Nor could they, indeed, be said to be so very different in nature from at least the opening part of the Callisthenes version itself. This starts with what seems to be the capital and oldest part of the whole fabulous story, a very circ.u.mstantial account of the fict.i.tious circ.u.mstances of the birth of Alexander. According to this, which is pretty constantly preserved in all the fabulous versions of the legend (a proof of its age), Nectanabus, an Egyptian king and magician, having ascertained by sortilege (a sort of _kriegs-spiel_ on a basin of water with wax s.h.i.+ps) that his throne is doomed, quits the country and goes to Macedonia. There he falls in love with Olympias, and during the absence of her husband succeeds by magic arts not only in persuading her that the G.o.d Ammon is her lover, but to some extent in persuading King Philip to believe this, and to accept the consequences, the part of Ammon having been played of course by Nectanabus himself. Bucephalus makes a considerable figure in the story, and Nectanabus devotes much attention to Alexander"s education--care which the Prince repays (for no very discernible reason) by pus.h.i.+ng his father and tutor into a pit, where the sorcerer dies after revealing the relations.h.i.+p. The rest of the story is mainly occupied by the wars with Darius and Porus (the former a good deal travestied), and two important parts, or rather appendices, of it are epistolary communications between Aristotle and Alexander on the one hand, Alexander and Dindymus (Dandamis, &c.), King of the Brahmins, on the other. After his Indian adventures the king is poisoned by Ca.s.sander or at his instigation.

[Sidenote: _Its developments._]

Into a framework of this kind fables of the sort above mentioned had, it will be seen, not the remotest difficulty in fitting themselves; and it was not even a very long step onward to make Alexander a Christian, equip him with twelve peers, and the like. But it has been well demonstrated by M. Paul Meyer that though the fict.i.tious narrative obtained wide acceptance, and even admission into their historical compilations by Vincent of Beauvais, Ekkehard, and others, a more sober tradition as to the hero obtained likewise. If we were more certain than we are as to the exact age of Quintus Curtius, it would be easier to be certain likewise how far he represents and how far he is the source of this more sober tradition. It seems clear that the Latin _Alexandreis_ of Walter of Chatillon is derived from him, or from a common source, rather than from Valerius-Callisthenes: while M.

Meyer has dwelt upon a Latin compilation perhaps as old as the great outburst of vernacular romance on Alexander, preserved only in English MSS. at Oxford and Cambridge, and probably of English composition, which is a perfectly common-sense account based upon historians, of various dates and values, indeed, ranging from Trogus to Isidore of Seville, but all historians and not romancers.

In this path, however, comparatively few cared to tread. The attraction for the twelfth century lay elsewhere. Sometimes a little of the more authentic matter was combined with the fabulous, and at least one instance occurs where the author, probably in the thirteenth century, simply combined, with a frank audacity which is altogether charming, the popular epitome of Valerius and the sober compilation just referred to. The better, more famous, and earlier romantic work is taken straight from, though it by no means confines itself to, Valerius, the _Historia de Proeliis_, and the _Iter ad Paradisum_.

The results of this handling are enormous in bulk, and in minor varieties; but they are for general purposes sufficiently represented by the great _Roman d"Alixandre_[73] in French, the long and interesting English _King Alisaunder_,[74] and perhaps the German of Lamprecht. The Icelandic Alexander-Saga, though of the thirteenth century, is derived from Walter of Chatillon, and so reflects the comparatively sober side of the story. Of all the others the _Roman d"Alixandre_ is the most immediate parent.

[Footnote 73: Ed. Michelant, Stuttgart, 1846.]

[Footnote 74: Ed. Weber, _op. cit. sup._, i. 1-327.]

[Sidenote: _Alberic of Besancon._]

There was, indeed, an older French poem than this--perhaps two such--and till the discovery of a fragment of it six years after the publication in 1846 of the great _Roman d"Alixandre_ itself by Michelant, it was supposed that this poem was the original of Lamprecht"s German (or of the German by whomsoever it be, for some will have it that Lamprecht is simply Lambert li Tors, _v. infra_).

