132 F. B. Liiquicns, 



What is in O a most efiective line, becomes here a most tiresome 

 one.' 



As for the individual lines of Stengel's text, very many are imper- 

 fect. I prefer, however, not to insist upon this fact, for an editor 

 might often fail in the reconstruction of the correct wording of a 

 line, even though his principles of reconstruction were correct. - 



The foregoing pages have shown, I hope, that Stengel's text 

 possesses many technical imj^erfections. I consider, then, that I have 

 proved the correctness of the Oxford stemma.^ 



4: * 4; 



Nevertheless, although Miiller's conception of the interrelations 

 of the manuscripts was correct, his edition is, in my opinion, un- 

 satisfactor}-. Not, however, through lack of scholarshij) on his part 

 — his scholarship, his acquaintance with the problems of Old French 

 phonology and morphology, was of the highest order — but for two 

 reasons which I shall endeavor to set forth in the remainder of this 

 article. 



To quote Miiller's own words : " Eine Formel, die alles subjektive 

 Urtheil ausschliesst, lasst sich nun einmal fiir die Chanson de Roland 

 nicht aufstellen, und die Herausgeber sind vollkommen im Rechte, 

 wenn sie in den Oxforder Text aus den anderen Redactionen nichts 

 ohne Noth aufnehmen und nur das aufnehmen, was sie aus inneren 

 Griinden fiir das Echte halten, um das ehrwiirdige Denkmal vor 

 fremdartigen Einmischungen zu bewahren und nicht einen Cento 

 daraus zu machen." * So his formula — to adopt his expression — ma}- 



* An example of tlie harm which Stengel's edition is constantly effect- 

 ing is to be found in Professor W. M. Hart's Ballad and Epic^ p. 2G2. 

 Professor Hart, speaking of repetition in ' laisses similaires,' says : " It 

 is not Incremental . . ." He makes this mistake because lie has based 

 liis investigations on Stengel's text. 



- Throughout the foregoing discussion of Stengel's reconstruction, I have 

 endeavored to deal onlj' with imperfections due to content, not to "wording. 



* The argument might be made much simpler for any who w^ould 

 accept subjective reasoning. It "would run thus : x' must have been a 

 consistently beautiful poem, for O is such ; Miiller's x' is a consistently 

 beautiful poem ; Stengel's is not (I cannot understand how any one can 

 contend that it is) ; therefore the Oxford stemma is correct. Knowing, 

 however, that an argument so subjective would hardl}^ convince defenders 

 of the redactions stemma, I have rested my case on technical excellence 

 alone, ruhng out of the argument all inferences from the absolute beauty of O. 



* Zeitschrift f. ronian. PhiloL, iii, 447. Stengel, not heeding this warn- 

 ing, has proved the ti-uth of Miiller's words. 



