Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/310

 302 SHORT NOTICES AprU as to bear the Graeco-Roman name of Helena. Geoffrey of Monmouth's and ingenious attempt to discover traces of Roman centuriation in Middlesex rests on assumptions that are rejected by all competent authorities. The chapters on Saxon Middlesex contain a certain amount of historical fact, but do not advance our knowledge ; and the author's endeavours to prove continuity between Roman agrarian institutions in Britain and those of later times are not more convincing than similar attempts have been in the past. As might have been expected from the general character of the work, Mr. Sharpe treats his readers to an abundance of unscientific philology. Anglo-Saxon scholars will be puzzled when they are told that the words on linga hcese et geddingas mean ' at the end of the hedge and at the sowing land '. Less difficult to account for, though equally wrong, are the statements that the name of the Domesday hundred of Gara means ' the rush of spears ', that Harrow means ' army ', and that the last syllable of neighbour comes from horh, a surety. Mr. Sharpe does for once deviate into etymological sobriety when he says that Coway means nothing less prosaic than * cow way ', and actually quotes with approval Professor Skeat's wise protest against the * craze ' for rejecting derivations because they are obvious. And yet he himself maintains that Cold Harbour is a corruption of collis arborum. It is simply the English equivalent of the German name Kaltenherberge, denoting a place where the wayfarer could obtain shelter but not fire. The pictorial illustrations in the book are excellent ; unfortunately one of them represents the notorious seal of King Offa, which Mr. Sharpe does not suspect to be a forgery. H. In The Emperor Julian, an Essay on his Relations vrith the Christian Religion (London : Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919), Mr. Edward J. Martin has combined conscientious study with an effort to be impartial and comprehensive. Perhaps the chief defects are due to a want of sufficient use of sidelights. A great deal had been brought to view concerning the mystery religions during late years, and possibly the author might have made Julian's religious position clearer if he had taken it in connexion with the various currents of oriental and Greek religious thought among his contemporaries. In his use of authorities, the author finds, as is natural, some difficulty in being consistent. He objects — rightly — to the rejection of all testimony against Julian from Christian writers, and seems occasionally to cite as proof some statement resting on their authority, while at the same time he warns his readers against their bias. He has deep contempt for Julian's philosophy, and sets him down as * nothing of a thinker '. He also fails to discern any Stoic backbone in Julian's morals, though he gives him credit for being, as a man, superior to his creed and general principles. Perhaps any personal study of Julian must suffer if the active side of his life is not made an integral part of the subject. Julian's edict against Christian schoolmasters is condemned without sufficient allowance for the difference between ancient and modern treatment of classical literature. His failure is regarded as due to the want of an historical basis for his religious doctrine, though Julian himself objected chiefly to Christianity as a repudiation of
 * Archbishop Theonus ' is treated as a real historical person. The elaborate