would be better to say a return to the older basis. Simplification would be a more appropriate expression when speaking of such a stage of the language as we encounter in the New Testament, where va with the opt. is unknown.

In regard to the incomplete final sentence okws occurs with the future 24 times, after principal and after historical tenses, with the opt. after historical tenses or equivalents four times, with the subj. after historical tenses four times. "Okos av with the opt. after historical tenses four times, as with the future three times, os av with the aor. subj. after a principal tense, 3, 85. Remarkable is the use of oκws av with the subj. after an historical tense, 1, 20. Usually repraesentatio does not go into such details, and Herodotos' reproduction of the state of mind of Periander must be set down to the credit of his évápyeta.' Imperative okws occurs once (3, 142). What Weber says of HIPPOKRATES does not rest on personal research of his own, and is too slight to bear abstracting. The most important point is the exclusive use of is in complete final

sentences.

The detailed abstract and the many comments above given must serve as the testimony of the reviewer to the importance of Weber's work. The final sentence is now, for the first time, presented in its chronological data. One may rebel against calling such work historical syntax, because we have really nothing more than a classification of occurrences, and it is taken for granted throughout, and sometimes, as has been indicated, without reason, that each author represents fully the thesaurus of his time. The personal equation is the great difficulty, and cannot be solved without a theory of the totality of syntactical phenomena in each author. Still such chronological statistics, such records of the behavior of certain particles in certain authors, in certain departments, in certain periods, are of great importance. Without them, a history of Greek syntax is impossible. Without them, a scientific theory of syntactical style is impossible. Without them, it is impossible to understand the course of later Greek, which, after all, has an organic life, though that organic life is of such complexity that even when the mastery of classic syntax is attained, generations of students will find work enough to do in exploring its processes and its diseases.

1 Kühnast (Die Repraesentation, S. 153) notices the rarity of this repraesentatio, and indulges in unavailing and unavailable metaphysics about the difference between the 'objectivirte' and the 'objective Ausdrucksweise.' By the way, Weber has not made a solitary reference to Kühnast's elaborate work.

As soon as the second part of Dr. Weber's treatise reaches us, another study will be consecrated to the subject. Only, as has been said before, the Attic final sentence does not present the same difficulties as the early forms, although we shall have to encounter the troublesome question of the use of ones with subj. and fut.

In conclusion, a serious gap must be noted in Weber's treatment of the final sentence-the omission of the relative form. While he admits that ows is a relative, he is satisfied with giving Nägelsbach's six forms of the final relative in Homer (p. 64), without any comment except that the nws form corresponding to as key emo is represented only in one passage (1 680), and that the form corresponding to as Kev épeî is doubtful (P 144). The study of the moods of the relative ought genetically to have preceded the study of this form of the final sentence.

Yet another form of the final sentence, the future participle, and the important outgrowth is with the future participle, should not have been omitted. The latter construction is one of the most interesting in Greek, and should not be relegated altogether to the domain of oratio obliqua, though oratio obliqua is the only ultimate explanation of it."

B. L. GILDERSLEEVE.

1 Justin Martyr, Apol. I 4, 19. The construction is often parallel with other final turns, as in Ar. Eccl. 782:

ἔστηκεν ἐκτείνοντα τὴν χεῖρ ̓ ὑπτίαν

οὐχ ὡς τι δώσοντ ̓ ἀλλ' όπως τι λήψεται.

III.-T. L. BEDDOES,' A SURVIVAL IN STYLE.

I.

Buffon said, "Show me the style and I'll show you the man" [le style est de l'homme même]. Puttenham (Arte of English Poesie, 1589, p. 161) wrote with equal justice: "his [man's] inward conceits be the metall of his minde, and his manner of utterance the very warp and woofe of his conceits "; or, in other words, "show me the man, and I'll show you his style."

1 Born 1803, at Clifton, England; son of the Dr. Thos. Beddoes whose life was published by Dr. Stock, 1811. In 1825 he went to Germany, and, with the exception of a few transient visits to England, lived there, as a distinguished medical student and scholar, until his death at Basel in 1849. Twice he was recommended for the chair of medicine in two German universities, and Prof. Blumenbach, of Goettingen, declared him possessed of an amount of talent which exceeded that of every other student who had received instruction under him during the fifty years of his professorship. With the exception of "Death's Jest Book," B.'s chief drama, most of his poetry was written before his departure from England; and during the last twenty years of his life he neither produced much nor published. At his death he consigned his MSS to the disposal of his friend, T. F. Kelsall, " to print or not as he might think proper."

