Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Knight, Stephen
1983.
Arthurian Literature and Society.
p.
187.
Article contents
Ritson's Life of King Arthur
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2021
Extract
Ritson in a letter to Scott, dated July 2, 1803, writes: “I have put into Mr. Longman's hands at his own request, for the opinion of some critic he is used to consult, my ‘Life of King Arthur.’” Again, in a letter of August 16, 1803 to his nephew, Joseph Frank, editor of his correspondence, he says: “I will give you .... all of my late publications, if you have not got them already; then, such as are to come: ‘the Life of King Arthur,’ which I have finished, etc.”. (Letters, II, 247 f.). Ritson died September 23, 1803. From the editor's advertisement to King Arthur we learn: “The curious work now offered to the world was prepared for the press by Mr. Ritson, with a view to immediate publication, a short time before his death.” Thus, the date of composition is clearly 1803. The book marks the culmination of Ritson's researches into the history and literature of the middle ages; it was the fruit of mature experience in a life devoted to scholarly investigation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1928
Footnotes
1
The Life of King Arthur: From Ancient Historian: and Authentic Documents, by Joseph Ritson, Esq., London, 1825. The book was listed, but not reviewed in the Edinburgh Review, XLII (1825), 507 snd the Quarterly Review, XXXVI (1827), 601. It is mentioned in bibliographies by Sir Sidney Lee, Dict. Nat. Biog., under Ritson's posthumous publications; W. P. Ker, Comb. Hist. Eng. Lit., X, 546; H. O. Sommer, ed., Malory's Morte Darthur, III, 1; J. D. Bruce, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance, Göttingen, 1923, II, 380; Sir F. Madden, Syr Gauayne, London, 1839, in a note, p.330. As far as I am aware, the only critics who have remaked on it are H. A. Burd, Joseph Ritson, A Critical Biography, University of Ill. Studies in Lang, and Lt., vol. II, No. 3, Urbana, Ill., 1916, pp. 141-43, and Cross, Mod. Phil., xvii (1919-20), pp. 234-35. Professor Cross has kindly refrained from further comment in view of my study then in progress.
This study, which grew out of the discovery of the notice in the Comb. Hist. Eng. Lit., was completed in the first draft at the time of the publication of Burd's dissertation. But as Dr. Burd has dealt rather cursorily with his author's contributions to Arthurian scholarship (see reviews of his book by T. P. Cross, op. cit., 233 ff.; W. P. Ker, Mod. Lang. Rev., xiii (1918), 496 ff.) it seems worth while to publish results of an investigation into this phase of Ritson's critical work.
References
2 The Letters of Joseph Ritson, with a Memoir by Sir Harris Nicholas, Lond., 1833, II, 238.
3 The Cambrian Biography, by William Owen [Pughel, Lond., 1803, to which Ritson refers in the King Arthur (p. 87) shows him desirous of obtaining the latest information on his subject. (See also below, p. 271.)
4 Brace, op. cit., I, 37 ff., summarizes all the main views on this subject.
5 In the 2nd ed., Lond., 1807, I, 114, n. 80, he says the theory was afterwards adopted by John Leyden in the Introduction to the Complaynte of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1801, pp. 257 ff., and favored by Ellis in the Introduction to Specimens of Early English Metrical Romances, Lond., 1805, pp. 33 ff.
6 See K. Malone, “Artorius,” Mod. Phil., xxii (1925), 367 ff., for interesting evidence in support of a second century “Arthurian period,” instead of the long accepted sixth century.
7 The plan may have been suggested by Leland's Assertio inclytissimi Arturii regis Britanniae, Lond., 1544, also in his Collectanea, ed., T. Heerne, Lond., 1770, V, 1 ff. All references made in this study to the Collectanea, are to this ed., 1770.
8 Roman de Brut, ed., Le Roux de Lincy, Rouen, 1836-38, vv, 10,038 ff.
9 This is a clear echo of the passage in William of Malmsbury's Gesta Rigum Anglorum, ed., W. Stubos, Rolls Series, Lond., 1887-89, I, 11.
10 This apparent contradiction may be one of the numerous instances showing that the book as a posthumous publication suffered from lack of revision by the author. See notes, 49 and 88.
