MLR,96.3,200 I 863 is wellmadebytheauthors thatwithout thetrail-blazing, dictionary-defeating linguistic experimentation ofMacunazma, Guimaraes Rosa'sfiction would later have struggled tofind acceptance. However, SuarezandTomlins alsoguide thereader enthusiastically intotheworld ofMario'sshort stories, most notably those ofthe fine collection Belazarte (I934).Thepessimism that Marioevinces concerning the human predicament, as exemplified inthis work through thelivesofthelowermiddle classinI920SSao Paulo,istriumphantly demonstrated tobethehallmark of'oneofthegreat tellers oftalesofBrazil's twentieth century' (p.20).Mariois rightly presented as thefirst Brazilian contista abletochallenge theprimacy inthat genre ofMachadodeAssis and,indeed, abletofashion a literary taste that would laterwelcome ClariceLispector (and,I might add,LygiaFagundes Tellesand Dalton Trevisan). Theauthors seek toestablish the existence ofa 'vanguardist' phase anda 'mature' phase intheir subject's work butnever fully succeed indisentangling the overlapping features that characterize the two aspects. Forexample, both the vanguardist poems ofCladojaboti andthe mature stories ofBelazarte were written inthe period I923-26. Moreover, thecomposition of Belazarte largely predates thatof theglorious vanguardist linguistic fireworks ofMacunaima. Itistrue thatthere isa clearshift away from a narrowly Modernist approach inthe engaging andadroitly interpreted poetry ofself-analysis tobefound inRemate demales (I930).However, thereader is left with a sense that after I930there wasa decline inMario'sinventiveness, that themature writer had becometoo respectable, though thisfeeling is at least overridden bytheexquisite rhythms andimagery of'AmeditaSao sobre o Tiete'of theposthumous Lirapaulistana (I946). Strangely, fora scholarly monograph, quotations from Mario'swork appearin(elegant) English translation only. The bibliography takes theform ofa highly judicious catalogue raisonne. ButhasMario's aeuvre quite the universality claimed for it?Perhaps sometimes. UNIVERSITY OFMANCHESTER - CLIVE WILLIS Images ofLanguage. SixEssays onGerman Attitudes toEuropean Languages from I500 to I800. ByWILLIAM JERVIS JONES. (Studies intheHistory oftheLanguage Sciences, 89)Amsterdam: Benjamins. I999.X+ 297PP. HflI 50;$75. In Images ofLanguage, William Jervis Jonesexplores thestatus ofneighbouring languages in theperception ofGermans fromI500 to I800,withoccasional reference toattitudes inthenineteenth andtwentieth centuries. He aims toobserve 'thereception oftraditional tenets, therefunctionalising ofoldermodels, the interplay ofreligion, philosophy andlinguistic observation' inorder toprovide a better understanding ofearly sociolinguistic issues byusing the'indirect evidence whichlinguistic ideasgiveus' in orderto identify the'underlying fearsand aspirations, [. . .]social tension[s] andupheaval[s]' which formed part ofcontemporary thinking ofthetime (p.vii). Jones provides a newangle onthehistoriography ofthelinguistic debates oftheseventeenth century bydocumenting thediscussions aboutthestatus andtheappealofnon-German languages inorder toshowthe motivations and arguments thatweredeveloped to elevate German to a place amongst oreven abovethe other European languages. Thebookthus sheds light on theattitudes ofGermans not justtoother languages butalsototheir ownlanguage. Itshows howGermans began todiscover andcomprehend other languages aswell astoshape anddemarcate their ownlanguage. The bookconsists ofsixessays, a general introduction anda brief conclusion where future research isoutlined. Earlier versions offour ofthe essays havealready 864 Revzews beenpublished. Thetopics oftheessays are'thematically related' (p.ix),anddeal with the issue oftheetymological origin oftheGerman language, the phenomenon offoreign-word purism particularly inthe seventeenth century, the useofGerman to describe metalinguistic observations, thedegree ofsuccess inpurifying military language andthe perception ofandattitudes tothe most important foreign language in seventeenth-century Germany, namely French, andtheleastimportant one, English. Theissue oflanguage origin forms thefocus ofthefirst essay. When attempting toreplace Latin andtoreject French aslanguages ofofficial orelevated discourse, it wasnecessary toprovide reasons for the useofGerman. AsUmberto Ecohasshown inEleSearchfor the Perfect Language (Oxford: Blackwell, I 995)ina European context, the best argument for thesuperiority ofa language wastodemonstrate itsage,since 'antiquity implies excellence' (Images of Language, p.7).Theolder a language could be shown tobe,thecloser itsorigins weretothelanguage ofParadise, andifa language had beenin existence from at leasttheconfusion ofBabel (whose languages, though inferior tothat ofParadise, were nonethe lessdivinely inspired), then itmust havedivine origin, which sufficed tojustify itsuseinofficial andhighregister discourse. Inorder toshow theantiquity ofGerman, three basicarguments wereused:(a) genetic relationship with anyofthethree holy languages, Hebrew, Latin andGreek; (b)the postulation ofGerman asthe native language ofanancient orBiblical man;and(c) intra-linguistic evidence showing thatthegrammar or morphology of Germanis particularly elegant or perfect, thusimplying that German couldonly havebeencreated bydivine inspiration. Asregards thefirst argument, there appearsto havebeena general agreement in theseventeenth century thatGerman was a 'post-Babel derivative ofHebrew'(p.6) although scholars as important as DanielGeorgMorhof (I682) argued thatGerman and Hebrew were sisters, whilst Johann Bodiker (I 690)claimed that thethree principal languages (Haubtsprachen) were Hebrew, German, andSlavic. Onthesecond lineof argument, serious attempts were made toidentify Biblical figures asthe first speakers ofGerman. It was arguedthatthere was a kingTuiscon(basedon Tacitean mythology) whowasthesonofNoahandthefirst king oftheGermans (Weutschen). Similarly, etymologies for thewordWeutsch werepostulated...