Gryphius and the Squentz-Stoff
[In the following essay, Best offers his viewpoint on the authorship of Absurd Comedy; or, Mr. Peter Squentz, arguing that the original play was written by University of Altdorf professor Daniel Schwenter (1585-1636) and that Gryphius in his version enlarged the cast and added the dimension of religious allegory.]
In “Zur Frage der Verfasserschaft des Peter Squentz,”1 an article which has been strangely uninfluential, Peter Michelsen musters the evidence against Gryphius's authorship of the comedy and concludes that it may be entirely by the Altdorf professor Daniel Schwenter (1585-1636). The main point cited by Michelsen is Sigismund Jacobus Apinus's categorical assertion in his biography of Schwenter (1728) that the latter wrote Squentz, in spite of its publication with Gryphius's works: “Et licet GRYPHII poematibus sit annexus, non tanem GRYPHIVM, uti communis quondam erat eruditorum opinio, sed SCHWENTERVM habet autorem.”2 Schwenter's manuscript of the farce was owned by Apinus's father-in-law, the Altdorf professor of medicine Johann Jacob Baier, and presumably Apinus had perused it. Michelsen also notes the curious facts that the title of the collection with which Squentz was bound as an Einzeldruck in 1658 reads, “Andreae Gyrphii Freuden vnd Trauer-Spiele auch Oden vnd Sonnette sampt Herr Peter Squentz Schimpff-Spiel,” thus distinguishing it from the other plays included, and that it was never printed during Gryphius's lifetime with any author's name on its own title page, although it was again an Einzeldruck in 1663. Michelsen omits the testimony of Daniel Georg Morhof, however, who credited Gryphius with Horribilicribrifax but reserved Squentz for Schwenter in his Unterricht von der teutschen Sprache und Poesie, 1682 and 1700: “Bey den Teutschen kan man des Daniel Schwenters Possenspiel / Peter Squentz / genannt / wie auch des Gryphii Horriblicribrifax [sic], rühmen.”3
Eleven years before the appearance of Michelsen's essay, David Brett-Evans called attention to the expression “Schimpff-Spiel” as another factor pertinent to the question of authorship. “Dieser Ausdruck … hat allgemeine Verbreitung im 16. Jahrhundert erfahren und wurde z.B. öfters von Hans Sachs und seinen Zeitgenossen für ihre Fastnachtsspiele gebraucht. Aber schon im 17. Jahrhundert war die Bezeichnung nicht mehr üblich,” Brett-Evans argued, and he went on to contend:
Kulturell sowie auch sprachlich weist ‘Schimpff-Spiel’ mit großer Sicherheit auf das oberdeutsche Sprachgebiet hin, und es ist anzunehmen, daß der Schlesier, dem dieser Ausdruck sonst kaum geläufig gewesen wäre, ihn aus seiner Vorlage übernommen hat, wahrscheinlich mit absichtlicher Ironie.4
If Gryphius had composed all of Squentz, he would probably not have employed the term “Schimpff-Spiel.” It constitutes more evidence that he simply took over Schwenter's material, yet there is no likelihood that he meant the designation to be ironic, contrary to Brett-Evans's opinion.
Were Squentz altogether Schwenter's product, as Michelsen tends to believe,5 Gryphius would surely have excluded it from editions of his works. If he slightly revised Schwenter's harlequinade, however, he might well have treated it like a stepchild, and Apinus could still have considered it Schwenter's offspring. That Gryphius did only modify his source to some extent is exactly what the preface to Squentz in fact maintains. There one Philip-Gregorius Riesentod supposedly relates,
Daß … Daniel Schwenter / selbigen [Squentz] zum ersten zu Altdorff auff den Schauplatz geführet / von dannen er ie länger ie weiter gezogen / biß er endlich meinem liebsten Freunde [Gryphius] begegnet / welcher ihn besser außgerüstet / mit neuen Personen vermehret / vnd nebens einem seiner Traurspiele aller Augen vnd Vrtheil vorstellen lassen.6
Through the alias Riesentod, Gryphius himself testifies that he adopted Schwenter's burlesque, changing it only by the addition of some new characters. (It is evidently to them that the expression “besser außgerüstet” refers.) What Eberhard Mannack calls “die bekannteste und beliebteste Komödie des Glogauer Dichters”7 must basically not be his creation, despite the still prevailing “communis … eruditorum opinio” which Apinus considered antiquated more than 250 years ago. As Riesentod announces at the end of his preface (p. 3), it is only “die letzten Strüche seiner Vollkommenheit” which Squentz owes to Gryphius.
