As to the conclusion to be drawn from the proper names which occur in such profusion throughout the poem, this question has been so fully treated by Bartsch (cf. vol. i. Appendix B) that it would be superfluous to discuss it here; and the correspondence between the Titurel poems and the Parzival, which argues a common source for both, has also been adequately discussed, but the addition of the arguments to be derived from the correspondence existing between Wolfram's Angevin allusions and the facts of Angevin history, seems to put it beyond doubt that there is a strong body of evidence in support of Wolfram's own statement that he had a French source other than Chrêtien de Troyes; and, if we admit that he spoke the truth so far, it seems only logical to believe that he was also speaking the truth when he gave the name of the author of his source as '_Kiot the Provençal_.' EXCURSUS B RELATION OF WOLFRAM TO CHRÊTIEN In explanation of the striking agreement which exists between the _Parzival_ of Wolfram von Eschenbach and that part of _Li Conte del Graal_ which we owe to Chrêtien de Troyes, three solutions may be suggested: (_a_) That Chrêtien was the source of Wolfram; (_b_) That Chrêtien and Wolfram both drew from a common source, that source, if Wolfram is to be believed, being Kiot; (_c_) That Chrêtien, who wrote before Wolfram, drew from a source anterior to Wolfram, which source was also used by Kiot. For reasons already stated we may dismiss (_a_) without further argument, and accept Wolfram's statement as to the existence of a French poem other than Chrêtien's; but the question as to the relationship existing between these two poems, whether the one was directly the source of the other (as Wolfram seems to have supposed), or whether both represent a common source, requires to be carefully examined.