordshire Seasonal Festivals,’
where full illustrations of the Bampton Morris Dancers and their equipment will
be found.
[27] Cf. The Padstow Hobby-Horse, F.-L. Vol. XVI. p. 56; The
Staffordshire Horn-Dance, Ib. Vol. VII. p. 382, and VIII. p. 70.
[28] Cf. supra, pp. 53, 80, 85.
[29] Cf. Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. II. p. 264.
[30] See English Folk-Song and Dance by Frank Kidson and Mary Neal,
Cambridge, 1915, plate facing p. 104. A curious point in connection with the
illustration is that the Chalice is surmounted by a Heart, and in the Tarot
suits Cups are the equivalent of our Hearts. The combination has
now become identified with the cult of the Sacred Heart, but is undoubtedly
much older.
CHAPTER VIII
[1] Cf. supra, Chap. 5, pp. 52, 54; Chap. 7, pp. 90, 91.
[2] Mysterium und Mimus, p. 369, Der Mimus des Medizinmannes.
[3] Cf. Chap. 5, pp. 53, 54.
[4] Op. cit. p. 371
[5] Op. cit. pp. 78 et seq.
[6] I would draw attention to the fact that while scholars are now coming to
the conclusion that Classic Drama, whether Tragedy or Comedy, reposes for its
origin upon this ancient ritual, others have pointed out that Modern Drama
derives from the ritual Play of the Church, the first recorded medieval drama
being the Easter Quem Quaeritis? the dramatic celebration of Our Lord’s
Resurrection. Cf. Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage, where this thesis is
elaborately developed and illustrated. It is a curious fact that certain texts
of this, the ‘Classical’ Passion Play, contain a scene between the Maries and
the ‘Unguentarius’ from whom they purchase spices for the embalmment of Our
Lord. Can this be a survival of the Medicine Man? (Cf. op. cit. Vol. ii.
p. 33.)
[7] Bibl. Nat., fonds Français, 12577, fo. 40
[8] Bibl. Nat., f. F. 1453, fo. 49. Parzival, Bk. x. ll, 413-22.
[9] Lanceloet, Jonckbloet, Vol.II. ll. 22271-23126.
[10] Op. cit. ll. 22825-26.
[11] Op. cit. Vol. 1. ll. 42540-47262.
[12] Op. cit. ll. 46671-74.
[13] Op. cit. ll. 46678-80.
[14] Cf. Loth, Les Mabinogion, Vol. ii. p. 230, and note. The other two
are Riwallawn Walth Banhadlen, and Llacheu son of Arthur.
[15] The only instance in which I have found medicine directly connected with
the knightly order is in the case of the warrior clan of the Samurai, in Japan,
where members, physically unfitted for the task of a warrior, were trained as
Royal Doctors, the Folk Doctors being recruited from a class
below the Samurai. Cf. Medizin der Natur-Völker, Bartels, p. 65.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII
[1] Cf. Œuvres de Rutebœuf, Kressner, p. 115.
[2] My attention was drawn to the poem by references to it in The Mediaeval
Stage, Chambers.
CHAPTER IX
[1] Cf. my Sir Gawain and the Grail Castle, pp. 3-30. The best text is
that of MS. B.N., fonds Franç. 12576, ff. 87vo-91. The above remarks apply also
to the Elucidation, which is using a version of the Bleheris
form.
[2] B.N. 12577, fo. 136vo.
[3] Cf. Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle, pp. 33-46.
[4] Cf. B.N. 12576, ff. 220-222vo and fo. 258.
[5] Hucher, Le Saint Graal, Vo. I. pp. 251 et seq., 315 et
seq.
[6] Cf. Modena MS. pp. 11, 12, 21, etc.; Dr Nitze, The Fisher-King in the
Grail Romances, p. 373, says Borron uses the term Rice Pescheur, as
opposed to the Roi Pescheur of Chrétien. This remark is only correct as
applied to the Joseph.
[7] Modena MS p. 61 and note.
[8] Ibid. p. 63.
[9] The evidence of the Parzival and the parallel Grail sections of
Sone de Nansai, which appear to repose ultimately on a source common to
all three authors, makes this practically certain.
[10] This is surely a curious omission, if the second King were as essential a
part of the scheme as Dr Nitze supposes.
[11] Cf. Chapter 2, p. —-.
