Skip to main content

Full text of "[untitled] The American Journal of Philology, (1902-01-01), pages 322-331"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


The Present and Past Periphrastic Tenses in Anglo-Saxon. By 
Constance Pessels, Ph. D., Instructor in English in the 
University of Texas. Strassburg, Karl J. Triibner, 1896. 
Pp. 83. 

The Appositive Participle in Anglo-Saxon. By Morgan Cal- 
laway, Jr., Professor of English in the University of Texas. 
Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 
vol. XVI, No. 2, pp. 141-360. Baltimore, 1901. 

During the eight years since the publication of the first part 
of Dr. J. E. Wulfing's exhaustive work on the Syntax of Allred, 
the field of Old English syntax has attracted fewer investigators 
than for several years previously. On this side of the Atlantic 
there have appeared but three additions to the list of monographs 
in my "Bibliographical Guide" (1895); of these, two are con- 
cerned with the same general topic as the earliest American 
dissertation in the field — the Old English participle. 

The first, Dr. Pessels' treatise on "The Present and Past 
Periphrastic Tenses in Anglo-Saxon," bears the imprint of 
Triibner, of Strassburg ; but, when one discovers that a typical 
page (28) contains eleven obvious errors in printing, and that the 
word "progressive" is spelled somewhat indifferently with one s 
and with two, one cannot suppress the thought that if the author 
had not time for the requisite proof-reading, he should have 
employed a printer nearer home, and one whose native language 
was English. 

Unfortunately, this carelessness is not confined to the printing 
of the book; it is characteristic. The author's work is conceived 
on sufficiently broad lines; his collections may fairly claim to be 
exhaustive; but one feels at every turn that his whole heart has not 
been in his work, and that details of every sort have been slighted. 
Thus (p. 18, foot), he makes indicative (in the abbreviation ind.) 
and deponent (dep.) correlative terms. Again, his arithmetic 
is faulty: on p. 67, he makes t¥t only 3$ (instead of 15^) 
greater than db. In fact, one need not go further than the 
title-page: the word "periphrastic" applies equally to all com- 
pound tenses ; but the author uses it in a restricted sense, for the 
forms made up of the verb to be with present participles, without 
deeming it at all necessary to give notice of the fact. 

To proceed to matters of more importance, the constitution 
of his quotations is extremely careless ; they are often so short as 


to be of no practical value for the illustration of his statements. 
No device, other than three tables — only the first of which can be 
regarded as of conclusive value — , has been introduced for making 
the work easy of comprehension at a glance. The work through- 
out is monotonous and unrelieved ; until the reader is driven to 
suspect that the lack of perspective in the book is but the reflection 
of a similar lack in the author's mind. 

Dr. Pessels' results, so far as they concern the verb-forms 
under survey, are open to little objection; he derives these from 
the compound tenses of Latin, and properly lays much stress on 
the influence of the Latin deponent verbs. But in the treatment 
of the functions of these forms, the author is fairly beyond his 
depth. Nothing shows this more clearly than a strange and 
apparently quite unconscious inexactness in the use of terms, 
which greatly detracts from the value and authority of his state- 
ments. He nowhere makes a sharp discrimination — nor, so far 
as can be seen, does he even realize that discrimination is desirable 
— between progressive and durative uses of the past tense, nor is 
he able to see any essential difference between "was going" and 
"used to go"; yet, in his final chapter, he repeatedly uses the 
term "progressive" as if it were, to him and to his readers, a word 
of absolutely definite meaning. It may well be so to his readers; 
but the source of their information will not have been this 

Again, the author has apparently quite failed to realize that the 
exact shade of meaning expressed by a given verb cannot be 
determined either by guess-work or by lottery. In his Intro- 
duction, after reviewing the utterances of past grammarians upon 
the subject in hand, he proposes to "record" all the occurrences 
of periphrastic tenses in Old English, and so to decide where 
doctors have disagreed. A record may perhaps be sufficient for 
establishing the origin of verb-forms — these frequently demand 
the consideration of nothing outside themselves ; thus far Pessels 
is successful. But the study of verbal functions is a matter of 
much greater complexity. Here the whole sentence must be 
included in the view. It is true that the verb is one of the most 
elementary components of the sentence, but it is no less true that 
the reasons for the employment of a given verb-form, and no 
other — and these reasons are the goal of Dr. Pessels' quest — can 
be accurately determined only after all the other components 
which enter into the expression of the complete idea have been 
duly weighed. For example, nothing would be of so great 
assistance in determining the presence of "progressive" force in 
a given verb, or its absence from it, as to know whether it occurs 
in a principal or a secondary clause, and the relation of the tenses 
in the two clauses; if the word "progressive" has any meaning in 
grammar, it denotes the progress of an action relatively — either 
to present time, or to that of some other action. Flamme, quoted 
by Pessels, p. 5, has already pointed out that " Gleichzeitigkeit" is 


