At any rate, if we applied M. Bédier's method to folklore itself it would be tolerably easy to prove that oral tradition was a myth and an impossibility. Take, for example, the invaluable volume of variants of "Cinderella," collected by Miss Roalfe Cox. The "general idea" of the story is expressed by her in her Analyses, by incidents printed in thick Clarendon type. I doubt whether in more than a dozen cases M. Bédier could show identity in the incidents expressed in ordinary type, or, in other words, the accessory details. According to his method, therefore, all these variants are unconnected and independent, which, to most people, would seem a reductio ad absurdum of it. If he applied it to folklore he would be there quite the casualist.
To my mind, M. Bédier's book proves the exact opposite to what he wants it to prove. I have been surprised to find how frequently his erudition has discovered oriental parallels to the themes of the Fabliaux. In his remarkable Second Appendix, containing his comparative notes on them, he has given, and in some cases discussed, the parallels to some ninety Fabliaux. Of these no less than thirty-five have resemblances to oriental stories of the same class. Does M. Bédier think that these resemblances are due to chance? Then here again he is quite the casualist. On pp. 140-41 he gives a list of the Fabliaux, which are also found in Von der Hagen's Gesammtabenteuer. These number twenty-two, of which at least eleven are shown by his Second Appendix to have oriental analogues. Does M. Bédier think that this happens quite by chance? Then here again he is quite the casualist. Further and finally, has M. Bédier observed how frequently, in the second part of his work, where he treats of the literary qualities of the Fabliaux, he draws his illustration from just those which have oriental analogues. Does he think that this also happens by chance? Then I must again give him the name at which he was so much surprised.
No, M. Bédier has not proved his negative. Literary tests of folklore tradition were foredoomed to failure. On the other hand, I do not flatter myself that these casual remarks of mine will convince him, or those who have received his arguments with acclamation in this country, of the negative of his negative. To do that it would be necessary to go through each of his examples at even greater length than he has done; and I have neither time nor space at my disposal for this rather complicated piece of work,
