and corrected them, etc., and so on till sheet M. was ready. Then the errata-list was made out according to such sheets as came into the hands of the printer, not necessarily the best corrected, and, lastly, sheet A, comprising the title-page, erratalist, and eventual contents, was completed as above. But it does not follow that uncorrected copies of each sheet were bound together to homogeneous books, once corrected copies of each sheet, twice corrected copies, etc., etc., to other homogeneous books. On the contrary, one copy of a 17th century English book may have some sheets better corrected than another copy, some sheets worse, caused by intermingling of the sheets in the binding. Here, the best copy, (A), has evidently got a badly corrected sheet, the one signed C, because both errors of the (A)-text occur on p. 20 (original pagination) *).

As to the "printer's sign A 2 O F" the two latter capitals are, of course, no part of the signature but the catch-word directing the reader to the title "Of Reformation" on next leaf.

The author hesitates whether to prefer bee in (A) and (C), or be in (B) because "Milton used either spelling indiscriminately". To draw conclusions as to Milton's spelling from his contemporarily printed works is misleading and has already proved fatal to scholars. From the item "Lib. 2. V. 414, for we read wee" in the errata-list of P. L., ed. pr., Beeching jumps at the conclusion that Milton by means of ee wanted to denote emphatic we, me, he, and, though blind, had found means to correct the word. This seems quite impossible, because why, then, did not Milton similarly correct his Minor Poems printed before his blindness where, among many hundreds of emphatic me's, we's, he's, occur one mee rhyming with thee, one hee rhyming with decree, one wee rhyming with thee, and one wee in "to thee wee ow"? Thinking the matter over I recollect that these 4 instances occur among the additional poems which, though partly written before his blindness, were added to the volume of the lesser poems in 1673 only, which reduces the instances of the above principle in poems which Milton may have corrected during the printing, to o.

1) Some printers had special correctors who supervised the sheets during the progress of the printing. We recall John Armstrong, corrector to Dugard's press, whom the Council of State wanted to apprehend for his share in the printing of Salmasius' Defensio Regia.

Moreover, by comparing extant Milton Mss. with his contemporarily printed works we learn that the printers paid no attention to Milton's spellings but spelled and corrected according to principles of their own. As is evident from the many Eikon Basilike editions where no correction by the author was possible, some of the then London printers found that very small words such as me, we, he, be, do, so, go, wanted bulk and they therefore either consistently added an e or did so where meaning, place in the printed line, or general appearance of the print called for such a procedure, according to a haphazard system.

So that, when Jespersen, M.E.G. 129, says that in Milton's poems hee, mee, wee stand for the stressed and he, me, we for the unstressed form, and thir as unstressed for their, he must be mistaken as far as he believes this to be Milton's personal spellings or anything more than some stray instances of a spelling principle out of many other such principles of the P.L.-printer. 42 their's, 20 he's, 10 we's, 28 me's, and o thir's, hee's, wee's, mee's in Comus; 6 stressed and 6 unstressed he's, o hee's in the paraphrase of Psalm 136; two str. hee's, two unstr. mee's, one str. thir in P.R.; one str. hee, 3 str. mee's, two unstr. mee's, and many emphatic thir's in Samson, tell as much. In the two latter poems str. he's, me's, etc. naturally abound.

That the printer of P.L. was actuated by some such principles as indicated above is seen IV, 299, "Hee for God only, shee for God in him", but in other places, e. g. Satan's emphatic address to the sun, stands "Me miserable!" "Ay me!" etc.

Some printers spelled mee, hee, etc., when the word referred to God, Christ, the king, or the like, whether stressed or not.

What Milton's real spelling was we must look for in his Mss. and Add. Ms. 36 354, where written by Milton, contains 29 thir(e, s), I their (unstressed), 23 he's, o hee, I we, 1 wee (unstressed), and from these sources we know that he nearly always preferred the forms thir, thire, thir(e)s. One "their" in the Cambr. Ms. has e struck through.

As to the reprint of Milton's text it had been convenient to have the signatures indicated together with the original pagination. As seen above, the signatures may be of some use.

The author thinks the notes to be the most important part of his volume, and they certainly dominate, occupying pp. 77-200. Several notes, however, seem to me superfluous, as when the

author, more benevolent towards the reader than confiding in his intelligence, tells that Milton's reference to the visible element in the mysteries of the sacraments aims at the water in baptism and bread and wine in the eucharist. (P. 78.)

P. 81. Wycliffe died in 1384, not 1284.

P. 87. The war with Scotland did not begin about the end of Aug. 1547 but early in the summer and did not end in Pinkie Cleugh or Musselburgh, but Somerset proceeded to burn Leith etc. The Scotch had promised Mary to Edward by treaty in 1543.

P. 88. Sec. Prayer Book issued in 1552, not 1551.

A glossary winds up the book, in my opinion not too carefully made out. The first item reads, "Accomplishment, sb.? Result of, that which accompanies. 54.16." I do not understand what is the matter with the word. It is fairly well recorded in N.E.D., where this very passage from Milton even is cited. Can accomplish signify accompany?

Next item, "Affect, v. trans. To aspire to. 10.6; 63.20." Turning up the last-mentioned passage we find "Who should oppose it? The Papists? They dare not. The Protestants otherwise affected. They were mad. There is nothing will be remoov'd but what to them is profess'dly indifferent." But it is clear that? must stand after "affected", and that this can be no transitive verb here. It simply means "disposed, inclined."

Next item, "Affection, sb. † Mental tendency, disposition. 4.8." The passage reads, "that the body, with all the circumstances of time and place, were purifi'd by the affections of the regenerat Soule, and nothing left impure, but sinne;" But it is evident that affection here means influence.

