Page images
PDF
EPUB

QI (neither, can) kann ich dabei allerdings kein grosses gewicht einräumen, da dieselbe sehr oft konfus ist.

In I 1, 128 möchte K. die worte who stirs ? als gegen eine Cordelien vor dem zorn des königs schützende bewegung der umstehenden gerichtet auffassen. Ich halte sie lediglich für einen ausdruck der ungeduld Lears, dem nichts rasch genug gehen kann; in 35 war Gloster abgetreten; hier muss einer der attendants ihm und dem könig von Frankreich etc. entgegeneilen 1).

Ich denke doch, dass in I 1, 201 seeming substance, welches nach K. winzige, trügerische habe, kleiner, trügerischer bettel< sein soll, mehr die bedeutung von. »ding, wesen < besitzt (cf. she in 200, 204 gegen it in 202). So heisst es in Ben Jonson's Case is altered, IV 5 von Camillo, den man für Chamont ausgegeben hatte: false substance, shadow to Chamont. Und seeming sind alle die dinge, die nicht das sind, wofür wir sie halten: falsch; cf. Massinger, The Bashful Lover, IV, 2: Like seeming flames raised by enchantment. Das little seeming substance Lear's wäre also: das kleine, falsche ding, in dem ich mich so sehr getäuscht habe; it wie bei child.

In I 1, 249 kann ich mich K. nicht anschliessen; das komma vor you gehört zu then, das oft und meist in komma eingeschlossen wird aus der setzung dieses kommas ist also nichts zu erschliessen; so lost a father fasse ich = so vollständig einen vater verloren. Dagegen gehört K.'s erklärung von I 4, 114 zu den schönsten: Wider seinen willen hat dieser mensch zwei seiner töchter verbannt und einer seinen segen gegeben.

Die Bemerkungen K.'s über I 4, 316 etc. (pp. 36 ff.) sind mir zu radikal. Sie sind offenbar hauptsächlich veranlasst durch die annahme, dass »in diesen momenten< der fassungslos erregte (Lear) hinter der scene nicht erfahren haben kann, dass Goneril den befehl gegeben, 50 von seinen rittern zu entlassen. Einem heutigen publikum mag es vielleicht sonderbar vorkommen, in Shakespeare's zeiten jedoch waren derartige kurze exit nichts ungewöhnliches. Man erfuhr auf die eine oder die andere weise, warum der betreffende abging, und sah, dass er wieder kam; das genügte vollständig, und der dichter hielt es für überflüssig, die auf der bühne verbleibenden personen so lange zeit zu beschäftigen,

=

1) Also >>wer geht?« cf. Rebellion IV, Dods.-Haz. 14, p. 72: Why stir you not? fetch me some skilful man.

[ocr errors]

als die hinter der scene zu vollführende handlung in der that beansprucht haben würde: Ein beliebiger könig sagt: »Schreibt meinem freunde einen brief< gleich geht der schreiber hinaus, um eine halbe minute später mit dem fertigen brief wieder einzutreten (cf. Dyce's anm. zu Marl. Edw. II in Old Dram. p. 192). In Jonson's Case is altered geht Jaques ein paar mal ab, um nachzusehen, ob man ihn nicht bestohlen hat; die auf der scene bleibende person hat gerade zeit genug, drei bis vier blankverse zu sprechen, und Jaques ist wieder da und weiss, dass alles noch in ordnung ist. Und Shakespeare unterscheidet sich in dieser hinsicht in nichts von seinen zeitgenossen; in Measure f. Meas. IV 1, 59 geht Isabella mit Mariana ab, um mit ihr etwas abzumachen der Duke recitiert sechs blankverse, und diese zeit hat Isabella genügt 1)!

