[233] The unfortunate cacophony of the opening is the retribution on the translator for not having the courage to begin with a hypermetrical line.
[234] Later translations of the _Aminta_ may be mentioned: John Oldmixon, 1698; P. B. Du Bois, in prose, with Italian, 1726; William Ayre [1737]; Percival Stockdale, 1770; and, lastly, the very graceful rendering by Leigh Hunt, 1820. As lately as 1900 a gentleman who need not be named had the impertinence to publish, in an American series, a mediocre version of the _Aminta_ as being "Now first rendered into English." I may mention that some confusion has been introduced into the question of the date of Du Bois" translation by the wholly unwarranted opinion on the part of the B. M. catalogue that the second (undated) edition appeared _c._ 1650. I have compared the two editions at the Bodleian, and have no doubt that the second belongs to _c._ 1730.
[235] The facts are as follow. The entry on the Stationers" Register is dated September 16, 1601, and does not mention the translator"s name. The first edition, quarto, 1602, contains a sonnet by Daniel, addressed to Sir Edward Dymocke, in which he refers to the translator as the knight"s "kinde Countryman." This is followed by "A Sonnet of the Translator, dedicated to that honourable Knight his kinsman, Syr Edward Dymock." After this comes an epistle dedicatory addressed to Sir Edward, and signed by Simon Waterson, the publisher, dated "London this last of December. 1601."
In it the writer speaks of Sir Edward"s "nearenesse of kinne to the deceased Translator." The play was reprinted in 1633, in 12mo, with an epistle dedicatory by John Waterson to "Charles Dymock, Esquire,"
beginning: "That it may appeare unto the world, that you are Heire of what ever else was your Fathers, as well as of his vertues, I heere restore what formerly his gracious acceptance made onely his: Which as a testimonie to all, that it received Life from none but him, was content to loose its being with us, since he ceased to bee." Through the hyperbolical ambiguity of this pa.s.sage it clearly appears that Charles was Sir Edward"s son, but not in the least that he was the translator as has been supposed, still less that he was the son of the translator, as has also been suggested. The play is first mentioned in the second edition (1782) of the _Biographia Dramatica_, where the translator is said to be a "Mr. Dymock,"
and Charles is identified as his son. This was copied in the 1812 edition, and also by Halliwell, while Mr. Hazlitt has the astonishing statement that the version was by "Charles Dymock and a second person unknown." The _Dic. Nat. Biog._ does not recognize any of the persons concerned. There is, however, one curious piece of evidence which has been so far overlooked. In the list of plays, namely, appended by the publisher Edward Archer to his edition of the _Old Law_ in 1656, occurs the entry: "Faithfull Shepheardesse. C[omedy]. John Dymmocke." The compiler has of course confused the translation with Fletcher"s play, but the ascription is nevertheless interesting. If we insist on identifying the translator at all, it must be with this John Dymocke. The entries in Archer"s list, however, are far too untrustworthy for their unsupported evidence to carry much weight. A translation "by D. D. Gent. 12mo. 1633," recorded by Halliwell and others, is evidently due to a series of blunders on the part of bibliographers, though what the origin of the initials is I have been unable to discover. They are probably due to c.o.xeter.
[236] MS. Addit. 29,493.
[237] I understand that an edition of Fanshawe"s works is in preparation for Mr. Bullen.
[238] Later translations of the _Pastor fido_ appeared in 1782 [by William Grove], and in 1809 [by William Clapperton?].
[239] MS. Ff. ii. 9.
[240] The allusion, which has. .h.i.therto escaped notice, will be found quoted below, p. 252 note.
[241] In this note the _Pastor fido_ is said to have been "Translated by some Author before this," but the context makes it evident that "some" is a misprint for "the same."
[242] It might be objected that J. S. is called "Gent," while Sidnam is termed esquire; but it should be remarked that in the MS. the "Esq;" has been added in a later hand.
[243] MS. Sloane 836, folio 76^{v}.
[244] MS. Sloane 857, folio 195^{v}.
[245] MS. Addit. 12,128. Another MS. in the Bodleian.
[246] No doubt the Samuel Brooke who became Master in 1629. He was the brother of the Christopher Brooke who appears in Wither"s eclogues under the pastoral name of Cuddie. Cf. p. 116.
[247] There is something wrong with this date. The princes were at Cambridge 2-4 March, 1612-13. (See Nichols" _James I_, iii. (iv.) p.
1086-7. The date "March 6" in ii. p. 607 is an error.) Probably "Martij 30," which appears in the University Library MS., as well as in several MSS. at Trinity, is a slip of the transcriber for "Martij 3," which would set both day and year right. Nichols, indeed, gives the date as "Martii 3," but he refers to the Emmanuel MS., which, like the others, reads "30."