[12] I cannot agree with Dr Nitze’s remark (op. cit. p. 374) that “in
most versions the Fisher King has a mysterious double.” I hold that feature to
be a peculiarity of the Chrétien-Wolfram group. It is not found in the Gawain
versions, in Wauchier, nor in Manessier. Gerbert is using the Queste in
the passage relative to Mordrains, and for the reason stated above I hold that
heither Queste nor Grand Saint Graal should be cited when we are
dealing, as Dr Nitze is here dealing, with questions of ultimate origin.
[13] Cf. my Legend of Sir Lancelot, pp. 167 and 168.
[14] Cf. Heinzel, Ueber die Alt-Franz. Gral-Romanen, pp. 136 and 137.
[15] Cf. Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. II. p. 343, note. These three
kings are found in the curious Merlin MS. B.N., f. Franç. 337, fo. 249 et
seq.
[16] Vide supra, pp. 91. 92.
[17] Op. cit. p. 184.
[18] Cf. Chapter 5, p. 52, Chap. 7, p. 88.
[19] Diû Crone, ll. 17329 et seq.
[20] In the Parzival Titurel is grandfather to Anfortas, Frimutel
intervening; critics of the poem are apt to overlook this difference between
the German and French versions.
[21] Cf. Chapter 2, p. 20.
[22] Cf. here my notes on Sone de Nansai (Romania, Vol. XLIII. p.
412).
[23] In connection with my previous remarks on the subject (p. 112) I would
point out that the Queste and Grand Sainte Graal versions repeat
the Maimed King motif in the most unintelligent manner. The element of
old age, inherent in the Evalach-Mordrains incident, is complicated and
practically obscured, by an absurdly exaggerated wounding element, here devoid
of its original significance.
[24] Heinzel, op. cit. p. 13.
[25] For an instance of the extravagances to which a strictly Christian
interpretation can lead, cf. Dr Sebastian Evans’s theories set forth in his
translation of the Perlesvaus (The High History of the Holy
Grail) and in his The Quest of the Holy Grail. The author places the
origin of the cycle in the first quarter of the thirteenth century, and treats
it as an allegory of the position in England during the Interdict pronounced
against King John, and the consequent withholding of the Sacraments. His
identification of the character with historical originals is most ingenious, an
extraordinary example of misapplied learning.
[26] For a general discussion of the conflicting views cf. Dr Nitze’s study,
referred to above. The writer devotes special attention to the works of the
late Prof. Heinzel and Mr Alfred Nutt as leading representatives of their
respective schools.
[27] R. Pischel’s Ueber die Ursprung des Christlichen Fisch-Symbols is
specifically devoted to the possible derivation from Indian sources.
Scheftelowitz, Das Fischsymbolik in Judentem und Christentum (Archiv
für Religionswissenschaft, Vol. XIV.), contains a great deal of valuable
material. R. Eisler, Orpheus the Fisher (The Quest, Vols. I and
II.), John, Jonas, Oannes (ibid. Vol. III.), The Messianic
Fish-meal of the Primitive Church (ibid. Vol. IV.), are isolated
studies, forming part of a comprehensive work on the subject, the publication
of which has unfortunately been prevented by the War.
[28] Mahâbhârata, Bk. III.
[29] Cf. Scheftekowitz, op. cit. p. 51.
[30] Cf. The Open Court, June and July, 1911, where reproductions of
these figures will be found.
[31] Op. cit. p. 403. Cf. here an illustration in Miss Harrison’s
Themis (p. 262), which shows Cecrops, who played the same rôle
with regard to the Greeks, with a serpent’s tail.
[32] Ibid. p. 168. In this connection note the prayer to Vishnu, quoted
above.
[33] Cf. Eisler, Orpheus the Fisher (The Quest, Vol. I. p. 126).
[34] Cf. W. Staerk, Ueber den Ursprung der Gral-Legende, pp. 55, 56.
[35] Df. S. Langdon, Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms, pp. 301, 305, 307,
313.
[36] Cf. Eisler, The Messianic Fish-meal of the Primitive Church (The
Quest, Vol. IV.), where the various frescoes are described; also the
article by Scheftelowitz, already referred to. While mainly devoted to Jewish
beliefs and practices, this study contains much material derived from other
sources. So far it is the fullest and most thoroughly documenté
treatment of the subject I have met with.
[37] Cf. Eisler, op. cit. and Scheftelowitz, pp. 19. 20.
[38] Cf. Eisler, op. cit. p. 508.
[39] Cf. Scheftelowitz, op. cit. pp. 337, 338, and note 4.