[ocr errors]

Sonst gebe ich ja gewiss gern zu, dass I 4, 247 ff. ungemein schwierig sind. Was würde K. zur folgenden auffassung der QII 4, 250 sagen: »Ich bin doch ganz gewiss nicht Lear! Aber wer kann mir sagen, wer ich bin? [F 1: Foole. Lears shadow!] Lear's schatten? Ah, gut, das wollte ich gerade hören, denn die zeichen der majestät (seine königl. gewänder etc.), wissen und verstand könnten mich fälschlich (gegen die offenbaren thatsachen; ironisch) überzeugen davon, dass ich töchter hätte (als Lear! aber der bin ich ja, gott sei dank, nicht, wie mir eben versichert wurde).< Es scheint mir, dass sich das folgende which they will make an obedient father nur dann gut an das vorhergehende anschliesst, wenn »>ich« kräftig betont ist. Der von Lear beabsichtigte sinn wäre demnach: »Da ich nur Lear's schatten bin, so kann ich auch keine töchter haben und darüber bin ich herzlich froh! <<

Als besonders gelungen glaube ich noch die erklärungen zu II 4, 214; III 4, 183; IV 2, 53; IV 3, 19 hervorheben zu sollen. Für die folgenden hefte hätte ich eine bitte die zugabe eines stellen- und wörterverzeichnisses wäre erwünscht; vielleicht entschliesst sich Koppel dazu, dem 3. heft die verzeichnisse für heft 1 und 2 beizugeben, etwa verarbeitet mit dem für das 3. heft. W. Bang.

Louvain, 3. März 1900.

1) Vgl. noch Fletcher's Knight of the Burn. Pestle VI 5, wo der Boy abgeht mit dem auftrag, Ralph, als May-lord geschmückt, auf die scene zu bringen; die bleibenden sprechen inzwischen drei zeilen!

The Stage-Quarrel between Ben Jonson and the so-called Poetasters, by R. A. Small. (Forschungen zur englischen sprache und litteratur, herausgegeben von Eugen Kölbing, heft 1.)

We, i. e. all interested in English literature, must greet the appearance of this periodical with a warm welcome. The everincreasing interest in English literature has found one vent more, and if we may judge from the work before us it is destined to do worthy service in the common field.

Small's investigation is ushered in by a preface and a biographical sketch from the pen of Professor Kittredge. From this we learn that the author died at the early age of twenty seven. His death is a severe loss to the cause to which he devoted himself, as his Stage - Quarrel testifies. It is to be hoped that his friends will see that the other work left by him: Authorship and Date of The Insatiate Countess, published in "Studies and Notes in Philology and literature" (Boston 1897) may soon appear as an independent work. The sharp but sound critical judgment displayed in the work before us justifies the hope that this latter question also has been treated with the same thoroughness as the Stage-Quarrel. The period treated of in the latter embraces the years 1599, 1600 and 1601. By extracts from John Davies of Hereford, Chapman and the Comedy of Lingua, the author shows the interest taken in this literary quarrel in those days. He then gives the sources from which he draws his conclusions (p. 3) and gives (on p. 4) what seems a happy emendation. By changing a comma into a period, the expression about Jonson in the Drummond Conversations: "In his youth given to venery," which has hitherto been an insurmountable difficulty, has no doubt been made clear. Had Jonson been addicted to venery in his youth, his enemies would have taken care to inform us of the fact. According to Small's punctuation, the sentence applies to Marston. In dealing with his predecessors, Small is almost too painfully conscientious. What possible importance the views of Baudissin, Cartwright, Hermann, Zeis and Henry Wood (whoever that unknown gentleman may be) can have for us, it is difficult to imagine. An other name, Penniman, author of a dissertation on the same subject, bas also more attention bestowed upon him than he seems to deserve. From the quotations Small gives, Penniman seems to be a mere hanger-on of Fleay's. But in dealing with Fleay, Small shows himself equal to his work. The readers of the Engl. stud.

will remember that the present writer declared Fleay's work to be tantalising. You can make use of him only by sharply watching him in all his turnings and windings. Small has done this with neverfailing sagacity, and, has thus shown himself one of the few men capable of making use of the confused mass of materials collected by that unfortunate historian of the stage. But, trying though Fleay has been to his temper, he never goes further than such an utterance of impatience as that on p. 10: "Fleay's book capitally important as it is, is both confusing and untrustworthy." In the numerous cases in which he agrees with Fleay, he shows himself anxious to acknowledge it, where he differs, he expresses his opinion with distinctness and sharpness but without irritation.

