considérable' (Chamberlayne, II, p. 105). We can see what appealed to Hugo, the arm, the name Wapentake, the touching of the iron, and how he made a new creation out of the elements provided by Chamberlayne.

Chamberlayne describes (II, pp. 108-9), as does Victor Hugo, the sheriff of a province (Coyer gives more details in his Nouvelles Observations sur l'Angleterre); he differs from Hugo in his explanation of a 'justicier-quorum' (Chamberlayne, II, p. 102), but attaches the same meaning to 'sous-shériff.'

Chamberlayne in speaking of the Armada (II, p. 120) and again of the army (II, p. 174) explains what 'train-bands' are. Hugo uses this as matter for one of the bills, brought before the House of Lords when Gwynplaine sat among the peers.

For no apparent reason, Hugo mentions the laws of Rhodes et d'Oléron' when discoursing on English law; the paragraph is one of those added to the original manuscript. Something in this English interference in a French island must have struck Hugo as he read of these laws in Chamberlayne (II, p. 102), or it may have been that the name Rhodes et Oléron '-pleased him by its sonority. Neither can we understand why Hugo speaks of the three P's 'sine Prece, sine Pretio, sine Poculo,' unless again it be that it pleased his fancy, as it stood in Chamberlayne (1, p. 49).

These are the facts which Hugo. borrowed from Chamberlayne's État Présent de l'Angleterre. Once or twice, Hugo quotes Chamberlayne as his authority, as he does in the case of Beeverell; but little do we realise in reading The Laughing Man how many the footnotes would be if Hugo acknowledged his whole debt! It is interesting to note how little, in one sense, Hugo's matter meant to him, and how great was his power of utilising whatever matter came into his hands. Think of the work, rather of the hard labour, that Flaubert would have gone through had he undertaken the reconstruction of early eighteenth century England! What scruples would he not have had! What documents would he not have examined! What accuracy in all his facts! What relevancy in all his descriptions, and fidelity in every detail! But the literary conscientiousness which was the principle behind all that Flaubert wrote and which in the end made his literary work real torture to him, was unknown to Hugo. He took what he found, as he found it; he did not examine the accuracy of its form; he took no trouble to reproduce it in the form in which it came to him. He cared not so much for accuracy as for an outward appearance of accuracy, not so much for reality as for its outward appearance; he did

not search far and wide that he might reconstruct England as it was; but he took what matter lay at his hand, and with that matter he reconstructed England from the facts which his imagination had to work upon; and this reconstruction of England according to the curious laws of his imagination left him free to expound his democratic ideas, his political theories, and the principles of his social philosophy.

And so perhaps we understand why Victor Hugo borrowed so largely from two books as little known, as unscientific, as old-fashioned and out-of-date as the Délices de la Grande Bretagne of Beeverell and the État Présent de l'Angleterre of Chamberlayne.

CHRISTINA M. MACLEAN.

ENGLEFIELD GREEN.

NOTES ON LESSING'S

BEYTRÄGE ZUR HISTORIE

UND AUFNAHME DES THEATERS.'

LESSING's first dramaturgic periodical is comparatively rare and has apparently not found its way to any of our English libraries. I have to thank the authorities of the University Library in Berlin for kindly placing their copy at my disposal for a few weeks.

It consists of four parts which form an octavo volume, measuring seven inches by a little over four, and containing 24 +606 + 7 pages, 'Vorrede' and 'Register' being unpaged. The title-page of the first 'Stück' is 'Beyträge zur | Historie und Aufnahme des | Theaters. [Vignette] | Erstes Stück. | Stuttgard, | bey Johann Benedict Metzler, 1750. The contents are as follows:

Erstes Stück: Vorrede (22 unnumbered pages). i. Versuch eines Beweises, dass die Schauspielkunst eine freye Kunst sey, pp. 1-13. ii. Abhandlung von dem Leben, und den Werken des Marcus Accius Plautus, pp. 14—52. iii. Abhandlung von dem Nutzen und den Theilen des dramatischen Gedichts. Aus dem Französischen des Peter Corneille übersetzt, pp. 53-95. iv. Des Herrn von Voltaire Gedanken über die Trauer- und Lustspiele der Engländer, aus seinen Briefen über die Engländer übersetzt, pp. 96-109. v. Theatralische Neuigkeiten aus Paris, pp. 110-122. vi. Nachricht von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande des Theaters in Berlin, pp. 123-136.