[40] Hucher, Le Saint Graal, Vol. I. pp. 251 et seq., 315 et seq.
[41] Cf. A. Nutt, Studies in the Legend of the Holy Grail, p. 209.
[42] Cf. Eisler, The Mystic Epitaph of Bishop Aberkios (The
Quest, Vol. V. pp. 302-312); Scheftelowitz, op. cit. p. 8.
[43] Cf. The Voyage of Saint Brandan, ll. 372, et seq., 660 et
seq.
[44] Op. cit. ll. 170 et seq., and supra, p. 119.
[45] Vide supra, p. 70.
[46] Op. cit. p. 168.
[47] Cf. The Messianic Fish-meal.
[48] Op. cit. p. 92, fig. 42 a.
[49] Op. cit. p. 23, and note, p. 29.
[50] Parzival, Bk. IX. ll., 1109 et seq., Bk. XVI. ll. 175 et
seq.
[51] Cf. Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle, p. 55. Certain of the
Lancelot MSS., e.g., B.N., f. Fr. 123, give two doves.
[52] Cf. Scheftelowitz, p. 338. Haven, Der Gral, has argued that
Wolfram’s stone is such a meteoric stone, a Boetylus. I am not prepared to take
up any position as to the exact nature of the stone itself, whether precious
stone or meteor; the real point of importance being its Life-giving potency.
[53] Op. cit. p. 381.
[54] Ibid. p. 376 et seq.
[55] Ibid. p. 20.
[56] Ibid. p. 377.
CHAPTER X
[1] Elucidation, ll. 4-9 and 12, 13.
[2] Potvin, ll. 19933-40. I quote from Potvin’s edition as more accessible than
the MSS., but the version of mons is, on the whole, an inferior one.
[3] Potvin, ll. 28108-28.
[4] This is to my mind the error vitiating much of Dr Nitze’s later work,
e.g., the studies entitled The Fisher-King in the Grail Romances
and The Sister’s Son, and the Conte del Graal.
[5] Op. cit. Introduction, p. X.
[6] Rohde, Psyche, p. 293, and Cumont, op. cit. p. 44.
[7] Anrich, Das alte Mysterien-Wesen in seinem Verhältniss zum
Christentum, p. 46.
[8] Op. cit. p. 136.
[9] Cumont, op. cit. p. 84.
[10] Op. cit. pp. 104, 105.
[11] Cf. Anrich, op. cit. p. 81.
[12] Hepding, Attis, p. 189.
[13] Cumont, Mystères de Mithra, pp. 19 and 78.
[14] Ibid. p. 188.
[15] Ibid. pp. 190 et seq.
[16] Vide Hepding, Attis, Chap. 4, for details.
[17] Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie, p. 174.
[18] Hepding, op. cit. p. 196.
[19] Cf. my Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. II. p. 313. Hepding mentions
(op. cit. p. 174) among the sacra of the goddess Phrygium
ferrum, which he suggests was the knife from which the Archigallus wounded
himself on the ‘Blood’ day. Thus it is possible that the primitive ritual may
have contained a knife.
CHAPTER XI
[1] Cumont, op. cit. Introd. pp. XX and XXI.
[2] Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. I, p. 195.
[3] Op. cit. p. 141.
[4] Op. cit. p. 142.
[5] Op. cit. pp. 146 et seq. Reitzenstein, Die Hellenistischen
Mysterien Religionen, Leipzig, 1910, gives the document in the original.
There is also a translation of Hippolytus in the Ante-Nicene Library.
[6] Quoted by Mead, op. cit. p. 138.
[7] Op. cit. pp. 146, 147.
[8] Op. cit. p. 151.
[9] Op. cit. p. 152. Mr Mead concludes that there is here a lacuna of
the original.
[10] Op. cit. p. 181. In a note Mr Mead says of the Greater Mysteries,
“presumaby the candidate went through some symbolic rite of death and
resurrection.”
[11] Op. cit. pp. 185, 186. I would draw especial attention to this
passage in view of the present controversey as to the Origin of Drama. It looks
as if the original writer of the document (and this section is in the Pagan
Source) would have inclined to the views of Sir Gilbert Murray, Miss Harrison,
and Mr Cornford rather than to those championed by their sarcastic critic, Sir
W. Ridgeway.
[12] Op. cit. p. 190.
[13] Vide supra, p. 137.
[14] Cf. Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. II. Chapters 10 and 11.
[15] Cf. my Quest of the Holy Grail, Bell, 1913, Chap. 4, for summary of
evidence on this point.
