1. "Are there two king Arthurs in the Idylls of the King?" By Professor Richard Jones, of Vanderbilt University.

The facts cited above respecting the origin and the composition of the Idylls of the King justify, perhaps, the following reflections:

(1). The poet did at the age of twenty-four have it in mind to write a poem on the Arthurian theme, but he had not at this time any definite plan for the course of the action in his purposed poem. The variety in the published sketches dating from this period preclude the possibility of such a supposition. Indeed, considering the sketch given above, in which Arthur is made to represent the relations of religious faith to various religions and in which the course of the action is to be determined by a conflict between religion and science, it may be questioned whether the young poet had at the age of twenty-four altogether caught the spirit of the Arthurian legend or its meaning.

(2). It is not clear that when the poet wrote the first four Idylls, he had any plan for joining these with the Morte d'Arthur written some twenty-two years earlier. I do not forget the note appended to The Passing of Arthur in 1869, viz.: "This last, the earliest written of the poems, is here connected with the rest in accordance with an early project of the author's.” I simply recall the 'two objections' he made in February 1862 to the suggestion of the Duke of Argyll that the Morte d'Arthur should be joined with the Idylls already published.

(3). The Arthur of the 1859 Idylls was not intended to be taken allegorically.

(4). The Arthur of the 1869 Idylls was intended to be so taken, though not to the extent to which the allegorical interpretations were soon carried. The history of the interpretation of Goethe's Faust as well as of the Idylls of the King compel the reflection that, given an allegory to interpret and a literary critic with a gift for interpretation, there will soon be found hidden 'inner meanings', the subtlety and profundity of which are a revelation and a marvel to the author himself. And so, as Hallam has written, in later years Tennyson often said, "they have taken my hobby, and ridden it too hard, and have explained some things too allegorically, although there is an allegorical or perhaps rather a parabolic drift in the poem.”

(5). Arthur, the brave, generous, human-hearted man of the Idylls published in 1859 should still be thought of as a man when one is reading those early Idylls-notwithstanding some changes made after 1869 in these first Idylls, changes made with the purpose of minimizing the human attributes of him who is now, in 1869, become a type of the conscience, of the higher soul of man. But the poet attempted in later life to minimize the importance of the allegory—as does Hallam also in the Memoir by emphasizing the humanity of "the pure, generous, tender, brave, human-hearted Arthur."

(6). The introduction of allegory into the Idylls was an afterthought, and possibly, a mistake. It is indeed true, as the poet has said, that "there is no single fact or incident in the Idylls, however seemingly mystical, which cannot be explained as without any mystery or allegory whatever." And it may well be that to some readers no explanation is needed, that it does not occur to them that any allegory was intended. But the important consideration to us is not whether some may or may not be able to read the poem throughout (the new Idylls as well as the old) without a thought of allegory anywhere. The important fact to us, engaged in a study of poetic workmanship, is that the poet himself had in mind an allegory when writing the later Idylls and did not have in mind an allegory when writing the first; that in the first he was portraying his ideal knight as God's highest creature here, as a pure, generous, tender, brave, human-hearted man, and that in the second it was in his mind's eye to give as he himself said, "not the history of one man or of one generation but of a whole cycle of generations." The king of the completed poem is thus a composite of two conceptions. The change in the point of view must inevitably have blurred the outlines of the picture. It is impossible that the portrait of our king should now stand out from the canvass so clearly and vividly, so graphic and plastic, as it would have done, had it heen painted under the stimulus of a single, uninterrupted creative impulse. And by investigating the origin of the poem and the poet's method of procedure we are able to point out the place where and the time when the poet's point of view was shifted.

2. "The Elizabethan Sonnet." By Professor C. F. McClumpha, of the University of Minnesota.

In answer to a question by Professor J. T. Hatfield, the writer stated that the sonnet sequence was not usually a conscious one.

3. "Qualities of style as a test of authorship; a criticism of Wolff's Zwei Jugendspiele von Heinrich von Kleist." By Professor J. S. Nollen, of Iowa College, Grinnell, Ia.

The paper opened with a criticism of Wolff's argument from style in his attempt to fix upon Kleist the authorship of two anonymous comedies. Wolff makes a fundamental error in constantly assuming as "spezifisch Kleistisch" or "ganz eigentümlich Kleistisch" what is not at all individually characteristic of Kleist. Taking Kotzebue as an average representative of the style of the period, it was proved by a series of parallels that the very qualities of style which Wolff counts to be peculiar to Kleist are found in Kotzebue even more abundantly, and that in essential qualities the style of the anonymous comedies approximates much more nearly to Kotzebue's than to Kleist's. The same fact appears from a com

parison with Bretzner. It follows that the coincidences Wolff establishes between Kleist's style and that of the two comedies represent simply qualities common to the average drama of the period, and that these coincidences offer not the least presumption in favor of Kleistian authorship. On the other hand, many essential Kleistian qualities of style are not found in the two comedies.

