12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Among the most considerable of M. Bédier's achievements in his study of the Tristan legend was his demonstration by means of proper names that the tradition, in some form or other, must have passed from Pictland through Wales and Brittany into France and England. Although the researches of Miss Schoepperle have shown the influence of Irish aitheda, although the work of M. Loth has made it impossible to ignore the share of Cornwall, and Dr. Brugger's studies of the man Bleheris and of the name Loonois add to our knowledge of the origin and transmission of the story, yet M. Bédier's scheme still stands out as the first reasonably full and acceptable account of the derivation of any Arthurian romance. Now it is noteworthy that so important a result rested in large measure on the origin of the names inbedded in the tradition. Had the onomastic studies of Rhys, Miss Paton, Bruce, and Dr. Brugger been as generally convincing as those of M. Bédier, scholars would not still be so far apart in their interpretation of the development of the Round Table cycle. Thus far the only body of facts, apart from the Tristan branch, to which all parties subscribe is that the personal names Arthur, Kay, Bedivere, Modred, Guinevere, Merlin, Maheloas, Caradoc Briebras, Ider the son of Nu, Ivain son of Urien, Uther, and other proper names such as Escalibour, Pridwen, and Tortain, are derived from the Welsh. But the materials for further study are, as the Index to Sommer's seven volumes of French romance and Miss Blount's unpublished onomasticon show, very rich, and nothing seems to stand in the way of real advance in this field of research if only we can formulate and apply certain criteria which will at the same time fit the somewhat lax conditions of name-development and also be sufficiently rigorous to give assured results.
1 G. Schoepperle, Tristan and Isolt, London and Frankfort, 1913. J. Loth, Contributions à l'étude des romans de la Table Ronde, Paris, 1912, 60 ff. ZFSL, XLVII, 162 ff. MP, XXII, 159 ff.
2 Cf. Prof. Magoun's article in Speculum, I, 190 ff.
3 H. O. Sommer, Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, Index Vol., p. 42.
4 Ibid., 68, 44. On Gorvain cf. Romania, XXIV, 326.
5 R. S. Loomis, Celtic Myth and Arthurian Romance, N. Y., 1927, 7-10. Medieval Studies in Memory of Gertrude Schoepperle Loomis, N. Y., 1927, 222 f. Art Bulletin, VI (1924), 3.
6 Medieval Studies in Memory of Gertrude Schoepperle Loomis, 222.
7 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 9.
8 Romanic Review, XV (1924), 266, n. 3.
9 Especially the fleeing knight and the closing gate. Cf. Crestien's Charrette, ll. 2316 ff.; H. O. Sommer, op. cit., IV, 135.
10 Romanic Review, XV, 268-74.
11 J. L. Weston, Legend of Gawain, L., 1897, p.69. ZFSL, XVII (1895), 10-20. La Damoiselle à la Mule, ed. B. Orlowski, 62 f. Englische Studien, XXXVI (1906), 345.
12 I fear that I cannot take seriously the arguments of Sir Edmund Chambers (RES, V, 1929, p. 104) and Miss Weston (MLR, XXIII, 1928, p. 245). The point that Mardoc is nowhere mentioned as the queen's ravisher I meet in the following pages. It is begging the question to rule out, a priori, parallels with later romances, for if such parallels can be pointed out, obviously the later romances must contain traditional material. The fact that Merlin's wife is called Guendoloena explains nothing on the Modena sculpture; the fact that Arthur's wife is so called explains everything. One is irrelevant; the other illuminant. Miss Weston's statement that the sculptured scene corresponds with none of the extant versions of Guinevere's abduction is incorrect, unless she meant that the correspondence is not complete. But a demand for complete correspondence is a singular one from any quarter, and especially from Miss Weston. Professor Singer's notion that the sculpture represents two scenes has never occurred to any student of iconography, and such considerations as Miss Weston adduced in its favor betray the fact that she had not read the story of Carado of the Dolorous Tower with attention. She says: “I do not recall any instance of a castle in romance which possessed two barbicans, and upon which an assault was made front and rear.” Refer to the Vulgate Lancelot (Sommer, IV, 130 f). Here we read that the Dolorous Tower could be entered by the “grante porte,” at which a “grant vilain” stands, but “la derriere” was a narrow bridge leading to a series of “portes.” Ywain attacked by the former, and Galeschin by the latter. If there is any question as to the number of barbicans possible in a castle of romance, let me refer to Potvin, Perceval le Gallois, IV, ll. 24819-26. It is plain that Miss Weston had not read her romances with as open a mind as Foerster, who recognized in spite of his prepossessions the many points of analogy between the story of the Dolorous Tower and the Modena sculpture.
13 Medieval Studies in Memory of Gertrude Schoepperle Loomis, 214-22. Gazette des Beaux Arts, per. V, vol. XVIII (1928), 109-122.
