Page images
PDF
EPUB

can

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 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.

[ocr errors]

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

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

regarded by Harsnett as a Church play") should me judice be rejected.

An den hinter dem text folgenden anmerkungen, habe ich auszusetzen, dass sie rechtschaffen unübersichtlich gedruckt sind. Wie schon in seinen Faustus - Notes weist Logeman dem herrn P. F. manchen schnitzer in der übersetzung nach, ohne dabei vollständig zu sein. Auch sonst hätte man manchmal mehr, manchmal weniger gewünscht.

Von kleinigkeiten, die der berichtigung bedürfen, führe ich folgendes an:

Zu kap. 12 (D. F. B. kap. 13, p. 39) The which kingdomes are gouerned by fiue kings bemerkt Logeman p. 140-141: »The error of the German Author, who takes Phlegeton as the name of the devils. . . is too much for our Englishman but he falls into another by making Phlegeton into that of a king.« Ich denke nicht, dass man diese dummheit dem autor in die schuhe schieben darf; bei Spiess sieht die stelle so aus:

10 Acheron. In dem regieren die Teuffel / Phlegeton

genannt

was offenbar ein druckversehen, ist statt:

10 Acheron Phlegeton genannt

was sich allenfalls rechtfertigen lässt; später erscheint dafür » Diaboli genannt<«<, wodurch u. a. erwiesen wird, dass der verf. des E. F. B. nicht ein exemplar der ausgabe von 1589 benutzt haben kann. Ob es gerade die erste Spiess'sche war, ist zweifelhaft (cf. Logeman p. XIV-XV).

as is

Zu and named himselfe an Astrologian and a Mathematician : and for a shadow sometimes a Phisitian (p. 3) erhalten wir die be merkung: »The German text has zum Glimpf i. e. about right; so that P. F. seems to have made a shot at it. > For a shadow«<, for which I have no other references, can only mean : pretendedly, falsely.<< Nicht ganz, denn in gewissem sinne ist for a shadow zu vergleichen mit den im elisab. Engl. so häufigen redensarten wie: under show of, for colour of, to have colour to, without colour, under colour of, under the colour and pretense, shewe and coulore, under the cloke and pretence etc.

Eine genaue entsprechung findet sich übrigens in More's Utopia lb. II (Temple Class. p. 107): elles for a vaine shaddow of vertue, wo das lat. original (z. b. Lovanii, 1548, p. 123) alioquin ob inanem uirtutis umbram hat. Diese bedeutung von umbra >>schein, vorwand« hat auch das ältere deutsche Glimppf, so dass vnd zum Glimppf ward er ein Artzt (Faustb. 1587, p. 5) so viel

bedeutet als er übte den beruf eines arztes nur aus, um unter diesem deckmantel seinen andern beschäftigungen unbehelligt nachgehen zu können.

Eine nicht ganz ausreichende kenntnis des älteren neuhochdeutschen sprachgebrauchs hat Logeman auch dazu verleitet, auf p. 147 »die kirchen (sic) Lateranensis<< drucken zu lassen, als wenn kirchen ein zu Lateranensis nicht passender plural wäre; derselbe singular kirchen findet sich aber noch einmal auf derselben seite 103 bei Spiess und sonst.

[ocr errors]

Wenn L. ferner zu p. 16 if he should motion Matrimonie any more bemerkt: »a reminiscence of my Faustus - Notes p. 98 suggested to me that here too, we might perhaps have to read mention. This is, however, not necessary, so können wir nur froh sein, dass er motion hat stehen lassen; in der that hat es aber auch in Faustus v. 1064

As when I heare but motion made of him

seine berechtigung, cf. z .b. Marston, 2 Ant. and Mell. IV 1, 62–63 (Bullen I, p. 159)

Ant. Ask'd he for Julio yet?

Lu. No motion of him!

Zu dem auf p. 52 vorkommenden thengs bemerkt Logeman (p. 145) I suspect this to be a misprint for things« und führt für e statt a more (!) original i nur cheualrye aus Lummert p. 18 an >> and this is hardly an analogue«. Auf derselben stufe wie cheualrye steht etwa shevering für ne. shivering (cf. me.) im Euphues ed. Arber p. 161; der übersetzer von More's Utopia hat nemblenes neben nimblenes auf p. 106 der citierten ausgabe; Spenser schliesslich hat einmal, F. Q. IV, 5, 23, des reimes wegen sens, wo jüngere ausgaben, z. b. die von 1617, since lesen; man denke auch an die ältere form des wortes.

Zur bibliographie ist zu bemerken, dass Zarncke's gruppierung der ausg. des D. F. B., wie er sie bei Braune, Halle 1878, gegeben hat, später von ihm selbst berichtigt worden ist, cf. Berichte kön. sächs. ges. wiss. phil.-hist. kl. 40, 181 ff. = Zarncke, Goetheschriften, 272 ff. Eine faksimileausgabe des D. F. B., von W. Scherer besorgt, ist im jahre 1884 bei Grote in Berlin erschienen.

Louvain, Januar 1901.

W. Bang.

J. Hoops, Englische Studien. 29. 3.

28

Hugo Gilbert, Robert Greene's "Selimus". Eine litterar-historische untersuchung. Kieler dissertation. Kieler dissertation. Kiel, druck von Fiencke,

1899. 74 ss.

The reviewer of the above-named dissertation was agreeably surprised on receiving it to notice. The subject is one specially suitable for a young man anxious to win his spurs. Selimus was first claimed for Greene by Dr. Grosart in his Editor's Introduction and Annotations to Hodgett's translation of Prof. Storojenko's Life of Robert Greene pp. 71 to 77. Grosart's evidence was based mainly on two passages in Selimus, the first in lines 503 to 509 and the second in lines 853 to 857, which are ascribed to Greene in England's Parnassus 1600. To these two passages Gilbert has found four more which are common to England's Parnassus (and there ascribed to Greene) and to Selimus. It is therefore beyond doubt that Allot, the collector of the poetical extracts in England's Parnassus, ascribes the play to Greene. His authority is decisive. Firstly he was a contemporary, and secondly the verification of his assignations of authorship by Collier shows him to have been well-read in the literature of his time. Gilbert has thus, with the discovery of four more extracts from Selimus (all literal repetitions) in England's Parnassus put the authorship of the play beyond doubt.

In his dissertation p. 8 he refers to The Battle of Alcazar which has been assigned to Peele on the authority of one single passage in England's Parnassus. Grosart rests his case chiefly on the two passages he found. But the help he has now received through Gilbert's investigation makes assurance doubly sure.

Gilbert has further the merit of showing the source whence Greene drew his materials. It is "Pauli Jovii Episcopi Nucerini Furcicarum Rerum Commentarius", as the extracts given show. Grosart in his preface gives a list of over forty words which he wishes us to regard as characteristic of Greene. I have underlined 32 of them as common property of the dramatic language of the age. Gilbert very properly attaches no importance to this list, but gives on p. 28 a passage which carries more conviction with it than Grosart's list. It is the remark of Bullithrumble: "This is some cozening, conicatching crosbiter" etc., which he compares with a passage in Greene's Discovery of Coosenage of almost identical purport.

The following pages give the result of a comparison of Selimus with regard to style with Greene's undoubted works.

« PreviousContinue »