for instance, or through the stately monuments-the palaces and temples and eternal towers of the heroic age. Mr. Saintsbury, however, is not as other men, and has explored all five of them. He seems to be almost as familiar with Rutebeuf as with Rétif, with Christine de Pisan as with Joseph Bouchardy, with the Roman du Renart' as with 'Les Quatre Vents de l'Esprit.' He speaks with equal authority of Le Roi Flore' and 'La Comtesse de Chalis,' of Pascal and Jean de Meung, of Philippe de Thaun and M. de Jouy, of Thibaut de Champagne and La Morte Amoureuse,' of Descartes and Raoul de Presles, of Maurice de Sully and Jules Janin, and of 'Robin et Marion and Les Odeurs de Paris.' To have a visiting list of such range and comprehensiveness as this is to be not much less than omniscient; and omniscience, within certain limits, is an attribute to which Mr. Saintsbury, if he were so minded, could really lay claim. One result of this unrivalled competency in experience is the production in the reader's mind of a great deal of confidence and respect. Another is seen in the author's ability to perceive things clearly and largely, to generalize with equal breadth and assurance, and to select for discussion only such points as, the scope and size of the work being granted, are of vital importance to the main issue. This ability is marked throughout. Mr. Saintsbury's narrative is clear and fluent; his summaries are judicious and comprehensive; his analysis, whether of collective movements or individual talents, is very often direct, sufficient, and perspicuous in no mean degree. His style is merely that of his work, which is, after all, no more than a text-book for the use of students; in other words, it is only sober and workmanlike, and lays no claim to exceptional elegance, and none to exceptional vigour. For all that the Short History' is excellent in certain ways, considered as a piece of literature. It is a work of art in its union of brevity and completeness; and as exemplifying the essential attributes of order, method, proportion, and due subordination of style to matter and of the writer to his subject, it has not often been equalled. The plan is at once workmanlike and ingenious. The book is divided into five parts, which are devoted respectively to the literatures of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. In the first of these Mr. Saintsbury proceeds not by writers, but by forms. He is careful, when it is possible for him to do so, to distinguish and describe the individual; but, speaking generally, he has considered the medieval literature of France, from its origin under St. Mummolinus (if we may so put the matter) to its close in the verse of Charles d'Orléans and the prose of Alain Chartier, as a procession not of artistic intelligences, but of dominant literary forms. During this time, as he very justly remarks, we are not SO much concerned with the methods of individual minds as with the general and collective method-fabliau or chanson de geste or romance-of the epoch to which they belonged. Jean de Meung, for instance, is of far less interest and importance to us as himself than as the author or part author of the typical 'Roman de la Rose'; there is very much more to be said of Renart le Contrefait' or of 'Sire Hain and Dame Anieuse' than of the men who wrote them; and the 'Chanson d'Alixandre is certainly a good deal more significant and striking as expressing the medieval idea of antiquity and an antique hero than as the work of "Lambert the Short and Alexander of Bernay." Mr. Saintsbury has, therefore, done well to write the first section of his work as a history not of authors, but of books, and to fill his chapters with accounts of literary fashions and not of literary men. In this part of his history he is seen to very considerable advantage. His narrative, as we have had occasion to remark, is practical, rapid, and pertinent, and his generalizations are careful and sound; and as his prejudices have not yet begun to be, and his predilections-if he has any-are not in the least obtrusive, his critical faculty has fair play and his conclusions are sensible and appropriate. Nothing could be better, for example, than his account of the romans d'aventures or his pithy and comprehensive dissertation on the literature of Provence than his chapter on the early lyrists or the pages in which he tells the story of the early drama. In his second section, which is at least equal in merit to the first, he changes his method, and writes not of forms, but of men. Starting with Villon and Comines-in whom he recognizes not the last of the medievalists, but the first of the moderns-he works on to Marot and his contemporaries, to Rabelais and the tribe of Rabelais, and to the Pléiade, with all its stars and all its stardust. In his next chapter he treats of the theatre from Gringoire and 'Les Folles Entreprises' to Larivey and Les Esprits'; and so, after an admirable account of Calvin and Amyot, he passes-not very brilliantly to the consideration of Brantôme and Montaigne, and finally to a rather pedantic analysis of the Satyre Ménippée the humour and perhaps the literary merit of which he appears inclined to overestimate and to a critical note Mathurin Regnier which is one of his happiest pages. In his next two sections he adopts the common method, and classes his writers as poets, novelists, philosophers, and so forth, with special chapters on the theologians and preachers of the great century, and on the scientific writers of the century after. In his fifth and last section he changes his method once more, and ends his book with a sketch of the literature of the nineteenth century, with special reference (as we need hardly observe) to the tremendous achievement of Hugo, the literary