u STUDIES IN ENGLISH NUMBER 8 University of Texas Bulletin No. 2826: July 8, 1928 PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN Publications of the University of Texas Publications Committees: GENERAL: FREDERIC DUNCALF H.J. MULLER D. G. COOKE G. W. STUMBERG J. L. HENDERSON HAL C WEAVER A. P. WINSTON OFFICIAL: E. J. MATHEWS R. A. LAW W. J. BATTLE F. B. MARSH C. D. SIMMONS The University publishes bulletins four times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue, the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 2201 is the first bulletin of the year 1922.) These comprise the official publications of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific sub­jects, bulletins prepared by the Division of Extension, by the Bureau of Economic Geology, and other bulletins of general educational interest. With the exception of special num­bers, any bulletin will be sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. All communications about University publications should be addressed to University Publications, University of Texas, Austin. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRl!S8 ~ STUDIES IN ENGLISH NUMBER 8 University of Texas Bulletin No. 2826: July 8, 1928 PUBLISHED BY THB UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH. AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER i\T THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24. 1912 The benefit. of education -· of useful knowledge, generally diffu1ed through a community, are e11ential to the pre1ervation of a free govern• ment. Sam Hou1ton Cultivated mind i1 the guar&an geniu1 of democracy. • • • It i1 the only dictator that freemen acknowl· edge and the only 1ecurity that fre.. men de1ire. Mirabeau B. Lamar CONTENTS PAGE RECENT WORKS IN THE FIELD OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, by Morgan Callaway, Jr,___________ ____ ________ __________ ___ ___ 5 THE FIRST BRITISH COLONIZATION OF BRITTANY, by Clark Harris Slover----------------------------------------------­ 42 A STYLISTIC DEVICE OF THE SAGAS INVOLVING THE SYNTAX OF THE SUPERLATIVE IN OLD NORSE, by Jess H. Jackson___ __ ____ ____ _____________ ________________________________ 50 ELIZABETH AS EUPHUIST BEFORE "EUPHUES," by Theo­dore Stenberg_______________ __ _______________ ­-----------------------------­ 6 5 THE VERSION OF THE BIBLE USED BY PEELE IN THE COMPOSITION OF "DAVID AND BETHSABE," by Arthur M. Sampley_______________ ____________ _ ___ _______ _______ ___ 79 MILTON"s CONCEPTION OF SAMSON, by Evert Mordecai Clark.___ _____________________________________________________________ _________ 88 MORE ABOUT DRYDEN AS AN ADAPTER OF SHAKESPEARE, Houghton W. Taylor______________ ____________________________________ 110 by D. T. Starnes_____________________________________________________ 100 WHO wAS "OUTIS"? by Killis Campbell_________________________ 107 SOME NINETEENTH CENTURY CRITICS OF REALISM, by RECENT WORKS IN THE FIELD OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS (1921-1927) BY MORGAN CALLAWAY, JR. Two invaluable surveys of English linguistics have appeared within the last four years. The first, entitled Englische Sprachkunde, by Dr. Johannes Hoops, Professor of English in the University of Heidelberg, was published in 1923, at Stuttgart-Gotha, being the ninth volume in the series of Wissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte edited by Professor Karl Honn. This monograph of 127 pages names and evaluates the most noteworthy works in the field of English linguistics appearing during the years 1914 through 1920, especially those that were produced in Ger­many. The second survey, "Die Englische Sprachwissen­schaft," by Professor Wilhelm Horn, of the University of Giessen, appeared a year later in Stand und Aufgaben der Sprachwissenschaft, Festschrift fur Wilhelm Streitberg (Heidelberg, 1924), pp. 512-584. Dr. Horn does not set specific time-limits for his essay, but, as a rule, he begins in the seventies or the eighties; and seldom does he mention any work published after 1920, the end-date of the work by Professor Hoops. Far less ambitious is the present survey, in which I shall attempt to give a brief conspectus of the chief works appearing in the field of English linguistics during the past seven years (1921-1927). My purpose is to indicate tendencies rather than to give a full bibliography, which latter, were it possible, would be inappropriate to the present occasion.1 I Of works dealing with the history of the English lan­guage as a whole and published during the period under consideration the most noteworthy is the Histoire de la Langue Anglaise Tome I. Des Origines a la Conquet6 Normande (450-1066) (Paris, 1923), by Dr. Rene Huchon, 1This paper was read before the Department of English of the University of Texas on March 14, 1928, and is here published sulJ.. stantially as then delivered. Professor of English in the University of Paris. This is a stout volume of 328 pages. As the author's purpose was to introduce French students to the history of the English language, this work is not as detailed as English and American students could wish for. Though not strong on phonology and on inflexions, it gives in the main a trust­worthy history of our language from the beginnings until the Norman Conquest, and it gives this history from an in­dividual point of view as well as from a national (French) point of view. By the latter I mean that Professor Huchon reveals that he is a Frenchman by his constant consid­eration of language (and incidentally of literature) from the artistic standpoint, and that his views are habitually expressed in impeccable French. By the former epithet I intend to suggest that, while Professor Huchon pays due and respectful attention to the views of other scholars, he often expresses original opinions, always with great mod­esty. His judgments concerning the Old English monu­ments seem to me, as a rule, more nearly just and adequate than are those in the great work by :Emile Legouis, A His­tory of English Literature, Vol. I, The Middle Ages and the Renaissance (650-1660), New York, 1926. A revised edition, the fifth, of Professor Otto Jespersen's well-known Growth and Structure of the English Language appeared in 1926 at Leipzig. A notable work dealing with a later period of our lan­guage is A History of Modern Colloquial English (London, 1920; 2d ed., 1921), by Dr. Henry Cecil Wyld, Professor of English in the University of Oxford. In this work no account is taken of vocabulary or of syntax, but a minute study is given of English pronunciation and (in a less degree) of English inflexions from the fifteenth century to the present, chief stress being laid upon the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Here may be mentioned another work of distinction by Professor Wyld, namely, Studies in English Rhymes from Surrey to Pope (London, 1923), which draws inference as to pronunciation from an examination of the rhymes. Quite recently Professor Wyld has published the third edition, revised and enlarged, of his Short History of Eng­lish, with a Bibliography of Recent Books on the Subject, and Lists of Texts and Editions, New York, 1927. A work of which all Americans will be proud is The English Language in America (New York, 1925), by Pro­fessor George Philip Krapp, of Columbia University. This work, sponsored by the Modern Language Association of America, was published by the help of the Revolving Fund of that association. The first volume has a chapter each on Vocabulary, Proper Names, Literary Dialects, Style, Ameri­can Spelling, and American Dictionaries. The second vol­ume is devoted largely to pronunciation, though a brief chapter is given to Inflection and Syntax. What impresses me most in this work is the catholicity of the judgments expressed. Professor Krapp's book moves in a region never touched by Mr. H. L. Mencken in his The American Loin· guage (New York, 1919; 2d ed., 1921; 3d ed., 1923), or by Mr. Gilbert M. Tucker in his American English (New York, 1921). Mr. Mencken seems to consider the jargon of the baseball nine or of the football team as truly typical of American speech as is the language of the schoolroom, the pulpit, or the forum; and contends, unsuccessfully I have always thought, that there is a national American language distinct from the speech of England. Mr. Tucker attempts to show that, however many solecisms we Americans are guilty of, our sins in this regard are venial as compared with those of our British cousins. Professor Krapp, on the other hand, holds, and I think demonstrates, that, as the title of his work indicates, America has no peculiar national language; that Americans speak and write the language of England, modified here and there, to be sure, in pronunciation and in vocabulary, but seldom or never to so great an extent as not still to deserve to be regarded as the English language. Often Professor Krapp shows that some pronunciation that has long been considered peculiarly American, as the aJ-sound in past, dance, patk, etc., exists in certain regions of England.1a He shows, also, let me add, that this m-sound is not restricted to the South Atlantic States, but is not infrequently found in sections of the North (even in the vicinity of Harvard) and of the Northwest. Long as is Dr. Krapp's discussion of this sound, however, he fails to give the deliverance of H. R. H. the Prince of Wales, who declares that those who lose on their ranches (as he has) uniformly say ranch! Did time allow, other illustrations could be given of.the many instances in which a supposed Southernism or New Englandism is shown to be merely an importation from some shire of England. Finally, let it be said that, although much of this second volume retraces the ground covered by Professor Krapp's earlier work, Pronunciation of Standard English in America (New York, 1919), it covers the ground more thoroughly than did the earlier volume. A second work just published by Professor Krapp on the same general subject, namely, A Comprehensive Guide to Good English (Chicago, 1927), as the title indicates, is in­tended primarily for a reference-book. But the author tells us, in his "Introduction," that the work "is devised not merely as a reference-book, like a dictionary, but as a book for reading, study, and reflection. Its purpose is to en­courage direct observation of the varied possibilities of English speech as it appears in living use, spoken and written, and, as a consequence of such observation, to en­able readers to make for themselves independent and sensi­ble judgments in the practical use of the English language." 1aUnfortunately I have not access to Professor W. Franz's article on "American and British English.'' which appeared in the Festschrift Friedrich. Kluge (Tiibingen, 1926). The reviewer in the Year's Work in English, Vol. VII (London, 1928), p. 46, speaks thus of the work: "A comparative study of American and British English by Professor Franz, in the Festschrift for Professor Kluge, which was so sadly anticipated by his death, shows how many characteristic usages of American colloquial speech are derived from seventeenth-century English. On the other hand; Professor Scott's glossary of American Slang (S. P. E. Tract XXIV), compiled for the assistance of English readers of the works of Sinclair Lewis and others, gives ample justification for Mr. de Selincourt's worst fears." The handbook is presented in the form of a dictionary ; most of the articles are quite brief; and the Guide seems adapted to the expressed purpose of the author, though not so well adapted, it seems to me, as is his The Knowledge of English, noticed below. Professor Krapp makes a plea for "liberty of judgment," and modestly declares that "The judgments put down in this book are not to be regarded as absolute and final." Accordingly I shall call attention to one or two deliverances that do not tally with my own observations. In Section 9 of his "Digest of Grammatical Rules," Professor Krapp makes this statement as to like: "The word like is current in unquestioned use as a preposition, as in He rows like a professional, but like as a conjunction, as in I felt like I had stolen something, for I felt as though I had stolen something, is ordinarily condemned by rhetori­cians and grammarians, though it occurs occasionally in certain forms of local cultivated speech." I doubt whether like in the first quotation should be considered a preposition; to me the sentence seems merely an abbreviated form of He rows like a professional rows; if so, like in the first quo­tation does not differ essentially from like in the second quotation. This statement in Section 13 of "The Digest" seems to discountenance the use of the relative pronoun that to stand for a person: "The relatives which, that ordinarily refer to inanimate objects and the lower creatures, as in This is not the horse that I bargained for." Surely this statement is too sweeping in view of the numerous instances in which that has for its antecedent words like man, woman, boy, and girl. Indeed, in a restrictive relative clause there is a strong tendency to prefer that to who or to which when the antecedent of the relative is personal as well as when impersonal. Professor Krapp's deliverance concerning who would shock the Earl of Balfour, who, when presiding at the first session of the International Council for English, on June 16, 1927, expressed "solicitude about the m in whom, and was inclined to regard the proper use of the word whom as the shibboleth of educated men."2 "In colloquial Eng­lish,'' says Professor Krapp (op. cit., sec. 16 [b]), "espe­cially in questions, the form who is used for an objective, as in who do you mean? Though not strictly grammatical, this has passed into current spoken use and may be accepted on the colloquial level." I cannot quite accept the dictum either of the Earl or of the Professor. In my observation, an educated man seldom uses who instead of whom even in conversation, and, when he does, the who is due to a slip of the tongue, and is instantly changed to whom. The late Miss Amy Lowell, it is said, was once heart­broken because her publisher had sought to eliminate one of her subjunctives. What would she have said to the fol­lowing statements of Professor Krapp concerning the Sub­junctive Mood (op. cit., sec. 20 [a]) ? "The subjunctive mood in present English is restricted almost entirely to the condition contrary to fact, as in If he were commander-in­chief, there is no question what he would do. ... In colloquial speech, even in the condition contrary to fact, the forms of the subjunctive appear frequently only when the subject of the verb is a personal pronoun, I, you, he, she, we, they. But in these constructions also, colloquial speech ordinarily has the indicative, as in If he was here, he would tell us what to do; Tottering as if he was about to fall (New York Times); I wish I was in your pl,ace. These uses are now so general that they must be accepted as at least good colloquial English." The quotations having an indicative here I should rate as "Low Colloquial" if not as "Illiterate." Surely all of us often use the subjunctive in the expression of a wish, as in God bless you; The Lord deliver us from our friends. And judicial and legislative bodies habitually use the sub­junctive in decrees and resolutions, as in It is ordered and decreed that the defendant, John Jones, be electrocuted; Re­solved that the sum of $1,000,000 be and hereby is appro­priated to the University of Texas. If we include the forms of the verb made up of the auxiliaries (may, might, can, could, would, should, etc.) plus an infinitive, in hypothetical 2See The Times (London) of June 18, 1927. or ideal statements, as true subjunctives, as I do, we have numerous occurrences of the analytic subjunctive in Modern English, as in May God bless you; Oh that my enemy would write a book! Would you prefer coffee or tea? I should ad­vise you not to do that. Still another recent work by Professor Krapp bears the somewhat puzzling title, The Knowledge of English (New York, 1927). A more discriminating title, it seems to me, would have been The Principles of Language with Especial Reference to English. The volume consists of thirty chap­ters, and deals with such topics as "English Dialects," "Cor­rectness," "Analogy," "The Historical Study of English," "Structural Changes," "The English Vocabulary," "English Sounds," "Language and Style," "The Future of English," etc., etc. Like his The English Language in America, this later work is marked by breadth of knowledge and by catho­licity of judgment. So many topics are taken up, however, that an adequate treatment is almost impossible in a single volume. And I find myself fearing that the work, despite its many excellent qualities, will prove too detailed for the student and too general for the scholar. This is the more unfortunate because in this volume to a greater degree than in any other of his works Professor Krapp is dealing with fundamental linguistic problems, proble~ that often con­cern not only English but all the members of the family of languages to which English belongs, the lndo-Germanic; indeed, he occasionally touches upon the most di~ult prob­lem of all,-the origin of language. These fundamental problems the author discusses in an independent and, at times, a penetrating manner; and, as already stated, in these discussions he habitually manifests a catholic spirit. What I miss most is the history of opinion. Professor Krapp adds a selected bibliography at the end of his book, but he seldom, if ever, cites any of these authors in the body of his work. The history of opinion would be of invaluable help to the seasoned scholar as well as to the young student in linguistics. If I may be permitted to call attention to a few concrete statements by Professor Krapp, I should like, first of all, to cite his references to case in English grammar. On pp. 134-135, he tells us that, in He walked two miles, miles is by some text-books "said to be objective because some govern­ing word like for, or for the distance of is understood," a proceeding to which he rightly objects, since, as he states, in Old English, measure in such instances was expressed by an accusative without a preposition, a fact that I had sup­posed accounted for the general use of the phrase, "the ad­verbial objective," in Modern English grammars, rather than the hypothesis of a preposition to be supplied, which hypothesis I have not seen advocated in recent years. On p. 135 Dr. Krapp continues: "In our present feeling there is no realization of an objective or accusative case at all in the word miles in He walked two miles. The words two miles are merely an adverb phrase modifying the verb. To justify the correctness of this idiom, it is not necessary to bring in the question of case at all, for the consciousness of case does not enter into the modern use of the construction, and any discussion of case is irrelevant."3 On the contrary, it seems to me that, since, when a noun was used adverbially in Old English, it was always in some oblique case, and since, in the locution in question, the noun was in Old Eng­lish in the accusative, it is quite appropriate in Modern English to call miles an adverbial objective, though I should prefer to call it an adverbial accusative. Again, on p. 291, Dr. Krapp discusses the terminology for case-relations in English. Says he: "Case in Anglo-Saxon was indicated only partly by endings, but also by the fact that the nomi­native was the case of a noun standing before a governing word and the accusative, with which the dative was com­bined, was the case of a noun standing after a governing ·word. Modern English has no other means of indicating case,3 for the dependent adjective and article naturally have not retained what the noun itself has relinquished. Modern English grammars therefore very properly do not speak of a nominative and accusative case,3 but merely call what was 3The italics are mine.