Review

Reviewed Work(s): Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy by F. T. Bowers

Review by: Una Ellis-Fermor
Source: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1941), pp. 258-260
Published by: Modern Humanities Research Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3716680
Accessed: 03-11-2019 17:11 UTC

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Modern Language Review

This content downloaded from 52.172.155.139 on Sun, 03 Nov 2019 17:11:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
258 Reviews

Bush
Bush does
doesnot
notmake
makesufficient
sufficient
allowance,
allowance,
confining
confining
his attention
his attention
mainly mainly
to
to the
thespecifically
specifically'Christian'
'Christian'
elements
elements
in humanism.
in humanism.
WithinWithin
these limits
these limits
his
his lectures
lecturesprovide
providea compact
a compactand and
serviceable
serviceable
study.study.
B. E. C. DAVIS.
LONDON.

Harington and Ariosto. A Study in Elizabethan Verse Translation. By

TOWNSEND RICH. New Haven: Yale University Press; London:
Humphrey Milford. 1940. vi +231 pp. 12s.
This dissertation, based upon material submitted for the Yale University
doctorate, makes good a serious lacuna in English scholarship. Though
we can scarcely endorse the writer's assertion that Harington's Orlando
Furioso 'proves as interesting and valuable a field of study as Spenser's
Faerie Queene', the career of Harington as courtier and writer together
with his achievement in this translation provide material of great
interest to all students of the period. Dr Rich examines the historical
background of Harington's translation, his critical preface and notes,
the Italian editions which he is likely to have used, his treatment of his
original and his poetic style. The tradition that the translation was made
at the command of Queen Elizabeth as a penance for previously trans-
lating the wanton tale of Giocondo (Orlando Furioso, xxviii) Dr Rioh
accepts mainly on the rather slender ground that in Harington's rendering
of this episode alliteration is less common than in the rest of his trans-
lation and that therefore it was translated earlier. While there are no
definite grounds for rejecting the tradition, the embellishments to the
plate illustrating Book xxviii in Harington's version coupled with his
notes and additions to the text of this Book show an unmistakable
intention of exaggerating rather than softening the wanton passages in
Ariosto; and as no offence appears to have been taken at the completed
translation it is difficult to see why the Queen should have shown such
scruple over the particular passage in question. Apart from this, however,
Harington's notes, additions and alterations throw much light upon his
tastes and prejudices, his misogyny (genuine or affected), his reading and
relations with contemporaries, his personality and wit. Dr Rich discusses
all these topics in detail, adding an estimate of Harington as poet and
translator. His dissertation can be recommended as a scholarly, readable
and well-documented study.
B. E. C. DAVIS.
LONDON.

Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy. By F. T. BOWERS. Princeton: University

Press; London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press. 1940.
ix+288 pp. 18s. 6d.
This book is a survey of the background, the origin, and the chrono-
logical development of the Tragedy of Revenge' from 1587 to 1642.
It opens with a clear and scholarly examination of the social and

This content downloaded from 52.172.155.139 on Sun, 03 Nov 2019 17:11:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reviews 259

psychological background of the English Revenge Plays. This part of

the book is a valuable contribution to our understanding of this branch
of the Elizabethan drama, for it sets before us what is too often over-
looked or misunderstood, the fact that the problem of private revenge
was still a live issue for the Elizabethan public. By means of a wealth of
quotation and reference to the works of contemporary lawyers, preachers
and commentators on the customs and mental processes of their own
times, Professor Bowers reveals to us a society midway between accept-
ance of private revenge as a right or moral duty and acceptance of the
state's complete responsibility for safeguarding the honour and rights
of its members. Thus the circumstances in which a man might justifiably
revenge himself, the means he might take and his moral (and to some
degree his legal) status were all questions upon which the popular
imagination was already at work. That the law and the pulpit were well
ahead, in this matter, of the popular sentiments, superstitions and pre-
judices goes without saying; the Revenge Play derived its immense
popularity and its long lease of life from the fact that it presented a
problem of conduct with which its audience was already familiar and
about which feeling was likely to run high. To grasp this is to approach
the Revenge Play not as a Senecan or Italian borrowing which for some
reason caught the minds of the Elizabethans, but as a sensational
dramatic presentation of something that was already an integral part
of the experience of that generation. To lose sight of this is to risk mis-
interpreting the nexus of moral, social, political and psychological pro-
blems in some of the major drama of this type. Professor Bowers has
earned our gratitude for insisting that we should bring to our study of this
part of the Elizabethan drama an imaginative understanding of the social
background such as we have long recognized to be necessary in the
parallel case of the Oresteia.
The author traces four phases in the history of the Revenge Play.
Kyd, who knew precisely how to draw upon Senecan and Italian
materials, was the undoubted originator of the type. Professor Bowers
gives an acute analysis of the technique of The Spanish Tragedy in
relation to its successors and a reconstruction of the hypothetical Ur-
Hamlet which is highly suggestive-even if the suggestion is sometimes
that of a palaeontologist reconstructing an entire diplodocus from one
back tooth. The tradition of Kyd, he considers, continued substantially
unaltered for about twenty years: up to and including the Revenger's
Tragedy in about 1607. After this he recognizes a second phase which he
calls 'The Reign of the Villain', in which the portrayal of horror took
precedence and 'vengeance for murder was no longer the emphasised
theme'. Certainly one would agree that a re-orientation to the theme of
revenge sets in in the English drama at about that date, but one hesitates
to accept some of the generalizations Professor Bowers makes in defining
this group. I for one do not accept the statement, 'Since the horror
itself is all-important, the reaction of the spirit is neglected' (p. 155),
17-2

