occasions, were much more acceptable than those of the Saxons. The latter were the people whom the Normans had conquered, and whose kings they had dispossessed; the praise, therefore, of their departed heroes revived sentiments of discord, better forgotten by all parties. But the exploits of the British were carried back to so ancient a period, and so intermingled with Celtic fable, that they recalled no sentiments of ancient independence, and suggested no ideas dangerous to the Norman race. The exploits of Arthur were therefore unanimously adopted, as the subject of tales and romances without end; and these were drawn by the Norman minstrels from the British traditions flowing from Wales, and floating in what had lately been the British kingdom of Cumberland; but especially from the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Mr Ellis gives us an abridgment of that author's Chronicle of Britain, and his "Vita Merlini," a poem in Latin verse. This last work only exists in MS., which is much to be regretted, as, from very frequent reference to particulars of British story, it affords demonstrable evidence, that Geoffrey did not, as has been repeatedly affirmed, himself forge the incidents of his Chronicle, but really drew them from the Armorican Chronicle, put into his hands by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford. The whole tissue of fables, therefore, concerning Arthur, which compose the most striking part of Geoffrey's history, and indeed the history itself, seem, in the words of our author, to be less a sudden fabrication, the work of any one man's invention, than "a superstructure gradually and progressively raised on the foundation of the history attributed to Nennius," the purity of which, by the way, had been already sullied by the Monk Samuel. Mr Ellis next proceeds to show that the state of Wales, during the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, was favourable to an exchange of literary materials betwixt the bards of that country and the Norman minstrels, as well as between the former and their brethren of Armorica. "But as there is reason to believe that the British lays were seldom if ever committed to writing, it might be expected that different minstrels would tell the same story with some variations; that, unable to retain in their memory the whole of a long narrative, they would carry off, in the first instance, detached adventures, which they would afterwards connect as well as they were able; and that a system of traditional history, thus imperfectly preserved through the medium of a very loose translation, and already involved in much geographical and chronological confusion would assume the fabulous appearance which we find in the French narratives called romances."-Vol. i. p. 117. To conclude his account of the materials from whence English romance was drawn, the editor observes, that although we owe to the Norman minstrels the greater part of the romances now extant, which were avowedly translated into English, as soon as that language came to supersede the French; yet a small number were most probably originally composed in English for the use of the Scottish court, where French was never exclusively spoken, and afterwards an elegant summary of the system proposed by the editor of Sir Tristrem, which we had occasion to consider in our review of that volume.* Upon this hypothesis, it is curious to observe, that as the earliest French romances were written in England, so the earliest English romances were composed in Scotland. We heartily wish Mr Ellis had continued his dissertation on the materials of our metrical romance to a later period, as we have not seen a more clear and comprehensive view of the subject, so far as it goes. This desideratum is, however, in part supplied by the arrangement of his romances into classes, with the general preliminary remarks upon each class. The Appendix to the Introduction contains an account of Petrus Alphonsus de clericali disciplina, by Mr Douce, an industrious and ingenious antiquary; and, secondly, a translation by Mr Ellis of the Breton lais of Marie, twelve in number, exhibiting much of that genius for romantic fiction, which has been always an attribute of the Celtic tribes. We would willingly extract one of them for our reader's amusement; but are obliged to hasten to the metrical romances, which are the principal object of the collection. The first class comprehends romances relating to King Arthur. These, as we have already seen, are probably the earliest in order, and although once most popular and numerous, are now become, in their metrical shape, exceedingly rare; because their very popularity rendered them the first objects of imitation to the prose authors, whose works superseded those of the minstrels. One romance of formidable length has been still preserved in MS., and forms the first article of Mr Ellis's work. It is called Merlin and Arthur, and resumes the account of these worthies, from their birth to the marriage of Arthur, when the transcriber of one fragment resigned his task, after having copied 10,000 lines. This is a romance in the very best style of minstrelsy, so far as language, and even incident, are concerned. The marvellous birth of Merlin, surreptitiously begotten by a fiend upon a maiden, under the most extraordinary circumstances, is one of those feats of witchery which arrest the imagination. The mother is condemned to death by a rigid law of the British against such as infringed the rules of chastity. But Blaise, a holy hermit, by christening the child at the instant of its birth, baffles the hopes of the devil, who had expected, by means of engendering with a virgin, to create a semi-demon, who should be devoted to the powers of evil. "The good man then returned with his infernal proselyte, and restored him by means of the basket to the midwife; who, carrying him to the fire, and surveying his rough hide with horror and astonishment, could not refrain from reproaching him for his unreasonable choice of a mother who had never taken the usual means to have a child. "Alas,' she said, 'art thou Merlin? * Whether art thou? and of what kin? * Whence. [In the Edinburgh Review, vol. iv.-The criticism referred to was written by Mr We have no time to stop to trace the completion of this promise, nor the rest of Arthur's history, which Mr Ellis has taken from a poetical account of his achievements and death, occurring in the Museum. The downfall of the chivalry of the Round Table was completed by the death of Sir Lancelot, its most redoubted supporter. Mr Ellis transcribes from the Morte Arthur the following eulogium over that hero, which may be said to comprehend the cardinal virtues of a preux chevalier. "And now I dare say-that, Sir Lancelot, ther thou lyest, thou were never matched of none earthly knight's hands. And thon were the curteist knight that ever bare shielde. And thou were the truest freende to thy lover that ever bestrode horse. And thou were the truest lover, of a synful man, that ever loved woman. And thou were the kindest man that ever stroke with swerde. And thou were the goodliest person that ever came amonge prece (press) of knyghtes. And thou were the meekest man and the gentillest that ever eate in hal among ladies. And thou were the sternest kinght to thy mortall foe that ever put spere in the rest!"