Page images

the scene of the burghers and the women decorating Barnavelt's house ') and the scene of the ambassadors mediating in behalf of the Advocate. )

Speaking of the sources Dr. Barnouw mentions, besides the pamphlets referred to by Bullen, a pamphlet a true Discovery of those treasons of which Geilis van Ledenberch was a Practiser, and a ballad Murther vnmasked, or Barneviles base Conspiracie, the whole of which is printed in the Preface. In my study of the sources I have drawn attention to other pamphlets : The necessary and living Discourse of a Spanish Counsellor; Barnevelt displayed or the golden Legend of New St. John; Ledenberch his Confessions and how he murthered himself, and others, of which the Golden Legend is of high importance, as the dramatists copied long passages verbally from this source.

In 1883 Bullen discovered the manuscript of The Tragedy of Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt and edited the play in his Collection of Old English Plays. The next year Prof. Fruin gave a reprint of this edition with a preface in the Dutch language. The first translation of the play appeared in 1885, by Prof. C. W. Opzoomer. In 1922 appeared the new edition from the manuscript, 3) and it is a matter of regret that probably owing to the simultaneous appearance of this edition and Dr. Barnouw's work, Dr. Barnouw has taken for his translation the old edition, which is practically out of date. This is to be regretted for two reasons. In the first place the errors printed by Bullen and corrected in the new edition have been suffered to remain in the translation. I mention some examples. In the line: "and tempests of your owne tongue, and the Soldiers now onely fill your sailes” 4) the scribe wrote “trumpets” by mistake, but seeing his error, he deleted the word and substituted "tempests"; Bullen printed "trumpets”, and the result is the translation "en 's legers en uw eigen tongs trompetten nog slechts uw zeilen vullen”, which is of course incorrect. Another misreading is: "you were lou'd yet but for your ends”, instead of: "you nere lou'd yet but for your ends”,“) the translation: “nog had me' U lief waar niet uw end zoo boos” alters the sense materially and hardly fits in the context. The line "theis wrongs are shot so neere mine honor, I feare, my person too" 6) is translated incorrectly by "Ik vrees ook voor mijn persoon” owing to the faulty punctuation. Bullen did not print the commas after “honour" and "fear". It is clear that the Prince did not express any fear for his person, for his great courage is mentioned several times in the play; he says himself "I that nere feard an army in the field, can I shake at their poore whispers ? shall I shrinck now shot with a rumour?”?) It is also clear that the prince is not in fear of his life, for he adds immediately: "so the State suffer not I am as easie to forget”.

In the second place the deleted passages to the number of a hundred and ten lines, which are of special interest from a censorship point of view, have been restored in the new edition but for a few words; it is a great pity that the restored passages do not occur in the Dutch version.

[ocr errors]

) IV, 4 2) V, 1.

The Tragedy of Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt, anonymous Elizabethan play edited from the manuscript with introduction and notes by WILHELMINA P. FRIJLINCK. H. Milford, London 1922.

Act I, sc. 3, 1. 480. *) Act I, sc. 3, 1. 523. 9) Act I, sc. 3, 1. 362.

Act IV, sc. 2, 1. 1852.