-M. C., JR. formerly a nominative the subject, and what was formerly an accusative, the object." In the clauses that I have ital­icized in the preceding quotation, Dr. Krapp seems to ignore several pertinent facts. Modern English indicates the geni­tive (possessive) case, not by position, but, as in Old Eng­lish by an inflectional ending, a fact stated by Dr. Krapp himself on p. 292. Many Modern English grammars pub­lished in recent years (including the most recent, the Col­lege English Grammar by Dr. George 0. Curme, Richmond, Va., 1925) follow the recommendations of the Committee on Grammatical Terminology of the United States and that of the British Committee to the effect that the terms nomi­native, genitive, dative, and accusative be used not only in Modern English grammars, but in the grammars of all Mod­ern Languages. Strangest of all, Dr. Krapp here seems ob­livious of the fact that, in his own The Elements of English Grammar (New York, 1908), he used the terms nominative and dative, and that, in his Comprehensive Guide to Good English, in the section of his Appendix entitled "I. Digest of Grammatical Rules," he himself several times uses the term nominative with reference to Modern English, as in Section 1: "Any word which is used as subject or object of a verb, as preaicate nominative, or as object of a preposition is a noun." See, also, Section 16 (a) and (d). In discussing the personal endings of the English verb, on p. 309, Dr. Krapp thus speaks of -s, the ending of the third person, singular, of the present indicative: "This is the only personal inflection left in the Modern English verb, and it serves no useful purpose.4 If it is possible to say I sang, you sang, he sang without danger of misunderstand­ing, it would be equally possible to say I sing, you sing, he sing." To my mind, however, this -s serves the very useful purpose of differentiating the indicative present, third sin­gular, from the subjunctive present, third singular. The loss of -s would be as unfortunate, I think, as has been the loss of the personal endings of the subjunctive preterite of strong verbs (0. E. he Sf>ng, indicative; he sunge, subjunc­tive). 4The italics are mine.-M. C., Ja. Once more, in several places Dr. Krapp indicates what topics should be omitted from Modern English grammar. Thus, on p. 279, he declares, "The whole discussion of gender could be, and should be, omitted from the grammar of Mod­ern English." And on p. 249 we read: "The discussion of structure would very often be greatly simplified if the con­sideration of parts of speech were omitted and attention were focused only upon those elements which are essentially of structural significance" ; and on p. 250 : "Instead of begin­ning with the parts of speech, grammars therefore now tend more and more to begin with the sentence." How the most elementary analysis of a sentence can be made without tak­ing some account of the parts of speech, of which all sen­tences are composed, I cannot understand. In his The Elements of English Grammar, instead of omitting "Gen­der" and "the Parts of Speech," Professor Krapp devoted three pages to the former topic and nearly two hundred pages to the latter. Of course, one has a right to change one's mind; but it seems to me that, in this instance, the last state of my friend is worse than the first. On p. 250, in concluding the paragraph from which I have just quoted, Professor Krapp thus appraises the modern movement in matters grammatical : "The movement in re­cent years has therefore been in the right direction, though one may question whether it has gone far enough and whether the modern grammarian has held closely enough to his new definition."5 Some light is thrown on the question propounded in the italicized part of this sentence by these facts : a few years ago only half of the freshmen registered in the colleges of Indiana "knew the difference between one sentence and two sentences" ; not a third of the freshmen registering in the University of Wisconsin "could distin­guish between a whole sentence and a fraction of a sen­tence"; and, in my native state of Georgia, says a former instructor in the Georgia School of Technology, "the college teacher of Freshman English . . . is agreeably surprised if half of his class can point out the subject of a complex sen­tence; he is astonished if the same number can distinguish GThe italics are mine.-M. C., JR. between a phrase and a clause; and he feels that the spirit of fair play forbids any question concerning adjectives and adverbs."6 If these results are truly typical, as I believe they are, since they come from some of the most reputable institutions in the nation, the modern movement has not as yet made a brilliant success in what it most stresses, the analysis of the sentence. Akin to Dr. Krapp's The English Language in America is the volume by Professor J. S. Kenyon, of Hiram College, Ohio, entitled American Pronunciation, A Textbook of Phonetics for Students of English (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1924). This book, however, as its subtitle indicates, deals primarily with phonetics; indeed, it is intended as an intro­duction to the subject of phonetics, and has been declared by so competent a critic as Professor Charles H. Grandgent, of Harvard, the best work of the kind known to him. Dr. Kenyon, who, I may add, is Professor of the English Lan­guage at his college, some years ago published an able mono­graph on The Infinitive in Chaucer (Chaucer Society Publi­cations, London, 1909), and is to give a part of English 64 in our Summer Session of the current year. A third work on the English Language in America is The Standard of American Speech and Other Papers (New York, 1926) by Professor F. N. Scott, of the University of Michigan. This book is made up of a series of interesting essays and addresses which had appeared in various periodi­cals before collection into the present volume. Owing to the variety of topics treated, the work does not admit of brief comment. An illuminating essay by Professor W. A. Craigie, of the University of Chicago, The Study of American English, recently (1927) appeared as Tract No. XXVII of The So­ciety for Pure English. &For the basis of these statements see ntr essay, "The Present-day Attitude toward the Historic Study of the Mother-tongue" (in the University of Texas Studies in English, No 5, 1925), p. 46. Though called a dictionary, Mr. H. W. Fowler's A Dic­tionary of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 1926) may appropriately be considered in this section, for it touches many points considered by Professor Krapp and by Professor Kenyon. The volume has been alternately severely condemned (as by Dr. E. Kruisinga, in an article entitled "English Grammar as She Is Taught at Oxford"7), and ardently praised by critics too numerous to be men­tioned, two of the latter class being members of our own English staff. For my own part, I am bound to hold that both blame and praise have in many instances been exces­sive. Unquestionably too slight and too untenable a historic basis has been given to a number of the longer articles, as to those on the Subjunctive Mood and on Shall and Will. But, after all discounts have been made, the work is a rare achievement. Some of the articles on stylistic matters sur­pass any of the sort to be found in our better, if not our best, rhetorics; for these articles (such as those on "In­version,'' "Battered Ornaments,'' "Out of the Frying Pan," "The Avoidance of the Obvious,'' etc., etc.) manifest keen thinking and uniformly excellent taste. Again, the articles on grammatical points, such as those dealing with case­relations, with relative pronouns, with sequence of tenses, with the phrase "that nose of his,'' etc., are in the main sound and severely practical. The treatment of spelling and of pronunciation is, as a rule, based on the Oxford English Dictionary (from which, as is well known, Mr. H. W. Fowler and his brother, now deceased, made that re­markable compend, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Cur­rent English, Oxford, 1911, and The Pocket Oxford Diction­ary, 1924), but at times Mr. Fowler dissents therefrom, and proves himself not a narrow partisan, but a citizen of the world, as when he favors the American -or to the English -our in words like honor, flavor, etc. Having said this much, I must add that I cannot approve such pronunciations as content, noun; optative, aither and naither for ither and nither; or such words as a(i)nt for am not, burgle, and bust. 1In English Studies, VIII, 1926, pp. 181-185. These, however, are meme flecks. The Dictionary is truly remarkable for the variety of topics treated; as a rule, for the sanity of the judgments expressed; and, not least of all, for its unfailing vivacity and humor both in thought and in expression. To the intelligent reader, there is hardly a dull page in the 7 42. How could there be when one is constantly running upon sentences like the following? P. ____s: "This word is as unnatural in this position as is the high heel of a lady's shoe under the middle of her foot." P. 90: "In connection with is a formula that every one who prefers vigorous to flabby English will have as little to do with as he can: see Periphrasis." P. 118 : "Distinction, as a Literary Critics' Word, is, like charm, one of those on which they fall back when they wish to convey that a style is meritorious, but have not time to make up their minds upon the precise nature of its merits." P. 266. Under the heading "Incongruous Vocabulary," illustrated in the sentence, "Austria-Hungary was no longer in a position, an' she would, to shake off the German yoke," Mr. Fowler thus comments : "The goldfish an' cannot live in this sentence-bowl unless we put some water in with it, and gasps pathetically at us from the mere dry air of be in a position." P. 364, under mot: "The mot juste is a pet Literary Critics' Word, which readers would like to buy of them as one buys one's neighbor's bantam cock for the sake of hear­ing its voice no more." Far removed from the impartial attitude toward the English language of Mr. Fowler and of Professor Krapp is that of two Englishmen that have recently publicly expressed their views concerning the same. In his Pomona, or, The Future of English (London, 1927 [ ?] ) , Mr. Basil de Selincourt speaks thus: "Only when we hear English on the lips of Americans do we fear for its integrity." Almost equally chilling are the words of Mr. J. R. R. Tolkien, Pro­fessor of Anglo-Saxon in Oxford University, who, in his review9 of Professor Krapp's The English Language in 8Unfortunately I have lost the reference here, and must quote from memory. 9ln The Year's Work in English Studies, Vol. VI (Lon<\on, 1927), p. 65. America, deprecates the cherishing of common ideals for the language of the English-speaking peoples. Says he: "To the American author, of course, it does not appear so clear as it does to us that the problem is no longer that of the freedom of America and her 'illustrious vernacular,' but of the freedom of England. Sir Walter Raleigh in a speech on 'Some Gains of the War' made in February, 1918, did not escape the notice of Dr. Spies when he said: 'the clear­est gain of all is that after the War the English language will have such a position as never before. The greatest gain of all, the entry into the War of America, assures the tri­umph of our common language and our common ideals.' We have indicated above what we feel about linguistic triumph. Some even now are found to criticize the expression 'com­mon language'; more might question 'common ideals' (and without necessarily implying any judgment concerning rela­tive values) ; but to all it should be apparent that this tri­umph, if it takes place, is only likely to be 'common' if it is predominantly or wholly American. Whatever be the spe­cial destiny and peculiar future splendour of the language of the United States, it is still possible to hope that our fate may be kept distinct. And it is possible in The English Language in America to find reasons for making that hope more earnest.'' Possibly as an antidote to such linguistic chauvinism as that manifested by Mr. de Selincourt and by Professor Tolkien an International Council for English, an inchoate academy, was formed at London during the summer of 1927 (on June 16-17). The purpose of the Council is stated in the following resolution, passed on June 17, 1928, as re­ported in the London Times of June 18, 1927: "It is agreed to form an International Council for English with reference to the problems of the common language of the English­speaking countries. This Council is to be an investigating body which will consider facts as to disputed usage and other questions of language in the various English-speaking countries, and give the results of its investigations the wid­est publicity: in short, will maintain the traditions and foster the development of our common tongue." It was de­cided that the General Council should consist of 100 mem­bers, fifty of whom should be from the British Empire and fifty from the United States of America, and that members of the conference should provisionally form the nucleus of the General Council. As yet I have been unable to secure any detailed account of the first meeting of the Council and of its plans, but one is soon to be published by Professor Kemp Malone,10 of Johns Hopkins University. Meantime, perhaps, you will enjoy this humorous account by Mrs. Elizabeth Stanley Trotter, which appeared in a recent num­ber of The Forum (August, 1927), and which thrusts at some of the pronunciations supposedly recommended by the International Council: "ET TU? "An 'Advisory Committee,' Robert Bridges, Shaw the witty, Recently has been appointed, Duly sanctioned and anointed, To dispense pronunciation To the docile British nation. "Heralded as lawful masters Of the radio-broadcasters, Shall these sacerdotal censors,­These pronuncio-dispensers,­Have their way with me and you? Stop them, Footpath-man! Ah, do! "Made to go a deux with scenery, Will you tolerate centeenary? Is your resolution final, To endure the word doctrinal? If you swallow eevolution, Must we take to reevolution? iosince my paper was read Dr. Malone has published in American Speech, III, 1928 (April), pp. 261-275, an interesting article entitled "The International Council for English." "Though there's nothing new in patent Since they've rhymed it long with latent, When of pat-riots they prate Are they aching for debate? If we hide behind our smiles, Will they pelt us with missiles? "Your eventual decision On this Oxford-Pshaw revision, Of their late pronunciation, I await with consternation,­Fearing, from your Highway, you May have leanings that way too! "Epilogue "So, Pedestrian, won't you say 'Centenary's here to stay'? Since that's patent, please do add 'Doctrinal is not so bad ! Missal does for prayers, or fight, Evolution's plainly right. As for patriots, that's what we 'Ve always been and mean to be.' Start a wordy warfare, do. Take your pen and run them through!" Pleasantries aside, it is to be hoped that the International Council may succeed in its announced purpose, to "main­tain the traditions and foster the development of our com­mon tongue." And, in the Review of English Studies, Ill, 1927, pp. 430-441, an omen of success is to be found in the thoughtful and gracious article by Professor J. H. G. Grattan, of University College, London, "On Anglo-Ameri­can Cultivation of Standard English." II Several Bibliographies of great usefulness and of un­questioned erudition have recently appeared. Professor John Edwin Wells, of Connecticut College, has added a Second Supplement (New Haven, 1923) and a Third Sup­plement (New Haven, 1926) to his excellent Manual of the Writings in Middle English (New Haven, 1916). Professor C. S. Northup, of Cornell University, has given us an extremely useful and comprehensive work in his A Register of Bibliographies of the English Language and Literature (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1925). But excellent as are the works just mentioned, they must yield the palm to A Bibliography of Writings on the English Language from the Beginning of Printing to the End of 1922 (Cambridge [Mass.] and New Haven, 1927), by Pro­fessor A. G. Kennedy, of Leland Stanford University. Although some omissions occur (Dr. Kennedy was kind enough to write me that even in my two lectures on the Historic Study of the Mother-Tongue, Austin, Texas, 1925, were recorded titles that had been overlooked by him), these are relatively few and unimportant, and this Bibliog­raphy is an enduring honor to Professor Kennedy and to American scholarship. Additions will doubtless be made to this work, but it will never be superseded. The year 1921 saw the beginning, in England, of two excellent bibliographical periodicals: (1) Annual Bibliog­raphy of English Language and LiterafJure, compiled by members of the Modern Humanities Research Association and originally edited by Miss Anna C. Paues; (2) The Year's Work in English Studies, edited for the English Association of Great Britain and published annually by the Oxford University Press. And in 1923 the late Professor Albert S. Cook, of Yale University, had privately printed a List of his own publications, which list chronicled over three hun­dred items (exclusive of the Yale Studies in English, which were edited by him). Among dictionaries of the English language may be men­tioned, first of all, the great Oxford English Dictionary (for­merly called the New English Dictionary), the last fascicle of which has just been sent to the press; Ernest Weekley's An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (New York, 1921) and his Concise Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (New York, 1924); H. E. Palmer, J. V. Martin, and F. G. Blandford: A Dictionary of English Pronuncia­tion with American Variants in Phonetic Transcription (Cambridge [England], 1926); and the "zweite, vermehr~ und verbesserte Auflage" of Ferd. Holthausen's Ety­mologisches Worterbuch der Englischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1927). It should be added that A Dictionary of American English has been projected by the University of Chicago, under the editorship of Professor W. A. Craigie, formerly an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. Three periodicals devoted exclusively to the English language and litei:ature fall within our period: Tracts of the Society for Pure English, which began in 1920-1921, the Review of English Studies, and American Speech, the two latter dating from 1925. Within our period, too, have been founded two excellent serial studies in English: Giessener Beitrage zur Erfors­chung der Sprache und Kultur Englands und Nordamer­ikas, under the editorship of the distinguished grammarian, Professor Wilhelm Horn, begun in 1923; and Studies in English by Members of the English Seminar of the Charles University, Prague, edited by Professors B. Foustka, G. Friedrich, and V. Mathesius and begun in 1924. The latter serial is published in Bohemian, but usually a summary of each work is added in English. Several memorial volumes to distinguished English schol­ars contain noteworthy contributions to English linguistics. In The Manly Anniversary Studies in Language and Litera­ture (Chicago, 1923), in honor of the distinguished mediae­valist, Professor John M. Manly, of the University of Chi­cago, occur articles on the English language by Professors Kemp Malone (Johns Hopkins University), W. F. Bryan (Northwestern University), J. F. Royster (University of North Carolina), J. M. Steadman, Jr. (Emory University), and A. H. Tolman (University of Chicago). In N eusprach­liche Studien, Festgabe Karl Luick (Marburg, 1925), we find linguistic studies in the English field by Professors Eduard Sievers (Leipzig), Otto Funke (Prague), R. E. Zachrisson (Uppsala), Alois Pogatscher (Graz), Eilert Ekwall (Lund), and Otto Strauss (Kiel). In Probleme der Englischen Sprache und Kultur, Festschrift Johannes Hoops (Heidelberg, 1925), linguistic articles appear by Professors Lorenz Morsbach (Gottingen), Otto Funke (Prague), Wolfgang Keller (Munster), and Walther Fischer (Gies­sen). Anglica: Untersuchungen zur Englischen Philologie Alois Brandl zum Siebzigsten Geburtstage U eberreicht (=Palaestra, Vols. CXLVII and CXLVIII, Leipzig, 1925) devotes Bd. I to "Sprache-und Kulturgeschichte," which contains articles concerning the English language by Pro­fessors Wilhelm Horn (Giessen), E. Ekwall (Lund), A. Mawer (Liverpool), W. Keller (Munster), and K. Luick (Vienna). III But it is time to turn from works of this general sort to those that are of a more technical nature, and that deal with relatively limited periods and fields. Let us look for a mo­ment at the Old English Epoch. Several valuable editions of Old English texts have ap­ peared during the years 1921 through 1927. In the Yale Studies in English we have:­ Cook, Albert S., and Pitman, James H.: The Old English Physiologus, No. LXIII, 1921. Chubb, Merrel Dare: Christ and Satan: An Old English Poem, No. LXX, 1925. In the Early English Text Society's Publications (Lon­don) have appeared:­Crawford, S. J.: The Old English Version of the Hepta­teuch, etc., Original Series, No. 160, 1921. Rypins, Stanley: Three Old English Prose Texts in MS. Cotton Vitellius XV, Original Series, No. 161, 1924. The texts are (1) "Letter of Alexander the Great to Aristotle," (2) "Wonders of the East,'' and (3) "Life of St. Christo­pher." In the Grein-Wiilker BibUothek eira er menn haft set,9 (5) [HQskuldr ]:>rainsson] var ... manna fril!astr sjnum.10 (6) _Hrutr [son of ]:>orgerl!r and Herj6lfr] var allra manna fril!astr sjnum.11 (7) Hann [Kjartan] var allra nianna fril!astr, ]:>eira er frez hafa a fslandi.12 Among the saga women there is a veritable beauty con­test rivaling that among the Greek goddesses, the one dif­ference being that there is no northern Paris to settle the 5/.e., Laxdala Saga, ed. Kr. Kaalund, Halle, 1896, heft 4 of Altnordische Saga-Bibliothek, hsg. Cederschiold, Gering, and Mogk, Halle, since 1892 (17 hefte have already appeared); hereafter re­ferred to as ASB. 5a/.e., Brennu-Njals Saga (ASB 13), ed. Finnur Jonsson, Balle, 1908. 