Less open to dispute are the Arthurian names which are attached to certain bas-reliefs over the northeast portal (Porta della Pescheria) of the Cathedral of Modena,30 representing the siege of best that has appeared. Obviously, as he observes, Arthurian names in Italian documents of later date than 1200 have no significance, since by that time the French romances had made these names familiar all over Western Europe. In the above-mentioned articles Rajna cites many such names Galasso (Galaad), Yvannus (= Yvain), etc., for this later period. Besides, Artusius and Galvanus (with variants), he cites only Seldina (= Iselt, Iseut), from the year, 1180, for the period before 1200. As Faral remarks, the paucity of the names from the earlier period which Rajna conjectures to be Arthurian is in striking contrast to the abundance of indisputably Arthurian names for the later period. In the Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen, CXLI, 235 (1921), F. Liebermann has noted the occurrence of Arthur as the name of a man born, at the latest, about 1140 apparently, in Sussex. But he may have had Welsh or Breton connections of some sort or other. 30 Wendelin Foerster was the first person to bring these figures into Arthurian discussion, viz. in his article, "Ein neues Artusdokument", Zs. f. rom. Ph., XXII, 243-8 (1898). See, too, his supplementary article, "Das neue Artusdokument", ibid., pp. 526-529 (1898). The archivolt and its figures, however, had been the subject of repeated discussion before this, in works on Italian architecture. Cp. ibid., p. 526. Foerster accepted the usual dating of the bas-reliefs (first decades of the twelfth century). He thought the situation represented on the archivolt was not derived from any extant Arthurian romance and observes that it is nearer to the episode of Carados and the Dolerose Tor in the prose Lancelot (cp. Sommer's Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, IV, 90 ff.) than to anything else in the surviving romances and was possibly derived from some lost romance, which was the source of that episode. Foerster makes no effort to reconcile the evidence of these bas-reliefs with his customary theory that Chrétien invented the genre of the Arthurian romance. Foerster's reading of the names attached to the respective figures and his identifications of the same, where offered, are probably right. They are as follows (p. 244): 1. Winlogee Guinloie or Guenloie (which occurs in two romances, viz. Li Chevaliers as deus espees and Yder). 2. Mardoc (= Madoc, or, as I believe, more likely, the common Arthurian Mariadok, etc.). 3. Burmaitus, or Burmaltus (cp. p. 526), not known elsewhere. 4. Isdernus, probably Yder (name of four different Arthurian knights). 5. Carrado Caradoc (the giant, rather than Briebraz). 6. Galvaginus, probably = Gawain. 7. Galvarium = = a castle by Arthur and his followers, with knights issuing therefrom to attack the besiegers. These bas-reliefs have been generally dated early in the twelfth century and they include labelled images of Arthur, Kay, Caradoc, etc., which prove, if the above dating is correct, that stories concerning Arthur and the characters associated with him were current in Northern Italy in that period. The evidence of these figures, however, stands in such absolute isolation for so early a period that one is disposed to await further investigation of their date, before accepting finally the dating which has prevailed among authorities on the architectural history of Lombardy up to the present time.31 For the (unknown). Foerster observes that this name seems Norman, whereas G. Paris, Romania, XXVIII, 145 (1899), was inclined to connect it with Galuron in the Chronique de Nantes. 8. Che Kai (Kay). The castle is at the top of the archivolt, in the centre, and nos. 1 and 2 are inside its walls. On the left hand, no. 3 comes forth to attack Arthur, no. 4, and a third (unnamed) knight. On the right, no. 5 rides out against nos. 6, 7 and 8. Pictures of the figures which we have been discussing will be found in many publications that deal with the history of Italian architecture or the Modena cathedral, more specifically, e. g. M. G. Zimmermann, Oberitalische Plastik im frühen und hohen Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1897), Plate 18; A. Venturi, Storia dell' Arte Italiana, III (Milan, 1904), Plate 138: Giulio Bertoni, Atlante Storico-Paleografico del Duomo di Modena, Plate X (Modena, 1909); A. K. Porter, Lombard Architecture, Plate 144, (3 