11 John Pinkerton, An Enquiry into the History of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1790. Ritson's chief quarrel with Pinkerton was over the latter's edition of Select Scottish Ballads, 1783, a number of which he exposed as Pinkerton's own forgeries.
Pinkerton's equation, Arthur and Ambrosius Aurelianus, may have been suggested by statements about the latter by some of the chroniclers. See Gildas, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, ed., T. Mommsen, Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Antiq. XIII, Chron. Min. III, 40; Bede, Hist. Eccl., ed., C. Plummer, Oxford, 1896, I, 33.
12 See also K. A., pp. 51, 85 and Ritson's note to “Yvaine and Gawin” in Ancient English Metrical Romances, revised by E. Goldsmid, Edinburgh, 1884, I, 119. All references to this book are to this edition.
13 For example, H. Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus, Berlin, 1843, pp. 285 ff.; R. H. Fletcher, The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles, Boston, 1906, p. 23; J. D. Bruce, The Evolution of Arthurian Romance, Göttingen, 1923, I, 3 f. (All references to Fletcher and to Bruce are to these books unless otherwise stated); E. Windisch, Das Keltische Brittannien bis zu Kaiser Arthur, Leipzig, 1912, pp. 142 ff.; K. Malone, op. cit. (See above, n. 6.) Malone's conclusions, however, rest upon different evidence and point to an altogether different person.
14 Hist. Return Brit., ed., San Marte, Halle, 1854. Al my references are to this ed. It is doubtful whether Ritson worked from MSS of the Historia, although he must have been aware of those in the British Museum. A Catalogue .... of the Library and MSS of the late Joseph Ritson, which will be sold by auction, by Leigh, Sotheby and Son, Dec. 5,1803, etc., shows that Ritson owned a copy of the Eng. train, by Aaron Thompson, 1718. It is listed as no. 600 and is described as being “plentifully supplied with MS notes.” He mentions this trans. in the K. A. (p. iii), noting there the various readings of the title in different MSS; but he cites the examples only from printed copies.
15 Aluredi Beverlacensis Annales (written about 1150), ed., T. Hearne, Oxford, 1716, p. xxv.
16 Nicholas Owen, British Remains; Or a Collection of Antiquities Relating to the Britons, Lond., 1777, pp. 69 ff.
17 See W. L. Jones, King Arthur in History and Legend, Cambridge, the University Press, 1911, pp. 64 f., who says the Historia must have existed in some form at early as 1139 at the latest G. H. Gerould, “King Arthur and Politics,” Speculum, Jan. 1927,34, endorses Madden and hence, Lloyd. Contrary to the prevailing view, Windish, op. cit., p. 123, dates it between 1132 and 1135.
18 E. A. Freeman, The Norman Conquest, I, Oxford, 1877, p. 44, gives three Danish periods: (1) Plunder, 789-855; (2) Settlement 855-897; (3) Conquest, 980-1016. The Saxon Chronicle also gives 787 as the date of their first appearance. Ritson thus comes close to the accepted date. He gives no authority, but his source may be the Saxon Chronicle.
19 Geoffrey's phrase is “ex urbe Canuté nemoris” (p. 97). This anachronism was pointed out by Warton, also, Hist. of Eng. Poetry, ed., W. C. Hazlitt, London, 1871, I, 101.
20 J. Loth, Rev. Celt., XIII (1892),485 ff.; xx(1899), 340ff.; Mab., I, 59, 69, 70, n.; Ward, op. cit., I, 205; L. F. Salxmann, Henry II, N. Y., 1914, pp. 33,38,142,166 ff.; Bruce, op. cit., I, 69 f.; J. E. Lloyd, Hist. of Walts from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, Lond., 1911, II, 429 ff.
21 The “Welsh copy” containing the alleged quotation from Archdeacon Walter is the Brut Tysilio (H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances in the Dept, of MSS in the British Museum, Lond., 1883, I, 254), not the Brut Brenkinoedhi. Ritson evidently thought them identical (p. xix, n.), but they are different translations; the Brut Gruffydd ap Arthur is still a third. The error may have occurred through the fact that in the postscript to the Brut Bren. it is said that Walter translated the work from Latin into Welsh from which it was retranslated into Latin by Geoffrey (Ward, p. 256.). The similarity of the two statements may have led Ritson to believe that the MSS were variants of the tame book.
