But Maleine has nothing more impressive to say than this:-- _Mon Dieu! mon Dieu! comme je suis malade! Et je ne sais pas ce que j'ai;--et personne ne sait ce que le médecin ne sait pas ce que j'ai; ma nourrice ne sait pas ce que j'ai; Hjalmar ne sait pas ce que j'ai._ That these repetitions lend themselves to parody is obvious; that they are sometimes ridiculous is certain; but the principle which underlies them is at the root of much of the finest Eastern poetry--notably in the Bible. The charm and the impressiveness of monotony is one of the secrets of the East; we see it in their literature, in their dances, we hear it in their music. The desire of the West is after variety, but as variety is the most tiring of all excesses, we are in the mood for welcoming an experiment in monotone. And therein lies the originality, therein also the success of Maeterlinck. In comparing the author of _La Princesse Maleine_ with Shakespeare, Mirbeau probably accepted for a moment the traditional Shakespeare of grotesque horror and violent buffoonery. There is in _Maleine_ something which might be called Elizabethan--though it is Elizabethan of the school of Webster and Tourneur rather than of Shakespeare. But in _L'Intruse_ and _Les Aveugles_ the spiritual terror and physical apprehension which are common to all Maeterlinck's work have changed, have become more interior. The art of both pieces consists in the subtle gradations of terror, the slow, creeping progress of the nightmare of apprehension. Nothing quite like it has been done before--not even by Poe, not even by Villiers. A brooding poet, a mystic, a contemplative spectator of the comedy of death--that is how Maeterlinck presents himself to us in his work, and the introduction which he has prefixed to his translation of _L'Ornement des Noces Spirituelles_ of Ruysbroeck l'Admirable shows how deeply he has studied the mystical writers of all ages, and how much akin to theirs is his own temper. Plato and Plotinus, Saint Bernard and Jacob Boehme, Coleridge and Novalis--he knows them all, and it is with a sort of reverence that he sets himself to the task of translating the astonishing Flemish mystic of the thirteenth century, known till now only by the fragments translated into French by Ernest Hello from a sixteenth-century Latin version. This translation and this introduction help to explain the real character of Maeterlinck's dramatic work--dramatic as to form, by a sort of accident, but essentially mystical. As a dramatist Maeterlinck has but one note--that of fear; he has but one method--that of repetition. This is no equipment for a Shakespeare, and it will probably be some time before Maeterlinck can recover from the literary damage of so incredible a misnomer. In the preface to the first volume of the collected edition, which should be read with attention by all who are interested in knowing Maeterlinck's opinion of his own work, we are told:--