In 1881 Fritz Burg suggested that the new characters to whom Riesentod refers are Serenus and Violandra, the prince and the princess.8 Burg offered no explanation for his choice, but just a brief examination of the dramatis personae reveals its validity. Since Apinus lists Schwenter's first play as “Ludus scenicus Petri Squentii nomine notus,”9 Squentz must have assumed at least virtually the same role there as in Gryphius's revision, and Schwenter is bound to have had three other “Spielende Personen” for Pyramus, Thisbe, and the lion. As with Gryphius, they were probably Pickelhäring, Meister Klotz-George, and Meister Klipperling, respectively, for Riesentod does not aver that Gryphius altered any parts. A Pyramus-and-Thisbe drama could be performed without someone posing as the wall or the moon, but both roles are filled by actors in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream and in the Dutch “kluchtighe tragoedie” Hartoog van Pierlepon by Matthijs Gramsbergen, performed at Amsterdam on 17 January 1650.10 The chances are good, therefore, that Schwenter also included those two parts in his satire. By contrast, Meister Lollinger, who plays the fountain in Gryphius's Squentz, does not have a counterpart in Midsummer Night's Dream, in Gramsbergen's Pierlepon, or even in the kindred comedy described by Johann Rist in Die alleredelste Belustigung.11 Lollinger is a Meistersinger, however, so he is much likelier to be Schwenter's invention than Gryphius's. According to Apinus, Schwenter composed Squentz as a travesty on such gentlemen (“Canticorum, quos uocant, magistros perstringit, eorumque inconditam poesin”).12 Among the spectators, Theodorus the king and his marshal Eubulus are necessary for the plot. The play within the play would not be performed if His Highness were not on hand to see it, and in Schwenter's Squentz, no less than in Gryphius's, some court official had to arrange for the entertainment. Schwenter's king must also have been accompanied by a queen. That leaves only Serenus and Violandra from Gryphius' entire cast (except for some non-speaking lackeys, whom Schwenter likewise used, as will be shown), and the siblings are quite dispensable.
Worth mentioning in this connection is the promise of Klipperling, who is to portray the lion, that he will bellow “so lieblich … daß der König vnd die Königin sagen sollen / mein liebes Löwichen brülle noch einmal” (p. 8). His omission of the prince and the princess does not constitute reliable evidence that they were absent from Schwenterps play, but it harmonizes with the assumption that they were. Of the same nature is Klotz-George's intention (p. 10) to speak “so klein vnd lieblich … daß der König vnd Königin an mir den Narren fressen sollen.”
On four occasions (pp. 7, 11, and 15) Meister Kricks and Squentz employ the word Frauenzimmer as a collective noun referring to women in their anticipated audience. If their use of the term was original with Schwenter, it need not imply that Kricks and Squentz had both the queen and her daughter in mind. As a group, the actors expect a number of women to witness their exertions. On p. 7 Klotz-George voices concern “wegen Schwangerer Weiber,” and the princess cannot be pregnant, since Squentz addresses her as “Jungfer” on p. 39. In his epilogue (p. 37) he warns “Ihr Jungfrauen” about love. Violandra must be the only virgin present, but Squentz wrote the epilogue in advance.
Gryphius could have produced nearly all of the lines which he gave to either the prince or the princess simply by shifting them from the king or the queen. Particularly during the second act it looks as if he divided the speeches of Schwenter's ruler between Theodorus and Serenus, for the son supplants the father as the person in authority. It is he, rather than Theodorus, who commands Eubulus to read Squentz's repertoire; it is he who orders Squentz admitted for an interview; it is primarily he who questions Squentz; and it is he who schedules the performance of Pyramus und Thisbe. He speaks nineteen times in Act II, versus nine times for his father.13 The only lines which Gryphius had to compose are the following: In Act III (p. 29) the prince says of Lollinger, “der Herr Vater kan ihm pension an praesentiren, vielleicht lässt er sich in vnsern Lustgarten verdingen,” and Squentz takes leave (p. 39) both from Serenus and the princess as well as from the king and the queen.