This, however, seems not to be the case. The Alberic fragment[75]

(respecting which the philologists, as usual, fight whether it was written by a Besancon man or a Briancon one, or somebody else) is extremely interesting in some ways. For, in the first place, it is written in octosyllabic _tirades_ of single a.s.sonance or rhyme, a very rare form; in the second, it is in a dialect of Provencal; and in the third, the author not only does not follow, but distinctly and rather indignantly rejects, the story of Nectanabus:--

"Dic.u.n.t alquant estrobatour Quel reys fud filz d"encantatour: Mentent fellon losengetour; Mai en credreyz nec un de lour."[76]

[Footnote 75: Ed. Meyer, _op. cit._, i. 1-9.]

[Footnote 76: Ll. 27-30.]

But the fragment is unluckily so short (105 lines only) that it is impossible to say much of its matter.

[Sidenote: _The decasyllabic poem._]

Between this and the Alexandrine poem there is another version,[77]

curiously intermediate in form, date, and substance. This is in the ordinary form of the older, but not oldest, _chansons de geste_, decasyllabic rhymed _tirades_. There are only about eight hundred lines of it, which have been eked out, by about ten thousand Alexandrines from the later and better known poem, in the MSS. which remain. The decasyllabic part deals with the youth of Alexander, and though the author does not seem, any more than Alberic, to have admitted the scandal about Nectanabus, the death of that person is introduced, and altogether we see a Callisthenic influence. The piece has been very highly praised for literary merit; it seems to me certainly not below, but not surprisingly above, the average of the older _chansons_ in this respect. But in so much of the poem as remains to us no very interesting part of the subject is attacked.

[Footnote 77: Meyer, i. 25-59.]

The great romance is in more fortunate conditions. We have it not indeed complete (for it does not go to the death of the hero) but in ample measure: and fortunately it has for full half a century been accessible to the student. When M. Paul Meyer says that this edition "ne saurait fournir une base suffisante a une etude critique sur le roman d"Alixandre," he is of course using the word _critique_ with the somewhat arbitrary limitations of the philological specialist. The reader who cares for literature first of all--for the book as a book to read--will find it now complete for his criticism in the Stuttgart version of the _Alixandre_, though he cannot be too grateful to M.

Meyer for his second volume as a whole, and for the printing in the first of Alberic, and the decasyllabic poem, and for the extracts from that of Thomas of Kent, who, unlike the authors of the great Romance, admitted the Nectanabus marvels and intrigues.

[Sidenote: _The great_ Roman d"Alixandre.]

The story is of such importance in mediaeval literature that some account of the chief English and French embodiments of it may be desirable. The French version, attributed in shares, which have as usual exercised the adventurous ingenuity of critics, to two authors, Lambert li Tors, the Crooked (the older designation "Li Cors," the Short, seems to be erroneous), and Alexander of Bernay or Paris, occupies in the standard edition of Michelant 550 pages, holding, when full and with no blanks or notes, 38 lines each. It must, therefore, though the lines are not continuously numbered, extend to over 20,000.

It begins with Alexander"s childhood, and though the paternity of Nectanabus is rejected here as in the decasyllabic version, which was evidently under the eyes of the authors, yet the enchanter is admitted as having a great influence on the Prince"s education. This portion, filling about fifteen pages, is followed by another of double the length, describing a war with Nicolas, King of Cesarea, an unhistorical monarch, who in the Callisthenic fiction insults Alexander. He is conquered and his kingdom given to Ptolemy. Next Alexander threatens Athens, but is turned from his wrath by Aristotle; and coming home, prevents his father"s marriage with Cleopatra, who is sent away in disgrace. And then, omitting the poisoning of Philip by Olympias and her paramour, which generally figures, the Romance goes straight to the war with Darius. This is introduced (in a manner which made a great impression on the Middle Ages, as appears in a famous pa.s.sage of our wars with France[78]) by an insulting message and present of childish gifts from the Persian king. Alexander marches to battle, bathes in the Cydnus, crosses "Lube" and "Lutis," and pa.s.sing by a miraculous knoll which made cowards brave and brave men fearful, arrives at Tarsus, which he takes. The siege of Tyre comes next, and holds a large place; but a very much larger is occupied by the _Fuerres de Gadres_ ("Foray of Gaza"), where the story of the obstinate resistance of the Philistine city is expanded into a kind of separate _chanson de geste_, occupying 120 pages and some five thousand lines.

