« AnteriorContinuar »
the party broken up.* To some period not long subsequent might have been referred the composition of the Canzone.
Still, notwithstanding the positive assertion of the transcriber of the ancient MS., and the acquiescence of the compiler of the Harleian Catalogue,-notwithstanding the intrinsic merit of the composition, and its occasional approximation to the Dantesque style, however true it may be of its author, that he too
“ Was tutor'd into Poesy by wrong,
And learnt in suffering what he taught in song, "the Canzone, nevertheless, is not the composition of him who has been aptly termed by an elegant writer of our own day,
“Dell 'ira gran maëstro e del sorriso." It proceeded, however, from a contemporary of Dante, the Siennese, Bindo Bonichi, very few of whose productions have been printed—and those few, it is believed, are now rarely met with. His name is as little known; it is not to be found iu the “Bibliothèque Universelle," in Corniani, nor, it is believed, in Tiraboschi. His printed poems comprise thirteen Sonnets and five Canzoni: all the former, and three of the latter, are included in the “ Raccolta de' Poeti Antichi,” published by the Cardinal Allacci at Naples, A.D. 1661, from MSS. in the libraries of the Vatican and the Barberini family. They had all of them been previously subjected to the careful consideration of various literati and learned Academies of the day. The MSS. were found to be written in the character of the age in which the different writers lived.
The Canzone in question had been previously published by Ubaldini in a volume containing some poems of Petrarch, and the “ Tesoretto of Brunetto Latini.
Both the printed copies differ from the Harleian MS. in dialect, in particular words-nay, sometimes in whole sentences. Allacci gives the poem in the Lombard, Ubaldini in the purer, the Harleian Ms. in the coarser, dialect of Tuscany: still, in several instances, where there is a material discrepancy in the sense, the latter seems the preferable text.
Bindo Bonichi was buried in Sienna, A.D. 1337: some particulars respecting him are said to have been preserved by the earlier annotators on the “ Decameron.” As to the merits of his writings, Ubaldini regards them as evincing a true vein of poetical feeling, as characterized by a nobility of thought; and concludes by remarking, that had Bonichi been as distinguished by propriety of diction as of sentiment, he would certainly be entitled to take his place not far from Petrarch. His Sonnets have, it is said, sustained less injury from the transcribers than his Canzoni, all of which have the same metrical arrangement,
-one, as has been already observed, not very much used.
* Opere, tom. V). p. 702, in note. Florence ed. 1830—41.
Art. XI.- Ancient Letter relative to the Accession of Queen Mary to
the Crown of England.
The succession of Mary, daughter of Henry VIII., to the throne of England was, as we all know, vigorously contested. She was, however, at last acknowledged as the legitimate sovereign, and made her triumphant entry into London.
Every fresh document which serves to elucidate the events of that period must be of great interest. We have great pleasure in laying before the readers of the Foreign and Colonial, a literal translation of an original letter, lately found in the records of Flanders, and written from London to one of his friends at Bruges, by a person sent to England, and who was an eye witness of the passing events. This letter contains some particulars not to be found in our historians. MY DEAR FRIEND,
“Praised be the Lord, for having delivered the good Lady Mary from the hands of tyrants, more cruel than Holofernes. Now the danger is passed, we may write freely and give you some account of our journey, which is rather curious.
“Having arrived in London on the fourth of July, at the house of the Ambassador, we went the next day to pay a visit to the members of the King's council. His Majesty had rendered up his soul to God on the Thursday, the day of the arrival of the envoys extraordinary.
"We remained until Saturday, without finding a lodging, and during this interval we were able to convince ourselves of the favorable manner in wbich the envoys extraordinary were received.
“ The King's death was kept secret until Monday the tenth of the month ; during this time the Duke of Northumberland received the oaths of the lord mayor and of the other principal personages of the town of London, whom he had successively sent for. He had also, from the first, commanded that all artillery and the ammunition necessary for the towns and fortresses in the country, should be in readiness for war; and that all the gold and silver, and treasure that could be found, should be collected, even the shrines out of the churches, and put into his hands, and there was no one to prevent his doing as he liked. The old servants of the Crown were dismissed, and others put in their place, so that no one should throw any obstacles in the way of the enterprise which he meditated. He thought, fool that he was, that he was sure of matters, and had also seized on the Tower of Lon. don. On the tenth of July he made the King's death public, and at the same time Jane of Suffolk, wife to one of his sons to whom she had only been married two months, was proclaimed by him Queen; and Mary and Elizabeth, daughters of King Henry VIII. and sisters to the late King, were declared bastards and unworthy of the Crown. This audacious proclamation was sent to us. No one cried God save the Queen!' but the crier and the herald ; and soon afterwards there were tears and lamentations on every side. There was such sorrow and desolation amongst the English people, that I swear by my faith it would be impossible for me to describe it. The population remained in this state until the 19th. The Duke seeing this ordered the drums to be beat, to assemble the troops ; and wishing to raise money he found great dif. ficulty in obtaining any.