one of the leading ideas expressed by the Old English periphrastic 
tenses. And yet Pessels never even tells us, except possibly by 
a mere accident, whether the sentence contains any other verb 
beside the one under view, to say nothing of more detailed in- 
formation. He is sadly deficient in perception of what is essential 
to the discussion. He ignores points of prime importance, and 
then wastes time in such fruitless labor as the separate treatment 
of all his subjunctives; considerations of mode are absolutely 
foreign to his problem. 

He does indeed draw a line between the cases in which the 
periphrastic form has a "temporal modifier" and those in which 
it has not, a distinction which might be of some value. But he 
undertakes no classification of these modifiers, according as they 
express point of time, duration, repetition, goal, etc.; so that, in 
the paragraph (pp. 59 ff.) where occurs the fullest discussion of 
the subject, accusatives of extent, adverbs like dcsghwamlice, 
and 0$ ¥>aet clauses are all united as " denoting continuance." 
Moreover, the collection is very carelessly made; I may perhaps 
be pardoned for printing a list, by no means exhaustive, of errors 
from Bede. Among cases " accompanied by a temporal modifier," 
figures wrongly 348, 4 : " Ne \inre for\fore swa neah is, nu \u \us 
rotlice and \us glcsdlice to us sprecende eart," where the author 
has mistaken the conjunction nu for an adverb. Among those 
"without a temporal modifier," occur 94, 11: "he nu hwonne on 
\am ilcan br6 on wuldre arisende " {nu hwonne = Lat. quandoque, 
which the author probably took for a conjunction); 398, 26: 
"was ic in Sa aerestan tid minre geoguShadnisse in his geferscipe 
drohtigende " ; 108, 8: "he fia (=ftissum tidum, ante) wees smea- 
gende mid \one . . .papan Bonefatio" ; 202, 25 (should be 26) 
" ]>a wees he . . . no At feorr from \csre by rig, \e we ser fore spre- 
cende wceron." 

Criteria were at hand for enabling the author to get results 
approaching definiteness ; but he has apparently preferred to 
classify his examples by inspiration. Inspiration is, however, at 
least in linguistic matters, sadly subject to moods; and figures, 
such as those in the tables on pp. 52 f., which are based upon it, 
can be accepted only as expressions of temporary opinion or 
feeling. " Historical perfects " there may be here ; but the author 
has carefully refrained from telling us how he distinguished them 
from other uses of the past tense. 

So much for the general aspects of the work; a few special 
points may be worthy of mention. On p. 23, in Bede 346, 29, 
on cefenne \cere neahte \e he of worulde gongende wees, the verb 
is grouped with others as a " Future Preterite " ; this may be 
worth noting as an early example of our familiar use of "is 
going" and "is coming" with future force (cf. French je vais, 
especially in periphrases like je vais acheter-=. I am going to 
buy). An exhaustive study of this interesting development of 
verbs of motion, in our own and other languages (cf. Lat. amatum 
iri), would be a pretty piece of work. 


In the same paragraph, when he says that three other cases 
from Bede (212, 25 (2); 108, 11), which correspond to a Latin 
future participle, "express the Future Preterite," the author fails 
to note that, owing to a complete change of construction in the 
Old English version, all future sense is lost ; these three verbs 
express simple past time, though the employment of the peri- 
phrastic form may well be due to the influence of the Latin 

On p. 56, Pessels discusses the interesting double glosses (e. g. 
lag vel licgende was) in the Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels ; 
he feels that these are due to a conflict in the author's mind 
between form and signification. Those which gloss Latin de- 
ponent perfects are accounted for on the ground of form. But 
those which correspond to imperfects cannot be explained so 
easily; and here Pessels performs one of his most astonishing 
feats. As a fundamental statement, he "assumes" that "the 
periphrasis has something of the force of the Modern English 
progressive"; and says that the glossator has regarded it as 
appropriate here because of the progressive idea inherent in the 
Latin imperfect (this statement is too strong ; the Latin imperfect 
is a tense of relative time, but by no means always of progressive 
force; the author must not be misled by the " amabam=z\ was 
loving" of the school-grammars). Pessels then continues (p. 57), 
"that there should be some weakening of the progressive force 
(after this violent transference from Modern to Old English) is 
not surprising, but that this force continued in the periphrasis 
is amply testified by the examples here collected, and its final 
triumph in the subsequent history of the language." (Italics and 
parenthesis are mine.) This is a rarely good example of the 
interesting mental process known as Circulus in Probando. The 
result is not necessarily wrong ; licgende wees may have dis- 
tinctively progressive force; but "assumption" is not the best 
means of convincing us that such is the case. 