When Pyramus and Thisbe are dead, Violandra asks a question which Gryphius might also have penned, since it comes immediately after an unrelated comment by her mother. As soon as Cassandra has exclaimed (p. 36), “Erbärmlicher Zufall / ich habe gelacht / daß mir die Augen übergehen,” the daughter queries, in a different frame of mind, “Wer wird denn die Todten begraben?” Despite being a non sequitur, however, that inquiry was probably made by Schwenter's queen and not introduced by Gryphius. R.A. Kollewijn cited it in support of his theory that Squentz and Gramsbergen's Pierlepon descended from a lost common source.14 He observed that at the end of the play within the play Mr. Spillebien, the souffleur in Pierlepon, asks, “Maar hoe zel jy lui nou best binnen raken?” and that Snipsnap, as Pyramus, replies, “Ik zel Thisbe binnen dragen. …” Kollewijn neglected to point out that “jy lui” refers not only to the lovers but also to “the wall” and “the moon,” while “binnen raken” means “to leave the stage” rather than “to bury.” Kollewijn also misrepresented Snipsnap's answer by quoting only part of it. Snipsnap goes on to say:
en dan zal ik weer leggen gaan /
Zoo mag zy [Thisbe] mijn komen haalen; en de Muur en de Maan
Die hebben niet dood geweest / die raken wel aan een kand zonder dragen.
The stage direction then reads, “Piramus, Thisbe, de Muur, de Maan, t'zamen binnen.” Thisbe does not spring onto Pyramus's shoulders, as in Squentz. Even so, it looks like more than just coincidence that both Violandra and Spillebien ask a question which Pyramus answers, when the inner play concludes. Violandra's inquiry and Pickelhäring's response are better attributed to Schwenter than to Gryphius, since they seem to stem from Kollewijn's hypothetical ancestor of both Squentz and Pierlepon.
In Act II of the Absurda comica (p. 14) Serenus speaks right after Theodorus. The king having remarked to Master Peter, “Wir nehmen mit höchster Verwunderung an / was ihr vorbringet / vnd erfreuen vns / daß wir so statliche vnd treffliche Leute in vnserm Lande haben,” the prince declares, likewise to Squentz, “Auß so vielen Comoedien, die ihr zu agiren willens / begehren Ihre Majestät die erste zu sehen. …” Here Gryphius can well have divided what Schwenter had conceived as a single speech, uttered by the king, and shifted the latter's “wir” to Serenus's “Ihre Majestät.” Toward the end of the second act (p. 15) the prince inquires of Squentz, “Ihre Majestät verstehen den Titul nicht wol / könt ihr vns denselben nicht etwas erklären?” If Schwenter's king posed the question, he must have said “wir” instead of “Ihre Majestät.”
Schwenter's marshal is likely to have addressed the sovereign always as “Durchläuchtigster König” (see p. 12) and never as “Durchläuchtigster Fürst,” the epithet with which Eubulus honors Serenus twice on p. 13. Squentz probably called Schwenter's king “Wolweiser Juncker König” or “Wolweiser Herr König” rather than only “Wolweiser Juncker” near the end of Act III (p. 39), if indeed it was the monarch who originally wanted to know whether the pedagogue taught his pupils arithmetic. The whole passage—from 1. 14 to 1. 24 on p. 39—could be an interpolation by Gryphius. It interrupts Theodorus's conversation with Squentz and includes a reference to Johann Seckerwitz (ca. 1520-83), of whom Gryphius is likelier to have thought than Schwenter, since Seckerwitz was born in Breslau and was professor of poetry at Greifswald. Similarly, Pickelhäring asks Lollinger on p. 11:
… seyd ihr euer lebenlang nicht zu Dantzig gewesen / oder zu Augspurg / die Mäister-Sänger reisen ja sonst zimlich weit / habt ihr nicht gehöret / daß der Käyser zu Augspurg auff einem Brunn stehet / vnd zu Dantzig Clinctunus.
