Now Prof. Heinzel's work is revolutionary. To make this plain I must hark back a little. In common with all previous investigators I recognised two main sections of the Grail story, one dealing with its early history in the East and with its passage to Britain, the other with its Quest. Of the Quest I distinguished two forms, one having Perceval, the other Galahad for its hero. I urged that the Quest section is the older of the two, and of the Quest section the Perceval form. For me Crestien's portion of the Conte del Graal was not only the oldest existing text of the whole cycle, but the oldest French version of any part of it. For me the Galahad forms of the Quest were not only younger than, but arose directly out of the Perceval ones. Such criticism as I received—e.g., from M. Muretin Mélusine—was for having attached so much importance as I did to the Galahad forms, or, e.g., from Dr. Golther, for not having more clearly recognised that Crestien was the fons et origo of all the other Quest forms. What says Prof Heinzel? That the Early History is really the oldest part of the legend which was originally one of the conversion of Britain, that the Quest is an afterthought, that Galahad was the first hero of the Quest, that Crestien's version presupposes a narrative akin to that found in the Queste del St. Graal and in Robert de Borron's Joseph, and that the contamination of the original purely Christian legend with Celtic fairy-tale incidents was probably begun in Crestien's source, and was further carried on by the great French poet.
Having, in common with all other investigators, recognised the Perceval story as the kernel of the Grail legend, I had little difficulty in proving its essentially Celtic nature. Prof Heinzel does not challenge my proof; he merely contends that I deal, not with the real Grail legend, but with late and comparatively speaking unimportant accretions to it.
Results such as these, which conflict with those of all previous investigators, may fairly be described as revolu-
