Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 8.djvu/485

 12 s. vm. MAY H, 1921.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 399 of the City.' Henry's son was founder of St. Paul's School. According to Howlett (in ' Monumenta Franciscana ') Henry Collet was Sheriff in 1474, and this is confirmed by the following note : " Thys yere beganne the reparaciones of the walls of the Cette of London and the detches abowte New Cutte. Humfry Leyford, Mayor, John Stocker, Henry Collet, Shreffys." Henry VI. 17. Robert Stocker, father of Petronilla, the wife of Thomas Collet, was brother of Sir William Stocker, Mayor, 1485, and Alderman John Stocker of the same date. Robert was a member of the Staple of Calais, of which his brother William was also Mayor, and the three brothers, William, John and Robert, were all members of the Drapers' Company. Any information about the Stocker family, especially of the fifteenth century, would be gladly accepted. CHARLES J. S. STOCKER. MoW're. By on Arthur Tilley. (Cambridge Uni- THE attractiveness of Moliere to the Englishman might be made the theme for an interesting in- quiry. It cannot be explained by the position he occupies among the classics of French literature ; indeed it is a proof of the reality of his charm that it can survive a connexion with recitation books and literary primers. And it is felt by many who are not students of the drama or of history. Perhaps the medley of vague associations which his name suggests (it may be termed the legend of Moliere) makes special appeal to the English imagination. He had in a supreme degree the quality of pluck, he turned misf orl une into laughter and made a jest of his own sufferings. Moreover, he died in harness ; his last hour was passed upon the stage not " a good end " perhaps, but at least it was a brave one. And so he holds a place in the esteem of the ordinaryEnglishman which is not accorded to any other writer of an alien race, but his claim to it is not based on those qualities which have made him, to the literary mind, so fascinating a subject for study and criticism and research. There exists a whole literature of Moliere (a complete catalogue of the books written about him requires an index if it is to serve any useful purpose), nevertheless there is a place for the new study given us by Mr. Tilley. It is natural that offers of guidance made from so many quarters should excite a desire for independent exploration, but the work of Moliere is not the best field for such adventure ; it cannot be separated without loss from those details of the conditions and in- fluences surrounding it with which the investiga- tions of scholars have supplied us. The inter- play of cause and effect between his personal experience and the development of his art is ex- traordinarily interesting. His cynicism, his scorn of cant and of all hollow .profession of religion has aroused the antagonism of some critics, among whom M. Brunetiere is chief (for his condemnation by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was entirely un- critical), yet it would seem to have been the in- evitable consequence of the treatment meted out to him by his contemporaries. For he was an actor first and a dramatist afterwards ; the call to the stage had come in his boyhood, his vocation was a part of his being, and by that vocation he fell under the ban of the Church. At a time when external religion had so large a part in the life of the nation an actor was debarred from the practice of it. Thirty years after the death of Moliere it is recorded by that delightful letter- writer President Dugas that certain Italian comedians " struck " for their Catholic privilege, and Cardinal de Noailles allowed them to bring and a chaplain from their native land on whom the rules laid down for the French clergy would not be binding. If the absurdity of such a compromise was patent to the worthy lawyer who was an unconcerned observer, it may be assumed that to Moliere the system that laid a ban on himself and his fellow-artists appeared too inconsistent and unreasonable to claim respect. His sight was keen, he saw vice flaunting in high places and was overwhelmed by his sense of hypocrisy. H is art gave him the means to strike a blow at the evil that he loathed and Tartuffe came to life. In like manner the knowledge that came by intimate experience, the jealousy of his contemporaries, the faithlessness of those he loved, may be found expressed in those living characters that he created, and a lover of his work will not be satisfied with mere text-book knowledge of his life. It is clear from the study before us that Mr. Tilley may be classed among the lovers of Moliere. It has been written with evident enjoyment and it has the qualities and the defects of a book de- signed rather for the satisfaction of its author than for the illumination of any particular type of reader. Among its qualities we may note the evidence of a sympathetic understanding which is independent of the criticism of earlier authorities, and a wealth of allusion to contemporary life and literature. The plays are taken in chronological order and the incidents connected with them and the criticism and controversy they have excited are indicated. At the end are two chapters which sum up the scattered suggestion of the book. The scheme resembles that of the book by M. Donnay, although the conclusions differ materially, and both contain, in concise and in- telligible form, the knowledge most needed for the full enjoyment of the plays. There are certain omissions, however, in Mr. Tilley's work which are to be regretted. For a reader approaching the study of Moliere a bibliography indicating the leading authorities. would have been extremely useful. At the end of chap. i. a few books on Moliere are mentioned, but these pages give little guidance, and no reference is made to Voltaire, whose life, although it is mainly a reproduction of that of Grimarest, is more accessible to English readers. The description of the plays is too de- tailed to be intended for students of experience, yet in the neophyte too much knowledge is assumed and some conclusions are left unex- plained. Why, for instance, are we required to reject the idea that Montausier served as a model