Chapter THE LAST (2)

The MS. corrector, changing one letter, converts “beast” into _boast_, whereupon Mr Singer says, “Who could have imagined that any one familiar with the poet, as Mr Collier tells us he has been for the last fifty years, could for a moment entertain the absurd change of ‘beast’ to _boast_ in this celebrated passage?” Here Mr Singer expresses himself, as we think, a great deal too strongly. In better taste is Mr John Foster’s defence of the received reading. He says (we quote from Mr Dyce, p. 124), with great good sense and propriety, “Here Mr Collier reasons, as it appears to us, without sufficient reference to the context of the passage, and its place in the scene. The expression immediately preceding, and eliciting Lady Macbeth’s reproach, is that in which Macbeth declares that he dares do all that may become _a man_, and that who dares more _is none_. She instantly takes up that expression--If not an affair in which _a man_ may engage, what _beast_ was it then in himself or others that made him break this enterprise to her? The force of the passage lies in that contrasted word, and its meaning is lost by the proposed substitution.” We admit the force of this reasoning, and it, together with the consideration that _beast_ is the word actually in possession of the text, rather inclines us, though not without much hesitation, to prefer the old reading. We strongly suspect that the contrast of the _beast_ and the _man_ may have been an accident due to the carelessness, or perhaps an alteration due to the ingenuity of the printer. There is to our feelings a stronger expression of contempt, a more natural, if not a fiercer taunt in _boast_ than in “beast.” “What vain braggadocio fit--what swaggering humour was it, then, that made you break this enterprise to me?” There is nothing in Mr Dyce’s objection, that Macbeth had _not_ previously vaunted his determination to murder Duncan. He certainly _had_ broken the project to his wife both by letter and in conversation, and that pretty strongly too, as is evident from her words, “Nor time nor place did _then_ adhere,” that is, when he first broached the subject, “yet you would make both”--that is, you would make both time and place bend to the furtherance of your design, even when they were not in themselves ripe and suitable. And even though Macbeth had not announced his project in a boastful manner, it was quite natural that the lady, disgusted by his vacillation, should, in her excited state, upbraid him as an empty boaster, and a contemptible poltroon. Tried by their intrinsic merits, we regard “boast” as rather the better reading of the two; and if we advocate the retention of “beast,” it is only on the ground that it, too, affords a very good meaning, and is _de facto_ the text of the old folios.

_Act III. Scene 4._--The following passage has occasioned some discussion among the commentators. Macbeth addresses the ghost of Banquo,

“Approach thou like the rugged Russian bear,
The armed rhinoceros, or the Hyrcan tiger;
Take any shape but that, and my firm nerves
Shall never tremble; or, be alive again,
And dare me to the desert with thy sword:
If trembling I _inhibit_, then protest me
The baby of a girl.”

This is the common reading, or at least was so until a comparatively recent period. “_Inhabit_,” says Henley, “is the original reading, and it needs no alteration. The obvious meaning is--should you challenge me to encounter you in the desert, and I, through fear, remain trembling in my castle, _then_ protest me,” &c. Horne Tooke (_Diversions of Purley_, ii. p. 55) slightly varies this reading by placing the comma after _then_, instead of after _inhabit_.

“Dare me to the desert with thy sword,
If trembling I inhabit then;”--

_i. e._, if _then_ I do not meet thee there; if trembling I stay at home, or within doors, or under any roof, or within any _habitation_; if, when you call me to the desert, I then _house_ me, or through fear hide myself from thee in any dwelling--

“If trembling I do _house me then_, protest me,” &c.

Probably, then, the best reading is,

“If trembling I _inhabit then_, protest me,” &c.

At any rate, the MS. corrector’s prosaic substitution--“if trembling I _exhibit_,” _i. e._, if I show any symptoms of trepidation, cannot be listened to for a moment.

_Act IV. Scene 1._--The MS. corrector alters very properly “Rebellious dead” of the old copies, into

“_Rebellion’s head_ rise never till the wood
Of Birnam rise.”

Theobald had got the length of changing “dead” into _head_, but the alteration of “rebellious” into _rebellion’s_ is due to the old corrector, and it is decidedly an improvement.

When Macbeth has resolved to seize Macduff’s castle, and put his wife and children to the sword, he exclaims--

“This deed I’ll do before this purpose cool,
But no more _sights_!”

The MS. corrector proposes _flights_, and not without some show of reason. Macbeth has just been informed that Macduff has fled to England, and the escape has evidently discomposed him, as placing beyond his reach his most deadly enemy. Accordingly, he is supposed by the MS. corrector to exclaim, “No more flights! I must take care that no more of that party escape me.” But, on the other hand, Macbeth, a minute before, has been inveighing against the witches. He says--

“Infected be the air whereon they ride,
And damned all that trust them!”

So that “But no more sights” may mean, I will have no more dealings with these infernal hags. The word “But” seems to be out of place in connection with “flights”--and therefore we pronounce in favour of the old reading.

_Scene 3._--Malcolm, speaking of himself, says--

“In whom I know
All the particulars of vice so grafted,
That when they shall be _open’d_, black Macbeth
Shall seem as pure as snow.”

“Here,” says Mr Collier, “as has been said on many former occasions, ‘opened’ affords sense, but so inferior to that given by the correction of the folio 1632, that we need not hesitate in concluding that Shakespeare, carrying on the figure suggested by the word ‘grafted’ as applied to fruit, must have written--

‘That when they shall be _ripened_, black Macbeth
Will seem as pure as snow.’”

