Josua, dux Israell, David, Macabeus Iudas, wo nur die veränderte reihenfolge der drei serien auffällt. Das lebhafte interesse, welches ich gerade zu einer zeit, wo ich selbst mit der herausgabe einer alliterirenden dichtung beschäftigt war, naturgemäss an dieser höchst verdienstlichen publication nahm, hat mich die besprechung derselben fast ungebührlich ausdehnen lassen, und trotzdem ist mehr wie eine dunkle stelle unbesprochen geblieben, so dass für eine neubearbeitung des commentars noch mancherlei zu thun bleibt. Möchte Mr. Goll. aber auch ausserdem bald musse finden, das p. VII erwähnte gedicht in 13 zeiligen strophen uns im druck vorzulegen. Breslau, März 1898. E. Kölbing. E. Koeppel, Quellen - studien zu den dramen George Chapman's, Philip Massinger's und John Ford's. Strassburg, Trübner 1897. 229 ss. 8o. Pr.: mk. In 1895 Koeppel published in the Münchener beiträge, Heft XI, Quellenstudien zu den Dramen Ben Jonson's, Marston's und Beaumont and Fletcher's, which volume the present writer mentioned at considerable length in this periodical. A long cherished wish, which he had years before expressed, for a thorough investigation of the sources of the Later (or Stuart) Drama he saw realised on the appearance of Köppel's first volume. The result of his investigation of that volume, was that it was an important contribution to our knowledge of a little known period. Koeppel went so cautiously to work, and so well supported the conclusions he drew from his materials, that he carried conviction irresistibly into his reader's mind. Indeed, if an objection may be allowed, it would be that Koeppel might have often spoken much more confidently from the materials which he brought forward. We find the same trait in the work before us. Nowhere does he go further than his materials permit him, and he often does not go even so far, that is to say, he somestimes speaks of a question as still open which he has definitely cleared up. Of the three authors treated in this volume Chapman has yielded the most important results. Indeed he takes up nearly as much room as Massinger in the present volume. Chapman is one of the most commanding figures in the imposing array of great writers under Elisabeth and the first two Stuarts. He was before the public about as early as Shakespeare, who was younger than he, and is very probably the rival poet whom Shakespeare mentions rather uneasily in the sonnets. Indeed it would be impossible to name a poet of that day to whom the language of sonnet 86 better applied: "Was it the proud full sail of his great verte, E. Kölbing, Englische studien XXV. 2. 19 Was it his spirit by spirits taught to write But when your countenance filled up his line, Then lacked I matter, that enfeebled mine." In the Dedication of the Shadow of Night, 1594, to Matthiew Roydon, Chapman says: "Now what a supererogation in wit this is, to think skill so mightily pierced with their loves, (he is speaking of critical readers) that she should prostitutely shew them her secrets, when she will be looked upon by others but with invocation, fasting, watching; yea, not without having drops of their souls like an heavenly familiar." The last expression points almost conclusively to this “affable, familiar ghost." This same dedication contains a proof of the great poet's knowledge and appreciation of Chapman's genius in the words: "To preferring thy allowance in this poor and strange trifle, to the passport of a whole city of others." Is not this passage the original of Hamlet's (III. 2), "The censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others."? On this great central figure of our early drama Koeppel has in the present volume thrown a stream of light. It is a pity that this did not happen twenty-five years ago, when Swinburne was occupying himself with Chapman. It would perhaps have given more precision to his picture of the poet, of whom he had even but fifteen years ago such an indefinite conception that he expressed his conviction, Chapman was the author of the newly discovered drama Barnevelt. The light thrown on Chapman by Koeppel falls chiefly on the historical dramas from French history. The Blind Beggar of Alexandria, An Humourous Day's Mirth, All Fools offer little worthy of our attention. The reader of the last-mentioned comedy who comes, uninfluenced by Swinburne's glowing panegyric, to read it for the first time will certainly be inclined to agree with Koeppel that it is not, "one of the most faultless examples of high comedy to be found in the whole rich field of our Elisabethan drama" (Swinb.). In speaking of The Gentleman Usher, Koeppel ventures to think that the "überlistete ceremonienmeister", Bassiolo, was drawn on the same lines as Shakespeare's Malvolio in competition with that ill-used Steward. The supposition seems very likely from a comparison of the dates and the parts they play in the respective dramas. This would not be the only case in which the two poets, each in his own way, have given us figures which force us to a comparison. What Koeppel says on p. 9 of Chapman's making people of the lower classes well-acquainted with such works as Pettie's Palace of petit Pleasure, and Guevara's Golden Epistles is not to be taken as a proof that these works were out of credit with the educated