Later scholars who have called attention to the priority of the Historia over these Welsh Bruts are: Ward, op. cit., I, 254 ff.; Ryhs and Evans, Red Book of Hergest, Oxford, 1887-90, II, pp. ix ff.; Fletcher, op. cit., pp. 117 ff.
22 Ward, op. cit., I, 214 ff.; Windisch, op. cit., pp. 125 ff.; W. L. Jones, Comb. Hist. Eng. Lit., I, 168, are less uncertain than Fletcher who gives an extended discussion of the subject, is very doubtful, yet does not entirely commit himself (op. cit., pp. 53 ff; 115).
Fletcher (p. 50, n. 1), who claims to give a complete bibliography of important modem discussions of the Liber beginning with John Price's Historiae Brytonum Defensio, 1573, cites by Ritson only “Three Ancient English Metrical Romances, 1803” (Intended for “Ancient Engleish Metrical Romancees,” Lond., 1802?). In the “Dissertion on Romance and Minstrelsy” prefixed to this work (p. 27) Ritson gives but a page to the subject; in the King Arthur he gives forty-three pages.
23 For descriptions of these chronicles, see Fletcher, op. cit., pp. 171 ff.; 214. Roger of Chester is, according to the Dict. Nat. Biog., almost certainly the same person as Ranulf, Randulfus, Ralph, Randal, etc., Higden. Fletcher (p. 175) notes that Ralph Higden was a monk of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Werburg's Chester. “Matthew of Westminster,” a portion of the Flores Historiarum, ed., H. R. Luard, Rolls Series, Lond., 1890, I, II. See Pref., pp. id ff.; xliii, Matthew of Westminster is an imaginary person; the name really belongs to Matthew Paris.
24 Guilliemi Newbrigensis Historia sive Chronica Rerum Anglicarum Libris quinque, ed., T. Hearne, Oxford, 1719, I, pp. lxxvii ff. Fletcher dates the chronicle 1198, referring to the ed. by R. Howlett, Chronicles of Stephen, Rolls Series, Lond., 1884-85, Introduction.
25 “Desc. of Wales, C 7,” “Itinerary of Wales, B I, C 5.” See Giraldus Cambrensis, Opera, VI, ed., J. F. Dimock, Rolls Series, Lond., 1863, pp. 57 f. 179.
26 Morte Darthur, ed., Sommer, Bk. III, Chaps, i, n; Bk. XIV, Chap. II.
27 This incident is related in both the “Vulgate Merlin” (Le Roman de Merlin, ed., H. O. Sommer, Lond., 1894, pp. 54 f.) and the “Suite de Merlin” (Merlin, ed., G. Paris and J. Ulrich, Soc. An. T. F., Paris, 1886, I, pp. 94 ff.).
28 On the Round Table, origins and parallels, see Bruce, op. cit., I, 82 ff., who reviews the various theories; also the interesting article by L. H. Loomis, “Arthur's Round Table,” PMLA, xu (1926), 771 ff.
29 J. Loth also made this identification, Mab., Paris, 1913, II, 292, n. 4 and later Brace, op. cit., I, 129 f.; 134, n. 15. All references to the Mab. are to this ed.
30 Fletcher, op. cit., pp. 92, n. 7, 93; Bruce, op. cit., I, 141 ff.
31 For discussion and analysis of the Vita Merlini see Bruce, I, pp. 135 ff. A recent investigation dates the poem 1150 instead of the usual 1148 (J. J. Parry, Mod. Phil., xxii (1925), 413 ff.).
32 The correctness of Ritson's doubts as to the existence of Myrddin poems before Geoffrey is born out by F. Lot, “Etudes sur Merlin,” Annales de'Bretagne xv (1900), 324 ff., 505 ff., and Bruce, op. cit., I, 129 f. There seems to be one exception, the Dialogue of Merlin and Taliessin, which is either contemporary with Geoffrey or slightly earlier.
33 This letter shows, too, that Ritson had intended'to print the Vita. He evidently had made a copy of one of the MSS. See cat., no. 959.
