very great, and it was undoubtedly for good. The great factor here was his admiration for Chaucer. Like him, he chose to write neither modernised Anglo-Saxon, nor debased French, nor yet Latin, but English, a standardised tongue that was to be the common literary vehicle of all sections of the community, north as well as south of the Tweed, whatever dialects or tongues they might choose to speak or write in addition. Caxton was quite aware of the existence of dialects: he tells us, in a famous passage in the preface to the Eneydos,' that 'common English that is spoken in one shire varieth from another. In so much that in my days happened that certayn merchants were in a ship in Thames for to have sailed over the sea in Zeeland and for lack of wine they tarried at the foreland.' Who, to cut the story short, asked for eggs and were accused of speaking French by a good wife who herself called them 'eyren.' He then goes on to praise Skelton, 'poet-laureat in the university of Oxenford,' with, I think, a touch of satire, because he has 'not written in rude and olde language but in polyysshed and ornate terms; I suppose he hath dronken of Elycons well.' Caxton's own predilection was evidently for something a little less ornate. His native speech, he tells us elsewhere, was as broad and rude English as in any place of England,' but long foreign residence and association with all classes of men had well fitted him, as Chaucer also had been fitted, to establish a mean between these various ways of speech, a tongue which though there be no gay terms, nor subtle nor new eloquence, yet I hope that it shall be understood.' From the other extreme, of rude and incongruous speech, Chaucer had already saved the language, by teaching 'the use of short, quick and high sentences, eschewing prolixity, casting away the chaff of superfluity and showing the picked grain of sentence, uttered by crafty and sugared eloquence.' So in Caxton's Preface to the 'Canterbury Tales.' Again, he says, in the Epilogue to 'the Boke of Fame,' 'he writeth no void words, but all his matter is full of high and quick sentence.' Caxton plainly envisages the path of English prose as leading, as in due time it did, to Dryden, who, with Spenser, also regarded Chaucer as the 'pure well of English undefiled,' though the manner of Bacon could hardly be surpassed

6

for fullness of 'high and quick sentence,' a style wherein every word is pregnant with meaning.

Of Caxton's language in his translations his editors have taken somewhat divergent views. He has been accused of ornateness, and also of translating with excessive literalness, both from French (which he professed not to know very well) and from Flemish. But a certain literalness, not to be regarded as excessive, serves to retain some of the national flavour of the original, a quality not to be lightly discarded from such works as Blanchardyn and Eglantyne' or 'Reynard the Fox.' The French element in his vocabulary, which is probably the cause of the charge of ornateness, was no more than was needed if the aristocracy were to take kindly to the language. True to his mediating policy, he often uses doublets, so that if he misses his reader's understanding with one barrel he may hit it with the other. Perhaps he has a little overdone this and his ear come to demand it when it is not necessary for comprehension. But if this is so (and it is hard for us to judge), at least he errs in the best 16th-century company, for this is a main charge against the whole race of Gonzagists and Euphuists in all parts of Europe. Dr Jespersen remarks on this point that in most cases both words have been retained, so that either they were not felt as exact synonyms, or each was more readily acceptable to some one section of the reading public. Some examples are avenge and wreke,' 'prouffyt and fordele,' 'metys and vyands,' 'eurous and happy,' dictes and sayengis,' 'dolour and payne,' 'frusshed and brake' (= froissa). It is instructive to follow the course of a few of these pairs through the subsequent editions of Caxton's books. Here is an example, taken from Sommer's parallel texts of a portion of 'The Recuyell.' The French MS. gives 'il deschira son dos.' Caxton renders this 'all to rente & dischired his back' (1476). Wynkyn de Worde prints, 'all to rente & dyschyred his backe' (1503). Copland, 'all to rente & dyschired his backe' (1553). At last Creede decided, in 1609, that 'dysschired' was not English, but still must have two words, so he prints 'all to rent and tare his backe.' This is quite unnecessary, for every reader by now must have understood 'rent' as easily as 'tare.' But to many of Caxton readers the French form may

have been more easily understood than the Saxon. Apart from his vocabulary, Caxton is free from any particularly Gallic traits. His syntax is clear and quite definitely modern. Any one whose knowledge of Latin or French familiarises him with the vocabulary will find Caxton easier to read than most early 16th-century writers, and far more so than his own contemporaries and predecessors. His clauses, allowing for the difference in punctuation, are short and never involved. Considering the very great bulk in all his translations, he is amazingly consistent in his excellence, and this when he was to some extent making his language as he went. Even the books he did not translate he usually 'oversaw and corrected.' And yet he went in perpetual fear of ' idlenesse'! Caxton was certainly not idle. To him was given, first of all Englishmen, the great power of the press,' and he used it indefatigably, with a full sense of his opportunity and with excellent judgment and success. Take, in conclusion, this anecdote, as a sample of Caxton's way of writing and of his humour, and as a foreboding of his reward (I modernise only the punctuation):