From Wolff's error, which is a typical error in studies of style, the writer proceeded to deduce some general remarks on style as a test of authorship. The study of style, if it is to be scientific, must be exhaustive, and must take account of all the facts. Neither a comparison of selected qualities, nor a comparison between two authors or an anonymous work and one author, has any value as evidence. A critic who is trying to discover the authorship of an anonymous work must know thoroughly the common qualities of style of the period or literary group of which the work evidently is a product. The author who is suspected of responsibility for the work in question must be seen against the background of his period and his school, possibly also of a temporary model, and it will require the most delicate discrimination to distinguish the personal shading he gives to the color of the Zeitgeist that shines through him; it is just this nuance that has value as a test. The critic must also appreciate the relative value of the tests applied. Thus the mere classification of figures of speech under subject-matter (Wolff's test) is almost worthless. More essential are such questions as these: Whether the figures, of whatever content, are original, or commonplace; imaginative and essential, or intellectual, mechanical, external; whether they have emotional significance and are used dramatically, or not. So in the study of vocabulary, little is accomplished by noting (as Wolff does) the quantitative value of the foreign element. It is far more important to note the various sources of the foreign element, its unconscious, conscious, or dramatic use, the agreement or disagreement in selection. Finally, the critic must be more than a scientific investigator. There are emotional and aesthetic values that elude even the most delicate intellectual tests, and that can be determined only by the reaction of sympathetic appreciation, by what Goethe calls "Anempfindung." These remarks, of course, apply not only to the solution of problems of authorship, but to the far more important study of individuality of style in general.

This paper was discussed by Professors A. R. Hohlfeld and F. A. Blackburn.

4. "The Geste de Guillaume at the end of the eleventh century." By Professor Raymond Weeks, of the University of Missouri.

This paper, which will form one section of a series of articles shortly to appear in the Romania, began with an enumeration of the datable passages

mentioning poems belonging to the Geste de Guillaume, such as the poem of Ermoldus Nigellus, and the Liber de miraculis Sancti Jacobi. An attempt was made to show that the geste had reached a considerable development by the middle of the eleventh century, a development, in fact, much more complete than has generally been supposed. In the opinion of the reader, the geste possessed at the close of the eleventh century a more harmoniously rounded ensemble than at any subsequent period. It may perhaps be said that the geste bent and broke under its own weight. In the ruin of its fall, many poems, some of them doubtless of no small merit, were lost. In general, however, the finest passages of the lost epics were preserved in one form or another. This point was insisted on as of importance, and as likely to decrease our regret over the loss of so many poems.

The author instead of reading his paper in full, gave an oral synopsis of its leading points.

On the announcement of the next paper, a motion was made and carried that for the purpose of giving more time for discussion, papers contributed by members not present should not be read in extenso, but that only an outline of them should be given.

5. "The Germanic suffix -ar-ja." By Professor Julius Goebel, of Leland Stanford Jr. University. [Printed in Publications, xv, 321 f.]

This paper was presented, in the author's absence, by Dr. H. B. Almstedt, of the University of Chicago.

The Association then adjourned for luncheon which was served in the Library.

THIRD SESSION, DECEMBER 28.

The Association reassembled at 2.30 p. m.

The President appointed the following committees :

To audit the Treasurer's account: Professors H. A. Vance and C. C. Ferrell.

To nominate officers for the coming year: Professors Charles Bundy Wilson, C. W. Pearson, J. S. Nollen, A. R. Hohlfeld, and W. L. Weber.

The reading of papers was then resumed.

6. "Notes on the Alfredian version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People." By Professor Frederick Klaeber, of the University of Minnesota.

For nearly one hundred and seventy years the Old English Bede had been suffered to remain buried in Smith's unwieldly folio edition of 1722. Even now, when by the new editions of Miller and Schipper the material for research has been placed at the service of students with gratifying completeness, this uncommonly interesting prose text is still far from being adequately investigated. How much uncertainty yet prevails regarding the mere textual interpretation, is evidenced by nearly all text books which contain specimens from the Bede. We need above all a more thorough examination of linguistic details.

It is no longer necessary to prove the existence of Anglian features in the text. But the nature and the extent of the dialectal element should be ascertained more precisely. A careful comparison of the MSS. confirms in general Dr. Miller's conclusions as to the Anglian original. Especially instructive are those cases in which the discrepancies between the different MSS., notably obvious scribal blunders, enable us to settle the archetypal reading beyond the possibility of doubt. Numerous Anglian forms and Anglian words are thus established as unquestionably original.

The lexical study sheds further light on the peculiar position of the Bede and on the stratification of the Old English vocabulary in general. Of words demanding our primary attention the following main groups are to be noted: (1) drag λeyóμeva, some of them of a suspiciously problematical character. (2) Distinctly Anglian vocables, inclusive of such as are found only in poetical texts. The list produced by Miller and added to, incidentally, by some other scholars is to be greatly enlarged. (3) Non-West Saxon words to use a general name-among which many terms occurring in "mixed" texts are to be classed. (4) Words employed with unusual meanings. We may add, (5) Nouns having different genders or declensions in the different MSS., e. g., ēdel, bend, gif(u). Also (6) Remarkable phrases, in particular some suggestive of Old English poetry.

On the other hand, our text abounds with "unnatural words" (Sweet), mostly derivatives and compounds modeled closely after Latin patterns. A number of them can scarcely be said to form a genuine part of the Old English vocabulary. Still, we must beware of condemning these coinages indiscriminately as illegitimate. The necessity of finding equivalents for certain Latin terms heavily taxed the inventiveness of the Anglo-Saxon scholar. At the same time, the vehicle of Old English prose was still in its formative stage, and the genius of the language imposed hardly any limits on the inherited principle of forming compounds. We admit, however, that the inordinate use, e. g., of the derivative suffix -nis, marks, in fact, a