There are some interpretations which I consider to be incorrect. The line “as 1 vse this, I weigh you" 1) is translated "dit lezend weeg ik U". I have explained in my notes that we are to understand that Barnavelt tears up the petition in scorn and answers "I esteem you no higher than I do this paper”; there was no need for him to read the petition. The line "when we took them on” is translated by "toen wij ze polsten”; 2) the meaning is “when we enlisted them"; the sense attached to it by Dr. Barnouw does not occur in the N.E.D. I have explained the next line in my notes "famished for want of provision (for the support of persons in service, especially soldiers)". I consider the translation "lang gespeend van elk verzet" very obscure. The translation of the words "theis hissing tosts" 3) into “die sijfelende padden" is an entirely free rendering. I explained “toasts” in my notes as "drunkards” because this was the besetting sin of Dutch people in the eyes of the English. Professor Moore Smith, who reviewed the notes,-) suggested the meaning of the N.E.D. “heat” used in “hotte as a toste”, the Arminians are also called firebrands in l. 1010; the translation would then be “stokers, stokebranden”. The second part of line 886 Dr. Barnouw takes to belong to the preceding speech: "De Prins is boos. Duidt gij het hem euvel? Gij waart het daadlijk” 1) The explanation I offer of "to rouse" is “to excite to vigorous action;" the words refer to the next lines, you will soon excite the old faithful companies to assist the Prince; the meaning of "to get angry” for “to rouse” does not occur in the N.E.D.; in this way "will" cannot be explained either. I have explained the expression of "my frostie cares" in the notes; in the line "theis silver curles, theis emblemes of my frostie cares” 6) the meaning of frostie emblems i.e. curles, is transferred to cares, so the meaning is: the cares that have rendered my hair white; I have mentioned parallels of this use of frosty from Henry VI, where this frosty head” occurs and from Titus Andronicus. I wonder what sense Dr. Barnouw attaches to “ijzigkoude zorg”. The translation of "at Barnavelts Arraignment” ?) by “tot Barnavelts bezwaring” is incorrect. The Arraignment is the trial, also used in this way in the pamphlet: The Arraignment of Olden Barnavelt. It is clear that the Prince is here referring to Barnavelt's trial, for on that occasion Modesbargen accuses Barnavelt of conspiracy, cf. Act IV, sc. 5, where Modesbargen is brought in only for this purpose. I suggest the translation : "bij Barnavelts berechting". "Now for the Daunce, Boyes” 8) is translated by “nou naar den dans!” Dr. Barnouw has misunderstood the stage directions. The burghers come to decorate the house; they sing a song and then they dance for Barnavelt's wife. The stage-directions are: “Song", then “Daunce" and after the words spoken by Barnavelt's wife “I thanck you frend”, “Exeunt”. So the meaning is not "nou naar den dans”, but: “nou de dans”. Dr. Barnouw prints: “Burgers dansend af”, which is a deviation from the stage directions in the manuscript. I have attached a different meaning to the words "a little stay me”.9) Dr. Barnouw translates: "steun me een weinig", I have explained the meaning

) Act I, sc. 1, 1. 162.
*) Act II, sc. 1, 1. 610.
3) Act II, sc. 2, 1. 808.
*) Modern Language Review, June 1923.
6) Act II, sc. 4.
) Act III, sc. 1, 1. 1068.

Act IV, sc. 4, 1. 2111. 8) Act IV, sc. 4, 1. 2151. 9) Act V, sc. 3, 1. 2990.

of to stay by "to detain", Barnavelt means to say "suffer me to remain a little”, as he wants to finish his speech before the executioner strikes the blow. I have given parallels of this use in the notes. Sometimes, when the text is obscure, the translation is not very elucidating; in my notes I have given the explanation of the lines 74-78; the lines in Dutch must seem obscure to readers who do not know the original; they run: “Barnevelt zint op nieuwe middelen om zich naam te maken? Of houdt het leven 'n maand of twee om vellen wat veertig jaren van gedegen dienst in keteligste zaken van den staat oprichtten 't zijner heugnis?” I do not like ambiguous expressions like “uw eerste stap omhoog” for “next”. I should prefer "uw naaste stap”, because Barnavelt's first step had been taken forty years ago. It sometimes occurs that, though the sense is correct, the words sound questionable to Dutch ears: for example the line "zoo'n dienaar vinden ze niet opgeraapt”. Did Dr. Barnouw think of the not very dignified expression "vindt men niet opgeschept”? and “loop ten Grave” meaning “naar den Graaf”; it may be meant humorously, but it sounds funny to me.

But for these minor faults the translation is undoubtedly very careful, and Dr. Barnouw has succeeded in retaining the old colour of the play by rendering some expressions by Dutch equivalents of that age, as for example, "verdoord”, “jonst” and “jonnen", "gij vergetelen”, “onbescheid”, etc. But I fear that the average reader may sometimes be in perplexity what to make of some words, as for example, in the lines: de vier die achterbleven hielpe' askaks een boerekar met hooi over de brug”.

