Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 184, May 7, 1853», страница 2

Various

Шрифт:

NOTES AND QUERIES ON BACON'S ESSAYS, NO. III

(Vol. vii., pp. 6. 80.)

Essay IX. p. 21. (note a). "They used the word 'præfiscini.'" See e. g., Plaut. Asin., ii. 4. 84. (Weise):

"Præfiscini hoc nunc dixerim: nemo etiam me adcusavit
Merito meo."

(Leonida boasts of his integrity.)

Ditto, p. 22. (note c). "From the Stichus of Plautus," ii. 1. 54.

Ditto, p. 23. "Which has the character of Adrian the Emperor." See Hist. Aug. Script., i. 149., ut supr. (Spartian. Vit. Hadrian. cap. 15.)

Ditto p. 26. "It was well said." By whom?

Essay X. ditto. "A poor saying of Epicurus." Where recorded?

Ditto, p. 27. "It hath been well said, 'That the arch flatterer,'" &c. By whom, and where?

Ditto, ditto. "It hath been well said, 'That it is impossible,'" &c. By whom and where?

Ditto, ditto. "The poet's relation." Ovid. Heroid. xvi. 163.

Essay XI. p. 28. "Cum non sis qui fueris," &c. Whence?

Ditto, p 29. "Illi mors gravis incubat," &c. Seneca, Thyest. 401. (ed. Lemaire), Act II. extrem.

Ditto, p. 31. "That was anciently spoken." By whom?

Ditto, ditto. "Tacitus of Galba." Tac. Hist., i. 49.

Ditto, ditto. "Of Vespasian." Tac. Hist., i. 50.

Essay XII. ditto. "Question was asked of Demosthenes." See Cic. De Orat., III. 56. § 213.

Ditto, p. 32. "Mahomet's miracle." Where recorded?

Essay XIII. p. 33. "The desire of power," &c. Cf. Shaksp. Hen. VIII., III. 2. "By that sin (ambition) fell the angels," &c.

Essay XIII. p. 33. "Busbechius." In Busbequii Legationes Turciæ Epist. Quatuor (Hanoviæ, 1605), p. 133., we find this told of "Aurifex quidam Venetus."—N. B. In the Index (s. v. Canis) of an edition of the same work, printed in London for R. Daniel (1660), for 206 read 106.

Ditto, ditto (note b). Gibbon (Miscellaneous Works, iii., 544., ed. 1815) says, "B. is my old and familiar acquaintance, a frequent companion in my post-chaise. His Latinity is eloquent, his manner is lively, his remarks are judicious."

Ditto, p. 34. "Nicholas Machiavel." Where?

Ditto, p. 35. "Æsop's cock." See Phædrus, iii. 12.

Essay XV. p. 38. "Ille etiam cæcos," &c., Virg. Georg. i. 464.

Ditto, ditto. "Virgil, giving the pedigree," &c. Æn. iv. 178.

Ditto, p. 39. "That kind of obedience which Tacitus speaketh of." Bacon quotes, from memory, Tac. Hist., ii. 39., "Miles alacer, qui tamen jussa ducum interpretari, quam exsequi, mallet."

Ditto, ditto. "As Machiavel noteth well." Where?

Ditto, p. 40. "As Tacitus expresseth it well." Where?

Ditto, p. 41. "Lucan," i. 181.

Ditto, ditto. "Dolendi modus, timendi non item." Whence?

Ditto, ditto. "The Spanish proverb." What is it? Cf. "A bow long bent at last waxeth weak;" and the Italian, "L'arco si rompe se sta troppo teso." (Ray's Proverbs, p. 81., 4th edit., 1768.)

Ditto, p. 43. "The poets feign," &c. See Iliad, i. 399.

Ditto, ditto (note y). "The myth is related in the Works and Days of Hesiod," vv. 47-99., edit. Göttling.

Ditto, p. 44. "Sylla nescivit." Sueton. Vit. Cæs., 77.

