that the romance in the form in which it reached him was already at a
stage in which Perceval could not, without violence to the then existing
conception of his character, be considered as the father, or the
brother, of Morien. To reconstruct the original story it would be
necessary not merely to eliminate all mention of Agloval, as suggested
by M. Gaston Paris, but the Grail references would also require
modification. As it stands, the poem is a curious mixture of conflicting
traditions.

In this connection it appears to me that the evidence of the _Parzival_
is of primary importance; the circumstances attending the birth of
Feirefis are exactly parallel with those of Morien--in both a Christian
knight wins the love of a Moorish princess; in both he leaves her before
the birth of her son, in the one case with a direct, in the other with
a conditional, promise to return, which promise is in neither instance
kept; in both the lad, when grown to manhood, sets out to seek his
father; in both he apparently makes a practice of fighting with every
one whom he meets; in the one version he is brother, in the other son or
nephew, to Perceval. The points of difference are that whereas Morien is
black all over, save his teeth, Feirefis is parti-coloured, black and
white--a curious conception, which seems to point to an earlier
stage of thought; Morien is a Christian, Feirefis a heathen--the more
probable version.

It is easy to understand why the hero ceased to be considered Perceval's
son--the opening lines of the poem describe the situation perfectly; but
I do not think it has been sufficiently realised that precisely the same
causes which would operate to the suppression of this relationship would
equally operate to the suppression of that of the _Parzival_. Perceval,
the virgin winner of the Grail, could not have a _liaison_ with a