Eprror JULIUS GOEBEL Universrry ( OF ILLINOIS. ene “AssociaTe Eprrors Ma < V. JONES AND G, T. FLOM | | University oF ILLINOIS. " Co-operaTing Eprtors _ ALAN Ai 2 “HERMANN COLLITZ, Jouns Horns University _ GEORGE 0. CURME, ‘NorTHWesTERN UNIVERSITY WILLIAM Ww. LAWRENCE, Conumsra Universiry, aie ENGLISH>GERMAN LITERARY INFLUENCES. BIB- LIOGRAPHY AND SURVEY, by Lawrence Marsden Price. University of California Publications in Modern Philology. Vol. 9, No. 1-2, pp. 1-616. 8 vo. Berkeley, 1919-1920. When Professor Julius Goebel in the foreword to the first volume of his series, ‘‘Germanic Literature and Culture,” (Oxford University Press, New York) expressed the hope that American scholarship, owing to its joint heritage of English and German culture, would develop independence and original- ity in the study of the multiple and complex relations of English and German literature, he had probably no thought of seeing within the short time of six years the publication of a work summarizing the studies of at least one side of these relations. The present book by Professor Lawrence Marsden Price will be welcomed by every student of the subject in question, not only because it is the first attempt of its kind but also on account of the painstaking research it represents. It is divided into two parts: Part I, the Bibliography, in which the author attempts to bring together a practically complete list of titles relating to English>German literary influences, which he defines in the introduction to mean “the influences of English literature upon German literature.’”’ Part II, the Survey, furnishes a digest of the Bibliography by the discussion of some representa- tive works of each trend of influence. Asa result we have before us a sort of history of modern German literature, accentuating English influences exclusively. It is to be hoped that the ex- 1 Uhlendorf tensive influence of German literature upon English letters will soon find a similarly complete representation. The bibliography of about one thousand titles, supplemented by some eighty addenda to the Survey, is supposed to extend to January 1920 for publications in English, but only to 1913 as far as titles gathered from the Jahresberichte are concerned, except that the Shakespeare-Jahrbuch was perused up to 1919. It is to be regretted that Professor Price evidently did not have at his disposal vol. 25 (1914) of the Jahresberichte, printed in 1916, nor the bibliographical part of vol. 26, which, though covering the year 1915, did not appear until 1919. The omis- sion of this material, or, in other words, the somewhat premature publication of this first part of the work, is to be regretted all the more since it was to be expected that in spite of the unfavor- able political conditions, the Shakespeare tercentenary celebra- tion would bring forth a great number of new investigations. In fact during the year 1915 there appeared at least twelve publications pertaining to the subject which are not listed in the present bibliography. Doubtless there were many more such publications in 1916. As a working bibliography Prof. Price’s compilation is of great value. Two indexes with relatively few errors and mis- prints, as well as good cross references are excellent guides to its use. The arrangement on the whole is good, though not always consistent. (Flagrant exceptions are [26]-[48], [92]- [99], [105]-115] which are neither in alphabetical, nor chrono- logical, nor logical order.) Consistency, one of the bibliogra- pher’s chief virtues, seems to be wanting also in other parts of the work under discussion. (1) Author’s names: First names should be treated uniformly. Indiscriminate use of full names and initials is to be avoided, except where full names could.not be obtained.1 Prof. Price seems to have used whichever form he found in his sources, whether it be Goedecke, Jahresberichte, Shakespeare-Jahrbuch, or Betz’s La Literature comparée, the starting point of this compilation. Thus it happens again and again that different forms are used for the same reviewer. Had the writer been familiar with the bibliographical referente works, he could also with but little trouble have found most of the author-entries, for which he gives only the last name? 1 Tt is customary to use the longest form known. If not given, it can usually be found in one of the many bibliographical handbooks, of which A Catalogue of Books in the British Museum and the card catalogue of the Library of Con- gress, of which the Univ. of Cal. is doubtless a depository library, are most im- portant. 2 Of the eight last-name entries the reviewer found with no trouble at all the following: Hitzig, Julius Eduard; Oldenberg, Hermann (same as referred to as Oldenberg, H. in [907]); Sachs, Karl Ernst August; Vogeler, Adolf; Zschalig, Heinrich. Reviews and Notes The reviewer, moreover, is at a loss to understand how a bibli- ographer can commit the error of indexing all names with the German von (there are nineteen of them) under V rather than under the family name. Thus Hohenhausen, Liliencron, Treitschke are looked for in vain under H, L,and T. (2) Titles: No title abbreviations should ever be used in a bibliography of this kind. This, the reviewer ventures to say, is one of the greatest shortcomings on the technical side of the bibliography. Thus we find on the first page of Prof. Price’s compilation Betz, L. P., Studien z. vgl. Lit.