Zweytes Stück: i. Die Gefangnen, ein Lustspiel. Aus dem Lateinischen des M. Accius Plautus übersetzt, pp. 139–210. ii. Die zweyte Abhandlung des Peter Corneille, von den Trauerspielen insbesondre, und von den Mitteln, sie nach der Wahrscheinlichkeit und Nothwendigkeit auszuführen. Aus dem Französischen übersetzt, pp. 211–265. iii. Untersuchung, ob man in Lustspielen die Charaktere übertreiben solle? pp. 266-272. iv. Nachricht von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande des Theaters in Dresden, pp. 273-282. v. Fortgesetzte Nachricht von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande des Theaters in

Berlin, pp. 283-286. vi. Theatralische Neuigkeiten aus Paris, pp. 287-293.

Drittes Stück: i. Clitia, ein Lustspiel in fünf Aufzügen. Aus dem Italienischen des Nicolaus Machiavell übersetzt, pp. 297-368. ii. Critik über die Gefangnen des Plautus, pp. 369-435.

iii. Nach

richt von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande des Theaters in Paris, pp. 436-468. iv. Samuel Werenfels Rede zu Vertheidigung der Schauspiele. Aus dem Lateinischen ins Deutsche übersetzt, und mit einigen Anmerkungen begleitet von M. Immanuel Friedr. Gregorius, aus Camenz, pp. 469-476.

Viertes Stück: i. Die Schauspielkunst, an die Madame *** durch den Herrn Franciscus Riccoboni, den jüngern. Aus dem Französischen übersetzt, pp. 481-544. ii. Die dritte Abhandlung des Peter Corneille, von den drey Einheiten, der Handlung, der Zeit, und des Orts, pp. 545-572. iii. Beschluss der Critik über die Gefangnen des Plautus, pp. 573-591. iv. Nachricht von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande des Theaters in Stutgard, pp. 592-595. v. Nachricht von einem in Freyberg aufgeführten Schulschauspiele, pp. 596-606. Followed by table of Contents and Register,' 7 pages (unpaged).

The only contemporary notices of the periodical mentioned by Goedeke are from the Critische Nachrichten aus dem Reiche der Gelehrsamkeit, 1750, No. 6, pp. 55 f.; No. 8, p. 72; No. 40, pp. 387 f1, but there were also notices in J. C. C. Oelrichs' Berlinische Bibliothek2, published by C. F. Voss. The Beyträge was edited anonymously, and there is no indication in the journal as to who were the writers responsible for the individual articles.

When, in 1754, Lessing replaced the defunct Beyträge with the Theatralische Bibliothek, he wrote of the former:

Von mir nehmlich schrieb sich nicht nur der gantze Plan jener periodischen Schrift her, so wie er in der Vorrede entworfen wird; sondern auch der grösste Theil der darinn enthaltenen Aufsätze ist aus meiner Feder geflossen. Ja ich kann sagen, dass die fernere Fortsetzung nur dadurch wegfiel, weil ich länger keinen Theil daran nehmen wollte. Zu diesem Entschluss brachten mich, Thiels verschiedene allzukühne und bittere Beurtheilungen, welche einer von meinen Mitarbeitern einrückte; Theils einige kleine Fehler, die von Seiten seiner gemacht wurden, und die nothwendig dem Leser von den Verfassern überhaupt einen schlechten Begrif beybringen mussten.