I think Dr. Barnouw has succeeded in bringing out the difference between Massinger's and Fletcher's oratorical style of which I have spoken in my introduction. On the whole Dr. Barnouw is happiest in the translation of the scenes, where Massinger displays his oratorical talents; he has caught with remarkable spirit the stately and dignified tone of the rhetorical passages; I mention as examples Act I sc. 1 and Act IV sc. 5, which deserve unreserved appreciation. Amsterdam.


Elizabethan Drama. By JANET SPENS, M.A. D. Litt. Lady Margaret

Hall, Oxford. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, 1922. 5/– net. This book professes to be "a manual intended for the use of universitystudents beginning to work at the subject”. In order to estimate the value of such a work, then, we are to view it from the student's angle. And what may we expect as the special qualifications required in such a guide ? First of all a clear statement as to how the student is to tackle this thorny subject. Dr. Spens wants him to study all the plays constituting "the whole of the Shakespeare canon; notes and introductions are at this stage unimportant." But how, I should like to know, are beginners to master Shakespeare's plays without any explanatory, critical and historical apparatus ? But, remarkably enough, for the date of composition (and is this at this stage so much more important than contents ?), Dr. Spens enumerates the most wonderfully incongruent collection of books for the student to go through. In the same breath, she recommends Dowden's Shakespeare Primer, and Ward's English Dramatic Literature – if accessible (sic!) and further on such a trifle as: Lee's Life of Shakespeare, any Biographical Dictionary for the other plays,

?) pages LXXIX and LXXX.

Introductions to the Mermaid Series, the Stationer's Register, extant contemporary copies of the plays, Henslowe's Diary, the Records of the Revels-Office, extracts of the Corporation of London's Records published by the Malone Society and the Index compiled by Overall, the Bibliographical controversy with which are connected the names of Sir Sidney Lee, Prof. Pollard and Mr. Greg. What next! – the poor student may well exclaim.

If these are to be consulted merely to ascertain dates of composition, certainly not of vital importance to beginners, we may expect a copious bibliography, when it comes to textual, historical and topical difficulties. However, not a single title, not even such a scholarly and yet simple introduction as Dr. Boas's Shakespeare and his Predecessors is found worthy of a place here, let alone the long, glorious list of great critics, historians and interpreters of Elizabethan Drama. The order of the chapters is not very logical either. It would have been a better plan to prefix the chapter on Origins to that on Characteristics. And if Ben Jonson comes in for a 9-page treatment, should not a special chapter have been devoted to Shakespeare (even though many suggestive remarks are scattered throughout the book)? Is it wise to burden beginners with quite a number of new theories, such as that on Troilus and Cressida (see on this head Sir Sidney Lee's Shakespeare), or on Pericles, or on Shakespeare's supposed debt to Munday's Zelauto for The Merchant of Venice, and for As you like it to a Robin Hood play by the same ? Again : if in the chapter on Origins a few good pages could be given to the cycle-plays, why should no more than 5 or 6 lines be assigned to the Moral and the Interlude ? In the paragraph on comedy the Secunda Pastorum and Gammer Gurton's Needle (by the way: is the needle discovered when Hodge attempts to sit down, as Dr. Spens has it or when Diccon slaps him, as in Manly's edition ?) are duly mentioned, yet Ralph Royster Doyster fails !

Does the writer consider her statement on page 36 to the effect "that Folk-drama was the chief factor in the development of English Drama”, sufficiently supported by the very vague proposition that "it seems unlikely that drama of Church-origin should show so very little trace of classical influence”?

Occasionally, perhaps owing to careless revision, the style is far from clear, as e. g. on page 54: "In Peele's work (The Old Wives' Tale) as later in Beaumont and Fletcher's imitation of it The Knight of the Burning Pestle the simple folk who are very much alike, are kept outside the Dream frame work”. Is there such a thing as a Dream-frame in The Knight?