Kelsall's edition, accompanied by a very able Memoir, appeared in 1851 (London, W. Pickering), and is now very scarce. This fact, and the very meagre notices of Beddoes in books of reference, have seemed to make the foregoing particulars necessary. The following interesting judgments are added to show how little is known of Beddoes, and how well he deserves study: "His later dramatic compositions and fragments, though showing a certain vigorous and passionate thought, have an increasing tendency to exaggeration and extravagance, and are hardly amenable to the ordinary rules of criticism” (!). -J. M. Graham, An Hist. View of Lit. and Art in Great Britain, London, 1871, P. 191, note. In 1850 appeared as a posthumous work a wild play, musical throughout, with grand echoes of Elizabethan thought and passion, the Death's Jest Book of Thomas Lovell Beddoes, who died young in 1849."-H. Morley, Engl. Plays, p. 434. "Nearly two centuries have elapsed since a work of the same wealth of genius as Death's Jest Book hath been given to the world."W. S. Landor, in Forster's Life of L. II 495. "Now as to extracts which might be made: why, you might pick out scenes, passages, lyrics, fine as fine can be; the power of the man is immense and irresistible."-Robert Browning, Letter to T. F. Kelsall.

Beddoes' Poems and Letters are one more welcome illustration of the truth of Buffon's observation; but, in a far higher sense, of Puttenham's. Here the style is the direct, necessary expression of the writer's inmost nature. Since he was in the highest degree original, the fact has a significance, in matters of English style, far deeper than has been attributed to it.

The Natural History of English Style remains to be written. Meanwhile, the path by which its chief laws may be traced out and confirmed must traverse the works of those authors who were original and national; who, if they borrowed, assimilated matter and manner as well to a certain Volksgeist as to their own genius; and who were all, in a greater or less degree, the natural heirs, the opulent users and transmitters, of what might be called the residuum of English expression. It is not likely that many English poets, from Cynewulf down, were conscious of exercising any such vestal office, but this very unconsciousness renders the facts and the value of them more unimpeachable. Shakspeare's dramas and Milton's Comus offer very valuable material for the study of alliteration in English, though the former ridicules its abuse (Mids. N. D. I 2; Love's L. L. IV 2, etc.), and the latter, while explicit enough as to "the invention of a barbarous age to set off wretched matter and lame metre" [rhyme], does not mention alliteration in his definition of "true musical delight" (Introd. to Par. Lost).

If we class the characteristic works in English literature with reference to the history of style into three periods, the Anglo-Saxon epic style and Shakspeare represent two of them. The third has no complete representative, but among its most significant writers (style being here assumed to have little more to do with constructive power than in the case of the Anglo-Saxon poets) is Thomas Lovell Beddoes.

Beddoes' intimate connection with Shakspeare, in point of thought and style, is so marked that he has been called an Elizabethan, "a strayed singer," and the like. His more general relation to the historical development of English literature and style has been perceived only dimly.

The Encycl. Brit., 10th ed., article Beddoes, says: "He may be termed a Gothic Keats, the Teutonic counterpart of his more celebrated contemporary's Hellenism. The spirit of Gothic architecture seems to live in his verse, its grandeur and grotesqueness, its mystery and gloom." Beddoes himself calls Death's Jest Book "a Gothic-styled tragedy," and Kelsall, his biographer, I cxxi,

"the Gothic drama." Remembering the 18th century definition, or lack of definition, of the word Gothic, the following notices are more satisfactory: "I intend to study Anglo-Saxon soon (Letters, p. lxv); "He never revisited Italy, and he certainly was seldom in France; the national characters, modes of thinking, and literatures of those peoples not being accordant with his mind, which was altogether Teutonic " (Kelsall, I cxii). The discriminating biographer of Beddoes reaches here a truth which even he fails to discern and apply when speaking directly of B.'s style. The object of this article is to show that his style is Germanic (Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic), that it is Shakspearian, and (what follows from the foregoing) that it contains the chief elements of the historical English style.

The

The ideal English style for the epic, and for the tragic drama, is confessedly a weighty one. The word, as well as the thought, must clash down in the scales. Anglo-Saxon poetry is a series of such hammer-strokes, as it were. The disconnectedness (partly induced by paratactic construction) is sometimes intolerable to a modern ear; but the immense advantage of a modified style of that character is very apparent in the enormous force gained from the sudden fling of Shakspearian metaphors. It is very plain that strong figures are the corner-stone of style, but especially of English style. There is, however, a difficulty at the outset in comparing any strong English style with Anglo-Saxon. A. S. epic-lyric poetry is very subjective, and works through the feelings upon the feelings in the strongest manner. Shakspeare, though bound to no device in style, and touching all keys, delights to work chiefly through the pictures of a glowing imagination upon the kindling imagination of the hearer. With him the action upon the feelings is not least powerful when indirect. The deficiency in A. S. shows itself in unprecise figures of speech, or in sufficiently precise but fragmentary epithets, now varied and now doubling upon themselves. The force spent in figures is astounding,' but we do not seem to get on. The tone, powerful though it is, becomes elegiac, almost passive. Heinzel (Ueber den Stil der altgerman. Poesie, Strassburg, 1875) and Gummere (The Anglo-Saxon Metaphor, Halle, 1881) have shown that Christian influence is at work here; an influence, however, which Gummere has convincingly shown to be limited in its operation. A. Hoff

1 The adjective heard occurs 12 times in Byrhtnôd.