Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 3, 1892.djvu/426

418 tionary. They presuppose that in a vast body of literature the oldest existing text really belongs to almost the latest stage of development; that the later texts, although unnoticed anywhere, must really have existed in some form long previously; and that in the twelfth century a purely Christian subject was almost entirely de-Christianised, precisely in the actual oldest but hypothetically youngest text, whilst the later ones, hitherto regarded as later in origin as well as in date of composition, show a steadily increasing Christian element.

I cannot criticise these views in detail. An indispensable preliminary is a methodical re-examination of the entire Grail literature, and the testing of every point urged by Prof Heinzel. Until I have been able to do this I prefer simply to direct the attention of all students to his work. I may, however, note one or two points. Prof Heinzel confines himself to the French romances; neither the Peredur, nor the English Sir Perceval, nor Wolfram's version is examined with any thoroughness. Yet it is precisely from these outside versions that light is, I believe, to be obtained respecting the early form of the legend. Prof Heinzel confirms indirectly, but in the strongest way, my contention that the Early History of the Grail, being as it is a conversion of Britain legend, is essentially a British product. Though we only possess it in a French dress, it must have originated and been developed in Britain.

Turn we now to Prof Rhys's Grail studies. I had busied myself exclusively with establishing the Celtic nature of the Perceval portion of the legend, deeming, as I did, the Galahad portion to be derived and secondary.