recognises that two great authorities like Mr. Frazer and Mr. Hartland, each in their own line of study, practically bring their respective studies to a converging point, the time has come to lay stress upon the fact as an argument for the interpretation they give to folk-lore.
Before passing away from Mr. Hartland's subject, I want to add one word on the detail of the legend itself I am perfectly aware that in this I am adding not one syllable to Mr. Hartland's knowledge; and, as he is present, I most heartily apologise for my intrusion into his preserves. But my reason for thus poaching is, that I quite well remember, during the discussion that took place on this paper, great and very proper stress was laid upon the absence of the Peeping Tom incident in the earliest versions of the story. This was held to be an argument against Mr. Hartland's views. Well, I am of a different opinion. I believe it helps Mr. Hartland's views, and, in my own way, I put the case as follows.
It will be remembered that Mr. Hartland pointed out that the earliest form of this legend appears in the thirteenth-century chronicle of Roger of Wendover, and that an undoubted parallel to the Coventry ceremony is recorded at St. Briavel's, in Somersetshire. Here, then, we have as starting points—
Mr. Hartland rightly considers the record of Roger of Wendover as one of those pleasing accidents which shows that our early chroniclers were sometimes ready to note folk-lore, and he does not suggest that the literary record started the legend. The fact of it obtaining in two places, in two different counties, is to me of great importance for the interpretation of the story. But it is to be observed