[Footnote 78: See _Henry V._ for the tennis-ball incident.]

In contradistinction to this prolixity, the visit to Jerusalem, and the two battles of Arbela and Issus mixed into one, are very rapidly pa.s.sed over, though the murder of Darius and Alexander"s vengeance for it are duly mentioned. Something like a new beginning (thought by some to coincide with a change of authors) then occurs, and the more marvellous part of the narrative opens. After pa.s.sing the desert and (for no very clear object) visiting the bottom of the sea in a gla.s.s case, Alexander begins his campaign with Porus, whom Darius had summoned to his aid. The actual fighting does not take very long; but there is an elaborate description of the strange tribes and other wonders of India. Porus fights again in Bactria and is again beaten, after which Alexander pursues his allies Gog and Magog and shuts them off by his famous wall. An arrangement with Porus and a visit to the Pillars of Hercules follow. The return is begun, and marvels come thicker and thicker. Strange beasts and amphibious men attack the Greeks. The "Valley from which None Return" presents itself, and Alexander can only obtain pa.s.sage for his army by devoting himself, though he manages to escape by the aid of a grateful devil whom he sets free from bondage. At the sea-sh.o.r.e sirens beset the host, and numbers perish; after which hairy horned old men tell them of the three magic fountains--the Fountain of Youth, the Fountain (visible only once a-year) of Immortality, and the Fountain of Resurrection.

Many monstrous tribes of enemies supervene; also a Forest of Maidens, kind but of hamadryad nature--"flower-women," as they have been poetically called. It is only after this experience that they come to the Fountain of Youth--the Fontaine de Jouvence--which has left such an indelible impression on tradition. Treachery had deprived Alexander of access to that of Immortality; and that of Resurrection has done nothing but restore two cooked fish to life. But after suffering intense cold, and pa.s.sing through a rain of blood, the army arrives at the Jouvence, bathes therein, and all become as men thirty years old.

The fountain is a branch of the Euphrates, the river of Paradise.

After this they come to the Trees of the Sun and Moon--speaking trees which foretell Alexander"s death. Porus hears of this, and when the army returns to India he picks a quarrel, and the two kings fight.

Bucephalus is mortally wounded; but Porus is killed. The beginnings of treason, plots against Alexander, and the episode of Queen Candace (who has, however, been mentioned before) follow. The king marches on Babylon and soars into the air in a car drawn by griffins. At Babylon there is much fighting; indeed, except the Foray of Gaza, this is the chief part of the book devoted to that subject, the Persian and Indian wars having been, as we saw, but lightly treated. The Amazons are brought in next; but fighting recommences with the siege of "Defur."

An enchanted river, which whosoever drinks he becomes guilty of cowardice or treachery, follows; and then we return to Tarsus and Candace, that courteous queen. Meanwhile the traitors Antipater and "Divinuspater" continue plotting, and though Alexander is warned against them by his mother Olympias, they succeed in poisoning him.

The death of the king and the regret of his Twelve Peers, to whom he has distributed his dominions, finish the poem.

[Sidenote: _Form, &c._]

In form this poem resembles in all respects the _chansons de geste_.

It is written in mono-rhymed _laisses_ of the famous metre which owes its name and perhaps its popularity to the use of it in this romance.