14 Romania, XVII (1888), 161, 355. Artusius and Galvanus are precisely the forms of Arthur and Gawain which appear in later Italian stories. Cf. G. L. Kittredge, Study of Gawain and the Green Knight, 96.
15 Englische Studien, XXXVI (1906), 337 ff. MP, XXV (1928), 331 ff. Speculum, III, (1928), 24 f.
16 Couronnement Louis, ed. Langlois, SATF, ll. 1796, 1827.
17 Speculum, II (1927) 449. Moyen Age, XIX (1916), 234. ZFSL, XX1 (1898) 79 ff.
18 Bédier, Hazard, Histoire illustrée de la littérature française, I, 21 f. Cf. G. Schoepperle, Tristan and Isolt, London, Frankfort, 1913, II, 267-470; Romania, LIII (1927), 92-5.
19 G. L. Kittredge, op. cit., 241. Cf. ZFSL, XXXI2, 143 ff; J. L. Weston, Legend of Perceval, L., 1909, I, 230 ff; R. Zenker, Ivainstudien, Beiheft zur ZRP, LXX (1921), 329; Romanic Review, III (1912), 157; R. Heinzel, Französische Gralromane, Wien, 1892, 186; Romania, XVIII, 588.
20 G. L. Kittredge, op. cit. R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 100-2, 167-75, 223 f. MP, XXV (1928), 334-40. H. L. Maynadier, Wife of Bath's Tale, L., 1901.
21 C. Borghi, Il Duomo, Modena, 1845, pp. 68 ff.
22 Zts. f. Rom. Phil., XXII (1898), 244.
23 Ibid., 248.
24 J. D. Bruce, Evolution of Arthurian Romance, Göttingen and Baltimore, 1923, I, 14 n, 16 n.
25 MLN, XLII (1927), 561.
26 Romanic Review, XV, 279-82.
27 J. Loth, Chrestomathie Bretonne, (1890), 150.
28 Ibid., 152.
29 J. Loth, Mabinogion, (1913), II, 247.
30 H. O. Sommer, Vulgate Version, Index vol., 59, n. 1.
31 Ibid., VI, 252-69. Malory, Morte d'Arthur, Bk. XX, ch. 7
32 Sommer, VI, 291 n. 3.
33 Sommer, VI, 253. Cf. the burial of Gaheris li Blans in St. Stephen's at Camelot, and the similar burial of Gaheries, pp. 249 and 289.
34 Ibid., III, 46; Index vol., 5.
35 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 16, 22 n. 36. Romanic Rev., XV, 268, 273.
36 Zts. f. Rom. Phil., XXII, 247.
37 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 10.
38 Ibid., 13-15.
39 W. H. Schofield, Studies in Libeaus Desconus, SNPL, IV (1895), 186.
40 Potvin, Perceval le Gallois, III, 118 f.
41 Heinrich von dem Türlin, Krone, ed. Scholl, l. 20270.
42 J. D. Bruce, op. cit., I, 91.
43 Sommer, op. cit., IV, 359. “Li tiers freres monseignor Gauuain ot a non Guerrehes (all Mss read Gaheries). . . . . Et ot le brach destre plus lonc que lautre.”
44 Potvin, op. cit., III, 118, 198.
45 W. J. Grufiydd, Math Vab Mathonwy, Cardiff, 1928, 51 n.
46 J. L. Weston, Legend of Perceval, L., 1906, I, 204. Most of the MSS give Giflet instead of Giri. But Miss Weston admits that Giflet ought not to be present, and it is unlikely that the unique reading Giri should have been substituted for the familiar name of Giflet. The probabilities are, therefore, that Giri is the original reading and Giflet a stupid substitution.
47 Lucy A. Paton, Studies in the Fairy Mythology of Arthurian Romance, Radcliffe College Monographs, No. 13, Boston, 1903, 137, 138, n. 6, 140 f.
48 W. J. Gruffydd, op. cit., 145 n.
49 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 192 f. On other grounds Prof. Gruffydd has suggested the identity of Modron and Rhiannon. Cf. Rev. Celt., XXXIII, 454.
50 J. Rhys, J. B. Jones, Welsh People, (1909), 42. Baring-Gould, Fisher, Lives of the British Saints (1900), I, 164 f. L. A. Paton, op. cit., 139 f.
51 J. Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, III, 288. J. A. Macculloch, Religion of the Ancient Celts, London, 1911, 125.
52 Zts. f. Celt. Phil., I (1897), 292. W. J. Gruffydd, Math Vab Mathonwy, 173.
53 Sommer, op. cit., IV, 16, 373 n. 5.
54 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 56-63.