This content downloaded from 52.172.155.139 on Sun, 03 Nov 2019 17:11:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 260 Reviews

when
when II find
find that
thatthe
thecategory
categoryit itcovers
covers
is about
is about
to include
to include
Women
Women
beware
beware
Women
Women andand The
TheWhite
WhiteDevil.
Devil.Some
Someamends
amends are,
are,
however,
however,
made
made
to Webster
to Webster
in the
the analysis
analysis(pp.
(pp.179-83)
179-83)ofofhis
hisplay
play
and
and
handsome
handsome amends
amendsto Middle-
to Middle-
ton
ton later
later (pp.
(pp.204-6)
204-6)when
whenThe
TheChangeling
Changeling is treated
is treated
as representative
as representative
of of
the
the third
third phase.
phase.This
Thisthird
thirdphase
phase is is
perhaps
perhaps
thethe
most
mostinteresting
interesting
partpart
of of
the
the Revenge
RevengePlay's
Play'shistory,
history,when
when thethe
reversal
reversalof of
sympathy
sympathy setssets
in. The
in. The
author
author calls
calls itit'The
'TheDisapproval
Disapprovalofof
Revenge';
Revenge';
it begins,
it begins,
as we
as we
would
would
expect,
expect, with
withthe
theoriginal
originalexploits
exploitsofof
Tourneur
Tourneur
in in
TheThe
Atheist's
Atheist's
Tragedy
Tragedy
and
and goes
goes on
on to
toinclude
includethe
thefinest
finest
work
work
of of
Middleton,
Middleton,
Massinger
Massinger
and and
Ford,
Ford,
where
where in
in one
oneway
wayor
oranother
anotherthe
the
motive
motive
of of
revenge
revenge
meets
meets
its final
its final
repudiation.
repudiation. AAchapter
chapterononthethefourth
fourth phase,
phase,
'The'The
Decadence
Decadenceof Revenge
of Revenge
Tragedy'
Tragedy' rounds
roundsoffoffthe
thestory
storyandanda 'Conclusion'
a 'Conclusion' sumssums
up the
up the
findings.
findings.
The
The book,
book, though
thoughthetheauthor
authorprefers
prefers notnot
to to
addadd
a bibliography,
a bibliography,is is
extremely
extremely well
welldocumented,
documented,especially
especially in in
thethe
first
first
twotwochapters.
chapters.
WhenWhen
Professor
Professor Bowers
Bowershas hasoccasion
occasiontotorefer
refer to to
thethe
critics
critics
whowhohavehave
preceded
preceded
him-(during
him-(duringthethelast
lastforty
fortyororfifty
fiftyyears)
years)in in
analysis
analysis
of the
of the
Elizabethan
Elizabethan
drama,
drama, he
he tends,
tends,perhaps,
perhaps,totodraw
drawupon
upon American
American scholarship,
scholarship,
criticism
criticism
and
and learned
learned publications
publicationssomewhat
somewhat totothethe
neglect
neglectof of
thethe
English.
English.
ThisThis
is unavoidable
unavoidableto
tosome
somedegree,
degree,except
except
in in
thethe
most
most
cosmopolitan
cosmopolitan
of of
societies;
societies; most
mostof ofususare
areguilty
guilty ofof
a certain
a certain
unawareness
unawarenessof the
of the
thought
thought
and
and critical
critical opinions
opinionsofofsome
someofof our
our
colleagues
colleagues
in in
other
othercountries.
countries.
But But
some
some ofof us
us in
inEngland
Englandowe owea adebt
debt
totoAmerican
Americanscholars
scholars
andand
thinkers,
thinkers,
many
many of of whom
whomare arealso
alsoour
ourfriends,
friends,and
and
would
would
notnot
willingly
willingly
see the
see the
Atlantic
Atlantic grow
growany
anybroader
broaderthan
thanit it
already
already
is. is.
In In
these
these
days,
days,
when
when
communication
communicationand andthe
theinterchange
interchange ofof
books
books
is likely
is likely
to be
to hindered,
be hindered,
this
this becomes
becomesaalive liveconcern.
concern.Scholarship,
Scholarship,whi6h
whi6hmust
must
be international
be internationalif if
it is
is to
to live,
live, recognizes
recognizesnone
noneofof
the
the
barriers
barriersthat
that
separate
separate
nations,
nations,
leastleast
of all
all those
those that
thatare
aremerely
merelygeographical,
geographical,andand
in in
respect
respect
of its
of inter-
its inter-
nationalism
nationalism ititmust
must'take
'takethe
theresponsibility
responsibility
of of
its its
power
power
andand
keepkeep
all its
all its
freedom'.
freedom'.
UNA ELLIS-FERMOR.
LONDON.

Induction to Tragedy. A Study in a Development of Form in Gorboduc,

The Spanish Tragedy and Titus Andronicus. By HOWARD BAKER.
University, La.: Louisiana State University Press. 1939. 247 pp.
$2.75.
In this study of the evolution of tragedy from Gorboduc to Titus
Andronicus Mr Baker maintains that 'the theory that Seneca was the
eminent influence on sixteenth-century writers of tragedy is a blighting
critical fiction'. He is led to this conclusion not by mere antipathy to
Seneca, but by the evidence of more likely alternative sources for alleged
Senecan features, and these he usually finds in works of medieval origin
or inspiration. His volume is, indeed, a significant contribution to the
writings of those present-day American critics whose recoil from the
theories expounded half a century ago in J. W. Cunliffe's The Influence

This content downloaded from 52.172.155.139 on Sun, 03 Nov 2019 17:11:02 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms