To this Chrétien himself bears witness. The position claimed for him by certain modern scholars is not that which he claimed for himself; he never professed to be telling a story no one had ever heard before, though he may have flattered himself, not without reason, that he was telling it better than it had ever previously been told. He was dealing with heroes and adventures already well known to his public. The manner in which he introduces, or refers to, incidental characters makes it abundantly clear that he expected his readers to understand his allusions. Especially is this noticeable in the case of Perceval, who has been claimed, with more zeal than discretion, as one of his most famous creations. He alludes to the hero in a manner that makes it quite evident that this story was well known, and the name familiar, to the public, some decades before Chrétien himself undertook to tell it.
As practical results arising from these studies I would claim:
_a_ That we, in future, place the evolution of the _Perceval_ story at a much earlier date than we have hitherto been willing to assign to it.
_b_ That we admit the possibility of very important variations in the tale, some of them being anterior to Chrétien's version.
_c_ That we recognise that this story of Perceval was of capital importance in the general evolution of the Arthurian cycle.
_d_ That in the mutual relations between the _Perceval-Grail_ and _Lancelot_ stories we have the key to the final shaping of the entire cycle.
These principles admitted, and I think the evidence adduced goes far to prove their soundness, it is obvious that in order to establish and appraise the above relations at their full value, we must have complete and critical editions of _all_ the principal texts. As matters stand at present, the only texts which can be said to have been in any sense critically treated are the Didot _Perceval_, and the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach for the older story, and the _Charrette_ for the younger. We have been waiting for years for a critical edition of the _Conte del Graal_, and when we get it will the editor have taken into consideration the various additions to Chrétien's text, and the version of the Dutch compiler, or will it be Chrétien's portion of the poem alone? In that case it will not help us very far. We need sorely a critical edition of the curious _Perceval li Gallois_, with its blending of wild, folk-lore features with late proselytising and allegorising tendency, its baffling parallels to the German _Parzival_.