effects if he could have afforded them. In short, Dr. Johnson was well within the truth in insinuating that Shenstone's talents were not comprehensive. A small quantity of his poetry, nevertheless, has genuine merit and deserves a treatment more intelligently critical and less narrowly scholarly than Miss Hazeltine gives it. It is hardly worth while, for example, to record that a German has found hints of The Schoolmistress in Ovid, Chaucer, Spenser, Milton, Rochester, Parnell, Pope, Ramsay, Prior, Gay, ballads, and versions of the Psalms, and has then characterized the poem as "one of the earliest pioneer works in a special literary form, the lesser epic (Kleinepos)." Nor is it worth while to point out that certain lines of Shenstone anticipate this or that thought of Gray, Cowper, Wordsworth, or Emerson. Originality in literature consists, not in saying a thing first, but in saying it last; Shenstone's "little bench of heedless bishops" has in despite of dates sunk into an echo of Gray's "mute inglorious Milton." To consider minor poetry in relation to absolute standards inevitably results in damage either to the poetry or to the standards. In the face of this dilemma Miss Hazeltine favors the poetry. But the embarrassing alternative might better have been avoided altogether. Considered in relation to the spirit of its age minor poetry usually gains in significance. From this point of view Shenstone's Schoolmistress furnishes a particularly apt illustration of how satirical burlesque was passing over into the literature of sentiment. The successive modifications of the poem deserve a scrutiny which, in spite of a hint from Isaac Disraeli, Miss Hazeltine neglects to give them. When it was first published in 1737, mock-epic, mockromance, and mock-pastoral were in the air. Shenstone then spoke of it as "ludicrous poetry," and "purely to show fools that I am in jest" added a "ludicrous index" or synopsis of the poem, stressing the burlesque. The temper in which he conceived it was close to that which inspired his "culinary eclogue" entitled Colemira: "Ah! who can see, and seeing, not admire, Like this mock-pastoral The Schoolmistress was to all appearances originally intended as one of the author's "levities." Dodsley, his publisher, was to blame for its absurd inclusion under the head of "moral pieces" and also for the suppression of the ludicrous index. But there are indications that Shenstone himself ultimately joined the ranks of the "fools" who persisted in taking the poem seriously. The changes in later editions of the poem cited by Disraeli show him consistently working away from burlesque and in the direction of tender realism. A notable example is the addition of stanzas 11-15, which describe without a trace of ridicule the old dame's herb garden and her psalmody. As Shenstone left it the poem is neatly balanced between whimsy and sentiment. It remained for Burns, who as a provincial and a rustic falsely admired Shenstone for his "divine Elegies," to develop the strain of homely sentiment with complete seriousness in The Cotter's Saturday Night. The Schoolmistress in poetry is like Joseph Andrews in fiction, a work begun as a parody but ended in earnest as an appeal to the sentiments. The change was eminently characteristic of the time, and to define Shenstone in relation to it is a task that still remains to be done. Miss Hazeltine's thesis includes a description of the manuscript book, now owned by Professor George Herbert Palmer, from which she prints fifteen new poems and a number of others containing new stanzas or other variants from the published versions. These, she says truly, "make no new revelation of the nature or the art of Shenstone." There follows a brief outline of Shenstone's life, an account of "Periods of Interest in Shenstone," and a long "Critical Estimate," in which she discusses the poet's personality, his landscape gardening at the Leasowes, and his writings-poems, essays, letters, and literary criticism gleaned from the letters. the sections on Shenstone's prose, where she is not under obligation to retort the jeers of hostile critics, Miss Hazeltine shows a faculty for judicious quotation and performs a genuine service in calling attention to aspects of his work that should be better known. Amherst College GEORGE F. WHICHER In EINE WESTFÄLISCHE PSALMEN ÜBERSETZUNG aus der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts untersucht und herausgegeben. Akademische Abhandlung von Erik Rooth. Uppsala, 1919. Appelbergs Boktryckeri. CXXXIV, 164 pp. This is an edition of the somewhat fragmentary psalms (from 15, 9 on), with twelve canticles and parts of a breviary, from a Wolfenbüttel codex (Aug. 58.4 in 8°). This psalm translation is probably the oldest reasonably complete version in Low German. In the long introduction Dr. Rooth treats the language, vocabulary, relation to possible earlier versions, the version as a translation, and the phonology of the text. After a laborious study of all possible criteria, the author is inclined to locate the home of the scribe in S. W. Westfalia (Sauerland), which is near enough to Cologne for some influence of Middle German (Ripuarian) literary speech to appear in the dialect. In the discussion of the vocabulary the author presents several lists to illustrate words characteristic of High German or hitherto unrecorded in Middle Low German. Due to the conservative nature of the psalm translations, Dr. Rooth is convinced that the vocabulary of this version contains many survivals of the old fragmentary interlinear versions-that it even has some connection with the Old Low Franconian (Dutch) psalm fragments. There is no text of the Latin psalms which can be pointed out as the direct source of this translation. It represents essentially the Psalterium Gallicanum of the Vulgate but with some readings of Jerome's Psalt. Romanum and Psalt. juxta Hebraeos, and even with traces of the earlier Old Latin readings. Some readings of this Low German version (also of the Old Low Franconian and other psalters) find their closest parallels in the Old English psalms; significant variants of the latter and of Notker's psalms are entered in the apparatus to Dr. Rooth's text. The translation itself is faithful to the Latin but reasonably free and independent in wordorder; in many passages, however, Dr. Rooth detects crudities of style that seem to represent the tradition of the old interlinear glosses. In the sections of the study dealing with the localization of the dialect and with the sources the author indulged in hypothesis rather freely. In the fifty pages and more devoted to the phonology of his text he is on solid ground and furnishes dependable material on the history of Low German sounds. The publication is a welcome addition to the material on German psalm translations and a valuable contribution to the study of Low German, which is now exhibiting so notable a renaissance in the universities (with new chairs in Hamburg and Greifswald) and through many aspiring writers. CHAS. A. WILLIAMS University of Illinois HISTORICAL OUTLINES OF ENGLISH PHONOLOGY AND MIDDLE ENGLISH GRAMMAR. By Samuel Moore. Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr, 1919. Pp. 7+83. Many-probably most-of us who endeavor to give our students a real grounding in Chaucer's language or some precise acquaintance with the development of the English tongue have felt handicapped through the lack of a serviceable handbook. Professor Moore's compendium is in the main well planned to supply this need, as a brief summary of the contents will show. The first section is a somewhat too scant but reasonably clear sketch of "The Elements of Phonetics," which is followed by a short chapter on "Modern English Sounds." These two chapters provide the student with the means for observing his own production of speech sounds, without which no intelligent approach can be made to the subject of linguistic history. Part II contains a compressed but adequate treatment of the pronunciation and inflections of Chaucer's language, together with an explanation of "final e" that should be of the greatest assistance to the student whose acquaintance with earlier English begins with Chaucer. Something over a hundred lines of the Prologue in phonetic notation is not the least serviceable part of this chapter. Part III, "The History of English Sounds,' traces the main courses of sound changes from Old into Present English with some attention to American pronunciation where it differs from that of Standard English. So condensed a treatment naturally does not concern itself with minutiae and disputed points-and properly so, as this manual is intended for elementary students who would be bewildered by a complete and detailed discussion. Part IV presents "The Historical Development of Middle English Inflections." In this chapter the Old English Forms, the corresponding forms that developed (or would have developed) phonologically, and analogical new formations are arranged in parallel columns. Such an arrangement makes for clearness of presentation at some cost of accuracy. Part V is a presentation of the conventional material on the distribution and characteristics of the four chief dialects of Middle English. An Appendix on "Middle English Spelling" concludes the work. A surprisingly large amount of serviceable material is thus provided within the narrow limits of eighty-three pages. The division into practically independent parts allows the instructor who is familiar with this manual to assign what his students need in their particular work without forcing upon. them other material that would confuse them. The chapters on linguistic history as well as that on the language of Chaucer do not presuppose any knowledge of Old English. Though this little volume has thus been carefully planned for a definite group of users and should prove very serviceable to them, it is open to adverse criticism, I believe, in a good many respects. I shall merely illustrate particulars to which serious exception may be taken. In the first place, the proof reading should have been done much more carefully. An elementary student would be much puzzled by hoil for holi (p. 23), by Epicurus ownes one (p. 26) and by the paradigm of the present indicative singular of Northern find (e) (p. 78). There are also decidedly questionable or wholly inaccurate statements. For example, there may be warrant for beginning the Middle English period as early as 1050 (p. 79); but if this is done, the statement (p. 81, footnote 97) that "a does not occur in the earliest ME., for the OE. a became in ME." is obviously not true. It is also misleading to write ċ, ġ (with palatal dot) as Old English spellings (pp. 37 ff.) and only after forty pages to state in a footnote that "the dot is added by modern editors." Further, the thoughtful student who recalls his Modern English pronouns and wishes to connect them with the Middle English forms will be led sadly astray by such inconsistencies (pp. 58-59) as occasional indications of long vowels in us, sē (je), hi, he, and only short vowels in mi(n), me, we, ure, etc. There are a good many other particulars to which objection may be raised. For example, the sound of a in mate or of ey in they is hardly a "fair approximation" (p. 13) to the sound of Chaucer's ei, ai. The definition of preterite present verbs as those having present indicatives like strong preterite indicatives only "in that they have no ending in the first and third persons singular and have the ending -e(n) (from Old English -on) in the plural" (pp. 30, 66) is so incomplete as to be inaccurate. And is the vowel of the stressed syllable of airy (p. 6) properly represented by e? In connection with the employment of this symbol, I must regret that Professor Moore felt impelled to depart from the notation of the International Phonetic Alphabet. A student has no great difficulty in learning his first set of phonetic characters-and he has great difficulty in unlearning them. The International Alphabet is the only one that has any considerable prospect of general currency; every substitution of symbols for those provided in it increases the confusion now existing and postpones the day when a single set of phonetic characters will be consistently employed and readily understood by students and scholars everywhere. Finally, mention must be made of an error in method that is quite sure to confuse the student. Mercian or Midland is, of course, presented as the basis of Standard Middle and Modern English, whereas Old English and West Saxon are used as synonyms. When (pp. 61-62) slæpan, healdan, etc., are presented as the Old English forms and the statement is made that "By the operation of the sound changes which have been explained, these Old English forms developed into the following Middle English forms"-slepe(n) [slēpɔn], holde(n) [holdǝn], the normal student will not note in his mind the small type statement in a footnote which calls attention to differences between West Saxon and Mercian and explains that the Middle English forms are derived from the latter. The same sort of misinterpretation will result from the statement (p. 74) about the development of "Old English ie" in Kentish. In adapting his book to the needs of students who may be acquainted with Old English, Professor Moore encountered a real difficulty. It might have been met, I think, by a clear statement-placed prominently in the text-of the essential differences between Mercian and West Saxon, and by a consistent derivation of Midland forms from Mercian. |