vols. New Haven and London, 1917). Among discussions of the figures, cp. B. Colfi, "Di una recente interpretazione [i. e. Foerster's] data alle sculture dell' archivolto nella porta settentrionale del duomo di Modena", Atti e Memorie della R. Deputazionè di Storia Patria per le Provincie Modenesi, Serie IV, vol. IX (1899) - also, Zimmermann, p. 44, Venturi, III, 160 ff., and Porter, I, 436f., III, 44f. 31 Faral, op. cit., p. 395, dates these bas-reliefs about 1200. Possibly, he may have authority for this dating, but the writers whose works I have cited above place them in the first half of the twelfth century, and Foerster (pp. 244f.), on the basis of the costumes, gives the same date as the latter. Venturi, III, 160, remarks: "Si e molto discusso sull' etá della porta della Pescheria, che pure mostra ad evidenza la mano di Niccolo, cooperatore di Wiligelmo, di lui piu giovane e meno arcaico etc." Wiligelmo, it should be remarked, worked on the cathedral at the beginning of the twelfth century. Porter, III, 48, says: names attached to them suggest an Arthurian romance from the period of the fullest development of the genre, viz., the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, 32 and it accords with this dating that the architecture of the same portal contains figures from the "Between 1099 and 1106 were erected, of the existing cathedral, the crypt and also part of the façade with its sculptures and the Porta della Pescheria, but the crypt and the Porta della Pescheria were subsequently very materially altered." Later on, he again speaks of there being "abundant contemporary evidence that alterations and additions to the church were made constantly during the XIII and XIV centuries", but he evidently does not include the Arthurian figures among these later additions, for in his interesting section, I, 434-438, on "Secular Subjects" (including romances) in Lombard church architecture, he dates (p. 436) these Arthurian figures, "1099-1106". On the other hand, quite recently, G. Bertoni, who has made a special study of these figures, has expressed the opinion, Zs. f. rom. Ph., XL, 363 (1920) that they cannot be later than the second half of the twelfth century and more probably belong to the middle of the century. Both Venturi, III, 167 and Porter, I, 436f., emphasize the resemblance of these figures to those which are found on the southwestern side-portal of S. Nicolo at Bari (cp. Venturi, Plate 140, at III, 163): "From a central structure issue on foot four men, two on either side; against them come a series of men on horseback" (Porter, I, 436). Analogous, too, are figures at Bobbio, and Porter, loc. cit., thinks that excavation of the pavement there will throw light on the Modena archivolt. 32 33 Guenloie, with whom Foerster identifies Winlogee, first occurs in Yder, among the extant romances, and that is dated by its editor in the second decade of the thirteenth century. Cp. H. Gelzer, Der altfranzösische Yderroman, p. LXXIX (Dresden, 1913). To be sure, it is probably based on an older romance, but the character of the story shows that even this last source did not go beyond the latter part of the thirteenth century. If Mardoc is the same as Meriadoc, the same applies here. Cp. the Chevaliers as deus espees, whose hero is named Meriadeus (Meriadoc), and the Latin romance Historia Meriadoci, edited by J. D. Bruce, Historia Meriadoci and De Ortu Waluuanii, Göttingen and Baltimore, (1913). Both, probably, belong to the second quarter of the thirteenth century. Mariadok is the name of Marc's seneschal in Thomas' Tristan (third quarter of the twelfth century), but the character is less prominent than would seem to be required by the Modena Mardoc. Besides, the latter evidently has nothing to do with the Tristan legend. French beast-epic which flourished in that period.33 Even if the early dating, however, is correct, here, as in the previous case, there is always the possibility to be reckoned with that these Arthurian names may have been derived from oral tradition through Bretons or Normans. 34 Leaving now these scanty indications of what may possibly be merely precipitates, so to speak, of tales transmitted orally, we come to the later written records of Arthur that have been preserved. Whatever interpretation we may put upon the abovementioned indications, unquestionably the matière de Bretagne 35 entered upor a new phase of influence with the publication of 33 Lucien Foulet, Le Roman de Renard, p. 60 (Paris, 1914) assigns to 1152 Nivard's Latin poem Ysengrimus, which he thinks started the whole French beast-epic. He takes (p. 115) 1165 as the earliest possible date for any part of the Roman de Renard, but he assigns all branches but the second to the period after 1170. 