After emphasising the satiric tendeney of the time p. 11, he says: "To this satiric tendency, extending through all the strata of its literary life, rather than to any subjective change of character, do we owe, perhaps, the bitter, satiric comedies of Shakespeare's mid-career." I note this point now, as one in which I can by no means agree with Small, and shall go into the matter thoroughly when his views as to the part taken by Shakespeare in the literary quarrel in the person of Ajax in Troilus and Cressida, come to be discussed.

Small enters on p. 13 into an account of the authors concerned in the Stage-Quarrel. He begins with Jonson. A Tale of a Tub and The case is altered are rightly put a the beginning of Jonson's career. They have no bearing on the Stage-Quarrel, nor has Every Man in his Humour. With regard to Every Man out of his Humour, our author has succeeded in fixing the date within very narrow limits viz.: from Feb. 15th to March 24th 1599-1600. In speaking of Cynthio's Revels, Small touches an interasting point. In an article on All's well that ends well in the Engl. stud., I brought forward proofs of alteration in the play, pointing to the conclusion that the ring-episode was introduced while Essex was in the Tower under sentence of death. Small makes it probable that, in the allusion to Diana and Actaeon, Jonson alludes to the murmurs of discontent, among the people at the execution of the popular favourite.

Under The Poetaster (p. 25) we have: "As we know from Hamlet, the men-players were hard pressed by the child actors in 1601." This cannot be taken in the sense that Shakespeare's Hamlet, in any form helongs to the year 1601 as Small affirms

later on. In Hamlet, as in all the later tragedies, the struggle which leads to the catastrophe is an internal one, fought out by the two opposite natures living in the hero's breast, as Goethe has aptly put it. In Julius Caesar the struggle is an external one, and the catastrophe is brought about by the the incompatibility of the natures of Brutus and Cassius, who, uniting their powers to reach a common goal, draw in different directions and involve themselves and their cause in one universal ruin. Such a radical change in the poet's art could not have taken place in the short interval between Julius Caesar (say 1600) and 1601.

On the same page (25) and the two following, Small gathers together all that Jonson has taken from the Latin poets in this play. Small's own share in this work is very considerable, and he repeatedly confesses his obligations to Köppel. The most interesting, thorough and instructive part of Small's work at Jonson follows on pp. 27 &c. in the table of the characters of the three plays, Every Man out of his Humour, Cynthia's Revels, The Poetaster, with his remarks on them. His most important results are (1.) that Anaides and Demetrius are meant for Dekker, while Carlo Buffone is not a literary man at all, he is Charles Chester, a man about town. The most convincing evidence of the correctness of this supposition we find on p. 38, where we are told that Sir Walter Raleigh once sealed up Chester's mouth, as Puntarvolo seals up Carlo Buffone's. Although I am not inclined to go so far as Small does with regard to Aubrey ("the early and trustworthy authority of Aubrey", p. 37), yet it is pretty clear that, in this case, he (Aubrey) has hit the mark. On pp. 34, 35 Small gives interesting parallel passages to support his views. (2) Of the trio Brisk, Hedon and Crispinus, the two latter are meant for Marston, while Brisk is a dandy of the time, identical with Emulo in Patient Grissel, whose original has not yet been ascertained. On p. 44 we have an amusing example of Fleay putting down Flealy. In the North British Review for July 1870 p. 402, somebody had declared that Emulo in Patient Grissel was meant for Jonson. In Shakespeariana III 31, Fleay said, "Emulo is certainly Jonson". In his Chronicle I 97, having evidently forgotten all about this, he speaks of "a foolish assertion, put forth by a DemiDoctor, some years since, that Emulo is meant for Jonson." Just like Flealy. He adopts what suits his purpose without acknowedgment and then abuses those he has stolen from!

« PreviousContinue »