A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

From Ritual to Romance

J >> Jessie L. Weston >> From Ritual to Romance




Shortly after the publication of the second volume of my Perceval
studies, I received a letter from Professor Singer, in which, after
expressing his general acceptance of the theories there advanced, in
especial of the suggested date and relation of the different versions,
which he characterized as "sehr gelungen, und zu meiner Alffassung der
Entwickelung der Altfranzösischen Literatur sehr zu stimmen,"
he proceeded to comment upon the probable character of the literary
activity of Bleheris. His remarks are so interesting and suggestive
that I venture to submit them for the consideration of my readers.

Professor Singer points out that in Eilhart von Oberge's Tristan we
find the name in the form of Pleherin attached to a knight of Mark's
court. The same name in a slightly varied form, Pfelerin, occurs in
the Tristan of Heinrich von Freiberg; both poems, Professor Singer
considers, are derived from a French original. Under a compound form,
Blihos, (or Blio)-Bliheris, he appears, in the Gawain-Grail
compilation, as a knight at Arthur's court. Now Bréri-Blihis-Bleheris
is referred to as authority alike in the Tristan, Grail and Gawain
tradition, and Professor Singer makes the interesting suggestion that
these references are originally due to Bleheris himself, who not only
told the stories in the third person (a common device at that period,
v. Chrétien's Erec, and Gerbert's continuation of the Perceval), but
also introduced himself as eye-witness of, and actor, in a subordinate
rôle, in, the incidents he recorded. Thus in the Tristan he is a
knight of Mark's, in the Elucidation and the Gawain stories a knight
of Arthur's, court. Professor Singer instances the case of Dares in
the De exidio Trojae, and Bishop Pilgrim of Passau in the lost
Nibelungias of his secretary Konrad, as illustrations of the theory.

If this be the case such a statement as that which we find in
Wauchier, regarding Bleheris's birth and origin, would have emanated
from Bleheris himself, and simply been taken over by the later
writer from his source; he incorporated the whole tale of
the shield as it stood, a quite natural and normal proceeding.[14]
Again, this suggestion would do away with the necessity for
postulating a certain lapse of time before the story-teller Bleheris
could be converted into an Arthurian knight--the two rôles,
Gewährsmann und Mithandelnden, as Professor Singer expresses it,
are coincident in date. I would also suggest that the double form,
Blihos-Bliheris, would have been adopted by the author himself,
to indicate the identity of the two, Blihis, and Bleheris. It is
worthy of note that, when dealing directly with the Grail, he assumes
the title of Master, which would seem to indicate that here he
claimed to speak with special authority.

I sent the letter in question to the late Mr Alfred Nutt, who was
forcibly struck with the possibilities involved in the suggestion,
the full application of which he thought the writer had not grasped.
I quote the following passages from the long letter I received from
him in return.

"Briefly put we presuppose the existence of a set of semi-dramatic,
semi-narrative, poems, in which a Bledri figures as an active, and at
the same time a recording, personage. Now that such a body of
literature may have existed we are entitled to assume from the fact
that two such have survived, one from Wales, in the Llywarch Hen
cycle, the other from Ireland, in the Finn Saga. In both cases, the
fact that the descriptive poems are put in the mouth, in Wales of
Llywarch, in Ireland largely of Oisin, led to the ascription at an
early date of the whole literature to Llywarch and Oisin. It is
therefore conceivable that a Welsh 'littérateur,' familiar as he must
have been with the Llywarch, and as he quite possibly was with the
Oisin, instance, should cast his version of the Arthurian stories in a
similar form, and that the facts noted by you and Singer may be thus
explained."

Now that both Professor Singer (who has an exceptionally wide
knowledge of Medieval literature), and the late Mr Alfred Nutt, knew
what they were talking about, does not need to be emphasized, and the
fact that two such competent authorities should agree upon a possible
solution of a puzzling literary problem, makes that solution worthy
of careful consideration; it would certainly have the merit of
simplifying the question and deserves to be placed upon record.

