MISCELLANEOUS. THE PASSING OF CARMEN SYLVA. The daily press announced the death of Elizabeth, Queen of Roumania, well known and highly respected the world over, not only as a worthy representative of European royalty, but what is more, as a poet. She came of an old German noble family bearing a princely title,-sovereign rulers, but not however of the highest rank of nobility. Nevertheless she was destined by fate to rise to the dignity of a queen. In her maiden years she was wooed by a German prince, a member of the Swabian Hohenzollern, the second and less important branch of the imperial family of Germany, and in the course of events it happened that the Roumanian people called this same prince to the throne of Roumania. The young Princess of Wied yielded to her noble suitor with reluctance, and so it happened that the young German poetess ascended a throne and achieved the distinction of royalty. She never wrote over her own name, but used the pseudonym “Carmen Sylva,” and in all parts of the world she was better known by this name than by her real titles of princess and queen. Carmen Sylva had friends and sympathizers not only throughout her native country, Germany, and in Roumania, but also in many other lands, and in literary circles everywhere her name was a name of honor. Nor was she distinguished only in the field of literature; she was widely known as a patron of the arts and sciences as well, and of humanitarian effort. She always showed her sympathy with the modern woman's movement, and it was in the interests of this that she wrote a poem for publication on the occasion of the Hague Conference, held a few years ago for the furtherance of that cause. The poem, which sets forth the right of mothers not to sacrifice their sons in international struggles between nations, was written before the war, and it may be of interest now to read the protest of a mother against surrendering the lives of her sons. The ideal she presents is one whose fulfilment is devoutly to be desired, but so long as this world is a world of struggle it will scarcely be realized, and we do not believe that her sentiments fulfil the expectations which in times of crisis we may hold of mothers. It is certain that the mothers of her own country have been compelled by circumstances to offer this most terrible of sacrifices on the altar of the fatherland. The protest of Carmen Sylva is here reproduced in her own handwriting, and we append, with a few alterations, a translation of it as found in the publication of the International Woman's Demonstration. Für's Vaterland! Für's Vaterland. das klut, das unser Blück, die Hand Was wir in Todesqual geschenkt Nicht fordert's von den Mücktern mehrt. Von Feinden redete nie! Rindershare für Eu! Für's Vaterland sein heistesthate, Und Grüßen nämten Bründer: Frind! der wegen sie sor sheers vereint, Und sagten. Mutter! – wut und still Carmen Sylve Bucarest, 13. Mei, 1899 CONSTANTINE CONSTANTINOVITCH. Grand Duke Constantine Constantinovitch, whose drama, The King of the Jews, is discussed elsewhere in this number, died on June 15, 1915, in St. Petersburg of heart-disease at the age of fifty-seven years. He was born in 1858, and married Princess Elizabeth of Saxe-Altenburg, Germany, a schoolfriend of the German empress, in 1884. As a member of the reigning family and general of infantry the grand duke was one of the commanding figures in the Russian nobility, and one of the most influential men around the czar. He was severely arraigned with other grand dukes in 1908 for attempting to influence the actions of the Duma. He was also not immune from revolutionist plots. The previous year an attempt had been made to blow up at Orel the train on which he was a passenger. When the present war broke out he and his wife with their children were at Willungen in Germany for their health, and had to leave the hostile country. It is believed that he was strongly opposed to the war and that his death was due to the sudden shock the outbreak of hostilities between his country and Germany gave him. Who knows whether he might not have been able to prevent the war if he had been in St. Petersburg in July, 1914. Grand Duke Constantine represented that type of a Russian in higher circles which is highly respected by the Western world. He had little of the Tartar and more than a mere veneer of civilization, and his sudden death at this critical hour was a severe blow for the intellectual, liberal party in Russia. Providence was indeed favorable to him in taking him away before he could live to see the misfortunes of his country. President of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, and head of the Department of Military Schools, Constantine Constantinovitch was