world. The same argument would force us to believe that the works of the ancients had sunk in the same degree in public estimation. Koeppel has occasion under Massinger to mention Iolante's waiting-woman, Corisca, who is as familiar with Latin authors as if she had absolved the university. Koeppel gives us at this point an interesting contrast between Chapman's way of working in these plays and in his historical pieces. In these latter he has his author constantly before him and follows him closely, whereas in The Gentleman Usher, he gives us a plain proof that he quotes from memory and quotes wrong, confusing Adelasia with Florinda, who actually did disfigure her face in order not to lead her dear friend Amadour into temptation. The discovery of this slight mis-quotation shows us, by the bye, how thoroughly and carefully Koeppel performs his work. For Monsieur D'Olive neither Koeppel nor his predecessors have been able to find a source. Koeppel says: „Nach dem jetzigen stande der forschung muss Chapman eine hervorragende originalität in der entwerfung seiner pläne zugestanden werden.“ The same was believed and reported of Shirley until Stiefel arose and in one of the most aggravating articles that have ever appeared, showed that in two cases Shirley had adapted Spanish plays and declared that a good half of Shirley's plays were of Spanish origin. I call Stiefel's article aggravating because up to the present time in spite of being called upon to do so, he has not named these plays. Future investigatiors may find out that Chapman is in exactly the same situation. We now come to the first of the historical plays in which Koeppel has advanced our knowledge by a step. In Bussy d'Ambois it is no very great step, but is still of importance. He proves that the passage of the Thuana which has been generally believed to have been one of (or perhaps the only one) of the sources of the poet, De Thou's great work in 1607, the year when the play appeared, had only advanced to the year 1574, whereas the fourth volume in which the events 1) of the drama are treated, did not appear till 1609. The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of Byron, Marshall of France follow. Here Koeppel has cleared up the question of Chapman's sources at least with respect to the works principally made use of. These are 1. Matthieu 2. Cayet 3 Jan de Serres. On pp. 18 and 19 Koeppel gives two extracts, one from Matthieu and one from Cayet and compares them with them text of the Conspiracy, thus showing us Chapman's manner of working of which these two examples are typical for his historical plays. He follows his source closely in his facts, but rejects Matthieu's numerous similes and metaphors. On p. 21 again we see how a slight mistake of the poet's proves him to have made use of Jan de Serres', Inventaire général as well as the two beforementioned authors. Misled by a marginal note the poet has confused Byron's deeds at the battle of Ivry with his conduct during the siege of Dreux, which latter is not mentioned by the historians. 1) These events did not appear in the volume of 1609 itself, as Koeppel points out, but were put into later editions of the work published after de Thou's death. Koeppel also puts right a statement of Langbaine's, who says, that the intrigue between Bussy and Tamyra was related by Rosset in his Histoires tragiques de notre temps. The book was published in 1616, the drama 1607. Act IV of the Conspiracy has been handed down to us in a mutilated condition. Fleay pointed out that the end of the 1st scene and all the rest of the act had been cut out, and Koeppel agrees with him. Two long speeches are addressed to Byron, the one by the Queen and the other by her minister. In Matthieu the Queen points to the heads of the traitors beheaded in her reign and declares that, if she were in Henry's place, one would see the heads of executed traitors at Paris as well as at London. Koeppel's explanation is as follows. Chapman wished to make use of the powerful scene in the Tower between Byron and the Queen before the heads of Essex and other executed traitors and had transferred the whole scene into verse, the Censor had struck it out. And to fill up the blank space, the poet had repeated himself by making the Councillor hold Byron much the same speech as the Queen had done before. Koeppel has shown us how Fleay had guessed rightly about the mutilation of Act IV. He now shows how Fleay has been overconfident in rejecting the prose of the last scene of the play. The courting of the 3 ladies by the Duke of Savoy was doubtless introduced by the poet in consequence of a hint he found in Matthieu. In the Tragedy, Koeppel shows that Chapman followed his source still more closely than in the Conspiracy, adopting even in many cases Matthieu's pictures and parallels. It is well-known that this play was forbidden in 1608 when it appeared, at the request of the French Ambassador on account of a scene between the Queen and Henry's mistress, Mademoiselle Verneuil, in which the former treated the latter with a severe scolding and a box on the ear. This scene has of course been cut out of the copies which have come down to us. But the mask, which treats of the reconciliation between the two virtues Chastity and Liberality, remains. We