« AnteriorContinuar »
quest of the oracle of Apollo. Shakespeare, treading for the most part in the track of Greene, has, in the Winter's Tale, taken many a liberty with chronology, and permitted many a strange inaccuracy.
For instance, he makes Hermione a daughter of the Emperor of Russia (Greene assigns this descent to the consort of Egistus); he lets the King of Sicily, on behalf of his son, sue for the hand of the Danish Princess Euphrania ; he speaks of Giulio Romano as an eminent sculptor.
In the same way he did not scruple to introduce the oracle with the ambiguous name. Whether Delphi was meant, or whether it should have been Delos, so much is certain that the ambassadors, who required three weeks to perform their mission, had a "rare, pleasant,
, speedy” journey home from Delphos to Bohemia. Finally, when mention is made of the "deserts of Bohemia," when we are told that “places remote enough are in Bohemia," the description well fits the numerous unwooded and barren tracts along the rocky coast of Apulia ; while the nearness of Sicily to Apulia tallies with the statement that their rulers had been brought up together as children, and that ever since their reconciliation friendship and peace had reigned between the two countries.
The question still remains to be dealt with, how it was that Apulia came to be spoken of as " Bohemia." * There is no historical evidence of any direct relation between them ; for, save that Duke Otto of Bohemia is referred to as having accompanied the Emperor Henry VI. on his progress to Apulia, the two countries have hardly ever been mentioned together. It therefore looks as if Apulia had been called “Bohemia” owing to some confusion or error connected, in all likelihood, with an event or a name of historical significance. In searching for a link of that nature one is led to recall Bohemund I. of Tarentum, one of the most illustrious captains of the first crusade, who founded and bequeathed to his son Bohemund II. the Princedom of Antioch, and who shone forth both to his contemporaries and to aftergenerations as a pattern of daring heroism. Apulia would almost inevitably in time come to be designated as the “ Land of Bohemund,” "Terra Bohemundi,” and this appellation, or a contraction of it such as “Terra Bohem.,” might easily get corrupted into “Terra Bohemica ” and “ Bohemia”; and thus we arrive at what may not improbably, I think, prove the true origin of the perversion of meaning to which the misnomer is due.
* Perhaps also Ariosto, when he alludes to a Bohemian pilgrim,"in Orlando Furioso (Canto 28, Strophe 15), thereby means an Apulian pilgrim.
This assumption might perhaps seem far-fetched did it not happen to be reinforced by a remarkable parallel case, the evidence for which Humboldt has put together in his classical work : A Critical Inquiry into the Historical Development of our Geographical Knowledge of the New World. He there shows us how the name of Martin Behaim (born at Nuremberg in 1436), the constructor of the famous terrestrial globe, got modified into Martinus Bohemius, or Bohemus, Behaim himself favouring that form because it recalled the home of his ancestry, some of whom were said to have migrated to Nuremberg, from a Bohemian village in the district of Pilsen, several centuries before his birth. Pigafetta and De Barros, who, of course, could have known nothing of these details, speak of him as "Martin de Bohemia," and to this day he is generally so styled in Spain, and Portugal. At a later date, a number of men of science having endeavoured to ascribe the discovery of America to Behaim, or at least to connect it closely with his voyages, we see his name in its distorted shape figure very notably. The Straits of Magellan are christened “Fretum Bohemicum” (Bohemian Straits), and the whole continent is actually designated as “Bohemia,” or even as “West Bohemia.” Here, then, we meet with a mistake exactly analogous to the one we suppose as having bestowed on Apulia the name of “Bohemia.” It suffices for my present purpose to have called attention to these points, and to have made an attempt to account for Shakespeare's hitherto incomprehensible geography, which it is usual to attribute to ignorance.
EDMUND O. VON LIPPMANN
WANTED, A NEW CHARTER.
HATEVER Radicals and New Unionists may think of Mr.
Frederick Greenwood, some of his friends must surely find him an inconvenient champion. In the Anti-Jacobin, and in a recent article in the NEW REVIEW on “The Revolt of Labour,” he implores both parties to "unite in telling the truth to popular discontent," the truth being that there must be no more State interference with liberty and property." The appeal comes at an unlucky moment for a party which is busily interfering with the interest on Consols, the rent of Irish land, and the relations between railway capitalists and their workmen. Whatever individual politicians may say, neither party could or would do such a consummately foolish thing as to turn its back on fifty years of municipal Socialism and to close against labour a Statute-book stuffed with legislation in restraint of “liberty and property,” to which Tories and Liberals contribute in fairly equal proportions. That stroke, therefore, is “barred.” We may not all accept doctrinaire Socialism; sheer doctrinaire anti-Socialism is done for outside the study and the editor's chair. What, therefore, is the remedy for the working man's discontent, which, as Mr. Greenwood seems to see, cannot be suppressed without suppressing Progress itself?
