Scholars have long made an earnest search for analogues to The Dream of the Rood, but the very remoteness of the parallels thus afforded so far is a unique testimony to the high degree of originality in the poem. Closer in some ways than any of them, in that it gives us a dialogue with the cross, the “Disputation between Mary and the Cross” might have been cited; but here again comparison shows that the Dream is a poem standing apart in the unusually fine quality of its inspiration and in its genuine feeling. The poet seems to have had little to work on for a basis, either as a source or as a guide. Yet we know that he was deeply religious and we can be sure that he must have been thoroughly acquainted with those parts of the ecclesiastical service which were devoted to the celebration of the cross. In writing such a poem he could hardly rid his mind of all the echoes of the hymns and responsive utterances and the liturgical offices which he was accustomed to hear at various times during the church year.

In any serious consideration of Poe's life and character it will be necessary to take account of Griswold's estimate of the poet. This estimate was set forth in two articles published during the year following Poe's death—one, an obituary notice published in the New York Tribune of October 9, 1849; the other, the memoir of Poe included by Griswold in his edition of Poe's works and first published in September, 1850. Out of these two papers sprang the bitterest of all the controversies that have been waged about Poe. Most of Poe's editors and biographers of the present generation have ranged themselves on the side of Poe and have condemned Griswold; but there have been some—and among them some that may speak with the highest authority—who have held that Griswold's estimate of Poe is essentially just and fair. The present paper attempts a fresh examination of the case in the light of the evidence collected by Poe's biographers, and also brings to bear on the case a number of documents, mainly from the periodicals of Griswold's time, that have heretofore been either overlooked or ignored.

For purposes of discussion it is convenient to divide the literary productions of Pereda into two classes; from 1859 until about 1876 he was occupied chiefly with short sketches known as cuadros de costumbres; from 1877 until the virtual close of his career as an author, in 1895 his attention was centered upon novels. Long sketches that approach the dignity of novels appeared before 1877, and Pereda never ceased entirely the composition of short pieces. The distinction just made, however, is roughly true.

Whenever Herbert Spencer mentioned the origin of his works, he always insisted upon the freedom of his thought from the influence of others. This claim, though attacked in the case of several of his writings, has remained unquestioned as regards The Philosophy of Style. Indeed, so unusual has this essay appeared to all readers that, with the recognition that it possesses much originality, has gone, apparently, the conviction that it was made by Spencer from whole cloth. Thus much Spencer himself did not claim; yet perhaps even Spencer—always a little blind to the influences upon his work—would not have recognized the extent of his indebtedness.

The range of subject-matter treated in the German drama of the sixteenth century will appear wide and varied only to the scholar who does not think of the vast expanse of the Biblical field as featureless and barren. Beyond the confines of the Bible-drama there are, of course, some religious battle-plays, of the Pammachius type, the morality-plays of the Homulus-Hekastus series, a few dramas built on classical material, sundry “Türkenschauspiele,” some scattered romantic comedies, drawing on foreign or native legend and, exceptionally, plays from contemporary history; the Latin school-drama often mirrors delightfully the color and bustle of everyday life; but, in the end, all this is of secondary interest: and the fact must be recognized that sixteenth-century drama stands in the sign of the Book. It might be fairly said that there is hardly a chapter in the Bible which was not adapted for dramatic use or, at least, dragged upon the stage. As one reads the titles, the conclusion, as Froning remarks, almost inevitably presents itself: either the dramatists of those times must have possessed an extraordinary faculty of dramatic adaptation, or else they had no inkling of the demands of stage-craft.

In actual practice the English broadside ballad did not exist before the introduction of printing; but it is not accurate to assert that “street ballads begin about 1540,” or even to call Skelton's ballad on Flodden Field (1513)—said to be the earliest printed street ballad extant—the beginning of the genre. Undoubtedly the ballad had begun to play an important rôle before 1500, and in its origin runs much farther back, far antedating the art of printing. To all intents the street ballad was matured as early as 1500; while satirical poems, invectives, lamentations, and short jocular and religious stanzas of a still earlier period have many of the features that characterize printed broadside ballads and unquestionably prepared the way for them. Early in the fifteenth century, writers of such ballad-poems tried to circulate them on manuscript broadsheets. Naturally, therefore, the advent of printing merely facilitated and increased the production of rimed broadsides, until, in the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, they came to be the chief publications of the London press and the works most dear to the common people.

Mr. Bateson's numerous notes on the Middle English Clannesse (Mod. Lang. Rev., xiii, pp. 377–86) renew interest in that curious, though often tantalizing poem. Worthy of acceptance, it seems to me, are those on lines 3, 30, 54, 222, 341, 379, 411, 449, 553, 630, 1048, 1261, 1483, 1566, 1735, a considerable list. About as many others are equally good, but have been proposed before. For example, the New Eng. Dict. has anticipated Mr. Bateson in his suggestions for lines 148, 214, 887, 1038, 1469, while the Cent. Dict. had preceded the NED in the note on line 1514. Besides, the NED seems to be misquoted on (1153) and penitotes (1472). The former is certainly given under tight, v. 2, with this passage among others. Nor have I found where the NED reads ryther for ryth of 1543.

I should like to make the following corrections in the text of the Revelations of Methodius printed in the Publications of the Modern Language Association, XXXIII, pp. 156 ff. The errors are due in some instances to oversight in the proof-reading, in others to original misreading of the ms. For their detection I am indebted to J. P. Gilson, Esq., Keeper of the Manuscripts in the British Museum, to whom I wish here to express my sincere thanks.

The more recent discussions of the dramatic manifestations within the liturgy of Easter-tide have given fair consideration to a type of play,—Peregrinus,—centering in a dramatization of the appearence of Christ to the two disciples at Emmaus, as recounted in the Gospel of Luke. Although the importance of this post-Resurrection play has been sufficiently evident, the limited number of the extant texts has suggested that it was closely restricted in its distribution and development. Recent researches, however, have given promise of substantial future additions to this branch of knowledge. Since the date of the last comprehensive surveys of the subject, one complete new text has been discovered, together with a mutilated fragment of another text. The purpose of the present article is the communication of an additional version, considerably more extended in dramatic content than any of the versions published hitherto.

In what purports to be a definitive life of the poet Young, H. C. Shelley remarks that the question of the identity of Philander, Lucia, and Narcissa, raised by the peculiar chronology of their deaths, as recorded in the Night Thoughts, forms “the most puzzling problem of Young's biography.” Part of the problem had already been solved by M. Walter Thomas, to whom Sir Leslie Stephen refers at the close of his article on Young in the D. N. B., an article referred to by Mr. Shelley himself. M. Thomas shows pretty conclusively that Philander was no other than Thomas Tickell, the lifelong intimate friend of Young, whose death occurred suddenly at Bath on April 23, 1740. Lucia was the poet's wife, the “poor Lady Betty Lee” of Mrs. Pendarves's letter, who was left “with three children to maintain and not a farthing to support her.” The identity of Narcissa, however (which Mr. Shelley makes no attempt to solve), offers greater difficulty. Professor Thomas suggests that she may have been an illegitimate daughter “reconnue par le père, acceptée par sa femme, mais désavouée par le moraliste. Peut-être,” he continues, “encore l'enfant est-elle née trop tôt, Young ayant anticipé en quelque sort sur les droits du mariage.”