Laubfrosch, combining the two first, and Horse.  Cf.  Mannhardt, Mythol.  Forsch. pp. 142-43; Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 408 et seq.; also, pp. 443-44.  Sir W. Ridgeway (op. cit. p. 156) refers slightingly to this interpretation of a ’harmless little hymn’—­doubless the poem is harmless; until Prof. von Schroeder pointed out its close affinity with the Fertility processions it was also meaningless. [13] Op. cit.  Chap. 17, p. 253. [14] Cf.  Folk-Lore, Vol.  XV. p. 374. [15] Op. cit.  Vol.  V. The Dying God, pp. 17 et seq. [16] See Dr Seligmann’s study, The Cult of Nyakang and the Divine Kings of the Shilluk in the Fourth Report of the Wellcome Research Laboratories, Kkartum, 1911, Vol.  B. [17] Cf.  Address on reception into the Academy when M. Paris succeeded to Pasteur’s fauteuil.

CHAPTER VI

[1] Op. cit.  Vol.  I. p. 94. [2] The Legend of Longinus, R. J. Peebles (Bryn Mawr College monographs, Vol.  IX.). [3] I discussed this point with Miss Lucy Broadwood, Secretary of the Folk-Song Society, who has made sketches of these Crosses, and she entirely agrees with me.  In my Quest of the Holy Grail, pp. 54 et seq., I have pointed out the absolute dearth of ecclesiastical tradition with regard to the story of Joseph and the Grail. [4] Cf.  Littaturzeitung, XXIV. (1903), p. 2821. [5] Cf.  The Bleeding Lance, A. C. L. Brown. [6] Cf.  Brown, op. cit. p. 35; also A. Nutt, Studies in the Legend of the Holy Grail, p. 184. [7] Cf.  Brown, Notes on Celtic Cauldrons of Plenty, p. 237. [8] Cf.  Queste, Malory, Book XIII.  Chap. 7, where the effect is the same. [9] Cf.  Germanische Elben und Götter beim Estenvolker, L. von Schroeder (Wien, 1906). [10] I suggested this point in corrspondence with Dr Brugger, who agreed with me that it was worth working out. [11] Before leaving the discussion of Professor Brown’s theory, I would draw attention to a serious error made by the author of The Legend of Longinus.  On p. 191, she blames Professor Brown for postulating the destructive qualities of the Lance, on the strength of ‘an unsupported passage’ in the ‘Mons’ Ms., whereas the Montpellier text says that the Lance shall bring peace.  Unfortunately, it is this latter version which is unsupported, all the MSS., without even excepting B.N. 1429, which as a rule agrees with Montpellier, give the ‘destructive’ version. [12] Cf.  Dulaure, Des Divinités Génératrices, p. 77.  Also additional chapter to last edition by Van Gennep, p. 333; L. von Schroeder, Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 279-80, for symbolic use of the Spear.  McCulloch, Religion of the Celts, p. 302, suggests that it is not impossible that the cauldron==Hindu yoni, which of course would bring it into line with the above suggested meaning of the Grail.  I think however that the real significance of the cauldron is that previously indicated. [13] It is interesting to note that this relative position of Lance and Grail lingers on in late and fully Christianized versions;