Page:The Grateful Dead.djvu/172

156 on the part of the European story-tellers should not be forgotten. To argue that the suggestion of adapting The Spendthrift Knight was due to a conscious or unconscious recollection of the Apocrypha would be laying too much stress upon what can at best be nothing more than conjecture, but there can be no harm in the surmise that such may have been the case.

The matter of the division of his child or children by the hero to fulfil the bargain made with his helper must next be discussed. This occurs in twenty-five of the variants which we have considered, namely: Lithuanian II., Transylvanian, Lope de Vega, Oliver, Jean de Calais I.-X., Basque II., Gaelic, Irish I, Breton I., III, and VII., Simrock I, II., and VIII., Sir Amadas, and Factor's Garland. With reference to one group where the trait appears I have already spoken at some length of The Two Friends, and I have referred to the introduction of the children as they have appeared in scattered variants. I now wish to call the reader's attention to the general aspects of the question. What relation has the use of this trait in versions of The Grateful Dead to the theme which I call The Two Friends?

It must first be noted that the motive as it appears in Amis and Amiloun requires that the hero slay his children for the healing of his foster-brother and sworn friend. Now of the twenty-five variants of The Grateful Dead just named only Oliver and Lope de Vega have this factor,—the others merely state that the helper asked the hero to fulfil his bargain by giving up his only child, or giving up one of his two children, or dividing his only child, or dividing his three children.