Chapter I: Front Matter

From Ritual to Romance

by Jessie L. Weston

“Animus ad amplitudinem Mysteriorum pro modulo suo dilatetur, non Mysteria ad angustias animi constringantur.” (Bacon.)

“Many literary critics seem to think that an hypothesis about obscure and remote questions of history can be refuted by a simple demand for the production of more evidence than in fact exists.—But the true test of an hypothesis, if it cannot be shewn to conflict with known truths, is the number of facts that it correlaates, and explains.” (Cornford, _Origins of Attic Comedy_.)

Preface

In the introductory Chapter the reader will find the aim and object of these studies set forth at length. In view of the importance and complexity of the problems involved it seemed better to incorporate such a statement in the book itself, rather than relegate it to a Preface which all might not trouble to read. Yet I feel that such a general statement does not adequately express my full debt of obligation.

Among the many whose labour has been laid under contribution in the following pages there are certain scholars whose published work, or personal advice, has been specially illuminating, and to whom specific acknowledgment is therefore due. Like many others I owe to Sir J. G. Frazer the initial inspiration which set me, as I may truly say, on the road to the Grail Castle. Without the guidance of _The Golden Bough_ I should probably, as the late M. Gaston Paris happily expressed it, still be wandering in the forest of Broceliande!

During the Bayreuth Festival of 1911 I had frequent opportunities of meeting, and discussion with, Professor von Schroeder. I owe to him not only the introduction to his own work, which I found most helpful, but references which have been of the greatest assistance; _e.g._ my knowledge of Cumont’s _Les Religions Orientales_, and Scheftelowitz’s valuable study on _Fish Symbolism_, both of which have furnished important links in the chain of evidence, is due to Professor von Schroeder.

The perusal of Miss J. E. Harrison’s _Themis_ opened my eyes to the extended importance of these Vegetation rites. In view of the evidence there adduced I asked myself whether beliefs which had found expression not only in social institution, and popular custom, but, as set forth in Sir G. Murray’s study on Greek Dramatic Origins, attached to the work, also in Drama and Literature, might not reasonably—even inevitably—be expected to have left their mark on Romance? The one seemed to me a necessary corollary of the other, and I felt that I had gained, as the result of Miss Harrison’s work, a wider, and more assured basis for my own researches. I was no longer engaged merely in enquiring into the sources of a fascinating legend, but on the identification of another field of activity for forces whose potency as agents of evolution we were only now beginning rightly to appreciate.

Finally, a casual reference, in Anrich’s work on the Mysteries, to the _Naassene Document_, caused me to apply to Mr G. R. S. Mead, of whose knowledge of the mysterious border-land between Christianity and Paganism, and willingness to place that knowledge at the disposal of others, I had, for some years past, had pleasant experience. Mr Mead referred me to his own translation and analysis of the text in question, and there, to my satisfaction, I found, not only the final link that completed the chain of evolution from Pagan Mystery to Christian Ceremonial, but also proof of that wider significance I was beginning to apprehend. The problem involved was not one of Folk-lore, not even one of Literature, but of Comparative Religion in its widest sense.

Thus, while I trust that my co-workers in the field of Arthurian research will accept these studies as a permanent contribution to the elucidation of the Grail problem, I would fain hope that those scholars who labour in a wider field, and to whose works I owe so much, may find in the results here set forth elements that may prove of real value in the study of the evolution of religious belief.

J. L. W.

Paris,

_October_, 1919.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I Introductory

Nature of the Grail problem. Unsatisfactory character of results achieved. Objections to Christian Legendary origin; to Folk-lore origin. Elements in both theories sound. Solution to be sought in a direction which will do justice to both. Sir J. G. Frazer’s _Golden Bough_ indicates possible line of research. Sir W. Ridgeway’s criticism of _Vegetation_ theory examined. _Dramas and Dramatic Dances_. The Living and not the Dead King the factor of importance. Impossibility of proving human origin for Vegetation Deities. Not Death but Resurrection the essential centre of Ritual. _Muharram_ too late in date and lacks Resurrection feature. Relation between defunct heroes and special localities. Sanctity possibly antecedent to connection. _Mana_ not necessarily a case of relics. Self-acting weapons frequent in Medieval Romance. Sir J. G. Frazer’s theory holds good. Remarks on method and design of present Studies.

CHAPTER II The Task of the Hero

Essential to determine the original nature of the task imposed upon the hero. Versions examined. The Gawain forms—_Bleheris, Diû Crône_. Perceval versions—_Gerbert, prose Perceval, Chrétien de Troyes, Perlesvaus, Manessier, Peredur, Parzival_. Galahad—Queste. Result, primary task healing of Fisher King and removal of curse of Waste Land. The two inter-dependent. Illness of King entails misfortune on Land. Enquiry into nature of King’s disability. _Sone de Nansai_. For elucidation of problem necessary to bear in mind close connection between Land and Ruler. Importance of Waste Land _motif_ for criticism.

CHAPTER III The Freeing of the Waters

Enquiry may commence with early Aryan tradition. The _Rig-Veda_. Extreme importance assigned to Indra’s feat of “Freeing the Waters.” This also specific achievement of Grail heroes. Extracts from _Rig-Veda_. Dramatic poems and monologues. Professor von Schroeder’s theory. _Mysterium und Mimus. Ṛishyaçṛiñga_ drama. Parallels with _Perceval_ story. Result, the specific task of the Grail hero not a literary invention but an inheritance of Aryan tradition.