At the end of Chaucer's Parson's Tale (I, 1081–92) the writer, speaking in his own person, asks the prayers of his readers that he may be forgiven, especially for his “translacions and endytings of worldly vanitees, the whiche I revoke in my retracciouns”; he gives a list of the principal ones, adding “and many another book, if they were in my remembrance”; and thanks Jesu Christ and all the saints for the works of edification which he has written. The question as to the genuineness of this passage may be approached from a new and more a priori point of view, if it still is a question; if it is not, the following facte will still throw light on the subject. I propose to discuss the history and implications of the word retracciouns, and certain parallels to Chaucer's list of his works and expression of dissatisfaction or satisfaction with them.

No one, so far as I know, has attempted to analyze the significant disagreement between the perfervid admirers of Richard Jefferies and those who read his books with mild respect. Henley's familiar phrase, “a reporter of genius,” which from the point of view of those outside the cult seems more than just, falls far short of satisfying those within the cult. They prefer the unmixed adulation implied in the very title of the biography by Walter Besant, The Eulogy of Richard Jefferies. They prefer the judgment of Mr. Henry Salt, who centres his praise, not on The Gamekeeper at Home, but on The Story of My Heart, which future ages are to read with “tears of pity and admiration.” They prefer the poetically phrased criticism of his latest disciple and biographer, Mr. Edward Thomas, who tells us that the mystical Jefferies “fought in the dim, far-off, wavering van, of which we have yet no sure tidings.”

So far as the writer has been able to discover, attention has not been called to the probability that Spenser drew material directly from two French romances of the Grail-Perceval cycle for the episodes of the first two cantos of Book VI of the Faerie Queene.

Die Geschichte Hamlets in Deutschland ist noch nicht geschrieben. Den Anregungen, die Robert Prutz bereits im Jahre 1847 gab, ist zwar durch das Buch von Alexander v. Weilen neuerdings Folge gegeben, aber mit der Bühnenlaufbahn des Dänenprinzen ist die Bolle, die dieser Charakter im Geistesleben der ganzen Nation spielte, keineswegs erschöpft. Als problematische Natur, gab er seit Goethes Wilhelm Meister den Kommentatoren immer neue Rätsei auf, und gleich dem Werterfieber, das durch Goethes ersten Roman entfesselt wurde, kann man von einem wahren Hamletfieber sprechen, das in den Köpfen des beginnenden 19. Jahrhunderts spukt. Schliesslich wird Hamlets Situation das Sinnbild für Deutschlands ganze politische Not, Zerrissenheit und Entschlusslosig-keit: das Gleichnis “Deutschland ist Hamlet” bezeichnet den Höhepunkt der literarischen Epidemie. Zur Geschichte der Vorstellung und des Wortes, das namentlich durch Freiligraths Glaubensbekenntnis (1844) berühmt geworden ist, hat R. M. Meyer in einem Aufsatz mit anerkannter Belesenheit beigetragen. Demnach ist Ludwig Börne (1818) der Erste, der die Selbsterkenntnis, mit der bereits die Bomantiker im Hamletscharakter sich spiegelten, verallgemeinert hat. “Shakespeare ist ein Britte,” sagt Börne in seiner bekannten Hamletbesprechung. “Hätte ein Deutscher den Hamlet gemacht, wiirde ich mich gar nicht dariiber wnndem. Ein Deutscher braucht nur eine schöne leserliche Hand dazu. Er schreibt sich ab, und Hamlet ist fertig.”

Among the classical scholars in Spain in the latter half of the sixteenth century, Antonio Agustín occupies an important place. Born on March 4, 1517 at Saragossa, he attended the Universities of Alcalá and Salamanca, and in 1536 went to Italy and studied at Bologna and Padua. During a second sojourn at Bologna, he profited by the instruction of Andrea Alciato and became acquainted with the methods of the nova jurisprudentia, which sought to replace the study of scholastic commentators by careful consultation of the original sources. He went to Florence in 1541 to study the celebrated manuscript of the Pandects and there prepared his great work, Emendationum et opinionum libri, in which he questioned the accuracy of Politian's collation of the famous manuscript. This work was published at Venice in 1543 and won him the esteem of the most noted scholars of the time, a remarkable achievement for the young man of twenty-six years.

A Warning for Fair Women was published anonymously in 1599, with the statement on the title-page that it had been “lately diuerse times acted by the right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants.” The attribution of the play by Edward Phillips to John Lyly is too absurd for serious consideration. Almost as absurd is Collier's attribution of the play to Shakespeare. Fleay suggested Thomas Lodge, though not without hesitation, for he adds the warning: “I cannot state too emphatically that any attribution of this play to Lodge is conjectural, and founded less on positive evidence than on the method of exhaustion.” The “method” referred to is thus explained: “The other writers for the Chamberlain's men at this time were Shakespeare and Jonson. Objectors to my hypothesis of Lodge's authorship may adopt one of these, or (the usual resource) imagine some unknown playwright not elsewhere heard of.” But Lodge was probably not engaged in play-writing at this time; so that according to Fleay's “method” we should be forced to choose between Shakespeare and Jonson.