P. 58 (cf. p. 15), from Logeman's "Rule of St. Benet," Pessels 
cites three occurrences (he omits 26, 7, which is similar) of the 
present participle with to; all these gloss Latin gerundives, by the 
form of which they were undoubtedly influenced, as both ter- 
minate in -end (in fact, one instance, smeagenda, 26, 11, seems 
to have taken over -enda bodily from requirenda). The author 
fails to note that in 5, 14, sin to gereccanne and lichama haligre 
beboda gehirsumnesse to campiende, the participial form is co- 
ordinated with an inflected infinitive in -enne, of which it is here 
the equivalent and variant. All these cases are then infinitives 
of corrupt form, and have no place in Dr. Pessels' field. 

It is a pleasure to turn from this immature work to a new 
study from the hand of Dr. Callawav, the earliest and best known 
of American investigators in Old English syntax. His treatise 
on "The Appositive Participle in Anglo-Saxon" is marked by 
all the qualities which made his study of The Absolute Participle 
so admirable ; while the passage of twelve years has not un- 


naturally added to the breadth and grasp of the author's view, 
the authority of his treatment, and the catholicity of his whole 

The work, like its predecessor, is divided into seven sections: 
(i) Statistics, (2) Uses, and (3) Origin of the Appositive Participle 
in Anglo-Saxon, (4) Anglo-Saxon rendering of the Latin Ap- 
positive Participle, (5) Origin of the construction in the other 
Germanic languages, (6) the Anglo-Saxon Appositive Participle as 
a Norm of Style, and (7) a brief summary chapter of "Results." 
Owing to the far greater mass of material handled — 3010 cases, 
as against 349 — some of these chapters ("especially, of course, 
the first) are much longer than the corresponding ones in the 
dissertation of 1889 ; but the treatment is at once compact without 
being crowded, and clear and adequate, while avoiding diffuse- 
ness. It can, I think, never be charged against Dr. Callaway 
that his data are meagre or his quotations too short; on the 
other hand, his judicious employment of tables and of skilful 
devices of printing makes economy of space entirely compatible 
with good perspective and complete lucidity. 

Dr. Callaway preserves unchanged his early respectful attitude 
toward other investigators; he is agreeably free from that cock- 
sureness which so often detracts from the effect of work of this 
sort ; but the present treatise is marked by greater independence 
than his earlier study, and his obiter dicta give evidence of an 
increasingly philosophical attitude toward life, as well as toward 
the narrow problems of syntax. Independence, however, does 
not mean insistence, in Dr. Callaway's case; in fact, if there is an 
opposing view, he is the first to call attention to it; if any of his 
results are open to query, he prefers to raise the query himself. 
He pursues his own road in reaching his conclusions, but the 
whole work is marked by an unwillingness to dogmatize which 
is one of its chief recommendations. 

The atmosphere of Pessels' book is murky, or at least hazy — 
one sees but a few things, and those indistinctly; but Callaway's 
work is full of light; definition and classification are alike simple, 
clear, concise. In fact, the present monograph offers a contrast 
to Pessels' work at almost every point; and one could hardly 
have a better preparation than a reading of the latter if he would 
properly appreciate the care which Callaway has expended upon 
every least detail of his work. 

The author conceives the scope of the term "appositive" as a 
broad one: he applies it not only to participles which express an 
adverbial idea, but to those which are equivalent to a relative 
clause. He defends this liberal interpretation skilfully (especially 
by means of the examples on pp. 272 f.), and (p. 149) urges the 
general acceptance of "appositive participle" as a grammatical 
category with an application similar in all respects to that of 
"noun in apposition." 

