Page images
PDF
EPUB

and there is given the different readings of the famous line (as it is ctilled) from The Tempest, Act III. So. 2, spoken by Ferdinand as in the First Folio : —

"Bat these sweet thoughts do even refresh my labours Most Busie Lest, when I do it."

These different readings are —•

"Most busiest when I do it." (.Holt White.) "Most busy least when I do it" {Collier's Folio.') "Least busy when I do it." (Pope.) "Most busy less when I do it." {Charles Knight and Dyce.) "Most busy felt when I do it." ( Staunton.) With all these readings, I beg to suggest another, which appears to me the correct one:

"Most busied when I do it." That is, Ferdinand's sweet thoughts of his sweet mistress, which refreshed his labours were most busied when he laboured for her sake; and for this reading we have the authority of Shakspeare himself in Romeo and Juliet, Act I. Sc. 1, in the following lines : —

"I measuring his affections by my own,
That most are busied when they are most alone."

Sidney Beislt. Lawrie Park, S3-denham.

"After sunset merrily." Theobald's reading was approved of by Hunter, and I find Macaulay of the same opinion. Thus writes the poet- historian: — " Who does not sympathise with the rapture of Ariel, flying after sunset on the wings of the bat?"—" Ariel riding through the twilight on the bat."—Miscellaneous Writings, vol. i. pp. 64,221. C.

"Twelfth Night."

Clown. "I did impeticos thy gratillity."

Twelfth Night, Act II. Sc. 3.

With the change of one, or at most two letters, I would read impiticos or impilicose. In Florio's Queen Anna's New World of Words, we find the following: —

"Pitoecare, to beg up and down for broken pieces of meat or scraps. Also to dodge and patter.

"Pitocco, an old crafty beggar, a raicher, a patent coat beggar, a dodger, a pattcrer, a wrangler."

Now, one distinctive characteristic of Feste is, that he is a beggar over any other of Shakspeare's Clowns, and a piticco, a crafty and patcht-coat one. "Would not two of these have bred, Sir?" says he, "and then the bells of St. Bennet, Sir, might put you in mind—one, two, three; and though it please you, Sir, to be one of my friends," &c. &c.

He, therefore, having observed what a mine Sir Toby had in Sir Andrew, was minded to try to extract some of the ore for himself, and condescending to the intelligence of this Kobold, or guardian spirit, endeavour to propitiate him by such gibberish as that of the Vapians passing the equinoc

tials of Queubus, and the like. But what got he for his pains? A paltry sixpence; just what Sir Toby, the improvident younger brother, was accustomed to give him when he was in funds. Yes, and he got also what Sir Toby never gave, an ostentatious reminder of it next morning. With a covert sneer, therefore, he coins a diminutive to express the smallness of the gift, and acknowledges the gratillity, and in the same vein coins impiticose {s being the usual causative, and im the usual intensitivc augment); and says, I did make a great "begging up and down," and after much ado and importunity, I received "a scrap" of your bounty, a crumb from Dives—I did impiticose thy gratilliti/.

There might also have been an intended quibble in the phrase, if Shakspeare had been aware of another and apparently primary meaning ofpitocco, not given by Florio, but which probably gave rise to his explanation of patcht-coat beggar. Vauzon gives "pitocco, also a part, in old times,of male attire, perhaps a species of mantle;" and in this sense the Clown would mean I did impouch, or, as some editors, by a happy corruption of the word, make him say—I did impetticoat thy bounty. Bm.Nsi.Ei Nicholson.

"Measure For Measure."
"Die, perish! might but my bending down —"

Act III. Sc. 1.

As Isabel, in her disgust and indignation, exclaims : —

"0 you beast! 0 faithless coward! O dishonest wretch!" we may with some confidence read: —

"Die, perish, wretch! might but my bending down
Reprieve thee from thy fate, it should proceed."

"Wherein have I so deserv'd of j'ou,
That you extol me thus? "—Act V. Sc. 1.

I venture to propose the following emendation as natural and consonant with the feelings of the Duke. Having addressed Angelo in a friendly spirit, he then turns angrily to Lucio: —

"Tou, sirrah, that knew me for a fool, a coward,
One all of luxury, an ass, a madman;
Wherein have I, sir, so deserv'd of you,
That you extol me thus?"