“Giving orders to the King's guards and pensioners to follow him, he went, about twelve, to take the Princess and rightful Queen Mary, determined to bring her by foul or fair means, dead or alive. He slept that night at Ware, about twenty miles from London. But God did not suffer harm to come to her whom he had preserved during thirty-nine years for the restoration of the country. Mary left her house of Menane? twenty-eight miles from London, having only with her six hundred florins in silver. She went, without stopping, to the Castle of Framlingham, in Suffolk, where she was well received, and gained courage. The whole country, nobles and peasants, immediately assembled. One town brought her a thousand pounds and provisions. She met on her journey a cart loaded with chalices and other church ornaments, which the Duke had ordered to be sent to London. The Princess commanded them to be sent back, saying that the goods of the church must remain in the church. In a short time the whole country was in arms, and from the 10th to the 19th there were more than 30,000 men on foot. Mary presented herself in the midst of them and said, that if her life would satisfy her enemies, she would willingly give it up; but she was convinced that their vengeance would extend further, which gave her great sorrow. Every-body swore to live and die in her service, and cried, God save Queen Mary!'
“We left the Duke at Ware, which he quitted the next day, and was much astonished when he found what despatch the Princess had used. He slept at Cambridge ; from thence he went to Newmarket and then to Bury, where he waited for his other accomplices who had promised to meet him there, but failed in so doing, and turned their backs on him and deserted him. To fill up the catalogue of evils the Lord Admiral Grey, and some other Lords who accompanied him, went off one morning with their followers and left him to join the Queen, who received them into favour. At the same time six great men of war, armed by the Duke, arrived near Framlingham, where, while they lay at anchor, their crews heard the shouts of the people for the Queen and against the Duke, on which their officers gave orders to put out to sea ; but the crews refused to obey, and taking their officers and shutting them up in the hold of the ship, they sent about 600 pieces of cannon on shore with ammunition, and went over to the Queen's side who received them friendly. The Duke thus abandoned by his followers, found himself alone at Bury with his guards, who seeing that there was no longer any hope, began to say that the Duke was the cause of all their disasters, and that they would revenge themselves on him. They exe. cuted this threat, and gave him up to the Queen's minister, who left him in the charge of the Mayor of Cambridge, just as the Duke was preparing to go and join his army in London. The council declared Madam Mary, Queen; and the Earl of Shrewsbury and Sir MassompiUS (?) were sent to announce to her this news. As soon as the proclamation was made public, declaring the Lady Mary, Queen of England, I can do more describe to you the rejoicings, the illuminations, the banquet. ing which took place in London, than I can tell you the hour of my death ; and although I have seen everything and have been present everywhere, still it all appears to me incredible. This proclamation took place at London on the 19th of July. On the 20th of the same month the Duke was made prisoner, and brought to London by order of the Queen, and with him the Earl of Warwick, the Lords Ambrose and Henry Dudley, Lord Andrew Dudley, brother to the Duke, the Earl of Huntingdon, Sir John Cheke, Captain of the late King's guard, Sir Thomas Palmer, Dr. Sandys Vice-chamberlain of Cambridge; they were led through the town to the tower in great shame, for the women and children cried out • There gu the wicked men and traitors !' On the 26th Lord Edward Montague and the Lord Chamberlain were made prisoners, on the 27th the Marquess of Northampton, the Bishop of London (Ridley), who had publicly preached at St. Paul's, that the Queen was a bastard, Robert Dudley and Sir Richard Corbet ; on the 28th the Duke of Suffolk and Sir John Cheke. On the 31st Lord Guilford Dudley and Lady Jane Dudley, who was Queen for ten days, were sent to prison. In the mean time the Queen retired to her old house at Menane, where she sent for my lords the ambassadors to come to her as soon as possible. They set off, and I accompanied them ; we were more than 80 all on horse back, and almost all of us dressed in velvet. We started on Friday at two o'clock in the afternoon, and arrived at Menane at twelve at night, where the Queen was waiting for them, and conversed with them for a long time; and at one o'clock at night the lords were all lodged in the house. At three o'clock on Saturday the lords had a solemn audience to declare the object of their mission. The Lords Arundel and Shrewsbury, as well as my Lord Paget, came to fetch them. The latter is in greater farour than ever. The Queen answered
