Chapter I. Chrétien, Robert de Boron, and the Theory It would materially facilitate the investigation of the origin of the legend of the Grail, if we could fix indisputably the relative dates of the various mediaeval romances that deal with the theme. Unfortunately here, as so often in Arthurian matters, the data are meagre, and even those who are most convinced of the correctness of any particular theory as to the chronological order of these works must acknowledge that an uncertainty which cannot be wholly dispelled must still hang over their conclusions. The two earliest romances that treat of the Grail are the Conte del Graal of Chrétien de Troyes and the Joseph of Robert de Boron. Let us look at the evidence regarding the date of composition in each case. First, as regards the Conte del Graal, as Chrétien named it, or the Perceval, as, following the example of modern scholars, it will be more convenient for us to call it. At the beginning of his poem Chrétien eulogizes Count Philip of Flanders, at whose command he was composing the romance his source being a book given him for the purpose by this same Count Philip.1 The 1 The eulogy takes the form of an argument to prove that his patron, Philip, is superior to Alexander the Great. Despite this artificial form, his praise of Philip's justice, liberality, and charity produces an impression of greater sincerity than is usual in such cases. But, after all, the impression is probably due merely to Chrétien's art, for these encomiums are hardly borne out by the historical evidences as to Philip's life. With such a patron the poet continues in the oft-quoted lines (62ff.): Donc avra bien sauve sa peine nobleman in question was Philip of Alsace, who was born about 1143 and who succeeded his father as Count of Flanders in 1168. In 1190 he went to the Holy Land and died there the following year. So the only positive limits within which Chrétien may be said to have written his poem are 1168-1190, i.e. the limits of the rule of Philip of Alsace before his departure for Palestine, which would surely have been mentioned by Chrétien, had he already gone. At the same time there are certain considerations which make the earlier part of this period more probable than the latter. In the first place, the romance which, according to general agreement, must have immediately preceded the Perceval in order of composition, i.e. the Yvain, was written, as seems manifest from an allusion in it, not later than 1174. Now, Perceval was the only one of Chrétien's works of later date than this. Is it likely that this romance was separated from the Yvain by any wide interval of years, so that its composition would fall, say in the eighties of the twelfth century? It is possible, of course, but his previous works, Erec, Cligès, Lancelot, Yvain, had followed each other in fairly close succession; consequently, the weight of probability, on the whole, would seem to lie on the other side. In any event, Perceval was the last poem from Chrétien's pen, for one of his continuators, Gerbert, tells us that he died whilst he was composing it, and this accounts, of course, for his leaving it a fragment, tempting others to continuations. Let us now examine the evidence as to Robert de Boron's Joseph. The question is somewhat complicated by the fact that Robert's poem is preserved to us in what some scholars regard, though wrongly, I believe, as only a second redaction. The epilogue at the end of the Joseph in our unique MS. was plainly a late addition to the original poem, and, according to these scho Par le comandement le conte, Then begins the story of Perceval. lars, in adding the epilogue the author made changes in the poem, itself. In this epilogue the poet remarks that it would be desirable to know the subsequent adventures of the principal characters in his poem and declares his intention of treating these subjects, if he can ever discover a book which might tell of them. But no one, he says, can assemble such a narrative who has not heard. told the most high history of the Holy Grail (i.e. the Joseph) which is without doubt entirely true. Then, in this connection he makes the following statement, which bears on the question of date: "At the time that I treated it (i.e. the story of the Grail) in peace, (when) with my lord, Gautier, who was of Mont-Belyal, the great history of the Holy Grail had never been treated by any man that was mortal." Now, this Gautier of Montbéliard went to Palestine in 1199, became Constable of Jerusalem there, then Regent of Cyprus, and died in 1212. Inasmuch as Gautier's elder brother (Richard of Montbeliard) died so late as 1237, it it not likely that Gautier himself was born before 1150, or more probably 1160.2 On the other hand, Gautier's father, Amadeus, died in 1183 and the same year Gautier became independent for the first time on receiving the county of Montfaucon. The probabilities are that he would hardly have become the patron of a poet that year. In any event, he must have been a grown man, so that Robert's connection with him could not have begun before about 1180. It will be seen that the evidence as to the upward limit for the date of Robert de Boron's romance does not enable us to fix upon a precise year. But the range is not great; it was in the early eighties of the twelfth century. As regards the downward limit, we are better off. Robert states that he