NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
With some shortcomings—superficial rather than substantive—'The Weeper' is a lovely poem, and well deserves its place of honour at the commencement of the 'Steps to the Temple,' as in editions of 1646, 1648, and 1670. Accordingly we have spent the utmost pains on our text of it, taking for basis that of 1652. The various readings of the different editions and of the Sancroft ms. are given below for the capable student of the ultimate perfected form. I have not hesitated to correct several misprints of the text of 1652 from the earlier editions.
The present poem appears very imperfectly in the first edition (1646), consisting there of only twenty-three stanzas instead of thirty-three (and so too in 1670 edition). The stanzas that are not given therein are xvi. to xxix. (on the last see onward). But on the other hand, exclusive of interesting variations, the text of 1646 supplies two entire stanzas (xi. and xxvii.) dropped out in the editions of 1648 and 1652, though both are in 1670 edition and in the Sancroft ms. Moreover I accept the succession of the stanzas in 1646, so far as it goes, confirmed as it is by the Sancroft ms. A third stanza in 1652 edition (st. xi. there) as also in 1648 edition, I omit, as it belongs self-revealingly to 'The Teare,' and interrupts the metaphor in 'The Weeper.' Another stanza (xxix.) might seem to demand excision also, as it is in part repeated in 'The Teare;' but the new lines are dainty and would be a loss to 'The Weeper.' Our text therefore is that of 1652, as before, with restorations from 1646.
The form of the stanza in the editions of 1646, 1648 and 1670 is thus:
In 1652 from stanza xv. (there) to end,
but I have made all uniform, and agreeably to above of 1652.
I would now submit variations, illustrations and corrections, under the successive stanzas and lines.
Couplet on the engraving of 'The Weeper.' In 1652 'Sainte' is misprinted 'Sanite,' one of a number that remind us that the volume was printed in Paris, not London. In all the other editions the heading 'Sainte Mary Magdalene' is omitted.
St. i. line 2. 1646, 1648 and 1670 editions read 'silver-forded.' Were it only for the reading of the text of 1652 'silver-footed,' I should have been thankful for it; and I accept it the more readily in that the Sancroft ms. from Crashaw's own copy, also reads 'silver-footed.' The Homeric compound epithet occurs in Herrick contemporarily in his Hesperides,
[that is, the river Thames]. William Browne earlier, has 'faire silver-footed Thetis' (Works by Hazlitt, i. p. 188). Cf. also the first line of the Elegy on Dr. Porter in our 'Airelles'—printed for the first time by us: 'Stay silver-footed Came.'
With reference to the long-accepted reading 'silver-forded,' the epithet is loosely used not for in the state of being forded, but for in a state to be forded, or fordable, and hence shallow. The thought is not quite the same as that intended to be conveyed by such a phrase as 'silver stream of Thames,' but pictures the bright, pellucid, silvery whiteness of a clear mountain rill. As silver-shallow—a meaning which, as has been said, cannot be fairly obtained from it—can it alone be taken as a double epithet. In any other sense the hyphen is only an attempt to connect two qualities which refuse to be connected. All difficulty and obscurity are removed by 'silver-footed.'
St. iii. line 1. The. 'we'' may be = wee, as printed in 1646, but in 1648 it is 'we are,' and in 1670 'we're,' and in the last, line 2, 'they're.' The Sancroft ms. in line 2, reads 'they are indeed' for 'indeed they are.'
St. iv. line 4, 1646 and 1670 have 'crawles' and 'crawls' respectively, for 'floates,' as in 1648 and our text. The Sancroft ms. also reads 'crawles.' In line 3, 1646 and 1670 'meet' is inadvertently substituted for 'creep.'
Lines 5 and 6, 1646 and 1670 read
So too the Sancroft ms., save that for 'this' it has 'these.'
St. v. line 2. 'Brisk' is = active, nimble. So—and something more—Shakespeare: 'he made me mad, to see him shine so brisk' (1 Henry IV. 3).
Line 3. 1646, 1670 and Sancroft ms. read 'soft' for 'sacred' of 1652 and 1648.
Line 6, 'Breakfast.' See our Essay on this and similar homely words, with parallels. 1648 reads 'his' for 'this breakfast.'
St. vi. line 4, 'violls' = 'phials' or small bottles. The reading in 1646 and 1670 is 'Angels with their bottles come.' So also in the Sancroft ms.
St. vii. line 4. 'Nuzzeld' = nestled or nourished. In quaint old Dr. Worship's Sermons, we have 'dew cruzzle on his cheek' (p. 91).
Lines 1 and 3, 'deaw' = 'dew.' This was the contemporary spelling, as it was long before in Sir John Davies, the Fletchers and others in our Fuller Worthies' Library, s.v.