Lucio replies, and the Duke answers: —
"Whipp'd first, sir, and hang'd after."

Pope's emendation, in each instance, is singularly feeble: —

"Wherein have I deserved so of you."

c.

"Nips youth in the head, and follies doth emmew:''

If "enew" be, as Mr. Keightlet says, a " certain" emendation for "emmew" — though the meaning of the word be not very clear—may not "head" be a likely misprint for bud* "Nip in the bud," is proverbial: which "Nip in the head" is not, nor very apposite to the particular case

"How might she tongue me! But reason dares her no," &c.

I, for one, gladly accept Me. Keiohtley's "says " for " dares," in the line as it stands. But might not the error lie in the transposition, rather than substitution of the words? and the line originally have run :—

"How might she tongue me? But her reason dares not."

Qcivis.

"the Comedy or Errors": Antipholus Or Antiphilds. — Some days since, a critique appeared in The Times on Shakspeare's Comedy of Errors, occasioned by the production of that play at the Princess's Theatre. The writer of the notice in question, when speaking of the brothers Antipholus, used these words: "It ought to have been Antiphilus though." Now, it appears to me, that this observation is more indicative of etymological skill than philological sagacity; and argues a better acquaintance with the text of Terence, than with the rules and practice of dramatic composition. The suggestion as to the change of name is one which carries with it no weight whatever: for, supposing that Antipholus were changed to '^Antiphilus," what benefit would result? Why, none whatever; but, on the contrary, an erroneous idea would be conveyed, and the meaning expressed by the name would be at variance with the circumstances in which the two men are placed. Undoubtedly, Shakspeare deliberately chose the name Antipholus, not for its etymological force, but because it sounds well when declaimed, and, moreover, has a Greek look. "Antiphilus" would have a thin sound, which would necessarily be less effective for stage purposes than the more full one of Antipholus.

We cannot imagine that Shakspeare's acquaintance with the dead languages was sufficient to enable him to manufacture a name having a fine sound and an appropriate signification; nor can we think that Shakspeare would have taken the trouble to consult the scholars of the day on so trivial a subject. If we adopt the word "Antiphilus," we imply that the two brothers were mutual friends; whereas they were unknown to each other, throughout almost the whole play.

Terence, in his Heantontimorumenos, has Antiphila, but there the .name is applicable: having a meaning, cognate with that of lumtpi\ia. I

frant that Antipholus has a peculiar sense, if it as any at all; but if we could believe in Shakspeare's scholarship, we might conjecture that he took the word from avrhroXij, in consequence of

the respective places in which the brothers dwelt. But speculations in the matter are useless and absurd. Perhaps some of your learned correspondents will favour me with their opinions on this subject. J. C. II. F.

"The Merry Wives or Windsor," Act II. Sc. 3. —

"A word, Monsieur Mockwater."—Act II. Sc. 1.

This is literally a stale jest, and partly, as Johnson supposed, an allusion to the physician's inspection of the urine. The Host had previously called the worthy doctor, "Bully Stale," and " King Urinal," and here we may read: —

"Hott. A word, Monsieur Makewater. Cmu. Mackvater! vat is dat?

Host Makewater, in our English tongue, is valour, bully."

Every child knows it means cowardice, and he has just before called him, " heart of elder."

C.

"Hamlet."—In the Saturday Review, March 12, a writer on "The Novel and the Drama," says, " Shakspeare never mentions Hamlet." This observation reminded me that once, and under singular circumstances, we seem to get a glimpse of Shakspeare's idea of that play. In his will, in an interlineation, while bequeathing 26/8 " to buy him a ring," he wrote his friend's name, probably the godfather of his only son, Hamlett, instead of Hamnet Sadler. So absorbingly does his Hamlet seem to have possessed his memory as to have been written off unconsciously by his sickness-wasted hand. Ought Sonnet. 108 to be read as having reference to his son — Hamnet?

Samuel Neil.

New Reading: "Love's Labour's Lost," Act III, for —

"A whittly wanton with a velvet brow," where Porson suggests Whitelcss, I think we should read witless. Samuel Neil.

