In offering these remarks on the subject of the Grail origins, I should wish to be understood as seeking, rather than tendering, information. The result of my researches into the Perceval legend has been to cause me to form certain opinions as to the sources of the Grail story, which the exigencies of space, and the character of the Studies as a whole, prevented me from setting forth fully in the published volume. At the same time these conclusions bore so directly on folklore researches that I was strongly impressed with the desirability of bringing them to the attention of trained folklorists, that I might have the advantage of their criticism and judgment in finally formulating my theory. Not that I can claim to be the first to give expression to such views. Long since Simrock, in his translation of the Parzival, and Professor Martin, in his Zur Gralsage Untersuchungen (1880),[2] arrived at very similar conclusions, but at that time the critical material at their disposal was scanty. We lacked the illuminating labours of Mannhardt and his disciple, Dr. J. G. Frazer. We had but one Perceval text, and that an extremely bad one, at our disposal, and in consequence the results obtained, though interesting and stimulating, were hardly convincing.
