vielleicht noch reiner, als Brix annimmt, dem die scheidung der - und -reime, wie sie im norden und ndl. mld. herrscht, nicht bekannt zu sein scheint. Aus der ganzen reimtechnik erschliesst Brix, wohl mit recht, einen spätmittelenglischen und volkstümlichen, nicht der Chaucer-schule angehörigen autor.

Die sprache bereitet schwierigkeiten, denn neben vielem, das bereits der gemein-englischen schriftsprache angehört, finden sich spezifisch nördliche züge, so dass Brix entschieden nördlichen, vielleicht nordmld., aber sicher nicht schottischen ursprung annimmt. Die späte abfassungszeit muss die sprachmischung erklären. Seine untersuchung erstreckt sich nur auf die reime, doch die schreibung weicht nicht allzusehr ab und zeigt vielleicht noch deutlicher nördliches gepräge.

Der fleiss des verfassers der vorliegenden arbeit verdient anerkennung, seine ruhige klarheit und hübsche darstellung berühren wohlthuend, doch möchte man bezweifeln, dass bei der unzugänglichkeit der 75 Exemplare und dem geringen sprachlichen wie litterarischen werte der englischen übersetzung die wissenschaft grossen vorteil von seiner Mühe haben wird.

Wilhelmshaven, April 1901.

W. Heuser.

L. W. Cushman, The Devil and the Vice in the English Dramatic Literature before Shakespeare. (Studien zur englischen philologie, herausgegeben von Lorenz Morsbach, VI.) Halle a./S., Niemeyer, 1900. Preis M. 5,00.

This is an interesting book on an interesting subject. Its scope is sufficiently indicated by the title, in accordance with which the work is divided into two parts, treating of the devil and the vice respectively. The author's results shall be given here in his own words. The prevailing opinion, that "the devil enjoyed, both on the stage and elsewhere a great and ever increasing popularity; (that) the figure of the Vice was developed from that of the devil, or (that) the Vice was simply the devil as buffoon and as such, became the forerunner of the clown; (that) he (was) also the forerunner of the villain, and of Punch", this opinion, according to our author, is entirely wrong. For this view, Prof. Cushman substitutes a new one, viz. that "the appearance of the devil in the non-dramatic as well as in the dramatic literature

is limited to a definite range; as a dramatic figure the devil falls more and more into the back-ground, the Vice is distinct in origin and function from the devil and from the clown"... these figures "encroach upon each other, but from this it does not follow that they are identical or that the one is derived from the other. The devil, Vice, clown, fool and villain are parallel figures of quite independent origin and function."

It seems to me that in his investigations with negative results, if I may call it so, our author has been more fortunate than in his positive ones: there can remain no doubt, after a careful study of this work, that the prevailing view is untenable, but the reasoning that has led up to Prof. Cushman's positive results is, in many cases at least, not so close as to make it imperative to accept them at once. The book bears some outward traces 1) of hurried composition: repetitions, unenglish and unusual expressions, rather serious misprints, etc. all of which could easily have been avoided if Horace's well-known precept had been practised - be it with the substitution of months for years! and one cannot help thinking that a little more time spent on it would have been of great service to the author, in an other and more important respect. Many an obscure point might then have been worked out, many a hypothesis re examined and perhaps slightly modified, many a point would have been materially strengthened. The results, then based on a more thorough study, would most likely have been accepted in their integrity.

This seems to me to hold more especially with regard to Prof. Cushman's view of the Origin and function of the Vice. His point about the Devil, developed in the first part, viz. that the Devil (for which traditional figure the Bible and the apocrypha are the sources) is the creation, not of the people but of theology and that he is "essentially a theological-mythological being, the antithesis of divinity and sanctity" who has “remained throughout almost unchanged as a dramatic figure" - this theory

1) Thus, Professor Brandl is thanked twice and in almost identical terms on the same page for the use of some manuscript copies of plays. And what must we think of in the rule on p. 84, of motif passim, and motivates (p. 118)? As to misprints, see p. 31: Asservations for Asseverations; ib. mayfay for maffay (mafay); p. 33: Mac for Mak; p. 42: Marco Moralities for Macro M. etc. etc.

seems quite acceptable. I for one do not know of any exception that can be taken to this chapter.

But with the chapters on the Vice it is different. On pp. 55 and 56, Prof. Cushman gives us a classification of the Vice-dramas, which classification is "based upon the structure of the Vice-role in each period"). But how does Cushman know which personage is the Vice? Why is e. g. Riot the Vice in Youth and not Lechery? Why is Hickscorner the Vice in the play of that name and not Freewill and Imagination whom he calls his 'fellows' (Dodsley I pp. 164, 169)? Why is Iniquity of the Nice Wanton no Vice? Because, Dr. Cushman will tell us, they do or do not, as the case may be, come up to the characteristics which I have shown to be proper to them. Yes, but whence does our author draw his knowledge of the Vice's characteristics? Not, it would seem, from those few figures which are explicitly called 'Vice' in the old plays themselves, but precisely from a study of those personages whom he, the author, has made out to be Vices! There is the mistake which vitiates, I am afraid, the whole treatment of this subject, which at least makes it impossible to accept the results without re-considering the matter. For it does not appear that the writer has started in his investigation from the first Vice mentioned as such in the Dramatic Literature, Merry Report in Heywood's Play of the Weather, and that he has thence i. e. from this play as well as the subsequent ones that mention the Vice as a dramatic figure worked back to older dramas in order to find out by comparison which person should be called the Vice in these older productions. According to Cushman, the function of the Vice is "to lead some one into sin and pleasure" and as a tempter he does not use a middle person or agent" (p. 38) and, differing in this respect too from the devil, the Vice does "join in the fun". This "ethical person . . . an allegorical representation of human weaknesses and vices, in short the summation of the Deadly Sins, is only the agent of the devil" 2). He does not act from motives of revenge (pp. 77, 91), but is friendly to man. I do not hesitate to say that this view