divinity of Théophile Gautier, and the noble genius of Mérimée and Flaubert. · on In these three sections the scholar and the historian are as remarkable as ever. The critic, however, is a little wayward and peculiar. Mr. Saintsbury, in truth, might fairly be described as "le dernier Romantique"-as a last incarnation of Petrus Borel. The crimson doublet of "le grand Théo" seems to wave ever before him as a banner; it is as if, in his mind's ear, the notes rang always of Hernani's horn. This amiable idiosyncrasy inspires him with impregnable convictions and a courage that is above suspicion; but it also obliges him to be a somewhat partial critic, and disables him from doing justice in French literature to much that is peculiarly and exquisitely French. In writing of medieval France and of the France of the Renaissance he is, as we have noted, acute and judicious. In writing of the France of Boileau and Racine he is not nearly so discriminating. His dissertations are laboriously precise and dispassionate, of course; but a sort of distant echo-a remote but haunting reminiscence of Petrus the Lycanthrope runs through them all. Undertones, as it were, of the famous aspiration "A la guillotine les genoux!" are audible and distinct in them; they are survivals of Romanticism-"remote, unfriended, melancholy." To Mr. Saintsbury, indeed, Andromaque' and 'Phèdre' are only the work of a pupil of Boileau. He thinks a vast deal more of Hugo's drama, in fact, than Dumas thought of it, and a vast deal less of Racine's than M. Taine; and we cannot but believe that his theory of both is not the right one, but only the one that would have seemed right to Petrus Borel. And this is only one of many points on which the belated Romanticism to which he is subject appears to lead him astray. It is impossible, for instance, to read without a smile his description of 'La Morte Amoureuse' as "one of the unsurpassable things of literature," or his remark that in Prosper Mérimée "grasp of human character, reserved but masterly description of scenery, delicate analysis of motive, ability to represent the supernatural, pathos, grandeur, simple narrative, appear turn by turn. . . . as they appear hardly anywhere else except in Théophile Gautier! Of outbreaks of this sort Mr. Saintsbury has many. Hugo, Gautier, Mérimée, are the gods of his idolatry, in fact, and he does not seem able to speak of them without passion: as when, to take another instance, he observes that it is impossible to read any of the first-named writer's better works "without gradually rising to a condition of enthusiasm in which the possible defects of the matter are altogether lost sight of in the unsurpassed and dazzling excellence of the manner.' "This," he reflects, "is the special test of poetry, and there is none other." In comparison with excesses of this sort his criticism of Dumas and Balzac, of George Sand and Alfred de Musset, is felt to be curiously inadequate; and to forgive it we obliged not only to recall the earlier parts of the Short History,' but to remember that its author is a practical Romanticist, and perhaps the last of the race. are To this may be added that Mr. Saintsbury omits all mention of Henri Monnier, Berlioz, and Monselet; that he clings with a curious and abnormal affection to the work of M. Henri de Bornier; that in speaking of the novel of incident he is unfortunate enough to remark that its "literary success in the hands of Hugo, and its pecuniary success in the hands of Dumas, were equally striking"; and that there are few things in his book so inadequate as his description of M. Labiche unless it be his account of MM. ErckmannChatrian, his estimate of Champfleury, and his contemptuous note on M. Alphonse Daudet. Die Verfassung und Verwaltung des Römischen Staates. Von Dr. J. N. Madvig. 2 vols. (Leipzig, Teubner.) Ir will be no fault of Prof. Madvig's if the aim and scope of these two volumes are misunderstood. He expressly informs his readers that they are not meant to form an exhaustive treatise on Roman antiquities, such as, for instance, the 'Staatsalterthümer' of Mommsen and Marquardt. Fifty years spent in the study and in the teaching of Roman literature have, he says, brought home to him the need for some clear and trustworthy manual which will supply students with a knowledge of the forms and institutions of the Roman state sufficient to enable them to understand the conditions amid which Roman authors lived and wrote. The whole subject is therefore treated from a literary and historical rather than from a strictly antiquarian point of view, and with a predominant regard to the interests of brevity and clearness. But there are other special circumstances connected with the composition of this work which the critic must bear in mind. It has been written in old age and under the terrible disadvantage of blindness, conditions unfavourable enough to have deterred most men from even attempting anything of the kind, while the German version before us was written by another hand at a distance, and its revision was a difficult and not always a satisfactory process. But, in spite of all, Prof. Madvig has produced a book in many respects worthy of his high reputation, and throughout likely to prove useful to the class for whom it is written. The style, indeed-for which we imagine the translator is directly responsible-is spoilt by the excessive length and cumbrous form of the sentences; and the practice of inserting most of the authorities in the text does not conduce to clearness. The references are as a rule well chosen, but might, we think, have been given more liberally without damage to the general plan of the book. Still more is this the case with the modern literature on the subject, which is treated all