་

'Now thenne J wylle fynysshe alle these fables wyth this tale that foloweth, whiche a worshipful preest and a parsons told me late. He sayd that there were duellyge in Oxenford two prestes, both maystres of art, of whom that one was quyck and coude put hym self forth, and that other was a good symple preest. And soo it happed that the mayster that was perte and quyck was anone promoted to a benefyce or tweyne, and after to prebendys and for to be a Dene of a great prynces chapel, supposynge and wenynge that his felaw the symple preest shold never haue be promoted but be alwey an annual, or at the most a parysshe preest. So after long tyme that this worshipful man, this dene, came rydynge in to a good paryssh with a x or xij horses, lyke a prelate, and came in to the chirche of the sayd parysshe and fond there this good symple man, somtyme his felawe, which cam and welcomed hym lowely. And that other badde hym "Good morowe, mayster Johan," and toke him sleyghtly by the hand and axyd hym where he dwellyd. And the good man sayd, "In this paryssh." How," sayd he, “are ye here a sowle preest or a paryssh preste ?" "Nay, syr," sayd he, “for lack of a better, though I be not able ne worthy, J am

66

parson and curate of this parysshe." And thenne that other avaled his bonet and said, "Mayster parson, I praye yow to be not displeasyd, J had supposed ye had not be benefyced. But, mayster," said he, "J pray yow, what is this benefyce worth to you a yere?" "Forsothe," said the good symple man, "I wote never, for I make neuer accomptes thereof, how wel J have had hit four or fiue yere." "And know ye not," said he, "what it is worth? It shold seme a good benefyce." "No, forsothe," sayd he, "but I wote wel what it shall be worth to me." "Why," sayd he, "what shalle hit be worth?" "Forsothe," sayd he, "Yf J doo my trewe dylygece in the cure of my parysshes in prechyng and techyng, and doo my parte longynge to my cure, J shalle haue heuen therefore, And yf theyre sowles ben lost, or ony of them, by my defawte, J shall be punysshed therfore. And herof J am sure." And with that word the ryche dene was abasshed, And thought he shold do the better, and take more hede to his cures and benefyces than he had done. This was a good answere of a good preest and an honest.'

K. N. COLVILE.

Art. 12.-THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR.

1. Ich Suche die Wahrheit! Ein Buch zur Kriegsschuldfrage. Von Wilhelm Kronprinz. Stuttgart und Berlin: Cotta, 1925.

2. Isvolsky and the World War, based on the Documents recently published by the German Foreign Office. By Friedrich Stieve. Translated by E. W. Dickes. Allen & Unwin, 1926.

3. The Case for the Central Powers, an Impeachment of the Versailles Verdict. By Count Max Montgelas. Translated by Constance Vesey. Allen & Unwin, 1925. 4. The Genesis of the World War, an Introduction to the Problem of War Guilt. By Harry Elmer Barnes. New York: Knopf, 1925.

5. Les Criminels. By Victor Margueritte. Paris: Flammarion, 1926.

And other books.

LORD GREY in a recent speech uttered a warning against 'propaganda and counter propaganda' regarding the responsibility for the war, on the ground that it distracted attention from more vital matters. If, he said, we are to avoid similar wars in the future, we must aim at preventing a renewal of the political conditions out of which the war grew and, in particular, the division of Europe into two hostile groups of powers. It was a warning which was timely and necessary. The spirit of propaganda is not helpful to the attainment of truth.

It is not in this country that at this moment the warning is especially needed. There are few here who interest themselves in the current controversies on this subject. The spirit of the nation in this and in other matters is rather practical than argumentative. When the war began the question of responsibility was one of most urgent practical importance, for on the answer given to it would depend largely the spirit and the energy with which the country would throw itself into the war. Had there been any reason to believe that Lord Grey and his colleagues had by secret and dishonest practices deliberately sought to bring about the war, this would have very largely undermined the confidence of the nation in the Government and would have pro