After giving some guesses at the probable order of development 
of the various uses of the participle, he turns with apparent relief 


from the region of speculation to "matters about which a reason- 
able degree of certainty is possible," and treats of the inflexion 
and the position (prevailingly postpositive) of the appositive 

One cannot help admiring the author's clearness of arrange- 
ment in the long chapter (112 pages) of statistics; the examples 
occurring in each work of Old English prose and poetry are listed 
separately, while figures are introduced at every step to show 
exactly the relations of part to whole. (It is only fair to Dr. Pessels 
to say that he follows the same plan, the excellence of which is, 
however, largely obscured in his case by the clumsiness of the 
printing.) The schematic arrangement of Callaway's work is 
usually quite free from the woodenness which so often charac- 
terizes German work of this sort. But, in his desire to give 
formal balance to his statistics from the Boethius (pp. 167 f.), 
the author has twice introduced the caption, "II. With an 
Object (o) ", followed by the grave statement, " No example." 
An American cannot afford to waste space and printer's ink in 
this fashion. At the end of the chapter, the statistical results 
are brought together into a two-page table which shows all the 
significant facts at a glance, with summations so frequent as to 
give one control of every step in the author's processes, and to 
answer one's questions almost before they arise. 

The art of constructing tables is one in which Dr. Callaway is 
especially strong; those which follow and summarize Chap. II 
(pp. 292-296), exhibiting the "uses" of the appositive participle, 
and Chap. Ill (pp. 315-320), showing the Latin equivalents of 
the participles in Old English translations, are triumphs of 

The author draws his lines of classification between prose and 
poetry ; between present and past tenses ; and between participles 
with an object and those without. His interpretation of the term 
"object" with past participles is a very liberal one; it includes 
any noun-modifier of the participle. He would probably not put 
this forward as a definition, but for his purpose — the determina- 
tion of the peculiarly verbal element in these participles — the 
extension has a practical value. 

It is impossible that in so large a collection there should not 
be some cases in the classification of which any two investigators 
would differ. The distinction between the attributive and ap- 
positive uses of the participle is largely one of emphasis : if the 
idea expressed by the participle is the one of chief importance — 
if it is a necessary qualification — the participle is likely to be 
attributive, and to precede its noun ; but, as it gradually loses in 
emphasis, and becomes first simply descriptive, and then the mere 
addition of something more or less extraneous, it becomes ap- 
positive, and tends to follow its noun. I should incline to regard 
two examples on p. 223 — Luke I, 27 and Matt. XI, 7 — as 
attributive. Again, as the author suggests, it is difficult to dis- 
tinguish sharply between adverbial uses of the participle and 


those which are equivalent to modal clauses. Callaway lists a 
number of such cases on p. 275, where he makes the excellent 
suggestion that these expressions are properly not participles, 
but participial adverbs, and should be so called, as in the grammar 
of other languages. It seems to me that the negative element in 
unwandiende (Greg. 381, 25, p. 171), ungewitnode (Greg. 117, 23, 
p. 174), and ungeniedde (Greg. 137, 19, ib.) sets them beyond 
question in the same category. 

Like Pessels — only with a vast difference — Callaway gives the 
Latin originals, where they exist, of all his examples. One of 
his captions constantly appears in the form : "An A.-S. appositive 
participle corresponds to a Latin finite verb, which finite verb is 
usually in immediate connection with an appositive participle." 
This statement seems too strong ; in 9 out of 23 occurrences, 
the Latin verb has no participle near it. In one case (p. 185, 
Benedict 22, 10), where myngaf> clypiende =Lat. clamat dicens, 
dicens, rather than clamat, should probably be given as the source 
of clypiende. 

P. 230, Note 2, Callaway mentions some examples of " pure 
adverbs" from The Rule of St. Benet. The study of glosses can, 
it seems to me, have but slight value for syntactical purposes : 
the evidence which they furnish may be confirmatory of results 
gained elsewhere, but taken alone it is a very insufficient ground 
for any opinion whatever. The glosses are little more than col- 
lections of English words ; it is only by mere chance that they 
ever contain real English sentences. Teonde, in the two examples 
cited, may "seem in use to be a pure adverb"; but all one can 
say with certainty is that the glossator set it down as the nearest 
approach in form to subtrahendo and protrahendo, respectively. 
The corresponding passages from Benedict, which Dr. Callaway 
subjoins in brackets, show how a translator treated these Latin 
words. It would seem that Callaway gives himself quite too 
much anxiety over Benet. In a note on p. 229, he gravely defines 
six present participles found there as verbal nouns, though the 
usage has no parallel elsewhere ; this would be very interesting 
were Benet not a gloss; as it is, the suggestion cannot be taken 
seriously. The author forgets that he is dealing with what the 
Germans would call "Unenglisch." 