But does not Mr Collier see that the metaphor is one which does not turn upon _fruit_ at all, but that it turns upon _flowers_? And who ever heard of flowers _ripening_? That the allusion is to flowers is obvious from this, that Malcolm’s vices are said to surpass Macbeth’s in their _colour_. “Compared with me, black Macbeth shall seem as pure _as snow_.” What confusion of ideas can have put _fruit_ into the dunderhead of the corrector, and what obliquity of judgment should have led Mr Collier to affirm, that “opened” affords a sense so inferior to _ripened_, it is very difficult to comprehend. In his appendix, Mr Collier says, “an objection to _ripened_ instead of ‘opened,’ may be, that Malcolm is representing these ‘particulars of vice’ in him as already at maturity.” Not at all; that would have been no objection. His vices _were_ immature, but their immaturity was that of flowers, and not that of fruits. So that Mr Collier is equally at fault in his reasons _for_ and in his reasons _against_ the word “opened.” This is not pretty in a man who has some claims to be regarded as one of the greatest Shakespearian scholars of the day.

The MS. corrector in no way redeems his character by suggesting a decided alteration for the worse in the line where Macduff says to Malcolm--

“You may
_Convey_ your pleasures in a spacious plenty.”

Read _enjoy_, says the corrector. We have no doubt that “convey” is the right word--only we had better punctuate the line thus,

“Convey your pleasures in,--a spacious plenty;”

_i. e._ Gather them in,--an abundant harvest.

_Act V. Scene 2._--In the lines in which the unsettled condition of Macbeth’s mind is alluded to, the corrector proposes a specious though far from necessary amendment.

“But for certain,
He cannot buckle his distempered _cause_
Within the belt of rule.”

The MS. correction is _course_; _i. e._ course of action, which is distempered by the shattered condition of his nerves. But “cause” fits the place perfectly well, if taken for his affairs generally, his whole system of procedure; and therefore we are of opinion that the text ought not to be disturbed.

_Scene 3._ In the line where Macbeth says--

“This push
Will cheer me ever, or disseat me now,”

we approve of the substitution of _chair_ for “cheer,” as proposed long ago by Bishop Percy, and now seconded by the MS. corrector. But we see no good reason for changing “stuff” into _grief_, in the line

“Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous _stuff_
Which weighs upon the heart.”

There seems to have been but little _grief_ on the part either of the tyrant or his lady; and the repetition of “stuffed” and “stuff” is very much after the manner of Shakespeare.

_Scene 4._ Malcolm says of Macbeth’s followers--

“For where there is advantage _to be given_,
Both more and less, have given him the revolt;”

that is, where any advantage is held out, or “to be given” to them, both strong and weak desert Macbeth’s standard. The MS. corrector proposes “advantage _to be gotten_; a better reading, which has been often suggested, is “advantage _to be gained_,” and this we regard as more suitable to modern notions; but we counsel no change in the text, because the old reading was to a certainty the language of Shakespeare.

The latinism of _farced_, _i. e._, stuffed out, for “forced,” has not a shadow of probability in its favour. Macbeth says of the troops opposed to him--

“Were they not _forced_ with those that should be ours,
We might have met them, dareful, beard to beard.”

“Forced,” says Mr Singer very properly, “is used in the sense of _re-inforced_.” Neither can we accept _quailed_ for “cooled,” at the recommendation of the MS. corrector, in these lines where Macbeth says--

“The time has been my senses would have _cool’d_
To hear a night-shriek; and my fell of hair
Would at a dismal treatise rouse and stir
As life were in’t.”

“My senses would have _cooled_”--that is, my nerves would have thrilled with an _icy_ shudder. The received text is quite satisfactory.

* * * * *

HAMLET.--_Act I. Scene 2._--In consistency with the verdict just given, we must pronounce the following new reading, at any rate, reasonable.

Horatio, describing the effect of the appearance of the ghost upon Bernardo and Marcellus, tells Hamlet, as the quartos give it--

“They _distill’d_
Almost to jelly with the act of fear,
Stand dumb, and speak not to him.”

The folios read “bestilled.” The MS. correction is _bechill’d_. And this we prefer to bestilled. It is quite in keeping with Macbeth’s expression--

“My senses would have _cool’d_
To hear a night-shriek.”

Shakespeare probably knew that “jelly” was _gelu_, ice. But “distilled,” the common reading, affords quite as good a meaning as _bechilled_, and therefore, as this word has authority in its favour, which _bechilled_ has not, we advise no alteration of the text.

_Scene 3._--We think that the old corrector was right, when he changed “chief” into _choice_ in the lines where the style in which Frenchmen dress is alluded to--

“And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chef in that.”

This is the reading of the old copies. The modern editions read more intelligibly--

“Are most select and generous, chief in that.”

“Chief” for chiefly. But we prefer the MS. correction--

“Are of a most select and generous _choice_ in that,”

both as affording better sense, and as coming nearer the old text than the received reading does.

In the same scene, Polonius says to his daughter--

“I would not, in plain terms, from this time forth,
Have you so _slander_ any moment’s leisure,
As to give words, or talk with the lord Hamlet.”

We believe that “slander” here means _abuse_, _misuse_, and therefore we prefer the received text to _squander_, the reading of the MS. corrector.

_Scene 5._--The ghost says--

“Thus was I sleeping, by a brother’s hand,
Of life, of crown, of queen, at once _despatch’d_.”

The margins read--

“Of life, of crown, of queen, at once _despoiled_,”

which may be more strictly grammatical than the other. But “despatched” is more forcible, and indicates a more summary mode of procedure. “Despatched,” says Mr Dyce, “expresses the _suddenness_ of the bereavement.” The quartos read “deprived,” which is quite as good as _despoiled_.

_Act II. Scene 2._--Hamlet says--

“For it cannot be
But I am pigeon-livered, and lack gall
To make _oppression_ better, or ere this
I should have fatted all the region kites
With this slave’s offal.”

The margins have the weakness to propose “to make _transgression_ bitter!” We are glad to perceive that the mild Mr Dyce “lacks not gall to make _senseless criticism_ bitter.” He says, “This alteration is nothing less _than villanous_. Could the MS. corrector be so obtuse as not to perceive that ‘lack gall to make oppression bitter,’ means lack gall to make me feel the bitterness of oppression?” Mr Singer proposes _aggression_, which is just one half as bad as _transgression_. Why cannot the commentators leave well alone?

