The Cornhill Magazine (vol. XLII, no. 250 new series, April 1917)Various
History
The Cornhill Magazine (vol. XLII, no. 250 new series, April 1917)
Various
England -- Periodicals; English literature -- Periodicals; Short stories, English -- Periodicals
_C._ Yes, Sir, I had, but I was prevented by the consideration that
though there are some exquisite passages, the opening chorus, the chapel
and the prison scenes for instance, to say nothing of the Brocken scene
where he has shown peculiar strength in keeping clear of Shakspear, he
has not taken that wonderful admixture of Witch Fate and Fairy but has
kept to the real original witch, and this suits his purpose much better.
I say that a great deal of it I do not admire, and some I reprobate.
The conception of Wagner is bad: whoever heard of a man who had gained
such wonderful proficiency in learning as to call up spirits &c. being
discontented?
No, it is not having the power of knowledge that would make a man
discontented—neither would such a man have suddenly become a sensualist.
The discourses too with the pupil are dull. The Mephistapholes (_sic_),
or whatever the name is, is well executed, but the conception is
not original. It was ⸺ who had before said, ‘The Devil is the great
humourist of the world.’ There are other parts too which I could not
have translated without entering my protest against them in a manner
which would hardly have been fair upon the author, for those things
are understood in Germany in a spirit very different from what they
would infuse here in England. To give you an example, the scene where
Mephistopheles is introduced as coming before the Almighty and talking
with Him would never be borne in English and this whole scene is founded
on a mistranslation of a passage in Scripture, the opening of Job. You
remember how Satan means properly one who goes his rounds, and hence it
came to mean one of those officers whom the King in Eastern countries
used to send round to see how his subjects were going on. This power was
soon abused and the Satans used to accuse people falsely, and hence the
word came to have the meaning now attached to it of a calumniator, a
διάβολος, an accuser.
Now in the Book of Job (which is undoubtedly very ancient, before the law
for there is no mention of the law in it, undoubtedly the most ancient
book in the world) the word Satan meant only this officer, the prime
vizier of the Sultan (you remember in the ‘Arabian Nights’ the Caliph and
his vizier are very fond of going their rounds for the same purpose).
God Almighty is shown to us under the semblance of a mortal king holding
his court, and his officer comes, as the book tells us, ‘from going his
rounds on the earth and walking up and down in it,’ but mind there is
nothing like malignity attached to him.
The King asks him concerning Job—the officer answers that he is a perfect
man—but (adds he) ‘He has yet had no temptation; he is prosperous, and he
might alter if his circumstances were altered.’
The King then commands him to try and to destroy his possessions.
(N.B.—This is a mistake, _He gives him leave_.)
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account