The title of Twelfth Night proclaims its connexion with All Fools' Day, it says on page 85. The writer probably means the Feast of Fools. And if it is true that there is a “connexion of the Midsummer Night's Dream with the High Summer feast called May Day", how then does Dr. Spens explain the title ? — From page 187 one might come to the conclusion that Middleton borrowed from Massinger, where it says : “A Trick to catch the Old 'Un has much resemblance to Massinger's New Way to Pay Old Debts, while his Witch has some links with Macbeth". Two lines lower down Dr. Spens is inclined to believe that he gave the hint to Massinger, which is indeed the right view, Middleton's play being the earlier of the two. – The chapter on The Apocrypha and Munday (Tucker Brooke's work is not mentioned) assigns the romantic plays in inferior forms to the years 1584—1593 and to Munday a co-operation with Shakespeare in dramatizing festival games. — The later chapters, namely those on The Contemporaries, The Successors and The Decadents, though giving rise to some more objections, are better suited for the purpose with which they have been written.

On the whole this manual does not seem to me to deserve much recommendation; though containing good hints, it bristles with too many “probable's” and “possible's” and can certainly not be placed on a line with the abovementioned book by Dr. Boas or Wynne's The Growth of English Drama.


[ocr errors]

Shelley and the Unromantics. By OLWEN WARD CAMPBELL.

Methuen, 1924. 16 sh. This book has been hailed by many critics as one of the best ever written about Shelley. I cordially agree. The authoress possesses all the attributes of a good critic. The soundness of her judgment, her extensive and accurate knowledge, and the ease with which she brings herself into sympathy with her subject, seeing and feeling things as he saw and felt them, form a delightful combination, rarely met with, and raise her study to the plane of a standard work.

At the same time she puts every bit of her own personality into her writing, with all the advantages and drawbacks belonging to that method. The main advantage is that her book is singularly alive, it contains not a dull line and proves, if proof were needed, that it is not necessary for a biographer to creep into the novelist's skin à la M. Maurois, to secure for his work the interest of fiction. The drawback is that strongly and, on occasion, violently expressed personal opinions, make one feel disposed to quarrel with the author on minor points and temporarily to lose sight of her main argument.

The book is constructed on the following lines. First comes a chapter discussing the current view of Shelley's poetry held by ordinary readers. Then his biographers and friends are dealt with – Trelawney, Hunt, Byron, Medwin, Peacock, Hogg, Godwin and Mary. The next hundred odd pages are devoted to his life. After that, Alastor, Prometheus Unbound and the lyrics come in for special analysis. A chapter on the Romantic revival and another on Shelley's philosophy of life and poetry bring the book to a close.

The chief merit of Shelley and the Unromantics is the writer's successful attempt, after having armed herself with all the available material, to destroy once for all the unsympathetic and scornful belittlement of the man and his poetry by the cynical, and the futile and uncritical adulation of both by the sentimental. She shows that we need not look upon Shelley as a strange, eccentric and unearthly being, apart from the ordinary run of mankind in almost everything, in order to attain to a sincere and true appreciation. On the contrary, we may judge his life and his work by the same standards that are applied to other writers, without risking any loss of enjoyment to be had from his poetry, or of sympathy to be felt for the poet.

In the course of this process many blows have to be dealt, and Mrs. Campbell is by no means afraid of dealing them. They fall thickest in the notes, and there, it must be said, they are often very ungraciously delivered. Of Buxton Forman, who has a strong claim on the gratitude of all Shelley students, it is said that "his editing consists of a vulgar and irrelevant introduction, and a few uninstructive notes" (p. 18). The author of one of the most valuable editions of Prometheus Unbound that I know, is contemptuously referred to as "one Miss Scudder" (p. 211). Professor Santayana wrote in Winds of Doctrine this statement: “Now . . . if Shelley had had

« EelmineJätka »