One can readily believe that Schwenter had Pickelhäring inquire about Augsburg, but it seems doubtful that he also included Gdansk. That was probably contributed by Gryphius.
To the latter Hugh Powell in effect credits Squentz's statement that he is “ein Ober-Lander” (p. 13) and his subsequent remarks about “Ober-Land” (p. 14). “The ‘Oberländer’ would be the inhabitants of part of the hilly country now known as the Sudeten mountains,” Powell affirms.15 They could just as well be Bavarians or Austrians, however, if they are not entirely fictional. After situating “Ober-Land” “über Niederland” and partitioning it into “groß- vnd klein-Oberland,” Squentz says of it:
In groß Ober-Land sind vnterschiedene Creisser / als der Niesische / Gryllische / Würmische mit ihren vornembsten Städten / als Fortzenheim / Narrenburg / Weißfischhausen / Kelberfurtz / Mägdeflecken.
Squentz's revelations about his birthplace typify most of the Absurda comica, insofar as a rationale for doubting Schwenter's authorship of them is lacking.
The expression “besser außgerüstet,” occurring in the preface ascribed to Riesentod, may account for why Gryphius sketched in Serenus and Violandra. Though expendable, they enlarge the audience for the play within the play, “better equipping” Squentz as a whole. To be sure, Schwenter's spectators consisted of more than just the king, the queen, and the marshal. Besides those three there were also several mute servants. After the schoolmaster has delivered his prologue and sat down, one “Hofediener” knocks him over (pp. 20-21). While playing the wall, Meister Bullabutän declaims (p. 26), “Ich bitte den König mit seinen Knaben / Er wolte mir nichts für übel haben.” On p. 39 Squentz bids good night not only to Theodorus, Cassandra, the prince, and the princess, but also to “ihr Herren alle mit einander.”16 Schwenter's audience probably numbered half a dozen people, but only the royal couple and their marshall had speaking parts. Gryphius must have felt, and not incorrectly, that both the second and the third acts would be enlivened if the dialogue there were distributed among more participants. It can be objected that Violandra must have been introduced by Schwenter, after all, since according to Apinus Schwenter wrote not only Squentz but also a play entitled Von Seredin und Violandra.17 The name Violandra, no matter how unusual it may be, is nevertheless fitting for a princess, inasmuch as it suggests royal purple. Perhaps Gryphius borrowed it from Schwenter's second drama, which was appended to the Squentz manuscript in Baier's possession.18
Why was he attracted to someone else's satire, fleshing it out but leaving its essence unaltered? Did he appropriate Schwenter's Squentz in order to second the professor's ridicule of low-brow thespians? The play which Johann Rist claimed to have attended in his youth was allegedly staged by English actors on account of competition from “etliche Handwercks-Burse … welche unter der Direction oder Anordnung eines rechten Phantasten / der ehemahlen ein Dorff-Schulmeister gewesen. …”19 Gryphius certainly lacked the practical incentive of that English troupe, whose income was at stake, and he did not live, like Schwenter, in Nürnberg, the mecca of Meistergesang, where “die Aufführung von Hans-Sachs-Spielen im 17. Jahrhundert noch üblich war.”20 As we have already seen, the preface to Squentz contends that Gryphius had his expansion of Schwenter's play performed in conjunction with one of his own Trauerspiele. Scholars have commonly—and justifiably—assumed that the “tragedy” in question is Cardenio und Celinde, which shares with the story of Pyramus and Thisbe the perils of passionate love. In itself, however, that thematic similarity does not adequately account for why Gryphius took possession of another person's literary property. Squentz, the lampoon of artisans aspiring to be artists, is not primarily concerned with ungoverned emotion, nor was it published as a companion to Cardenio und Celinde.