Ditto, p. 45. "Galba." Tac. Hist., i. 5.

Ditto, ditto. "Probus." Bacon seems to have quoted from memory, as we find in Vopiscus (Hist. Aug. Script., ut supr., vol. ii. 679. 682.), as one of the causæ occidendi, "Dictum ejus grave, Si unquam eveniat salutare, Reip. brevi milites necessarios non futuros."

Ditto, ditto. "Tacitus saith." Hist., i. 28.

P. J. F. Gantillon, B.A.

(To be continued.)

SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE

The Passage in King Henry VIII., Act III. Sc. 1. (Vol. vii., pp. 5. 111. 183. 494.).—Mr. Ingleby has done perfectly right to "call me to account" for a rash and unadvised assertion, in saying that we must interpolate been in the passage in King Henry VIII., Act III. Sc. 2., after have; for even that would not make it intelligible. So far I stand corrected. The passages, however that are cited, are not parallel cases. In the first we have the word loyalty to complete the sense:

" · · · · · My loyalty,
Which ever has [been] and ever shall be growing."

In the second, the word deserved is clearly pointed out as being understood, from the occurrence of deserve after will:

"I have spoken better of you than you have [deserved] or will deserve at my hands."

I will assist Mr. Ingleby's position with another example from Rich. II., Act V. Sc. 5.:

" · · · · · like silly beggars,
Who sitting in the stocks, refuge their shame,
That many have [sat] and others must sit there."

And even from a much later writer, Bolingbroke:

"This dedication may serve for almost any book that has, is, or shall be published."

Where we must supply been after has. But in the passage I attempted, and I think successfully, to set right, admitting that custom would allow of the ellipsis of the participle been, after the auxiliary have, to what can "am, have, and will be" possibly refer?

" · · · · · I do professe
That for your highness' good, I euer labour'd
More then mine owne, that am, haue, and will be."

What? Add true at the end of the line, and it mars the verse, but make the probable correction of true for haue, and you get excellent sense without any ellipsis. I am as averse to interpolation or alteration of the text, when sense can by any rational supposition be made of it, as my opponent, or any true lover of the poet and the integrity of his language, can possibly be; but I see nothing rational in refusing to correct an almost self-evident misprint, which would redeem a fine passage that otherwise must always remain a stumbling-block to the most intelligent reader. We have all I trust but one object, i. e. to free the text of our great poet from obvious errors occasioned by extremely incorrect printing in the folios, and at the same time to strictly watch over all attempts at its corruption by unnecessary meddling. This, and not the displaying of our own ingenuity in conjectures, ought to be our almost sacred duty; at least, I feel conscious that it is mine.

S. W. Singer.

"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain."

Hamlet.

The notable quotation of this line by the Earl of Derby, in the Lords, on Monday evening, April 25, has once more reminded me of my unanswered Query respecting it, Vol. vi., p. 270.

On the 26th February (Vol. vii., p. 217.) Mr. Collier was good enough to say, that his only reason for not answering it was, that he had not then within his reach the copy of "N. & Q." wherein it had been proposed; politely adding, that if I would reprint the Query, he would at once answer it.

Supposing, however, that Mr. Collier's absence from his library would be only temporary, I deemed it less troublesome to the Editor of "N. & Q." to wait until Mr. Collier could refer to the Query, as already printed.

Two months have since elapsed, and I now no longer hesitate to ask the Editor for an opportunity of again referring to it, trusting that a sufficient excuse will be found in the importance of the subject, as affecting the fundamental sense of a passage in Shakspeare.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