6£axdrela, 47, 10. Wjal,a, 215, 10 ff. sLaxdrel,a, 16, 5. 9£arx;drel,a, 50, 16 f. 10Njala, 215, 10 ff. 11Laxda3T,a, 16, 18. 12£axda3la, 80, 12 f. dispute started by Eris's apple. Although the saga-writer chooses no winner, it may be that Hrefna .Asgeirsd6ttir, who is said to be both "vrenst" and "fri<5ust," merits the prize: (8) "[IngibjQrg, daughter of Isi] was the fairest of women."18 (9) "Herdis, Bolli's daughter, grew up at Holyfell, and was the goodliest of all women."H (10) Gunnhildr var allra kvenna vrenst.u (11) [IngibjQrg, King Olaf's sister] var ]:>a meti hirti 613.fs konungs ok J:>eira kvenna I fritiust, er ]:>a varu i landi.16 (12) [K9rmloti, mother of King Sigtryggr of Ireland] var allra kvenna fegrst ok bezt at ser I ortiinn um ]:>at allt, er henni var 6sjalfratt.17 (13) Qnnur d6ttir Asgeirs bet Hrefna; I hon var vrenst kvenna nortir par i sveitum ok vel vinsret.1s (14) [Hrefna, the same woman as under (13)] var en fritiasta I kona.19 (15) []:>6rhalla AsgrilDSd6ttir] var kvenna fritiust ok kurteisust.20 It is just as hard to tell which of the men of the sagas was the strongest : (16) ]:>6r6lfr [Skallagrimsson] var ]:>a hverjum manni meiri ok sterkari.21 (17) ]:>or-I bjQrn [Oxnamegin] var allra manna sterkastr.22 1sGisli the Outlaw, tr. George Wehbe Dasent, Edinburgh, 1866, p. 1. HThe Laxdale Saga, tr. Muriel A. C. Press, London, 1899, p. 269. 15Egla, i.e., Egils Saga Skallagrimssonar, ed. Finnur Jonsson, (ASE 3), Halle, 1894, 110, 5. 1s£axdrela, 131, 26 f. 11Njala, 401, 26 f. 1s£axdrela, 119, 4 f. 19£axdrela, 137, 24 f. 20Njala, 62, 11. 21Egla, 109, 23. 22Gretla; i.e., Grettis Saga .Asmundalrsonar (ASE 8), ed. R. G. Boer, Halle, 1900, 113, 11 f. (18) BergQnundr [son of porgeirr pyrnif6tr] I var hverjum meiri ok sterkari.23 (19) prandr [Stigandi] var I manna mestr ok sterkastr.24 (20) Hann [prrell prandr] var allra manna mestr ok sterkastr.2G (21) Steinarr [sonr Qnunds sj6na] var allra manna mestr ok I ramr at afli ... enn mesti kappsma5r.26 Something like a direct contradiction to number (21) occurs in number (22) "Of all men of Norway27 of whom record hath come down to us was King Olaf in every wise the most skillful in manly exercise."28 It comes to positive contradiction in Njala, and that within such narrow space as to admit of no ambiguity: (23) p6rhallr .Asgrimsson .. I .. var enn pri5i I mestr 1Qgma5r a fslandi.29 (24) Eyj6lfr [enn grai, sonr BQlverks] var ... allra manna I lQgkrenastr, sva at hann var enn pri5i mestr 1Qgma5r a fslandi.30 And here is another group of men each of whom excels all others in some particular and often identical manner: (25) porsteinn [Egilsson] var vren ma5r, hvitr a har ok eygr manna bezt.31 23Egla, 111, 1 f. 24Eyrbyggja, i.e., Eyrbyggja Saga (ASB 6), ed. Hugo Gering, Halle, 1897, 215, 18 f. 2sEgla, 272, 8. 2aEgla, 270, 11 ff. 27!t must be remembered that the Icelandic sagas often deal with Norway and that Iceland was settled by Norwegians, ca. 872, et seq. 2 BThe Sagas of Olaf Tryggvason and of Harold the Tyrant, tr. Williams and Norgate, London, 1911, p. 95. 20Njala, 329, 2 ff. 3oNjala, 333, 16 f. 3lffimnlaugs (Gunnlaugs Saga Ornt13tunga), ed. Eugen Mogk (Altnordische Texte I), Halle, 1908, 1, 7 f. A modern Norwegian tr. of the words "eygr manna bezt" reads luulde vakre iiine ([he] had pretty eyes) . (26) [Gisli] hittir bonda einn, er Refr Mt, sonr ):>orsteins I rannstafs, ok var allra manna slregastr.s2 (27) Matlr sa var mets porsteini [Skallagrhn.sson], er fra Mt, I hverjum manni fothvatari ok allra manna skygnastr.ss The next group introduces a few champions Who are the best of their kind, whatever their peculiar excellence : (28) "Ospak was a heathen, and the wisest of all men."H (29) "Brodir ..• was of all men most skilled in aorcery."85 (80) [Hrafn] var mikill rnatsr ok sterkr, manna sja.Iigastr ok skald gott. so (31) Lj6tr bet matsr, er bj6 a Mana-I bergi f fsafirtli. Ljotr var mikill matsr ok I sterkr; hann var br6tlir ):>orbjarnar, ok h()4 I num lfkastr um alla hluti.s1 (32) Gaukr Trandilsson var f6stbr6tlir I A.sgrfms, er fl'O!knastr matlr hefir verit ok bezt at ser rQrr.88 (33) Hann [Art\is konungr] var allra konunga frregstr.s9 N jUJ,a, acquaints the reader with three very courteous women, two of whom are declared to possess other superla­tive qualities, in addition to their good manners: (34) [J>orhalla A.sgrimsd6ttir] var kvenna fritlust ok kurteisust.4o s2GUZa, (Gisla, Sa,ga, Surss01w1r: ASB 10), ed. Finnur Jon!ISon, Halle, 1903, 71, 9 f. aaEgla, 282, 25 f. 84:Tke Story of Burnt Njal, tr. Dasent, Edinburgh, 1861, II, p. 329. 85/bid. 86Gunnlaugs, 7, 2 f. In modern Norwegian, Han var en stor og sterk mand, fager at se til, og en god skald (He was a big and strong man, fair to look at, and a good poet) . a1Havar1Js Saga lsfirlJings (fslendinga, Sogur, ed. Valdimar A11mundarson, Reykjavik, 1891-1907, vol. 13-15), 1896, p. 2. 88Nj6.la,, 62, 6 f, s9/v61t8 Saga (ASB 7), ed. )!lugen K8lbing, Halle, 1898, 1, S. 4oNjal,a,, 62, 11. (35) _ Gullrun nattsol .•• var kvenna kurteisust.n (36) [Unnr, daughter of MQrllr gigr] var I vam kona ok kurteis ok vel at ser, ok .Potti sa kostr beztr aI RangarvQllum.42 A few other miscellaneous instances of this use of the superlative as applied to persons and a couple as applied to inanimate objects must close this catalogue: (87) Ek hefi engan mann set I jafnvaskligan at Qllu.o (38) Hann [618fr pai] var peira manna frillastr I synum, er }la varu a fslandi.'* (39) j:>orgerllr [Egilsd6ttir] var vren kona ok I kvenna mest.45 (40) Halli var gleillimallr mikill ok lOgumallr, ok hvarllamallr binn rneati.4e (41) Sterkare voru peir miklu enn allrir I menn flestir, er pa voru uppi.47 (42) [Frillj:>j6fr inn :frrekni] var allra manna stoorstr ok sterkastr.48 (43) Gullmundr ... var ... allbrallgjorr.49 4.1/bid., 131, 9. 42/bid., 1, 6 ff. •aLaxdrela, 191, 2 f. ••Egla, 266, 6 f. 45/bid., 256, 8 f. 46Valla--Lj6ts Saga (18lendinga SiJgur 20-21), Reykjavt1i:, 1898, p. 1. ' 7V9lsunga saga ok Ragnars saga Lo/Jbr6ks, ed. Magnus Olsen, Kobenhavn, 1906-1908, p. 121, 21 f. •BFri/JJ;j6fs Saga Ins Frrekna (ASE 9), ed. Ludvig Larsson, Halle, 1901, 2, 8. •eGulZ-J;6ris Saga, ed. K. Maurer, Leipzig, 1858, p •. 58. Although the word is not a superlative, the intensive prefix aU. lends it elative force. Cf. Zoega, A Conci,se Dictionarv of Old Icelandic, Oxford, 1910, and cf. the modern Icelandic all-vel (pretty well; tolerably well) and alla-vega litur (variegated; motley). The following modern Icelandic adjectives further illustrate the elative force lent by alk all-broslegur (rather funny), all-fagur (pretty fine), all-g6/Jur (pretty good), all­"#Kvr/Jur (pretty hard), all-langur (pretty long), all-mikiU (pretty bir), and all-Olikwr (pretty unlike). (44) [Arnkell] hefir verit I allra manna bezt at ser um alla hluti i fornum sill ok manna I vitrastr.5o ( 45) Manna var hann [Klaufi beggvir Smekollsson] svartastr bmrJi a br:Vnn ok I har.61 (46) Gul!mundr enn riki var miok fyrir Qllrom m9nnum um rausn sina, at hann haf!Si hundra!S hi6na ek hundral! kua.52 (47) Kari gaf Gu!Smundi gullsylju, en ]:>orgeirr silfrbelti, ok I var hvart tveggja enn bezti gripr.53 (48) ]:>at [spj6t] haf!Si Skarphe!Sinn gefit honum, ok I var en mesta gQrsimi.54 II The superlative in Old Norse normally expresses the highest grade. It is often weakened to the meaning of a very high grade ;55 that is, the relative superlative is fre­quently made elative or absolute in sense.56 This principle is applied under three rules of Old Norse syntax: 1. The strong form57 of the superlative, without addition, usually indicates the first grade (relative). soEyrbyggja, 137, 10 ff. This is one of the relatively few descriptive catalogues that occur elsewhere than at the beginning of the portrait. It is at the end. 51Svarfdrela saga ok porleifs pattr jarlssktflds (fslenzkar Fornsogar III), ed. Finnur Jonsson, Kaupmannahofn, 1883, 52, 16 f. 52£iosvetninga Saga, in Origines lslandicae, ed. Vigfusson and Powell, London, 1905, II, 365, 12 ff. 53Njala, 378, 10 f. 54Njala, 348, 13 f. 55Andreas Heusler, Altisliindisches Elementarbuch, Zweite Auflage, Heidelberg, 1921, §393. (Hereafter referred to as Elementarbuch.) 56Similar conditions prevail in modern English, in which the super­lative of the second grade is someti~s called the superlative of em­phasis. Cf. An Advanced English Gramumar, Kittredge and Farley, Boston, 1913, § 200. 57The Old Norse superlative takes the strong or the weak inflection. Cf. Noreen, Altisliindis.che und Altnorwegische Gramvnatik, Vierte Auflage, Halle, 1923, §§ 423 and 432; and Heusler, Elementarbuch, §285, anm. 2. The weak form with the article is neutral, yet with inclination to the second grade (elative) . 3. There are many exceptions to the rule that an added partitive genitive lends to the strong form (relative) the force of the second grade (elative). Heusler cites some examples of the exceptions noted under Rule 3, and lists some peculiar forms that have arisen from aversion to joining a relative clause to a superlative in Old Norse,58 an inhibition which modern English does not share.59 I have arranged the superlatives occurring in the excerpts given in Part I under the three rules stated here. The results are as follows : seven examples fall under Rule 1, seven under Rule 2, and two under Rule 3. The three rules, then, actually account for sixteen of these superlatives.60 What is important is that, of the sixty-one superlatives used in these excerpts, all but the seven under Rule 1 are e.lative in force and that forty of them fall under neither Rule 1 nor Rule 2 but tend toward violation of Rule 3; that is, they are strong, they accompany the partitive geni­tive construction, and they are elative.61 These forty recalcitrant superlatives are accounted for but not explained by Heusler's statement, "Die Grundbedeu­ 5BElwientarbuch, §§ 393 and 394. 59E.g., pat suer]:> hefer bezt komet til N6regs translates into literal English, "This sword has best come to Norway," rather than "This is the best sword which has come to Norway." eoReally only fourteen: those under rule 3 are duplicates. a1My classification is this: under rule 1-(22), (23), (24), (36), (41), (44), and the word frennstr in the fourth line of the Sigurtsr portrait; under rule 2-(21), ( 40) , ( 47), (48), the words stwrstu and agreztu in line 3 and the word bezt in line 5 of the Sigurtsr portrait; under rule 3-(22) and (24); the forty near-violations of rule 3­(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15) two, (17), (19) two, (20) two, (21), (24), (25), (26), (27), (28), (29), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34) two, (35), (38), (39), (42) two, and (45); and special instances which are not superlatives in form but which give superlative force-(16), (18), (27), (37), (43) , ( 46) , and the words langt umfrarm alJra menn in the Sigurtsr portrait. tung des SuperI., der h0chste Grad, hat sich oftabgeschwacht zu der Bedeutung des sehr hohen Grades (Elativ) ."62 One wants to know why fifty-four out of sixty-one superla­tives chosen at random from an extended course of reading have an elative63 force and only seven a relative (or nor­mal). The principle of the faded-metaphor theory64 may be urged in explanation of this decayed superlative. One has only to recall the latter end of words with high emotional content to appreciate its applicability; e.g., such phrases as "innocuous desuetude" and the legion of journalistic banali­ties coined in an effort to be clever. After all, this gefiihls­miissig Hyperbel is quite conventional if not entirely natu­ral. One's Italian barber is actuated by an unconscious effort to intensify language when he uses the double com­parative "more better," and similar constructions were a part of Shakspere's regular stock in trade.65 The familiar "Dearest Mother," "the best of friends," "Isn't he the big­gest dunce ?"65a and similar efforts to heighten the force of language without implying a comparison, are instances in point, as well as "the salt of most unrighteous tears" and "O, most wicked speed" ---examples of the superlatives of emphasis. Here belong the modern English "next," which has been weakened to the comparative sense, 65h probably 62Elem.entarbuch, § 393. eaLiterally, "lifted up." 64"The vocabularies of all languages are filled with faded meta­phors."-Hanns Oerter, Lecturqs on the Study of Language, New York, 1909, p. 826. And compare the late Professor von Jagemann's statement, "Metaphors are sublima~ idioms." 65Cf. e.g., :The Merchant of Venice, IV, i, 251, and Professor Brooke's note on this, in Shakespeare's Principal Plays, ed, Brooke, Cunliffe, and MacCracken (2nd ed., New York: Century, 1927), 127. 65aCp. Swedish med storsta noje, min biista van (my dear friend), and kiiraste du, which is perhaps less common than the positive kiira du. Also Icelandic krerasti (sweetheart) and i besta ~ti (going along well). 05bCf. the Norwegian superlatives mellemst (middle; "most between") and naJst (or nest). The neatest illustration of this "fading" that I have met with occurs in a translation of Bjornson's Synno'V6 Solbakken because folk did not recognize its originally superlative form and force; also Chaucer's "atte beste," together with other similar phrases and words which generally mean "in the best manner possible," etc., and have lost the force of the original comparison.66 These expressions have "faded" into English idioms. On the other hand, it is now a gross error to use the superlative in comparisons involving fewer than three persons or objects: one must say "Leave [the car!] by the nearer door,'' if there are only two doots in the car, and "The best three men" instead of "The three best men"-if one wants to escape illogicality. But "Put the into modern Icelandic, in which the expression, Thorbjorn vilde naistf!n begynne at vaere glad is rendered, porbjorn var nJerTi ]:>vi farin at! hugsa um at! vertla glatlur. Nrerri is the positive form of the adverb; the Norwegian 'M'sten is an adverb built on the superlative naist. (Cf. P. Groth, A Norwegian Grwmunar (3rd ed., Christiania: Cammer­rneyers, 1924), §316, and Valt;Yr Gutlmundsson, l11larldsk Grammatik (Kobenhavn: H. Hagerups Forlag, 1922), §§208, 212. 66Cp. Chaucer's alderbest, Shakspere's alderliefest, NRG am iJ,hnlicksten, am dichtesten, etc., Norwegian allerhelst (preferably; literally, "most rather"), med det aller f orste (very soon; in a short time), aller bedst det va,r, a phrase equivalent to bedst som det var or ret som det var and meaning "all at once; suddenly," and Swedish de allra ftesta (m-0st; nearly all; most people) and allra helst som (especially since). Swedish has preserved the force of the superlative in many similar expressions: den allra storsta, den allra vackraste (the greatest, prettiest of all; the very greatest, prettiest), det kiir sockret iir allra biist (this sugar is the very best, the best of all), den allra skonaste av Sveriges kyrkor (the most beautiful of all churches in Sweden), and det allra heligaste (the holy of holies). Likewise occasionally modern Icelandic, as, for example, allra-beztur (the best of all; the very best; by far the best) and allra-heilagra messa, (All­Saints Day), but with faded force in allra-handa (all kinds of), allra­helzt (particularly), aUrOAnildastur (most gracious), and allra­pegsamlegast (most humbly). Danish and Norwegian follow similar usage: Da. AllerhOjstsamme (His or Her Majesty), but helvedes (devilish)-allerhelvedes (devilish); Norw. alleregnest (one's very Qwnest own; intensely one's own), but allernaaddgst, adj., (most gra­cious), adv., (graciously). best foot foremost" defies both logic and grammar: it has become an idiom.668 As far as the grammar of these Old Norse elatives is con­cerned, then, that is amenable to the same explanation as such constructions in English; that is, Old Norse idioms, like English idioms, frequently defy the rules of grammar. To English speakers, the logical infraction is more difficult to explain : English speakers nowadays eschew the illogical double negative so prevalent in the language of Chaucer and Shakspere. Now in Old Norse this illogicality was overborne by an­other consideration; namely, an aptitude for conciseness. I believe that this essential genius of the language gives a clue to the preponderance of superlatives with elative force in the selections that I have cited, and hence in Old Norse documents in general. The Norsemen were doers, not sayers. They performed their deeds first and then talked about them afterwards­in the long winter night beside the hearth-fire when it was impossible to perform more deeds outside. Their language was remarkably compact,-a mere fitting of words to the deed.67 This conciseness of the language depends in part on in­flection, in part on omission of words necessary to the idiom of other languages, and in part on the genius of the Ice­landic itself. Proverbs offer a good point of departure in ssaBut the Dane says Srette det bedste Ben foran (Put the best leg foremost) without any feeling of illogicality, just as he says "The best eye" or "The oldest of two children." 