_Act III. Scene 3._--To change “prize” into _purse_ in the expression,

“the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law,”

simply shows a dogged determination on the part of the old corrector to be more perversely idiotical than we can believe that his stars doomed even _him_ to be. The king is speaking of his usurped crown and dominion as his “wicked _prize_.” Mr Collier having put on livery in the old corrector’s service, has, of course, nothing for it but to assent. He says, “We need no great persuasion to make us believe that we ought to read _purse_.” Do not suppose, Mr Collier, that we are going to be gulled by that remark--you yourself, we are convinced, never swallowed so bitter a pill as that new reading, in all your born days.

_Act III. Scene 4._--The MS. correction, “I’ll _sconce_ me even here,” says Polonius, is to be preferred to the ordinary reading, “I’ll _silence_ me even here.” This reading was also proposed not long ago by Mr Hunter.

_Act IV. Scene 3._--In the next, Mr Collier is not quite so sure of his ground, and well may he distrust it. He says, “The next emendation is well worthy of consideration, and _perhaps_ of adoption. The king asks Hamlet where Polonius is at supper, and the answer is this in the quartos--

“Not where he eats, but where he is eaten; a certain
convocation of _politic_ worms are even at him. Your worm
is the only emperor for diet,” &c.

The corrector treats us to “a convocation of _palated_ worms,” which is a view of the subject we cannot at all stomach. If there is any one word in all Shakespeare which we can be more certain of than another as having been written by himself, the term “politic,” as used in this place, is that word. The context, “convocation,” proves this. A convocation is a kind of parliament, and does not a parliament imply policy? “Politic” here means _polite, social, and discriminating_. Mr Collier advances a very singular argument in behalf of _palated_. “If the text had always stood ‘palated worms,’ and if it had been proposed to change it to ‘politic worms,’ few readers would for an instant have consented to relinquish an expression so peculiarly Shakespearian.” That is to say, if we had the best possible reasons for thinking that Shakespeare wrote “palated,” we should not be disposed to alter it. True: but in that case we can assure Mr Collier that our forbearance would be occasioned only by our respect for the authentic text, and not by our opinion that “palated” is the better word of the two. _Palated_ is, in every respect, inferior to “politic”--so inferior, that had _palated_ been the text, we should strongly have suspected a misprint, and had “politic” stood on the margin we should certainly have recommended it for favourable consideration, as we have done several of the MS. corrections which have not nearly so strong claims on our approval. The corrector must have been _very old_ (or very young) when he set down this new reading.

* * * * *

KING LEAR.--_Act I. Scene 1._--Regan remarks that in comparison with her father’s welfare--

“I profess
Myself an enemy to all other joys
That the most _precious square_ of sense possesses.”

The MS. corrector reads “precious _sphere_,” which Mr Singer trumps by playing out “_spacious_ sphere.” Both of these new readings are good, considered as _modernisations_ of Shakespeare. But the old text is not to be doubted: it is quite intelligible, and therefore ought not to be disturbed. “Square” means compass, _area_.

In the following passage, too, we advocate the retention of the old text, though the MS. correction is plausible--is one of the best we have been favoured with. Cordelia entreats her father to

“Make known
It is no vicious blot, _murder_, or foulness--
No unchaste action, or dishonoured _step_,
That hath deprived me of your grace and favour.”

Mr Collier remarks: “Murder (spelt _murther_ in the folios) seems here entirely out of place; Cordelia could never contemplate that anybody would suspect her of murder; she is referring to ‘vicious blots’ and ‘foulness’ in respect to virtue, and there cannot, we apprehend, be a doubt that the old corrector has given us the real language of Shakespeare when he puts the passage thus--

‘Make known
It is no vicious blot, _nor other_ foulness.’”

But the King of France has just before said--

“Sure her offence
Must be of such _unnatural_ degree
That _monsters it_;”

that is, that makes a monster of it--it can be nothing short of some crime of the deepest dye--and therefore “murder” does not seem to be so much out of place in the mouth of Cordelia. _Stoop_ for “step,” as proposed by the corrector, is still less to be accepted. Had he never heard of a _faux pas_?

_Act II. Scene 4._--The fool, declaring that he will not desert his master, sings--

“But I will stay; the fool will stay,
And let the wise man fly.
The knave turns fool that runs away,
The fool no knave, perdy.”

Dr Johnson proposed to correct the two last lines thus--

“The _fool_ turns _knave_ that runs away,
The _knave_ no _fool_, perdy.”

And the MS. corrector does the same. Mr Singer, however, declares “that the words _knave_ and _fool_ are in their right places in the old text.” We wish that he had explained his view; for, to our apprehension, the new reading is the only one which makes sense.

One or two very small amendments here present themselves, which on the score of taste are not altogether objectionable, but the superiority of which is by no means so undoubted as to entitle them to a place in the text. The following is one of them--probably the best--_Act IV. Scene 1_, Edgar, in disguise, says--

“Yet better thus, and known to be contemned,
Than still contemned and flattered.”

The meaning is--’tis better to be thus contemned and known to one’s-self to be contemned--than contemned, and at the same time so flattered as not to know that you are contemned. The old corrector proposes--

“_Yes_, better _thus unknown_ to be contemned,” &c.,

a reading (all but the _yes_) suggested long ago by Dr Johnson--but one in no respect superior in merit to the common text. The common reading “our mean (_i. e._ our mediocrity) secures us,” is greatly to be preferred to the MS. correction “our _wants_ secure us.” We confess, however, a predilection for the “lust-dieted man that _braves_ your ordinance” (the ordinance of heaven), instead of the common reading, “_slaves_ your ordinance,” although this is defended by Dr Johnson against Warburton, who long ago proposed the word (_braves_) which appears on the margins of the folio.

_Scene 6._--

“Behold yond’ simpering dame
Whose face between her forks presageth snow,
Who _minces_ virtue, and does shake the head
To hear of pleasure’s name.”

