JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Review. http://www.jstor.org

more »

... This content downloaded from 188.72.96.157 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:52:24 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS OF SCHILLER'S 'ROBBERS.' ALTHOUGH we possess several studies of the influence of Schiller's Robbers on English literature', there exists as yet no trustworthy account of the English translations from which this influence proceeded2. This paper aims at remedying in some measure this defect. Tlie first notice of The Robbers having reached England was a muchquoted critical review by Henry Mackenzie (the famous author of the Man of Feeling) in a paper entitled 'Account of the German Theatre,' which he read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh on 21 April, 1788. Mackenzie, who knew no German, based his account on a French version by Friedel and De Bonneville which had appeared but shortly before in their collection of German plays, Le Thedtre A llemand, and was based on the stage version. In spite of these two serious drawbacks, Les Voleurs made a great impression on Mackenzie, who was attracted especially by the sublimity of the sentiment and the eloquence of the language3. His enthusiasm was sufficiently strong, in any case, to communicate itself to his audience, and soon afterwards a class was formed in Edinburgh, which included Walter Scott and a rising young lawyer, A. F. Tytler, with the definite object of studying the works of this newly discovered German literature. The first fruits of these studies was the translation of The Robbers which appeared four years after Mackenzie's paper by the said Alexander Fraser Tytler, who was later to obtain fame both as a judge and an historian as Lord Woodhouselee. In 1792 he published The Robbers, A Tragedy translated from the German of Frederick Schiller, London. 1 Cf. especially Margaret W. Cooke, Schiller's Robbers in England, in Modern Language Review, 1915, vol. xi, pp. 156 if. 2 Thomas Rea, Schiller's Dramas and Poems in England, London, 1906, In his all too cursory account of the English translations of The Robbers is both incomplete and inaccurate. He dismisses each in a few words, without any attempt to bring evidence for the blame he metes out so lavishly. Indeed, his judgment on The Robbers loses much of its force when we find him (p. 15) criticising William Taylor of Norwich adversely for making Karl Moor deliver himself up to a' poor officer,' which, of course, he does in the stage version! Cf. the reviews by F. W. C. Lieder in Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 1909, vm, p. 267; by A. Leitzmann in Euphorion, 1910, xvII, p. 705; and by Koster in Deutsche Literaturzeitung, Sept. 29,1906. Rea's chapter on The Robbers had appeared previously in Studien zur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte, 1905 (Erginzungsheft: Schiller), pp. 162 ff. 3 Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1790, vol. n, Part in, pp. 180 ff. The article was reprinted in several of the leading magazines of the day. This content downloaded from 188.72.96.157 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:52:24 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Translations and Adaptations of Schiller's 'Robbers' Robinsons. A second edition appeared in 1795, a third in 1797 and a fourth in 18001. The first three editions, as was the case with so many works of the day, also appeared in Dublin2; the fourth, pirated, at Perth in 1800'. The translation was prefaced by an 'Advertisement' concerning the 'Author of the Tragedy, Mr. Schiller,' and a 'Preface by the Translator' with a critical appreciation of'this most extraordinary production,' very largely based on the above mentioned paper of Mackenzie's. From the second edition onwards the translation claims to have been 'corrected and improved.' A brief comparison of the texts bears out this statement, although the revision was neither very thorough nor complete4. It is noteworthy, however, that the information in the second edition concerning Schiller is much fuller: besides Fiesco and Cabal and Love, the translator now knows of the Ghost-Seer, 'written with the view of exposing to contempt and detestation the artifices of those impostors in Germany, who distinguished themselves, and their disciples, or dupes, by the epithet of The Illuminated.' But in the fourth edition he is still uncertain whether Don Carlos 'is finished or not,' although in the third he had definitely stated that it was. The chief interest of the fourth over the previous editions (it bears on the title-page the assertion 'the original translation') are two additions, one from the Publishers, warning the Reader against the pretended new translation of Render, who they aver (and rightly too, as we shall see): servilely copied the work of another, in every paragraph, and in every line, (veiling his theft only by the thin disguise of transposing the order of the words, here and there exchanging one word for another synonymous, and often substituting nonsense for sense). He wishes earnestly, therefore, that he had left undone what he has done: as that man would wish, who had given wine to his friend, who in the frenzy of intoxication had committed murder.