34 Enquiry into the Hist, of Scotland, 1790, I, 76, n. See this study, p. 254 f.
35 Historia Britonum, ed., T. Mommsen, Mon. Germ. Hist., Acta. Antiq., XIII, Chron. Min., III, Berlin, 1898, pp. 181-87 (see esp. p. 182). See Loth's note on this incident, Mob., I, 239.
36 Hist. Reg. Brit., p. 91.
37 Ritson is doubtless following the tradition which assigns Taliessin to the sixth century (Loth, Mob., I, 144, n. 2). He is mentioned in the Nennian Chronicle in the genealogy of the kings of Deiri, as living at the time of King Dutigirn who fought against the Angles (Mommsen, p. 205). This section is regarded as original (Fletcher, pp. 9, 16). On the Nennian controversy see below pp. 272 ff. Windisch, op. cit., p. 226, says, however, that linguistic conditions preclude Taliessin's having lived as early as is commonly thought.
Saxon Chronicle, J. Earle, Two of the Saxon Chronicles, Oxford, 1866.
Æthelweard's Chronicles, Mon. Hist. Brit., pp. 499 ff.
William of Malmesbury (see above, n. 9).
Henry of Huntington, Historia Anglorum, ed., T. Arnold, Rolls Series, Lond., 1879.
38 But see note to Chestre's Launfal (A. E. M. R., II, 6) where on the authority of Carte he asserts that the king of Gwent was the great Arthur. The fuller notice in King Arthur doubtless represents the more mature opinion. Thomas Carte, A General History of England, Lond., 1747-55, I, 202. Carte's authority was probably the Liber Londoeensis. See the trans, by W. J. Rees, Lond., 1840, pp. 625, 627.
In safely venturing to call Arthur king of Cornwall, Ritson has become somewhat contradictory. See Chap, xvi, “Of the death of Howel,” pp. 62 ff., based partly on Caradoc's Vita Gildae, Ritson's comment on the phrase “Arthur, king of the whole of Greater Britain” (cf. Vita Gildae, ed., Mommsen, p. 108, “Arturi regis to this maioris Brictanniae”); “This can only mean Wales or part of Wales, and is termed Greater Britain in opposition to Lets or Little Britain. In the middle of the sixth century, the greater part of England was in possession of the Saxons.” The meaning of Bretagne, Britannia is a vexed question on which much has been written, but there seems to be no indication that “Greater Britain” was ever used to designate Wales exclusive of other parts of the island. See my study, The Influence of Wace on the Arthurian Romances of Crestien de Treses, Menasha, Wis., 1913, pp. 114 ff.; also, discussions by Zimmer, G. G. A., 1890, pp. 787 ff.; Zeit. fr. Sp., xxi (1890), 239 ff.; M Deutschbein, Studien zur Sagengeschichte Englands, Cöthen, 1901, pp. 139 ff.; Windisch, op. cit., pp. 128 f., and Bruce, op. cit., I, p. 60.
39 See King Lear, Var. ed., pp. 123 f. and notes. Selden wrote in 1612, at the request of Drayton, notes to the first eighteen cantos of the Polyolbion. See also, H. Sommer, Le Mortc Darthur by Syr Thomas Malory, Lond., 1890, II, 157 and n. 3.
40 Assertio .... Arturii (Collect., V): Camaletum castrum olim magnincentissi-num in ipsis Murotrigum limitibus. Britannice Camalete, alias Cairmalet (p. 66),..... Murotriges, qui & somurotriges, vulgo Somersetshire nenne (p. 67). Leland's description of South Cadbury, Ritson quotes in full (p. 82) from the Itinerary ed., Hearae, Oxford, 1745, II, 46 f.
41 F. Lot, Rom., XXIV (1895), 327 ff., 497 ff.; XXV (1896), 1 ff.; XXVII (1898), 529 ff.; XXVIII (1899), 9 ff.; 336 ff.; E. Brugger, Zeit, fr. Sp., XX (1898), 99 ff.; H. Zimmer, Zeit. fr. Sp., XII (1890), 231 ff.; XIII (1891), 26 ff.; J. Loth, Contributions à l'étude des Romans de la Table Ronde, Paris, 1912, pp. 60 ff.; Fletcher, op cit., p. 27; Rhys, Arthurian Legend, pp. 328 ff.; Bruce, I, pp. 72 f.; K. Malone, J.E.G.Ph., XXIII (1924), 463 ff.
