I know of no meaning 'put' has in English that will make any sense here. We must, then, regard it as a misprint; and as a negative is plainly wanting, I read not yet, the negative being, as so frequently, omitted, and 'put' printed for yet. "Why, brother Rivers, are you yet to learn?" (3 H. VI. iv. 4.) Pope read not for 'put.'
It is quite evident that part of a line has been lost. The numerous corrections attempted here may be seen in the Cambridge Edition. I supply you add diligence.
Something was surely lost here; and as Angelo is constantly called the Deputy, deputation (which occurs a few lines higher) seems to be the missing word.
For 'propagation' Malone would read prorogation; but the text seems to be right, as 'propagation' was used in the sense of extension, increase.
Massinger, Rom. Actor. i. 3.
And portions—as we learn by Sir Moth Interest in Jonson's Magnetic Lady—used to double in seven years. The same play would also justify Malone's reading, as guardians were not always willing to part with dowers in their hands. Perhaps for 'of a dower' we should read 'of her dower,' for the h in her not being pronounced, and the r but slightly, the printer might easily make the mistake; so also 'coffer' should probably be 'coffers.'
In the second line Becomes was added by Pope, or rather by Davenant, and it has been adopted by subsequent editors. Yet the poet may have written, and I think did write, 'the rod is' and 'More mocked at.'
For 'story' Singer would read sport; but 'me' may be 'to me,' and her meaning be, seek not to impose on me.
As in and and are so frequently confounded (see on iii. 2 ad fin.) I would read in for 'and' in the last line.
We have a similar sentiment in Cymb. v. 1. As of ice and of vice are pronounced exactly alike, we may safely assume the latter to be the true reading. The whole difficulty then lies in 'brakes.' A brake was certainly, as we are told, a frame to confine restless or vicious horses in when shoeing; but when it is added that it is also an instrument of torture, I become somewhat dubious. At any rate no one would say a rack or a gibbet of vice; so why a brake of vice? I incline then, but with hesitation, to think that we should read wreaks o' vice. We have "wreak the love" (R. and J. iii. 5); "wreak our wrongs." (Tit. And. iv. 3.) I put the ambiguous o', because wreak takes on rather than of after it.
For 'by the,' the usual correction (which I have followed) is 'by your.' Mr. Collier thinks 'by this' might be better; for this and your were used promiscuously. Either might easily be confounded with the. (See Introd. p. 68.)
This apparently necessary transposition was made by S. Walker. The folio reads "But might you."
Here back is the proper addition made in the 2nd folio.
As the first 'were' may have been caused by the second, I would, like Warburton, read for it are. In "We cannot cross the cause why we were born" (L. L. L. iv. 3), the folio reads 'are born.'
So it stands in the folio, and Pope was, it may be, right in reading 'If the first man,' but we might also read, and perhaps better, as I have done, 'the edict did.'
For 'now' I felt inclined to read new, with Pope, but I prefer 'now born,' and so I have printed it. (See on All's Well, ii. 3.)
We should for 'here' either read where, or better, with Hanmer, ere.
Lyly, Campaspe, ii. 2.
In all the English versions of the Scriptures anterior to the Authorized one, sicle is the word, from siclus of the Vulgate, by which the Hebrew shekel is rendered. Shakespeare therefore knew nothing of this last, and must of course have written sickle. Yet all editors, the Cambridge and myself included, have adopted Pope's correction, shekel, for which all are highly to blame. The word 'tested' proves that Gen. xxiii. 16 was in the poet's mind.
It would be simpler and better to read: "Would laugh themselves all mortal."
Editors follow Warburton in reading flames for 'flaws'; but as flaw is defect, weakness, the text may be right. Flaw is also gust, blast of wind, which also might make some sense here. We should, then, perhaps read 'flaw.'
For 'spare' Collier's folio reads serve.
So Ritson properly arranges. It is evident that the names and May, which I and Steevens have added, were effaced in the MS. In Twelfth Night (i. 5) we have a similar effacement of names of speakers. In the following line 'love' should be law, a change made by Hanmer.
The folio has 'fear'd'; the correction is Warburton's. It is a most unusual use of 'sear'd' in the sense of dry; sear would seem less strange. So Heath also thought.
Pope read 'but blood'; Malone 'still blood.'
It might be better to read, with Malone, moulds instead of 'means.'
Here 'or' is a correction by Davenant and Rowe of and of the folio.
As Shakespeare has used 'morn' elsewhere but once in a compound, it were better, as the metre requires, to read 'morning', as Hanmer also read.
Editors read 'craftily'; we might also read 'seeming.' "Or seeming so in skill" (Winter's Tale, ii. 1); but no change is necessary. The folio has 'that's'; hence the reading of the editors, the Cambridge included.
The word 'enshield' occurs nowhere else. It is of course, as Steevens says, enshielded, covered with a shield. To this there is no very great objection; but as elsewhere (Cor. iv. 6) the poet has 'inshell'd,' i.e. covered with a shell, it might be better to read so here also, as I find Tyrwhitt has done.