"Merchant Of Venice," And "Troii.ds And Cressida" (3ra S. iv. 121.) — Mr. Keiohtley's note, on the Merchant of Venice, is certainly very valuable: his improved readings are, in the main, more than happy conjectures. I must confess, however, my surprise that he docs not appear to be contented with the remarkably felicitous emendation, by the correctors of the Folio of 1632, of the celebrated passage : —

"Thus ornament is but the gilded shore," &c.

The mere change by this Great Unknown of a comma in the punctuation, has removed all obscurity, and made the passage one of exquisite

beauty. Rarely has so much been done by a comma.

I am sorry to Lave my faith in this emendation shaken by an implied disbelief in it, by so able a Shakspearian as Mr. Kkigiitli.v.

Before leaving the great poet, permit me to ask Mb. Keiohtley, or any other equally capable critic, to point out the connexion of the fine line in Troilus and Cressida

"One touch of nature makes the whole world kin,"

with those that precede and follow it.

The idea expressed in this line, seems to me to be complete in itself, and not suggested by the main thought or sentiment of the passage.

8 H.N.

New York.

SlIAKSPEARE AND HIS COMMENTATORS, OR

Emendatob8: Palm.—In the Athenavm of January, 1864, is the following passage : —

"Shakspeare was thought to have committed a slip of the pen when, in As You Like It, he allowed Hosalind to find a palm in the forest of Arden. Commentators have been sadly puzzled about it, and suggested every possible explanation save the most natural one. The country people still call the goat willow, just when the young catkins make their appearance, palm."

This is certainly a new version of the reading of palm-tree, but I think the writer will not find many persons willing to accept it. In the first place, there is nothing in As You Like It to show that the forest in which Rosalind found the palmtree was the forest of Arden in Warwickshire. If so, it would be strange to find any one of the palm species growing there, and equally strange to find a tuft of olives near Rosalind's house; and more strange still, to find a lioness couching in that forest — unless it had escaped from some travelling menagerie, exhibiting such beasts in the neighbourhood. If it is admitted that, by palmtree, Shakspeare intended the goat willow (Salix capred), and this being our English tree, it might grow in the forest, we have to substitute another name for the olive, to make an English tree of it. But it should be remembered that, although the branches of the Salix, or willow, when gathered for Palm Sunday celebration, are commonly called palm, the willow itself is not called palm-tree by the writers of Shakspeare's time.

The fact, I believe, is, that the forest in which Rosalind found the palm-tree and the olive-trees was a southern one—in which the lioness might naturally find' a hiding place. What will Dr. Prior say to this? Sidney Beisly.

"first Complaint:" "Coriolanus," Act II. Sc. 1. — Menenius Agrippa, speaking of himself, says, as it is generally printed: —

"I am known to be a humorous patrician, and one that loves a cup of hot wine with not a drop of allaying Tiber in't: said to be something imperfect in favouring the first complaint."

It has been proposed to read this, "the thirst complaint"; but is not the passage better as it stands? Menenius says he has two faults, or complaints. The first that he is "humorous," i. e. hot-headed and crotchetty; the second, that he is too fond of a cup of wine: and that this second com

flaint has rather a tendency to aggravate the first. do not remember such a phrase as "the thirst complaint" in any author. A. A.

Poets' Corner.

Trusty: Trust: As Used By Shakspeare. — Shokspeare has been cited as using the word trttst and trusty in the sense of the modern words reliance and reliable. It will not be uninteresting to examine his use of these words, which were favourites of his. Trusty he uses seventeen times; fifteen times directly of persons. Once in Alts Well that Ends Well (Act III. Sc. 6) indirectly to persons, when he speaks of a trusty business, i. e. requiring agents who could be trusted; and once of a sword. Here also he really, as it were, applies the word to an agent, swords and other weapons having a sort of personal existence attributed to them,—sometimes being actually named. He trusts his sword to help him.

He uses the word trust over one hundred and twenty times: of these, for more than seventy times, he applies the word to persons directly; in about twenty instances to attributes or things, but in most of these cases with reference to persons trusted; and scarcely ever in such a sense ns would be exactly synonymous to our "rely on." Frequently it is in these places followed by "on," "in, or "to."

