Studies on the Legend of the Holy Grail / With Especial Reference to the Hypothesis of Its Celtic Origin

by Alfred Trübner Nutt

Simrock’s speculations, though marred by his standing tendency to claim over much for German tradition, are full of his usual acute and ingenious, if somewhat fanciful, learning. His ignorance of Celtic tradition unfortunately prevented his following up the hint given in the passage quoted above which I have adopted as one of the mottoes of the present work.

In 1855 Rochat published (“Ueber einen bisher unbekannten Percheval li Gallois,” Zurich) selections from a Berne MS. containing part of Gautier de Doulens’ continuation of Chrestien (v. 21,930 to end, with thirteen introductory and fifty-six concluding original lines, cf. p. 19), and entered at some length into the question of the origin and development of the Grail legend. The Mabinogi, contrary to San Marte’s opinion, is placed after Chrestien. Villemarqué’s ballad of Morvan le Breiz is the oldest form of the Perceval sage, then comes the Thornton Sir Perceval, a genuine popular production derived probably from a Welsh original. In spite of what San Marte says, the Grail incident is found in the Mabinogi, and it might seem as if Chrestien had simply amplified the latter. On San Marte’s theory of the (Southern) origin of the Grail myth, this, however, is impossible, and the fact that the Mabinogi contains this incident is a proof of its lateness.

Up to 1861 all writers upon the Grail legend were under this disadvantage, that they had no complete text of any part of the cycle before them,[61] and were obliged to trust largely to extracts and to more or less carefully compiled summaries. In that year Mr. Furnivall, by the issue for the Roxburghe Club of the Grand St. Graal, together with a reprint of Robert de Borron’s poem (first edited in 1841 by M. Franc. Michel), provided students with materials of first-rate importance. His introductory words are strongly against the Celtic origin of the story, and are backed up by a quotation from Mr. D. W. Nash, in which that “authority who really knows his subject” gives the measure of his critical acumen by the statement that the Mabinogi of Peredur can have nothing to do with the earliest form of the legend, because “in Sir T. Malory, Perceval occupies the second place to Galahad.” In fact, neither the editor nor Mr. Nash seems to have tried to place the different versions, and their assertions are thus of little value, though they contributed, nevertheless, to discredit the Celtic hypothesis. San Marte, in an essay prefixed to the first volume, repeated his well-known views respecting the source of Wolfram’s poems, and, incidentally, protested against the idea that the Mabinogi is but a Welshified French romance.

In 1862 the accomplished editor of the “Popular Tales of the West Highlands,” Mr. J. F. Campbell, published in his second volume (p. 152) some remarks on the Story of the Lay of the Great Fool, which ended thus, “I am inclined ... to consider this ‘Lay’ as one episode in the adventures of a Celtic hero, who, in the twelfth century became Perceval le chercheur du basin. He too, was poor, and the son of a widow, and half starved, and kept in ignorance by his mother, but, nevertheless ... in the end he became possessed of that sacred basin, le Saint Graal, and the holy lance, which, though Christian in the story, are manifestly the same as the Gaelic talismans which appear so often in Gaelic tales, and which have relations in all popular lore—the glittering weapon which destroys, and the sacred medicinal cup which cures.” I have taken these words as a motto for my studies, which are, indeed, but an amplification of Mr. Campbell’s statement. Had the latter received the attention it deserved, had it, for instance, fallen into the hands of a scholar to whom Simrock’s words quoted on [p. 101] were familiar, there would, in all probability, have been no occasion for the present work.

The publication of texts was continued by Mr. Furnivall’s issue, in 1864, for the Roxburghe Club, of the Quête del Saint Graal from a British Museum MS. The opening of twelve MSS. from the Bibliothèque Nationale is likewise given, and shows substantial unity between them and Mr. Furnivall’s text. In 1868 Mons. Paulin Paris published, in the first volume of his “Romans de la Table Ronde,” a general introduction to the Round Table cycle, and a special study upon the Metrical Joseph and the Grand St. Graal. A large share of influence is assigned to Celtic traditions through the medium of Breton lais. The Early History of the Grail is a British legend, and embodies the national and schismatic aspirations of the British Church. The date given in the prologue to the Grand St. Graal, and repeated by Helinandus, is accepted as the genuine date of a redaction of the legend substantially the same as that found later in the Grand St. Graal. The word “Grail” is connected with the Latin gradale, modern gradual, and designated the book in which the tradition was first written down. The Grand St. Graal is anterior to Chrestien’s poem, and Robert de Borron’s poem in the first draft preceded the Grand St. Graal, and was written between 1160 and 1170, but he subsequently revised it towards 1214, as is shown by his alluding, l. 3,490, “O mon seigneur, Gauter en peis” (where the underlined words are equivalent to the Latin in pace) to Gautier of Montbeliard in the past tense. From 1868 to 1870 M. Potvin brought out his edition of the Conte du Graal, and of the prose Perceval le Gallois from Mons MSS. In the after-words priority is claimed for the latter romance over all other members of the cycle, and three stages are distinguished in the development of the legend—Welsh national—militant Christian—knightly—the prose romance belonging to the second stage, and dating substantially from the eleventh century. The lance and basin are originally pagan British symbols, and between the lines of the Grail legend may be read a long struggle between heretic Britain and orthodox Rome. The Perceval form of the Quest is older than the Galahad one. The Joseph of Arimathea forms are the latest, and among these the Grand St. Graal the earliest.