Of course, it could be meant as little more than fun. Gramsbergen's Pierlepon twits rederijkers, but incidentally, being in the main a comedy of deception. A band of itinerant mummers exploits the desire of the peasant and rederijker Mieuwes to join them. He must pay twenty-five gulden and demonstrate theatrical talent by posing as a duke. By means of his impersonation the troupers gain a meal in Leiden's nicest inn, where they leave him to settle with the owner. (Ludvig Holberg's Den pantsatte Bondedreng is a later version of essentially the same material, derived from Book V, Section 46-51, of Jacob Bidermann's Utopia.) Gramsbergen's play within the play is performed on the pretext of amusing Mieuwes after dinner, and the actors stumble through it less to mimic rederijkers than because they are not supposed to be actors. Despite comprising a third of the whole piece, their slapstick is about as extraneous as the stagecraft beguiling bogus royalty in some versions of the king-for-a-day Stoff, which Pierlepon resembles.21 Like Gramsbergen, Gryphius may have used a descendant of Shakespeare's Pyramus chiefly for trivial entertainment, but it is doubtful that he did so. Squentz is more satirical than Pierlepon, and Gryphius's intentions are apter to have risen above Schwenter's than to have fallen beneath them. Much as he increased the Schimpff-Spiel's cast, Gryphius probably envisaged a larger moral for it, too.
Richard E. Schade has recently argued that it is Gryphius's plea for an end to the Thirty Years' War, with Pyramus and Thisbe standing for Lutherans and Catholics. The main evidence which Schade cites is Squentz's parable of the Christian and the dead Jew in the epilogue to the play within the play. Like that pair, Schade precariously reasons, the lovers “may be seen to represent two monotheistic religions, which by the sheer confusion wrought by malevolent circumstance and compounded by misapprehension of events tragically cause their own demise.”22 Other generalized interpretations of the comedy are far more cautious, though they are also based on the false assumption that it is totally Gryphius's work instead of being mostly Schwenter's. Taking us back to the question of whether Gryphius agreed with Schwenter, Powell has affirmed that Squentz indeed derides “‘popular’ literature” but also that it scorns “the incompetence and pretentiousness of dilettanti who are not nearly equal to their self-appointed tasks.”23 Mannack views it still more broadly as an exposé of Hochmut in the abstract. “Diese Schwachheit zu enthüllen, ist das eigentliche Ziel des Gryphiusschen Werkes,” he declares.24 Willy Flemming has termed Squentz “eine Verherrlichung der neuen höfisch gerichteten Barockkultur,”25 i.e., through the mockery of obsolete dramatic norms, and Gerhard Kaiser espouses Flemming's idea along with the concept of a travesty on presumption, while limiting the latter to “falsche Selbsteinschätzung, vor allem in bezug auf den Stand.”26
Of the two opinions endorsed by Kaiser, “Verherrlichung der … Barockkultur” is less defensible with regard to Gryphius, though it may have been Schwenter's ulterior motive. For the deeply religious Silesian a warning against complacency was more in character than celebrating courtly taste. The fact that Squentz was staged several times “bei barocken Hoffestlichkeiten” does not conclusively show “daß auch die Zeitgenossen das Stück als Verherrlichung der höfisch gerichteten Barockkultur verstanden und geschätzt haben,” as Kaiser maintains.27 Seventeenth-century courtiers' reasons for enjoying it may have been no different from ours today. Even if Kaiser is correct, moreover, Gryphius's intentions need not have conformed to Schwenter's and can have been overlooked by baroque spectators as easily as by modern readers. Let us leave aside the notion of praise for contemporary aesthetics, a subject which Gryphius ignored in all his other works, and take a new look at the—for him—more congenial theme of pride in Squentz.