Thus we have—judgment, age, word, honesty, heels, the mockery of unquiet thoughts, conditions, oaths, honour, virtue, speeches. In most of these, there is not that absolute reliance upon the thing itself implied in the word reliable. It would hardly be good nineteenth-century English to say, that "your honesty is reliable." Though it was good Elizabethan to bid a man "trust his honesty." At any rate, Shakspeare is entirely with me in the word trusty; and evidently prefers my use of the word trust, if he very occasionally disregards it. J. C. J.

"incony."—This word is used twice by Shakspeare in the same play, Love's Labour's Lost; and by the same speaker, Costard. When Arniado gives hiin money (Act III. Sc. 1), he calls him "my incony Jew;" and after the by no means delicate jests between himself and Boyet, he call the conversation "most incony vulgar wit." Many very wide conjectures have been made as to the origin of the word. Is it not probably merely a corruption of the Old French inconnu, unknown, unheard of: a phrase answering very much, also, to our own vernacular, "noend-of"? The passages would then mean, "such a Jew as never was heard of"—" no-end-of vulgar wit." A. A.

Poets' Comer.

"Vert Peacock": "Hamlet," Act III. Sc. 2. (2ni1 S. xii. 451.) — It seems very probable that this passage is corrupt. There seems no reason, from the King's character and bearing, to compare him with a peacock. He rather affects a grave and condescending manner. The crime of which he is guilty, and which Hamlet is so anxious to bring to some certain test, is not pride, conceit, or affectation, but poisoning. Is it not likely the word ought to be read paddock, i. e. a toad? The "venomous" and "poisonous" toad, is mentioned in As You Like It; Macbeth ; Henry VI.; Richard III.; and in many other places, by Shakspeare, and, in Macbeth, it is called by the very name—paddock. If we read—

". . . . now reigns here
A very, very—paddock,"

it would seem to be quite in consonance with what
Hamlet says next:
"Didst perceive? Upon the talk of the poisoning—"

A. A.

Poets' Corner.

Shakspeare (;l N. & Q.," passim.) — While committees and sub-committees arc arguing upon the methods, and means, and measures of its celebration, the day of our household poet's orient and Occident will, 1 fear, pass by, leaving us to console ourselves with Milton's solution of its difficulty — finding in his own works, and in the everliving heart of England, his already erected monument. The birth-and-death-day of Shakspeare, nevertheless, will hardly miss of its due heralding in " N. & Q."—

"With one auspicious and one drooping eye,"— enriched, as through fourteen years it has been, by the successive commentaries; which, of themselves, form a valuable addition to our Shaksperian library.

Among the many tributes paid to our "great son of memory"—unconsciously paid, I might say—is the question, so variously debated, of his especial profession and its precedent Etudies. Was he a lawyer f—inquired the late Lord Chancellor Campbell. A soldier? — was the no less presumable argument of Mr. Thoms (2nd S. vii. 118, 320, 351). I know not which of these, or what other, was our English T\o\irpoiros; but, should a poetical cairn be resolved upon, I beg to cast my sand-grain into the heap; which, if rendering to

him his due honours, will "make Ossa like a

wart."

Men ask—what Shakspeare was?—A Lawyer,

skilled In form and phrase ?—A Soldier, in the Field Well theorised and practised ?—Or, was he A Sailor on the wild and wandering sea ?— A Traveller, who roamed the earth to trace The homes and habits of the human race ?— A Student, on his cloistered task intent Of mystic theme or subtile argument ?— A Churchman erudite?—A Statesman wise?— A Courtier, apt in shows and revelries ? — A sage Physician, who from plant and flower Won the deep secrets of their various power ?— A Teacher, whose kind spirit loved to bring "Sermons from stones, and good from everything" ?— Not one of these, but all.—Dispute not what Our Shakspeare was,—but say. What was he not t Edmund Lenthai. Swifte.

Shakspeare's Arms. — In Knight's Pictorial Shakspere (" Biography," vols. i. ii.), the arms are blazoned —

"(iould, on a bend sable and a speare of the first, the point steeled, proper; and his crest or cognizance, a faulcon, hi* wings displayed, argent, standing on a wrethe of his coullors, supporting a speare gould, steel as aforesaid, sett upon a helmet with mantells and tassclls."

In Boutell's Heraldry, p. 410, 2nd edit., the blazon is —

"Or on ^ hcnd sable, a spear gold. Crest, a falcon displayed argent, holding in its beak a spear in pale or."

