then draw our inference also for Wolfram, and for the host of Chrestien's continuators. These also must have had access to some store of similar learning, to be able to tread in his footsteps, and to take up the thread where his dying hand let it fall. A few lays cannot, and could not, suffice for the explanation of the great mass of incidents embodied in these romances.
It must also first be proved how such Celtic tales, if they existed at all, could come to the knowledge of a French poet, living as he did in France, of whose sojourn in England not a trace has been found. One has only to compare the widely different parallels adduced from Celtic lore, to be convinced that Chrestien, or the author of the original which he adopted, must have had a herculean task to perform, to alter and change, to blend and to assimilate, an immense mass of tales, mythical and heroical, and mould them together into one tale, which, after all, does not appear in a coherent form in any of its modern parallels. For it must be borne in mind that such a Celtic tale, containing most of the striking incidents, and older than the time of Chrestien, has not yet been discovered. What we have instead is a number of lays, or other tales, where either the one or the other incident is said to occur, the similarity not being absolutely identical, and in very many cases only the result of skilful interpretation.
If one would follow the same line of argumentation, one could easily adduce parallels to those Celtic lays and tales from various quarters of the globe, which would thus destroy the claim of the Celtic origin. The moment the same incident could be proved to exist elsewhere, we might just as well consider it to have originated there also, and not be limited to Celtic lore alone. We would have then one source more for the supposed origin of the legend: the folk-lore of Europe.
The natural way, however, is to look for one central tale, containing a sufficient number of incidents complete in itself; and round that tale, other minor incidents