through in very cavalier fashion. We do not for one moment wish to suspect Prof. Madvig of anti-German prejudices, a suspicion against which he protests by anticipation in his preface, or to deny that he is often right in refusing to discuss seriously the fanciful theories which scholars hard pressed for something new to say have invented in abundance. But he might with advantage have indicated more frequently where the views expressed in his text are at variance with those of writers whose claim to be heard is scarcely inferior to his own, or at least have told his readers where to look for a fuller discussion of controverted points. As it is, the views of recent writers are too often summarily dismissed in a cursory and half-contemptuous note, and in some cases a sweeping sentence of condemnation is pronounced which ought in fairness to have been supported by solid reasons. Thus, for instance, Rubino's unfinished work on the Roman constitution is only once mentioned, and then as "a remarkable instance of misconception from beginning to end" (vol. i. p. 364). Kiene's treatise on the Social War is similarly disposed of (vol. i. p. 25) as "eine unbrauchbare Specialschrift." And merely to say of other views that "what some have recently written [on them] is with- picture by conjecturally filling up inconvenient gaps. When speaking of Sulla he rightly insists on confining his legislation within the limits specified by our authorities. "There is no ground," he says, “for attributing to Sulla a general and thoroughgoing revision of the whole constitution". (vol. i. p. 521, note); and on the same page he rightly notices-what it is too much the fashion to overlook-the grave omission on Sulla's part to deal seriously with the pressing administrative problem of the day, that of bringing the old republican system into harmony with the new conditions created by the enfranchisement of Italy, the acquisition of the provinces, and the altered status and character of the army. In the same spirit of cautious adherence to authority he declines to accept the magnificent programme of reform which Mommsen has attributed to Cæsar, most of which is after all mere speculation as to what Cæsar might have done had he lived. What we know of Cæsar's real plans, if he had any, for the final reorganization of the Roman state, is too little to enable us to do more than guess at On the vexed question of methods of their probable direction. But while in both criticism the author holds a position midway these instances our author has done good between Niebuhr and more recent writers. service in insisting on the claims of sobriety In dealing with such leading authorities as and truth, he is scarcely fair in his estimate Livy and Dionysius, while he recognizes of Mommsen's account of the principate. fully the importance not only of a scholarly The "theoretical reconstruction" which he revision of the text, but also of a right denounces exists more in appearance than estimate of their special idiosyncrasies, in reality. The great German historian he views with a rather exaggerated sus- recognizes as fully as Prof. Madvig does picion the efforts which have been made that the imperial system was not created at by Mommsen, Nissen, and others to get a blow by any positive constitutional enactbehind these Augustan writers to the ment; that the emperor was at first merely a authorities whom they followed, and so to citizen to whom senate and people had endistinguish the various pieces of older tradi- trusted certain powers; and that the justition which they rudely patched together. fication of much that was done by Augustus With more justice he warns his readers and Tiberius must be sought, not in any against the danger of using the statements prerogatives inherent in the imperial authoof later Roman jurists and writers as evi-rity, but in the simple fact that they were dence for the forms and institutions of the de facto in possession of nearly absolute Republic or even of the early Empire. At power. And while on this fundamental the same time he seems to us to go too far point the two are in virtual agreement, we in his unqualified condemnation of Momm- cannot help thinking that Prof. Madvig has sen's brilliant attempt in the first volume of taken a step backwards in refusing to his 'Staatsrecht' to expound the abstract acknowledge the justice of the analysis constitutional ideas which underlay the sys- by which Mommsen makes it clear that, tem of the Roman state. Without for one among all the powers conferred upon moment contending that the Roman consti- Augustus and his immediate successors, two tution, or any part of it, was framed in con- (the tribunician power and the proconsular formity with preconceived theories and ideas, imperium) stand out prominently as the main we may urge that it involves certain leading supports of the principate, and as connecting conceptions, such as those of the magisterial it directly with the two offices which by the authority, which must be firmly grasped if close of the Republic had thrown all others the details of the system are to be under- into the background, those of the tribunes stood, and which it is at least convenient to of the plebs in Rome and of the proconsuls treat of separately. Nor were abstract con- in the provinces. ceptions of the kind so wholly foreign to the Romans themselves as Prof. Madvig seems to think, for by the end of the Republic much had evidently been done by jurists and antiquaries to elucidate the principles of the constitution, and to systematize the mass of ancient usages and traditional maxims of which it was largely composed. But while in some respects Prof. Madvig is unduly conservative, he may justly take credit for the manner in which he keeps clear of baseless hypotheses or rash guesses, and for the clearness with which he marks the point at which our knowledge ends. He successfully avoids the temptation, to which Mommsen too often succumbs, of securing an artificial completeness for his In the matter of arrangement Prof. Madvig has another quarrel to pick with Mommsen. It will be remembered that in his 'Staatsrecht' the latter leads off with an account of the magistracy, as the proper key to a right understanding of the other elements of the constitution, in this respect following Rubino, who pronounces any other order of treatment to be misleading. Prof. Madvig, on the contrary, declares that a description of the Roman system which does not commence with the people and the senate “lacks the necessary foundation" (pref. p. viii); and the earlier half of his first volume is accordingly devoted to these two elements in the state. Something more than a mere point of order is involved in this difference of opinion. The arrangement favoured by Rubino and Mommsen proceeds on the assumption that the keystone of the Roman constitution was the magisterial authority, which, though in the course of time it became in practice subordinate to the senate and even at times to the assembly, yet in its forms never lost its original autocratic character, and under the Empire regained its old position of superiority. And this view we believe to be essentially true. It is perhaps allowable to begin, as Madvig does, with the Roman community and its assemblies; but in doing so the fact should be clearly brought out that though the assembled people were the source from which the magisterial authority was derived, and were in theory sovereign, they were yet in the exercise of their powers dependent at every turn upon the magistrate. It is true that in Cicero's day the assembly actually elected the magistrates, but the forms under which they did so clearly presuppose not a free popular choice so much as the nomination of the magistrate by his predecessor and his confirmation by the people. And so again, while the legislative authority of the assembly was in one sense absolute, it could vote only on proposals brought forward by a magistrate, for in Rome, unlike Athens, private bills were unknown to the constitution. Nor was this dependent position of the assembly without its effect on the history of the Roman state. It helped to make real democracy impossible, and converted the assembly into a powerful weapon in the hands of ambitious magistrates, who sought and found here the readiest means of successfully encountering the senate. But if the position of the Roman assembly cannot be properly appreciated without a previous study of the Roman magistracy, still more is this the case with the Roman senate. Prof. Madvig allows, of course, that the place filled by the senate in the days of the elder Cato and even of Cicero was not its original one, but that the ascendency it then enjoyed had been gradually won, and won without recourse to any formal constitutional changes. But what he fails to bring out is the fact that not only was the senate in early days simply a subordinate council of advice attached to the magistrate, but that the forms of its procedure, even in the Ciceronian age, still imply the strictest subordination to him and could still be taken advantage of to enforce it. If a magistrate had the courage, as Cæsar had, to ignore established custom, he could override or ignore the senate without infringing the constitution. And the rapid alternations of power and weakness which mark the senate's career in the last century of the Republic can only be understood by remembering how completely dependent it was on the readiness of the magistrate to acknowledge its customary supremacy. On the ground, then, that in the unique position assigned to the Roman magistrate by the forms of the constitution lies the key to the constitutional history of Rome, we must declare in favour of Mommsen's arrangement as against that adopted by Prof. Madvig. Passing to our author's views on particular points of detail, we find him as a rule stanchly adhering to the conservative side. He pronounces against the theory that Rome in early days was a mercantile city (Handelstadt). On the vexed question of the change in the organization of the "comitia centuriata," by which the tribes and centuries were somehow or other brought into combination, he holds, as against the majority of modern scholars, that Livy's words (i. 43) are to be interpreted literally, and that in Cicero's day each tribe was divided into two centuries only-one of seniors and one of juniors-in each of which all the five classes were represented. But though he says confidently that this conclusive passage, as he considers it, has been "inconceivably ignored and distorted by many recent writers" (vol. i. p. 118), he fails, in our judgment, to remove the very serious objections which Lange, among others, has urged against this view. Nor can we accept as entirely satisfactory his reading of the difficult passage in the second Philippic (vol. ii. p. 33). We are also sorry to find that he adheres to the old explanation of the title "princeps," borne by the early emperors, as an abbreviation of the fuller princeps senatus," an explanation which is now almost universally abandoned. In the sections dealing with the nature of the franchise and the mode of its extension, as well as in those which treat of the municipal system, there are many points of interest, of which a few only can be mentioned here. As one among the circumstances which led to the formation of fresh tribes he suggests, with great probability, the elevation to the full franchise of communities hitherto invested only with the "civitas sine suffragio." The bestowal of the latter status, he argues, was regarded not as a favour, but as a penalty, by both parties alike; and the objections to this view arising out of the case of Care are ingeniously explained away. He puts the meaning of the term præfectura" in its right light by pointing out that the inferior degree of local freedom in a "civitas sine suffragio," which it originally implied, was in Cicero's time merely "an historical reminiscence" (vol. ii. p. 6), and that after the Social War the term no longer connoted any existing peculiarity of status. 