Not, of course, that the antiquity of the Reynard story itself[138] does not mount far higher than the thirteenth century. No two things are more remarkable as results of that comparative and simultaneous study of literature, to which this series hopes to give some little assistance, than the way in which, on the one hand, a hundred years seem to be in the Middle Ages but a day, in the growth of certain kinds, and on the other a day sometimes appears to do the work of a hundred years. We have seen how in the last two or three decades of the twelfth century the great Arthurian legend seems suddenly to fill the whole literary scene, after being previously but a meagre chronicler's record or invention. The growth of the Reynard story, though to some extent contemporaneous, was slower; but it was really the older of the two. Before the middle of this century, as we have seen, there was really no Arthurian story worthy the name; it would seem that by that time the Reynard legend had already taken not full but definite form in Latin, and there is no reasonable reason for scepticism as to its existence in vernacular tradition, though perhaps not in vernacular writing, for many years, perhaps for more than one century, earlier. [Footnote 138: _Roman du_ (should be _de_) _Renart_: ed. Meon and Chabaille, 5 vols., Paris, 1826-35; ed. Martin, 3 vols. text and 1 critical observations, Strasburg, 1882-87. _Reincke de Vos_, ed. Prien, Halle, 1887, with a valuable bibliography. _Reinaert_, ed. Martin, Paderborn, 1874. _Reinardus Vulpes_, ed. Mone, Stuttgart, 1834. _Reinhart Fuchs_, ed. Grimm, Berlin, 1832. On the _story_ there is perhaps nothing better than Carlyle, as quoted _supra_.] [Sidenote: _Order of texts._]