Under " conditional uses " (p. 285), Callaway lists ten cases of 
the familiar expression "geteled rime(s) ", following numerals, 
from the poetry. His second thought on these cases (pp. 305 f.) 
is better: here he says, "the participle is not unmistakably 
conditional," and " its use appears to have been phraseological, 
rather than syntactical." We have to do here with a pure 
idiomatic construction ; the user was quite unconscious of geteled 
as a separate syntactical element in the sentence; the exact 
analysis of such expressions would be possible only in a more 
primitive stage of the language. 

Some of Callaway's notes on minor points in passing are 
suggestive. The discussion of a number of participles from the 


Gospels, hitherto cited as appositive (pp. 224 f.), is interesting; 
though in Luke IX, 34, it is just as easy to take him as reflexive 
dative with ondredon (in which case gangende is appositive), as 
to say that it combines with gangende to form a " crude " abso- 
lute dative ; on its face, the former explanation is the natural 
one; the Latin original, intrantibus illis, lends color to the 
latter. On p. 225, Professor Bright, as editor, inserts a foot- 
note, still maintaining his position in regard to " hine bewend," 
(= conversus, Luke IX, 55), where, according to his view, hine 
is carried over from the active voice. 

Callaway's attitude (p. 291) toward the "pleonastic and," which 
often occurs with participles, is very sane, as is his treatment on 
the preceding page of "supplementary particles," added to give 
color. In the note (p. 290) on Passive Participles in an Active 
Sense, where he is entirely right in insisting that druncen has 
passive force, he seems to have mistaken the ground-meaning of 
forscyldigian (= "to condemn ") ; forscyldigod (iElf. Horn. I, 66, 
12) is no less passive than druncen. 

Callaway reaches the conclusion that the spirit of Old English 
was favorable only to those appositive participles which had pro- 
nounced adjectival (descriptive) force; and that those with 
clearly verbal force are either not appositive or not of native 
origin. For example, the participles which denote manner are 
numerous in the poetry and original prose, and are thus probably 
native ; but those denoting means, which retain more of their 
verbal character, can practically always be traced to a Latin 
source. The author is able to show that, common and natural 
as it seems, the temporal use, except of a very few participles of but 
slight verbal force, is not native to our language. Moreover, the 
Old English present participle, when used appositively, had not 
originally the power of governing a direct object ; while of the 
appositive preterite participle with a direct object, there is in all 
the literature only the single doubtful case mentioned above 
(Luke IX, 55, hine bewend). 

As one reads the section on the Governing Power of the Par- 
ticiple (pp. 307-314), one can hardly escape the feeling that here, 
if anywhere, the author's ingenuity has got the better of him. 
In no part of the book does he show greater command of 
resources; his arguments, taken separately, are very convincing; 
but they are too varied — one feels that he is tilting at a mark 
which he is determined to demolish, and that, for every new 
face which it shows, he makes a dash from a different quarter. 
His disposal of a large number of cases from the poetry as 
accusative compounds is very clever ; he shows much insight on 
this point. But one feels that in inventing Latin sources for all 
other troublesome cases, his facility is so great as to excite 

The chapter on Old English renderings of the Latin appositive 
participle (pp. 321 ff.) is full of interest. The author admits at 
the outset that " no principle has been consistently followed by 


the Anglo-Saxon translators " ; this is another example of that 
ability to make due allowance for individuality in both Anglo- 
Saxons and modern investigators which is so refreshing a trait 
throughout the author's work. In section II (pp. 323 ff.), by an 
odd mistake, his headings read, "The Latin Temporal (Relative, 
etc.) Clause," where he means the Latin appositive participle 
equivalent to such a clause. 

One of the most valuable features of Callaway's tables, referred 
to above, is the light they shed on stylistic questions. In his 
chapter (pp. 344fF.) on the Anglo-Saxon Appositive Participle as 
a Norm of Style, the author discusses these facts with admirable 
liveliness. He shows the value of the construction as an element 
in Old English style, and almost leaves one with the impression 
that literary men consciously set about to transplant so valuable 
a resource from Latin into their own language, and to propagate 
it there. He illustrates the advance in this point from Alfred to 
jElfric by a contrast between New High German and Modern 
English, and inspires in the reader a feeling of real sympathy for 
the destitute condition of Alfred and the Germans. He regards 
the introduction of the appositive present participle with the 
power of governing an object as the chief contribution of the Late 
West Saxon writers to English prose style. 