-gesch. d. neueren Zeit (cf. however, [197] which runs the length of six lines). If economy of material and time had to be practiced the Survey was the place to do it. In case titles are too long, they are to be dotted.? Here again the author seems to have followed his source. (3) Imprint (i.e., place and date of publication): This item is less important, but consistency is advisable even here. (4) Collation: a) If a pamphlet or a book, pagination must always be given. Of the first twelve entries five omit these data. This seems to be true in every case where Price drew from Betz. Whenever the entire work does not deal with the phase in question it would be extremely valuable to have the exact page reference given, i.e., [21] p. 106-110, 169-170; [149] p. 19-40; [841] p. 47-106.4 This factor is of special importance in larger works such as [559a], Kontz’s Les Drames de la jeunesse de Schiller, 501p., and Ludwig’s Schiller und die deutsche Nachwelt, XII, 679p., where only very little deals with Shakespeare>Schiller, in fact so little that the latter ought to be omitted from this bibli- ography. In cases where we are dealing withtwoor more volumes a uniform designation, for instance, 2, 3 v., (not 2 v. or II vols., or 2 Bde., or again Bd. I and II) should be chosen. When dealing with periodicals and series publications abbreviations are in place, for this information has more the character of a note. But even in notes abbreviations as W. Meister and Th. Sendung [121] should be avoided. The reviewer wonders if suggestive abbreviations, such as are used in the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature would not have been preferable ‘to ASNS (Herrig’s Archiv, a common designation by the way), or to a GpJ, or to a VVDPh even if it should have been at the expense of a page or two of the Survey. An excellent feature of the bibliography are the reviews cited® and the notes on the treatises. If there had been many 3 Never is a bibliographer justified in constructing his own title as Price did in [115]. The entry should read: Das auslindische Drama .. . pt. VII, Das englische Drama, p. 319-321. 4 In some cases, cf. [261], [499], [502] the author did this satisfactorily. 5 The completeness of the number of reviews becomes somewhat question- able by the fact that Price is not even familiar with a review of one of his own publications, [845], viz. Lindau, H., Deutsche Litzeitg. v. 37 (1916), pp. 1878-9. 3 Uhlendorf more of the latter with an abundance of references and critical notations such as: Influence doubted by [XXX], or not exhaustive, or largely drawn upon by [YYY], the reviewer believes, the Survey might have been dispensed with altogether, and we would have a most valuable contribution to critical bibliography, provided, of course, that certain deficiencies in technique and the surprisingly large number of inaccuracies had first been eliminated. Had this method been followed there would have been occasion briefly to characterize many more entries, if not all; for anything from one word (premature, biased, farfetched, convincing, etc.), to a page or more, as for example i in the case of Béhtlingk or Gundolf, would have been enough. Had this been done the Ubersichtlichkeit of a bibliog- raphy in catalogue form would have been combined with the more critical and narrative form such as is found, e.g., in the “Critical Essay on Authorities” in Hart’s American Nation series. It is to be said however, that some parts, for example, pt. IIIa (19th century general American influences), are very good in this respect. This may be said of almost all Modern Language Association titles, in which cases the compiler found the papers conveniently summed up in the programs. There is appended to the Survey one page of corrigenda. To make the corrections complete the table would have to be enlarged to perhaps ten times its present size. The reviewer has checked a number of references to the Zettschr. f. vgl. Litgesch. and found on the first fifty pages amongst a total of twenty-one titles, eight incorrect, one of which [b] (Betz, No. [25] ) he could not locate at all.6 In the same manner he looked into the next four pages, pt. Ila, for references to the Shakes peare-Jahrbuch and to his regret found an even higher percentage of corrections to be made, namely, seven out of seventeen.’ And again out of sixteen references to Englische 6 [39] for 147 read 149 581 OOTY IX [124] “ 1897 ‘“ 1896 [137] “ 337 ‘ 347 (incorrectly numbered in periodical) WED pages WE aaa ae 8. 12251" 442 ee 438 [302] 47h 4449" $< 439 7 [417] for Brandle, A. read Forster “« delete Summary of above “ for 207 read 209 [421] “ 271 “ 273 [424] “ 123 “ 122 [429] “ 350 “ 349 [432] “ 349 “ 348 [433] “XCOXXVITI “ XXXVI Reviews and Notes Studien on p. 54-71 (pt. IL b-c) six are incorrect.® If this represents the degree of accuracy of all citations then it must be admitted that a work in which about 40% of the references need correction has no strong claim to scientific exactness.? The reviewer wishes to suggest also that in addition to most titles which Prof. Price designates as showing no influence the following should be considered as not vital, and, therefore, ought to be omitted: [13a], no influence whatever; [26]; [82], translations from Sophocles only; [223]; [564]; [831a]; [948], part in question has not appeared. In place of these there might be added the following: Kettner, Gustav. Zu Schillers Gedichten. Ztsch. f. d. Philol. v. 17 (1885), p. 109-114. Pilgrim’s Progress>Schiller’s Der Pilgrim> Die Sehnsucht. Harris, Olive Caroline. Traces of English Sources in Schiller’s Poetry. Univ. of Ill. Master’s thesis. 1916. Ossian. Pilgrim’s Progress. Huebner, Alfred. Das erste deutsche Schaferidyll und seine Quellen. K6nigsberg—Diss. I910. II9Q p. Menzel, Wolfgang. Die deutsche Literatur. Stuttgart, 1828. av. V. I p. 21-32, 42-54. Schlapp, Otto, Kants Lehre vom Genie und a Entstehung der ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft.’ Gottingen, I90I. 463 Burke, Home, Hume, Adam Smith, ‘Hutcheson, Shaftesbury, Addison, Pope, Young, Gerard. In the second part the author surveys the bulk of publica- tions on English> German literary influences by summarizing what he considers the most important and representative works. As to order of treatment and subdivision of subject matter he 8 [444] for Gerschmann D. read H(ans) ‘XXXV read XXXVI [534a] “ XX “ XXII [563] “ 135 «134 [572] “ 468 “ 468-469 ES oe “ XXII 9 Some other errors upon which the reviewer chanced are: [21] Collignon, A, not V. [21a] Schmid=Schmidt. Heading following [67a] should, no doubt, precede it. [837] published in 1905, not 1904. Index of Investigators, Baumgartner, M. D., not M. P. Other suggestions are: [117] Frau Gottsched rather than A. L. V. Gottsched. [196] delete last sentence. Not true! 804] say material supplementing . . [907] as well as [906] and [908] should be entered under Norton, Charles Eliot. Uhlendorf follows his Bibliography, i.e., I. The Eighteenth Century and before (excluding Shakespeare), II. Shakespeare in Germany, III. The Nineteenth