Conclusions as paradoxical as some of these appear in Dr. Bergmann’s “The San Grëal, an Enquiry into the Origin and Signification of the Romance of the S. G.,” Edinburgh, 1870. The idea of the Grail is due entirely to Guyot, as also its connection with the Arthurian cycle. Chrestien followed Guyot, but alters the character of the work, for which he is reproved by Wolfram, who may be looked upon as a faithful representative of the earlier poet. Chrestien’s alterations are intended to render the poem more acceptable in knightly circles. On the other hand Walter Map found Guyot too secular and heretical, and wrote from a purely ecclesiastical standpoint the Latin version of the legend in which the Grail is associated with Joseph of Arimathea. This version forms the basis of Robert de Borron, author of the Grand St. Graal and of the continuators of Chrestien. Although Bergmann denies the Celtic origin of the Grail itself, he incidentally accepts the authenticity of the Mabinogi of Peredur, and admits that the whole framework of the story is Celtic.

In the endeavour to prove the paradox that one of the latest, most highly developed, and most mystic of all the versions of the legend (viz., Wolfram’s) really represents the common source of them all, Bergmann is compelled to make the most gratuitous assumptions, as a specimen of which may be quoted the statement that the roi-pecheur is originally the sinner king, and that it is by mistake that the North French trouvères represent him as a fisher.

Bergmann’s views passed comparatively unnoticed. They are, indeed, alluded to with approval in Professor Skeat’s edition of Joseph of Arimathea, a fourteenth century alliterative abridgement of the Grand St. Graal (E. E. Text Soc., 1871). In the editor’s preface the Glastonbury traditions concerning the evangelisation of Britain by Joseph are taken as a starting point, two parts being distinguished in them, the one legendary, tallying with William of Malmesbury’s account, and, perhaps, of considerable antiquity, the other fabulous, introducing the personages and incidents of the romances and undoubtedly derived from them. Some twenty years after the publication of the “Historia Britonum” Walter Map probably wrote a Latin poem, from which Robert de Borron, the Grand St. Graal, and, perhaps, the other works of the cycle were derived. “Grail” is a bowl or dish. Chrestien may have borrowed his Conte du Graal from Map; the “Quest” is probably an after-thought of the romance writers.

Speculations such as these were little calculated to further the true criticism of the Grail cycle. Some few years later, in 1875, the then existing texts were supplemented by M. Hucher’s work, so often quoted in these pages. In an introduction and notes displaying great research and ingenuity, the following propositions are laid down:—The Grail is Celtic in origin, and may be seen figured 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 made large gifts to the Abbey of Barbeaux, which gifts are confirmed in 1169 by Simon, son of said Robert. About 1169 Robert came to England, met Walter Map, and was initiated by him into the knowledge of the Arthurian romance, and of the legend of the Holy Grail. Between 1170 and 1199 he entered the service of Walter of Montbeliard and wrote (in prose) the Joseph of Arimathea and the Merlin. At a later period he returned to England, 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, sî come Robers de Borons le translatait de latin en romans, à l’ayde de maistre Gautier Map.” But Hélie de Borron, author of the Tristan and of Guiron le Courtois, calls Robert his friend and kinsman. Hélie 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, who wrote some fifty years earlier? Hélie should, however, be placed really under Henry II. Robert wrote originally in prose; the poem contains later etymological and grammatical forms, though it has occasionally preserved older ones; besides in v. 2,817 etc. (supra, [p. 83]) it refers to the deliverance of Moys by the Promised Knight, and thus implies knowledge of the Grand St. Graal; this passage is omitted by most of the prose versions, thus obviously older. Then the poem is silent as to the Christianising of Britain mentioned by one prose version (C.). We may accept Borron’s statement as to his having dealt later with the histories of Moys and Petrus, and as to his drawing his information from a Latin original. Merlin is the pivot of Borron’s conception. In comparing the third part of his trilogy (Joseph of Arimathea, Merlin, Perceval) with Chrestien it must be born in mind that Chrestien reproduces rather the English (Joseph—Galahad), than the French (Brons—Perceval) form of the Quest, and this, although the framework of Chrestien and Robert’s Perceval is substantially the same. Chrestien’s work was 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 (i.e., Gautier, Hucher never distinguishing between Chrestien and his continuators) which show a common original 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 trouvères had not spoken of the Good Friday incident which is to be found in Chrestien.

M. Hucher failed in many cases to see the full significance of the facts he brought 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 merit of first essaying such a survey belongs to Zarncke in his admittedly rough sketch, “Zur Geschichte der Gralsage,” published in the third volume (1876) of Paul and Braune’s Beitraege.—The various forms may be grouped as follows: (1) Borron’s poem, (2) Grand St. Graal, (3) Quête, (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 admissible; it has its source wholly in the apocryphal legends of Joseph of Arimathea, in which two stages may be distinguished; 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 combines the legends of the healing 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 a miraculous sustaining power of the Grail. Borron’s poem is still purely legendary in character; the fish caught by the rich fisher is the symbol of Christ; the incident of the waiting for the Promised Knight belongs, however, not to the original tradition but to a later style of Christian mysticism. The Grand St. Graal and the Quête extend and develop the donnée 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 model, Kiot’s poem being a feigned source. The legend of the conversion of Britain by Joseph is no genuine British tradition; William of Malmesbury’s account of Glastonbury is a pamphlet written to order of the Norman Kings, 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.