But while it would of course be far more satisfactory could one
definitely place, and label, the man to whom we owe the original
conception which gave birth and impetus to this immortal body of
literature, yet the precise identity of the author of the earliest
Grail romance is of the accident, rather than the essence, of our
problem. Whether Bleheris the Welshman be, or be not, identical with
Bledri ap Cadivor, Interpreter, and friend of the Norman nobles, the
general hypothesis remains unaffected and may be thus summarized--

The Grail story is not du fond en comble the product of imagination,
literary or popular. At its root lies the record, more or less
distorted, of an ancient Ritual, having for its ultimate object the
initiation into the secret of the sources of Life, physical and
spiritual. This ritual, in its lower, exoteric, form, as affecting
the processes of Nature, and physical life, survives to-day, and can
be traced all over the world, in Folk ceremonies, which, however
widely separated the countries in which they are found, show a
surprising identity of detail and intention. In its esoteric
'Mystery' form it was freely utilized for the imparting of high
spiritual teaching concerning the relation of Man to the Divine Source
of his being, and the possibility of a sensible union between Man, and
God. The recognition of the cosmic activities of the Logos appears
to have been a characteristic feature of this teaching, and when
Christianity came upon the scene it did not hesitate to utilize the
already existing medium of instruction, but boldly identified the
Deity of Vegetation, regarded as Life Principle, with the God of the
Christian Faith. Thus, to certain of the early Christians, Attis was
but an earlier manifestation of the Logos, Whom they held identical
with Christ. The evidence of the Naassene document places this beyond
any shadow of doubt, and is of inestimable value as establishing a
link between pre-Christian, and Christian, Mystery tradition.

This curious synthetic belief, united as it was with the highly
popular cult of Mithra, travelled with the foreign legionaries,
adherents of that cult, to the furthest bounds of the Roman Empire,
and when the struggle between Mithraism and Christianity ended in
the definite triumph of the latter, by virtue of that dual synthetic
nature, the higher ritual still survived, and was celebrated in sites
removed from the centres of population--in caves, and mountain
fastnesses; in islands, and on desolate sea-coasts.

The earliest version of the Grail story, represented by our Bleheris
form, relates the visit of a wandering knight to one of these hidden
temples; his successful passing of the test into the lower grade of
Life initiation, his failure to attain to the highest degree. It
matters little whether it were the record of an actual, or of a possible,
experience; the casting into romantic form of an event which the
story-teller knew to have happened, had, perchance, actually witnessed;
or the objective recital of what he knew might have occurred; the
essential fact is that the mise-en-scène of the story, the
nomenclature, the march of incident, the character of the tests,
correspond to what we know from independent sources of the details of
this Nature Ritual. The Grail Quest was actually possible then, it is
actually possible to-day, for the indication of two of our romances as
to the final location of the Grail is not imagination, but the record
of actual fact.

As first told the story preserved its primal character of a composite
between Christianity and the Nature Ritual, as witnessed by the
ceremony over the bier of the Dead Knight, the procession with Cross
and incense, and the solemn Vespers for the Dead. This, I suspect,
correctly represents the final stage of the process by which
Attis-Adonis was identified with Christ. Thus, in its first form the
story was the product of conscious intention.

But when the tale was once fairly launched as a romantic tale, and
came into the hands of those unfamiliar with its Ritual origin (though
the fact that it had such an origin was probably well understood),
the influence of the period came into play. The Crusades, and the
consequent traffic in relics, especially in relics of the Passion,
caused the identification of the sex Symbols, Lance and Cup, with the
Weapon of the Crucifixion, and the Cup of the Last Supper; but the
Christianization was merely external, the tale, as a whole, retaining
its pre-Christian character.

The conversion into a definitely Christian romance seems to have been
due to two causes. First, the rivalry between the two great monastic
houses of Glastonbury and Fescamp, the latter of which was already
in possession of a genuine Saint-Sang relic, and fully developed
tradition. There is reason to suppose that the initial combination
of the Grail and Saint-Sang traditions took place at Fescamp, and was
the work of some member of the minstrel Guild attached to that Abbey.
But the Grail tradition was originally British; Glastonbury was from
time immemorial a British sanctuary; it was the reputed burial place
of Arthur, of whose court the Grail Quest was the crowning adventure;
the story must be identified with British soil. Consequently a version
was composed, now represented by our Perlesvaus text, in which the
union of Nicodemus of Fescamp, and Joseph of Glastonbury, fame,
as ancestors of the Grail hero, offers a significant hint of the
provenance of the version.