Century and after (excluding Shakes- eare). . Although the single chapters are often but loosely connected, Price has succeeded well in building up a rather complete struc- ture. Upon closer examination one notices, however, that the attitude of many investigators whose works are discussed, as well as that of the compiler, is somewhat biased at times, and often uncritical. Every phenomenon which has an antecedent or a mere temporal precursor in English literature is unduly dwelt upon, while every indigenous growth and inherent, self- determining, and self-quickening tendency in German literature is underestimated, sometimes to the extent of being entirely overlooked. Only too often have parallel passages, themes, and plots been quoted and requoted as criteria and proof of an existing influence. . In the introduction the writer has indeed set a great task for himself by promising a work which, if these promises were ful- filled, would furnish a most valuable piece of literary eriticism. It seems, however, as if these prefatory remarks were formu- lated too late to safeguard the author in his attitude toward some trends of influence. Thus at the outset (p. 119) he says the following of the term ‘‘influence”’: “‘As to the meaning of literary influence, when applied to an individual, there is for- tunate agreement among specialists in the subject. Mere imitation is not ignored by them, but it is no longer confused with literary influence. Literary influence does not take place until an author begins to produce independently and spon- taneously after the manner of a predecessor. There is nothing servile about such a relation.’’ Price, as may be concluded from this excerpt, treats not only of true influence, i.e., of cases where a German writer produced “independently and spon- taneously after the manner of an English predecessor,” but he deals with conscious imitation as well. Suffice it here to say, that in reviewer’s opinion the compiler devotes too much time and space to this sort of influence, if indeed it can be called such. Unless the new product, or, as the case may be, the numberless imitations for example of the Vicar of Wakefield or of the Sentimental Journey can be shown to be endowed with new, German characteristics, and with a new pervading spirit, or unless it can be demonstrated what caused the imitations to spring up, whether it was a dormant or long-felt want, or be- cause the original fitted into German mental and social condi- tions, imitations have little more claim to be considered here than have translations, to which, by the way, Price devotes far too much space. Price, however, continues: “It is not to be thought that an influence changes the character of any man or 6 Reviews and Notes of any author’s writings. ‘Was im Menschen nicht ist, kommt auch nicht aus ihm,’ Goethe lets Hermann’s father truly say. A work of literature cannot create anything in a reader. It can only quicken something latently (sic) there.”” This pre- supposition, evidently the result of the author’s investigations, deserves special mention, for in a way, it explains the totality of literary influences. A work of literature does not create anything in the reader, it only kindles dormant forces. It is nothing beyond an external stimulus which excites the creative powers toaction. If the stimulus is sufficiently strong and if the hitherto inactive mental forces react to the excitation, then we most likely obtain a product created independently and spon- taneously, or in other words, we have true literary influence. If, however, there is no latent force to be stirred to productivity or if that force be insufficient to create from within, and if con- sequently a literary product comes into existence under constant reference to the original, then the resultant work is of an inferior kind: it is conscious imitation. Professor Price admits (p. 125) that “‘in the economics of literature the power to lend is always present, while the power to borrow depends upon the vigor of the borrower,” but he fails to state clearly wherein this vigor consists. It does not suffice to say that the creative powers of a writer are stimulated to activity by a foreign work of literature, for the borrower must be inwardly prepared and ready for the gift. This is true of individuals as well as of nations. Without a fertile soil the borrowed seed will not thrive, or as Wolfgang Menzel put it in his Deutsche Literatur (v. I, p.47): ‘‘Wir interessieren uns immer fiir dasjenige Fremde was gerade mit unserer Bildungsstufe am meisten harmoniert.’”? Moreover, Price frequently neglects to state that in many instances the native fruit would undoubtedly have ripened without the foreign stimulus. In the two excerpts quoted Price spoke of literary influence, ‘“‘when applied to an individual’; the following lines deal with the term when “applied to the action of one literature upon another in its totality.” He expresses his doubts as to the existence of Herder’s Volksseele, as well as to Lessing’s assertion concerning the congeniality of the English and German people, and further on he confesses his “‘scepticism regarding the exis- tence of differentiating characteristics in national literature, as well as in national life.” The reviewer believes that if Price had been dealing with French >German literary influences for example, he might have soon found that there exists a dissimi- larity of nations and consequently their literatures. Owing to the very fact that both the English and German nations sprang from the same Teutonic stock the literatures of both peoples show a relationship in content (Gehalt), spirit, and contempla- tion of the world which differentiates them from the literatures 7 Uhlendorf of the Latin races. Furthermore, had the German people always been a nation politically unified and endowed with the same national egotism as the British, the effect would undoubtedly have shown itself in the character of her literature. Nor should it be forgotten that, in contrast to the self-satisfied exclusive- ness and isolation of other nations, there had developed in Germany during the 17th century a spirit of universality which manifested itself in the liberal study of foreign languages and literatures