Part of it at least cannot be later than the twelfth century; and though in so long a poem, certainly written by more than one, and in all likelihood by more than two, there must be inequality, this inequality is by no means very great. The best parts of the poem are the marvels. The fighting is not quite so good as in the _chansons de geste_ proper; but the marvels are excellent, the poet relating them with an admirable mixture of gravity and complaisance, in spirited style and language, and though with extremely little attention to coherence and verisimilitude, yet with no small power of what may be called fabulous attraction.

[Sidenote: _Continuations._]

It is also characteristic in having been freely continued. Two authors, Guy of Cambray and Jean le Nevelois, composed a _Vengeance Alexandre_. The _Voeux du Paon_, which develop some of the episodes of the main poem, were almost as famous at the time as _Alixandre_ itself. Here appears the popular personage of Gadiffer, and hence was in part derived the great prose romance of Perceforest. Less interesting in itself, but curious as ill.u.s.trating the tendency to branch up and down to all parts of a hero"s pedigree, is _Florimont_, a very long octosyllabic poem, perhaps as old as the twelfth century, dealing with Alexander"s grandfather.[79]

[Footnote 79: In this paragraph I again speak at second-hand, for neither the _Voeux_ nor _Florimont_ is to my knowledge yet in print.

The former seems to have supplied most of the material of the poem in fifteenth-century Scots, printed by the Bannatyne Club in 1831, and to be reprinted, in another version, by the Scottish Text Society.]

[Sidenote: King Alexander.]

The princ.i.p.al and earliest version of the English _Alexander_ is accessible without much difficulty in Weber"s _Metrical Romances of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries_. Its differences from the French original are, however, very well worth noting. That it only extends to about eight thousand octosyllabic lines instead of some twenty thousand Alexandrines is enough to show that a good deal is omitted; and an indication in some little detail of its contents may therefore not be without interest. It should be observed that besides this and the Scots _Alexander_ (see note above) an alliterative _Romance of Alexander and Dindymus_[80] exists, and perhaps others. But until some one supplements Mr Ward"s admirable _Catalogue of Romances in the British Museum_ with a similar catalogue for the minor libraries of the United Kingdom, it will be very difficult to give complete accounts of matters of this kind.

[Footnote 80: E.E.T.S., 1878, edited by Professor Skeat.]

Our present poem may be of the thirteenth century, and is pretty certainly not long posterior to it. It begins, after the system of English romances, with a kind of moral prologue on the various lives and states of men of "Middelerd." Those who care for good literature and good learning are invited to hear a n.o.ble _geste_ of Alisaundre, Darye, and Pore, with wonders of worm and beast. After a geographical prologue the story of Nectanabus, "Neptanabus," is opened, and his determination to revenge himself on Philip of Macedon explained by the fact of that king having headed the combination against Egypt. The design on Olympias, and its success, are very fully expounded.

Nectanabus tells the queen, in his first interview with her, "a high master in Egypt I was"; and about eight hundred lines carry us to the death of Nectanabus and the breaking of "Bursifal" (Bucephalus) by the Prince. The episodes of Nicolas (who is here King of Carthage) and of Cleopatra follow; but when the expedition against Darius is reached, the mention of "Lube" in the French text seems to have induced the English poet to carry his man by Tripoli, instead of Cilicia, and bring him to the oracle of Ammon--indeed in all the later versions of the story the crossing of the purely fantastic Callisthenic romance with more or less historical matter is noticeable. The "Bishop" of Ammon, by the way, a.s.sures him that Philip is really his father. The insulting presents follow the siege of Tyre; the fighting with Darius, though of course much mediaevalised, is brought somewhat more into accordance with the historic account, though still the Granicus does not appear; the return to Greece and the capture of Thebes have their place; and the Athens-Aristotle business is also to some extent critically treated. Then the last battle with Darius comes in: and his death concludes the first part of the piece in about five thousand lines. It is noticeable that the "Foray of Gaza" is entirely omitted; and indeed, as above remarked, it bears every sign of being a separate poem.