66 In the second volume there is as a rule less that calls for special remark. But we may notice that Prof. Madvig agrees with Marquardt in thinking that in certain cases, notably in that of the confiscated Campanian land, there was an actual letting of the land itself, and not merely of the tithes payable upon it. On the other hand, he declines to identify the agrarian law of 111 B.C., which is still extant in a fragmentary condition, with the third of the three laws mentioned by Appian as undoing the work of the Gracchi; and Appian's statement as to the law he treats as a sheer blunder. The account of the gradual establishment of the imperial land tax appears to us a little confused, and the long note (ii. 440) on the meaning of the "jugum or caput "does not contribute much towards the solution of that difficult question. We may say in conclusion that these two volumes do not in any sense make an epoch in the study of Roman antiquities. While they contribute little that is new, in not a few points they fall below the level of recent research, and are too often unduly conservative and dogmatic in tone. Nevertheless, the brilliant scholarship displayed throughout them, their general freedom from fanciful hypotheses and false analogies, and not least their brevity will make them a useful part of the apparatus of the lecture-rocm. The Foray of Queen Meave, and other Legends of Ireland's Heroic Age. By Aubrey De Vere. (Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.) IN this volume Mr. De Vere attempts to do for the heroic lore of the Celt what Mr. William Morris has successfully accomplished for that of the Teuton. His chief poem substantially embodies the story told in the Tain bo Cuailgné.' This tale-held by some scholars to be the great Irish epic of ancient times, while others believe it to be only the fragment of a larger work-is to early Irish literature what the Story of the Volsungs and the Niblungs' is to that of Scandinavia. It is curious to note the points of similarity and contrast between two such representative works. The ideal of an heroic age assumes naturally much the same shape in every race and country, and it cannot surprise us, therefore, that there should be something of a family likeness between the Norse and the Gaelic chieftains. Cuchullain is the Irish Sigurd. From childhood he shows a genius for fighting, coming by his weapons much in the same fashion as the hero of the Volsunga Saga; for while Sigurd alone of men succeeds in welding the shards of the sword Grani, Cuchullain, on being knighted when a stripling, snaps every sword and lance in two till the King of Uladh (Ulster) is fain to give him his own arms and chariot. But in spite of this resemblance between the leading characters, the two stories are widely dissimilar. The passion and the tragic intensity of the old Norse tale are lacking in this Gaelic tradition as well as a central idea which should make of it an artistic whole. This was exactly where the modern poet could have developed whatever power of dramatic imagination he possessed; for by weaving the various elements of the legend skilfully together Mr. De Vere might have produced a really fine poem. Unfortunately he lacks the gift of selection and condensation, and has contented himself with putting the fragments of the old epic into easy and fluent verse. mere 'The Foray of Queen Meave,' the most important poem in the volume, is the story of the war between Uladh and Connaght (Connaught). It consists of five fragments and begins with a conjugal dispute between the Queen of Connaght and her feeble husband Ailill, each claiming to be the wealthier and more powerful. The lords declare that they are equally great in all respects save one-that is, the possession of the white bull Fionbannah, which turns the scale in favour of Ailill. This so incenses the queen that she determines to go to war with the King of Uladh in order to obtain his black bull Donn, which is a still mightier beast. Unless Mr. De Vere wished to write a serio - comic poem, should he not have modified or changed the motif of the old legend so as to bring it more within the range of modern sympathies? As it is, an element of unconscious comedy lies at the very heart of his work; for however poetic it may be to make a supremely beautiful woman the origin of a great war, the idea of two nations butchering each other for the sake of a bull could only serve as a theme for satire. Mr. De Vere, however, describes the incident with imperturbable gravity. Queen Meave, wilfully bent on the attainment of her object, marches with a large host to the borders of Uladh. Magic and witchcraft, which play a large part in these Irish traditions, come to her assistance; for the witch Faythleen lays a ban of imbecility on the people of Uladh, so that instead of going to meet their enemy they are befooled by dreams. Cuchullain is the only man in the realm prepared to meet the advancing host, and the queen engages that the warfare shall for the present be restricted to a combat between himself and a single champion. When Cuchullain has slain ninety of her men, the queen, following the advice of the magician Cailitin, invites Ferdia to a feast; for