66

1) It is strange to find Wisdom mentioned here as, according to the author himself (p. 55), it does not contain a Vice.

2) At least according to p. 51. But according to p. 53 "there exists no definite relation" between the Devil and the Vice, which is a somewhat startling contradiction.

is only to a very, very limited extent, applicable to Merry Report. Let us take another instance! Hickscorner is the Vice in the play of that name, according to Prof. Cushman at least. Already on comparing this personage who, as remarked, is the fellow of Freewill and Imagination (whom Cushman looks upon and rightly so, as the representatives of Mankind in the play) · with the author's account of the Vice, we see that C. should not in consistency have called Hickscorner a Vice. If we must classify Hickscorner at all but classification in such-like matters can only be thought of at the risk of implying some little inaccuracy! I would call him mutatis mutandis 'an' Everyman, i. e. a type of the foolish wordling, incarnated not only in Everyman, but also in most of the older moralities, e. g. Humanum Genus in Castle of Perseverance, Mankind etc. If I rightly understand a remark on p. 72, our author himself is not quite sure about Hickscorner. We read there that in this play "the temptation-motif is lacking from the simple fact that the representatives of Man are already corrupt". This reads as though C. considered Hickscorner as no Vice, which would be the correct view.

If time permitted, I should like to discuss some more moot points, but I must devote the space yet available, to speak of some at least of the better points. To mention only one or two: Prof. Cushman has evidently read his texts very carefully or he would not have been able to give us such excellent explanations as we get incidentally) of some of the more puzzling expressions in Brandl's not over-annotated texts. And I must not forget to mention Cushman's important discussion of Harsnett's description of the Vice: "And it was a pretty part in the old church plays, when the nimble Vice would skip up like a jack-on-apes into the devil's neck and ride the devil a course, and belabour him with his wooden dagger, till he, made them roar, whereat the people would laugh to see the devil so vice-haunted." It is not too much to say that this description "lies at the bottom of all evil". Cushman shows, to my thinking conclusively, that it was wrong to "regard (this account) as has been universally assumed, as applying to the Vice in general", but that Harsnett had in view an exceptional

1) See e. g. p. 113: "leap at a daisy, or put out the i of misericordia" and "to play sursum corda" which are made clear, simply by being arranged under the heading: "For hanging".

case. It refers "either to some lost morality. or to Punch and Judy"). And this lost morality must have been exceptional in character.

I should not wonder if subsequent investigations should leave Prof. Cushman's results materially unchanged, but the uncomfortable feeling one has, when working through this book, is precisely that subsequent investigations are necessary, i. e. it is not a definite book, not by any means the last word on the subject. But Prof. Cushman has at any rate the merit of having shown us the way, of having cleared the ground for such an investigation and of having brought the material together for it and this merit is no mean one.

Ghent, March 1901.

H. Logeman.

The English Faust-Book of 1592 edited with an Introduction and Notes by H. Logeman. Genter phil. fac. arbeiten no. 24, Gand und Amsterdam 1900. XXII u. 175 pp. gr. 8.

Da der text des englischen Faustbuches, den Thoms in seinen Earl. Engl. Prose-Rom. III p. 163-300 veröffentlicht hat, nur ziemlich bescheidenen ansprüchen genügt, so ist dieser neue abdruck, auf dessen herstellung die möglichste mühe verwendet wurde, herzlich willkommen zu heissen. Zu bedauern ist nur, dass Logeman kein zweites exemplar des druckes von 1592 hat auftreiben können, sowie dass es ihm nicht vergönnt war, spätere ausgaben zu vergleichen und deren varianten zu verzeichnen. Denn möglicherweise hätten uns diese gewisse aufklärungen über den text der quelle des druckes von 1592 geben können. Doch wollen wir uns durch derartige wünsche die freude an dem uns gebotenen nicht verderben lassen; ist es doch jetzt erst möglich, die englische redaktion mit den deutschen fruchtbringend zu vergleichen.

In der einleitung behandelt Logeman kurz die entstehung seines textes, sucht über P. F. Gent. ins reine zu kommen, ohne dass man sagen könnte, dass ihm dies gelungen sei, und bespricht schliesslich, soweit ihm das möglich war, die quelle, auf der der druck von 1592 beruht.

1) This latter alternative (with the further consideration that, as it was "common in England on feastdays (it was) . . . perhaps . . . for this reason regarded by Harsnett as a Church play") should me judice be rejected.