42 The “two old ballads” referred to are “The Boy and the Mantle,” Reliques III, 41 ff., and “The Marriage of Sir Gawain,” pp. 55 ff.
43 See J. L. Weston, Romance, Vision, and Satire, N. Y., 1912, p. 332; Bruce, op. cit., I, 127 f. The Douce MS of this poem (first printed by Pinkerton in Scotish Poems, Lond., 1792, iii, 197 ff., under the title, “Sir Gawan and Sir Galaron of Galloway”) was once owned by Ritson who had intended to print it himself. See his letter in the Gentleman's Magazine, Jan., 1793 and the introductory note to the ed. of the poem by D. Laing, Select Remains of the Ancient Popular Poetry of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1822.
44 Laing, op. cit., note on “Tumewathelan” and note at end of poem; and F. Madden, Syr Gawain, Lond., 1839, p. 330; also apparently, J. Robson, Three Early Eng. Metrical Romances, Lond., 1812, pp. xiv f.
45 See also, Madden, op. cit., p. 330. A famous example of Cardud an Gales occurs at the beginning of Chrétien de Troyes' Yvain, Sämtliche Werke, ed., W. Foerster, II, Halle, 1887, v. 7.
Ritson might have added as testimony of Arthur's residence at Carlisle the well-known line from Marie de France's Lanval (Die Lais der Marie de France, herausgeben von Karl Warnke, Halle, 1885, v. 5). He makes several allusions to Marie, showing familiarity with the Lays in manuscript (Letters, II, 226; A. E. M. R. I, 15,47; II, 1 f.).
Among those who have pointed out the localization of Arthurian tradition in the North are Zimmer, G. A. A. 1890, pp. 525 ff.; 781 ff.; Zeit. fr. Sp., XIII (1891), 91 ff.; Brugger, Zeit. fr. Sp., XX (1898), 79 ff.; esp. 122 & n. 52; 129 ff.; F. Lot, Rom., XXIV (1895), 518 ff.; XXVIII (1899), 27; J. Loth, Rev. Celt., XIII (1892), 499 ff.; W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, Edinburgh, I, 1876, pp. 152 ff.; J. S. Stuart-Glennie, Arthurian Localities, Edinburgh, 1869 (also in W. B. Wheatley's Merlin, E. E. T. S., 1899, I, pp. clvi ff.; W. Hertz, Spielmannsbuch, Stuttgart, 1905, pp. 373 f.
46 Celtic Britain, Lond., 1884, p. 135; The Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by Celtic Heathendom, Lond., 1888, p. 568; Arthurian Legend, Oxford, 1891, p. 8; with D. Brynmor-Jones, The Welsh People, Lond., 1900, p. 106; Windisch, op. cit., p. 142.
47 An interesting parallel to Ritson's discussion is furnished by K. Malone, “The Historicity of Arthur,” J.E.G.Ph., xxiii (1924), 463 ff., who quotes this same passage from Nennius and makes exactly the same points; his treatment of the matter is, however, much fuller. Professor Cross called my attention to Milton's comment on Nennius, interpretation of Mob-Uther in his History of Eng. Milton like Ritson points out that the term furnished the geneologists with a patronymic for Arthur. (Prose Works, Phila., 1847, II, 257). Ritson, though he must have known this passage, does not mention it.
48 See also Newell, PMLA, xx (1905), 663, n. 1, and Windisch's brief notice, op. cit., p. 148.
49 See the contradiction on page 51 n., “about 512.” This may be another case of lack of revision. See notes, 10 and 88, this study.
50 Mab., II, 225. See also Bruce, op. cit., pp. 181, 267, n. 59.
51 Owen [Pughe], also, casts doubts on the authenticity of the Triads, op. cit., pp. 13 f.
52 Rhys, Red Book of Hergest, p. viii; Zimmer, G. G. A., 1890, p. 513; Loth, Mab., I, 7 ff.; Cotitributions à l'Etude de la Table Ronde, Paris, 1912, pp. 30 ff.; Bruce, op. cit., I, 45 f.
