Now how are all these points of contact to be explained? Scholars are agreed in placing the date of Ulrich's poem in the opening years of the thirteenth century, therefore anterior to the _Parzival_. Did Wolfram borrow from Ulrich? If it were a mere question of a name here and there we might think so, but the points of contact amount to more than this. We have the characteristics of Perceval postulated of Lancelot; we have correspondence in details, even verbal identity; further, the prose _Lancelot_, as we shall see, presents other points of contact with Wolfram's poem in details where he differs notably from Chrétien. It is not probable that Wolfram, who never alludes to any adventures related in the _Lanzelet_, and to all appearance knows nothing of the hero save the _Charrette_ adventure, should have borrowed from two such widely different versions of his story. The fact that where Lancelot appears to have borrowed from the _Perceval_ legend, the borrowed matter is marked by characteristics special to one version of the story is, to say the least, curious. If the _Lanzelet_ _really_ preceded the _Parzival_--a philological question upon which I am not qualified to pronounce an opinion--and Ulrich, as is generally supposed, closely followed his source, only one conclusion seems possible, _i.e._ that that source knew, and quoted, the poem of Kiot. It is significant that in the mention of Gurnemanz he is spoken of as _den fürsten wîs_, which shows that to the writer he was not a mere name, but a well-known character, distinguished by the qualities which mark him in the _Parzival_. My own impression is, however, that Ulrich knew Wolfram's poem, or at least part of it (between the _Lanzelet_ and the last three books of the _Parzival_ there do not appear to be any points of contact). There are numberless small coincidences in language and phrase, trifling in themselves, but which as a whole seem to argue a familiarity with the words of the _Parzival_. Such a correspondence is more likely on the part of Ulrich than on that of Wolfram, who by his own confession could not read or write, and must have become orally familiar with his source. But it is quite clear that a critical comparison of the two works is urgently needed, both in the interests of Arthurian tradition and of German literature. The popular impression, _i.e._ that Wolfram merely borrowed a few names from the _Lanzelet_, will not stand the test of investigation. Two conclusions alone are open, from which we must make our choice: either to admit the existence, beyond any doubt, of the French poem, other than Chrétien's, which Wolfram declared to be his source;[33] or to place the date of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven some few years later than that usually assigned to him. We await the aid of some one of the many competent scholars Germany possesses to solve this puzzle for us. CHAPTER III LANCELOT ET LE CERF AU PIED BLANC