III.
182:1 Cf. my Quest of the Holy Grail, pp. 110 et seq.
182:2 Cf. Tristan (Bédier's ed.), Vol. I. l. 2120.
183:1 A critic of my Quest volume remarks that "we have as little faith in Wauchier's appeal to a Welshman Bleheris as source for his continuation of Chrétien's 'Perceval' as we have in Layamon's similar appeal to Bede and St Austin at the beginning of the 'Brut.'" The remark seems to me singularly inept, there is no parallel between the cases. In the first place Layamon does not refer to Bede and St Austin as source, but as models, a very different thing. Then the statement is discredited by the fact that we possess the writings of these men, and know them to be of another character than Metrical Chronicles. In the case of Wauchier his reference does not stand alone; it is one of a group, and that group marked by an extraordinary unanimity of statement; whoever Bleheris may have been he was certainly possessed of two definite qualifications--he knew a vast number of tales, and he possessed a remarkable gift of narration, i.e., he was a story-teller, par excellence. Thus he was, a priori, a probable source for that section of Wauchier's work which is attributed to him, a section consisting of short, picturesque, and p. 184 mutually independent tales, which formed part of a popular collection. It is misleading to speak as if Wauchier refers to him as general source for his Perceval continuation; the references are clearly marked and refer to Gawain tales. Apart from the fact that Wauchier's reference does not stand alone we have independent evidence of the actual existence of such a group of tales, in our surviving Gawain poems, certain of which, such as Kay and the Spit, and Golagros and Gawayne are versions of the stories given by Wauchier, while the author of the Elucidation was also familiar with the same collection. If evidence for the identity of Bleheris is incomplete, that for his existence appears to be incontrovertible. Would it not be more honest if such a would-be critic as the writer referred to said, 'I do not choose to believe in the existence of Bleheris, because it runs counter to my pre-conceived theory of the evolution of the literature'? We should then know where we are. Such a parallel as that cited above has no value for those familiar with the literature but may easily mislead the general reader. I would also draw attention to the fact noted in the text--the extreme improbability of Wauchier, a continental writer, inventing an insular and Welsh source. This is a point critics carefully evade.
184:1 Cf. Bledhericus de Cornouailles, note contributed by M. Ferd. Lot, to Romania, Vol. XXVIII. p. 336. M. Lot remarks that he has not met with the name in Armorica; it thus appears to be insular.
185:1 Cf. Revue Celtique, 1911, A note on the identification of Bleheris.
186:1 Ed. Rhys-Evans, Vol. II. p. 297; cf. also Revue Celtique.
188:1 In the course of 1915-16 I received letters from Mr Rogers Rees, resident at Stepaside, Pembrokeshire, who informed me that he held definite proof of the connection of Bledri with both Grail and Perceval legends. The locality had been part of Bledri's estate, and the house in which he lived was built on the site of what had been Bledri's castle. Mr Rogers Rees maintained the existence of a living tradition connecting Bledri with the legends in question. At his request I sent him the list of the names of the brothers of Alain li Gros, as given in the 1516 edition of the Perlesvaus, a copy of which is in the Bibliothèque Nationale, and received in return a letter stating that the list must have been compiled by one familiar with the district. Unfortunately, for a year, from the autumn of 1916, I was debarred from work, and when, on resuming my studies, I wrote to my correspondent asking for the promised evidence I obtained no answer to my repeated appeal. On communicating with Mr Owen I found he had had precisely the same experience, and, for his part, was extremely sceptical as to there being any genuine foundation for our correspondent's assertions. While it is thus 