Mr. J. Payne Collier's "Notes and Emendations."—There can be no doubt that many of these emendations are rational and judicious; but I cannot help thinking, on the whole, that Mr. Collier has rather overrated their value, and placed too implicit faith in the infallibility of his unknown guide. At all events, there is not a shadow of authority given for any one of the corrections, and we have therefore a full right to try them, as the lawyers would say, "upon the merits;" or, in other words, to treat them as mere speculative alterations, and to adopt or reject them, as may appear advisable in each particular case. It is difficult to conjecture what can have been the position in life, or the occupation of this mysterious annotator. That his pursuits were not purely literary, I think is plain: first, from the very circumstance of his not authenticating any of his notes, which a literary inquirer would certainly have done; and, secondly, from the very minute attention which is paid to the business of the scene and the movements of the actors. These considerations, coupled with the fact of his frequently striking out whole passages of the text (which a literary enthusiast would not have done), would at first lead us to suppose that the writer was a theatrical manager, and that the alterations were made to suit either the fancies, or perhaps the peculiar qualifications of certain performers. But in this case one can hardly suppose that the remarks would have extended to more than a certain number of plays, which were most frequently acted. Thus much, however, appears certain, that the commentaries are rather those of an habitual play-goer, than of a studious critic; and it will be easy to show that a great portion of the new readings he proposes are really changes for the worse, while a still larger number are at least unnecessary! I shall content myself with only a few instances, on this occasion, as I am unwilling to encroach too far on your space; but I can easily multiply them, if I am encouraged to renew the subject.

In the first place, I differ from Mr. Collier entirely as to the famous passage from Henry VIII., p. 324., which he brings so prominently forward as to give it special notice in his Introduction. To me, I confess, the phrase—

"To steal from spiritual labour a brief span,"

appears quite tame and poor in comparison with

"To steal from spiritual leisure a brief span,"

and, moreover, destroys all the poetry of the thought. Nor can I see the slightest difficulty in the sense of the original passage. The king means to say that Wolsey cannot steal from the little leisure afforded him by his spiritual labours "a brief span, to keep his earthly audit:" and surely this is much more poetical than the substituted passage.

In p. 323., from the same play, we have—

"to the sharp'st kind of justice,"

transformed to "sharp'st knife of justice:" but I cannot assent to this change. The obvious meaning of the poet is, that the contempt of the world, "shutting all doors" against the accused, is a sharper kind of justice than any which the law could inflict: but, to be given up to "the sharp'st knife of justice" could only mean, being consigned to the public executioner,—which was just what Katherine was deprecating.

In p. 325. the lines relating to Wolsey's foundations at Ipswich and Oxford are printed thus in the folio—

"one of which fell with him,
Unwilling to outlive the good that did it:"

that is, unwilling to outlive the virtues which prompted it,—a passage teeming with poetical feeling: but the commentator has ruthlessly altered it to—

"Unwilling to outlive the good man did it;"

which, I submit, not only destroys all the poetry, but is decidedly not English!

The next passage I would notice is from Much Ado about Nothing, p. 76. How, I would ask, can the phrase—

"And sorrow wag,"

be a misprint for "call sorrow joy?" No compositor, or scribe either, could possibly be misled by any sound from the "reader" into such a mistake as that! The words "and sorrow wag," I admit, are not sense; but the substitution of "call sorrow joy" strikes me as bald and common-place in the extreme, and there is no pretence for its having any authority. If, then, we are to have a mere fanciful emendation, why not "bid sorrow wag?" This would be doing far less violence to the printed text, for it would only require the alteration of two letters in the word "and;" while it would preserve the Shakspearian character of the passage. "Wag" is a favourite expression in the comedies of the Bard, and occurs repeatedly in his works. The passage would then run thus—

"If such a one will smile and stroke his beard,
Bid sorrow wag—cry hem! when he should groan."

In p. 73. we find—

"Soul-tainted flesh," &c.

substituted for "foul tainted flesh;" and we are told that the critics have been all wrong, who supposed that Shakspeare intended any "metaphor from the kitchen!" If so, what meaning can be attached to the line—

"And salt too little which may season give?"

If that is not a metaphor from the kitchen, I know not what could be? I still believe that "foul tainted flesh" is the correct reading. The expression "soul-tainted flesh" is not intelligible. It should rather be "soul-tainting flesh." The soul may be tainted by the flesh: but how the flesh can be soul-tainted, I cannot understand.