this great warrior, Cuchullain's dearest friend, is the only man by whom the hero may be overcome. At the banquet Ferdia is placed by the side of the queen's daughter, the beautiful Finobar. The princess, versed in all the arts of fascination, sits whispering beside him to the music of harps :— "I love not songs of love! Better the war-song! Best, methinks, of all That lullaby half war and sorrow half Breathed by some bride while o'er her wounded lord Softly descends the sleep:-so softly sank Cold dews of evening on this flower still wet!" She took it from her breast and held it near: He smelt it; kissed it; kept it. With a smile She added: "For your sister? Have you one? If so, 'tis likely she resembles me : He raised again his head: once more he sang : Fair, central pillar of the House of Fame; Ultimately Cuchullain, who, after a long trance, has been healed by ministering spirits, suddenly bursts upon the combatants after the hosts of Uladh have been routed. He utterly defeats Queen Meave, drives her across the Shannon, and, when some of his men would slay her, magnanimously saves her life, crying: One day I shared her feast: she shall not die ! The same merits and defects which mark 'The Foray of Queen Meave' are still more noticeable in the two shorter poems, 'The Sons of Usnach' and 'The Children of Lir.' Mr. De Vere's verse is invariably easy, graceful, and refined, but, unless when reflecting the afterglow of the old bardic fire, sadly wanting in genuine inspiration. Especially in 'The Children of Lir' the descriptive passages are Mr. De Vere's strong point, alTo his. That smile had passed. Tearful she turned though his illustrations taken from nature They chide me oft: No Gaelic face is thine, Is it for thee, my friend, or Cuchullain? On him those luminaries of love and death, The noble Ferdia cannot resist those eyes; and when the queen offers him her daughter's hand if he will meet Cuchullain in mortal combat, love overcomes friendship. On the first day, when Cuchullain and Ferdia stand confronted as enemies, their hearts still yearn tenderly towards each other, and at the close of that unnatural strife the friends draw near and throw their arms round each other's necks. On the second day they fight with more heat, yet on its cessation still share meat and drink together; but on the evening of the third day the excitement of battle effaces all earlier memories, and they turn away haughtily from each other when it is over. The fourth day they meet unrelentingly, determined that one or both must die. The combat rages wildly between them, sometimes one, sometimes the other gaining an advantage; but at last the madness-rage" descends upon Cuchullain, and, hurling the Gae-Bulg (a huge missile which no one else can wield) on Ferdia's breast, he smites him dead. No sooner has his friend fallen than Cuchullain's old affection for him reawakens in full force. Overcome at once by his wounds and the grief he feels, he faints away, and lies long like one that is dead. 66 99 66 "A seem frequently forced and artificial. breeze-like step,' sparkling like a flower," "lids of snow," are conventional expressions which convey an untrue image of the object they describe. These, however, are mild similes compared to such daring flights as From the wan brows the horror-stricken hair Bickering like meteors rose, or seemed to rise. In his narrative Mr. De Vere is constantly diffuse where he should be brief, and occasionally brief where we require a fuller analysis of the situation. Thus in 'The Sons of Usnach' a young warrior, for the first time meeting a maiden destined to marry old King Conor, makes love in this startling fashion: Then, for the maiden's safety fearing, With passion changed continued: "Spurn my suit! The king will slay thee!" She, the warrior nearing, Held forth both hands, and gazed upon him mute; And last, in love's high truth-and truth is best Made answer, "Thine!" He snatched her to his breast. In 'The Children of Lir'. '-a Celtic adaptation of the well-known fairy tale of children changed to swans by sorcery-Mr. De Vere is, on the whole, happier in his descriptions than in 'The Sons of Usnach.' The tender fancy of this touching legend, in which weird pagan traditions are absorbed in the dawn of Christianity, suits the author's vein better than the more tragic spirit of the other story. Mr. De Vere's sympathy with Roman Catholicism gives to this part of his volume a peculiar sincerity of tone, his most impressive work consisting, indeed, of some religious poems addressed to the Virgin Mary published in an earlier volume of verse. The two narrative poems last mentioned are written in the six-line stanza, structurally the same as that used by Shakspeare in 'Venus and Adonis.' This metre, admirably adapted for narrative poetry, although used by Mr. De Vere with much fluency, is never in his hands wielded with the vigour and terseness of which it is capable at its best. Indeed, he is more successful in his handling of blank verse, especially in certain portions where it seems to rise and be sustained by the greater elevation of the narrative. On the whole, this volume may be read with considerable interest by lovers of ancient Irish legends, with which the public is as yet but little familiarized. We cannot help hoping, however, that the quarry of Ireland's heroic age, which Mr. De Vere describes in his preface as peculiarly rich in materials, will by-and-by be opened by a refashion a poem of truly human interest poet whose creative gift may enable him to from the primitive lore of the past. The Historye of the Bermudaes or Summer Islands. Edited, from a MS. in the Sloane Collection, British Museum, by General Sir J. Henry Lefroy, C.B., K.C.M.G. (Hakluyt Society.) Ir is fortunate for all those interested in the history of our early colonies-and can any Englishman fail to take an interest in the subject?