So I think we should read, and not 'displayed' and with the metric accent on 'me.' Perhaps also for 'beauty' we should read itself.
There is no need, with Johnson and others, to change 'loss'; it is quite correct. (See Index s. v. 'Lose.')
Sense and metre alike demand the negative, which had evidently been effaced. Steevens also read 'akin.'
"A very obscure passage," says Mr. Dyce, "in which Rowe printed 'by weakness,' and Malone proposes 'this weakness.' (On 'fedary' see Richardson's Dictionary, sub Federal.)" And this is all this noted critic has to say! For my part I do not regard this passage as by any means past cure, and I think that Warburton came very near the true sense. The main point is to ascertain the exact meaning of fedary. "Federy and federary," says Richardson, "in Shakespeare are the same word differently written (having no connexion whatever with Feud or Feudatory), and signify a colleague, associate, or confederate;" and he refers to Minshew, s. v. Feodarie. Now Minshew's words are "Feodarie alias Feudaris alias Feudatrie, Feudelarius, is an office authorized by the Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries by letters patent, and under the seal of that office," etc. Cotgrave has "A feodarie, feudal, feodal, feudataire;" in both of which places I think the "connexion with Feud and feudatory" is very apparent; and the last convinces me that a fedary or feodary was a vassal, a liegeman; and that, I have no doubt, is its sense in this place? and in Cymb. iii. 2, where it again occurs, as I shall there show. I do not think Richardson was at all justified in making, as he seems to do, fedary a different word from feodary. There was also feodar a vassal, "For seventeen kings were Carthage feodars." (Marston. Sophon. Prol.) It must strike every one of taste with surprise that Shakespeare should have written such a leonine verse as
And further, whether 'fedary' be vassal or confederate, the person should be mentioned to whom he stood in that relation. In the former sense—the only true one—that person must be either Heaven or the Duke, which was omitted by the printer. I am in favour of the former, both for metre-sake and because we have elsewhere, "The rest of your fees, O Gods! the senators of Athens" (Tim. iii. 5); and "God's vassals drop and die" (Hen. V. iii. 2). I read thus:—
Isabella replies at once, fully assenting to Angelo's observation. After a brief pause, she is proceeding to reason on the subject, when he interrupts her. We may observe that 'owe' and 'succeed' are legal terms, which here form a hysteron-proteron, like some other common phrases. Perhaps, indeed, we might transpose them; for Isabella is speaking quite calmly and composedly. The change of 'thy' to this is perfectly legitimate; and to may have been omitted or effaced after 'succeed.'
The same addition was proposed by Mr. Seymour.
Though this addition is not absolutely necessary, it gives such force to the sentiment that I willingly believe it may have come from the poet's pen.
No doubt 'dost' may make some sense here, but do, or rather, as more Shakesperian, doth, makes far better sense. In Son. xxxix. there is the very same confusion of dost and doth.
Johnson read affects, which seems to be better.
There might seem to be no need of adding anything here. But we may see that there is not an end of a paragraph. (See Introd. p. 82.) I therefore read, 'And Death in fine.'
No sense has been made of 'as aged,' which may therefore be regarded as corrupt. As in Tr. and Cr. v. 3, as lawful should be unlawful, I have here read in my Edition engaged (also the reading of Mr. Staunton) in the sense of dependent, in subjection, the ordinary state of youth under the authority of parents and elders, depending on them for money, etc. We might perhaps read as gaged in the same sense, if we had examples. The Cambridge editors propose abased, which is good, and might easily have become 'as aged.' Possibly the poet wrote an abject, as we have, "We are the Queen's abjects" (Rich. III. i. 1), and "I will make thee stoop, thou abject" (Jonson, Ev. Man Out, etc., v. 3), "That thou wilt never let me live to be An abject" (Chapman, Hymn to Venus, v. 312), "Yea, the very abjects" (Ps. xxxv. 15).
For 'Yet,' caused by the other two, I read Yea; for 'moe' some, not more, as is usual, and which makes no sense.
For 'sir' Mason, with whom I agree, reads son. Further on in the scene the Duke calls him 'son.' (See on Cor. iii. 2.) It was perhaps the following line that suggested 'sir' to the printer.
So Steevens read, transposing the 'them' and 'me' of the folio; and later editors have properly followed him.
This is the proper arrangement. Editors usually omit the first 'most good,' to get their favourite decasyllabic verse, heedless of the loss of force.
It appears to me that a negative is required to make the passage more correct and natural; and we know how frequently it is omitted in these plays. Here, however, I think, 'a' has been printed in its place (see on Twelfth Night, ii. 2), for the compositor probably did not pronounce the t in 'cannot,' and so made it 'can a.' I therefore read, 'I cannot resolution fetch.' Heath takes 'Think you' as imperative, not interrogative, like Bethink you.
It might seem better to read By than 'In'; but it is not safe to meddle with prepositions. See on iv. 4.