67"The dialogue [of the sagas], which is crisp and laconic, full of pithy saws and abounding in quiet grim humor or homely pathos, expressed in three or four brief words, is never needlessly used, and therefore all the more significant and forcible."-Vigfusson, Sturlunga Saga, Oxford, 1878, I. (Prolegomena), xxiv, §3. "The Sagas . . [are] brief and reserved in their phrasing."­ W. P. Ker, Epic and Romance, London, 1897, 281. "[The saga WTiters] are ... masters in the delineation of character, sometimes by a brief indication of the leading qualities in the man or woman spoken of, but much more often by the mere action of the story itself."-W. A. Craigie, The Icelandic Sagas, Cambridge University Press, 1913, p. 33. illustrating it, because they are likely to be given aphoristic expression in all tongues. Old Norse frequently phrases them in about half the words required for like sentiments in idiomatic English. The following examples are typical: Allt kann sa, er h6fit kann.68 Dasent's rendition uses twelve words to translate these six: "The man who knows how to forbear is master of all knowledge."69 Although it would be possible to render this by "Who knows moderation, knows all," thereby shortening the original by one word, the result would be a gloss rather than a translation. The Old Norse equivalent of "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" is Betri ein kraka i hendi en tvrer i sk6gi. It would hardly be English to translate, "Better one crow in hand than two in woods." A literal translation of Hefir hverr til sins agretis nQkkut would run, "Has each till his glory somewhat"; yet a transference of the thought into the English equivalent would be something like this: "Each person has something connected with his excellence to boast about." The sententious quality of Far breg<5r enu betra, ef hann veit et verra could be brought out only by some such translation as "Seldom does one hasten to tell the better if one knows the worse." Dasent translates Veldrat sa er varar10 by "His hands are clean who warns another."71 Literal English, "Wields not that one who warns," would be both incomplete and hard to understand as well as two words longer than the original, the suffixed negative (veldr-at) and the omitted pronoun making the difference. Of other Icelandic characteristics tending to compression, I cite two instances of the suppressed pronoun (a construc­tion as common in Old Norse as it is rare in English, and as effective in Old Norse as it would be unintelligible in 6BGisla, 37, 11. 69Gisli (Gisli the Outlaw, tr. George Webb Dasent, Edinburgh, 1866), 49. Cp. the biblical "He that ruleth his spirit [is better] than he that taketh a city." (Proverbs, 16 :32.) 10Njala, 93, 6. nBurnt Njal (The Story of Burnt Njal, tr. Dasent, Edinburgh, 1861, Vols. I and II), I, 127. English), and a couple of different kind: (a) f m6ti Gun­nari gekk Vai'5ill ok hj6 pegar til hans, ok kom f skj9ldinn,12 literally, "Against Gunnar went Vai'5ill and hewed immedi­ately at him, and came on the shield." But the meaning is that the weapon with which Vai'5ill struck at Gunnar hit the shield, not that Vai'5ill leaped upon Gunnar's shield. (b) H9skuldr gaf honum kenningarnafn ok kallai'5i pa:78 "Hgskuldr gave him [6lafr, his bastard son] a surname and called [him] peacock." (c) peir [Vagn spj6t, Nafarr sax, and Skefill saeri'5] varu kunninjar GIUms Geirarson, ok retlui'5u pangat til vistar til peira fei'5ga, Geira ok Glums :74 "They were acquaintances of Glumr Geirarson and ex· pected thither for a visit with those, father and son, Geira and Gh1mr." (d) porgeirr baui'5 [porbergr] at bua til malit a hOnd Glumi :75 "porgeirr bade [porbergr] to prepare a suit against Glumr." Five other examples show a sheer preponderance of words in the English translation: (1) Hvf f6rtu heiman ?76 "Why did you fare from home?" (2) par tapai'5i Unnr kambi sinum, par heitir sii'5an Kambsnes :77 "There Unnr lost her comb, so it was afterwards called Combsness." (3) F6r heim sii'5an :78 "[Somebody] afterwards went home." (4) Heri'5e fanz fatt um :10 "Haurth paid little heed to it."80 (5) Gret Helga pa saran :81 "Then Helga wept sorely." But the English is also especially concise in this instance. As remarkable a model of this condensation and omission of style, and consequent swiftness of narration, as I have observed occurs when the saga-writer is telling how the outlaw Gisli Sursson slew an adversary. The excerpt con­ 12Njala, 67, 4 f. 7S£axdrela, 39, 9 f. 74Reykdrela Saga (fslendinga Sogur), Reykjavik, 1898, 59, 1 ff. 75lbUl,., 62. 16£axdrela, 157, 8. 11Laxdre"la, 9, 10 f. 18Holmverja Saga (Origines Is"landicae, II, 67, 2). 19Jbid., 67, 15. 80Ibidem. 81/bid., 80, 13. cerns Gisli's maneuvers just after the slaying. I give the Old Norse and an interlinear translation for comparison: Gisli sn:Vr i brott skyndiliga til fj6sins, gengr par Gisli turns away quickly to the cow-house, goes there ut sem hann haft!i retlat, ok lykr aptr eptir ser ramliga; snyrr out as he had planned, and locks back after himself strongly; turns heim sitlan ena s9mu leit!, ok ma hvergi sja spor hans. Aut!r home later the same way, and may no one see tracks his. Aut!r lretr loku fra hurt!u, er hann kom heim, ok ferr hann i sreing lets bolts from door, when he came home, and goes he into bed sina, ok lretr sem ekki se i ort!it, et!a hann eigi um ekki at his, and lets on as if nothing had happened, or he had about it nothing to vera. En menn allir varu Qlrerir a Sreb6li ok vissu ekki, be at. But men all were drink-mad at Srebol and knew not, hvat af skyldi ratla; kom petta a pa 6vara, ok urt!u pvi eigi what about it to do; came that on them unawares, and became therefore no1 tekin pau rat! sem dygtli.B3 taken those counsels which availed. By telescoping these two contributory explanations, I believe one can find the real explanation for this peculiar use of the superlative. The Norseman had a propensity to "wit" in language; therefore he sought brevity in his speech, trying, almost by instinct, to make the word suit the deed. Since the superlative in the construction under discussion was the most vivid form of expression, and since he no longer considered it as any more than the superlative of emphasis, he used it in order to save time. May be there was no thought in his mind about grammar or logic at all ; he might have used the superlative in these constructions as the quickest means of saying what he wanted to say. He probably had the feeling that language is insufficient, as compared with deeds, and a desire to make it sufficient by B3Gisla, 40, 21 ff. heaping it up,-a very natural and widespread speech­feeling. After an examination of the evidence one must, I think, conclude that the saga-writers were conscious of no logical contradiction in heaping up these superlatives-that we are dealing with a form of expression which had become an idiomatic usage, a manner of writing. Although there can logically be but one best or fairest or bravest or rrwst cour­teous, for the sake of emphasis the writer or speaker, even in the vernacular, frequently resorts to the use of the su­perlative. In colloquial English, the expression "He is the best kind of fell ow" or "He made the best kind of de­fence" means no more than "He is an excellent fellow" or "He made a very good de!ence." Although the saga-writer might have said that seven persons were the best fighters in their district, he would have meant no more than that all seven were very good fighters. He would not have intended to state an illogicality or make a comparison. He would only have been using his native tongue with native speech­feeling for its native idiom. ELIZABETH AS EUPHUIST BEFORE EUPHUES BY THEODORE STENBERG In his article on Euphuism in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Sir Edmund Gosse has the fol­lowing sentence: "Among those who applied themselves to this 'new English' [that is to say, Lyly's Euphuism], one of the most ardent was Queen Elizabeth herself, who has been styled by J. R. Green 'the most affected and detestable of Euphuists.' "1 Both J. R. Green and Sir Edmund Gosse take the position that Elizabeth's interest in Euphuism was aroused by the tremendous vogue of Lyly's romances. It is this position that I wish to question. In fact, I hope to show that Elizabeth began to write very tolerable Euphuism three or four years before Lyly was born.2 Scholars are generally agreed that Euphuism was per­fected by George Pettie, in his Petite Pallace of Pettie His Pleasure, published in 1576, and by Lyly, in his two ro­mances, published in 1578 and 1580 respectively. Professor Morris W. Croll has shown that there are passages of ex­excellent Euphuism in Gascoigne's prose writings from the year 1575.3 Professor Croll has also shown that Roger Ascham's Toxophilus, published as early as 1545, is defi­nitely Euphuistic in spots.4 It is not my purpose to trace the intricate and much-disputed history of Euphuism. I have referred to Ascham's Euphuistic tendencies merely because I am concerned with the style of his pupil, Elizabeth. In Elizabeth's informal letters, we find practically all the characteristic patterns and devices of style which we have learned to associate primarily with Lyly. We find the char­acteristic balance of word against word, phrase against 1IX, 899. 2Lyly was born in 1553 or 1554. aLyly's Euphues, ed. M. W. Croll and H. Clemons, pp. LII-LIII. 4/bm., p. XLVI. phrase, and clause against clause. We find repetition and alliteration (both simple and transverse), used as aids in the balancing of units. We find a very marked rhythm. We find exaggerated tropes and similes. We find the char­acteristic use of proverbs. In 1550, in a letter to his friend and fell ow-humanist, John Sturm, Ascham wrote the following sentence, concern­ing Elizabeth: "She greatly admires modest metaphors, and antitheses fitly combined and happily opposed."5 In the same year, at the age of seventeen, Elizabeth wrote the following letter to her brother, King Edward the Sixth: Like as the richeman that dayly gathereth riches to riches, and to one bag of mony layeth a greate sort til it come to infinit, so me­thinkes your Maiestie, not beinge suffised withe many benefits and gentilnes shewed to me afore this time, dothe now increase them in askinge and desiring wher you may bid and commaunde, requiring a thinge not worthy the desiringe for it selfe, but made worthy for your Higthnes request. My pictur I mene, in wiche if the inward good mynde towarde your grace migth as wel be declared as the outwarde face and countenaunce shal be seen, I wold nor haue taried the commandement but preuent it, nor have bine the last to graunt but the first to offer it. For the face, I graunt, I might wel blusche to offer, but the mynde I shal neuer be ashamed to present. For thogth from the grace of the pictur the coulers may fade by time, may giue by wether, may be spotted by chance; yet the other nor time with her swift Winges shal ouertake, nor the mistie cloudes with ther loweringes may darken, nor chance with her slipery fote may ouerthrow. Of this althogth yet the profe coulde not be greate bicause the occasions bathe bine but smal, notwithstandinge as a dog bathe a daye, so may I perchaunce have time to declare it in dides wher now I do write them but in wordes. And further I shal most humbly beseche your Maiestie that whan you shal loke on my pictur, you wil witsafe to thinke that as you haue but the outwarde shadow of the body afore you, so my inward minde wischeth that the body it selfe wer oftner in your presence; howbeit bicause bothe my so beinge I thinke could do your Maiestie litel pleasur, thogth my selfe great good; and againe bicause I se as yet not the time agreing therunto, I shall lerne to folow this sainge of Orace, "Feras non culpes SThe original is V erecundas translationes, et contrariorum colla-­tiones apte com.missas, et feliciter conftigentes, unice adaniratur. See Ascham's Works, ed. Giles, v. I, part I, p. 192. quod vitari non potest." And thus I wil (troblinge your Maiestie I fere) ende with my most humble thankes. Besechinge God longe to preserue you to his honour, to your comfort, to the realmes profit, and to my joy. From Hatfilde this 15 day of May. Your Maiesties most humbly sistar ELIZABETH.6 Three years later, at the age of twenty, she wrote the following to her brother : Like as a shipman in stormy wether plukes downe the sailes tarijnge for bettar winde, so did I, most noble Kinge, in my vnfortunate chanche a thurday pluk downe the hie sailes of my ioy and comfort and do trust one day that as troblesome waues have repulsed me bakwarde, so a gentil winde wil bringe me forwarde to my hauen. Two chief occasions moued me muche and griued me gretly, the one for that I douted your Maiesties helthe, the other bicause for al my longe tarijnge I wente without that I came for. Of the first I am releued in a parte, bothe that I vnderstode of your helthe, and also that your Maiesties loginge is far from my Lorde Marques chamber. Of my other grief I am not eased, but the best is that whatsoever other folkes wil suspect, I intende not to feare your graces goodwil, wiche as I knowe that I never disarued to faint, so I trust wil stil stike by me. For if your Graces aduis that I shulde retourne (whos wil is a com­mandemente) had not bine, I wold not haue made the halfe of my way, the ende of my iourney. And thus as one desirous to hire of your Maiesties helth, thogth vnfortunat to se it, I shal pray God for euer to preserue you. From Hatfilde this present Saterday. Your Maiesties humble sistar to commandemente, ELIZABETH.7 6Ellis, Henry, Original Letters, first series, II, 146-148. Even earlier than 1550, Elizabeth showed distinct leanings toward Euphu­ism. I quote, as perhaps the earliest extant example, the first sentence of a letter which she wrote in 1544, at the age of eleven, to her stepmother, Catherine Parr: "Not only knowing the effectuous will and fervent zeal, the which your highn~ss hath towards all godly learning, as also my duty towards you, most gracious and sovereign princess; but knowing also, that pusillanimity and idleness are most repugnant unto a reasonable creature, and that (as the philosopher sayeth) even as an instrument of iron or of other metal waxeth soon rusty, unless it be continually occupied; even so shall the wit of a man or a woman wax dull and unapt to do or understand anything perfectly, unless it be always occupied upon some manner of study" (Mumby, Frank A., The Girlhood of Queen Elizabeth, pp. 24-26). 7Ellis, op. cit., first series, II, 145-146. From about this time we also have a letter to her sister, Princess Mary : Good Sistar as to hire of your siknes is unpleasant to me, so is it nothinge fearful, for that I understande it is your olde gest that is wont oft to viset you, whose comminge thogth it be oft, yet is it never welcome, but notwithstanding it is comforttable for that "jacula praevisa minus feriunt." And as I do understande your nede of Jane Russels service, so I am sory that it is by my mans occasion letted, wiche if I had knowen afore, I wold have caused his wil give place to nide of her service, for as it is her duty to obey his com­mandement, so is it his part to attende your pleasure; and, as I confesse, it wer miter for him to go to her, sins she attendes uppon you, so indide he required the same, but for that divers of his felowes had busines abrode, that made his tarijnge at home. Good Sistar thogth I have good cause to thanke you for your oft sendinge to me, yet I have more occasion to rendre you my harty thankes for your gentil writinge, wiche how painful it is to you, I may wel gesse by my selfe, and you may wel se by my writinge so oft, how pleasant it is to me. And thus I ende to troble you, desiring God to sende you as wel to do, as you can thinke and wische, or I desire or pray. Frome Hasherige scribled this 27th of October. Your lovinge sistar ELIZABETH.s Also in 1553, she wrote the following letter to her cousin, Lady Knollys : Relieve your sorrow for your far journey with joy of your short return, and think this pilgrimage rather a proof of your friends, than a leaving of your country. The length of time, and distance of place, separates not the love of friends, nor deprives not the shew of good-will. An old saying, when bale is lowest boot is nearest: when your need shall be most you shall find my friendship greatest. Let others promise, and I will do, in words not more, in deeds as much. My power but small, my love as great as them whose gifts may tell their friendship's tale, let will supply all other want, and oft sending take the lieu of often sights. Your messengers shall not return empty, nor yet your desires unaccomplished. Lethe's flood hath here no course, good memory hath greatest stream. And, to conclude, a word that hardly I can say, I am driven by need to write, 8Ellis, op. cit., first series, II, 163-164. farewell, it is which in the sense one way I wish, the other way I grieve. Your loving cousin and ready friend, CoR ROTT0.9 In 1554 Elizabeth wrote a letter to the Marquis of Win­chester, Lord Treasurer of England. I quote the first sen­tence: MY LORD, With hearty comlmendations I do most heartily desire you to further the desires of my last letters, that thereby the health of my mind and sickness may be the rather restored; and, as you were con­strained to come the first unto me in the entry of my troubles, so would I wish yourself to be now the last that should freely end the same.10 As Roger Ascham was Elizabeth's tutor, it is of interest that some of his letters show the same Euphuistic ten­dencies as do hers. (I do not wish to imply that Ascham formed Elizabeth's style; I do believe that he influenced it.) In 1554 Ascham wrote the following to Sir William Pawlett: Sir, my small time in marriage hath given me good experience that in choice of a wife to some men the grief in having an ill, is not comparable with the care in having a good; for I see many times the worse their wives wax, the more they make of themselves, and can digest that grief well enough. God, I thank him, hath given me such an one as the less she seeth I do for her, the more loving in all causes she is to me, when I again have rather wished her well than done her good, and therefore the more glad she is to bear my fortune with me, the more sorry am I that hitherto she hath found rather a loving than a lucky husband unto her. I did choose her to live withal, not hers to live upon, and if my choice were to choose again, I would even do as I did, so that the comfort I take because I have so good a wife is the only cause of my care, because she hath so poor a hus­band. For my own self, I could measure my mind to live as meanly as ever I did in Cambridge, but now my duty and love driveth me to further desire, and yet because I know not what may be thought of my deserving, niy desire hitherto hath rather grieved myself with 9Mumby, Frank A., The Girlhood of Queen Elizabeth, p. 98. 