Secondly, a no less important element in the process was due to the
conscious action of Robert de Borron, who well understood the
character of his material, and radically remodelled the whole on the
basis of the triple Mystery tradition translated into terms of high
Christian Mysticism. A notable feature of Borron's version is his
utilization of the tradition of the final Messianic Feast, in
combination with his Eucharistic symbolism, a combination thoroughly
familiar to early Christian Mystics.

Once started on a definitely romantic career, the Grail story rapidly
became a complex of originally divergent themes, the most important
stage in its development being the incorporation of the popular tale
of the Widow's Son, brought up in the wilderness, and launched into
the world in a condition of absolute ignorance of men, and manners.
The Perceval story is a charming story, but it has originally nothing
whatever to do with the Grail. The original tale, now best
represented by our English Syr Percyvelle of Galles, has no trace of
Mystery element; it is Folk-lore, pure and simple. I believe the
connection with the Grail legend to be purely fortuitous, and due to
the fact that the hero of the Folk-tale was known as 'The Widow's
Son,' which he actually was, while this title represented in Mystery
terminology a certain grade of Initiation, and as such is preserved
to-day in Masonic ritual.[15]

Finally the rising tide of dogmatic Medievalism, with its crassly
materialistic view of the Eucharist; its insistence on the saving
grace of asceticism and celibacy; and its scarcely veiled contempt
for women, overwhelmed the original conception. Certain of the
features of the ancient ritual indeed survive, but they are factors
of confusion, rather than clues to enlightenment. Thus, while the
Grail still retains its character of a Feeding Vessel, comes and goes
without visible agency, and supplies each knight with 'such food and
drink as he best loved in the world,' it is none the less the Chalice
of the Sacred Blood, and critics are sorely put to it to harmonize
these conflicting aspects. In the same way Galahad's grandfather
still bears the title of the Rich Fisher, and there are confused
references to a Land laid Waste as the result of a Dolorous Stroke.

But while the terminology lingers on to our perplexity the characters
involved lie outside the march of the story; practically no trace of
the old Nature Ritual survives in the final Queste form. The
remodelling is so radical that it seems most reasonable to conclude
that it was purposeful, that the original author of the Queste had a
very clear idea of the real nature of the Grail, and was bent upon
a complete restatement in terms of current orthodoxy. I advisedly
use this term, as I see no trace in the Queste of a genuine Mystic
conception, such as that of Borron. So far as criticism of the
literature is concerned I adhere to my previously expressed opinion
that the Queste should be treated rather as a Lancelot than as a Grail
romance. It is of real importance in the evolution of the Arthurian
romantic cycle; as a factor in determining the true character and
origins of the Grail legend it is worse than useless; what remains of
the original features is so fragmentary, and so distorted, that any
attempt to use the version as basis for argument, or comparison, can
only introduce a further element of confusion into an already more
than sufficiently involved problem.

I am also still of opinion that the table of descent given on p. 283
of Volume II. of my Perceval studies, represents the most probable
evolution of the literature; at the same time, in the light of further
research, I should feel inclined to add the Grail section of Sone de
Nansai as deriving from the same source which gave us Kiot's poem,
and the Perlesvaus.[16] As evidence for a French original combining
important features of these two versions, and at the same time
retaining unmistakably archaic elements which have disappeared from
both, I hold this section of the poem to be of extreme value for the
criticism of the cycle.

While there are still missing links in the chain of descent, versions
to be reconstructed, writers to be identified, I believe that in its
ensemble the theory set forth in these pages will be found to be the
only one which will satisfactorily meet all the conditions of the
problem; which will cover the whole ground of investigation, omitting
no element, evading no difficulty; which will harmonize apparently
hopeless contradictions, explain apparently meaningless terminology,
and thus provide a secure foundation for the criticism of a body of
literature as important as it is fascinating.

The study and the criticism of the Grail literature will possess
an even deeper interest, a more absorbing fascination, when it is
definitely recognized that we possess in that literature a unique
example of the restatement of an ancient and august Ritual in terms
of imperishable Romance.



NOTES

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] Percevel 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 Adoni,
'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. ---.
[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.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.