Not only does its title figure covet “Ehre vnd Ruhm” together with “eine gute Verehrung” (p. 6). He himself will recite the prologue and the epilogue of his masterpiece because for them “ein Tapfferer ernsthaffter vnd ansehnlicher Mann erfordert wird” (p. 7). He tells Theodorus that he is “ein Universalem” (p. 13), which means, he explains, that he is “in allen Wissenschafften erfahren,” even though his Latin is uncertain28 and his arithmetic is hopeless. He flatters himself that he has become “Schreiber vnd Schulmeister auch Expectant deß Pfarr-Ampts” in Rumpel-Kirchen because he was outstanding in his previous position as a bell ringer (“weil ich mich … über diese massen auff die Music deß Glokkengeklanges verstanden,” p. 13). He brags of being “der vornehmste Mann in der gantzen Welt” (p. 14), while his assurance that he can elucidate the title “Von Pyramus und Thisbe” “besser als der Kantzler” moves Theodorus to cry, “Bey Gott P. Sq. düncket sich keine Sau zu seyn” (p. 15). Gryphius proves in his preface that he shared Schwenter's concept of their protagonist as overweening. Riesentod introduces that lover of the Muses as the “seiner Meynung nach Hochberümbte Herr Peter Squentz,” whose “Anschläge” are “nicht alle so spitzig / als er sich selber düncken läst” (p. 3).
The schoolmaster is not the only citizen of Rumpels-Kirchen to esteem himself. Pickerhäring characterizes the whole ensemble as “treffliche Leute” (p. 6) and says of laughing and crying simultaneously, “Es stehet … einer so vornehmen Person / wie ich bin / nicht an / sondern ist Närrisch nicht Fürstlich” (p. 10). The fights between him and Bullabutän on the one hand and between Kricks and Klipperling on the other also attest to a fair amount of arrogance, while Lollinger wants the king to value the troupe as “geschickte vnd hochgelehrte Leute” (p. 12).
Although Mannack never clearly asserts that Squentz is a universal figure, he implies as much. At any rate, it is not difficult to construe the egotist and his cohorts as caricatures of all mankind. In detail their nonsense can hardly be equated with life, but like them we too are cocky enough to expect good fortune from our King. God does treat us well in spite of our undeserving folly, Gryphius surely felt, just as tolerant and generous Theodorus resolves the comedy's fundamental tension—that between actors and audience—by handsomely rewarding what Serenus calls “die guten Schlucker.” In his devotion to the Cross, Gryphius read Schwenter's satire on the likes of Hans Sachs as a religious allegory chiding conceited human nature.
Through their exalted status, their superior wisdom, and their elegant, significant names, complete with Latin endings, Theodorus and his entourage are sufficiently raised above the social and intellectual level of Squentz and company to hint at Welttheater. We cannot be certain that the king, the queen, and Eubulus owe their names to Schwenter,29 but it is not illogical to suppose that Gryphius took “Violandra” from Schwenter because the latter had indeed named her parents. (“Seredin,” which is neither Greco-Roman nor significant, would not have harmonized with the other courtly appellations, in contrast to “Serenus.”) If Gryphius bestowed all five of the classical names himself, the likelihood that he conceived of Squentz as Welttheater is strengthened. In either case he must have associated regal Theodorus with divinity, especially because the monarch's name means “Gift of God.”
As criticism of Squentz, Powell states, “What we scarcely find … is humour,”30 but the addition of an allegorical, Christian dimension to the play vitiates that censure. Gryphius's laughter grows more subtle and benign as its object is broadened and elevated—when it is directed at humanity rather than just at Meistersinger or even at ambitious dilettantes in general, as Powell believes it is. The search for deeper meaning should be religiously oriented and conducted to its logical conclusion. When it is, a richer work of art results than the one which Powell faults. Squentz, we discover, addresses not some special group from which we can excuse ourselves; it speaks to every one of us.
Notes
-
Euphorion, 63 (1969), 54-65.
-
Ibid., p. 56.
-
See the edition by Henning Boetius (Bad Homburg, 1969), p. 351.
-
“Der ‘Sommernachtstraum’ in Deutschland 1600-1650,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, 77 (1958), 373-74. See also note 6 there, p. 374.
-
Michelsen, pp. 64f. Because of his bias Michelsen attempts, pp. 62-64, to discredit the customary and natural assumption that Gryphius authored the preface to Squentz.
-
Andreas Gryphius, Gesamtausgabe der deutschsprachigen Werke, 7, ed. Hugh Powell (Tübingen, 1969), 3. Subsequent page references are to this edition.