10Green, M. A. E. W., Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladiea (London, 1846), III, 296-297. inward thought, than troubled other with outward suits. Neverthe­less, I have had ever good hap, and specially in your goodness, who not presently to myself, but also in my absence often to others of your own accord have declared a friendly readiness to set forward any fit suit in my behalf, but the more gentle I have found you the less willing I have been to trouble you. Your most bounden to serve you, ROGER ASKAM.11 I believe (1) that Elizabeth's letters are little known to the student of English language and literature, (2) that they are of interest in themselves, and (3) that (consider­ing Elizabeth's immense popularity) they must have been one of the main influences in the development of Euphuism. Even at the risk of being tedious, I shall therefore include four longer letters, written between 1554 and 1565. When Elizabeth was about to be committed to the Tower as a political prisoner, in 1554, she wrote a very characteristic letter to Queen Mary Tudor : If any ever did try this olde saynge, that a Kinges worde was more than another mans othe, I most humbly beseche your Majesty to verefie it in me, and to remember your last promis and my last demande, that I be not condemned without answer and due profe: wiche it semes that now I am, for that without cause provid I am by your Counsel frome You commanded to go unto the Tower; a place more wonted for a false traitor, than a tru subject. Wiehe thogth I knowe I deserve it not, yet in the face of al this realme aperes that it is provid; wiche I pray God, I may dy the shamefullist dethe that ever any died, afore I may mene any suche thinge: and to this present bower I protest afor God (who shal juge my trueth, whatsoever malice shal devis) that I never practised, consiled, nor consentid to any thinge that migth be prejudicial to Your parson any way, or daungerous to the State by any mene. And therfor I humbly beseche your Majestie to let me answer afore your selfe, and not suffer me to trust to your Counselors; yea and that afore I go to the Tower, if it be possible; if not, afore I be further condemned. Howbeit, I trust assuredly, your Highnes wyl give me leve to do it afor I go; for that thus shamfully I may not be cried out on, as now I shalbe; yea and without cause. Let consciens move your Hithnes to take some bettar way with me, than to make me be con­demned in al mens sigth, afor my desert knowen. Also I most humbly beseche you Higthnes to pardon this my boldnes, wiche in­nocency procures me to do, togither with hope of your natural 11Ascham's Works, ed. Giles, v. I, part II, p. 413. kindnes; wiche I trust wyl not se me cast away without desert: wiche what it is, I wold desier no lllQre of God, but that you truly knewe. Wiehe things I thinke and beleve you shal never by report knowe, unless by your selfe you hire. I have harde in my time of many cast away, for want of comminge to the presence of their Prince: and in late days I harde my Lorde of Sommerset say, that if his brother had bine suffered to speke with him, he had never sufferd : but the perswasions wer made to him so gret, that he was brogth in belefe that he could not live safely if the Admiral lived; and that made him give his consent to his dethe. Thogth these par­sons are not to be compared to your Majestie, yet I pray God, as ivel perswations perswade not one sistar again the other; and al for that the have harde false report, and not harkene to the trueth knowin. Therfor ons again, kniling with humblenes of my hart, bicause I am not sufferd to bow the knees of my body, I humbly crave to speke with your Higthnis: wiche I wolde not be so bold to desier, if I knewe not my selfe most clere, as I knowe my selfe most tru. And for the traitor Wiat, he migth paraventur writ me a lett'?r; but, on my faithe, I never receved any from him. And as for the copie of my lettar sent to the Frenche Kinge, I pray God confound me eternally, if ever I sent him word, message, token, or lettar by any menes: and to this my truith I will stande in to my dethe. Your Highnes most faithful subject that bathe bine from the beginninge, and wylbe to my ende, ELIZABETH.12 Of the longer letters of Elizabeth, the following, written to Queen Mary Tudor in 1556, is perhaps the most interest­ing specimen from the point of view of style: When I revolve in mind (most noble Queen) the old love of Paynims to their princes, and the reverent fear of Romans to their senate, I cannot but muse for my part and blush for theirs, to see the rebellious hearts and devilish intents of Christians in name, but Jews in deed, towards their anointed king, which methinks if they had feared God, (though they could not have loved the state) they should for the dread of their own plague, have refrained that wickedness, which their bounden duty to your Majesty had not restrained. But when I call to remembrance that the devil tanquam leo rugiens circum­venit, quaerens quem devorare pote8t, I do the less marvel that he hath gotten such novices into his professed house, as vessels (without God's grace) more apt to serve his palace than meet to inhabit 1 2Ellis, op. cit., second series, II, 255-257. English land. I am the bolder to call them his imps, for that St. Paul saith, Seditfosi sunt filii diaboli; and since I have so good a buckler, I fear less to enter into their judgment. Of this I assure your Majesty, it had been my part, above the rest, to bewail such things, though my name had not been in them, yet much it vexed me, that the devil oweth me such a hate, as to put me in any part of his mischievous instigations, whom, as I profess him my foe, (that is, all Christians' enemy) so wish I he had some other way invented to spite me. But since it hath pleased God thus to bewray their malice, I most humbly thank Him., both that He has ever thus preserved your Majesty through His aid, much like a lamb from the horns of this Basan's bull, and also stirred up the hearts of your loving subjects to resist them, and deliver you to His honour and their shame. The intelligence of which, proceeding from your Majesty, deserves more humble thanks than with my pen I can render, which as infinite I will leave to number. And among earthly things I chiefly wish this one, that there were as good surgeons for making anatomies of hearts (that I might show my thoughts to your Majesty) as there are expert physicians of bodies, able to express the inward griefs of maladies to their patients. For then I doubt not, but know well, that whatever others should sub­ject by malice, yet your Majesty should be sure, by knowledge, that the more such mists effuscate the clear light of my soul, the more my tried thoughts should listen to the dimming of their hidden malice. But since wishes are vain and desires oft fail, I must crave that my deeds may supply that which my thoughts cannot declare, and that they be not misdeemed, as the facts have been so well tried. And like as I have been your faithful subject from the beginning of your reign, so shall no wicked person cause me to change to the end of my life. And thus I recommend your Majesty to God's tuition, whom I beseech long time preserve, ending with the new remembrance of my old suit, more than for that I should not be forgotten, than for I think it not remembered. Your Majesty's obedient subject and humble sister, ELIZABETH.18 The next letter, written in 1563 to Thomas Williams, Speaker of the House of Commons, is an answer to the House's petition urging Elizabeth to marry. It ~ll be noted that the letter is not too formal to contain considerable Euphuism: 1sMumby, op. cit., pp. 214-215. WILLIAMS, I have heard by you the common request of my Commons, which I may well term, as methinks, the whole realm; because they give, as I have heard, in all these matters of Parliament, their common eonsent to such as be here assembled. The weight and greatness of this matter might cause in me, as I must confess, being a woman, wanting both wit and memory, some fear to speak, and bashfulness besides, a thing appropriate to my sex. But yet the princely state and kingly office (wherein God, though unworthy, hath constituted me) maketh these two causes to seem little in mine eyes, though grievous perhaps to your ears, and boldeneth me (that notwithstanding) to say somewhat in this matter, which I mean only to touch, but not pres­ently to answer; for this so great a demand needeth both great and grave advice. I read a philosopher, whose deeds upon this occasion I remember better than his name, who always, when he was required to give answer in any hard question of school points, would rehearse over his alphabet, before he would proceed to any further answer therein, 'not for that he could not presently have answered, but to have his wit the riper, and better sharpened to answer the matter withal. If he, a private man, but in matters of school, took such delay, the better to show his eloquence, great cause may justly move me, in this so great a matter touching the benefit of this realm, and the safety of you all, to defer my answer to some other time; wherein, I assure you, the consideration of mine own safety, although I thank you for the great care that you seem to have thereof, shall be little in comparison of that great regard that I mean to have of the safety and surety of you all: and though God of late seemed to touch me rather like one that He chastised, than one that He punished; and though death possessed almost every joint of me, so as I wished then that the feeble thread of life, which lasted methought all too long, might, by Clotho's hand, have quickly been cut off; yet desired not I life then (as I have some witness here) so much for mine own safety as for yours; for I knew that, in exchange of this reign, I should have enjoyed a better reign, where residence is perpetual. There needs no boding of my bane. I know as well now as I did before that I am mortal; I know, also, that I must seek to discharge myself of that great burden that God hath here laid upon me: for of them to whom much is com.mitted, much is required. Think not that I, that in other matters have had convenient care of you all, will in this matter, touching the safety of myself and you all be careless. For know, that this rn:atter toucheth me much nearer than it doth you all, who, if the worst happen, can lose but your bodies: but I, if I take not that convenient care that it hehoveth nie to have therein, I hazard to lose both body and soul; and though I am determined, in this so great and weighty a matter, to defer my answer till some other time, because I will not, in so deep a matter, wade with so shallow a wit: yet have I thought good to use these few words, as well to show you that I am neither careless nor un­mindful of your safeties in this case; as I trust you likewise do not forget, that by me you were delivered while you were yet hanging on the bough, ready to fall into the mud, yea, to be drowned in the doing; neither yet the promises which you have now made me con­cerning your duties and due obedience, wherewith I may and mean to charge you, as further to let you understand that I neither mis­like of your request herein, nor of that great care that you seem to have of your own safety in this matter. Lastly, because I will discharge some restless heads, in whose brains the needless hammers beat with vain judgment that I should mislike this their petition; I say that, of the matter, some thereof I like and allow very well; as to the circumstances, if any be, I mean, upon further advice, further to answer. And so I assure you all, that though, after my death, you may have many stepdames, yet shall you never have any a more natural mother than I mean to be unto you all.14 In 1565 Elizabeth sent Sir Henry Sidney (Sir Philip Sidney's father) to Ireland to take charge of affairs as her lieutenant governor. In addition to official instructions, she wrote him a private letter, mainly concerning his duties in the management of the disorder caused by the feud between the Earl of Ormond and the Earl of Desmond : HARRY, If our partial slender managing of the contentious quarrel between the two Irish earls did not make the way to cause these lines to pass my hand, this gibberish should hardly have cumbered your eyes; but warned by my former fault, and dreading worser hap to come, I rede you to take good heed that the good subjects' lost state be so revenged that I hear not the rest be won to a right bye way to breed more traitor's stocks, and so the goal is gone. Make some difference be­tween tried, just, and false friend. Let the good service of well­deservers be never rewarded with loss. Let their thank be such as may encourage most rivers for the like. Suffer not that Desmond's denying deeds far wide from promised works, make you to trust to other pledge than either himself or John for gage: he hath so well performed his English vows, that I warn you trust him no longer than you see one of them. Prometheus let me be, Epimetheus hath been mine too long. I pray God your old strange sheep late (as you say) returned into the fold, wore not her woolly garment upon her HMumby, Frank A., Elizabeth. and Mary Stuart, pp. 261-263. wolvy back. You know a kingdom knows no kindred, si violandum jus :regnandi causa. A strength to harm is perilous in the hand of an ambitious head. Where might is mixed with wit, there is too good an accord in a government. Essays be often dangerous; specially when the cup-bearer hath received such a preservative as, what might so ever betide the drinker's draught, the carrier takes no bane thereby. Believe not, though they swear, that they can be full sound, whose parents sought the rule that they full fain would have. I warrant you they will never be accused of bastardy; you were to blame to lay it to their charge; they will trace the steps that others have passed before. If I had not espied, though very late, legerdemain used in these cases, I had never played my part. No, if I did not see the balances held awry, I had never myself come into the weigh-house. I hope I shall have so good a customer of you, that all other officers shall do their duty among you. If aught have been amiss at home, I will patch though I cannot whole it. Let us not, nor no more do you, consult so long as till advice come too late to the givers; where then shall we wish the deeds while all was spent in words; a fool too late bewares when all the peril is past. If we still advise, we shall never do; thus are we still knitting a knot never tied; yea, and if our web be framed with rotten hurdles, when our loom is welny done, our work is new to begin. God send the ~aver true prentices again, and let them be denizens I pray you if they be not citizens; and such too as your ancientest aldermen, that have or now dwell in your official place, have had best cause to commend their good behaviour. Let this memorial be only committed to Vulcan's base keeping, without any longer abode than the reading thereof; yea, and with no mention made thereof to any other wight. I charge you as I may command you. Seem not to have had but secretary's letter from me. Your loving mistress, ELIZABETH R.15 To bridge the gap between 1565 and the publication of Lyly's romances, I shall add two short letters and a part of a third. In 1569, nine years before the appearance of Lyly's Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit, Elizabeth wrote the fol­lowing letter to her cousin, Sir Henry Cary : I doubt much, my Harry, whether that the victory given me more joyed me, or that you were by God appointed the instrument of my 15Aikin, Lucy, Meimoirs of the Court of Queen Elizabf!th, sixth edition, I, 402-404. glory. And I assure you, for my country's good, the first might suffice; but for my heart's contentation, the second more pleaseth me. It likes me not a little, that with a good testimony of your faith, there is seen a stout courage of your mind, that more trusted to the goodness of your quarrel, than to the weakness of your number. Well, I can say no more; beatus est ille servus quem, cum Dominus venerit, inveniet f acientem sua mandata. And that you may not think that you have done nothing for your profit (though you have done much for your honour) I intend to make this journey, somewhat to increase your livelihood, that you may not say to yourself, Perditur quod fac­tum est ingrato. Your loving kinswoman, ELIZABETH REGINA.16 In 1573, five years before the publication of Lyly's first romance, Elizabeth wrote a letter to Sir William Fitz­william, Lord Deputy of Ireland, from which I quote one sentence: Nicholas White, as appeareth by your letter, not daring to dissent against so running a consent, yet showed his conscience not to consent to affection, and would prescribe no punishment to that fact, which in his conscience he thought to be the duty of a good counsellor to do.11 John Nichols states that the next letter quoted is Eliza­beth's expression of condolence to Lady Drury, on the death of the latter's husband, Sir William Drury.18 According to the Dictionary of National Biography,19 Drury died in 1579. As Lyly's two romances appeared in 1578 and 1580 re­spectively, this letter takes us to the end of our journey: Bee well aware, my Besse, you strive not with divine ordinaunce, nor grudge at irremediable harmes, lest you offend the highest Lord, and no whitte amend the married hap. Heape not your harmes where helpe there is none; but since you may not that you would, wish that you can enjoye with comforte, a King for his power, and a Queene 16Fuller, Thomas, 'The History of the Worthies of England, ed. Nuttall, II, 48. 17Nicolas, Sir Harris, The Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, p. 34. 18Nichols, John, Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Eliza.. beth, revised edition (1823), I, p. XXIX. 19XVI, 62. for her love, who leves not now to protect you when your case requires care, and minds not to omitte what ever may be best for you and yours. Your most loving careful Soveraigne, E. R.20 In closing, I shall give two short specimens of what pur­ports to be Elizabeth's oral style. If Sir John Hayward's Annals of Elizabeth can be trusted, Elizabeth spoke the fol­lowing words to her attendants, upon visiting the Tower in 1558: Some have fallen fr.om being Princes of this land, to be prisoners in this place; I am raysed from beeing prisoner in this place, to bee Prince of this land. That dejectione was a worke of God's justice; this advancement is a worke of his mercy; as they were to yeeld patience for the one, so I must beare mly selfe towards God thankfull, and to men mercifull and beneficiall, for the other.21 In 1561 (according to Sir John Hayward again) Elizabeth spoke the two following sentences, as part of an answer to an ambassador from Mary, Queen of Scots: Now, happely, the same men are not of the same mynd. But, as children, which, dreaming that apples are given them, whilest they sleepe are exceeding glad, but waking and finding themselves deceived of ther hope they fall to crying: soe some of them, who did highly favour mee when I was called Elizabeth, whoe, if I did cast a kind countenance uppon them, did foorthwith conceive that, soe soone as I should atteyne the crowne, they should be rewarded rather according to theire desires then ther desertes, now, finding ther happ not answeareable to ther hope (because noe prince is able to fill the insatiable gulfe of menes desires), they would happely be content with another change, uppon possibility thereby to better ther state.22 For more than thirty years before the publication of Lyly's romances, Elizabeth practiced Euphuism--or some­thing very much like it. That her example should have failed to be an important influence in the development of 20Nichols, op cit., I, p. XXIX. 21Hayward, Sir John, Annals of Elizabeth, ed. Bruce, pp. 10.-11. 