are told that love to the king had caused a jar between them. But the scene to which this jar refers has not come down to us. The name D'Entragues which occurs in the Stage-direction before the Mask refers to Henry's mistress, Catherine - Henriette de Balzac d'Entraignes, Marquise de Verneuil. Koeppel supposes that though the poet had not found the quarrel between the Queen and the Marquise here (Matthieu dedicated his book te Henry IV), yet another story which he found under the year 1601 probably incited him to this scene. The box on the car was the poet's own invention. Interesting is what we find on p. 34, that Chapman took the river 'Rhosne' for the name of a town. On p. 37 Koeppel speculates on the influence of the speech of Ulysses in Troilus and Cressida on Chapman. He adds in a note that the date of Troilus and Cressida is not ascertained, but believes it earlier than Byron's Conspiracy. The Ulysses part of Troilus and Cressida is so interwoven with Lear that we may be sure it was written before the year 1607. This year is a mile-stone in Shakespeare's metrical development. Light and weak endings which, before it, occurred only sporadically, are numerous in all the plays of a later date. The two instances of parallelism which K. gives on p 38 are striking. Byron complains: "How all the court now looks askew on me! Go by without, shun my sight." Achilles complains in the same way. "Neither gave to me good word nor look." D'Auvergne makes use of the remarkable expression, "Wallet of their faults." Ulysses says to Achilles: Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back, Wherein he puts alms for oblivion. The next play treated is The Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois. Here the poet has considerably changed the historical facts he found in his sources and particularly with regard to Clermont D'Ambois, Bussy's brother. K. supposes, Chapman wished to make Clermont a kind of Hamlet. No doubt there is much to remind one of Hamlet in Chapman's figure, but from a dramatic point of view the latter seems to exist only to retard the course of the action. K. shows that the episode in which Clermont was taken prisoner during a review, was related of Byron's friend, the Count D'Auvergne. To explain the difference between the poet's conception of Guise's character in the two parts of this play K. supposes that Chapman had in the interval been converted to the old religion. The same has been supposed of Shakespeare and of Massinger. The natural result of the extreme bigotry of the Puritans would be to cause the poets to look with less animosity than in former times on the ceremonies of the Catholics. Jonson we know was for some time a convert to the old religion. We have, however, no ground beyond the friendly, poetic, some times even enthusiastic mention of particular ceremonies or particular individuals on occasion, to support us in supposing Shakespeare, Massinger or Chapman to have been at heart Catholics. The contradiction between Bussy D'Ambois and the Tragedy however in so far as regards Guise is positively startling. Perhaps Chapman had a weakness for siding with those exposed to the hate and mockery of the world. We know that he continued faithful to Carr when it was no longer advantageous, or even safe to do so, and when all the former favourités other friends had shaken him off. To the Tragedy of Chabot K. has also been able to contribute something considerable. Pasquier's Recherches de la France was Chapman's principal source. Fleay divides the play between Chapman and Shirley with his usual infallibility. There can be no doubt that Chabot's figure belongs entirely to Chapman. He belongs to the same vainglorious, boasting, sometimes titanic natures as Bussy and Byron. The impression he makes on Koeppel is: „der stolze, selbstbewusste mann schreit im drama wie ein prahlerischer grobian, der jede dem fürsten schuldige rücksicht vergisst und ihm ein über das andere mal versichert, dass seine verdienste alle gnadenbeweise mehr als aufwögen." Just such a nature as Byron who says: "There is no danger to a man, that knows What life and death is: there's not any law, Exceeds his knowledge; neither is it lawful That he should stoop to any other law." (Shelley took these lines as a motto for his Revolt of Islam.) May-Day, The Widow's Tears offer little of interest. In speaking of the latter play Koeppel says: „Der hauptfehler des stückes, die widerliche mischung komischer und tragischer elemente, macht sich in diesem auftritt (vor dem sarge des gemahls) besonders unangenehm fühlbar." This mixture of comic and tragic elements was quite a new point of departure in the literature of the world and except Shakespeare, and in some places, Dekker, nobody as far as I know succeeded in seasoning it to the palates of our times. In Caesar and Pompey, except some passages in the first two acts, the poet follows Plutarch closely. The Ball has nothing of Chapman's style. It is probably quite Shirley's. On p. 70 K. regards Freshwater's giving a sum on condition of receiving five times the amount on his return from his travels as taken from Jonson's Puntarvolo. That is not necessary. The habit of investing (putting-out) money under such conditions was quite usual and is often mentioned. |