No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Did Malherbe Correct Montchrestien?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
In 1934 Professor Lebègue devoted a series of three articles to the changes made by Montchrestien in the language of his play Sophonisbe as evident in the 1596, 1601, and (to a lesser degree) in the 1604 editions. In these articles Lebègue further attempted to show that the changes made by Montchrestien were the result of the latter's conversations with his compatriot Malherbe. It must be admitted at the outset that Lebègue establishes a very convincing argument for Sophonisbe and especially in so far as concerns the changes made between the 1596 and 1601 editions upon which he has concentrated his main effort. But at the same time one cannot escape the conclusion that if Montchrestien had been a willing pupil of Malherbe before 1601 and had retained some of the latter's teachings, he, nevertheless, reasserted his linguistic independence shortly thereafter. For the 1604 edition of his plays teems with forms, uses, and expressions which, no doubt, would have suffered the ignominy of being crossed out by the irritable pen of the “Docteur en négative.”
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1940
References
1 “Malherbe, Correcteur de Tragédie,” RHL, xli (1934), 161–184; 344–361; 481–496.
2 RHL, xli (1934), 161–169.
3 I have used the following abbreviations for references occurring frequently: François de Malherbe, Œuvres, éd. L. Lalanne (Paris: 1862–1869, 5 vols): Malherbe, Œuvres; Ferdinand Brunot, La Doctrine de Malherbe d'après son Commentaire sur Desportes (Paris: Masson, 1891): Doctrine; Ferdinand Brunot, Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900 (Paris: Colin, 1922): Brunot, Histoire.
4 RHL, xli (1934), 168.
5 Antoine de Montchrestien, Aman, a critical edition by George O. Seiver (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1939).
6 Seiver, op. cit., pp. 4–5.
7 Lebègue further included in his study a section on Style (pp. 354–361) and a section on Orthography (pp. 171–173). The style of Aman is treated in my edition (pp. 6–15); the study of the orthography is omitted because it bears no particular significance. We may note, however, the following spelling which run counter to Malherbe's dicta: malveillance (B 160); Bien-vueillans (A 1457) and bien-veillans (B 1365). Malherbe suggested the spelling veuillez and not vueillez (Doctrine, 415); Nud (B 758) was also disapproved (Doctrine, 519); à par-moy (B 1384) suffered the same fate (Doctrine, 518).
8 The numbering of the pages in which these examples occur is according to the pagination in Petit de Julleville, Les Tragédies de Montchrestien (Paris: Plon, 1891).
9 RHL, xli (1934), 175.
9a Cf. Petit de Julleville, op. cit.
10 Brunot, Histoire, ii, 283.
11 Cited by Brunot, Histoire, iii, 367.
12 Cf. also Brunot, Histoire, iii, 359.
13 Cf. also Brunot, Histoire, ii, 412–415.
14 A. Haase, Syntaxe française du XVII e siècle, éd. M. Obert, (Paris: Delagrave, 1935), § 9, ii.
15 A. Haase, op. cit., §13, D.
16 A. Haase, op. cit., §29, A.
17 A. Haase, op. cit., §57, i.
18 Cf., also A. Haase, op. cit., §24, B.
19 A. Haase, Zur Syntax Robert Garniers. (In Französische Studien, v, pp. 1–100). Heilbron, 1885, p. 34.
20 G. Cayrou, Le français classique (Paris, 1897).
21 C. F. de Vaugelas, Remarques sur la langue françoise. (Facsimilé de l'édition originale.) éd. Jeanne Streicher (Paris: STFM, 1934), pp. 300–302.