The MS. from which the following extracts are taken is a beautiful vellum codex, substantially bound in dark red stamped morocco leather, with plain brass clasps, numbered 1586, 4to, Gl. Kong. Saml. (Old Royal Collection). It was written in 1488, at Mariager Cloister, near Aarhus in Jutland, by a monk residing there named Niels Morgensen, by order of the Prioress, Elizabeth Herman's daughter, as we are informed at the end of each part. It is the only text known. It contains, in addition to the portions now published, which form the second and fourth parts respectively, (I) A letter from St. Eusebius to Domacius, Bishop of Portoci, and Theodosius, a Roman Senator, announcing the death of St. Jerome, (III) Cyril's reply to St. Augustine's letter, and (V) A Life of St. Katharine of Siena, which last comprises almost a third of the whole.

In his collection of essays Von Luther bis Lessing,1 F. Kluge discusses at some length W. Scherer's proposition, that Luther marks but a transition period in the history of the German language, while the Modern High German period proper does not begin till the middle of the seventeenth century. I cannot find in Scherer's Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur anything so definite as to warrant Kluge's assertion that for Scherer “Schottel marks the beginning of the Modern High German period.”2 In the chronological tables, the Modern High German period begins with the Peace of Westphalia, and after various works by Spee, Gryphius, Lauremberg, Logan, Angelus Silesius and Scriver, Schottel's Ausführliche Arbeit von der deutschen Hauptsprache is mentioned, but it does not appear from this or from anything in the text of the volume, that Scherer intended to give Schottel anything like as prominent a place in this period as he had given Luther in the one immediately preceding. That the efforts of Schottel and other grammarians and purists of the seventeenth century contributed much to the wealth as well as the purity and regularity of the modem German language, there can be no doubt. It needs to be determined what Schottel's own share in this work was, what contributions he made to the vocabulary, what reforms he suggested, what position he took with reference to the reforms suggested by others, how far he understood the spirit of the language and the tendencies of its development. The present paper is intended as a step in this direction.

Four years ago I read before this Association a paper upon a single figure of speech,—allegory. In order to make a careful study of that figure, it was necessary to give some attention to other figures, especially to these three,—simile, metaphor, and personification. From time to time during the last four years I have followed up trains of thought that were opened by my earlier study, and thus have been led almost unconsciously to note the various relations of the more important figures, until I have come to feel that the best way to arrive at an understanding of any one figure is to study figurative language as a whole as well as in its parts.1 Each year the subject has been brought anew to my mind by the necessity of presenting it in the class-room.