-Vol. i. p. 386, 387. The next class comprehends what Mr Ellis has ventured to call Saxon Romances; that is, romances referring to Saxon subjects, and claiming, perhaps, some foundation in the history of that people. Horn-Child, which bears the most decided marks of Saxon origin, is omitted, as already published by Mr Ritson, in an entire state; but we could have wished Mr Ellis had extended his criticism to that poem, or favoured us with some general remarks upon the romance of the Anglo-Saxons. Guy of Warwick, and Bevis of Hamptoun, occupy this station entirely. The first is a very long romance, and in general as dull as may be, with even more than the usual huge proportion of battles and tournaments. Yet it may be read with pleasure in Mr Ellis's abridgment, though the original would have defied the patience of most antiquaries. The combat betwixt Guy and Colbrond the Danish champion, is told in a more animated strain, and in a different stanza. We suspect that this is the only part of the romance which has any claim to a Saxon origin, and that all the rest has been added by some minstrel after the crusades. Mr Ellis seems pirate, who assisted Athelstan at the battle of Brunnanburgh. The Egils-saga, which contains an account of that chief's adventures, affords no countenance to this conjecture, which we incline to consider as fanciful. Bevis of Hamptoun resembles Guy of Warwick, but is of a far ruder and apparently more ancient manufacture. There is a harshness and barbarous tinge about this poem, which bespeaks its being composed in a very rude state of society, or for the amusement of the lower ranks; two points which it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish. Notwithstanding their demerits, Guy of Warwick, and Bevis of Hamptoun, equalled, or excelled in popularity, almost all the romances of the middle ages. The next is entitled an Anglo-Norman Romance, and contains the adventures of no less a person than Richard Cœur de Lion. It has, for many reasons, great claims on our attention. In the first place, it tends to show the progress from metrical history to metrical romance; for, in its more ancient and simple state, as a fragment still exists in the Auchinleck Manuscript, it appears to have contained little more than an historical detail, not much exaggerated, of the actual transactions of Richard in the Holy Land. But the inventions of succeeding minstrels have grafted upon the original narrative a number of extraordinary and supernatural events of the wildest and most romantic kind, in order to render it more astonishing or interesting to their hearers. There is, in particular, a minute account of a marriage betwixt Henry II. and an unknown Princess, by whom he had three children, namely, Richard, John, and a daughter unknown to our genealogists, called Topyas. This queen of England being a fiend, or something very little better, was unable to be present at any of the sacraments; and being once compelled to remain till the elevation of the host took place, she made an elopement through the roof of the chapel, carrying with her Topyas and John. The latter fell from the air, and broke his thigh bone; the mother escaped with the former, and was never more seen. The legend thus engrafted upon the English history, is taken from an event said to have happened to Count Fulk of Anjou, often alluded to by our Scottish historians as a proof, that, by one side of the house, the kings of England were descended from the devil. Perhaps, however, the minstrel hinted a satire at Eleanor of Guienne, who was, in fact, a sort of devil incarnate. Of this fiendish parentage, according to the romance, came that "King y-christened of most renown, The feat by which he gained this well-known appellation is supposed to have happened during his confinement in the Austrian dominions, where he slew the Emperor's son by a box on the ear. his hands in the royal blood of his prisoner, contented himself with introducing into Richard's company a hungry lion, under the conviction that he was guiltless of all consequences which might ensue from their meeting. Richard, who had armed his hand with a few ells of handkerchiefs, the gift of a loving princess, plunged it down the throat of the monster, tore out his heart, devoured it before the face of the Emperor, and thus acquired an ample title to the name by which he is known in history. Amid this wild farrago, there occurs a minute incident of truth, which has escaped our historians. It seems pretty clear that Richard, while travelling in disguise through Austria, amused himself with dressing his own dinner, with some assistance from Sir Foulk Doyley and Sir Thomas Multon (the ancestors of the Dacres of Dacre). While these three warriors were busied in roasting a goose, they were teazed by an intrusive female minstrel, whom they rudely dismissed, without allowing her to share their good cheer. In consequence, she betrayed them to the Duke of Austria. This strange anecdote is alluded to by Petrus d'Elrilo, a writer of the twelfth century, and by Otho de Saint Blaise, who maintains, that Richard himself turned the spit, forgetful that he wore a ring which announced the rank of the wearer to be far superior to his occupation. So strangely are truth and falsehood woven together in this curious performance. But this romance is also valuable, as a curious example of the change for the worse which the religious wars introduced into the European character. In the earlier romances, the heroes are no doubt sufficiently savage; they shed much blood in battle, and are determined enemies to giants and wizards. But the cause of these military exertions is generally one with which we can sympathize; the deliverance of a fair lady, the righting of a wrong done to the helpless, or the supporting the tottering throne of a lawful monarch. A certain generosity is also mingled in their valour; and they are generally as ready to forgive and spare the vanquished, as to quell the vaunting and resisting enemy. But the crusader discarded from his bosom all that was amiable and mild in the spirit of chivalry. He fought for the cause of God against unchristened heathen hounds, and had neither authority nor inclination to forgive their wrongs to Heaven, as he might have pardoned those offered to himself. This romance contains a lively detail of the bloody cruelties practised by the champions of Palestine upon an enemy. The following extraordinary specimen of what crusaders were supposed capable of performing, although totally fabulous, shows the idea which the minstrels conceived of such a character, when carried to the highest and most laudable degree of perfection : "The best leeches in the camp were unable to effect the cure of Richard's ague; but the prayers of the army were more successful. He became convalescent; and the first symptom of his recovery was a violent longing for pork. But pork was not likely to be |