-But still; it is some alleviation of this unavailing regret, that he cannot, upon the strictest revision of this particular piece, and the most attentive consideration of its scope and tendency, judge it in any degree subversive either of Religion or of Morality....If the German Theatre had inculcated no lessons of morality more faulty, no pictures more corrupting than those of the Tragedy of the Robbers, its Translator should have no cause at this day to lament that any labour of his should have promoted the taste for its productions. As is evident from these numerous editions its success was very great and, to a large extent, deserved. It was reviewed at considerable length by two of the most important journals of the day. The article in The Monthly Review' consists mainly of copious quotations from the Preface and the play itself, and even reproduces several scenes in extenso. The critic, whoever he was, does not inspire great confidence: The reader will see, from the passages which we have extracted, that the poet possesses the means of exciting both our pity and our fears; his tender scenes we always read with pleasure, but his scenes of terror are too horrible; and his frequent and solemn appeals to the Almighty, his shocking imprecations, and the curses which, as commissioned from the Deity, he denounces, make us shudder with dread instead of inspiring us with awe. The Critical Review2, on the other hand, takes its task much more seriously. Not only are we treated with an historical sketch of the development of the German drama, but parallels, fairly obvious, it is true, are drawn with Shakespeare or Ossian, whilst in the appreciation of the characters, or in the discussion of the plot, our reviewer shows sound common sense: Terror, without doubt, is the most striking feature in this drama, but many scenes are exquisitely pathetic. To the defects of the performance we are not insensible. The scenes of horror are sometimes too diffuse, too sedulously laboured, and often so highly improbable, that our minds will not assent to the delusion. They revolt particularly, at the idea of the amiable and noble-spirited Amelia falling in love with Charles, on the supposition of his being another person. That Francis rather than Amelia should discover him through his disguise...is highly incredible. It is still more improbable if we consider that she had not only been informed that Charles, long supposed to be dead, still lived and loved her, and that he himself had intimated to her who he really was, in the most obvious manner.... The translation is not so carefully executed as we could have wished, and the tragedy deserved. It is not in general defective in spirit and energy, but too often so in elegance and purity of diction. Still another notice appeared in the Norwich revolutionary magazine The Cabinet3 entitled Desultory Observations on The Robbers. The article was by William Taylor and was used later for the account in the Survey: It would not be doing justice to the translator, were we not to acknowledge the spirit he has displayed and the energy he has exerted; some few inaccuracies may be 1 153. Only three numbers of the magazine ever appeared. 1 The translation was noticed also in Germany by the Gothaische Gelehrte Zeitungen, Auslindische Literatur, 1793, 1. Mai as follows: ' Die mildern sanftern Ziige des Originals finden allgemein Beyfall; aber die Scenen des Schreckens, der Furcht, der Verzweifelung u.s.w. sind fur den Englander zu schauderhaft.' The' Nee Bibliothek der Schtnen Wissenschaften und derfreyen KiUnste, Leipzig, 1793, 50. Band, 1. St., p. 358 quotes largely from Tytler's Introduction and describes the work as 'eine treue und sch6ne Uebersetzung der Schillerschen Riuber.' Both reviews quoted by J. W. Braun, Schiller und Goethe im Urtheile ihrer Zeitgenossen, Leipzig, 1882, vol. i, pp. 382, 395. 2 The edition used by Tytler was, so he tells us, that 'printed at Manheim, by C. F. Schwan and G. C. Goetz, 1786,' containing The Robbers, Fiesco and Cabal and Love in one volume. See 'Advertisement,' p. vi. Goedeke does not record such an edition either in the Grundriss, v, 163, or in the Werke, ii, 207. Can 1786 be a mistake for 1788? 3 I have counted no less than seventy-five instances, in which the translator comes more or less to grief. 4 In the following a, b, c, d stand respectively for the first, second, third and fourth edition. P. 86 the steeple: der Turm (i.e. der Pulverturm); p. 6 the spirit of fire: der feurige Geist (i.e. ardent spirit); p. 18 ungenerous: unmenschlich; p. 197 handcuffed: Ketten schleifend. 5 P. 3 live then for me! : so lebt wohl! (omitted b, c, d); p. 3 My son, you wish to spare this grey head: du ersparst mir die Kriicke (It is enough-Stop there my son, b, c, d); p. 45 drinks of my heart's blood: mir zutrinkt; p. 49 by this man's right hand: bei dieser mannlichen Rechte; p. 92 wherever the main force is: fechten im Gedrange; p. 148 Can there be love beneath a garb like that ?: Liebt denn unter diesem Himmelsstrich jemand?; p. 166 a murmuring noise, like those who groan in sleep: als hort ich ein Schnarchen; p. 218 with a woman's breath: beim Todesrocheln eines Weibes. 6 P. 35 the rest keep silence for awhile and look at each other: Alle fahren auf; p. 49 walks aside dissatisfied: geht wuthend auf und nieder; p. 73 coming back: zuriickrufend; p. 81 quite breathless: in Athem. 7 P. 73 hin und her taumelnd bis sie hinsinkt; p. 74 wiitet wider sich selber. 8 p. 75 he sinks down: voll Verzweiflung hin und her geworfen im Sessel. P. 108 pointing to the sun. 10 P. 3 he relegates the German to a foot-note, and again, p. 170, he confesses: ' Das heiBt, ein todter Hund liegt in meiner Vater Gruft.' A dead dog lies in my father's tomb. An expression of which the Translator does not see the force and therefore has omitted it. (Amended, however, in b, c, d to: 'but in my room they laid a dog within my father's sepulchre.') 1 P. 60 und in dem Eingeweid ihres Schitzen wuten; p. 97 und den traurenden Patrioten von seiner Thure stieB; p. 112 traure mit mir Natur!; p. 216 voriiber an all den Zauberhunden meines Feindes Verhangnis. 12 P. 95 Shall I cut his throat?: Soil ich hingehen, und diesem abgerichteten Schaferhund die Gurgel zusammenschniiren, daB ihm der rote Saft aus allen Schweiflochern sprudelt?; p. 105 like the hound of hell: gleich dem verzauberten Hunde, der auf unterirdischen Goldkasten liegt.