the most educated and scholarly man in the imperial family, and throughout his lifetime was deeply interested in the sciences, arts and letters. He was noted as a Shakespearean scholar and translated Hamlet into Russian. He also had this play staged for the imperial family and he played the title-role. It was said in 1907 that his constant study of the melancholy Dane had preyed upon his mind until he became insane and was ordered under restraint by the czar. (Was the czar of all the Russias afraid of his influence?) Emperor Nicholas issued a decree appointing his younger brother Demetrius guardian of his eight children, but later the grand duke was reported to have recovered from his mental aberration. (In other words, pressure was brought upon Little Father, and he had to yield to the general clamor of the St. Petersburg aristocracy.) He was also the author of several popular volumes of poems and dramas, all of which are signed "K. K." (= Konstantin Konstantinovitch). Besides Hamlet he also staged his play, The Bride of Messina, in 1909, and his sacred drama, The King of the Jews, in 1913-4, before Emperor Nicholas and the imperial family. In the latter play he took the role of Joseph of Arimathaea. With regard to the latter see Dr. M. J. Rudwin's article on "Modern Passion Plays" on another page of this issue. MR. WHITZEL ON THE RESURRECTION. In publishing Mr. Frank R. Whitzel's suggestion entitled "Possible Origin of the Resurrection Story," I wish to say that he certainly does not underrate the significance of the part which Joseph of Arimathæa plays in the disposal of the body of Christ, and he points out that this mysterious figure disappears suddenly and definitely from view. It is improbable, however, that this rich man should have followed a clear plan with a purpose that indicates a deep foresight of a great movement such as actually took place in the origin of Christianity and the foundation of the church. But there is another possibility, suggested some years ago by Dr. Paul Schwartzkopff of Wernigerode, who asked himself the question, what can have been the motive of Joseph of Arimathæa in demanding the body of Jesus from Pontius Pilate? Joseph is regarded in tradition as a disciple, but it is neither probable that he had met Jesus before the crucifixion nor that he joined the Nazarenes afterwards. We would most certainly have been informed of it in the Acts of the Apostles. It is probable therefore that he was an outsider, and his motive for procuring the body of Jesus was not because he was a believer. Schwartzkopff calls attention to the superstition prevalent in ancient times, verifying it by quotations, that a violent death conveys magical powers. The nail used in crucifixion, the wood of the cross, the ropes with which a criminal has been hanged, étc., can be used and have been used for exorcism. The bodies of men who died an unnatural death were believed to be a protection against demons or evil spirits. Such remains would therefore be thought of value to safeguard a tomb; and it would thus seem probable that Joseph had some such thought in mind, and that, being afraid lest some one else might steal the body, he took it out of the tomb and hid it in a secret place. The resurrection story of Mark closes with the statement that the women found the grave empty; and, following this abrupt conclusion, there is appended the concluding portion of Mark, which is drawn from another source. P. C. SOME RECENT FRENCH BOOKS ON THE GREAT WAR. BY THEODORE STANTON. The Paris press, like those of most other countries, has been teeming, during the past year, with books and pamphlets on the great war. I propose, in this article, to touch briefly on some of these publications, all of which, of course, present events from the pro-Allies standpoint. Six mois de guerre (Paris, Hachette, 3 frs. 50), by the veteran Paris journalist, M. Gaston Jollivet, is excellently planned and covers the period extending from August, 1914, to February, 1915. It consists of the official reports issued by the French general headquarters and the chief ones given out by the German headquarters; of the principal political and diplomatic events which have happened among the warring and neutral nations; of extracts from official documents, speeches of prominent public men, articles from leading reviews and newspapers, etc.; of side-lights on the conflict, such as matters concerning hospitals, prisoners, heroic actions, etc. The book contains plans and maps, and is a real vade-mecum for the present war. It will probably be followed by several other similar volumes. In fact the second of the series is now being prepared. M. Jollivet's book of facts is well supplemented and completed by L'Alle |