takes up the problem of the origin of language, traces the various steps of morphological evolution, and gives descriptions of the isolating, agglutinative, inflectional, and incorporating types of languages. Readers will enjoy a characterization like the following: "If we define inflection as "agglutination run mad", we may regard incorporation as inflection run madder still: it is the result of attempting to develop the verb into a complete sentence." (p. 69.) The function of symbolism in the making of language is recognized by Sweet even in the formation of some "purely grammatical elements", as "the, tha(t) Greek to, thou Latin tu, and numerous other words", where "the demonstrative point consonant seems to be the result of the sympathetic tongue-gesture which would naturally accompany the action of pointing with the fingers". (p. 39.) (Cf. Jacob Grimm's: "K erforscht, erkundigt, ruft; T zeigt, bedeutet und erwiedert", in his Deutsche Grammatik, III. Buch, IV. Cap., 'Pronominalbildungen'.) The pages devoted to Gender may be pointed out as particularly interesting. In the last chapter of this first part, on 'Changes in Language', the author treats of such subjects as Periods Dialects, Social Strata, Families of Languages, Rapidity of Change, Linguistic Conservatism, etc. Among the numerous fine illustrations we mention his analysis of the character of Modern Icelandic in the light of historical circumstance (p. 89).

In the second main part we are introduced to the Aryan family. The classification of the Indo-European languages is followed by a concise sketch of the primitive system of Phonology and Inflection. But the chief interest will be found. in Sweet's discussion of the questions of the 'Original Home' [Scandinavia], the 'Aryan Race', and the 'Affinities of Aryan'. The probabilities of the ultimate relationship of the Aryan family with the Ugrian, of the Ugrian with the Altaic, and further still of the Ugro-Altaic with the Sumerian are here developed at comparative length and with a good deal of force. Whatever may be thought of such bold ventures into regions generally shunned by Indo-European philologists, Sweet's way of making his points is bound to excite the critical attention of specialists.

Sceptically disposed readers will turn with satisfaction to the closing chapter. Here the author lays very properly

a

stress on the inherent individuality of each language, point often lost sight of by comparative philologists in their zeal for detecting similarities between the different members of a family. Besides phonetic individuality, divergence as to the range of expression, and finally the reflection of national character by language are briefly considered. A timely suggestion is to be gleaned from the remarks on the 'organic basis' (of articulation) and 'synthetic distinctions' (of stress and intonation), which will have to be more generally included in the comparative study of languages. (p. 143.)

It would lead too far to analyse the contents of the different chapters more in detail. But a little space may perhaps be allowed for a few characteristic quotations, and some notes on miscellaneous items.

"The peculiar charm of the study of languages", we read on p. 12, "lies precisely in the mixture of the rational and the irrational, the arbitrary and exceptional with the symmetrical and regular which they all present. After the inflexible logic of the exact sciences, it is a relief to turn to the science of language: a language is like a friend whose very faults and weaknesses endear him to us. The peculiar value of the study of language as a training for the mind is the result of its combination of scientific method with human interest. The science of language is in this respect intermediate between the natural sciences on the one hand and history and literature on the other, to which latter it is also the most indispensable auxiliary."

About the phonological complexion of Modern Icelandic we are told that "Icelandic, in fact, as regards its sounds, behaves like an adult whose speech by deafness has been isolated from the control of his fellow-speakers". (p. 89.)

P. 85. "The fixity of our orthography during the last few centuries seems to have promoted rather than hindered the rapid changes in our vowels."

P. 27. The influence of intonation on 'gradation' of vowels is shown by the vocative ллε, compared with the nominative ллое; "the e of the Greek vocative hippe is the result of the high tone on both syllables which naturally accompanies calling, while the o of the nominative hippos Latin equus, older equos 'horse', is probably the result of a falling tone". The

=

illustration is excellent, but unfortunately yet too isolated. P. 57. Speaking of the nature of adverbs and their differentiation from adjectives by means of position, as in: he is quite a gentleman, over against: he is a perfect gentleman, Sweet remarks: "hence in such a construction as you are the very man I want, we cannot help regarding very as having been completely converted into an adjective". This is a rather unfortunate example, considering the adjectival origin of very. Cf., e. g., thou verray knave (Chaucer, Canterbury Tales, D 253). A construction of this type naturally preceded the modern: he is very gentlemanly. The connecting link may be seen in Chaucer's: he was a verray parfit gentil knyght (A 72). Cf. also Sweet's New English Grammar, § 340. P. 111. The correspondence of 2ɛiлo and OE. belifan is hardly longer admissible. See Kluge's Etymological Dictionary, s. v. 'bleiben', also 'leihen'; Brugmann2, pp. 519; 589. Why the verb develop has been constantly spelt develope, we are unable to see. In the bibliographical list at the end of the volume, rigorously condensed as it is, Jespersen's stimulating Progress in Language would well seem to have deserved a place.

If it were not ungrateful to ask for more, where such an abundance has been given us, we might also express the wish that Semasiology had been made a little more prominent.