-that General Lefroy seizes every opportunity of identifying himself with "our oldest plantation." It is not very long ago that the gallant editor of the work now before us completed his great undertaking of the Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement of the Bermudas,' in two handsome octavo volumes, to which we then drew the attention of our readers (July 5th, 1879; also September 22nd, 1877); and here we have, as issued to the members of the Hakluyt Society, another volume edited by General Lefroy, and printed for the first time from the Sloane MS. No. 750, in the British Museum, comprising The Historye of the Bermudaes from its First Settlement in 1609 to the Year 1622,' when Capt. Nathaniel Butler was superseded in the government of the islands. The original MS. consists of 363 pages of closely written foolscap, but there is no titlepage or date to it, and no clue to the authorship. The very sparing introduction, however, of the personal pronoun throughout the MS. coupled with an amount of internal evidence leaves no doubt whatever in General Lefroy's mind that this Historye' is an unpublished work of Capt. John Smith, the historian of Virginia. Îf such be the case -and we see no reason to disagree with the editor's opinion the book will be read with avidity by American historians and students, who take the deepest interest in everything which tends to throw new light on the works, character, or writings of the first admiral of New England, the man of whom it has been said, to quote General Lefroy's preface, "that he has for nearly three centuries maintained the unparalleled honour of being the most distinguished member of the most numerous family (patronymically speaking) of all the tribes of men." We think, however, that Mr. Allibone in his Dictionary of English Literature,' which is here referred to, might have qualified the superlative epithet. Is Capt. John Smith more distinguished than Adam Smith, who " patronymically" might certainly be called the first of that numerous family, or than the humorous and satirical divine who helped to found the Edinburgh Review, or than the naval hero who defied Napoleon? Generol Lefroy always throws his whole heart into his work, and delights in making others acquainted with what he himself knows of the history of these islands, of which, as is well known, he was for some years the popular governor. His enthusiasm is catching. The present work, he says, needs no recommendation; for though the theatre of the events described is a small one, and the Bermudas have not, and could not possibly have, maintained the prominent place before the world which they occupied on their first plantation, the graphic style of this narrative and the vivid picture given of the social condition of life in his (Capt. John Smith's) day must always have attractions for those who delight to throw themselves into the past and to contrast its habits, its ideas, and its aspirations with what succeeding centuries have brought forth. The editor furnishes some additional information about Capt. John Smith. His baptismal register is preserved at Willoughby, Lincoln. He was the son of George Smith, and was baptized on the 6th of January, 1579, old style, that is as we now compute January, 1580; and he died on the 21st of June, 1631, rather unexpectedly. At the time of his death Capt. John Smith was at work upon a 'History of the Sea,' with the devout hope that "if God be pleased I live to finish it." Now although General Lefroy does not suppose that the present unfinished work, expressly entitled a History of Bermuda,' was any part of the intended 'History of the Sea,' still he says there is no difficulty in the supposition that Smith had both works on hand, and a strong confirmation of his authorship lies in the minute coincidences between this work and his account of Bermuda in Book V. of his Generall History of Virginia,' first published in 1624, coincidences which are so numerous as to show beyond a doubt that the history before us was written subsequently to the History of Virginia' and was based on the same materials—an amplification in fact of that narrative, with such fuller particulars and occasional corrections as were likely to come into his hands. These are some of the arguments put forth by the learned and gallant editor in support of his conviction as to the authorship of the original MS. We refer our readers to the book itself for all that is said on this subject, which we have little doubt will cause some discussion, if not controversy, in the United States. NOVELS OF THE WEEK. A Fearless Life. By Charles Quentin. 3 vols. (Bentley & Son.) Red Ryvington. By William Westall. 3 vols. (Hurst & Blackett.) Robin. By Mrs. Parr. 3 vols. (Bentley & Son.) MR. QUENTIN's book is remarkable not only for a good deal of ability in the descrip tion of a wild Cornish coast and the individuality of certain unusual characters, inhabitants of a village thereon, but for some suggestive peculiarities in the author's view of life. The chief male character, Allan Moore, is a carefully studied portrait. He is something of a poet, a painter, and a sculptor, with a vein of genius and a great desire to rule. He is "tender, but not unselfish; he desired that even his love for others should minister to his own mental development." In the language of Philistia, he is a sad prig, and acts as might be expected in falling in love with a lymphatic piece of prettiness, who deceives him without a suspicion she is doing wrong. Nora, the heroine, is a far nobler character. The "emotion" which supersedes the idea of duty, and the aspirations after universal