The explanation of so curious a fact, for it is a fact, and not a mere hypothesis, may, it was suggested, most probably be found in the theory that in this fascinating literature we have the, sometimes partially understood, sometimes wholly misinterpreted, record of a ritual, originally presumed to exercise a life-giving potency, which, at one time of universal observance, has, even in its decay, shown itself possessed of elements of the most persistent vitality. That if the ritual, which according to our theory lies at the root of the Grail story, be indeed the ritual of a Life Cult, it should, _in_ and _per se_, possess precisely these characteristics, will, I think, be admitted by any fair-minded critic; the point of course is, can we definitely _prove_ our theory, _i.e._, not merely point to striking parallels, but select, from the figures and incidents composing our story, some one element, which, by showing itself capable of explanation on this theory, and on this theory alone, may be held to afford decisive proof of the soundness of our hypothesis? It seems to me that there is one such element in the bewildering complex, by which the theory can be thus definitely tested, that is the personality of the central figure and the title by which he is known. If we can prove that the Fisher King, _qua_ Fisher King, is an integral part of the ritual, and can be satisfactorily explained alike by its intention, and inherent symbolism, we shall, I think, have taken the final step which will establish our theory upon a sure basis. On the other hand, if the Fisher King, _qua_ Fisher King, does not fit into our framework we shall be forced to conclude that, while the _provenance_ of certain elements of the Grail literature is practically assured, the _ensemble_ has been complicated by the introduction of a terminology, which, whether the outcome of serious intention, or of mere literary caprice, was foreign to the original source, and so far, defies explanation. In this latter case our theory would not necessarily be _manqué_, but would certainly be seriously incomplete. We have already seen that the personality of the King, the nature of the disability under which he is suffering, and the reflex effect exercised upon his folk and his land, correspond, in a most striking manner, to the intimate relation at one time held to exist between the ruler and his land; a relation mainly dependent upon the identification of the King with the Divine principle of Life and Fertility. This relation, as we have seen above, exists to-day among certain African tribes. If we examine more closely into the existing variants of our romances, we shall find that those very variants are not only thoroughly _dans le cadre_ of our proposed solution, but also afford a valuable, and hitherto unsuspected, indication of the relative priority of the versions.