« PreviousContinue »
(Vol. vii. COLLIER; vol. viii. KNIGHT.]
Scene 1.-C. p. 498.
“ This line has occasioned a good deal of controversy, and various conjectures have been hazarded. Tyrwhitt would read life for 'wife;' and Mr. Petrie of Edinburgh suggests to me, that “wife' may have been misprinted for guise, which, I must own, is not a very probable conjecture. The text is most likely right." COLLIER.
The text may be right, though I doubt it: but I cannot help wondering greatly that Mr. Petrie, when he conjectured "guise," should not have stumbled upon “wise" (way).
Scene 2.-C. p. 508 ; K. p. 363. The wealthy curled darlings of our nation.” Mr. Knight gives, with the folio, “dearling," which he says is “the old Saxon word dearling in a plural sense.” The fact is, the s has been omitted in the folio by a mistake of the compositor. In Shakespeare's time dearling could never have been used as a plural. That even Spenser (who antiquated his language much more than any of his contemporaries) did not venture to employ such an archaism, is proved by the following passage of his Hymne in honour of Love;
“There thou them placest in a paradize
Of all delight and ioyous happie rest,
Scene 3.-C. p. 512.
Hath thus beguild your daughter of herself,
action.” “ • After its own sense,' is after the very sense of the bitter letter of the book of law. The folio has · After your own sense.' COLLIER.
The reading of the folio (adopted by the other modern editors) is manifestly the true one: “After your own sense,” i. e. ' According to your own interpretation.'
SCENE 3.-C. p. 515.
But not intentively."
How could the word embrace two such different significations as coherently and attentively? The truth is, intentively never meant coherently: it was always used as equivalent to attentively, not only by the writers of Shakespeare's time, but by those of a much earlier date. Palsgrave has “ Intentyfe hedefull.”—“Ententyfe, busy to do a thynge or to take hede to a thyng.” Lesclar. de la Lang. Fr., 1530, fols. lxxxx. lxxxvii. (where he renders both by the Fr. ententif.)
SCENE 3.-C. p. 520; K.
May trumpet to the world.” “ The quarto, 1622, alone reads 'scorn of fortunes,' which may be preferable.” COLLIER.
So also Messrs. Malone and Knight.
The quarto 1622 is, no doubt, right. Those editors who defend “storm,” quote (as usual) passages which they call parallel, but which in fact are nothing to the purpose.
In Beaumont and Fletcher's Honest Man's Fortune, act iv. sc. 1, we find, according to the old eds.,
“But Time and Fortune, run your courses with him,
He'll laugh and storm you when you shew most hate;" while the excellent ms. of that play in my possession affords the true reading;
He'll laugh and scorn you,” &c.
“ Vouch with me, heaven, I therefore beg it not,
To please the palate of my appetite;
But to be free and bounteous to her mind.” “This passage (so printed in every old copy) has occasioned much dispute and long notes : it seems to us that nothing can be clearer, allowing only a little latitude of expression. Othello refers to his age, elsewhere several times alluded to, and in my defunct and proper satisfaction,' is merely, ‘in my own dead satisfaction,' or gratification, the youthful passions, or 'young affects,' being comparatively defunct' in him. For the sense, though not for the harmony of the verse, it ought to have run, 'for my proper and defunct satisfaction, and had it so run, we doubt if so much ink would have been spilt and wasted upon it. It requires no proof that 'proper' was often used for own: in this very scene (p. 512) the Duke says, ' yea, though our proper son,' &c. Mr. Amyot fully concurs with me.” COLLIER.
Mr. Knight, who also follows the old copies, remarks;
“We would only observe, that comply may be used in the sense of supply, that affects are affections, and that defunct does not necessarily mean dead. Tyrwhitt considers that defunct may be used in the Latin sense of performed. As function has the same Latin root, we would suggest that Shakspere used defunct for functional, and then the meaning is clear ; nor to gratify the young affections, in my official and individual satisfaction.”
Few persons, I apprehend, will be satisfied with Mr. Collier's explanation ; nobody, assuredly, with Mr. Knight's. Neither of them seems to have been aware that there is a passage in Massinger's Bondman, act i. sc. 3, which was undoubtedly copied from the present one, viz.
“ Let me wear
I am,” &c. and another (also imitated from the same source) in Fletcher's Fair Maid of the Inn, act i. sc. 1,
Shall we take our fortune ? and, while our cold fathers
And seek a mistress ?" These passages (as Gifford has already observed) shew how the lines of Shakespeare were understood by his contemporaries. They also shew that the alteration of a single letter, the change of “my” to “me” (which was first made by Upton), is absolutely necessary;
I therefore beg it not,
But to be free and bounteous to her mind." i. e. (as Johnson well explains it);
“I ask it not, to please appetite, or satisfy loose desires (the passions of youth which I have now outlived), or for any particular gratification of myself, but merely that I may indulge the wishes of
Scene 1.-C. p. 531.
Alas! she has no speech.
When Mr. Collier adopted the reading of the folio, " leave,” what meaning did he attach to it? did he suppose it to be only another form of “leve" “ leef,” or “lief," (a word which, I apprehend, was never used as a substantive)? The reading of the quarto, 1622, “ list” (adopted by the other modern editors) is clearly the true one.
Scene 1.-C. p. 538 ; K. p. 394.
trash of Venice, whom I trace For his quick hunting, stand the putting on," &c. “ That this reading of the folio is right we have the evidence of the quarto, 1630 : the quarto, 1622, has crush for 'trace.' Warburton, with some plausibility, would alter “trash' to brach, which means (see Vol. iii. p. 108; Vol. iv. p. 288; Vol. vi. p. 44) a dog, but as we find 'trash' in two of the old copies (not printed from each other) we may presume that it is to be taken to refer to the worthlessness of Roderigo. «Trace' seems used to indicate some species of confinement (like a trace applied to horses) in order to keep back a dog which was too quick in hunting. Malone substituted trash for “ trace' without any authority,” &c. COLLIER. The reading of the quarto is, –
If this poor trash of Venice, whom I crush
For his quick hunting.' Crush is evidently a corruption, and is properly rejected. But why do the commentators reject the trace of the folio, substituting trash ? because they say trace is a corruption of trash. Now, on the contrary, the noun trash, and the verb trace, are used with perfect propriety. The trash is the thing traced, put in traces-confined—as an untrained worthless dog is held, and hence the present meaning of trash. There is a letter on this subject in · The Gentleman's Magazine' for 1763, which satisfactorily establishes the propriety of the word trace.”. KNIGHT.
“If this poor trash of Venice” is doubtless the right reading-trash meaning 'worthless, contemptible person :' so afterwards the same speaker (Iago) says (act v. sc. 1);
“ Gentlemen all, I do suspect this trash (Bianca]
To be a party in this injury.”