22ffayward, op. cit., pp. 83-84. Euphuism seems to me unbelievable. In this connection, it seems significant to me that when Professor Croll wished to give an example of Gascoigne's Euphuism at its best, he chose a passage which was written for one of the Enter­tainments of the Queen, and which was addressed direct to her.23 Perhaps it is significant, also, that when Professors Franklin B. Snyder and Robert G. Martin had to decide upon a typical selection from Lyly's romances, for their textbook, A Book of English Literature, they chose the an­gelic picture and characterization of Elizabeth, as presented in Euphues and His England. What would be more natural than that courtiers like Gascoigne and Lyly should flatter the Queen in her own style, as well as strive to go her one better in the practice of that style? 28Lyly's Euphues, op. cit., pp. LII-LIII. Professor Croll goes so far as to say that the style of the passage which he quotes from Gascoigne is more like Lyly's Euphuism than is that of any other work before Lyly's. THE VERSION OF THE BIBLE USED BY PEELE IN THE COMPOSITION OF DAVID AND BETHSABE BY ARTHUR M. SAMPLEY In the fullest study yet attempted of the relation between Peele's David and Bethsabe and the Bible, Bruno Neitzel is very doubtful as to whether it is possible to say which ver­sion of the Scriptures was used by Peele in composing the play.1 That Neitzel overstates the case, I wish to show in this paper, but it is unquestionably true that many diffi..­culties beset any attempt to discover whether any one ver­sion of the Bible was the source of David and Bethsabe. In the first place, Peele may have used a Latin or a French Bible, of which a large number of versions had been printed before 1596.2 The most natural assumption, however, is that he followed an English translation of the Scriptures. Six such translations had been made before 1596, although each of these had been reprinted, some of them many times and often with slight revisions and corrections. The English Bibles which had been printed before the composition of David and Bethsabe are: Coverdale's Bible (1535), Mathew's Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops' Bible ( 1568). 3 Of these versions, only three were 1Bruno Neitzel, George Peele's "David and Bethsabe," Halle, 1904, pp. 7-9. Neitzel has examined six editions of the Bible, the first two of which seem to be respectively the Coverdale Bible and the Great Bible and the last four, various editions of the Geneva version. He states (p. 9) that no one of these Bibles can be considered the one used by Peele, and concludes that the dramatist used no one certain version but wrote the play largely from memory, referring to the Scriptures for material in certain scenes. 2Peele died in this year. See E. K. Chambers, The Elizabe.fhan Stage, III, p. 459: "He [Peele] was buried as a 'householder' at St. James's, Clerkenwell, on 9 Nov. 1596 (Harl. Soc. Registers, xvii, 58)." s A good brief discussion of early English translations of the Scriptures is to be found in Alfred W. Pollard's introduetion to his Record8 of the English Bibfo, Oxford, 1911, pp. 1-37. in general use in Peele's day: the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the Geneva Bible. It is therefore probable that Peele had at hand one of these three versions. I have, accordingly, examined a copy of the Geneva version as well as photostat copies of certain chapters of the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible.4 Moreover, I have consulted two copies of the early Vulgate, one printed in 1590 and one in 1484.5 We have two criteria by means of which to determine which Bible Peele used : viz., the forms of proper names, and the closeness of verbal parallels to the respective ver­sions. I shall consider first the forms of the proper names. The table given below presents a comparison of certain names in David and Bethsabe with the corresponding forms in the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Vulgate of 1590, and the Geneva version. David and Great Bishops' 1590 Geneva Bethsabe Bible Bible Vulgate Bible Bethsabe, Bethsabe Bethsabe Bethsabee Bath-sheba Bersabe Cusay Husai, Hushai, Chusai, Hushai, Chusi Chusi Chusi Cushi Abisay, Abysai Abisai Abisai Abishai Abyshai, Abyssus Hanon, Hanon Hanon Hanon Hanun Hannon Machaas Maacah Maacha Maacha Maacah Ammon Am non Amnon Amnon Amnon Jethray Jethream Jethream Jeth-raam Ithream (acc. case) Absolon, Absalon, Absalom Absalom, Absalom Absalon Absalom Absalon 4 The photostats which I have used are from originals in the New York Public Library. They include the following portions of the two Bibles: Great Bible, 2 Kings, Chapter XI to about the middle of Chapter XIX; 3 Kings, Chapters I and II; Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, X. 4-XIX. 21; 3 Kings, I-II. 5Both these volumes are in the library of Dr. Alex. Dienst, of Temple, Texas, to whom I am indebted for the privilege of examining them. Da;vid and Great Bishop's 1590 Geneva Betksabe Bible Bible Vulgate Bible Adonia Adonia Adonia Adonias Adoniiah Thecoa Thekoa Thekoa Thecua Tekoah Sadoc Sadock Sadoc Sadoc Zadok Jonathan Jonathas Jonathan Jonathon Jonathan Ithay Ithai Ithai Ethai lttai Ahimaas Ahimaaz Ahimaaz Achimaas Ahimaaz Achitophel Ahithophel Ahithophel Achitophel Ahithophel Salomon Salomon Solomon Salomon Salomon Chileab Cheleas Cheleas Cheleab Chileab Rabath Rab a Rabb a Rabba, Rabbah Rabba Rabb a th Nahas Nahas Nahas Naas Nahash Gesur Gesur Gesur Gessur Geshur Urias Urias Urias Urias Uriah Thamar Thamar Thamar Thamar Tamar Semei Semei Semei Semei Shimei It will be noted from this table that while in a few cases the 1590 Vulgate has forms nearer to those in the play, the Bishops' Bible and the Great Bible in general are closer to the drama. The Geneva version shows the widest variation from the play. It may be added that both the Great Bible and the Vulgate present variant forms of the proper names, though each of these versions is more consistent in its spelling than is Peele. Finally, while the table does not show conclusively that Peele made use of one of these ver­ sions rather than another, it does establish, I think, the fact that his play is much nearer to the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the Vulgate than it is to the Geneva version. It also suggests the possibility that the dramatist may have used two versions: either the Great Bible or the Bishops' Bible and a version of the Vulgate. The second criterion for discovering the Bible followed by Peele is a comparison of the reading of certain passages in the play with the corresponding portions of contemporary versions of the Scriptures. This test is particularly val­ uable, inasmuch as Peele in several passages follows the Old Testament with unusual closeness. Thus of the 174 word8 in Nathan's speech in II. 658-679,6 94 words are found also in the Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XI. 7-12. The closeness to the English Bible in this passage seems to me to suggest that Peele was here following an English rather than a Latin version. Again, verbal parallels in 11. 930-940, 960­961, 1356-1357, 1361, 1399-1407 to the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible seem to me to off er strong evidence of a connection between the English Bible and the play. The following passages, I think, present some evidence for Peele's use of an English version rather than the Vulgate as a source: 1. David and Bethsabe, ll. 665-666: And might (thou knowest) if this had ben too small Haue giuen thee more. Vulgate,1 II Reg., XII. 8: et si parva sunt ista, adjiciam tibi multo majora. Bishops' Bible and Great Bible, 2 Kings, XII: and might (if that had ben to litle) haue geuen thee so muche more.a ~. David and Bethsabe, 11. 931-933: Two sonnes thy handmaid had, and they (my lord) Fought in the field, where no man went betwixt, And so the one did smite and slay the other. Vulgate, II Reg., XIV. 6: Et ancillae tuae erant duo filii, qui rixati sunt adversum se in agro, nullusque erat, qui eos prohibere posset, et per­cussit alter alterum, et interfecit eum. 6In references here and below to lines in the play, I follow the Malone Society Reprint of David and Bethsabe, Oxford, 1912. 7Quotations from the Vulgate here and elsewhere in this paper are taken from the following edition: Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis J'IU:ta Exemplaria ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana Romae 1592 & 1599 inter Se Collata et ad Normam Correctionum Romanarum Exacta Auctoritate Summti Pontificis Pii IX. Edidit Valentinus Loch ... Editio Quinta. T1rmus I. Ratisbonae ... MDCCCXXXVIII. BThe wording of the Great Bible and of the Bishops' Bible is identical in this and the next passage quoted. The spelling is that of the Bishops' Bible. Bishops' Bible and Great Bible, 2 Kings, XIV: And thy hande mayde had two sonnes, and they two fought together in the fielde, where was no man to go betweene them, but the one smote the other, and slue him. The parallels which I have cited-and others might be added-seem to me to indicate that Peele made use of some English version of the Scriptures in the composition of his play. Yet there is some indication that he also used a copy of the Vulgate. For example, in I. 1057 there occurs the phrase, "mount of Oliues," which would be the translation of the Vulgate reading, "Clivum olivarum" (II Reg., XV. 30), but in the Bishops' Bible this phrase is rendered, "mount Olivet," while the Great Bible reads, "mount Olyvet." Moreover, the use of Seruus in II. 707 and 713 suggests a Latin source. A question that may also be considered in this connection is, Which English version did Peele use? While the problem can be finally settled only by an examination of all the con­temporary versions, it is probable that Peele would use the Geneva version, the Bishops' Bible, or the Great Bible, these three being the only generally circulated Bibles in his day. Among: these three, the evidence of both proper names and the reading of the text rules out the Geneva version. More­over, it is more probable that Peele would use the Bishops' Bible, first issued in 1568, than the earHer and more anti­quated Great Bible, which first came from the press in 1539. Fortunately, however, the question of which of these last two versions is closer to the text of David and Bethsabe can be settled more satisfactorily. There are twelve passages in the play which agree verbally with one of these Bibles but not with the other. These passages are listed below. 1. David, and Bethsabe, 1. 649: And he refus'd and spar'd to take his owne. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XII. 4: And he spared to take of his owne sheepe. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XII : And he could not fynde it in hys herte to take of bys own shepe. 2. David and Bethsabe, 1. 668: And hast done euill, and sinned in my sight? Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XII. 9: Wherefore then hast thou despised the commaundernent of the Lorde to do euill in his sight. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XII: Wherefore then hast thou despysed the commaundement of the Lorde, to do wyckednesse in hys syght. 3. D'111Jid and Bethsabe, 1. 939: And leaue nor name, nor issue on the earth. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XIV. 7: and shall not leaue to my husband neither name nor issue upon the earth. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XIV: that he shall stere up (to my husbande) nether name ner issue upon the erth. 4. David and Bethsabe, I. 1257: And bring the people to thy feet in peace. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XVII. 3: And wil bring againe all the people unto thee: and when al shall returne, the men whom thou seekest [beyng slayne] all the people shalbe in peace. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XVII: And whan I haue slayne the man whom thou seekest, all the people shall haue rest. 5. David and Bethsabe, I. 1271: Lodge with the common souldiers in the field. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XVII. 8: Thy father is a man also practised in warre, and wil not lodge with the people. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XVII : and maketh no tarienge with the people. 6. David and Bethsabe, 1. 1405: It may be he will looke on me this day. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XVI. 12: It may be that the Lorde will loke on myne affliction, and do me good for his cursing this day. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XVI: haplye the Lorde wyll loke on my weping eyes and wretched­nesse, and do me good for hys curssynge thys daye. 7. David and Bethsabe, I. 1450: And I my selfe will follow in the midst. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XVIII. 2: I will go with you my selfe also. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XVIII: I wyll go with you also. 8. David and Bethsabe, I. 1710: What if thy seruant should goe to my lord? Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XVIII. 22: What I pray thee, if I also runne after C'husi? Great Bible, 2 Kings, XVIII: come what come wyll, let me also runne after Chusi. 9. David and Bethsabe, l. 1870: Peace and content be with my lord the King. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XVIII. 28: And Ahimaaz called and said unto the king, peace be with thee. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XVIII: And Ahimaaz called, and sayd unto the kynge: good tydynges. 10. David a'ltd Bethsabe, I. 973: I haue and am content to do the thing. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XIV. 21: Behold, I haue done this thing. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XIV: I am content to do thys thyng. Vulgate, II Reg., XIV. 21: Ecce placatus feci verbum tuum. 11. David and Bethsabe, l. 1094: Thou carnst but yesterday. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XV. 20: Thou earnest yesterday. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XV: Thou earnest but yesterday. Vulgate, II Reg., XV. 20: Heri venisti, et hodie cornpelleris nobiscurn egredi? 12. David and Bethsabe, l. 1273: Haue taught him lurke within some secret caue. Bishops' Bible, 2 Kings, XVII. 9: Behold he is hyd nowe in some caue. Great Bible, 2 Kings, XVII: Beholde he lurketh now in some caue. Vulgate, II Reg., XVII. 9: Forsitan latitat in foveis aut in uno, quo voluerit, loco. It will be observed that in the first nine of these passages the Bishops' Bible is closer to the text of the play, while in the last three the Great Bible apparently offers a nearer parallel. Nevertheless, a comparison of the reading of the Vulgate with the last three passages will show that in each case the Vulgate could have furnished the parallel as easily as the Great Bible, except, perhaps, in 1. 973, where, how­ever, the Vulgate and the Bishops' Bible together could have furnished the present reading. From the evidence presented above, it seems to me in the highest degree probable that Peele made use of the Bishops' Bible in the composition of David and Bethsabe. The evi­dence both of the proper names and of the reading of cer­tain passages also tends to show, I believe, that he used some contemporary version of the Latin Vulgate. The theory that he employed two different Bibles would help to explain the frequent puzzling variations of the proper names within the play. Fully as important as the version of the Scriptures em­ployed by Peele is the use which he made of the Bible in the play. I hope to enter into this question in a future article. MILTON'S CONCEPTION OF SAMSON BY EVERT MORDECAI CLARK Many years ago Professor H. M. Percival began his analysis of the central character of Samson Agonistes with the assertion that "Samson possesses the essential charac­teristics of a Hero of tragedy as laid down by Aristotle." After dwelling at length upon that character's "heroic vir­tues," "human frailty," and "deeply religious Hebrew na­ture," he concluded his survey by suggesting that Samson, aroused by Harapha, "contemptuous, aggressive, sarcastic, answering taunt with taunt, ... in these traits ... resembles the fiery, impetuous Ajax, as well as, it must be confessed, in the possession of strength without wisdom."1 In recent years considerable emphasis has been placed upon this final observation as to the unheroic attributes of Samson's mind and soul. Thus one critic finds that the hero of Milton's tragedy "has been granted an unwieldy strength of body but impotence of mind."2 Another commentator somewhat frivolously but entertainingly remarks: "Samson is one of the judges of Israel; but he has obviously missed his calling. His undergraduate escapades of the Gaza gates and the torch-bearing foxes; his susceptibility to feminine allure­ments; his absurd riddle with its humorless consequences, are but poor stuff whereof to make a tragic hero. Down to the final catastrophe there is hardly a dignified moment in his recorded career. And yet not far beneath the farce lie tears. For this clownish boy is a Nazarite.... He is sincere but unintelligent. When the spirit of the Lord is not upon him, he is helpless, a very Harapha."3 In short, from the trend of recent criticism it would appear that Milton's Samson not only is dwindling in impressiveness as 1Sann.son Agonistes, edited by H. M. Percival, 1890, pp. xxi-xxiii. 2Curry, W. C., "Samson Agonistes Yet Again," Sewwnee Review, July, 1924. 