‘An achievement of profound erudition and masterly argument, and may be hailed as redeeming English scholarship from a long-standing reproach.’--_The Scots Observer._ =Celtic Myth and Saga.= Report upon the Literature connected with this subject. 1887–1 888. (_Archæological Review_, October, 1888.) 2s. 6d. =The Buddha’s Alms-Dish and the Legend of the Holy Grail.= (_Archæological Review_, June, 1889). 2s. 6d. =Celtic Myth and Saga.= Report upon the Literature connected with these subjects, 1888–1 890. (_Folk Lore_, June, 1890). 3s. 6d. =Report upon the Campbell of Islay MSS.= in the Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh. (_Folk-Lore_, September, 1890). 3s. 6d. =Review of Hennessey’s Edition of Mesca Ulad.= (_Archæological Review_, May, 1889.) 2s. 6d. =Critical Notes on the Folk and Hero Tales of the Celts.= (_Celtic Magazine_, August to October, 1887). 5s. =Celtic Myth and Saga.= Report upon the Literature connected with these subjects. 1891–9 2. (_Folk-Lore_, 1891). 3s. 6d. Transcriber’s Note In this file, text in _italics_ is indicated by underscores, and text in =bold= by equals signs. Obvious printer’s errors have been silently corrected; as far as possible, however, original spelling and formatting have been retained. No corrections have been made to any Gaelic text as printed, with the sole exception of the third occurence of “Fire fire nì mi umad” on page 145, which had been misprinted. In the printed book, an unnumbered page containing an editor’s note was inserted between pages 34 and 35. In this file, the note has been indented, given the subheading “Editor’s Note”, and moved directly after the paragraph to which it seems to refer, on page 35. Footnotes were presented inconsistently in the printed book, sometimes appearing at the bottom of the page and sometimes at the ends of sections. In this book, all notes have been standardised and moved to the end of the relevant section, sometimes alongside a “Notes” section which was already present.