It is the falcon, not the fowl, that is enmewed. Would that every correction were as certain as that which I have made here! I read, with the fullest confidence, enew. (See Index s. v.) It is a most curious circumstance that in this place of the MS. I unconsciously wrote bud for 'head,' a correction which was afterwards given in Notes and Queries (3rd S. v. 229), and had, I believe, been previously proposed by Grey. If 'head' be the right reading, it may signify the state of bloom. "That unmatch'd form and feature of blown youth" (Ham. iii. 1).
So the passage stands in the folio. As there is no such word known in English as 'prenzie,' the 2nd folio read princely, Hanmer priestly, which Mr. Dyce adopts. I think, however, that the German Tieck hit on the right word, precise, and I have so printed it without hesitation. We have had already, "Lord Angelo is precise" (i. 4), "is severe" (ii. 1), and "well-seeming" (iii. 1); but it is nowhere said that he was princely or priestly, and surely the guards or bindings of a dress could hardly be so termed. As to the change of accent, which Mr. Dyce makes an objection, a reader of our old poets should be ashamed to urge it, it is of such frequent occurrence, and it occurs more than once in this very play. In i. 2 we actually have "précise villains," and "A sort of sober, scurvy, precise neighbours" (Jonson, Alch. i. 1). (See Introd. p. 80.) I further think we should read 'bodies,' and with Collier's folio garbs, which being spelt garbes differs only in one letter from 'gardes.' As the latter were mere bindings, edgings, facings, they could hardly be said to cover a body. The infinitives 'invest' and 'cover' are used (as so frequently) where we now use a participle with an article. See Introd. p. 70.
For 'Yes' the metre demands I will, as I have printed it. See Introd. p. 68.
The folio reads perjury; 'penury' is the correction of the 2nd folio.
The folio reads away. Theobald's correction, 'array,' is self-evident.
Both metre and sense require Neither.
I adopt Grey's reading, to't for 'trot.' He has just asked a question, and he is repeating it.
With Theobald I read 'ungenerative.'
The folio has deare; the obvious correction is Hanmer's.
With Hanmer I read not for 'now.'
The metre requires this addition, which also relieves the Provost's speech from abruptness.
The folio reads Sea. This wrong spelling was not unusual. In King John (iii. 1) we have 'holy Sea' used of Canterbury. As 'See' never occurs thus alone, we might read 'the Holy See,' or rather, as I have done, "the See of Rome;" "I Pandulph ... Legate from the See of Rome." (Old Play of King John.) For a similar effacement see Ant. and Cleop. ii. 4.
The last line is evidently corrupt. I would read,
in which I had been anticipated by Johnson. We have more than one instance of in being effaced in the beginning of a line; and such having been the case here, the printer, to get some appearance of sense, converted the remaining 'in' to and—also a usual change. 'To know,' 'to stand,' 'to go,' are equivalent to knowing, etc. (See Introd. p. 70.) For 'know,' I, as well as Mr. Staunton, had conjectured show; but no change is needed.
"A passage," says Mr. Dyce, "in which it seems hopeless to ascertain what the poet really wrote." At all events, by omitting 'To' in the third line we get excellent sense, and what more need we require? After I had made this simple emendation, I learned, to my great surprise—for the editors gave no heed to it—that I had been anticipated in it by Theobald. 'Draw' in the third line connects with 'may' in the first; but the printer, taking 'practice' for a verb, added 'To' to try to make sense. For 'making practice,' see on All's Well, iv. 2. 'Likeness' is simulation: "Do not assume my likeness," i.e. pretend to be like me. (Tim. iv. 3.) "Thou simular of virtue." (Lear iii. 2.) The poet probably wrote 'crime' and 'time.'
Capell, I think rightly, arranges thus:
Transpositions of this kind, made by the printers, are not uncommon. (See on Tr. and Cr. v. 2.) Capell read 'on him.'
So Pope also conjectured.
I incline to read their. The 2nd folio added s to 'quest.'
Warburton properly read tilth.
I quite agree with those who make this part of Abhorson's speech.
Mr. Singer reads 'seldom-when' as one word, and quotes in defence of it seldom-time, any-when, seldom-what; and he might have added seld-when, from Gower's Conf. Amantis. In any case, 'Tis seems wanting before it, as in "'Tis seldom when the bee doth leave her comb" (2 Hen. IV. iv. 4).
The printer, by a most common error, omitted re in unresisting. Surely the critics in general should have seen this, as Rowe did.
The folio reads 'lord's man'; but both sense and metre require the correction adopted by the editors, after Pope.
So Pope. The folio transposes 'Is' and 'It.' (See on Two Gent. ii. 4.)
So I should have printed it, but did not.
Hanmer also added here.
Persons are not continued. Perhaps we should read 'continue to keep.'
I adopt Hanmer's emendation, 'under' for 'yond' of the folio. "The under-generation," says Mr. Dyce, "is the human race that dwells under heaven." In Timon (i. 1) we have "this beneath-world," i.e. this world under heaven.