“Who _mimics_ virtue” say the margins, accommodating Shakespeare to the tastes and understandings of a degenerate period. But, “who minces virtue” is far finer: it means, who _affects_ a nicety of virtue. We think that Dr Delius is wrong in preferring _mimics_.

Edgar, when he discovers that Goneril has a plot upon her husband’s life, exclaims--

“Oh, _undistinguish’d space_ of woman’s will!
A plot upon her virtuous husband’s life,
And the exchange my brother!”

The corrector’s substitution--

“Oh, _unextinguished blaze_ of woman’s will!”

may be dismissed at once as utterly irreconcilable with the context, besides being villanous rhodomontade. The context lets us know very plainly what the meaning of the first line must be. “A plot,” says Edgar, “on the life of her husband, the best of men! and a marriage with my brother, the greatest scoundrel unhanged! Oh, workings of woman’s will, past all finding out--past all distinguishing!” “Oh, unfathomable depth;” “Oh, unintelligible tortuosity;” “Oh, undistinguishable limits;” that we believe to be the meaning of “_Oh, undistinguished space_ of woman’s will.” The text requires no amendment; and we would merely suggest _ways_ or _depth_ as a gloss, and not as a substitute for “space.”

OTHELLO.--_Act I. Scene 1._--The old corrector sometimes passes over lines which present intolerable difficulties. We wish, in particular, that he had favoured us with his sentiments on that line which has baffled all mankind, in which Iago describes Cassio as

“A fellow almost damned in a fair wife.”

Difficulty first, Cassio was _not married_! Difficulty second, Supposing him to be married, why should he be either almost or altogether damned in a fair wife? Difficulty third, Why, if damned at all, should he be only _almost_, and not _completely_, damned in her? These are points on which the old scholiast has not attempted to throw any light. Cassio, it is well known, had a mistress. Is it possible, then, that Shakespeare should use “wife” in the sense of mistress or woman? That supposition might remove the difficulty. As it is, all attempts to amend the line have hitherto been abortive. It still stands the _opprobrium criticorum_.

After trying his hand very unsuccessfully on one or two passages, the MS. corrector comes to the lines in which Desdemona is described by Roderigo as

“Tying her duty, beauty, wit, and fortunes,
In an extravagant and _wheeling_ stranger
Of here and everywhere.”

Mr Collier says: “Here the commentators have notes upon ‘extravagant,’ but pass over ‘wheeling’ without explanation, although _very unintelligible_ where it stands.” He then remarks that “_wheedling_ (the MS. correction for ‘wheeling’) is an important improvement of the text.” Few people, we imagine, will agree with Mr Collier in thinking either that “wheeling” is unintelligible, or that _wheedling_ is an improvement. “A wheeling stranger of here and everywhere” is as plain, and, at the same time, as poetical a periphrasis for _a vagabond_ as can be well conceived. We may be _certain_ that the text as it stands is the language of Shakespeare.

Proceeding onwards, we meet with nothing which can be recommended for the text, and little which attracts our attention, until we come to the expression, “A super-subtle Venetian,” which is Iago’s designation for Desdemona. The old corrector makes him call her “a _super-supple_ Venetian”! But, if his own good taste could not keep the old gentleman right, surely the context might have done so. Iago says--“An erring barbarian (_i. e._ Othello) and a super-subtle Venetian” (_i. e._ Desdemona). There is here a fine opposition between barbarism and subtlety; but what opposition, what relation of any kind, is there between barbarism and _suppleness_?

_Act II. Scene 3._--Othello, in a state of excitement, says--

“And passion having my best judgment _collied_,”

for which the MS. correction is _quelled_. Mr Collier says, “There can hardly be a doubt that this is the proper restoration.” Whereupon Mr Singer observes pathetically--and we quite agree with him--“I pity the man who could for a moment think of displacing the effective and now consecrated word _collied_. Its obvious meaning is _darkened_, _obfuscated_; and a more appropriate and expressive word could not have been used.”

_Act IV. Scene 1._--Othello, when the pretended proofs of Desdemona’s guilt are accumulating upon him, and just before he falls into a fit, exclaims, “Nature would not invest herself in such _shadowing_ passion without some instruction.” Johnson thus explains the place, “It is not _words_ which shake me thus. This passion which spreads its clouds over me, is the effect of some agency more than the _operation of words_: it is one of these notices which men have of unseen calamities.” How near does that come to Campbell’s fine line,

“And coming events cast their _shadows_ before.”

Yet “shadowing” is to be deleted, and _shuddering_ substituted in its room. No, no, thou shadow--but not of Shakespeare--we cannot afford to be mulcted of so much fine poetry.

_Scene 2._--We might have called attention more frequently, as we went along, to many instances which prove, what we have now not the smallest doubt of, that these new readings were never at all intended by the MS. corrector to be viewed as _restorations_ of Shakespeare’s text; but simply as _avowed departures_ from his language, admitted innovations, which might better suit the tastes, as he thought, of a _progenies vitiosior_. That they were designed as restitutions of the true Shakespearian dialect is a pure hypothesis on the part of Mr Collier. It receives no countenance whatever from the handiwork of his corrector, whom, therefore, we exculpate from the crime of forgery, although his offences against good taste and common sense remain equally reprehensible. Mr Collier, we conceive, is greatly to blame for having mistaken so completely his _protégé’s_ intention. As an instance of a new reading in which the text is merely modernised, and certainly not restored, take the following, where Desdemona, speaking of Othello, says,

“How have I been behaved, that he might stick
The small’st opinion on my greatest abuse?”

This is the reading of the quartos. The folios have,

“The small’st opinion on my _least misuse_.”

The latter of which words the corrector changes into _misdeed_, as more intelligible to the ears of the groundlings subsequent to Shakespeare.

_Act V. Scene 2._--Æmilia, after the murder of Desdemona, declares that she will not hold her peace,

“No, I will speak as liberal as the _north_.”

The old quarto reads _air_. The MS. corrector reads _wind_. “Why, we may ask,” says Mr Collier, “should the old corrector make the change, inasmuch as no reasonable objection may be urged against the use of ‘north,’ which he deletes, not in favour of ‘air’ of the quarto 1622, but in favour of _wind_? We may presume that he altered the word because he had heard the line repeated in that manner on the stage.” That is not at all unlikely. Actors sometimes take considerable liberties with the text of their parts, and they probably did so in the time of Shakespeare as well as now. A player might use _the north_, or _the air_, or _the wind_, according as the one or other of these words came most readily to his mouth. But that proves nothing in regard to the authentic text of Shakespeare. For this we must look to his _published_ works in their earliest impressions. We attach little or no importance to the mere players’ alterations, even though Mr Collier should be able to prove (what he is not) that many of his corrector’s emendations were playhouse variations, for these were much more likely to have had their origin in individual caprice than in any more authoritative source.

* * * * *

ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.--_Act I. Scene 2._--Before changing the following passage,

“The present pleasure,
By _revolution lowering_, does become
The opposite of itself,”

we should require better authority than that of the MS. corrector, who reads,

“The present pleasure,
By _repetition souring_, does become
The opposite of itself.”

This, however, is one of his most specious emendations. But the words, “by revolution lowering,” are sufficiently intelligible,--and are indeed a very fine poetical expression for the instability of human pleasure.

_Scene 3._--Antony says to Cleopatra, who seems to doubt his love,

“My precious queen, forbear,
And give true _evidence_ to his love which stands
An honourable trial”--

that is, bear true witness to my love. The MS. corrector changes “evidence” into _credence_, as better suited to the popular apprehension, though much less pleasing to the discriminating reader. There cannot be a doubt as to which of the words is Shakespeare’s.

_Scene 5._--“An _arm-gaunt_ steed” has puzzled the commentators. Of all the substitutes proposed, _termagant_ is perhaps the best. _Arrogant_, suggested by Mr Boaden, and adopted by Mr Singer, is also worthy of consideration. Either of these words harmonises with the character of the animal “who neigh’d so high.” Sir T. Hanmer and the old corrector read _arm-girt_.

_Act II. Scene 2._--In the description of Cleopatra in her barge, it is said,

“The silken tackles
_Swell_ with the touches of those flower-soft hands
That yarely frame the office.”

Mr Collier says, “we ought _undoubtedly_, with the old corrector, to amend the text to

‘_Smell_ with the touches of the flower-soft hands.’”

Truly there _is_ no accounting for tastes!

_Scene 7._--“When Antony,” says Mr Collier, “during the debauch, says to Cæsar, ‘Be a child o’ the time,’ Cæsar replies rather unintelligibly,

‘_Possess it_, I’ll make answer; but I had rather fast
From all, four days, than drink so much in one.’

What does he mean by telling Antony ‘to possess it?’” His meaning is quite obvious; he means, _Be master of it_. “Be a child of the time,” says Antony. “Rather be its master, say I,” rejoins Cæsar--a sentiment much more likely to come from the lips of the great dictator than the paltry rejoinder which the old corrector puts into his mouth--“_Profess it_”--that is, profess to be the child of the time.

_Act III. Scene 4._--Antony, complaining of Cæsar’s unjust treatment, says,

“When the best hint was given him, he _not took’t_,
Or did it from his teeth;”

that is, when the most favourable representations of my conduct were made to him, he heeded them not, or merely put on the appearance of attending to them. The corrector reads, “_but looked_;” yet, although the folio 1623 has “he _not looked_,” we may be pretty sure that the text, as given above, is the right reading, as it is assuredly the only one which makes sense.

_Scene 6._--Cæsar expresses his dissatisfaction with the want of ceremony with which Octavia has been received on her entrance into Rome.

“But you are come
A market-maid to Rome, and have prevented
The ostentation of our love, which left, unshown,
Is often _left_ unlov’d.”

For “left” the corrector reads _held_, and Mr Singer proposes _felt_. But if either of these emendations were adopted, we should require to read, “is often felt _unloving_,” and this the measure will not permit. We therefore stand by the old text, the meaning of which we conceive to be--love which is left unshown is often left _unreturned_. “Wrong led” is better suited to its place than _wrongèd_, the MS. correction.

_Scene 11._--Enobarbus, ridiculing the idea that Cæsar will accept Antony’s challenge to meet him in single combat, says,

“That he should dream,
Knowing all _measures_, the full Cæsar will
Answer his emptiness”--

that is, it is surprising that Antony, who has experienced every measure of fortune, has drunk of her fullest as well as of her emptiest cup, should dream that the _full_ Cæsar will answer _his emptiness_. Here the words _full_ and _emptiness_ prove to a demonstration that “measure” is the right word; yet the MS. corrector alters it to _miseries_! Mr Collier remarks, in his supplementary notes, “Still, it may be fit to hesitate before _miseries_ for ‘measures’ is introduced into the text.” We see no ground for a moment’s hesitation. _Miseries_ is seen at a glance to be altogether unendurable.

In the same scene, somewhat further on, we think that the word _deputation_ ought to take the place of “disputation.” This was Warburton’s amendment; and the MS. correction coincides with it.

_Act IV. Scene 4._--“Antony,” says Mr Collier, “enters calling for his armour; ‘Mine armour, Eros;’ and when the man brings it, Antony is made to say in the old copies, ‘Put _thine_ iron on;’ but surely it ought to be as a manuscript note gives it, ‘Put _mine_ iron on.’” Not at all; either word will do; but “thine” is more consonant with ordinary usage. A gentleman asks his butler, not “have you cleaned _my_ plate?” but “have you cleaned _your_ plate?” meaning, my plate of which _you_ have the charge. Eros had the charge of Antony’s armour. We agree with the corrector, that the words, “What is this for?” should be given to Cleopatra, who is assisting to buckle on Antony’s armour, and not to Antony, to whom they are assigned in the _variorum_ edition 1785. “_Bear_ a storm” for “_hear_ a storm,” the common reading, is a very unnecessary change.

