In an article, entitled Nibelungensage und Nibelungendichtungen, which appeared in the Preussische Jahrbücher a little over a year ago (October, 1894), Dr. A. Schmidt, after a summary of the entire Nibelungensage and a comparison of this Sage with the form it assumes in the Nibelungenlied, makes the following statement: “Though it would be madness after Homer to reconstruct anew the Iliad and Odyssey in poetic form, after the mediaeval author it is really a religious duty of German poets who have the interests of their nation at heart to recast into higher forms the imperfectly coined Nibelungen treasure.” In these words the essayist expresses not merely a personal opinion, but echoes the sentiments of many other German critics, and above all of over forty authors who, with over fifty different productions in drama and epic poetry, have tried to recast into ‘higher forms’ the Nibelungensage as a whole or in part. This large number of attempts includes three or four dramatic sketches, but does not include the ‘lower forms’ of lyric and ballad poetry, or of prose narrative. After the clear and thorough discussion of Nibelungen dramas by Professor Carl Weitbrecht, it might seem unnecessary to discuss this part of the general subject any further, but there are certain aspects of this question which he has not touched upon which it is the purpose of this paper to consider; and, while there is complete agreement with the views advanced by Prof. Weitbrecht, yet the attempt will be made to show that his conclusions do not warrant the same approval.

Th. Murner, the great opponent of Luther and one of the most interesting characters of the Reformation period, is unduly overshadowed by his great antagonist, Martin Luther, just as Wallenstein is by Gustavus Adolphus; and what. Schiller wrote about Wallenstein: “Von der Parteien Hass und Gunst verwirrt schwankt sein Charakterbild in der Geschichte,” is equally true of Murner.

In the summer of 1895 I had occasion to examine a number of German mss. in the library at Maihingen, belonging to Prince Karl of Oettingen-Wallerstein.

When the third volume of Professor Skeat's new edition of Chaucer appeared, it was a disappointment to find that he had not revised the opinion of Chaucer's indebtedness to Marco Polo expressed by him several years ago. It is true that his view had been generally accepted, but the cautious manner in which a few prominent scholars had expressed themselves might have suggested a re-examination of the question. The following are fairly representative of the various attitudes of scholars:—

Brandl says: “Ueber das gebiet des märchenhaften hinaus und auf einigermassen realen boden kommen wir bereits, wenn wir nach der herkunft der tartarischen namen und sitten fragen. Herzberg, Canterbury-geschichten s. 631 ff., suchte sie in der reisebeschreibung von Maundeville. Vollständiger decken sich die angaben Chaucer's mit der von Marco Polo…. Aus Marco Polo stammen mit geringen Veränderungen die namen Cambyuskan, … Camballus oder Camballo … und Sarai; die personalschilderung des Khan, seines geburtstagsfestes und hofstaates; die bemerkung, dass die Tartaren manches essen, ‘that in this lond men recch of it but smal;’ das erscheinen eines gesandten von einem anderen könig mit geschenken; endlich der baumgarten mit allerlei falken in der nähe des palastes.” Engl. Stud., XII, 163.