and produced a singular receptiveness to things foreign. This undeniable love for everything foreign became in fact so pronounced in the German people that we are obliged to see in it a national characteristic which, in part, explains their great susceptibility to outside literary influences. One of the first to realize this was Klopstock, as may be seen from the ode ‘‘Der Nachahmer,”’ 1764, and ‘‘Mein Vaterland,”’ 1768. This trait of the German mind on the one hand, and the realization of kinship on the other, are the forces which doubt- less favored English> German literary influences, a fact which in the reviewer’s opinion, Mr. Price should have called atten- tion to in his introduction. There is finally another important point which in the dis- cussion of the concept and scope of literary influences must not be disregarded. There are certain common attitudes, moods, and tendencies of mind, characteristic of certain periods and manifesting themselves simultaneously in various countries, which are frequently called the spirit of a given time (Zeitgeist), and whose appearance and disappearance cannot be accounted for entirely by ‘influences.’ Even if the atomistic thought of the present, a characteristic feature, by the way, of the spirit of our own time, should deny the existence of a Zeitgeist, it will not be able to explain why the individuals living at a given period are susceptible to certain influences while a subsequent genera- tion will decline to be swayed by the same moods or tendencies. In view of these facts an investigation which undertakes, as does the present work, to determine the literary indebtedness of one nation to another, should not fail to distinguish carefully between positive influences and the imponderable common psychic forces existing among several nations in every period. The disrepute, into which the mechanical juxtaposition of literary parallels and influences, often called comparative literature, has fallen among scholars, seems due in no small measure to the neglect of this most important factor. I. The Eighteenth Century and Before (Shakespeare excluded). Chap. 1-2. Seventeenth century. Chapter 1 deals in an excellent way with the general seventeenth century influences, adding, however, very little that cannot be found in most histories of literature. The first part of Chapter 2 (p. 134-148) having Creizenach and the more recent works of Bolte, Cohn, Herz, Reviews and Notes etc., as a foundation, deals almost exclusively with the history of the English comedians and their performances in Germany, without more than merely touching upon influences. This defect is, however, counterbalanced by an excellent chart showing the wanderings of the various troupes. The remainder of the chapter deals mostly with Ayrer, who, not unlike Her- zog Julius, was doubtless influenced somewhat by the come- dians, but as Wodick and especially Gundolf have shown, is primarily a disciple of Hans Sachs. After all, then, these actors gave Germany little beyond plots and theatrical appara- tus. The people of the country where the armies of all Europe were waging war had few higher interests—they wanted diver- sion, and that was furnished in a rather crude way by the wandering troupes. Chap. 3. The Eighteenth century in general. Price is follow- ing Prof. A. R. Hohlfeld by distinguishing three distinct groups of English authors, embodying as many different tendencies which in three succeeding periods affected the German pre- classical eighteenth century literature. While this classification is on the whole satisfactory the reviewer has tried in vain to detect in Thomson strong French affiliations, clear thinking and clear writing,!° which are considered characteristics of the first group, Addison-Pope.! Thomson, in the reviewer’s opinion, is rather related more closely to the second, the Milton- Young group, the third wave of influence being Shakespeare- Ossian-Reliques. On p. 157 Price makes the following sweeping statement: “It is true that in the attempt to follow the English models new concepts were added to the German language: friendship, religious fervor, patriotism, sentimentality, religious introspection. . . . ’’ While noone will doubt this to be true of sentimentality, nor that the patriotic German writers admired their politically more independent cousins across the channel, the attempt to trace the origin of such concepts as friendship (cf. 167), religious fervor and religious introspection to England seems almost ridiculous. Has Mr. Price forgotten Simon Dach’s famous poem “‘Lob der Freundschaft,” or is he unaware of the extraordinary influence exerted by German mystics and theos- ophists such as Sebastian Franck, Schwenkfeld, Weigel and Boehme upon the religious life in England during the seven- teenth century? Of the German writers who are treated in this chapter as having been influenced by eighteenth century England, Lichtenberg and Hagedorn are the most important. For these Mr. Price had before him the standard works of 10 Leon Morel, James Thomson, sa vie et ses oeuvres, Paris 1895, arrives at conclusions quite different. Cf. pp. 412-483. 11 Cf. p. 236, where Price admits that Thomson submits to no strict classifi cation as a literary influence. 9 Uhlendorf Kleineibst and Coffman, concerning which little is said, how- ever, in the way of criticism. Next the compiler devotes several pages to mediums of international exchange, such as journals, etc., leaving the moral weeklies for a later discussion. The Chapter is concluded with several pages on each of the follow- ing: Dryden, Prior, Bunyan,” and the satirists Defoe and Swift. The parts relating to Robinson Crusoe and Gulliver’s Travels are devoted to translations and imitations only, as is also the mater- ial on Butler’s Hudibras. Lastly, Price makes short mention of the American Revolution in the works of some German writers. Chap. 4. Addison and the moral weeklies. Umbach is the main source of this review of the effect of the English moral weeklies. Only once (p. 194) does Price examine critically the material presented by this author who confesses that with regard to Haller he has reached no definite results. The assertion that the literary feud between the Ziirich and