53 L. Duchesne, Rev. Celt., XV (1894), 174 ff.; R. Thumeysen, Zeit. deut. Philol. XXVIII (1896), 80 ff.; Zeit. Celt. Philol., I (1897), 157 ff.; Windisch, op. cit., pp. 40 f.; Newell, PMLA, XX (1905), 622 ff.; Fletcher, op. cit., pp. 9 ff.; Bruce, op. cit., I, 8 f., reviews the whole question.
54 Malone, J.E.G.Ph., xxiii (1924), 467 n. 16, on authority of A. G. Van Hamel (Hoops, Reallexikon d. Germ. Allertumskunde, Strassburg, 1911-19), thinks Nennius was of Irish origin.
55 Thurneysen, op. cit., p. 166. Windisch, op. cit., p. 41, who seems to be following Thurneysen, is therefore wrong in saying that the Harleian recension is pre-Nennian.
56 H. Petrie and T. D. Hardy, Mon. Hist. Brit., Lond., 1848, pp. 62, n. 1; 63. This text is based on the Cambridge MS, Ff. 1. 27. The standard ed. is that by Mommsen, op. cit. (see above, n. 35), based on the Harleian recension.
57 Zeit. Celt. Ph., I, 164 f. But see W. W. Newell, op. cit., pp. 623, 671, who believes that the Harleian ed. resting on the Chartres ed. was not prepared till the eleventh century. Zimmer's date for the former is 796 (N. V., pp. 107, 108, etc.). Petrie and Hardy, op. cit., p. 68, assign it to the tenth century.
58 Thomas Gale, Historiae Britannicae Scriptores, XV, Oxford, 1691, pp. 93 ff., Preface, under “Nennius.” This was the first printed ed. and was based on the Cambridge MS, Ff. I. 27.
Charles Bertram, Britarnnicarum Gentium Historiae Antiquae, Scriptores Tres, Havniae; 1757, based on Gale's ed.
59 See W. Gunn, The “Historia Brittonum” commonly attributed to Nennius; from a manuscript lately discovered in the Library of the Vatican..... Lond., 1819, p. xv; Petrie and Hardy, of. cit., p. 62.
60 Ritson may be skeptical here, for he is usually incredulous of the Welsh. Gunn, op. cit., pp. iv f., on the authority of the MS itself, dates it in the tenth century, also Thurneysen, op. cit., p. 159. Petrie and Hardy, “Presumably of the tenth century,” p. 64. On the other hand, Mommsen, p. 112, and Newell, op. cit., p. 623, put it in the eleventh century.
61 W. Gunn, op. cit., p. xxi, n. 3, on the authority of Owen Pughe; D. D. Jones, The Early Cymry and their Church, Carmarthen [Preface, 1910], p. 61.
62 Editions of Bede do not agree on the date: J. Stevenson, Lond., 1836, p. 162, yr. 613; G. H. Moberley, Oxford, 1881, p. 93, yr. 607; A. J. Giles, tr., Lond., 1847, p. 71, yr. 603.
62 Whitaker, Hist. of Manchester, though he puts Nennius before Gildas (Nennius, 550; Gildas, 564), points out the unsatisfactory conditions of the text. (See pp. 33, 40 f.) Hence, Ritson is not the first to have published indications of textual difficulties.
64 Robert Manning of Brunne's Chronicle was finished in 1338; the first part of it is a paraphrase of Wace's Brut (Fletcher, op. cit., p. 204.). This part of it is edited by F. Furnival, Rolls Series, Lond., 1887.
65 Rhetoré, restoré? See Godfroi Dict. de l'Anc. Fr. If such a romance exists, it must be under a different title or as part of another work.
66 First ed., Frankfort, 1603, Bk. I, p. 17. This is Fletcher's reference. Ritson refers to an ed. published, 1608, and to pp. 19,20, the title of which differs in several particulars from that of the 1603 ed.
67 Gervais of Tilbury, Otia Imperialia, 1211 ca., ed. incompletely by G. W. Leibnitz, Scriptores Rerum, Brunsvicensium..... Hanover, 1707,I,921; Selections, ed., F. Liebrecht, Hanover, 1856; p. 12.
