Page:The Grateful Dead.djvu/108

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
92
The Grateful Dead.

with The Grateful Dead in its simple form is found in only three variants, all of them literary, it will perhaps be best to discuss the relationship of the main to the minor theme at this point.

The Two Friends is the chief motive of Amis and Amiloun, which in its various forms[1] is the mediaeval epic of ideal friendship. Its essential feature, as far as the present study is concerned, is the sacrifice of his two sons by Amis to cure the leprosy of Amiloun. They are actually slain, but are miraculously brought to life again by the power of God. This story, which exercised a powerful influence on the imagination of European peoples, easily became connected with the sacrifice of his wife by the hero of The Grateful Dead.

The three variants with the simple compound, or forming a group on that basis, are those entered in the bibliography as Lope de Vega, Calderon, and Oliver.

The plot of Oliver runs as follows[2]: Oliver, the son of the King of Castille, becomes the close friend of Arthur of Algarbe, the son of his stepmother. When he has grown up, he flees from home because of the love which the queen declares for him, leaving to Arthur a vial in which the water would grow dark, were he to come into danger. He is shipwrecked while on his way to Constantinople, but, together with another knight, is saved miraculously by a stag, which carries them to England. Talbot, the other knight, is ill, and asks Oliver to take him to his home at Canterbury, where he dies. Because of debts that his parents will not pay he cannot be buried in consecrated ground till Oliver him-

  1. See Amis et Amiles und Jourdains de Blaivies, ed. K. Hofmann, 2nd ed. 1882; Amis und Amiloun zugleich mit der altfranzösischen Quelle, ed. E. Kolbing, 1884, with the comprehensive discussion of versions in the introduction; also Kolbing, "Zur Ueberlieferung der Sage von Amicus und Amelius," in Paul und Braune's Beitrdge iv. 271-314; etc.
  2. Hippe's analysis, p. 156, is different from mine, and is taken from a less trustworthy source. I use the summary of the Ghent text.