_Scene 8._--_Gests_ (gesta, exploits) for “guests” is highly to be commended in the lines where Antony says,

“We have beat him to his camp. Run one before
And let the queen know of our _gests_.”

This emendation by the old corrector ought to take its place in the text: and he should get the credit of it, although, as a proposed reading, it may be, as Mr Singer says, already well known.

_Scene 9._--_Fore sleep_ instead of “for sleep,” is also entitled to very favourable consideration.

_Scene 12._--_Composed_ for “disposed,” is the text _modernised_, not restored.

_Scene 13._--Cleopatra declares that she will never be led in triumph by Cæsar, as an object of scorn to the proud patrician dames.

“Your wife, Octavia, with her modest eyes,
And _still conclusion_, shall acquire no honour
Demuring upon me.”

How good is that expression “still conclusion”! That lady of yours, looking demurely upon me with her modest eyes, and _drawing her quiet inferences_, shall acquire no honour from the contrast between my fate with her own. And yet we are called upon by the MS. corrector to give up these pregnant words for the vapid substitution of “still _condition_!” This, we say, is no fair exchange, but downright robbery.

When Cleopatra and her women are endeavouring to raise the dying Antony into the monument, the Egyptian queen exclaims,

“_Here’s sport indeed!_ How heavy weighs my lord.”

Johnson’s note on this place is remarkable, as an instance of want of judgment in a man whose sagacity was very rarely at fault. He says, “I suppose the meaning of these strange words is, _here’s_ trifling; _you_ do not work _in earnest_.” No interpretation could well go wider of the mark than this. Steevens says that she speaks with an “affected levity.” It would be truer to say that she speaks from that bitterness of heart which frequently finds a vent for itself in irony. The MS. corrector reads, “Here’s _port_ indeed,” which Mr Collier explains by saying, “Here Shakespeare appears to have employed _port_ as a substantive to indicate weight.” But “it would astonish me, and many more,” says Mr Singer, “if Mr Collier should succeed in finding _port_ used for a load or weight in the whole range of English literature.” We might add, that even although authority could be found for it, the proposed reading would still be utterly indefensible--

“Here’s _port_ (i. e. _weight_) indeed! how _heavy weighs_ my lord!”

This is as bad as “_old_ Goody Blake was _old_ and poor.” Mr Singer proposes, “Here’s _support_ indeed,” which we can by no means approve of, as it seems to have no sense.

_Act V. Scene 2._--Although the text of the following lines is not very satisfactory, we greatly prefer it to the old corrector’s amendment. Cleopatra, contemplating suicide, says,

“It is great
To do that thing that ends all other deeds,
Which shackles accidents, and bolts up change;
Which sleeps, and never palates more the _dung_,
The beggar’s nurse and Cæsar’s.”

“Dung” here is probably used contemptuously, and must be taken in a wide sense for food in general. As bread is raised from manure, man, who lives by bread, may be said to feed on manure. The sense probably is--It is great to do the thing (suicide) which causes us to sleep, and never more to taste the produce of the earth, which nourishes alike Cæsar and the beggar. The MS. correction is _dug_, which was long ago suggested, and which certainly does not mend matters. This new reading affords no extrication of the construction, “which sleeps,” which we have ventured to explain as “which _lays us_ asleep, and _causes us_ never more to palate or taste,” &c.

_Scene 2._--

“A grief that shoots
My very heart at root,”

is perhaps judiciously altered into “a grief that smites.” The old copies read “suites.” This emendation was also proposed by the late Mr Barron Field.

* * * * *

CYMBELINE.--_Act I. Scene 5._--“We here encounter,” says Mr Collier, “the first MS. emendation of _much value_.” Iachimo has remarked, that the marriage of Posthumus with the king’s daughter, from whom, however, he has been divorced, tends to raise Posthumus in the public estimation. “And then his banishment,” says the Frenchman. “Ay,” adds Iachimo, “and the approbation of those that weep this lamentable divorce _under her colours_ are wonderfully to extend him;” that is, his banishment, and the approbation of those _of his wife’s party_ (this is the meaning of “under her colours”), who weep this lamentable divorce, help to enhance still further the opinion of his merits. The old corrector thus disfigures the passage: “Ay, and the _approbations_ of those that weep this lamentable divorce, _and her dolours_, are _wont_ wonderfully to extend him.” The old corrector’s mental vision does not seem to be capable of taking in more than a quarter of an inch of the text at once. He saw that the verb “are” required a plural nominative, hence he reads “approbations.” But he might have avoided this barbarism had he extended his optical range, so as to comprehend the word “banishment” in the preceding speech. The two words, “banishment” and “approbation,” are surely entitled to be followed by the verb “are.”

Of a piece with this is the next. Posthumus is defying Iachimo to make good his boast that he will overcome the chastity of Imogen. He says, “If you make your voyage upon her, and give me directly to understand you have prevailed, I am no further your enemy.” This is converted into, “if you _make good your vauntage_ upon her,” &c. And this is a _restitution_ of the language of Shakespeare!

_Scene 7._--When Iachimo is introduced to Imogen he exclaims,

“What, are men mad? Hath nature given them eyes
To see this vaulted arch, and the rich _crop_
Of sea and land, which can distinguish ’twixt
The fiery orbs above and the twinn’d stones
Upon the _numbered_ beach; and can we not
Partition make with spectacles so precious
’Twixt fair and foul?”