3Baum, P. F., "Samson Agonistes Again," Publications of the Mod­ern. Language Association of America, xxxvi, 354-371. a tragic hero but is even degenerating into something of a sensualist, a dullard, a buffoon. But what manner of man is Samson the Nazarite as Milton understands him and presents him, first and last? If Professor Jebb was largely right in saying that "Milton's mind was in the literal and proper sense Hebraic,'' and that, "when a man with his bent of thought selected as the subject for a poem an episode in Hebrew history, the treatment of the subject was sure to be genuinely Hebraic,"• then the key, or at least the best approach, to any adequate understanding of Milton's hero will be found in the charac­ter of Samson as he is depicted in the biblical account. To understand the historic Samson, however, one must clear his mind, to some extent, of present-day religious and ethical conceptions and endeavor to assume the ancient Hebrews' point of view-that of a chosen people who are temporarily under the heathen heel but who believe im­plicitly in Jehovah's watchful care and overruling power. One must be prepared to hold the enemies of Israel in de­rision, to exact of them an eye for an eye, and to account it unto Jehovah's chosen instruments for righteousness that they despoil and trample upon the enemy without remorse. Interpreted in this ancient light, Samson begins and ends his career the approved and irresistible champion of God. His advent is divinely announced; his regimen of food and drink and discipline is superhumanly devised. Like the greater Nazarite to come, the child increases in stature and in wisdom and in favor with God and man. Soon the youth acquires the lore of rocks and streams and lonely fields. From time to time he is uplifted by strange visitations of the Spirit; but he keeps his own counsel and rejoices in the secret of his strength. And now, arrived at manhood, he moves out along the concurrent lines of inclination and of duty, to choose a Philistine wife and thereby, in some manner vaguely discerned or yet to be revealed, to seek an occasion against his nation's foe and to initiate the deliver­ance of his people from the Philistine yoke. The occasion •Jebb, Sir R. C., "Sa:m1101t, Agonistes and the Hellenic Drama," December 10, 1908, Proceedings of the British Academy, III, 2. soon arrives, and Samson smites the enemy hip and thigh; but the timorous Israelites fail to rally to his support. In grief and rage he retires to lonely Etam, not to sulk or to hide, but to lament the death of his wife and to deplore the apparent failure of Jehovah's cause. When his people, who had failed to rise and follow him to freedom, come traitor­ously to deliver him to the foe, he voluntarily becomes their prisoner and pawn. And after the great deliverance that single-handedly he soon achieves, Jehovah cleaves "the hol­low place that is in Lehi" and gives him drink. Despite apparent mistakes, the Nazarite is thus far in his course approved of God. That Israel likewise now vindicates and approves the champion of Lehi as a national hero who stands head and shoulders above his people, as well in mind and spirit as in might, is attested by the fact that Samson henceforth judges Israel for twenty years. To interpret, then, the historic Samson as a lustful lover and foolish riddler is largely to misconceive the biblical account. Intimations of his opening career cause Samson's youthful spirit to leap for joy and his tongue to utter vigorous, mirthful, even prophetic things. Rightly under­stood, the "absurd riddle,"5 Out of the eater came forth meat, And out of the strong came forth sweetness, is seen to shadow forth deliverance to come. Doubtless the hero was susceptible to feminine charm; but his marriage choice, unaccountable to his people as it was in its defiance of convention and the law, was made, as I have said, under the promptings of Jehovah and with a certain dim aware­ness of his mission as a deliverer. Samson loved his beau­tiful but unfaithful wife and ruthlessly avenged her death; but his orie recorded marital adventure was motivated pri­marily by a sense of duty rather than by desire. Through­out the periods of his youth, maturity, and supremacy in Israel, his character is devout, patriotic, impressively heroic. GBaum, P. F., op. cit. But Samson fell. His decline began with harlotry at Gaza and continued with the besotted love of Delilah at Sorek. The Bible leaves no doubt that the Samson of Gaza and of Sorek was a prodigal. It makes it equaIIy clear, how­ever, that this period of riotous living came far along in Samson's life and was of brief duration. Though he grov­eled among swine, he never lost his faith in God. And so it came to pass that even with the growth of his hair, the out­ward symbol of his obedience to God, began his rehabilita­tion in body, mind, and soul. At last we see him restored to his position of Nazarite and deliverer, praying confi­dently for Jehovah's aid, expiating willingly with bis life his grievous sins, and triumphantly accomplishing in large degree the work that he had been appointed to do. In reviewing the salient characteristics of the biblical Samson, we have gone no little portion of the way toward a proper understanding of the protagonist of Milton's play. The heaven-sent child, the commissioned Nazarite, the com­rade of Jehovah, the superhuman man, the solitary roamer of the fields, the ardent lover, the disregarder of convention, the impetuous avenger, the deliverer, the judge, the prodi­gal, the penitent, the expiator, the vindicator of Jehovah­all this is common ground in the two accounts and justifies the view that Milton's Samson is essentially Hebraic. But there is need of guarding against the fallacious assumption that the two conceptions are identical. In the hands of a poet hardly less aglow with the warmth and color of the Renaissance than with the ardor of the Hebrew faith, Sam­son has undergone a transformation that must not be over­looked. Some aspects of the biblical character are omitted ; a number of traits are added ; a large proportion of the hero's characteristics are accentuated or diminished to em• phasize the author's conception or to heighten the poetic or dramatic effect. Without retracing, then, the familiar story as it is presented in the play, but accepting as the heart of Milton's conception the Hebraic aspects of the char­acter already pointed out, we may turn now to the modifi­cations introduced. As early as 1642 Milton idealizes the character as "that mighty Nazarite Samson; who being disciplined from his birth in the precepts and the practice of temperance and sobriety, without the strong drink of injurious and exces­sive desires, grows up to a noble strength and perfection with those his illustrious and sunny locks, the laws, waving and curling about his godlike shoulders."6 The same poetic heightening is apparent in the play. The Bible makes no mention of Samson's comely looks. Milton's hero has "comeliness of shape,'' is "gloriously rigg'd" and "eminently adorned." The poet is particularly captivated with the sym­bolism and the beauty of Samson's hair. In each account Samson's might is irresistible, but Milton's Samson has muchthe finer conception of his strength. He is "God's mighty minister." His strength is a "consecrated gift." He is "with celestial vigour arm'd" and recognizes the fact that merely human power is "slight" and "vain." Thus Milton adds humility and comeliness to superhuman might. In mental characteristics the divergence is more marked. Milton emphasizes Samson's intellectual powers. The dra­matic figure has "heroic magnitude of mind." His "rest­less" intellect is busy with magnanimous thoughts Of birth from Heav'n foretold and high exploits as well as active in less transcendental ways. In the elder Samson there is very little of self-criticism; here Samson is nothing less than "self-severe,'' defending skilfully the main course of his life, but denouncing in unmeasured terms his temporary "impotence of mind." Milton's hero is less credulous, more sophisticated, than Samson of old; he is "not at all surprised" at Dalila's assaults, each time perceiving How openly, and with what impudence, she exercises her arts upon him. He is a fluent speaker, a skilful controversialist, able to answer argument with ar­gument, taunt with taunt, assault with counter-assault; he 6Prose Works, Bohn Edition, II, 606. can frame an eloquent soliloquy or address, in tragic or ex­ultant strain, whether the theme be purely personal or patriotic or religious. His tongue is master of satire and invective as well as of simple pathos and exalted rhapsody. The sportiveness that is somewhat prominent in the elder Samson is not conspicuous in Milton's hero. "Not out of levity" does he succumb to Dalila. He disdains to be a "fool or jester." There is not the slightest indication that Samson's "undergraduate escapades of the Gaza gates"7 were regarded by Milton in any other light than as fear­inspiring exhibitions of God-given and as yet unconquered might. On the whole, then, the mind of the modern Samson is more versatile, more serious and reflective, than that of his ancient prototype, and is adorned with "gifts and graces" which are peculiarly Miltonic but of which in the primitive mind of the elder Samson there is hardly a trace. Temperamentally and emotionally the later hero has been given superior breadth and warmth. He is a tender-hearted son, in whom the mention of his father's name awakens "inward grief." The men of Dan revive their "old respect" for their "once gloried friend," whom "all men loved." To their sympathetic greeting, We come thy friends and neighbors not unknown, he warm-heartedly replies, Your coming, friends, revives me. The original portrait exhibits little of this filial tenderness and nothing of this neighborly love. Furthermore, his in­terest in external nature is more explicitly revealed in Milton's play. With fine sensitiveness Samson observes that Yonder bank hath choice of sun or shade, that there he can feel amends, The breath of Heav'n fresh blowing, pure and sweet, With day-spring born. 7Baum, P. F., op. cit. His keen delight in nature he pathetically recalls: Wherever fountain or fresh current flow'd Against the eastern ray, translucent, pure, With touch ethereal of Heav'ns fiery rod, I drank, from the clear milky juice allaying Thirst, and laments his loss of sight as "chief of all" : Light, the prime work of God, to me extinct, And all her various objects of delight Annull'd. . . Scarce half I seem to live, dead more than half. Thus the hero's sensibilities with respect to nature and his fellowmen have been expanded and enriched. The moral nature of the Nazarite has been distinctly ele­vated and reinforced. The lust that beset the elder Samson for a time has largely been erased. The Gaza harlots nowhere figure in the play. Unlike the Bible narrative, Milton's story dignifies Dalila with the name of wife. Not lust but love motivates Samson's ill-starred second choice: I before all the daughters of my tribe And of my nation chose thee from among My enemies, lov'd thee, as too well thou knew'st, Too "Well. The other and primary motivation is made especially clear, as is also his vindication for departing from the law. Sam­son is under a higher "command" from Heaven to free "his country," and is therefore specifically exempted from ob­servance of the law by Him Who made our laws to bind us, not himself; And hath full right to exempt Whom so it pleases him by choice From national obstriction. Various other moral virtues of the hero Milton establishes beyond the possibility of doubt. Thus as to Samson's patriotism his neighbors testify: In seeking just occasion to provoke The Philistines, thy country's enemy, Thou never wast remiss. In his public service there has been, says Samson, no taint of selfishness or vanity : I on th' other side Us'd no ambition to commend my deeds; The deeds themselves, though mute, spoke loud the doer. His temperance and self-control are emphasized and vouched for by the Chorus : Desire of wine and all delicious drinks, Which many a famous warrior overturns, Thou could'st repress; nor did the dancing ruby, Sparkling out-pour'd, the flavour, or the smell, Or taste that cheers the heart of gods and men, Allure thee from the cool crystalline stream. He is more truthful than his biblical prototype : his cunning shifts to ward off wheedling Dalila, when thrice he deluded her, and turn'd to sport Her importunity, are not characterized by Milton, as by Delilah, as mere "lyes." A wholly new and entirely Christian element of forgiveness is introduced when Samson says, At distance I forgive thee, go with that. "Inflexible as steel" is Samson's will to resist evil and to stand for right. Now that the nightmare of his wickedness and weakness is forever past, the temptress finds him implacable, more deaf To prayers than winds and seas. The whole absorbing episode of Dalila's visit is invented to demonstrate that where he had been temporarlly weak when he had divulg'd the secret gift of God To a deceitful woman, he is now impregnably strong. To the seductive plea of Dalila he retorts : Hyama, ... This jail I count the house of liberty To thine, whose doors my feet shall never enter.... Thy fair enchanted cup, and warbling charms No more on me have power, their force is null'd. She has raised in him "inexpiable hate." The two are "long since twain." There seems to be no real reason to suppose that "Dalila still exerts her former influence over Samson,"8 that Samson still loves Dalila and therefore is alarmed at her approach. On the contrary, it seems undeniably clear that Milton intends to represent the hero as strong again in will and reason and virtue, as completely disillusioned and permanently cured. The struggle not to love her, if there ever was one, is of the past. Act III is less significant as a portrayal of dramatic struggle than as an exhibition of in­tegrity restored. Most striking of all, at least in bulk, are the modifica­tions introduced by Milton to expand and to reveal the strictly religious aspects of Samson's character. In words as well as in deeds Samson has become a vindicator of the ways of God to men. Entirely new is his acute perception of his own responsibility for his sin: Nothing of these evils hath befall'n me But justly; I myself have brought them on; Sole author I, sole cause. His "chief affliction, shame and sorrow" is that he has brought to God and Israel Dishonour, obloquy, and op't the mouths Of idolists, and atheists; ... brought scandal To Israel, diffidence to God, and doubt In feeble hearts. scurry, w. c., op. cit. This remorse for sin is wholly absent from the Hebrew story, as are also Samson's "swoonings of despair" .and "sense of Heav'ns desertion." The despondent hero feels that he is "cast off" as "never known"; like Job he can only hope for "speedy death.'' New also is the prompt rebound of faith and hope: All these . . . evils I deserve, and more; Acknowledge them from God inflicted on me Justly; yet despair not of the final pardon Whose ear is ever open, and his eye Gracious to readmit the suppliant.... My trust is in the living God. He never doubts that the cause of God will yet prevail. And absorbed in this larger faith and hope, he is less concerned about himself, less vengeful, than the Samson of old; the very human motivation of the elder hero's final plea, "that I may be avenged for my two eyes," Milton wisely blots from the account. The discomfiting of Harapha is an epi­sode invented to exhibit the resuscitation of Samson as the militant and fearless champion of God. His instant re­sponse to the "rousing motions" of the Spirit which he now perceives within him is introduced as proof that Samson is again, as he had been before his fall, "full of divine instinct" and obedient to the heavenly voice. With dignity and sol­emn joy he now can say: Be of good courage; I begin to feel Some rousing motions in me, which dispose To something extraordinary my thoughts. I with this messenger will go along.... Happ'n what may, of me expect to hear Nothing dishonourable, impure, unworthy Our God, our law, my nation, or myself. Of Samson's penitence and spiritual recovery there is noth­ing in the original tale. Samson Agonistes, in fact, is largely made of new materials designed to portray the hero's physical, mental, and spiritual restoration. At last, we are emphatically assured, Samson hath quit himself Like Samson, and heroically hath finished A life heroic.... And which is best and happiest yet, all this With God not parted from him as was fear'd, But favouring and assisting to the end. Thus far, in comparing the modern and the ancient con­ceptions of the central character, I have virtually ignored the fact that Milton's story is a drama and have dealt with the Hebraic and Miltonic narratives as epical accounts. Dramatically considered, however, the protagonist of Milton's tragedy is depicted only in the final period of his recovered strength. Nowhere within the proper limits of the plot, except in reminiscence, is the hero physically, men­tally, or spiritually weak. The erroneous conclusion that Samson "has been granted an unwieldy strength of body but impotence of mind and because he lacks wisdom he has been overcome by the weakest of subtleties"9 springs from a misinterpretation of such lines as these: 0 impotence of mind, in body strong! But what is strength, without a double share Of wisdom? Vast, unwieldy, burdensome, Proudly secure, yet liable to fall By weakest subtleties. Dramatically appropriate as they are, these lines, after all, are Samson's scathing words of self-reproach. The Chorus hastens to supply the juster view: Wisest men Have err'd, and by bad women been deceived; And shall again, pretend they ne'er so wise. Deject not, then, so overmuch thyself. Far-seeing, mighty, temperate, patriotic, self-severe, devout, God's nursling once and choice delight," weak only for a little while, but sincerely penitent, once more loyal, and ocurry, w. c., op. cit. finally victorious in obedience and faith, Samson is pre­sented by Milton as a mirror of our fickle state, Since man on earth unparallel'd. If he was occasionally violent and indiscrete, so also was he who walked with God but who in his wrath slew the Egyp­tian and broke the tables of the law. Samson was indeed susceptible to feminine charm, but never so contemptibly as was Israel's greatest king when he coveted Bathsheba and set her husband in the forefront of the fight. Like Moses and David, Samson as Milton has presented him was es­sentially God's "faithful champion," who stumbled and fell but who regained his feet and marched steadfastly onward to the accomplishment of his heaven-appointed task. Retaining, then, as the core of his conception those Hebraic elements of character that render the biblical Sam­son, despite his temporary weakness, a man of piety and of irresistible power, Milton has beautified, strengthened, and humanized the character of the Nazarite and made of him an heroic figure as conspicuously modern, Christian, and Miltonic as it is Hebraic. In neither version, and much less in the modern than in the ancient account, is there just reason to assert that Samson is a clown, a sensualist, or a dolt. On the contrary, Milton agrees with the deliberate judgment of St. Paul that Samson is of the company of God's heroic men "who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong." MORE ABOUT DRYDEN AS AN ADAPTER OF SHAKESPEARE BY D. T. STARNES In the Preface to All for Love, Dryden writes: "In my style I have professed to imitate the divine Shakespeare . . . . I hope I need not to explain myself that I have not copied my author servilely.... Yet I hope I may affirm, and with­out vanity, that by imitating him I have excelled myself throughout the play; and particularly that I prefer the scene betwixt Antony and Ventidius in the first act to any­thing which I have written in this kind." The implication of this admission, in its context, is that Dryden was imitating his predecessor only in Antony and Cleopatra. The Shakespeare Allusion Book, however, lists one passage1 in which All for Love obviously echoes Much Ado About Nothing. But the authors of the Allusion Book take no notice of other passages in Dryden's play which seem to reflect situations, to paraphrase, and, in some instances, to repeat verbatim the language of various other plays by Shakespeare, and in particular certain ob­vious echoes of Othello.2 In the first act of All for Love, for example, there is a scene in which Antony, depressed and melancholy over his defeat in battle, throws himself on the ground, calls for music to "soothe his melancholy," and imagines he is in a shady forest commenting on the herds jumping by him. The similarity in situation and phraseology of this scene to parts of As You Like It, in which the melancholy Jaques, in the forest of Arden, moralizes on the fate of the wounded stag, and grows sentimental over Amiens' song, is, I think, fairly 1See All for Love, IV, 293-298, and Much Ado About Nothing, III, ii, 107-111. 2See the article by Professor T. P. Harrison, Jr., "Othello as a Model for Dryden in All for Love," Studies in English, No. 7, pp. 136-143. following lines : All for Love Ant. . .. Stay I fancy I'm now turned wild, a commoner of nature, Of all forsaken and forsaking all; Live in a shady forest's sylvan scene, Stretched at my length beneath some blasted oak; ... a murm'ring brook Runs at my foot . ... (I, 231-240.) Ventidius comes and weeps over Antony. The latter exclaims: By heav'n, he weeps, poor good old man-he weeps! The big round drops chase one another down The furrows of his cheeks. (Ibi.d., 266-268.) The herd comes jwmping by me And, fearless, quench their thirst, while I look on, And take me for their fellow-­citizen. More of this image; more; it lulls my thoughts (soft music). (Ibi.d., 241-244.) Antony, having thrown himself on the ground, says : As You Like It The First Lord, speaking to Duke Senior concerning the mel­ancholy Jaques, says: . . . Today my Lord of Amiens and myself Did steal behind him as he lay along Under an oak whose antique root peeps out Upon the brook that brawls along this wood.. ... (II, i, 29-32.) To the stream near Jaques came a wounded stag, . .. And the big round tears Cours'd one airwthm< down hi.a innocent nose In piteous chase; and thus the hairy fool, Much marked of the melancholy Jaques.. . . (Ibi.d., 28-43.) Anon a careless herd, Full of the pasture, jwmps along by him And never stays to greet him. "Ay," quoth Jaques, "Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens. 