1 Grundriss, Iг3, p. 359.

2 Band Iv, St. i (1750), pp. 137-139: Daselbst [in Stuttgart] ist bey Joh. Bened. Metzler mit dem Anfang dieses Jahres eine periodische Schrift herausgekommen, welche folgenden Titul führet: Beyträge zur Historie und Aufnahme des Theaters. Erstes Stück. Wir haben gegenwärtig nicht nöthig, von dieser Schrift eine weitläuftige Nachricht zu geben, da solche schon bekannt genung ist, und mit vielem Beyfall aufgenommen worden. Die Abhandlungen sind ausgesucht. Der Inhalt ist dieser :...' And in the sixth 'Stück (pp. 823 ff.) the remaining parts of the Beyträge are noticed.

And he instances, as an example, the statement about the Italian drama in the introduction to a translation of Macchiavelli's Clitia1.

This 'Mitarbeiter,' whose name Lessing does not mention, was Christlob Mylius, who had died shortly before-March 7, 1754—in England. There is no doubt, that, whoever else may have made up the 'Gesellschaft,' Lessing and Mylius had the chief share in the Beyträge; they were 'die Verfasser' who signed the Vorrede.'

With regard to the authorship of the individual items, the 'Abhandlung' on Plautus and the translation of Die Gefangnen are by Lessing. This has never been questioned. The editorial notes to the 'Critik über die Gefangnen des Plautus' and the criticism of that 'Critik' in the third and fourth parts are obviously by the translator of the Gefangnen; and in a letter to his father', Lessing claimed the authorship of the review of Gregorius's translation of Werenfels. On the other side, we may, on Lessing's own authority, attribute to Mylius the translation of Macchiavelli's Clitia and the 'Untersuchung, ob man in Lustspielen die Charaktere übertreiben solle"'; and the opening article, 'Versuch eines Beweises, etc.' was also doubtless by him.

As far as direct evidence goes, this, however, is the most that can be said with certainty. The present opinion with regard to Lessing's share in the periodical depends, in the first instance, on a categorical statement by Karl Lessing in the Preface to Part xxii of the first collected edition of Lessing's works (1794)'. 'Das meiste darin,' he says of the Beyträge, 'sind Uebersetzungen, Theils aus dem Französischen, Theils aus dem Italiänischen. Diese könnten aber, und wenn es auch

1 Schriften (my references are throughout to the Lachmann-Muncker edition), vi, pp. 3 f. 2 Cp. E. Consentius in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, LII (1906), pp. 545 ff., and E. Thyssen's dissertation, Christlob Mylius, sein Leben und Wirken (Teildruck), Marburg, 1912.

3Er sammelte,' said C. H. Schmid, Chronologie des deutschen Theaters, 1775, p. 152 (ed. P. Legband, Berlin, 1902, p. 97), in Gesellschaft von Mylius, die Beyträge zur Aufnahme und Historie des Theaters, welche zu Stutgard herauskamen...' In the Historia Myliana (by J. C. Mylius, Jena, 1751, quoted by Danzel, Lessing, 1, pp. 177 f.), it is stated that he wrote 'quasdam tractationes [in the Beyträge], de quo scripto 4 partes anno 1750 et 1751 Stuttgardiae in 8 prodierunt.'

Die Gefangnen, ein Lustspiel. Aus dem Lateinischen des M. Accius Plautus übersetzt, was published separately by Metzler, Stuttgart, 1750. 72 pp. 8vo. (Goedeke, l.c., and Muncker, Iv, p. xi.) It was also reprinted, after Lessing's death, in M. Accius Plautus, Lustspiele. Aus dem Lateinischen übersetzt. Mit einer Vorrede von C. S. Mylius. Berlin, 1784 (Goedeke).

5 November 2, 1750 (Schriften, xvII, p. 23).

I.

6 Preface to Theatralische Bibliothek and note to first article in that journal (Schriften, VI, pp. 3 f., 47; also Vorrede' to Mylius's Vermischte Schriften (Schriften, vi, p. 405). Jördens, Lexikon, ш (1808), p. 774, claims for Mylius unter andern' the three items mentioned above.

7 Page iii. Cp. Danzel, l.c.

M. L. R. VIII.

33