In this passage _cope_ has been proposed for “crop,” and _unnumbered_ for “numbered,” by several of the commentators, and among them by Mr Collier’s anonymous corrector. We are of opinion that in neither of the places ought the text to be altered. _Cope_ is a mere repetition of the “vaulted arch,” and must, therefore, be set aside as tautological. “Numbered” is more difficult. Let us consider the bearing of the whole speech. It has a sinister reference to Posthumus, the husband of Imogen, the lady in whose presence the speech is uttered. “How can Posthumus,” says Iachimo, “with such a wife as this--this Imogen--take up with the vile slut who now holds him in her clutches? Are men mad--with senses so fine that they can distinguish, or separate from each other, the fiery orbs above; and also so acute that they can distinguish between the ‘twinned’ (or closely resembling) stones which _can be counted_ upon the beach; ‘with spectacles’--that is, with eyes--so precious, are they yet unable (as Posthumus seems to be) to make partition ’twixt a fair wife and a foul mistress?” The words, “which can distinguish ’twixt the fiery orbs above and the twinned stones,” do not mean that we have senses so fine that we can distinguish between stars and stones, but senses so fine that we can count, or distinguish from one another, the stars themselves; and can also perceive a difference in the pebbles on the beach, though these be as like to one another as so many peas. This interpretation brings out clearly the sense of the expression, “_numbered_ beach;” it means the beach on which the pebbles can be numbered; indeed, are numerically separated by us from each other, in spite of their homogeneousness, so delicate is our organ of vision by which they are apprehended; “yet,” concludes Iachimo, as the moral of his reflections, “with organs thus discriminating, my friend Posthumus has, nevertheless, gone most lamentably astray.” This explanation renders the substitution of _unnumbered_ not only unnecessary, but contradictory. We cannot be too cautious how we tamper with the received text of Shakespeare. Even though a passage may continue unintelligible to us for years, the chances are a hundred to one that the original lection contains a more pregnant meaning than any that we can propose in its place.

Mr Collier is of opinion that the MS. corrector’s _bo-peeping_ is preferable to “by-peeping” or “lie peeping.” We cannot at all agree with him. “By-peeping” is Shakespeare’s phrase, “lie peeping” is Johnson’s amendment. Either will do; and an editor ought not to go out of his way to make himself ridiculous.[15] A few lines further on, the substitution of _pay_ for “play” is quite unnecessary, as Mr Collier himself admits in one of his supplementary notes. Neither is _contemn_ any improvement upon “condemn.”

_Act II. Scene 2._--“Swift, swift,” says Iachimo--

“Swift, swift, you dragons of the night! that dawning
May _bare_ the raven’s eye.”

The MS. correction is, “may _dare_ the raven’s eye”--_i. e._, says Mr Collier, may _dazzle_ the eye of the raven. Surely the old commentator must here have been driven to his wits’ end. We have little doubt that “the _raven’s_ eye” here means the _night’s_ eye. “May bare the raven’s eye”--that is, may open the eye of darkness, and thus usher in the day. Has not Milton got “smoothing the _raven_ down of _darkness_ till it smiled?” This interpretation must be placed to the credit of Mr Singer (_Shakespeare Vindicated_, &c., p. 304), although it had occurred previously to ourselves.

_Scene 5._--Instead of the line,

“Like a full-acorn’d boar--a _German_ one,”

which is the common reading, the corrector proposes “a _foaming_ one.” Mr Singer suggests “a _brimeing_ (_i. e._, a rutting) one,” and this we greatly prefer. _Iarmen_ is the original text--a word without any meaning.

_Act III. Scene 4._--The competing versions of the following lines, in which the MS. corrector’s is pitted against the original text, have given rise to much controversy and speculation. Mr Halliwell has written an ingenious, and, we believe, an exhaustive pamphlet on this single point. He advocates the old reading. We cannot say that we consider his arguments altogether convincing, or that he has been able to adduce any very _pat_ parallelism, placing the point beyond all doubt; but we believe that he has made the most of his case, and that if he has not produced any such evidence, it is because there is none to produce. We agree with Mr Halliwell’s conclusion, in so far as it rejects the MS. correction; but we advocate the retention of the original reading, simply because it is the text, and because we know _for certain_ that the old corrector had no authority for his emendation except his own brains, generally addled, and not enjoying, in even this instance, a short interval of comparative lucidity.

The passage is this: Imogen, supposing that her husband Posthumus has been led astray by some Italian courtesan, exclaims indignantly and sarcastically--

“Some jay of Italy,
Whose _mother was her painting_, hath betray’d him;
Poor I am stale, a garment out of fashion.”

We take it that “mother” here means _Italy_, and that “painting” means _model_; so that the gloss on the passage should run thus: Some jay of Italy, to whom Italy (_i. e._ Italian manners) was the model according to which she shaped her morals and her conduct, hath betrayed him. That this, or something like it, is the meaning, is confirmed by what follows--“Poor I am stale, a garment _out of fashion_;” that is, the new fashions, the new-fangled ways, are to be found only in Italy, and doubtless that daughter of Italy--that jay or imitative creature by whom Posthumus is now enslaved--is a considerable proficient in those fashionable and novel methods of conquest. This, we conceive, is nearer the meaning than the ordinary interpretation given by Dr Johnson, which represents this “jay” as “the creature not of nature but of painting.” At any rate, if we adopt Johnson’s meaning, we must change _was_ into _is_, and read--“whose mother _is_ her painting.”

Again, perhaps the meaning is this: Some jay of Italy,--whose mother, _i. e._ whose birthplace (the renowned, the fashionable Italy) was her painting--_i. e._ was the adornment, the attraction, which allured my husband to her arms,--hath betrayed him. This, on second thoughts, we consider the best interpretation. But we allow the other to stand, as a specimen of _groping_ towards the truth.

The MS. corrector’s version is--“who _smothers her with painting_;” but if this had stood in the printer’s manuscript, it is exceedingly unlikely that he would have blundered it into the text as we now have it. Moreover, there is a prosaic vulgarity about the expression which smacks much more of the old corrector, and of his notions of what would suit a popular assembly, than of the genius of Shakespeare. We may be _certain_ that there is no allusion to _rouge_ in the passage; and therefore we contend for the retention of the original text, as neither irreconcilable with good sense, nor alien, but rather the reverse, from Shakespeare’s occasional modes of expression.

