Professor Singer points out that in Eilhart von Oberge’s _Tristan_ we find the name in the form of _Pleherin_ attached to a knight of _Mark’s_ court. The same name in a slightly varied form, _Pfelerin_, occurs in the _Tristan_ of Heinrich von Freiberg; both poems, Professor Singer considers, are derived from a French original. Under a compound form, _Blihos_, (or _Blio_)-_Bliheris_, he appears, in the _Gawain-Grail_ compilation, as a knight at _Arthur’s_ court. Now _Bréri-Blihis-Bleheris_ is referred to as authority alike in the _Tristan_, _Grail_ and _Gawain_ tradition, and Professor Singer makes the interesting suggestion that these references are originally due to Bleheris himself, who not only told the stories in the third person (a common device at that period, _v_. Chrétien’s _Erec_, and Gerbert’s continuation of the _Perceval_), but also introduced himself as eye-witness of, and actor, in a subordinate _rôle_, in, the incidents he recorded. Thus in the Tristan he is a knight of Mark’s, in the _Elucidation_ and the _Gawain_ stories a knight of Arthur’s, court. Professor Singer instances the case of Dares in the _De exidio Trojae_, and Bishop Pilgrim of Passau in the lost _Nibelungias_ of his secretary Konrad, as illustrations of the theory. If this be the case such a statement as that which we find in Wauchier, regarding Bleheris’s birth and origin, would have emanated from Bleheris himself, and simply been taken over by the later writer from his source; he incorporated the whole tale of the shield as it stood, a quite natural and normal proceeding.[14] Again, this suggestion would do away with the necessity for postulating a certain lapse of time before the story-teller Bleheris could be converted into an Arthurian knight—the two _rôles_, _Gewährsmann und Mithandelnden_, as Professor Singer expresses it, are coincident in date. I would also suggest that the double form, _Blihos-Bliheris_, would have been adopted by the author himself, to indicate the identity of the two, Blihis, and Bleheris. It is worthy of note that, when dealing directly with the Grail, he assumes the title of _Master_, which would seem to indicate that here he claimed to speak with special authority. I sent the letter in question to the late Mr Alfred Nutt, who was forcibly struck with the possibilities involved in the suggestion, the full application of which he thought the writer had not grasped. I quote the following passages from the long letter I received from him in return.