FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121  
122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   >>   >|  
er without giving something on the question of origins itself. I shall therefore conclude it with a brief sketch of the chief opinions on the subject, and with an indication of those to which many years' reading have inclined myself. The theories, not to give them one by one as set forth by individual writers, are in the main as follows:-- [Sidenote: _Celtic._] I. That the Legend is, not merely in its first inception, but in main bulk, Celtic, either (_a_) Welsh or (_b_) Armorican. [Sidenote: _French._] II. That it is, except in the mere names and the vaguest outline, French. [Sidenote: _English._] III. That it is English, or at least Anglo-Norman. [Sidenote: _Literary._] IV. That it is very mainly a "literary" growth, owing something to the Greek romances, and not to be regarded without error as a new development unconnected, or almost unconnected, with traditional sources of any kind. [Sidenote: _The Celtic theory._] The first explanation is the oldest. After being for nearly half a century discredited, it has again found ardent defenders, and it may seem at first sight to be the most natural and reasonable. Arthur, if he existed at all, was undoubtedly a British hero; the British Celts, especially the Welsh, possess beyond all question strong literary affinities and a great literary performance, and Geoffrey of Monmouth, the father of the whole story, expressly declares that he took it from a book written in the British tongue. It was natural that in comparatively uncritical ages no quarrel should be made with this account. There were, even up to the last century, I believe, enthusiastic antiquaries who affirmed, and perhaps believed, that they had come across the very documents to which Geoffrey refers, or at worst later Welsh transcripts of them. But when the study of the matter grew, and especially when Welsh literature itself began to be critically examined, uncomfortable doubts began to arise. It was found impossible to assign to the existing Welsh romances on the subject, such as those published in the _Mabinogion_, a date even approaching in antiquity that which can certainly be claimed by the oldest French texts: and in more than one case the Welsh bore unmistakable indications of having been directly imitated from the French itself. Further, in undoubtedly old Welsh literature, though there were (_v. supra_) references to Arthur, they were few, they were very meagre, and except as
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121  
122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Sidenote

 

French

 

Celtic

 

British

 

literary

 

English

 

Geoffrey

 

literature

 

undoubtedly

 
oldest

unconnected
 

century

 

natural

 
Arthur
 

romances

 

question

 
subject
 

affirmed

 
believed
 

enthusiastic


declares
 

antiquaries

 

transcripts

 

expressly

 

refers

 

documents

 

conclude

 

uncritical

 

comparatively

 

written


tongue

 

quarrel

 

origins

 
account
 

matter

 

unmistakable

 

indications

 
directly
 

imitated

 
references

meagre
 
Further
 

claimed

 

examined

 

uncomfortable

 

doubts

 

critically

 

impossible

 
assign
 

approaching