'Tis just the fashion.... (Ibi.d., 52-56.) In the fifth scene of the second act A.miens sings. At the close of the song, Jaques says : Give me some music; look that it More, more, I prithee more, be sad. I'll soothe my melancholy, till I Amiens. It will make you melan­swell choly, monsieur Jaques. And burst myself with sighing,­(soft music) . Jaques. I thank it. More, I 'Tis somewhat to my hwmor. prithee, more. (Ibid., 228-231.) (II, v, 10-12.) It is somewhat surprising to find in AU for Love definite echoes of As You Like It, so different are the dramatis per­sonae and the subject matter of these two plays. The imi­tation in this case is limited to one scene in Dryden's play; and the melancholy of Antony seems to be genuine, though temporary, in contrast with the habitual, but affected, melancholy of Jaques. Much less surprising are the reflections of Julius Caesar. It seems quite natural that, in preparing to write All for Love, the author should have studied Julius Caesar-at least for Shakespeare's conception of Mark Antony-as well as Antony and Cleopatra. Whether or not this was Dryden's procedure, his All for Love reveals both in situation and in phraseology striking similarities to Julius Caesar. For example, the first thirty lines of Dryden's play, giving an account of portents and prodigies ominous of tragedy, sug­gest at once similar passages in Julius Caesar. 8 The refer­ences, in common, to violent storms, to the dead rising from their tombs, and to gliding ghosts lend color to this sugges­tion. The circumstance, too, that this foreshadowing em­ployed by Dryden is not as much in tone with the subsequent action as are similar passages in Julius Caesar leads one to wonder whether Dryden did not have fresh in memory lines of this play when he began the composition of All for Love. Further investigation affords support for this theory. Com­ pare the following excerpts : 3Cf. All for Love, I, 1-31, and Julius CaesUrnal during March and April, 1845. See Poe's Works, ed. Harrison, New York, 1902, XII, pp. 41 ff. sRepublished in the Weekly Mirror of March 8, 1845. 4Reprinted by Miss Phillips, II, pp. 961 ff. can see, either in the paper by "Outis1' or in Poe's replies, that suggests insincerity or ungenuineness, nor yet in Willis's editorial notes dissenting from Poe's criticisms.5 Besides, it seems to me altogether unlikely that the secret would not somehow have leaked out long ago if the "Outis" paper had actually been written by Poe,-and especially so if, as Miss Phillips suggests, both Willis and Longfellow were privy to the facts as she sees them.6 Furthermore, Poe would, I believe, have been much chagrined if any hoax of his had not been pretty promptly recognized as such; and I wonder if he would not have made a point of giving the secret away. The style, moreover, of "Outis's" paper, though simple and forthright, lacks the nervousness and the dash of Poe's polemic writing.7 Finally, it remains to be shown that Poe was the author of the article "A Reviewer Re­viewed," purporting to have been written by Walter G. Bowen. I am aware that so able an authority on Poe as Professor George E. Woodberry has expressed the opinion that the manuscript of this article is in Poe's handwriting,8 but it does not follow that a manuscript in Poe's handwrit­ing is necessarily of his own composition. There are, in­deed, at least two articles-or scraps of manuscript--pre­served in Poe's handwriting that we know are not his work; namely, a copy of Harriet Winslow's lines "To the Author of the 'Raven' "9 (republished as it happens, in facsimile, in the New York Journal of March 15, 1896, on the same page with "A Reviewer Reviewed") and an excerpt from one of Mrs. Osgood's dramas published not long after Poe's 5In the Evening Mirror of February 5 and 14, 1845 (also in the Weekly Mirror of February 8 and 22, respectively). 6L.c., p. 968. 7"0utis's" article may be conveniently consulted in the first of Poe's articles in reply to it, in which it is reproduced in itSI entirety (Harrison, XII, pp. 46 f.). 8New York Journal, March 15, 1896. 9See the New York Times Saturday Review for November 27 and December 18, 1909. death as a bit of verse from his pen.10 I ought to add that the name "Walter G. Bowen" does not appear in the New York directories for the forties; but neither does Poe's name appear there, although we know he was living either in New York City or in Fordham from April, 1844, to the year of his death. "Outis" was, I suspect-though I have no way of estab­lishing this conclusively-Longfellow's close friend and col­league, C. C. Felton, Professor of Greek at Harvard and later president of the University. Felton was at the time of Poe's attacks collaborating with Longfellow on his Poets and Poetry of Europe (Philadelphia, 1845) 11 and doubtless saw the poet daily. It was Felton, too, as Miss Phillips indeed notes,12 who came to Longfellow's defense when attacked in The Rover early in 1845. On the other hand, there is one bit of evidence running counter to my theory: in the state­ment made by C. F. Briggs in a letter to Lowell of March 16, 1845, that he had forgotten who "Outis" was.13 Hence I readily grant that the evidence at hand is not suf­ficient to warrant the unqualified conclusion that "Outis" was Felton. But we can be reasonably certain, in my judg­ment, that "Outis" was not Poe. 1orn Autograph Leaves of our Country's Authors, compiled by John Pendleton Kennedy and Alexander Bliss, Baltimore, 1864. Probably originally a part of the manuscript of Poe's article on Mrs. Osgood published in the Southern Literary Messenger for August, 1849; see Poe's Works, ed. Harrison, XV, p. 277. nLongfellow, S., Life of Longfellow, Boston, 1896, II, p. 4. 12L.c., p. 973. 1swoodberry, G. E., Life of Poe, Boston, 1909, II, p. 127. SOME NINETEENTH CENTURY CRITICS OF REALISM BY HOUGHTON W. TAYLOR The beginning of the work involved in this paper lay in a plan to study the development in England and America of general critical concepts of modern literary realism. It was, and still is, my hope to make this study exhaustive. The present discussion, however, is concerned with a relatively small body of documents-specifically, with a group of magazine articles published between 1875 and 1900, with the aid of which group I intend simply to set forth in broad outline the ideas and attitudes that prevailed toward realism during that quarter-century. Two articles of 1874 have been included as belonging, in effect, to this period. I have also made a somewhat less thorough study of magazines as far back as 1850, but have not found evidence of any great wealth of material. It was during the last quarter of the nineteenth century that realism came to have an important place in English critical literature. Books on the subject, to be sure, were and still are scarce in the corpus of that literature ; but contributions to magazines were su:ffidently plentiful. By going through the bound volumes of several important journals, I have gathered what I believe to be a representative group of opinions, reasonably safe to base my conclusions on. My principal effort has been to classify; but I have frequently ventured to evaluate also, where I thought I could promote the clearness of the discussion by the application of critical judgments generally accepted by students of realism. The magazines consulted in this study were as follows : Academy, LV-LXXXIX (1898-1915). Arena, IX (1893). Athenaewm, Nos. 2462-3270 (1875-1890). Atlantic Monthly, I-CXXXIV (1857-1924). Citizen, I ( 1895) . Contemporary Review, I-CXXIV (1866-1923). Dial, XVIII-LXXVI (1895-1924). Edinburgh Review, I-CCXL (1803-1924). Fortnightly Review, I-CXXI (1865-1924). Forum, I-LXIX (1886-1923). Harper's Monthly, L-LXXXI (1874-1890). Journal of English and Germanic Philology, I-XXIII (1897-1924). Li:ppi,ncott's Magw;;ine, XIII (1874), XLVIII (1891). Living Age, CXXIV-CLXXXVII ( 1875-1890). Modern Language Notes, I-XXXIX (1886-1924). Modern Language Review, I-XIX (1905-1924). New Englander, L (1889). New Republic, I-XXXVII ( 1914-1924). Nineteenth Century, XXV (1889), XXXIV (1893). Publications of the Modern Language Association, I-XLII (1893-1927). Quarterly Review, XLI-CXC (1829-1899), CCXXXV-CCXLI (1921­ 1924). Scribner's Magazine, II (1887). Soutlwrn Literary Messenger, I-XXX (1834-1864). Westminster Review, CXXIX (1888), CXXXII (1889), CXXXIV (1890), CXLI (1894). It will be seen that my reading has covered considerable ground outside of the period in which I was primarily in­terested. Even within the period, moreover, I found many articles which, though valuable in a general way, did not, for various reasons, suit my purpose precisely. In par­ticular, I have not referred in this paper to any articles that criticise novels without reference to general theory. Such articles may be sometimes significant in their very omission of theoretical matter. For example, Ernest Newman writes a first-rate appreciation1 of Flaubert, discussing that novel­ist's art with notable adequacy, but scarcely referring to realism at all. But though Newman may thus warn us against dwelling too long on theories of method, the need for concentration forces me to neglect such articles as his. For convenience in classifying, I have seen fit to make two main time-divisions in my discussion. The first is the period 1875-1890, when the main lines of thought were established; the second is 1890-1900, when these lines were extended, and subsidiary lines appeared. iArt. 1. "Gustave Flaubert," Fortnightly Review, LXIV (1895), 813 ff. The excerpts and paraphrases which follow are not in general to be regarded as indicating the whole content of the articles involved. The matter of the combination and interaction of critical notions in any one article, contains possible complexities which I have not intended to analyze. All the reader needs to see, for the purpose of this paper, is the appearance of the essential ideas which constitute the frame for all others. I. 1875-1890 The realism of Flaubert made some impression on English readers, but it was not until after the appearance of the naturalistic novels of the Goncourts and Zola that one could have observed great manifestations of concern. Renee Mauperin appeared in 1864, Germinie Lacerteux in the fol­lowing year; Therese Raquin, Zola's first venture in natur­alism, was published in 1867, While L'Assommoir, his first really notorious novel, did not appear until 1877. A glance at these dates will make it seem reasonable that not many articles on realism should have appeared before the sev­enties. As a matter of fact, as late as 1883 a writer in the Fortnightly Review2 could say with truth that there was not much critical material in England on the theories and aims of modern fiction. But even as he spoke, the defect was being remedied ; the contribution of the period of 1875­1890, looked at in retrospect, seems of creditable size. Ad­verse criticism was more frequent and more characteristic than its opposite; with it, therefore, it would be logical to begin. A. Adverse Criticism The general tone of the adverse criticism will be familiar to anyone who has spent much time reading modern novels and discussions of them. The lines of attack were in the main as follows : 2Art. 2. Norman, Henry: "Theories and Practice of Modern Fic­tion," Fortnightly Review, XL (1883), 870 ff. 1. Realism is foul, indecent, etc. It talks of things that should never be m~mtioned in literature or in polite circles. It contaminates the mind of the reader. 2. Realism distorts life, because it takes the unpleasant as being the whole of life, or at any rate neglects to treat the pleasant in due proportion. 3. Realism is inartistic. It ts incompatible with beauty, because it is too close to reality, or because it does not idealise. 1. REALISM IS FOUL The first of these varieties of attack, though found during all periods of realism, including the present, I do not find very frequently by itself. Usually the critic joins this attack with one of the second or third sort. The state of extreme revulsion is clearly illustrated in such excerpts as the following: Art. 3. Haggard, H. Rider: "About Fiction,'' Contem­porary Review, LI ( 1887), 172 ff. The author calls realism "an accursed thing." Art. 4. "Editor's Literary Record,'' Harper's Monthly, LIX (1879), 309: "Of L'Assommoir, the less said the better.... [Its] atmosphere [is] loaded with moral contagion.... [It is] lifelike, but so would be the reproduction of a cancerous sore or a scrofulous ulcer." Art. 5. Lilly, W. S.: "The Age of Balzac," Contemporary Review, XXXVII (1880), 1004 ff.: "Balzac is a realist, if you will; but a realist in quite another sense from that in which the epithet applies to certain writers of the present day, who seek in his great name a sanction for their coarse studies from the shambles and latrines of human nature." See also: Art. 6. Perry, Thomas Sargent: "Zola's Last Novel/' Atlantic Monthly, XLV (1880), 693 ff. Art. 7. "Novelists,'' Living Age, CXLI (1879), 90 ff.; copied from Blackwood's. Art. 8. Lilly, W. S.: "The New Naturalism," Fort­nightly Review, XLIV (1885), 240 ff. Art. 9. Lang, Andrew: "Emile Zola,'' Fortnightly Re­view, XXXVII (1882), 439 ff. 2. REALISM DISTORTS LIFE Why, is the complaint, must fiction concentrate on what is unpleasant? By doing so, it distorts life, for life is a mix­ture of good and bad things, and a well-balanced work of art (one would conclude) should present the good and bad together. Whether non-realistic art generally does any such thing as this, is another question; at any rate, distortion of life has never ceased to be an item in the charges against realism. Art. 10. Asheton, Francis: "Modern French Fiction," Lippincott's Magazine, XIII (1874), 237 ff.: The author complains that the realists fail in proportion, their view of life is distorted. "Honesty and truth are banished from the picture as unreal and visionary." The author does not think that such a large group of base creatures could be found together in life as Flaubert puts into Madame Bovary. Art. 11. "Zola," in the "Contributor's Club," Atlantic Monthly, XXXIX (1877), 610: In describing life we must "make our account" with its foulness. But Zola, says this author, "deals with foul things from the foul point of view." The fault of Zola and his school is their failure to see that "delicacy is a positive factor in a real work of art." Art. 12. "Realism and Decadence in French Fiction," Quarterly Review, CLXXI (1890), 59 ff.: The author says of Balzac, Flaubert, Zola, that "they explain human nature ... by resolving its highest faculties into brute appetites." Their modus operandi was to present the abnormal, especially when dealing with passion. The "first great prin­ciple" of realism "is the essential bestiality of man as the supreme utterance of the mouth of knowledge." Art. 13. Lang, Andrew: "Emile Zola," Fortnightly Review, XXXVII (1882), 439 ff.: "We must presume that M. Zola and most other French natural­istes are unable, through an unhappy temperament, to see much of things and people 'lovely and of good report,' and are compelled 'to lose themselves in human corruption.' ... Even if we grant to M. Zola that the object of the art of fiction is 'the scientific knowledge of man,' we fail to see why that knowledge should dwell so much on man's corruption, and so little on the nobler aspects of humanity."a act. art. 30. See also: Art. 14. "Realism of the Beautiful," ip. the "Contribu­tor's Club," Atlantic Monthly, XL (1877), 368. · ·Art. 15. "Contributor's · Club,'' Atlantic Monthly, LX (1887)' 572. Art. 16. Lang, Andrew: "Realism and Romance,'' Con­temporary Review, LII (1887) 683 ff. Art. 17. Review of Zola's La Bete Humaine, Westmin­ster Review, CXXXIV (1890), 87 ff. Art. 18. Mallock, W. H. : "The Relation of Art to Truth,'' Forum, IX (1890), 36 ff. Art. 19. "French Novels,'' Living Age, CXLII (1879), 67 ff.; copied from Blackwood's. 3. REALISM IS INARTISTIC The aesthetic problems raised by English critics, in the course of their objections to realism, are so various that any attempt to explain them here would make the paper cumbersome indeed. I shall do no more than set forth the content of the articles. Art. 20. Bates, Arlo: "Realism and the Art of Fiction," Scribner's Magazine, II (1887), 241 ff.: "Realism concerns itself with how human nature appears; art, with what it is. It is the accidental versus the essential. ... Realism rejects aesthetic emotion. . . . The realistic writer is untrue in that be stands in an objective mood toward his characters. . . . It is necessary to apprehend the mood of the speaker, and that, too, in the most intimately subjective way. . . . The fatal error of regarding the surface as more real than what lies below is common enough; art should correct, not foster, this mistake." Art. 21. Wilde, Oscar: "The Decay of Lying,'' Nine­teenth Century, XXV (1889), 35 ff.: This once famous dialogue might deserve a large space in this paper on ac­count of its merits as a rhetorical feat; but as these merits would certainly disappear in my reproduction of Wilde's arguments, all I shall do is to state the four doctrines which the dialogue sets forth to define true art and refute realism. They are: (1) Art never expresses anything but itself. (2) All bad art comes from returning to life and nature, and elevating them into ideals. (3) Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life. ( 4) Lying, the telling of beautiful untrue things, is the proper aim of Art. Art. 22. Thompson, Maurice: "The Domain of Ro­mance," Forum, VIII (1889), 326 ff.: The author says, with enthusiasm, that all art that is of any value is romantic. Balzac, for example, is romantic; but Tolstoy, it appears, is only a realist, and not an artist at all. "The realists, in defining their own area, concede to romance the domain it rightfully occupies. Photography is realism; everything else is romance."4 Art. 23. "Realism in Art," in the "Contributor's Club," Atlantic Monthly, XLVII (1881), 430 ff.: We should expect that sooner or later someone would try to catch the realists with a quibble about the real versus the actual. This author, beginning with the Platonic principle that there is for every living species a perfect type or ideal which is a truer reality than the individual coming under the type, concludes that the artist who has a true conception of this ideal has the right to call the creations of his imagination made after the image of this ideal truth, realities.5 Since Platonic realities are much to be preferred to social or biologic ones, it is evi­dent that realism is by so much inferior. Art. 24. Warner, Charles Dudley: "Modern Fiction," Atlantic Monthly, LI (1883), 464 ff.: The topic sentence seems to be this: "One of the worst characteristics of mod­ern fiction is its so-called truth to nature." All the usual objections to realism are rehearsed. But not content with the usual, the author goes to the length of demanding that the novel have the perfection and conclusiveness of plot which characterize classic tragedy, and better still, pleads for ideal characters and poetic justice. See also: Art. 25. "Contributor's Club," Atlantic Monthly, XLI (1878)' 130. Art. 26. Hillebrand, Karl: "About Old and New Novels," Contemporary Review, XLV (1884), 388 ff. Art. 27. Quilter, Harry: "The Tendencies of French Art," C