[16] Cf. Heinzel, Alt-Franz. Gral-Romanen, p. 72.
CHAPTER XII
[1] Op. cit. p. 71.
[2] Op. cit. p. 3.
[3] Op. cit. p. 4.
[4] Cumont, op. cit. pp. 129-141 et seq.
[5] Op. cit. p. 148.
[6] Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie, the text is given with translation
and is followed by an elaborate commentary. The whole study is most interesting
and suggestive.
[7] Cf. Bousset, Der Himmelfahrt der Seele, Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft, Vol. IV.
[8] Cumont, op. cit. pp. 199 et seq.
[9] Adonis und Esmun, p. 521.
[10] Cf. Mead, op. cit. p. 179, note; Cumont, Mystères de Mithra,
p. 183.
[11] Cumont, Les Religions Orientales, pp. 160 et seq.
[12] Mystères de Mithra, p. 77.
[13] Les Religions Orientales, pp. 166, 167, Mystères de Mithra,
p. 57.
[14] Mead, op. cit. pp. 147, 148, and note.
[15] Without entering into indiscreet details I may say that students of the
Mysteries are well aware of the continued survival of this ritual under
circumstances which correspond exactly with the indications of two of our Grail
romances.
[16] The Quest of the Holy Grail, pp. 110 et seq.
[17] puys. Professor A. C. L. Brown, Notes on Celtic Cauldrons of
Plenty, n. p. 249, translates this ‘wells,’ an error into which the late Mr
Alfred Nutt had already fallen. Wisse Colin translates this correctly, berg,
gebirge.
[18] I suspect that the robbery of the Golden Cup was originally a symbolic
expression for the outrage being offered.
CHAPTER XIII
[1] MS B.N. 12576, ff. 87vo et seq. A translation will be found in my
Sir Gawain at the Grail Castle, pp. 13-15.
[2] MS B.N. 12576, ff. 150vo, 222, 238vo.
[3] Cf. here Prof. Kittredge’s monograph Arthur and Gorlagon.
[4] Cf. Malory, Book XVI. Chap. 2.
[5] Cf. Perlesvaus, Branch XV. sections XII.-XX.; Malory, Book VI. Chap.
15; Chevalier à deux Espées, ll. 531 et seq.
[6] B.N. 12576, fo. 74vo.
[7] Cf. B.N. MS 1433, ff. 10, 11, and the analysis and remarks in my Legend
of Sir Lancelot, p. 219 and note.
[8] Cf. passage in question quoted on p. 137.
[9] B.N. 12576, fo. 150vo.
[10] Perlesvaus, Branch I. sections III., IV.
[11] Cf. my notes on the subject, Romania, Vol. XLIII. pp. 420-426.
[12] Cf. Nitze, Glastonbury and the Holy Grail, where the reference is
given.
[13] Vide supra, p. 147.
[14] Cf. Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. II. p. 261. I suggested then that
the actual initiation would probably consist in enlightenment into the meaning
of Lance and Cup, in their sexual juxtaposition. I would now go a step further,
and suggest that the identification of the Lance with the weapon of Longinus
may quite well have rpelaced the original explanation as given by Bleheris. In
The Quest, Oct. 1916, I have given, under the title “The Ruined Temple,”
a hypothetical reconstruction of the Grail Initiation.
[15] Owain Miles, edited from the unique MS. by Turnbull and Laing,
Edinburgh, 1837. The Purgatory of Saint Patrick will be found in
Horstmann’s Southern Legendary. I have given a modern English rendering of part
of Owain Miles in my Chief Middle-English Poets, published by
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, U.S.A.
[16] Cf. op. cit. pp. 148 et seq.
[17] Op. cit. pp. 155 and 254.
CHAPTER XIV
The Author
[1] Cf. Mead, Thrice Greatest Hermes, Vol. III. p. 295. On this point
the still untranslated corpus of Bardic poetry may possibly throw light.
[2] The Quest of The Holy Grail (Quest series, Bell, 1913).
[3] On the point that Chrétien was treating an already popular theme, cf.
Brugger, Enserrement Merlin, I. (Zeitschrift für Franz. Sprache,
XXIX.).
[4] That is, the relationship is due to romantic tradition, not to Mystery
survival, as Dr Nitze maintains.
[5] Cf. Romania, Vol. XXXIII. pp. 333 et seq.
[6] Cf. Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. I. Chap. 12, for the passages
referred to, also article in Romania, XXXIII.
