ated form, at least, deals with water which cures, revivifies, or revitalizes. The two have been frequently confused, not only in popular tradition of all ages, but in critical writings of contemporary date as well. It is the great merit of Professor Hopkins' article, to which reference has been made, that their essential difference in origin and character is clearly marked. Though he makes no pretence that his study of The Fountain of Youth is definitive, he has broken ground which sadly needed the plough, and incidentally has thrown light upon The Water of Life.
The myth which is properly known by this name is intimately connected in origin and development with that of The Tree of Life[1] which finds expression in the legends of the Cross. In the words of Dr. Wünsche:[2] "Wie wir aus den kosmogonischen und theogonischen Mythen und Sagen der Völker das Rauschen des Lebensbaumes vernehmen, durch dessen Früchte sich Götter und Menschen ihre ungeschwächte Lebenskraft und ewige Jugendfrische erhalten, so nicht minder das Sprudeln einer Quelle des Lebenswassers, die Leben schafft und zu Ende gehendes oder bereits erloschenes Leben wieder zu neuem Sein erweckt." Both myths are Semitic, and both have profoundly influenced Christian doctrine. It is with the "water of life," however, that we are immediately concerned, and with that only as it has found embodiment in a widely disseminated and variously modified tale. Whence this märchen came we must presently inquire, in order to reach some conclusion as to the point in space and time where it joined The Grateful Dead, but we must first fix its essential traits.
Owing to the complex variations which the tale
