[62] Hucher’s argument from v. 2817 (supra [p. 106]) that the poem knew of the Grand St. Graal is, however, not met.
[63] Vide [p. 200], for Birch-Hirschfeld’s summary comparison of the two works, and cf. infra [p. 127].
[64] Cf. infra [p. 128], for a criticism of this statement.
[65] Opera V. 410: Unde et vir ille eloquio clarus W. Mapus, Oxoniensis archidiaconus (cujus animae propitietur Deus) solita verborum facetia et urbanitate praecipua dicere pluris et nos in hunc modum convenire solebat: “Multa, Magister Geralde, scripsistis et multum adhue scribitis, et nos multa diximus. Vos scripta dedistis et nos verba.”
[66] Printed in full, Hucher, I. 156, etc.
[67] Printed by Hucher, I. p. 35, etc.
[68] The remainder of Birch-Hirschfeld’s work is devoted to proving that Chrestien was the only source of Wolfram von Eschenbach, the latter’s Kiot being imagined by him to justify his departure from Chrestien’s version; departures occasioned by his dissatisfaction with the French poet’s treatment of the subject on its moral and spiritual side. This element in the Grail problem will be found briefly dealt with, Appendix A.
[69] I have not thought it necessary, or even advisable, to notice what the “Encyclopædia Britannica” (Part XLI, pp. 34, 35) and some other English “authorities” say about the Grail legends.
[70] They are brought together by Hucher, vol. i, p. 383, etc.
[71] In the preface to the second volume of his edition of Chrestien’s works (Halle, 1887), W. Förster distinguishes Peredur from the Lady of the Fountain and from Geraint, which he looks upon as simple copies of Chrestien’s poems dealing with the same subjects. Peredur has, he thinks, some Welsh features.