34 The sculptors of the figures may themselves have been from Normandy or Brittany, for such workmen in the Middle Ages often found employment in foreign countries. In any event, the immediate source was French. This is proved by the French forms of some of the names, viz., 1. Artus (Artus de Bretania in the inscription), not Artur or Arturus. 2. Galvaginus (formed on Galvagin). 3. Che (French Ke), not Caius (Geoffrey of Monmouth). 4. Winlogee, not Winlogea, as the Latin form would be. Cp. Foerster, op. cit., p. 248. 5. Mardoc, without Latin -us. It must be confessed, however, that Isdernus is closer to the Welsh Edeyrn (Edern) than to the French Ider (Idier, Yder) in our MSS. of Erec, Yder, etc. Cp. too, Geoffrey's Hiderus. (The first s is, no doubt, due to the sculptor's blunder). Foerster, ibid., plausibly surmises that Carrado stands for Carradocus only limitations of space, as an inspection of the archivolt shows, prevented the sculptor from completing the name. 35 The term, now in general use for Arthurian traditions, is taken from the famous lines of Jean Bodel, La Chanson des Saxons, 11. 6ff.: "Ne sont que. iii. matieres a nul home antandant: De France et de Bretaigne et de Rome la grant; Li conte de Bretaigne sont si vain et plaisant; Cil de France de voir chascun jor apparant." The poem was written in the middle of the thirteenth century. Hesperia, Ergänzungsreihe: 8. 2 Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae about the year 1137.36 In the dedication to this work, the author remarks 36 The date of Geoffrey's work, as was pointed out by Sir Frederick Madden in his article, "The Historia Britonum of Geoffrey of Monmouth", The Archaeological Journal, XV, 299 ff. (1858), is determined by the double dedication which is preserved in the Bern MS. of the Historia. This MS., which dates from about 1160, still remains unpublished. Unlike the other MSS., it contains a double dedication to King Stephen and Robert of Gloucester. King Stephen is here extolled in almost the same words that we find applied to Robert of Gloucester in the other MSS. Robert, himself, is addressed as altera regni nostri columna and is eulogized at greater length in terms of the most exalted flattery. The text of this important preface is given in full in W. L. Jones' above-mentioned paper. Cp. ibid., p. 65, note. Now, as Madden remarks, this dedication, if genuine and there is no reason to doubt that it is so must have been written between April, 1136 and May 1138, for only during this period were Stephen and Robert of Gloucester on friendly terms. From the last-named date down to his death in 1147 Robert was the principal supporter of the cause of Queen Matilda in her strife with Stephen, and it is, of course, out of the question that under these circumstances Geoffrey should have coupled his name with that of the king in a joint dedication. The fact that Henry of Huntingdon, writing in January, 1139, was able to give a summary of Geoffrey's Historia in his letter to Warinus gives us that year or better, 1138 as the terminus ad quem for the work. Confirmatory of Madden's dating of the Historia is A. Leitzmann's observation, that Geoffrey, at the end of his dedication, refers to Henry I as dead, the "alterum Henricum" of that passage being really that monarch (who died on Dec. 1, 1135), and not Henry II, as has often been thought. See Leitzmann's "Bemerkungen zu Galfrid von Monmouth", Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen, vol. 134, pp. 373 ff. (1916). The Latinity of the Bern MS. is less polished than that of the other MSS., but, according to Professor Jones, who has collated it with San Marte's edition (Halle, 1854), it does not differ in any essential from the current text. Owing to differences in Henry of Huntingdon's summary, the idea formerly prevailed that there was a (lost) earlier recension of Geoffrey's Historia. R. H. Fletcher, however, in his "Two notes on the Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth," PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association of America), XVI, 461 ff. (1901), has shown that this is incorrect. For the text of Henry's Letter to Warinus see the edition of Robert de Torigni's chronicle by Leopold Delisle, I, 97ff. (2 vols. Rouen, 1872-3). |