[248] MS. Ee. 5. 16.
[249] An anonymous writer in B. M. MS. Harl. 7044, quoted by Nichols (_James I_, i. p. 553), has the following description: "_Veneris_, 30 _Augusti_ [1605]. There was an English play acted in the same place before the Queen and young Prince, with all the Ladies and Gallants attending the Court. It was penned by Mr. Daniel, and drawn out of Fidus Pastor, which was sometimes acted by King"s College men in Cambridge. I was not there present, but by report it was well acted and greatly applauded. It was named "Arcadia Reformed."" This has led Fleay into a strange error. "_The Queen"s Arcadia_" he says _(Biog. Chron._ i. p. 110), "although it is not known to have been acted till 1605, Aug. 30, had been prepared earlier (and perhaps acted at Herbert"s marriage, 1604, Dec. 27), for it is called "_Arcadia, reformed_."" Of course the allusion is to the reformation of Arcadia, not the revision of the play. The play was printed the following year.
[250] For further details concerning the occasion of this piece, as also for information on the state of the text, I may refer to an article of mine in the _Modern Language Quarterly_ for August, 1903, vi. p. 59. The first edition appeared in 1615.
[251] Grosart"s edition, printed, not always very correctly, from the collected works of 1623, offers too unsatisfactory a text for quotation. I have therefore quoted from the edition of 1623 itself, corrected, where necessary, by the separate editions, and, in the case of _Hymen"s Triumph_, by Drummond"s MS.
[252] Dramatic prologues occur in some of the later Italian pastorals (see p. 185, note). That to _Hymen"s Triumph_ recalls the dialogue between Comedy and Envy prefixed to _Mucedorus_.
[253] Alexis is one of those characters whose appearance, while not essential to the plot, lends life to the romantic drama, and whose conspicuous absence in the neo-cla.s.sic type is ill compensated by the prodigal introduction of superfluous confidants.
[254] It is just possible that Daniel took a hint for this episode from d.i.c.kenson"s romance, _Arisbas_ (1594), meutioned above, p. 147.
[255] The similarity between Silvia and Shakespeare"s Viola and Beaumont"s Euphrasia-Bellario is too obvious to need comment. It may, however, be remarked that in Noci"s _Cintia_ (1594) the heroine returns home disguised as a boy, to find her lover courting another nymph. See p. 212.
[256] This narrative has been much admired, notably by Lamb and Coleridge, critics from whom it is not good to differ; but I must nevertheless confess that, to my taste, Daniel"s sentiment, here as elsewhere, is inclined to verge upon the fulsome and the ludicrous.
[257] It is evident that this pompous inflation of style damaged the piece upon the stage, for on Feb. 10, 1613-4, John Chamberlain, writing to Sir Dudley Carleton, described the performance as "solemn and dull."
[258] The corresponding pa.s.sage in the _Aminta_ (I. ii.) is marred by a series of rather artificial conceits.
[259] Architecture or building. A very rare use not recognized by the New English Dictionary, though it is also found in Browne"s _Britannia"s Pastorals_ (I. iv. 405):
To find an house ybuilt for holy deed, With goodly architect, and cloisters wide.
[260] Guarini had already called dreams (_Pastor fido_, I. iv):
Immagini del d, guaste e corrotte Dall" ombre della notte.
[261] Saintsbury, in his _Elizabethan Literature_, insists, not unnaturally, on Daniel"s lack of strength. Upon this Grosart commented in his edition (iv. p. xliv.): "This seems to me exceptionally uncritical....
One special quality of Samuel Daniel is the inevitableness with which he rises when any "strong" appeal is made to ... his imagination." The partiality of an editor could surely go no further.
[262] The prodigality of _Oh"s_ and _Ah"s_ is an obvious characteristic of his verse, which may possibly have been in Jonson"s mind when, in the prologue to the _Sad Shepherd_, he wrote:
But that no stile for Pastorall should goe Current, but what is stamp"d with _Ah_, and _O_; Who judgeth so, may singularly erre.
[263] This could hardly be maintained as literally true were we to include the Latin plays of the Universities. Of these, however, I propose to take merely incidental notice. In no case do they appear to be of considerable importance, and they are, as a rule, only preserved in MSS. which are often difficult of access. I may here mention one which reached the distinction of print, and is of a more regularly Italian structure than most. The t.i.tle-page reads: "Melanthe Fabula pastoralis acta c.u.m Iacobus Magnae Brit. Franc. & Hiberniae Rex, Cantabrigiam suam nuper inviseret, ibidemq; Musarum, atque eius animi gratia dies quinque Commoraretur.