[7] Cf. my Quest of the Holy Grail, pp. 110 et seq.
[8] Cf. Tristan (Bédier’s ed.), Vol. I. l. 2120.
[9] A critic of my Quest volume remarks that “we have as little faith in
Wauchier’s appeal to a Welshman Bleheris as source for his continuation of
Chrétien’s ‘Perceval’ as we have in Layamon’s similar appeal to Bede and
St Austin at the beginning of the ‘Brut.’” The remark seems to me
singularly inept, there is no parallel between the cases. In the first place
Layamon does not refer to Bede and St Austin as source, but as
models, a very different thing. Then the statement is discredited by the
fact that we possess the writings of these men, and know them to be of another
character than Metrical Chronicles. In the case of Wauchier his reference does
not stand alone; it is one of a group, and that group marked by an
extraordinary unanimity of statement; whoever Bleheris may have been he was
certainly possessed of two definite qualifications—he knew a vast number of
tales, and he possessed a remarkable gift of narration, i.e., he was a
story-teller, par excellence. Thus he was, a priori, a probable
source for that section of Wauchier’s work which is attributed to him, a
section consisting of short, picturesque, and mutually independent tales, which
formed part of a popular collection. It is misleading to speak as if Wauchier
refers to him as general source for his Perceval continuation; the
references are clearly marked and refer to Gawain tales. Apart from the
fact that Wauchier’s reference does not stand alone we have independent
evidence of the actual existence of such a group of tales, in our surviving
Gawain poems, certain of which, such as Kay and the Spit, and
Golagros and Gawayne are versions of the stories given by Wauchier,
while the author of the Elucidation was also familiar with the same
collection. If evidence for the identity of Bleheris is incomplete, that for
his existence appears to be incontrovertible. Would it not be more honest if
such a would-be critic as the writer referred to said, ‘I do not choose to
believe in the existence of Bleheris, because it runs counter to my
pre-conceived theory of the evolution of the literature’? We should then know
where we are. Such a parallel as that cited above has no value for those
familiar with the literature but may easily mislead the general reader. I would
also draw attention to the fact noted in the text—the extreme improbability of
Wauchier, a continental writer, inventing an insular and Welsh source. This is
a point critics carefully evade.
[10] Cf. Bledhericus de Cornouailles, note contributed by M. Ferd. Lot,
to Romania, Vol. XXVIII. p. 336. M. Lot remarks that he has not met with the
name in Armorica; it thus appears to be insular.
[11] Cf. Revue Celtique, 1911, A note on the identification of
Bleheris.
[12] Ed. Rhys-Evans, Vol. II. p. 297; cf. also Revue Celtique.
[13] In the course of 1915-16 I received letters from Mr Rogers Rees, resident
at Stepaside, Pembrokeshire, who informed me that he held definite proof of the
connection of Bledri with both Grail and Perceval legends. The
locality had been part of Bledri’s estate, and the house in which he lived was
built on the site of what had been Bledri’s castle. Mr Rogers Rees maintained
the existence of a living tradition connecting Bledri with the legends in
question. At his request I sent him the list of the names of the brothers of
Alain li Gros, as given in the 1516 edition of the Perlesvaus, a copy of
which is in the Bibliothèque Nationale, and received in return a letter stating
that the list must have been compiled by one familiar with the district.
Unfortunately, for a year, from the autumn of 1916, I was debarred from work,
and when, on resuming my studies, I wrote to my correspondent asking for the
promised evidence I obtained no answer to my repeated appeal. On communicating
with Mr Owen I found he had had precisely the same experience, and, for his
part, was extremely sceptical as to there being any genuine foundation for our
correspondent’s assertions. While it is thus impossible to use the statements
in question as elements in my argument, I think it right in the interests of
scholarship to place them on record; they may afford a clue which some Welsh
scholar may be able to follow up to a more satisfactory conclusion.
[14] Had Wauchier really desired to invent an authority, in view of his
date, and connection with the house of Flanders, he had a famous name at
hand—that of Chrétien de Troyes.
[15] Cf. Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. II. p. 307 and note. I have
recently received Dr Brugger’s review of Mr R. H. Griffith’s study of the
English poem, and am glad to see that the critic accepts the independence of
this version. If scholars can see their way to accept as faits acquis the
mutual independence of the Grail, and Perceval themes, we shall,
at last, have a solid basis for future criticism.
[16] Cf. my Notes, Romania, Vol. XLIII. pp. 403 et seq.