And first, the discontent itself is not new, and there is no way out of the trouble by suggesting that Mr. Burns has suddenly inoculated the masses with a double dose of social sin. Mr. Greenwood has a vision of a “hungry people, as a lion creeping nigher.” But the vision is always there, has been there any time this fifty or five hundred years.
Want makes it loom larger on the view ; plenty, as the working man understands plenty, does not banish it; the advance of physical and economic science only gives it fresh modes of expression. And we must specially guard against thinking that every garb it assumes vitally alters its substance. Even the new Unionism is not new, so far as it involves a resumption of the work of the old, taken up at the point where the trade revival has given the workers a chance of having a fresh slice at profits. It is only when we examine the same movement, as it embodies the wider economic and moral aims of some of its leaders, that we look for any new phenomenon in the labour world, only to find, perchance, that that again is simply a recurrence of the old-a star that, in the process of the suns, has swum back into our ken.
Thus the federation of union with union has reached a pitch when a general strike of seamen and firemen may involve a simultaneous movement of miners, coal porters, railway men, and the entire body of workers engaged in the carrying trades. This is possibly a new thing, and so is the fading away of the old distinction between skilled and unskilled labour, and so again is the growth of Internationalism, which is especially noticeable in the dockers and the new union of seamen and firemen. So, too, are the programmes of the last Trades Union Congress, of the Dockers' Union, of the railway servants in Scotland, who now demand an eight hours day, secured by Act of Parliament, and the complete nationalisation of the railways. The present leaders of the labour war, though I am not prepared to say that they are abler than the old, no doubt belong to a different school of economic thinking, which does not at all make sor barricades, dynamite, and the conventional horrors, but rather denotes the growth of the ordered instinct of democratic 'self-government. So far as these men merely see that universal Trade Unionism is not the ideal, they are not, as Mr. Greenwood supposes, revolutionists, for Trade Unionism vigorously applied to all industries simply means a perpetual state of industrial war. Their special contribution to the pour movement is that, though they are as keen as their predecessors on all questions of trade organisation, and have conducted most of the fighting strikes since the summer of 1889, they never forget that since 1867 they have had in the voting power of the people on the one hand, and the collective forces of that people organised as a State on the other, the final leverage that they want.
In a word, we have in the new Unionism the ripening seeds of another Chartist movement, which is political as well as social, or rather, social as to its end and political as to its means. Here, no doubt, there is a real, though not an apparent, difference between the old and the new Unionism. The old leaders professed to keep Trade Unionism clear of party politics, though, as a matter of fact they were mostly attached to the Liberals, and, while they constantly appealed to legislation, have in time come to link their movement to a fanciful ideal of self-help. The new, while they sympathise with the political side of Radicalism, have no traditional attachment to either party, and would take benefits from both. In point of fact—and here I approach the main object of my paper-Unionism to-day is largely a reversion to the Unionism of an older growth than that to which I
have been referring, and which is in itself the sober child of a singularly sturdy parent. Or to put it simply, the new Unionism, like the old in its inception, though not in its later growth, is Socialistic; but unlike the old, it springs, as Mr. Greenwood correctly says, out of the people's gathering hopes of better things, rather than from the voiceless depths of their despair. It is, like Chartism, a distinctly knife-and-fork, breadand-butter movement, with a more reassured, more cautious, in every way soberer, economic basis, and a better chance of working the Parliamentary oracle.
And now, leaving Mr. Greenwood, let me go back to the starting point I have chosen.
That Chartism was in its origin and essence a social movement, using political reform as a means rather than an end, precisely as the new Unionists are prepared to use it to-day, no student of its history can doubt. Some of its ablest leaders were largely under the influence of Robert Owen's teaching and personal example, and those among them who were Trade Unionists had a more direct incentive to social reform in their knowledge of the earlier infamies of the factory system, and of the pitiless enforcement of the Poor Law of 1834. Men like Lovett never disguised their conviction that what they wanted was to " probe our social evils to their source"; and the second great petition of 1841 drew attention not simply to currency reform, and what may be called the "faddy”
VOL. IV.-NO. 22.