the envoys in person. On the Monday following they returned to London. The Queen also left her house to make her solemn entry. She arrived with great pomp and triumph on Thursday the 3rd of August, all the lords walked three and three in good order before her. The Spanish envoys of the Low Countries also entered London, each accompanied by one of the lords of the council. The Earl of Arundel bore the sword of state before her Majesty. The Queen wore a crimson-velvet dress with long sleeves ; her horse was covered with the same colour, and his caparisons were enriched with gold, embroidery, and precious stones. Some said that there were more than 8000 horses at this same entry. I followed close behind her Majesty and Lady Elizabeth her sister, then followed such a great number of Duchesses, Countesses, Marchionesses, ladies, and young girls, that I counted at least a hundred and sixty. All the Tower guns began to fire as soon as the Queen entered Aldgate, and continued until she was near the Tower, which is about half a Flemish league distant. There was an amazing crowd of people who all cried— Long live Queen Mary!' Her Majesty entered the Tower and took possession of the crown, released from prison and restored to bis wife the old Duke of Norfolk; she also released Lord Courtenay, the last of the White Rose, (who had been confined there from the age of 12 years to 28,) and the good Bishop of Winchester. On Saturday we went to ber Majesty in the Tower, and the Bishop of Winchester came forward to meet my lords, the envoys, and there was great joy and embracings between them. We met there Courtenay and his mother. Her Majesty has always kept up her private chapel in its ancient state, with the crucifix and images ; and we saw many people in the church on their knees before the crucifix. As to the day of the coronation nothing is yet known, and I think that we shall have good leisure to write about what is going on. Concerning the rumour spread abroad on the death of the late King, they say that he was poisoned by the Duke and the Ambassador of France. It is certain that no one was allowed to see him during his illness. They speak so strangely about it that I do not know what to think. The said Duke had informed the Lady Mary a short time before the catastrophe, that the King could not live, and that he would himself place the crown on her head, nevertheless she could not see the King. The Duke acted thus in order to deceive her, but he was himself deceived. I saw yesterday the prison in the Tower where he is confined, and there is no danger of his making his escape. By the Queen's invitation, the envoys of Flanders, on their return to London, were lodged at her Palace of St. James. London, 1553."
Art. XII.-Faust, A Tragedy. Part the Second. Rendered from
the German of Goethe. By Archer Gurney. London. Senior.
(D. Nutt.) In the November Number of the Westminster for 1842 was inserted a most abusive critique on a version of the Second Part of Faust, by Mr. A. Gurney, which had recently made its appearance. The most unmeasured terms of reproach were showered on the translator's devoted head in this article, and a tone of most unkindly abusiveness towards a young author was adopted, which would of itself have gone some way in inducing us to take up the cudgels in his behalf; especially when we called to mind the enormous difficulties which must necessarily have attended the rendering into any language of that stupendous production of the human mind-the Second part of Faust. The Westminster, indeed, commenced the critique to which we are now alluding with the following observations:
" Faust is the work which the student of German first reads, first translates, and last understands. To render it into any language would be impossible—to give the faintest image of it would require immense labour, backed by great acquirements. But the Second Part of Faust, though quite equal to the First in its way, is still more opposed to a translation, from its enigmatical, symbolical, and allusive nature, no less than from the exquisite witchery of its expressions."
Now, this being the case, it was obvious that great allowances should be made for the shortcomings in any translation of such a work, particularly in one in which the metres of the original were closely followed, and the rhymes throughout retained. But the Westminster Critic did not rest content with general denunciations of Mr. Gurney's incompetence, but proceeded to give what were meant to be specific proofs of the grammatical ignorance of the translator of that language from which he had undertaken to translate. Now, in perusing these supposed proofs of Mr. Gurney's incompetence, we were somewhat astonished to find that the reviewer had himself made the most grievous mistakes, and betrayed his own profound ignorance of the German tongue. Mr. Gurney's version, on the contrary, we found to be a somewhat free, indeed, but in the main a correct translation of the original. Under these circumstances, we resolved to expose the ignorance which had adopted this acrimoniously condemnatory tone, in speaking of one who was evidently a much better German scholar than the critic who attempted to hold him up to ridicule. We therefore devoted a short article in our Review to a notice of the Westminster's blunders, and felt some satisfaction, we admit, in applying the rod. In the Westminster's May Number for this year, there has, however, appeared another short article, in which the critic has attempted to vindicate himself, and to expose us as supremely ridiculous in endeavouring to defend such a very faulty version.” In this article the Westminster Reviewer has tried to shield himself under the authority of Mr. Hayward; and as he does not yet appear sufficiently humbled, we think it advisable to show clearly, that that gentleman, instead of supporting, confutes his errors,-and thus to take away from him the last shadow of right in a matter in which he is so flagrantly and so wonderfully in the wrong. Before we do this, however, we would advert to a notice or criticism of Gurney's Second Part of Faust, which now lies before us, in one of the most respectable critical journals of Germany, the Leipsic“ Blätter für Literarische Unterhaltung.” This criticism extends through two Numbers of that Journal, and fills nearly five columns. Some portions of this we must quote, that the reader may be enabled to judge in how far it bears out the recorded opinions of the Westminster on this subject. The latter, be it remembered, in an article which only filled two pages, declared that Mr. Gurney