Peter of Blois, Epistolae, 5th ed., A. J. Giles, Oxford, 1847.
68 For further bibliography on Arthur's return, see Bruce, op. cit., I, p. 34, n. 74; pp. 74 ff.
69 For association of Arthurian legend with the abbey see Bruce, op. cit., I, 77 f; 262 ff.; II, 145 ff., and W. W. Newell, PMLA, XVIII (1903), 459 ff.; whose article forms the basis of my discussion. C. H. Slover's article, “William of Malmesbury and the Irish.” Speculum, II (1927) 268 ff, casts doubt on Newell's position, but does not affect the point of my argument. On Glastonbury's loss of prestige in the eleventh century, see W. A. Nitze, Mod Phil., I (1903), 257.
70 Fletcher's date for the De Principis (op. cit., p. 190); Newell, p. 506, n. 1, dates it 1217. Cf. Fletcher, pp. 279, f.
De Principis Instructione, Opera VIII, pp. 126 ff., Rolls Series, ed., G. F. Warner, 1891; Speculum Ecclesiae, Opera IV, pp. 47 ff, Rolls Series, ed., J. S. Brewer, 1873. See Fletcher, op. cit., p. 191, n. 2, for a list of medieval writers who treat of that incident.
71 G. Baist, Zeit. rom. Philol., XIX (1895), 327, gives 1139 as the date of the De Antiquitate. Newell, p. 460, shows that it must have been written after 1125. Cf. Stubbs, Gesta Regum, p. xxvii f., on the date. For the text see Thomas Gale, Hist. Brit. Script., XV, Oxford, 1691, I, 291 ff.
72 See also Fletcher, pp. 98 f.; 103; Windisch, op. cit., p. 154, is not so certain as Newell that the Ider passage is an interpolation. Others consider it doubtful. (See Fletcher, loc. cit.)
73 Leland, Collect., V, 44: “Joannes Burgensis abba in suis Annalibus haec fidis commisit chartis: ”Occuluit se rex Arturius moriturus, ne casui tanto insultarent inimici, amicique confusi molestarentur.“ Ritson emends ”Burgh“ to ”Peterborough.“ The ascription of this passage to John of Peterborough is an error of Leland's which Ritson did not detect. There is no such passage in the chronicle under his name (John Sparke, Historiae Anglicanae, Scriptores Varii, Lond., 1723, pp. 1 ff.). The only references in this chronicle to Arthur concern the discovery of Gawain's tomb at Ros (p. 50) and the discovery of Arthur's tomb at Glastonbury (p. 87). In the MS, Cotton, Claudius A V this chronicle is ascribed to ”Joannes Abbas,“ but there was no abbot of that name at Peterborough between 1263 and 1408. He was supposed to have lived about 1380; he must, therefore, be an imaginary person (Dict. Nat. Biog.). However, compare the above passage with the following from the Flores Historiarum of ”Matthew of Westminster“ (Matthew Paris; see below, n. 23), ed., H. R. Luard, Rolls Series, Lond., 1890, I, 269, at the year 542: ”Occultavit se rex moribundus, ne casui tanto insultarent inimici amicique confusi molestarentur.“ This is probably the source of Leland's statement.
74 Giraldus became Chaplain to Henry II in 1184. He dedicated to the king his Topographica Hibernica, 1188.
Ritson cites, also, the account of the discovery by Matthew Paris and records Leland's skepticism.
75 See A Catalogue of the Harleian Collection of MSS.... in the British Museum, Lond., 1759, II, No. 4181, “History of Welsh Heroes by Threes,” etc
76 Loth, Mab., II, 250, Rhys, Arthurian Legend, pp. 35 ff., Bruce, op. cit., I, 44, n. 14; 78, n. 80, remarks on the difference in these interpretations.
An instersting attempt to explain Arthur's connection with more than one Guenevere may be found in the “Vulgate” Merlin, ed., Sommer, pp. 157, 163, 233.
77 These errors are traceable to Leland: “Unde cum Henrico Blesensi, alias Soliacensi, nepote suo, qui turn, aut paullo post ex abbate [prior] Bermundianae insulae Praefectus Glessoburgensis designatus est” (Collect., V, 50).
See above p. 277 and Browne Willis, An History of the Mitered Parliamentary Abbies, and Conventual Cathedral Churches, Lond., 1718, I, p. 103; W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. & tr., J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, Lond., 1817, I, 5.
Henry of Blois and Henry of Soilly were different persons. See Dugdale, p. 4, and Dict. Nat. Biog., which state that Henry of Blois died in 1171. Henry of Soilly was not appointed abbot of Glastonbury till 1189.
80 The identification of Glastonbury with the isle of Avalon was made by a number of medieval writers with whom Ritson was familiar and whose etymologies he has followed uncritically. On this identification see Bruce, op. cit., I, 197 ff.
In a note to page 104 Ritson observes the absence of Morgan from Geoffrey's Historia and her presence in the Vita Merlini and her association there and in “other romances-of Arthur” with Avalon, but he contributes to this subject nothing significant. On Morgan in general, see Bruce, op. cit., II, Index.
79 This reference is to the Speculum and is, therefore, incorrect; Ritson took his account from the De Principis: “Rex angliae Henricus secundus sicut ab historico cantore Britone audierat antiquo” (p. 128). The corresponding passage in the Speculum, p. 49, is quite different Ritson, however, refers to Leland (Collect., V, 49) for his account of the incident (K. A., p. 102, n.). See Thomas Warton's poem, “The Grave of King Arthur” (1777), Chamber's British Poets, XVIII, Lond., 1810, pp. 109 ff., which is based on this incident.
80 L. F. Salzmann, Henry II, N. Y., 1914, pp. 112, 243, 244, 246. His dates are taken from the “Itinerary of Henry II,” Pipe Rolls. See also W. Stubbs, The Early Plantagenets, N. Y., 1891, pp. 48 ff.
81 This refers to the Ider incident. See above p. 278.
82 For bibliography and summary of the Christian origin of the Grail and its association with Joseph of Arimathea and Glastonbury, see Bruce, op. cit., I, pp. 219 ff.
83 K. Norgate, Dict. Nat. Biog., names this as one of William's lost works. Newell, op. cit., pp. 486 ff., shows that the account of St. Patrick in the De Antiquitate is much longer than in the Gesta and counts it among the interpolations. Hence, this “Life of St. Patrick” mentioned by Ritson may be, as he thinks, spurious.
84 A tradition recorded by a fifteenth century writer, Nicholas Cantaloupus, in his Historiola de Antiquitate et Origine Universitatis Cantabrigiensis, ed., T Hearne in Thomae Sprotti Chronica, Oxford, 1719, pp. 267 ff. Cf. Fletcher, op. cit., p. 255.
85 Bruce, op. cit., I, 265, n. 56, names a number of modem scholars who once accepted the Arthurian passages as genuine. Baist, however, still maintain their authenticity. (Bruce, loc. cit.)
86 F. Lot, Rom., XXIV (1895), 330, thinks it was later: 1160 ca.
87 W. J. Rees, The Lives, of the Combro British Saints, Lond., 1853, pp. 23 ff., 97 ff., 149 ff., 158 ff., 188 ff. Malone, “The Historicity of Arthur,” J.E.G.ph., XXIII (1924), 481 ff., summarizes several of these stories.
88 This date cannot be intentional. See Preface, pp. i, xii, xv, and this study pp. 255 f. This is doubtless another instance of lack of revision. See notes 10 and 49, this study.
89 Burd says he knew no Greek beyond the alphabet, but was acquainted with Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish, was proficient in Middle English, and acquired some knowledge of Anglo-Saxon (pp. 15, 195). Cross (op. cit., p. 234) thinks a little Welsh and Irish might perhaps be added to Ritson's linguistic stock. This suggestion is born out by the books on Cornish, Welsh, and Irish listed in the sale catalogue above mentioned (n. 14): nos. 76, 219, 682, 827, 869, 921. (See also, below, p. 269 f.) The catalogue testifies, too, to Ritson's interest in the history of Wales and of Ireland: nos. 419, 476, 479, 849, 925. (See also Letters I, 191; II, 2 f.)
90 Maynadier, op cit., chaps, XVII f, has shown that there was considerable interest in Arthurian story in the eighteenth century at literature quite apart from its value at a stimulus to antiquarian research.
- 1
- Cited by