I have seen the crest depicted as a falcon displayed, holding in each claw a spear in pale. Which of these is the true blazon? Did Shakspeare use any motto? Cabilford.

Cape Town.

[The following extract, from the Grant of Arms preserved in the Heralds' College, printed by Mr. J. G. Nichols in The Herald and Genealogist, No. 6, p. 510, is the best reply to this query:—

"Gould, on a bend sables a speare of the first, steeled argent; and for his crest, or cognizance, a falcon, his winces displayed, argent, standing on a wrethe of his coullors, supporting a speare gould, steeled as aforesaid, sett upon a hclmett, with mnntelles and tasselles, as hath been accustomed, and dothe more playncly appeare depicted on this margent."

Mr. Nichols adds: "In the margin are sketched with a pen the arms and crest, and above them this motto—

'HON 8ANS DltOlCT.' "]

Statistics Of Siiakspearian Literature.— The following curious tabular view of the relative proportion of books connected with Shakspeare, published in each period of ten years, from 1591

[merged small][table]

Shakspbabe's Epitaph (3rd S. v. 179.)—I am sorry to observe your correspondent, Mb. PinkerTon, speak of this as " little better than doggrel," though he afterwards qualifies the description. Still, I cannot think that he is aware of the cause of the lines being written, which is supposed to have been this. A little beyond Shakspeare's tomb towards the east is a gothic doorway, now walled up. This once led, not to a vestry, but a charnel-house of considerable size, above ground, lighted, and ventilated by certain loop-holes, in which a large quantity of human bones was deposited. This, in the progress of improvement or restoration (as they now call it), has been removed—I know not at what period; but when very young I have been, more than once, in the charnel-house, which appears to have been so far an object of terror to the poet that he wrote the lines now inscribed on his monument to prevent his bones being disturbed, and added to the heap. Such, at least, was the account given; and lucky was it for him, at any rate, that he left the direction, or, in these times, some inquisitive craniologist or phrenologist would have had him up again

to measure the length and breadth of his skull, or or perhaps make an exhibition of it at the tercentenary. I.

Shakspeake Portraits (3" S. v. 117.)—There are the following works on the portraits of Shakspeare, besides those by Boaden and by Wivell (not "Wevill"): —

Merridcw, John—"A Catalogue of engraved Portraits of Persons connected with the County of Warwick." Coventry. 4to. 1849.

Collier, J. P.—" Dissertation on the imputed Portraits of Shakespeare." London. 8ro. 1851.

There is also Mr. Friswell's new work, entitled Life Portraits of Shahspeare. B. A.

THE SECOND SHAKSPEARE FOLIO, 1632.

Nothing definite is known regarding the sources from which the new readings in the Shakspeare folio, 1632, were derived. The prevailing opinion, so far as our researches show, is, that they are conjectural emendations of some now unknown editor. Ben Jonson has, in some instances, been guessed at. As an examination of the folio demonstrates that some editorial revision and oversight were exercised upon considerable portions of it, and as many of the changes introduced into it have been adopted into the subsequent reprints, it becomes a legitimate subject for curiosity, and a proper topic for having "N. & Q." about it. Let me, on the condition that Ben Jonson is supervisor is abandoned, suggest John Milton; and in support of my hypothesis, lay down the following statements and arguments : — 1st. Milton was a diligent and admiring student of Shakspeare's works — of which the proofs are, the special Shakspearianisms in his poems; his making both L'AUegro and // Pensero find enjoyment from the "stage"; his early inclination for the drama, as exhibited in Arcades and Comus, as well as in his design to compose a Tragedy on Adam's Fall, from which he was probably dissuaded by a perusal of the Adamus Exul of Grotius. This love for dramatic forms of composition remained with him like a "ruling passion" to the last, as Samson Agonistes, published in 1671, shows plainly. The nil-prevailing proof of this thesis is, however, the epitaph on Shakspeare, written in 1630, and prefixed in the place of honour to the Second Folio just after Ben Jonson's lines "Upon the Effigies of my worthy Friend, the Author, Master William Shakspeare and his AVorks" on p. 7 of the book, counting the title. This poem — issued anonymously, and only acknowledged in 1645 —could only have been written regarding the first folio, and as it was unpublished, the proprietors of the folio must have got knowjedge of it from

« EelmineJätka »