Lines 5 and 6. 1646, 1670 and Sancroft ms. read
1648 is as our text (1652).
St. ix. A hasty reader may judge this stanza to have been displaced by the xith, but a closer examination reveals a new vein (so-to-say) of the thought. It is characteristic of Crashaw to give a first-sketch, and afterwards fill in other details to complete the scene or portraiture.
St. xi. Restored from 1646.
St. xii. line 1. 1646, 1648 and 1670 read 'There is.'
Line 4, 'med'cinable teares.' So Shakespeare (nearly): 'their medicinal gum' (Othello, v. 2).
St. xiii. line 2. 1646 and 1670 unhappily misprint 'case;' and Turnbull passed the deplorable blunder and perpetuated it.
Line 5. Our text (1652) misprints 'draw' for 'deaw' = dew, as before.
Line 6. 1646 and 1670 read 'May balsame.'
St. xiv. line 3. 1646 and 1670 read
Turnbull misses the rhythmical play in the first and second 'though,' and punctuates the second so as to read with next line. I make a full-stop as in the Sancroft ms.
Line 4, ib. read
So the Sancroft ms.
Line 5, ib. read
So the Sancroft ms.
St. xv. lines 5 and 6, ib. read
'Faithful' looks deeper: but the Sancroft ms. agrees with '46 and '70.
St. xvii. line 2, in 1648 misreads
Turnbull, without the slightest authority, seeing not even in 1670 are the readings found, has thus printed lines 2 and 4, 'With loves, of tears with smiles disporting' ... 'Each other kissing and comforting'!!
St. xviii. line 2 in 1648 misreads
The 'balsome' is an evident misprint, but 'thee' is preferable to 'fill you' of our text (1652), and hence I have adopted it.
Line 3 in 1648 reads
St. xix. line 3, 1648, reads 'that' for 'the.'
Line 4, ib. 'those' for 'these.'
Line 6. cf. Revelations xiv. 5, 'These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth.'
St. xxi. line 6. 'wipe with gold,' refers to Mary Magdalene's golden tresses, as also in st. xxii. 'a voluntary mint.'
Line 4. 'prouoke' = challenge.
St. xxii. line 2. Curiously enough, 1648 edition leaves a blank where we read 'calls 't' as in our text (1652). Turnbull prints 'call'st,' but that makes nonsense. It is calls't as = calls it. So too the Sancroft ms. Probably the copy for 1648 was illegible.
St. xxiv. line 1. 1646 and 1670 read
Line 2. Our text (1652) misprints 'starres' for 'teares' of 1646, 1648 and 1670.
Line 3. 1646 and 1670 read
The Sancroft ms. reads line 139 'Does the Night arise?' and line 141, 'Does Niget loose her eyes?'
St. xxv. line 2. 1646 and 1670 read
So the Sancroft ms.
Line 3. Our text (1652) misprints 'paire' for 'praire.' 'Sweet-breath'd' should probably be pronounced as the adjectival of the substantive, not as the participle of the verb.
Line 6. 1646, 1648 and 1670 read 'doth' for 'does.'
St. xxvi. lines 1 and 2. 1646 and 1670 read
So the Sancroft ms.
St. xxvii. Restored from 1646 edition. The Sancroft ms. in line 168 miswrites 'teares.'
St. xxviii. line 5. reads in 1646 and 1670
So also the Sancroft ms., wherein this st. follows our st. xv.
St. xxix. line 3. Our text (1652) misprints 'fires' for 'fire' of 1648.
St. xxx. line 1. Our text (1652) misprints 'Say the bright brothers.' 1646 and 1670 read 'Say watry Brothers.' So Sancroft ms. 1648 gives 'ye,' which I have adopted. The misprint of 'the' in 1652 originated doubtless in the printer's reading 'ye,' the usual mode of writing 'the.'
Line 2. 1646 and 1670 read
So the Sancroft ms.
Line 3, ib. 'fertile' for 'fruitfull.'
Line 4, ib. 'What hath our world that can entice.' So the Sancroft ms.
Lines 5 and 6, ib.
So the Sancroft ms.
St. xxxi. line 2. 1646 and 1670 read
and I accept 'sluttish' for 'sordid,' which is also confirmed by Sancroft ms.
Line 4, ib. 'your' for 'their;' and as this is also the reading of 1648 and Sancroft ms., I have accepted it.
Line 5. 1646 and 1670 omit 'Sweet.'
Line 6, ib. read 'yee' for 'you.'