55 Ibid., 12-18, 62. Cf. PMLA, XLIII (1928), 392 f.
56 Romania, XXVIII, 214 ff. Potvin, Perceval le Gallois, Mons, 1866-71, III, 198. J. Loth, Mabinogion (1913), II, 228, 268.
57 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 15 f.
58 Ibid., 107 f. 174.
59 Ibid., 107.
60 W. J. Gruffydd, op. cit., 136-8.
61 Ibid., 60 f. Cymmrodor, XXVIII (1918), 239 f.
62 Potvin, op. cit., IV, 17. MS. 794 gives the correct reading: “Li juenes avoit nom Lions, Li autres mesire Gauvains.” Cf. J. L. Weston, Legend of Perceval, I, 244 f. where we read of the boy, “Iluec fu nomez lionaux.” Miss Weston says that twice afterwards the lad is referred to as Lionaux.
63 Malory, ed. H. O. Sommer, 790. Bk. XIX, ch. 11.
64 Sommer, Vulgate Version, VII, 109. R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 228 (The reference to Wauchier here is mistaken.) Heinrich von dem Türlin, Krone, ed. Scholl, ll. 1294 f. Piper, Höfisches Epik, II, 211 f.
65 Mort Artu, ed. Bruce, Halle, 1910, 253 ff.
66 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 151 f.
67 H. O. Sommer, op. cit., III, 271 & n 1; IV, 104 n; 393 n. 1, n. 3.
68 J. L. Weston, Legend of Perceval, I, 241 ff. Cf. R. Heinzel, Über die Französische Gralromane, Denkschriften, Kais. Akad. Wissensch., Phil. Hist. Cl., XL (Wien, 1892), 32 ff.
69 Bruce, Evolution of Arthurian Romance, I, 301; II, 93; Zts.f. Franz. Sprache u. Lit., XXXI2, 144; J. L. Weston, Sir Gawain and the Lady of Lys, London, 1907, xiv.
70 Weston, Legend of Perceval, I, 242 f.
71 Potvin, III, 106 ff; 260 ff.
72 Weston, Legend of Perceval, I, 243 ff.
73 Bruce, Evolution, I, 294-301; II, 91-103.
74 Gruffydd, op. cit., 21, 23.
75 Ibid., 60.
76 Weston, op. cit., I, 244.
77 Sommer, Vulgate Version, III, 270 f.
78 Ibid., IV, 391 ff.
79 Ibid., V, 29 f.
80 Crestien de Troyes, Conte del Graal, ed. G. Baist, Freiburg, ll. 615-810; ll. 3653-3904.
81 Potvin, Perceval le Gallois, I, 48-53.
82 Ibid., 59 f.
83 Ibid., 243 f. It is probably not mere coincidence that the Vulgate Lancelot relates that Bohors (identical originally with Gawain) is passionately loved by the daughter of Brangor, as Gawain by the sister of Brandelis, lies with her and begets a son whose name, variously rendered in the MSS as Helain, Helyam, Helyn, is probably another corruption of Lyon. Cf. Sommer, IV, 268-70.
84 Gruffydd, op. cit.
85 Ibid., 21.
86 Weston, Legend of Perceval, I, 241. This reading is not confirmed by Potvin, op. cit., IV, p. 18, or rotographs to which I have had access, which here give “Le neveu son oncle.” But I accept Miss Weston's reading, because it can hardly be her own invention, and because it fits the metre and “neveu” does not.
87 Except for the word “fis” which I have justified in the previous note, the reading of this passage follows MS B.N. 12576, fol. 92 v: Modern Language Association rotograph No. 55, at Library of Congress and New York Public Library.
88 J. Rhys, Arthurian Legend, 284.
89 L. A. Paton, Fairy Mythology, 242-6.
90 J. Loth, Mabinogion, 1913, I, 92-6.
91 Huth Merlin, ed. Paris, Ulrich, II, 77 ff.
92 Sommer, op. cit., II, 208.
93 Paton, op. cit., 233.
94 Ibid., 245.
95 Sommer, Vulgate Version, II, 209.
96 Paton, op. cit., 245.
97 Fol. 65 r. Modern Language Association rotograph No. 26, at Library of Congress and New York Public Library.
98 Sommer, op. cit., I, 288.
99 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 232-5.
100 F. Lot, Étude sur le Lancelot en Prose, Paris, 1918, p. 149 n. 1.
101 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 150 f.
102 Girart de Rousillon, tr. P. Meyer, Paris, 1884, p. 40, n. 1.
103 Yule, Cordier, Travels of Marco Polo, I, 237 n.
104 R. S. Loomis, op. cit., 192.
105 Ibid., 359.
106 Paton, op. cit., 143.
107 Cf. index to my Celtic Myth and Arthurian Romance and article in MLR, XXIV (1929), 416.