Leipzig group marks the beginning of literary criticism in Germany because it was influenced by the English weeklies, must be considered a slight exaggeration, if we remember Christian Thomasius’ Monatsgespraiche, 1688-9, Tentzel’s Unterredungen, — 1689-98, and similar publications before the appearance of the English weeklies. Chap. 5. Pope. Notwithstanding the fact that a consider- able part of the chapter is devoted to translations, it deserves our interest. There is, however, one factor, the significance of which Price failed to emphasize, viz., the gradually vanishing but still tenacious French influence, which, more than Addison and Pope, themselves disciples of French pseudo-classicism, was working for clearness and simplicity in German literature and esthetics. Chap. 6. Thomson. Professor Price’s survey of the various discussions of the influence of Thomson on Brockes are not lacking in completeness, but might easily have been boiled down considerably, in view of the author’s own conclusion that ‘‘the influence of Thomson on Brockes is too slight to be measured,” and that ‘‘Brockes’ merit as far as Thomson is concerned, is chiefly that of a translator.”’ The frequent translations and imitations of this survey are discussed on the subsequent pages. Influence of Thomson is suggested also in the case of Gessner, Wieland, Hagedorn, Kleist, and Schiller (Spaziergang). Much emphasis is laid on Stewart’s article on Thomson and Klopstock, although it is confined to parallel themes, passages and words. If external evidence could be found to establish the fact that Klopstock was familiar with Thomson when he wrote his early odes, and if expressions like 2 Price did not mention any Bunyan> Schiller influences. Cf. supra, p. 141. 10 Reviews and Notes 99 “die wenigen Edlen,” “‘ye noble few,” could actually be traced back to Thomson, the assumption of influence might be justi- fied. The reviewer has great doubt also whether Schiller’s Spaziergang was influenced by Thomson to the extent which Walz would have us believe. Chap. 7. Milton’s Paradise Lost. After enumerating the German translations, Price takes up the literary controversy that ensued over Milton between the two already contending literary factions in Germany. He points out that the Leipzig group was stimulated by the adverse French criticism, while Bodmer and his followers were actuated by Addison’s defense of his great countryman. A new impetus was given the interest in Milton by the appearance of the first three cantoes of the Messias by Klopstock who, while still a student at Schulpforta, had expressed his intention of writing a national epic. He first thought of Henry the Fowler with whose life and history he had been familiar from early youth, as an appropriate subject for such an epic. That he relinquished this patriotic theme and chose the founder of christianity as the hero of his epic is to be explained above all out of the prevailing religious spirit of his time. Luther’s translation had made the Bible the national book of protestant Germany, and many popular German church hymns spoke of Christ as unser Held. In one of his odes (Mein Vaterland) Klopstock tells us himself what deeper motives induced him to sing of the redeemer and of heaven ‘the fatherland of humanity’ in preference to the hero of his native land. The influence of Milton upon the Messias must, therefore, be considered of secondary importance despite the polite statement in Klopstock’s letter to his future patron, the German translator of Paradise Lost, Bodmer. E. Pizzo, upon whose work Price draws chiefly, gives without question the best estimate of Milton’s influence in German litera- ture, calling attention at the same time to the change of attitude in Germany toward the English poet. Finally the last sentence of Price’s chapter on Milton might be modified as follows: ‘“‘Milton presented himself as the first great topic of a literary debate which helpt to establish the rights of imagination along with those of reason.”’ Chap. 8 on Young’s Night Thoughts, is one of the best of the book, partly because the influence of the Night Thoughts had previously been made a special study by conscientious scholars, and partly because Price subjects the material thus made available for him to a critical examination. His last word concerning the Night Thoughts may be quoted in full: “On looking back upon the history of Young in Germany (Young’s Night Thoughts in Germany, for his Conjectures on Original Composition are taken up afterwards, in Chap. 15) the first impression is that Young was not an influence but at most a 11 Uhlendorf fad, and that he owed his vogue to the prevailing enthusiasm for things English, which helpful as it had been in the emancipa- tion from French influence, was now becoming itself detrimental to the natural growth of German literature.’ The final sentence of the chapter is essentially true of most literary influences, and therefore significant in a summary such as this: “Neither of these English poets (Young and Elizabeth Rowe) bent German literature in a new direction, but the coming of their works to Germany provided a stimulus that brought out clearly the prevalent tendencies of the time in Germany.” We may even go a step farther and say that Young not only satisfied a vague desire for something as yet undefined, but that his Night Thoughts first excited a thirst and then quenched it to intoxication. Chap. 9. Macpherson’s Ossian. After a lengthy discussion of the controversy in Britain, and after several additional pages devoted to the vogue of the mysterious literary phenom- enon in Germany, Klopstock’s interest in Ossian is discussed. Tombo’s treaties form the basis of the survey. It is interesting to note that Klopstock, although at first a great admirer of the Gaelic bard and at times influenced by him more than any other writer, finally lost his faith in him, that Herder was a staunch believer in the genuineness of the poems, and that Gerstenberg from the very beginning thought them to be the work of Macpherson, while Goethe’s enthusiasm soon spent itself to such an extent that he could call this literary curiosity a “‘Wolkengebilde, das als gestaltlos epidemisch and kontagiés im ein schwaches Jahrhundert sich herein senkte und sich mehr als billigen Anteil erwarb.’’ Prof. Price’s note on Ossian> Schiller may be supplemented by the findings of Olive Caroline Harris® who sees additional Ossian influences in ‘“‘Elegie auf den Tod eines Jiinglings,”’ ‘‘Eine Leichenphantasie,” ‘Der Flichtling,” and lastly, ‘“Die Kiinstler.”’ Chap.10. Percy and the German folk-song. If the material presented here on sixteen pages were condensed by one-half, the chapter would lose little in value. After treating of the folk-song in England and Germany, Price enters upon a discus- sion of the crux of the question: Percy’s influence on Biirger, whose famous ballad ‘‘Leonore”’ was for a long time considered the classical example of his indebtedness to Percy. Since it has been shown, however, that “‘Biirger, previous to the year 1777, nowhere displays greater familiarity with Percy’s collec- tion than that which he might have obtained from Herder’s essay on Ossian,”’ which, though containing a translation of “Sweet William’s Ghost,’ did not appear until after Biirger 13 Traces of es Sources in Schiller’s Poetry, 1916. Univ. of Ill. Master’s thesis, p. 10-19 12 Reviews and Notes had composed the “‘Leonore”’ (1773), Price is justified in being sceptical not only as to Percy’s influence on Biirger, but also to the hypothetical great effect of the Reliques upon German literature in general. Taken as a whole Percy’s collection was after all a minor factor in the development of the native German folk-song movement, the true sources and meaning of which lie deeper than the superficial comparative method is permitted to penetrate. Chap. 11. Richardson and Fielding. The first nine pages, one-third of the entire chapter, sum up the differences in the two novelists, and are followed by a detailed discussion of the opinions of Goethe, Lessing, Miiller, von Itzehoe, and Blanken- burg. These go to show, that Germany’s interest in the English writers was unusually great, and that German criticism on the whole favored Fielding. Yet it is quite apparent that Richard- son was imitated more than his rival. The first and best of these imitations was Gellert’s Leben der schwedischen Gréfin, the first family novel in Germany. Then followed Hermes with his Miss Fanny Wilkes, which in turn was succeeded by numberless imitations. The Richardson influence had reached its height when Fielding’s opposition began to make itself felt also in Germany. Mus&us parodied Grandison, but neither he nor any other novelist developed into a German Fielding, for as Resewitz rightly has it, the lack of public life in Germany was not conducive to bringing forth a painter of manners and customs. The mass of interesting material which Professor Price has collected in this and the following chapter would have gained in perspective by a description of the psychological conditions of the time which made the enthusiastic reception of these authors possible in Germany.“ Chap. 12. Goldsmith and Sterne. Although these writers are not as intimately connected with each other as are Richard- son and Fielding, they have nevertheless something in common which appealed especially to the German public. The Vicar of Wakefield as well as the Sentimental Journey took root in a very fertile soil. As the country pastor had always been a favored figure in German life, we must not wonder if the reading public allowed itself to be fed on numberless imitations. Of authors of note only Herder and Goethe had more than a passing interest in Goldsmith. That there was real influence, however, is a matter not to be questioned. Sterne’s Sentimental Journey, a product of the same time which found expression in Werther, acted upon German literature in a way that was not beneficial in its development. Wieland and Jean Paul, although maintaining their poetic individuality at all times, were tem- 14P, 286. The first German translation of Smollet’s Peregrine Pickle appeared in 1753, not in 1756. 13 Uhlendorf porarily under the spell of Sterne, not, however, to their advantage, as Bodmer and Szerny respectively, have shown. Of the imitations (of which Price makes far too much) those of Jacobi, Schummel, and Hippel are the most important. Finally Goethe’s borrowings are discussed. Speaking of the once alleged plagiarism from the Koran embodied in Makariens Archiv, Wundt’s findings are endorsed.—Looking back upon the last two chapters which to a large extent deal with imitations attention must be called to the fact that cases of genuine influences, i.e., cases where a writer was stimulated by a kindred spirit to the consciousness of something within him that awaited development and artistic expression, were very few, and that on the other hand cases of imitation, especially of the poor kind, were frequent, in fact so frequent as to become harmful to the development of national literature. Chap. 13. The middle-class drama. Lessing’s Miss Sara Samson has always been known to go back to two sources: Lillo’s Merchant of London and the comedie larmoyanie. Whether the tide of plays that began with Lessing’s drama received its impetus directly from England or from the first bdrgerliche Trauers piel is hard to say. Indications, however, seem to point to the fact as Eloeser has shown, that Lillo, aided by Moore’s Gamester gave life to the new drama only through the instru- mentality of Miss Sara Samson. This was also suggested by Sauer in one of the chapters in his work on Brawe, from which Price quotes extensively. The compiler is fair enough in his estimate of English influences to acknowledge with others that “‘to a large extent, after the earliest days, the middle class drama in Germany was self-quickening.”’ On the other hand he attempts with Robertson to rank Farquhar as a predecessor of Lessing, wherein, however, he is less successful than in sur- veying Kettner’s article which demonstrates satisfactorily that Emilia Golotti sprang up from Lessing’s interest in Clarissa. That there are some traits of the burgeois drama in Schiller’s Réuber no one will doubt, but what is to be gained by asserting in this chapter that Karl Moor has something in common with Fielding’s Tom Jones, the reviewer cannot see. Lastly Price discusses the origin of the German fate-drama. He refutes with Minor Fath’s supposition and arrives at the conclusion that the Schicksalstragodie owes little specifically to Lillo’s predecessor Fatal Curiosity. Part II. Shakespeare in Germany. Chap. 14. Dryden, Lessing, and the rationalistic critics. Prof. Price shows that he is familiar with a large amount of the material available for the survey. Without entering upon early works which have long outlived themselves he makes the reader acquainted with two often misrepresented facts, the one that 14 Reviews and Notes Lessing was not the first in Germany to recognize Shakespeare’s genius, the other that German interpretation did not lead the way of English appreciation of Shakespeare, but rather that the reverse was the case. Treating of Shakespeare in England he calls attention to Dryden’s Essay on Dramatick Poesie which influenced Pope in the annotations of his Shakespeare edition. Then Prof. Price quotes the comments on Shakespeare up to the time when the Leipzig and Swiss groups simultaneously chanced upon the Shakespeare criticism in Addison’s works. While Gottshed was influenced in his criticism by French views, Bodmer valiantly sided with the Spectator. Then follows the famous 17. Literaturbrief which to a large extent echoed Dryden, who from now on more than Voltaire guided Lessing’s critical attitude toward the works of the great English drama- tist. The chapter ends with a discussion of Wieland’s transla- tion which Price justly claims but very slightly influenced the writer. Chap. 15. Young, Herder, and the ‘Sturm und Drang”’ crit- ics. This chapter deals first with the significance of the Conjec- tures on Original Composition in German esthetics. Prof. Price contrasts Kind’s book on Young with that of Steinke favoring somewhat the views of the former who, like our author, affiliates himself with a school prone to overemphasize English influences. While Kind admits in advance that Germany was ripe for Young’s theories, Steinke arrives at the conclusion that “the literature of Germany would not have been poorer as to content, nor would it have developed along different lines without Young’s Conjectures on Original Composition.’ A discussion of the attitude of the Stiirmer und Drainger toward Shakespeare constitutes the crux of the chapter. The question is: who was the leader in the Strassburg group and what does each owe the other? The views of Minor, Sauer and Suphan are superseded by Diintzer’s assertion that Goethe was the leading spirit. This assumption, however, again began to totter with the pub- lication of Friedrich’s extensive study on Lenz’ Anmerkungen tiber das Theater in whichit was shown that Lenz the young ‘‘men- tor’ of the group, was in the last analysis, inspired by Young’s esthetics. While Lenz’s relation to Shakespeare was a three- fold one, that of a commentator, translator, and imitator, the influence of the great English dramatist upon him as a play- wright was on the whole detrimental to his own poetic develop- ment. Chap. 16. Bdéhtlingk’s Shakespeare und unsere Klasstker. Chap. 17. Gundolf’s Shakespeare und der deutsche Geist. In the forty-three pages devoted to these two works, Prof. Price reviews Shakespeare’s influence in Germany from two different aspects. Bdéhtlingk in his three volumes approached the sub- ject from the point of view of the parallel-hunting philologian tS Uhlendorf of the older school, laying chief stress upon the subject matter, while Gundolf is loath to consider plundering and conscious imitation as influences, but sees the true influence in the atmos- phere pervading a work. The difference in the two studies is reflected in Price’s treatment of both. His view of Bohtlingk’s work is interspersed with critical remarks which echo the opinions of H. Jantzen’s review in Englische Studien. But Price should either have refrained altogether from giving certain quotations (viz. p. 411-419) or he should have branded them rank falsifications or gross exaggerations. Only too often his quotations are without the comment necessary to enable the reader to separate the wheat from the chaff. Notwithstanding occasional remarks and the final paragraph the reviewer believes that Price considers Bohtlingk’s studies the best there are on Shakespeare and the German classicists—Gundolf’s (Gundel- finger) masterpiece of synthetic thought, which most successfully introduces order into Shakespeare’s influence upon German literature,and marks out the path of development of German intellectual life as reflectedin the appreciation and interpretation of Shakespeare, is treated with a sort of pious respect. In view of Gundolf’s findings it would now seem almost necessary that our author restate in a more conservative manner the true scope of the so-called influences proclaimed in preceding chapters. Chap. 18. Shakespeare in the nineteenth century. Considering the large number of investigations into the Schlegel-Tieck translation we must not be surprised to find seven pages devoted to this classical work. Kleist and Grillparzer, Hebbel and Lud- wig, Wagner and Grabbe are discussed as to their dependence upon Shakespeare, with the result, however, that none fell permanently under his spell. Taking up Heine’s relation to Shakespeare Price has occasion to illustrate the fact that each German writer sought and found in the English master what was in himself. Thus Heine found in Shakespeare examples of his own species of humor which is essentially that of romantic irony. A comparison of Nietzsche’s superman with Shakespear- ean heroes concludes the chapter. Part III. The Nineteenth Century and after (Shakespeare excluded). Chap. 19. Thenineteenthcenturyingeneral. Oftheeight- eenth century influences that continued into the nineteenth Price mentions that of Richardson upon Tieck (Gréjin Dolores) and that of Sterne upon Jean Paul and Heine, who greatly resembled Sterne in character. This epoch marks the beginning of a world-literature which, exemplified in the Goethe-Carlyle friendship, was furthered by Mme. de Staél.* On the one side ®Jaeck, E. G. Madame de Staél and the Spread of German Literature. New York, 1915. 