Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 9, 1898.djvu/386

352 Reviews. cup, can we possibly believe that name and thing alike had been so completely forgotten in the very land where these stories had been written, that when the tale returned to them in its French dress, and they found a sacred, wonder-working, life-bestowing vessel, called by the not very dissimilar name of Grail, no lurking hint of a connection, no faint reminiscence of their own national story dawned on their minds? On the other hand, if the name were first given in the French form, inasmuch as it was a word rather of local and provincial than of universal use, we can well understand that writers, even French writers, might be somewhat hazy and uncertain as to its exact meaning, and the explanation given by Helinandus, who was by way of being a learned man for his day and conversant with Latin, would not be uncalled for. We must not forget that it is the French writers who suggest the punning explanation of the word (cf. Nutt, Studies on the Holy Grail, p. 76); if they had been conversant with a Latin version they would hardly have made the mistake. But as a matter of fact, before we argue about the existence or non-existence of a Latin original, we should settle the question of the priority of the romances. If the Perceval romances are the older, there may have been a Latin version, but there can have been no Latin original. The initial possibility stands or falls with the priority of the Christian or Early History versions.

And here I would make a suggestion that may or may not have some bearing on the matter. It is pretty generally admitted that the allusion of Helinandus is to the Grand S. Graal; the other mention and only direct claim of a Latin original is in the Queste. Now, both these versions are based on Latin originals, i.e. on the spurious Gospels, Vindicta Salvatoris and Gospel of Nicodemus. The root of both is in the story of Joseph of Arimathea. Is it quite impossible that at a time when strict accuracy of statement was not insisted upon, or indeed desired, an assertion true of part of the romance was, knowingly or unknowingly, extended to the whole? — that we are vexing our souls with arguments for and against documents which, so far as they ever existed, are within the reach and knowledge of every one of us?

So far we have followed Herr Wechssler in his sketch of the origin and growth of the Grail legend proper; the next question is: How did this body of tradition and romance become connected with the Arthurian legend? This is perhaps the most ingenious