When Imogen says that Posthumus had made her

“Put into contempt the suits
Of princely _fellows_,”

she means, of princely _equals_. This is undoubted. Posthumus was beneath her in rank; yet, for his sake, she had declined the proposals of suitors as highborn as herself. “Fellows” is modernised into _followers_. The change of “_pretty, and_ full of view,” into _privy, yet_ full of view, is a sensible emendation, yet we hesitate to recommend it for the text. Pisanio tells Imogen that when she disguises herself as a youth she must “change _fear_ and niceness into a waggish _courage_.” The word “fear” here seems to prove that “courage” is the right reading. The MS. correction is “waggish _carriage_.”

_Scene 6._--Imogen, disguised, says,

“I see a man’s life is a tedious one,
I have _tired_ myself; and for two nights together
Have made the ground my bed.”

“Tired” should be _’tired_--_i. e._ altered myself like a boy. But this is not a new reading. The word is the same, whether printed _tired_ or _’tired_.

_Act IV. Scene 1._--Cloten speaking of Imogen, says, “Yet this _imperseverant_ thing (_i. e._, Imogen) loves him (_i. e._, Posthumus) in my despight.” “Imperseverant” is explained by Messrs Dyce and Arrowsmith to mean _undiscerning_. The latter, says Mr Singer, “has adduced (in _Gnats and Queries_, vol. vii. p. 400) numerous instances of the use of _perseverance_ for _discernment_.” The MS. substitution of “_perverse errant_” seems, therefore, to be quite uncalled for.

_Scene 2._--Arviragus says that the redbreast will bring flowers--

“Yea, and furred moss besides, when flowers are none,
To winter-ground thy corse.”

That is, the corse of Imogen, who is supposed to be dead. “To _winter-ground_ a plant,” says Steevens, “is to protect it from the inclemency of the winter season by straw, &c.” This is quite satisfactory, and renders the correction _winter-guard_ unnecessary. The change of “so” into _lo_ may be accepted in the speech of Imogen when she awakens from her trance.

_Act V. Scene 1._--The last passage on which the old corrector tries his hand is this. He can make nothing of it, nor can we, nor, so far as we know, can any one else. Posthumus, addressing the gods, says--

“Alack,
You snatch some hence for little faults; that’s love,
To have them fall no more; you some permit
To second ills with ills, each _elder_ worse,
And make them _dread it_, to the doer’s thrift.”

There is no difficulty with “elder;” it, of course, means, each crime being worse than its predecessor. “And make them dread it,” &c.; this may mean--and make them go on inspiring dread, to the profit of the doer; or, as Steevens explains it, “To make them _dread it_ is to make them _persevere in the commission of dreadful crimes_.” This, it must be confessed, is not satisfactory; but we like it quite as well as the MS. emendation. “And make _men_ dread it, to the doer’s thrift.” But whatever may be the merit of this new reading, the change of “elder” into _later_ is, at any rate, quite uncalled for. Neither can we assent to Mr Singer’s amendment of the place, which is--

“You some permit
To second ills with ills each _alder-worst_;
And make them _dreaded_ to the doer’s _shrift_.”

On the whole, it is certainly safest to let the old text stand as it is, until something better can be suggested.

* * * * *

Having now washed our hands as clean as we possibly could of the old MS. corrector, we must, in proceeding to dry them--that is, to sum up--first of all notice whether there be not very small specks of dirt still sticking to them. We are sorry to say that there are several. In our anxiety to do every justice to the old scholiast, and in our determination to redeem to the uttermost the pledge which we came under to him and to our readers--namely, to bring forward everything which told in the remotest way in his favour--we find that we have somewhat overshot the mark; we have fulfilled our obligation in terms too ample; we have been too indulgent to this shadowy sinner, whose very skeleton Apollo and the nine muses are now, no doubt, flaying alive in Hades, if they have not done so long ago. In a word, we have something to retract: not, however, anything that has been said _against_ him, but one or two small things that have been said _for_ him. And, therefore, as we are not altogether a character like old Kirkaldy of Grange, whom the chronicles describe as “ane stoute man, and always ready to defend at the point of the sword whatever he had said,” we may as well eat in our leek at once, without more ado.

We speak at present only of those readings (and fortunately they are very small and very few) which we countenanced or recommended for the text on the authority of the old MS. corrector. In most cases, any mere favourable opinion which we may have expressed of some of the new readings we shall allow to stand, for such opinions are unchanged, and the expression of them was very far from being a recommendation of these readings for the text. It is only the text which we are now solicitous about; and, therefore, insignificant as the sentiments of any humble reviewer may be, still, for the credit of the periodical in which he writes, and also lest the text of Shakespeare should run any risk of being compromised at his hands, it is his duty to retract his opinions to whatever extent he may feel that they have been rather inconsiderately advanced.

We approved, in the first instance, of “get” for _let_, (_Blackwood’s Magazine_, Aug., p. 188); that approbation we retract. “Portent-like,” the common reading, is better than either _potent like_ or _potently_, (_Blackwood’s Magazine_, p. 195). “Sheer ale,” and not _shire ale_, (_Blackwood’s Magazine_, p. 198), should hold the text. Katherine’s answer to Petruchio (_Blackwood’s Magazine_, p. 199) is all right and ought not to be changed. “Supplications in the quill” ought to keep its place in the text against Mr Singer’s _in the coil_, (_Blackwood’s Magazine_, September, p. 315). “In the quill,” simply means _in writing_, as Steevens long ago told us. We observe nothing more that we feel called upon to retract.

This deduction leaves, as nearly as we can count them, _thirty_ new readings at the credit of the old corrector. We believe that the whole of these might be placed in the text without the risk of damaging it in any very perceptible degree; a few of them would improve it: indeed, some of the best of them were introduced into it long ago, while others have been suggested independently of the old corrector. So that his contributions to the improvement of Shakespeare are, after all, not very considerable. The only two really valuable and original emendations which he has proposed seem to us to be--_these welling heavens_, for “the swelling heavens,” (_Blackwood’s Magazine_, p. 310), and _thirst_ complaint, for “first complaint,” (_Blackwood’s Magazine_, p. 321.)