St. xxxii. and xxxiii. In 1646 and 1670 these two stanzas are thrown into one, viz. 23 (there), which consists of the first four lines of xxxii. and the two closing lines of xxxiii. as follows,
In the Sancroft ms. also, and reads as last line 'A worthy object, our Lord Jesus feet.' On the closing lines of st. xxxii. cf. Sospetto d'Herode, st. xlviii.
I have not thought it needful, either in these Notes or hereafter, to record the somewhat arbitrary variations of mere orthography in the different editions, as 'haile' for 'hail,' 'syluer' for 'silver,' 'hee' for 'he,' and the like. But I trust it will be found that no different wording has escaped record. G.
A patheticall Descant vpon the deuout Plainsong of Stabat Mater Dolorosa.[23]
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
St. i. line 10. In 1648 the reading is
In 1670. 'All, more at home in her own heart.' I think 'all' and 'one' of our text (1652) preferable. There is a world of pathos in the latter. Cf. st. ii. line 8.
St. ii. line 1. On the change of orthography for rhyme, see our Phineas Fletcher, vol. ii. 206; and our Lord Brooke, Vaughan, &c. &c., show 'then' and 'than' used as in Crashaw.
St. vi. line 3. In 1648 the reading is 'love;' 1670 as our text (1652). The plural includes the twofold love of Son and mother.
Line 7, ib. 'to' for 'in.'
Line 9, ib. 'Oh give' at commencement. 1670, 'to' for 'too.'
St. vii. and viii. These two stanzas do not appear in 1648 edition, but appear in 1670.
St. vii. line 4. By 'tree' the Cross is meant. Cf. st. i. line 1.
St. ix. line 1. 1648 edition supplies the two words required by the measure of the other stanzas, 'in sins.' They are dropped inadvertently in 1652 and 1670. Turnbull failed as usual to detect the omission.
Line 4. 1648 spells 'Divident.'
Lines 5 and 6. I have accepted correction of our text (1652) from 1648 edition, in line 6, of 'If' for 'Is,' which is also the reading of 1670. 1648 substitutes 'just' for 'soft;' but 1670 does not adopt it, nor can I.
St. x. line 1. 1648 reads 'Lend, O lend some reliefe.'
Line 9 reads 'To studie thee so.'
St. xi. line 3, ib. reads 'thy' for 'the.'
Line 8, ib. reads 'Thy deare lost vitall death.'
Line 10. I have adopted from 1648 'in thy Lord's death' for 'thy lord's in death' of our text (1652).
Turnbull has some sad misprints in this poem: e.g. st. ii. line 4, 'sorrow's' for 'sorrows;' st. iii. line 2, 'death's' for 'deaths;' st. vi. line 9, 'Me to' for 'Me, too;' st. x. line 2, 'in' for 'an,' and line 3, 'a' mis-inserted before 'sad.' Except in the 'Me to' of st. vi., he had not even the poor excuse of following the text of 1670. G.
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
It is to be re-noted that st. v. is identical in all save 'watry' for 'bridegroom' with st. xi. of 'The Weeper' as given in text of 1652, and that st. iv. has two lines from st. xxix. of the same poem. Neither of these stanzas appear in 'The Weeper' of 1646. As stated in relative foot-note, I have withdrawn the former from 'The Weeper.' We may be sure it was inadvertently inserted in 1652, seeing that the very next stanza closes with the same word 'wine' as in it: a fault which our Poet never could have passed. It is to be noticed too that 'The Teare' did not appear in the edition of 1652. By transferring the stanza to 'The Teare' as in 1646, 1648 and 1670 editions, a blemish is removed from 'The Weeper,' while in 'The Teare' it is a vivid addition. The 'such' of line 1 links it naturally on to st. iv. with its 'such.'
Our text follows that of 1648 except in st. v. line 4, where I adopt the reading of 1652 in 'The Weeper' (there st. xi.) of 'bridegroom' (misprinted 'bridegrooms') for 'watry,' and that I correct in st. vii. line 6, the misprint 'the' for 'thee,'—the latter being found in 1646 and 1670. With reference to st. v. again, in line 5 in 'The Weeper' of 1648 the reading is 'balsome' for 'blossom.' The 'ripe' of line 6 settles (I think) that 'blossom' is the right word, as the ripe blossom is = the grape, to the rich lucent-white drops of which the Weeper's tears are likened. 'Balsome' doesn't make wine. I have adopted from st. xi. of 'The Weeper' of 1652 the reading 'the purpling vine' for 'the wanton Spring' of 1646, 1648 and 1670. The Sancroft ms. in st. i. line 2, reads 'expends' for 'expence;' st. iv. line 4, 'that's' for 'when;' st. v. line 4, 'manly sunne' for 'bridegroome,' and line 5, 'thine' for 'thy;' st. viii. line 6, 'I' th'' for 'In th'.' G.