was with Gautier when he first composed his poem. Now, Gautier took his departure for Italy in 1199 and thence for Palestine in 1201, so that the composition of the Joseph in its original form, it is virtually certain, must have antedated 1199. With regard to the existing form, which, of course, may have undergone changes, as compared 2 For these dates cp., respectively, Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 239, and G. Paris, Huth-Merlin, p. 18, note 1 with the original form, this would seem at first sight to date. from a period subsequent to Gautier's death, i.e. subsequent to 1212, since the author speaks here of Gautier as one "who was of Montbéliard." But I agree with Professor Heinzel that these 3 This was Gaston Paris's interpretation, Huth-Merlin, vol. I, p. IX, note 1. On the other hand, Heinzel, pp. 113f., suggests that we have the past, estoit (1. 3491, Qui de Mont-Belyal estoit), because retreis (1. 3489, A ce tens que je la retreis i. e. "at the time that I related the history of the Grail") was in the past. I believe that this is the correct explanation, and that we have here simply a case of grammatical subordination. So, too, Brugger, Zs. f. frz. Spr. u. Litt., XXIX, 65, note 13. That this form of expression might give rise to misunderstandings would, of course, never occur to so careless a writer as Robert de Boron. And, after all, when I say: "At the time that I wrote my book in 1910, I was closely associated with John Johnson, who was the professor of history in the University of Chicago," I do not imply that Professor Johnson is no longer professor in the University of Chicago or that he is now dead. Moreover, if G. Paris's interpretation is the true one, Robert, after an interval of at least thirteen years (1199-1212) in all probability, more took up his work to continue it and apparently on a very large scale (although we have no reason to believe that he ever carried out the full plan). But this seems incredible. More likely would be an interval of not half that duration. On the other hand, I see no reason for believing with Heinzel that the epilogue (or the hypothetical redaction of the original Joseph) was composed after 1201. Heinzel is evidently influenced by his identification of Dou Graal la plus grant estoire (1. 3487) with the so called Grand St. Graal (Estoire del saint Graal) of the Walter Map cycle, which, owing to an erroneous interpretation of the well-known passage in the Chronicle of Helinandus, he placed some years before 1204. Birch-Hirschfeld, p. 239, interpreted 1. 3491 as referring to the time when Gautier was merely of Montbéliard and before he became Count of Montfaucon in 1183. But this is not satisfactory, since he was called Gautier de Montbéliard long after he became Count of Montfaucon. See on the subject Foerster, Wörterbuch, p. 173.* G. Paris, Mélanges, p. 45, speaks of Robert as standing in relations, not only of friendship with Gautier, but of "collaboration", whilst F. Lot says, Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, LXX, 565, note 4 (1909), "Je n'accorde, au surplus, aucune créance à l'assertion de Robert qui n'invoque l'autorité de Gautier de Montbéliard que parce words do not necessarily imply that Gautier was dead. The poet used the past tense simply because he was speaking of a connection which at the time that he composed his epilogue belonged to the past. To sum up, then, Chrétien's Perceval was written between 1174 and 1190 and Robert de Boron's Joseph between 1180, say, and 1199. For Chrétien, the years from 1174 to 1180, as we have seen, seem more probable, though not certain. As regards Robert de Boron, there is no evidence that would enable us to draw the limits more narrowly. I will now give an analysis of each of these poems - the earliest works concerning the Holy Grail, so that we may have the materials for determining their relations, as far as possible, and for settling the question of priority which the external data are insufficient to settle. And first for Chrétien's Perceval. After the dedicatory prologue which I have already indicated, the narrative begins: It was in the spring when the son (Perceval, as he is subsequently called) of the widowed lady went forth to the hunt in the Waste Forest. He hears the rattling of weapons and believes that the sounds are caused by devils, from whom his mother had warned him to protect himself by making the sign of the cross. But he qu'il est mort et en Terre-Sainte." But the text does not warrant either of these extreme views. The words en peis (1. 3490, O mon seigneur Gautier en peis) have been interpreted as equivalent to in pace, i. e. dead, but this is not a necessary interpretation. 4 I use Baist's Crestien's von Troyes Contes del Graal (Percevaus li galois): Abdruck der Handschrift Paris, français 794, mit Anmerkungen und Glossar (Freiburg i. B). This publication, which appeared in 1912, is undated, like the earlier impression, which did not bear Baist's name. The earlier impression (printed for private circulation in 1909) is very incorrect. Cp. R. Weeks' review of it, Romanic Review, II, 101 ff. (1911). The only other edition of the poem is C. Potvin's in vols. 1 and 2 (Part 2) of his Perceval le Gallois ou le Conte du Graal (6 vols., 1866-1871). The Mons MS, which constitutes the basis of Potvin's edition, is inferior. Cp. P. Meyer, Revue Critique, Sept. 1, 1866. |