"Aphorismer, sb. A dealer in Aphorisms. 60.12." N.E.D. has only this instance. The word may be one of Milton's frequent coinings. "Bate, v. trans. To flutter downwards. (17th cent. N.E.D.) 5.8." This verb is in N.E.D. recorded as <O.F. batre and in intransitive senses. One of these is "To flutter downwards." After this is cited the present instance from Milton and stated that bate here is influenced by tr. bate = abate. Does the author mean that "To flutter down" is transitive?

"Bencher, sb. One who officially sits on a bench. Arch.

19.16." As it stands here, the statement looks somewhat simple. The author might have copied the following words in N.E.D. too. It would be to no purpose examining the glossary word for word. The above may suffice as a caution.

Though not without shortcomings, the book represents a great amount of work done which will be useful to other Milton students. Lund. S. B. Liljegren.

S. B. Liljegren, Studies in Milton. Lund 1918, C. W. K. Gleerup. (Auch als Diss. Lund 1918 erschienen.) XLII u. 160 ss. 8°.

Liljegrens studien zerfallen in zwei voneinander unabhängige teile, die jedoch dadurch eine gewisse ideelle einheit erhalten, daß sich Miltons charakter in jedem abschnitt so offenbart, wie ihn verf. in der langen einleitung hinstellt: "an individualist, selfrespecting even to the point of self-complacency, deeply contemptuous of disagreable fellow-beings, active, an innovator, revolutionary, castehating" (s. XIX).

Miltons herrische natur mit ihrer rücksichtslosigkeit und ihrem ausgeprägten selbstgefühl ist nach L. mindestens ebensosehr mit dem stoizismus römischer căsaren und mit macchiavellistischer ethik verwandt wie in seinen calvinistisch-puritanischen anschauungen begründet1). Verfasser erinnert unter reichlichen zitaten an jene maßlosen schmähungen, die Milton in der Defensio Secunda und anderen schriften gegen den unschuldigen Alexander More ausstieß, an seine verdrehungen des bibeltextes, wenn sie ihm für polemische zwecke förderlich schienen, an seine ausfälle gegen den toten Cromwell. Unter diesem gesichtspunkte wird auch das "Verlorene paradies" betrachtet: die einzige dramatische person des gedichtes ist satan mit seinem unbezwinglichen streben nach macht, dessen kühner intellekt aber der absoluten macht des allerhöchsten unterliegen muß. Und sogar auf den Christus des "Wiedergewonnenen paradieses" ist von dieser herrennatur des dichters etwas übergegangen, indem der gott der liebe, der welterlöser, zum indivi dualisten wird, der die seelen der auserwählten zwar errettet, aber für den "miscellaneous rabble" (P. Reg. III 50) nur verachtung hat.

1) Wenn aber L. in anderem zusammenhange (s. 141) sagt, daß Milton in vielen dingen "went beyond the Puritan stage of development, God to him gradually becoming something of a mere formula while his real foundations was Roman Stoicism", so dürfte dieser satz mancherorts widerspruch hervorrufen.

Der erste, kürzere teil der untersuchung ist Miltons italienischer reise (April 1638 — August 1639) und seinem besuche bei Galilei gewidmet. Schon Bernhardi (M.s politische hauptschriften [1871 f.] II 215) war es aufgefallen, daß Milton, der in der Areopagitica (1644) auf seinen besuch bei Galilei in einer oft angeführten stelle anspielt, den Italiener in der Defensio Secunda (1654) weder als bekannten erwähnt noch in der schar der erblindeten gelehrten aufzählt, die dem englischen dichter als vorbild dienten. L. tritt nun den in Italien und auch in England üppig blühenden phantasien über die begegnung der beiden männer entgegen. An hand des vorliegenden materials gibt er eine eingehende schilderung von der lage des damals von der inquisition scharf bewachten, seit anfang 1638 erblindeten Galilei. Ende Februar 1638 wurde es dem kränklichen greise gestattet, aus seinem landhaus zu Arcetri bei Florenz nach der stadt zurückzukehren unter der bedingung, niemand zu wissenschaftlichen gesprächen über seine verurteilte lehre zu sich zu laden. Auch ein damals (sommer 1638) angekündigter besuch eines deutschen bevollmächtigten, der dann tatsächlich nicht erschien, wurde nur unter der voraussetzung gestattet, daß er nicht "persona haeretica vel de civitate haeretica" sei (s. 29). Ebenso konnten andere be sucher, wie die geistlichen P. Benedetto Castelli und P. Clemente, mit Galilei nur unter beaufsichtigung der inquisition verkehren. In anbetracht all dieser umstände und der tatsache endlich, daß Milton an anderen stellen (Par. L. I 284 f., III 588 f., V 257 f.) nur ganz allgemein bekannte dinge von Galilei erwähnt, nirgends aber von seiner blindheit spricht, von der die kunde erst später in weitere kreise drang, hält L. Miltons besuch bei Galilei für > ziemlich unwahrscheinlich (s. 36). In der fraglichen stelle der Areopagitica aber habe sich der dichter durch berufung auf eine frei erfundene bekanntschaft mit dem berühmtesten zeitgenossen dem parlamente besonders empfehlen wollen.

Wie man sieht, ist L.s beweisführung ganz bestechend und wird wohl manche leser für sich gewinnen. Gleichwohl ist auch nach L.s untersuchung die tatsache des besuches nicht rundweg von der hand zu weisen. Denn einmal bleibt Miltons ausdrückliche erklärung trotz alledem bestehen, und zum andern lassen einige der vom verf. angeführten dokumente wohl auch eine andere auslegung zu, die die bewachung Galileis durch die inquisition in einem etwas günstigeren lichte erscheinen ließe. M. e. sind die schwierigkeiten, die Castelli und Clemente bei ihrem verkehr mit