There is still left for consideration one of the most important 
features of the book: I refer to the inclusion, as a separate 
category, under the name " Co-ordinate Participle," of appositive 
participles essentially equivalent to independent clauses, which 
either (1) denote an accompanying circumstance, or (2) repeat 
the idea of the principal verb. These uses, which are recognized 
by writers on Greek and Latin syntax, have received scant 
treatment at the hands of English and Germanic grammarians. 
A couple of examples will suggest the familiarity of the participle 
employed in this way: behyddon his lichaman, secgende (^Elf. 
L. S., I, 146, 458); hy awehton kyne, %us cwedende (Matt. VIII, 
25). In each case, the participle might as well have been a verb 
connected by and. But, while Callaway does well in frankly 
accepting this as a new category, and in not attempting to range 
these examples under the old heads, one feels that the possession 
of the category has been a constant temptation to him, and that 
he has used it as a sort of catch-all. Of the 23 cases listed as 
"Circumstantial" on pp. 286 f., I should be inclined to question 
all but 8; of the 15 discarded, I regard 3 (Bened. 30, 3; Metres 
of Boeth. 20, 214, 221) as iterative: the others are, I should say, 
modal — a possibility which the author himself admits on p. 307. 
On the latter page, and the one preceding it, may be found 
another interesting example of Dr. Callaway's ingenuity in the 
construction of evidence ; here he actually goes so far as to cite 
other writers, against his own earlier statements, as authority for 
throwing out certain cases which were in the way of his endeavor 
to establish a Latin source for the " Co-ordinate Use." 

There remains only the duty of pointing out a few additional 


errors in printing not noted by the author, in a work whose 
typography is in general as careful as its whole execution is 
admirable. P. 158, 1. 18, for hauperibus read pauperibus; p. 276, 
1. 5, for si read se; p. 287, 1. 13, for immitans read imitans; 1. 20, 
for Bath, read Boeth.; 1. 29, for transuivit read transivit; pp. 345, 
346, 347, wherever the difference between Modern English and 
New High German is compared to that between Alfred and 
^Elfric, the order should be transposed; it is Alfred, not ^Elfric, 
who is on a par with the Germans. 

Central University, Danville, Ky. FRANK H. CHASE. 

D. Iunii Iuvenalis Saturae con note di Enrico Cesareo, Libro 
I, Satira I (71 pp.); Satira II (50 pp.). Messina, 1900. 

It is often the experience of the teacher to take up a new book 
with pleasurable anticipation, to examine it, at first with eager- 
ness, then with waning interest, and finally to lay it aside in 
disappointment. Such, I doubt not, will be the feelings of every 
American student of Juvenal into whose hands may fall the latest 
foreign edition of this author. 

In the preface we are told that the editor has had before him 
several of the older commentaries as well as the most important 
editions of the last century except those of Mayor and Lewis. 
As far as the text is concerned, he professes to follow Fried- 
lander save in a few cases where he has adopted another reading 
"dopo matura reflessione". On questions of etymology — 
which, by the way, need scarcely be discussed in a work of this 
sort — he relies on Doderlein (?) and Vansicfek (sic!) and closes 
his preface with the hope "La buona intenzione, se non altro, mi 
procuri il compatimento dell' indulgente lettore ". 

An examination of the very full commentary reveals the fact 
that the editor has contributed very little to the interpretation or 
illustration of the satires except a few more or less relevant 
passages from Dante, Ariosto and other Italian poets. Moreover, 
his knowledge of the recent important literature bearing on his 
author seems to be confined to what he could gather from Fried- 
lander and Duff. For example, he makes no note of Housman's 
ingenious and almost certain explanation of I, 144 intestata 
senectus as 'old age unwitnessed' (Class. Rev., XIII, 1899, pp. 
432 f.) nor does he mention the Bodleian fragments which 
furnish the most remarkable illustration of passages in the second 
satire. In short, the edition of Cesareo seems to serve no good 
purpose, being far too copious for the young student, and, for 
reasons suggested, of little value to the teacher and scholar. 
Fortunately only two parts have as yet appeared, and it is to be 
hoped, for the sake of all concerned, that the publication will not 
be carried to completion. 

Johns Hopkins Univbhsitv. HARRY LANGFORD WlLSON.