upon which they rely are, in each case, undeniably present, yet at the
same time each line of argument is faced with certain insuperable
difficulties, fatal to the claims advanced.

Thus, the theory of Christian origin breaks down when faced with the
awkward fact that there is no Christian legend concerning Joseph of
Arimathea and the Grail. Neither in Legendary, nor in Art, is there
any trace of the story; it has no existence outside the Grail
literature, it is the creation of romance, and no genuine tradition.

On this very ground it was severely criticized by the Dutch writer
Jacob van Maerlant, in 1260. In his Merlin he denounces the whole
Grail history as lies, asserting that the Church knows nothing of
it--which is true.

In the same way the advocate of a Folk-lore origin is met with the
objection that the section of the cycle for which such a source can be
definitely proved, i.e., the Perceval story, has originally nothing
whatever to do with the Grail; and that, while parallels can be found
for this or that feature of the legend, such parallels are isolated in
character and involve the breaking up of the tale into a composite of
mutually independent themes. A prototype, containing the main
features of the Grail story--the Waste Land, the Fisher King, the
Hidden Castle with its solemn Feast, and mysterious Feeding Vessel,
the Bleeding Lance and Cup--does not, so far as we know, exist. None
of the great collections of Folk-tales, due to the industry of a
Cosquin, a Hartland, or a Campbell, has preserved specimens of such a
type; it is not such a story as, e.g., The Three Days Tournament,
examples of which are found all over the world. Yet neither the
advocate of a Christian origin, nor the Folk-lorist, can afford to