Turning further back, to p. 69., we find it asserted, quite dogmatically, that the word "truths" of the folios ought to be "proofs;" but no reason whatever is offered for the change. I cannot help thinking that "seeming truths" is much the most poetical expression, while in "seeming proofs" there is something like redundancy,—to say nothing of the phrase being infinitely more common-place!

In the play of the Tempest, p. 4., the beautiful passage—

"he being thus lorded
Not only with what my revenue yielded," &c.,

is degraded into "he being thus loaded," &c. Can there be a moment's doubt that "lorded" was the word used by Shakspeare? It is completely in his style, which was on all occasions to coin verbs out of substantives, if he could. "He being thus lorded," i. e. ennobled "with what my revenue yielded," is surely a far superior expression to "being thus loaded,"—as if the poet were speaking of a costermonger's donkey!

Again, in p. 10.:

"Wherefore this ghastly looking?"

or, this ghastly appearance? Who will venture to say, that the substitution of "thus ghastly looking" is not decidedly a change for the worse?

In the Merchant of Venice, p. 118.:

"and leave itself unfurnished,"

is altered to "leave itself unfinished!" I confess I cannot see the slightest warrant for this change. The words—

"having made one,
Methinks IT should have power to steal both his,"

distinctly show that the author was alluding to the eye only, and not to the portrait and how could the eye (already made) describe itself as unfinished? Surely the sense is unfurnished, that is, unfurnished with its companion, or probably with the other accessories required to complete the portrait.

P. 119. has the line—

"And swearing 'til my very roof was dry,"

transmogrified into—

"And swearing 'til my very tongue was dry."

Now, why "this lame and impotent conclusion?" What can be a more common expression than the "roof of the mouth?" and it is just the part which is most affected by a sensation of dryness and pricking, after any excitement in speaking, whereas the tongue is not the member that suffers!

In As You Like It, p. 127., in the line—

"Mistress dispatch you with your safest haste,"

the last two words are made "fastest haste," which, to say the least, are tautology, and are like talking, of the "highest height", or the the "deepest depth!" Surely, the original form of words, "Dispatch you with your safest haste;" that is, with as much haste as is consistent with your personal safety—is much more dignified and polished address from the duke to a lady, and at the same time more poetical!

In p. 129.,

"The constant service of the antique world,"

is converted into

"The constant favour of the antique world:"

in which line I cannot discover any sense. If I might hazard a guess, I should suggest that the error is in the second word, "service," and that it ought to be "servants:"

"When servants sweat for duty, not for meed."

In the Taming of the Shrew, p. 143., the substitution of "Warwickshire ale" for "sheer ale" strikes me as very far-fetched, and wholly unnecessary. There is no defect of sense in the term "sheer ale." Sly means to say, he was "fourteen pence on the score for ale alone:" just as one speaks of "sheer nonsense," i. e. nothing but nonsense, "sheer buffoonery," "sheer malice," &c. Why should Sly talk of being in debt for Warwickshire ale at Wincot? If he kind been drinking ale from Staffordshire, or Derbyshire, or Kent, he might possibly have named the county it came from; but to talk of Warwickshire ale within a few miles of Stratford-on-Avon seems absurd. It is as if a man came from Barclay and Perkins's, and talked of having been drinking "London porter."

In p. 144., I submit, with great deference, that turning "Aristotle's checks" into "Aristotle's ethics" is the very reverse of an improvement. What can be more intelligible than the line—

"And so devote to Aristotle's checks;"

that is, to the checks which Aristotle's rules impose upon profligacy? The idea is more poetical, and the line runs more smoothly; while the altered line is prosaic in comparison, and the metre is not correct.

My dwindling space warns me that I must very soon pause; but these examples can be extended ad infinitum, should another opportunity be afforded me.

The instances of alterations simply unnecessary are too numerous to be recorded here. I have already a list of forty odd, selected from only eight plays.