The second part deals with "Pore"--in other words, with the Indian expedition and its wonders. These are copied from the French, but by no means slavishly. The army is, on the whole, even worse treated by savage beasts and men on its way to India than in the original; but the handling, including the Candace episodes, follows the French more closely than in the first part. The fighting at "Defur," however, like that at Gaza, is omitted; and the wilder and more mystical and luxuriant parts of the story--the three Fountains, the Sirens, the flower-maidens, and the like--are either omitted likewise or handled more prosaically.[81]

[Footnote 81: Dr Kolbing, who in combination of philological and literary capacity is second among Continental students of romance only to M. Gaston Paris, appears to have convinced himself of the existence of a great unknown English poet who wrote not only _Alisaundre_, but _Arthour and Merlin_, _Richard Coeur de Lion_, and other pieces. I should much like to believe this.]

One of the most curious things about this poem is that every division--divisions of which Weber made chapters--begins by a short gnomic piece in the following style:--

"Day spryng is jolyf tide.

He that can his tyme abyde, Oft he schal his wille bytyde.

Loth is grater man to chyde."

[Sidenote: _Characteristics._]

The treatment of the Alexander story thus well ill.u.s.trates one way of the mediaeval mind with such things--the way of combining at will incongruous stories, of accepting with no, or with little, criticism any tale of wonder that it happened to find in books, of using its own language, applying its own manners, supposing its own clothing, weapons, and so forth to have prevailed at any period of history. And further, it shows how the _geste_ theory--the theory of working out family connections and stories of ancestors and successors--could not fail to be applied to any subject that at all lent itself to such treatment. But, on the other hand, this division of the romances of antiquity does not exhibit the more fertile, the more inventive, the more poetical, and generally the n.o.bler traits of Middle-Age literature. As will have been noted, there was little invention in the later versions, the Callisthenic fictions and the _Iter ad Paradisum_ being, with a few Oriental accretions, almost slavishly relied upon for furnis.h.i.+ng out the main story, though the "Foray of Gaza," the "Vows of the Peac.o.c.k," and _Florimont_ exhibit greater independence.

Yet again no character, no taking and lively story, is elaborated.

Nectanabus has a certain personal interest: but he was given to, not invented by, the Romance writers. Olympias has very little character in more senses than one: Candace is not worked out: and Alexander himself is entirely colourless. The fantastic story, and the wonders with which it was bespread, seem to have absorbed the attention of writers and hearers; and n.o.body seems to have thought of any more.

Perhaps this was merely due to the fact that none of the more original genius of the time was directed on it: perhaps to the fact that the historical element in the story, small as it was, cramped the inventive powers, and prevented the romancers from doing their best.

[Sidenote: _The Tale of Troy._]

In this respect the Tale of Troy presents a remarkable contrast to its great companion--a contrast pervading, and almost too remarkable to be accidental. Inasmuch as this part of mediaeval dealings with antiquity connects itself with the literary history of two of the very greatest writers of our own country, Chaucer and Shakespeare; with that of one of the greatest writers of Italy, Boccaccio; and with some of the most noteworthy work in Old French, it has been thoroughly and repeatedly investigated.[82] But it is so important, and so characteristic of the time with which we are dealing, that it cannot be pa.s.sed over here, though the later developments must only be referred to in so far as they help us to understand the real originality, which was so long, and still is sometimes, denied to mediaeval writers. In this case, as in the other, the first striking point is the fact that the Middle Ages, having before them what may be called, _mutatis mutandis_, canonical and apocryphal, authentic and unauthentic, ancient and not ancient, accounts of a great literary matter, chose, by an instinct which was not probably so wrong as it has sometimes seemed, the apocryphal in preference to the canonical, the unauthentic in preference to the authentic, the modern in preference to the ancient.

[Footnote 82: It would be unfair not to mention, as having preceded that of M. Joly by some years, and having practically founded study on the right lines, the handling of MM. Moland and d"Hericault, _Nouvelles Francaises du Quatorzieme Siecle_ (Bibliotheque Elzevirienne. Paris, 1856).]

[Sidenote: _Dictys and Dares._]