Among Analysts, Hermann's 1832 "De interpolationibus Homeri" ("On interpolations in Homer") and 1840 "De iteratis apud Homerum" ("On repetitions in Homer") argued that the epics, as they now stood, were encrustations of second-rate later material around a pristine kernel: a hypothetical "Ur-"Iliad"". Conversely, Lachmann's 1847 "Betrachtungen über Homers Ilias" ("Studies on Homer's Iliad") argued that the "Iliad" was a compilation of 18 independent folk-lays, rather as the Finnish "Kalevala" actually was, compiled in the 1820s and 1830s by Lönnrot: so, he argued, "Iliad" book 1 consists of a lay on Achilleus' anger (lines 1-347), and two continuations, the return of Chryseis (430–492) and the scenes in Olympus (348-429, 493-611); book 2 is a separate lay, but containing several interpolations such as Odysseus' speech (278–332); and so on. (Lachmann also tried to apply Analyst principles to the mediaeval German "Nibelungenlied".) Kirchhoff's 1859 edition of the "Odyssey" argued that the Ur-"Odyssey" had comprised just books 1, 5-9, and parts of 10-12, that a later phase had added most of books 13-23, and a third phase had added the bits about Telemachos, and book 24.