Egerunt alumni Coll. San. et Individuae Trinitatis. Cantabrigiae.
Excudebat Cantrellus Legge. Mart. 27. 1615." The play was acted, according to the invaluable John Chamberlain, on March 10, 1614-5, and appears to have made a very favourable impression. It belongs to the series of entertainments which included the representation of _Alb.u.mazar_, and was to have included that of Phineas Fletcher"s _Sicelides_, had the king remained another night. The author of _Melanthe_ is said to have been "Mr.
Brookes," probably the Dr. Samuel Brooke who had produced the already-mentioned translation of Bonarelli"s _Filli di Sciro_ two years before. See Nichols" _Progresses of James I_, iii. p. 55.
[264] Fleay considers the _Faithful Shepherdess_ a joint production of Beaumont and Fletcher. The only external evidence in favour of this theory is a remark of Jonson"s reported by Drummond: "Flesher and Beaumont, ten yeers since, hath [_sic_] written the Faithfull Shipheardesse, a Tragicomedie, well done." Considering that the same authority makes Jonson ascribe the _Inner Temple Masque_ to Fletcher, his statement as to the _Faithful Shepherdess_ cannot be allowed much weight, while I hardly think that the fact of Beaumont having prefixed commendatory verses to Fletcher in the original edition can be set aside as lightly as Fleay appears to think. He relies chiefly upon internal evidence, but in his _Biographical Chronicle_, at any rate, does not venture upon a detailed division. For myself, I can only discover one hand in the play, and that hand Fletcher"s. Fleay places the date of representation before July, 1608, on account of an outbreak of the plague lasting from then to Nov. 1609, but A. H. Thorndike (_The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakspere_, Worcester, Ma.s.s., 1901, p. 14) has shown good reason for believing that dramatic performances were much less interfered with by the plague than Fleay imagined.
[265] Most of these, it may be remarked, as well as the character of Thenot and the unconventional role of the satyr, find parallels in the earlier stages of the Italian pastoral. The transformation-well recalls the enchanted lake of the _Sacrifizio_; the introduction of a supernatural agent in the plot reminds us of the same play, as well as of Epicuro"s _Mirzia_; the friendly satyr, of this latter, which may be, in its turn, indebted to the revised version of the _Orfeo_; the character of Thenot is antic.i.p.ated in the _Sfortunato_. I give the resemblances for what they are worth, which is perhaps not much; it is unlikely that Fletcher should have been acquainted with any of the plays in question, though of course not impossible. The magic taper appears to be a native superst.i.tion, a survival of the ordeal by fire.
[266] Certain critics have suggested that the _Pastor fido_ might more appropriately have borne the t.i.tle of Fletcher"s play. This is absurd, since it would mean giving the t.i.tle-role to the wholly secondary Dorinda.
Perhaps they failed to perceive that Mirtillo and not Silvio is the hero.
With Fletcher"s play the case stands otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to show whether the t.i.tle refers to the presiding genius of the piece, Clorin, faithful to the memory of the dead, or to the central character, Amoret, faithful in spite of himself to her beloved Perigot. I incline to believe that it is the latter that is the "faithful shepherdess," since it might be contended that, in the conventional language of pastoral, Clorin would be more properly described as the "constant shepherdess." (Cf. II. ii. 130.)
[267] See Homer Smith"s paper on _Pastoral Influence in the English Drama_. His theory concerning the _Faithful Shepherdess_ will be found on p. 407. Whatever plausibility there may be in the general idea, the detailed application there put forward would appear to be a singular instance of misapplied ingenuity in pursuance of a preconceived idea.
[268] "Poems" [1619], p. 433. Compare Boccaccio"s account of pastoral poetry already quoted, p. 18, note.
[269] One fault, which even the beauty of the verse fails to conceal, is the introduction of all sorts of stilted and otiose allusions to sheepcraft, which only serve to render yet more apparent the inherent absurdity of the artificial pastoral. These Ta.s.so and Guarini had had the good taste to avoid, but we have already had occasion to notice them in the case of Bonarelli. Daniel is likewise open to censure on this score.
[270] I quote, of course, from Dyce"s text, but have for convenience added the line numbers from F. W. Moorman"s edition in the "Temple Dramatists."
[271] The officious critic must be forgiven for remarking that the satyr is not, as might be supposed from this speech, suddenly tamed by Clorin"s beauty and virtue, but shows himself throughout as of a naturally gentle disposition. Consequently Clorin"s argument that it is the mysterious power of virginity that has guarded her from attack and subdued his savage nature appears a little fatuous.
[272] Specifically from "wanton quick desires" and "l.u.s.tful heat." One is almost tempted to imagine that the author is laughing in his sleeve when we discover of what little avail the solemn ceremony has been.