Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/496

 492 Nordmeyer lacking, nor does the Table of Contents contain any other references but those just given; at least a list of the authors discussed would have been welcome. Glancing over the subheadings in the book and leaving aside the introductory chapter, we find that about half a hundred poets and publicists have been considered; in addition to these there are some fifteen sections dealing with folksong, pamphlets, periodicals, etc. The method used is easily understood: a definition of satire is given (p. 20), and with this for a lodestar the field is traversed. Wherever it stops, we stop. A name is introduced first in the headline, then in the text a few remarks are made about the political views of its bearer in general, and then follow synopses, quotations, and excerpts, as many as the author saw fit to include. Nothing startling is said, nor anything particularly new, nor on the whole anything wrong just enough to identify the subject, pointing out to the reader facts with which he is perfectly familiar, which, however, he might as well turn over in his mind for the occasion. To illustrate. We read on p. 97 the following: Burger "Burger, too, forswears politics: In his verses Entsagung der Politik (1793), DNL, 78, p. 424", and [!] in a dramatic poem, Der Bauer (1775), gives vent to his wrath against the ruth- less, selfish princes, who ride roughshod over the rights of others. "Do you claim power from God?" he lets the peasant exclaim to his lord. "God brings blessings, while you rob. You are not connected with the Deity, tyrant!" In fact, throughout his works Burger reveals strong democratic leanings. In their correspondence he as well as Gockingk show their hate for the arbitrary rule and the political mismanagement of the princes. Furthermore, Burger was an enthusiastic friend of the French Revolution. His free-mason speech, delivered in 1790, gives a concise summary of his political ideals." This specimen has been selected because it is short and therefore lends itself easily to quotation. It may not show the author at his best. But reference to poets who are accorded more space does not improve the matter. Turning to Schiller, for instance, who is given three pages and ten lines, we find that over two pages are taken up simply by excerpts from Tell and Wallenstein. Among other things we learn here (p. 102 f .) that "the well-known tirade of the Capucinian [!] monk in the latter part [!] of Wallensteins Lager" is partly based on a book of Abraham a Santa Clara, "as was pointed out by Boxberger ... as early as 1872, and as the correspondence of Schiller and Goethe in October, 1798, shows." Let it be whispered here that in the universities of the Middle- West this startling infor-