-
Andreas Gryphius, Sammlung Metzler, 76 (Stuttgart, 1968), 57.
-
“Über die Entwicklung des Peter-Squenz-Stoffes bis Gryphius,” Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, 25 (1881), 169.
-
Michelsen, p. 56.
-
The first edition was published at Amsterdam by Tymon Houthaack in 1650. See under “In de Tragoedi speelt.”
-
Rist, Sämtliche Werke, 5, ed. Eberhard Mannack (Berlin, 1974), 299.
-
Michelsen, p. 56. See also p. 58, note 20, regarding Friedrich Meyer (not Mayer) von Waldeck's assertion that “die Verspottung des Hans Sachs … ist von Gryphius, nicht von Schwenter, hineingelegt” (“Der Peter Squenz von Andreas Gryphius, eine Verspottung des Hans Sachs,” Vierteljahrschrift für Litteraturegeschichte, 1 [1888], 199; also 200-01). Meyer von Waldeck imputed the addition of Lollinger to Gryphius rather than to Schwenter, moreover (pp. 209-10).
-
In Act III Serenus has almost as much to say as Theodorus and twice as much as Violandra. During the second act she is completely silent.
-
“Ueber die Quelle des Peter Squenz,” Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte, 9 (1880), 451.
-
Andreas Gryphius, Herr Peter Squentz, ed. Powell (Leicester, 1969), p. 43, note 56.
-
By doing so, he indicates strongly that no Hofdamen are present. Children seem to be absent, as well, though in Act II Squentz refuses to perform Der Herzog und der Teufel because “die kleinen Kinder würden so drüber weinen / daß man sein eigen Wort nicht vernehmen könte” (p. 15).
-
Michelsen, p. 56.
-
Christian Weise seems also to have been acquainted with Von Seredin und Violandra. See Michelsen, pp. 56 and 59-60.
-
Rist, Werke, 5, 287.
-
Michelsen, p. 58.
-
The name Pierlepon harks back to a brief peasant-as-prince play printed in Leiden in 1649. Its title is De pots van Kees Krollen Hartogh van Pierlepom [sic]. See J. A. Worp, Geschiedenis van het drama en van het tooneel in Nederland, 1 (Groningen, 1904), 451. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek in 's-Gravenhage has a copy of Kees.
-
“Approaches to Herr Peter Squentz,” Colloquia Germanica, 13 (1980), 289-302. The quotation is from p. 297.
-
Squentz, ed. Powell, p. xlix.
-
“Andreas Gryphius' Lustspiele—ihre Herkunft, ihre Motive und ihre Entwicklung,” Euphorion, 58 (1964), 12-15. The quotation is from p. 12. See also Mannack, Andreas Gryphius (Stuttgart, 1968), pp. 56-57.
-
Die deutsche Barockkomödie, Deutsche Literatur in Entwicklungsreihen. Reihe Barock. Barockdrama, 4 (Stuttgart, 1931), p. 45.
-
Gerhard Kaiser, ed., “Absurda Comica. Oder Herr Peter Squentz,” Die Dramen des Andreas Gryphius (Stuttgart, 1968), pp. 207-25. The quotation is from p. 215.
-
Ibid., p. 225. Cf. Flemming, Die deutsche Barockkomödie, p. 45.
-
Squentz's Latin is not quite so bad as has been thought. The phrase “nihil ad rhombum,” which Powell rejects (Squentz, ed. Powell, p. 40, note 34), is acceptable. Sempronius uses it, for example, in Horribilicribrifax (Gryphius, Gesamtausgabe, 7, 76, 1. 35). For an explanation of it, see Eduard Böcking, Ulrichs von Hutten Schriften, 4 (Aalen, 1963), 534, note to 1. 10. Contrary to Mannack's implication (“Gryphius' Lustspiele,” p. 7), there is also nothing incorrect about “Pax vobis!”
-
Their counterparts in the play described by Rist are innominate, and in Pierlepon the only spectator is Mieuwes.
-
Squentz, ed. Powell, p. lv.
Get Ahead with eNotes
Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.
Already a member? Log in here.