16 Reviews and Notes we have a pronounced Goethe-cult, and on the other side a love for everything English, which found expression in the works of “Young Germany” (as Whyte has shown in his excellent study), and later in Julian Schmidt’s Grenzboten. Now begins the time of profuse translation; Scott, Byron, Dickens, and Bulwer- Lytton became strong factors in German literature. Price has presented the influence of these writers very well, except perhaps that he makes little too much of the Goethe-Carlyle friendship, and especially of the latter’s Life of Schiller, as well as of the translations of Burns. Chap. 20. Scott. The reviewer gladly recognizes the ex- cellent features of this chapter, though he wishes that it might have been shortened considerably, especially as regards Scott > Alexis. Moreover, he cannot at this point suppress his un- bounded admiration for the inquisitorial talent displayed by certain champions of the comparative method in unearthing the secret indebtedness of Hauff’s Lichtenstein to the novels of Walter Scott. The investigation which began in 1900 as Prof. Price tells us, and was conducted for about eleven years by several scholars, proceeded on the whole quite satisfactorily, for somewhere in Scott’s voluminous works a parallel for each little incident in Lichtenstein could be detected. Only the Pfeifer von Hardt, the wicked spy, was not accounted for. The inquisitors were greatly perplexed and grieved, for it seemed to them quite impossible that Hauff could have developed this character out of his historical surroundings. Finally the missing prototype was discovered in Cooper’s Spy, and the case against Hauff was complete. No prospective agent of the Department of Justice or the National Security League will read the account of the Hauff case without profit and edification. Chap. 21. Byron. This chapter for which Prof. Price had first class material at his disposal seems to the reviewer espe- cially well done, and in no need of critical comment. Chap. 22. Dickens. The reviewer agrees with the author that, although much has been written about the influence of Dickens upon various German writers, there is as yet no work which approaches the subject from the right point of view. Here, more than anywhere else, influence shows itself in a new atmos- phere, created by the works of Dickens. Reuter, probably the only one who has succeeded in picturing life as Dickens did, has not been shown to have learned directly from the English novelist, nor does Price succeed in convincing the reader to the contrary, in spite of his lengthy discussion. Chap. 23. America in German literature. This is on the whole a good chapter, although it treats little of literary influ- ences. It is apparent that Price did not make himself sufficiently acquainted with Faust’s study on Sealsfield, or he would have avoided certain misstatements of biographical facts. Sealsfield 17 Uhlendorf did not write Austria as it is in Switzerland, but after his first stay in America upon returning to the land of his birth in 1827. As the reviewer hopes to demonstrate in his study on the great- est of German-American writers, Sealsfield not only saw a good deal of frontier life and observed much in the fifteen years of his sojourn in America, but he was also gifted with a peculiar sense for ethnic and national characteristics, which made his stay there doubly fruitful. Regarding the “‘extensive borrow- ing” of Sealsfield, great care must be taken not to overrate this statement. The assertion that he borrowed judiciously from Chateaubriand, Cooper and Irving must again be looked upon as a misrepresentation of facts; he neither borrowed from them ~ nor is it likely that he was influenced by their technique. I do not know where the writer obtained the knowledge that Sealsfield published over a hundred and fifty volumes, when the total number is but twenty-eight, or fifty-eight, counting the various editions. (“‘Der Fluch Kishogues 1841,” is not an independent work as Price seems to think, but rather one of the chapters in Das Kajiitenbuch. In place of Der Legitime und der Republikaner read D. L. u. die R.) How Price can assert that Gerstaicker was less prejudiced than his predecessor, and that his works were essentially true to facts and could serve as a Safe guide to emigrants the reviewer is at a loss to understand, in view of the fact that even a superficial compari- son between Mississippibilder and one of Sealsfield’s border novels, or between Die Flussregulatoren and Nathan, der Squat- ter-Regulator furnishes proof conclusive to the contrary. Chap. 24. The twentieth century. In this final chapter Prof. Price expounds his ideas concerning international literary trends, and expresses his hope for a future cosmopolitanism in literature. This hope reflects credit to the author’s heart, but there is reason to fear that in view of the recent pitiful collapse of the cosmopolitan ideals so loudly proclaimed from the housetops and of the subsequent general disillusionment, only the credulous will share his hope. Moreover, there are many reasons which would make it deplorable should the distinctly national element disappear from literature. How- ever, since the truly national and truly human in the last analysis coincide, every great poet will continue to be inter- national even if temporary hatred and jealousy should deny him this honor. On looking back upon the entire work the reviewer does not hesitate to acknowledge its excellent features. The author has spared neither time nor pains in gathering his material from the various sources available. The reviewer realizes that in making such a compilation of our present day knowledge within a certain field the difficulty lies not in stating enough, but in 18 or Reviews and Notes condensing a large amount of data to a few pages. In this the author was successful in some chapters, in others he was less fortunate. His method, which is statistical rather than general- izing, may account in some respects for minor shortcomings. Notwithstanding these Prof. Price’s study is as valuable to every student of German literature as it is indispensable to the specialist in the field of comparative study of English-Ger- man relations. It should be incorporated into every working library in America, England, and Germany. B. A. UHLENDORF University of Illinois 19