The newly started series of "Temple Primers', of which this little book is an early number, bids fair to form a most valuable cyclopedic collection. Among the volumes that have been announced as being in preparation, there is one of especial interest for the study of the English language, bearing the title "The Making of English". As Mr. Henry Bradley, that distinguished English philologist and joint-editor of the New English Dictionary, has been secured for this work, we may look forward to something unusually good.

University of Minnesota.

Frederick Klaeber.

Andreas: The Legend of St. Andrew translated from the Old English by Robert Kilburn Root. (Yale Studies in English ed. by Albert S. Cook. VII.) New York: Henry Holt and Company. 1899. Pp. XIII + 58.

Within recent years, America has contributed her full share to the commendable work of making the Old English

poetry accessible to a wider circle of readers, by means of metrical translations. J. M. Garnett and J. L. Hall have given us Beowulf in modern garb; the former scholar has, in addition, rendered Elene, Judith, Aethelstan, and The Fight at Maldon; Cook has accompanied his edition of Judith with a translation; Widsid has been Englished by Gummere (Modern Language Notes IV, 209 ff.); The Wanderer, by W. R. Sims (Modern Language Notes V, 201 ff.) and Edward Fulton (Publications of the Modern Language Association of America XIII, 293 ff.); 'The Happy Land' from The Phoenix, and The Battle of Maldon, by W. R. Sims (Modern Language Notes VII, 6f.; 138 ff.), and part of the latter poem by Sidney Lanier (The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 82, pp. 165 ff.). The early pioneering efforts of Longfellow should, of course, be gratefully remembered.

No less zeal has been displayed in debating the question of the verse form most suitable for a modern presentation of the ancient poems. See American Journal of Philology II, 355 ff. (Garnett); VII, 46ff. (Gummere); Publications of the Modern Language Association of America VI, 95 ff. (Garnett); XIII, 286 ff. (Fulton); Modern Language Notes XII, 79 ff. (P. H. Frye); cf. ib. XV, 25 f. (Wm. H. Hulme); also the Prefaces to Garnett's and Hall's translations. Naturally, different answers have been given. But in theory, as in practice, a remarkable preference has been expressed for an irregular, four-accent measure' more or less approximating to the rhythmical movement of the Old English line, and with a greater or less amount of alliterative decoration. Its most powerful rival, and practically the only one worthy of serious consideration, blank verse once recommended by Garnett, before he changed front in the direction of archaistic use, and lately championed by Frye - has now been given a fair trial in Root's translation of Andreas. The experiment as such is not quite new. Blank verse has been employed in England, e. g., by Gollancz in his edition of the so called Crist, also occasionally by Stopford A. Brooke (History of Early English Literature), in spite of his grave theoretical objections to this use of the classic English meter "weighted with the sound of Shakspere, Milton, or Tennyson". Still, it required some courage and a strong conviction in the face of

the prevailing tendency, to bring out a long poem of more than seventeen hundred lines in the dress of modern meter.

The distinguishing feature of this translation is, then, its modernness. Our first impression is that of an eminently readable, in fact enjoyable production evincing marked literary ability. The jerky movement, the picturesque variety of the original have given way to a pleasing regularity. The lines roll on dignified, stately, and smooth. There are no traces of any hunt for alliterative effect, though now and then a felicitous use of consonantal rime has been made. E. g., Wafted you o'er the welter of the waves, 259; The happiness of heaven in holy peace, 809; Fettered thee fast with fiery chains in woe, 1378.

Language and style are in harmony with this modern character of the whole. We are spared the 'Unwörter', forced compounds, and syntactical distortions. The uncouthness of the old order of words has been mitigated to suit the modern reader's taste. "In my diction", the author says, "I have sought after simple and idiomatic English, studying the noble archaism of the King James Bible ...". The antique forms and words used are, indeed, of a very tame kind. E. g., wist, 262; to us-ward, 597; oped, 672; weened, 1072; in such wise; stablished; etc. We find compounds expanded to phrases, as engla eadgifa: 'he who gives | Bliss to the angels,' 451; cyninges ... prymsittendes: '... The King who sits enthroned in majesty', 527 f.; eallum eorðwarum: 'to all who dwell on earth', 568. The comparative shortness of the lines in the original unfortunately necessitated putting in numerous expletives. Cf. 'the murderous hands of bloody men', bonena hand, 17; 'right grievously', hearde, 18; 'with foeman's cunning skill', feondes cræfte, 49; ... seeketh aid | From him on high', geoce to him seced, 1152f.; 'And where that Ruler was who stablished firm | All that great work', =hwar se wealdend wäre, pe pæt weorc staðolade, 799; etc. The 'auxiliary' power of do (especially in the preterite forms) has been altogether overtaxed. That all this combines to make the movement appear somewhat slow, cannot be denied. Now can a work of this description be considered a faithful reproduction of the Old English poem? This question can hardly be answered in the affirmative without qualification.

=

...

=