progress which seem to stand in the place of individual right and wrong, are not in her case the merest phrase-mongering and sham. She loves (and hates) ardently and honestly, yet she offers Guy Clifford, whom she does not love, to become his mistress for a time; and to please Allan, whom she does love, she commits deliberate perjury. The contrast instantly suggested between Nora's self-accusation to save Clifford and the higher heroism of oldfashioned Jeanie Deans is not to the advantage of the latest religious cultus, as expounded by an evidently sincere and not unintelligent believer. The minor characters are of various merit. Guy Clifford is the smuggler of the stage, but worthier of Nora than the despicable Allan Moore. Evelyn's petty femininity is ably drawn; the parson is odious, but not absolutely untrue to life; and the squire is a monster of iniquity who goes out shooting with a staghound! It may be observed that "I would be agreeable to her" is not a classic method of conveying the notion that "I would agree to her marriage with my son." Mr. Westall writes of the manufacturing districts with knowledge, and in his hands the rough Lancashire folk and the grimy purlieus of the cotton towns lend themselves not unpicturesquely to the needs of fiction. The present story runs upon the ancient lines of the Menæchmi' and The Comedy of Errors.' Randle Ryvington of Deepdene and Randle Ryvington of Redscar, cousins and cotton spinners, resemble one another in outward appearance as closely as they differ widely in character. The audacious personation of Red Randle by his "Deep" namesake, though a little too farcical to be artistic, is managed as well as such an incident can be; and the absurd will of the elder owner of Deepdene is hardly too gross in its vulgar ambition to be regarded as beyond possibility. Follies as melancholy have been put in writing by testators as that by which Randle and Dora are pitted against each other in a race for marriage with a title, the stakes at issue being the inheritance of a property of 12,000l. a year. In contrast to the sordid wooing of the baser Randle, the romance which surrounds the acquaintance, and then quite idyllic. Red Ryvington's whole story the love, of Lady Muriel and his cousin is shows his sense and honesty to be equal to his courage. A contested election gives an opportunity of dealing with several types of Lancashire character, such as Twister, the self-made manufacturer, Bentley, the literary weaver, and other supporters of the hero, not to speak of such minor personages as John Gully, the tailor, whose soul soars above his trade until he finds the danger of being taken for an unpopular master by a factory mob. But the personage on whom most of the romance depends is Sergius Kalouga, the Russian revolutionist, who charms, Othello-like, the gentle Dora, and thus by a strange turn of fate puts her into possession of the fortune from which she was intended to be debarred. His story is well told, and if all revolutionary martyrs were as wise and moderate as Kalouga martyrdom would be unnecessary. 'Robin' is one of that numerous class of novels which undertakes to illustrate bohemian life, but it possesses the exceptional merit of not being coarse. The story, it is true, makes us acquainted with an extremely coarse man, but, purified by the fire of affliction, he in the end loses all coarseness of heart and enlists the sympathies of the reader. The two main types of bohemianism are well described: the one, the father of Robin, unprincipled and selfish, yet with some of the instincts of a gentleman, and with the redeeming virtue of love for his child; the other, a younger man, unconventional rather than actually bohemian, quits Bohemia as soon as circumstances give him a chance. The bohemian young lady is seldom attractive to those who live out of Bohemia, but Robin is a dweller in that land from circumstances over which she has no control, and is to be pitied rather than harshly criticized. Besides, though up to her marriage she is in, she is not of, the doubtful land, and neither heart nor mind is affected by her sojourn. She is at all times thoroughly pure in spirit and feminine, and resists temptation better than most wellbrought-up young ladies would do. In fact, she is an attractive character, which is more than can be said of the hunting hoiden Georgie Temple. That the latter is goodhearted and honest does not, to our mind, redeem her, for no one is altogether bad, and it is dangerous to try to show that a young woman devoid of feminine graces and refinement is yet beloved because she possesses masculine virtues. The retired railway contractor, Mr. Blunt, is more coarse than was necessary for the purposes of the story, and therein Mrs. Parr has sinned against the art of the novelist. The best character in the book is the son of Mr. Blunt, who is pure, refined, and thoroughly good without being in the least namby-pamby, or too ideally perfect to be natural. One great merit of the story is that the plot is not complicated and the stage not crowded. The book ought to add to Mrs. Parr's reputation as a novelist of the second class. SCHOOL-BOOKS. with Introduction and Notes, by C. D. Yonge. Essays of John Dryden. Selected and edited, (Macmillan & Co.)-It is questionable whether any selection from Dryden's prose writings could be made suitable for school purposes. Certainly of selecting from Dryden's prefatory essays, and Mr. Yonge has not accomplished the task in the present volume. He acknowledges the difficulty has not been very happy in the choice he has made of three. The sketch of Dryden's life is imperfect, no mention being made of his death. Mr. Yonge's want of accuracy in minor matters, which marred his life of Goldsmith, is visible |