MLR, 100.4, 2005 1079 phenomenology of the nineteenth-century crowd as on the ways in which the crowd impinges on the principles of the liberal-democratic public sphere in American liter? ary representations from the 1830s to the 1930s. As such, the book's title accurately conveys the author's interest in exploring the relationship between the affective aes? thetics of crowd experience and the political significance of the crowd for American liberal democracy?a distinction which must be preserved, in Kantian fashion, as a categorial separation of spheres. The danger of conflating aesthetics and politics, and, in consequence, blurring the boundaries between the 'crowd' and the 'public', is indeed a recurring theme of Esteve 's analysis of crowd representations in the fiction of Poe, Henry James, Crane, du Bois, Nella Larsen, and Henry Roth (to list the main authors under discussion), and at the heart of the book's underlying theoretical and political concerns. Esteve mounts a vigorous defence of the principles of the liberal-democratic public sphere (as defined, most influentially, by Jiirgen Habermas in The Structural Transforma? tion of the Public Sphere (German original 1962; trans. by Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge: Polity, 1989)), which, she maintains, establish the conceptual boundaries for 'rational-critical debate' and the necessarily abstract, non-empirical framework of consensual public discourse. The accompanying polemic against the fetishization of empirical 'particularity' and 'difference' in radical postmodern democratic theory will, no doubt, prove the most contentious aspect of this book, but, apart from some occasionally glib analogies between the reactionary nineteenth-century discourse of 'crowd psychology' and the putatively radical postmodern theorization ofpolitics as power (Foucault et al.), the author deve? lops an important and often compelling case. Where the argument is less convincing is not so much in its defence of the disinterested reason of a critical public sphere as in its departure from (or at least inconsistent application of) Habermas's account ofthe transformation ofthe public sphere under the conditions ofadvanced capitalist society. In the chapter on Henry James, forexample, Esteve begins by aiming to demonstrate how James's fictional representation ofthe crowd 'exemplifies [. . .] the fall ofthe pub? lic sphere' in Habermasian terms (p. 61), but then, in a strangely optimistic reading of 'The Papers' (1903)?one of James's darkest cultural satires?goes on to suggest that a Kantian model of the public sphere emerges virtually unscathed from its exposi? tion of the logic of mass-media publicity. Esteve's intention of tracing the 'particular literary history' of the 'abiding virtues of political-liberal ideas and practices' thus produces an insufficientlyhistorical account of the changing conditions of the public sphere in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American culture (p. 171). Despite this objection, the conceptual sophistication and breadth of Esteve's read? ings of individual texts, as well as the richness of the contextual material that she uncovers, are impressive. In particular, her detailed study of discursive and ideologi? cal connections between the representation of crowds gathering forthe 1893 Chicago World's Fair?the 'White City'?and contemporaneous representations ofthe lynchmob in Chapter 4 addresses the relationship between political and aesthetic experi? ences of the crowd in complex and nuanced form. The disturbing nature of these connections highlights, most graphically, the importance forpolitical democracies of distinguishing between crowds and publics, which is the urgent message of this book. University of Leeds Richard Salmon English in the Middle Ages. By Tim William Machan. Oxford and New York: Ox? ford University Press. 2003. x + 205pp. ?45. ISBN 0-19-926268-3. Using the present to explain the past (William Labov's formulation) has become stan? dard practice formany historical linguists. As Suzanne Romaine states, 'the linguistic 1080 Reviews forces which operate today and are observable around us are not unlike those which have operated in the past. Sociolinguistically speaking, this means that there is no reason forclaiming that language did not vary in the same patterned ways in the past as it has been observed to do today' (cited p. 12). This view needs unpacking and careful qualification before serving as the basis of 'sociohistorical linguistics'. All texts?a poem, a document, a private letter,a conver? sation...