Pope read, I think correctly, 'A princess.' We have, "And marriage" for "A marriage" (Hen. VIII. ii. 4). See also on Jul. Cæs. v. 2.
We should perhaps read 'a stranger.'
So also Ritson. See Rom. and Jul. i. 1.
As the plural of 'princess' does not occur in Shakespeare, and a plural seems required here, I suspect that 'princess' may be a collective. (See Introd. p. 70.) For 'hours' we might read joys, i.e. enjoyments. Still the passage may be as the poet wrote it.
I am not sufficiently versed in astrology to determine whether 'zenith' be right or not.
Like the subsequent "Why, that's my spirit!" and "That's my noble master!" So also Hanmer.
This is undoubtedly the proper arrangement.
So we should arrange the whole passage.
Steevens made the same addition.
As north, south, etc., were not used alone of the wind, I have added wind, which also gives energy to the expression, which is tame and feeble, if the metric accent fall on 'ye.' See on Twelfth Night, i. 1.
Steevens properly made this a parenthesis. 'Whist' is whisted, hushed. "The moisting air was whist, no leaf ye could have moving seen." Golding, Ovid, p. 81.
For 'nor' Steevens read or; we might also read and or nay; but perhaps it is as it was written. For 'are,' too, the proper word would be were.
I make the transposition of "So have we all—of joy," in the second line boldly; for surely neither Shakespeare nor any other writer would put a parenthesis between a noun and its genitive. Gonzalo is speaking quite calmly, and without any perturbation. We have an exactly similar printer's error in
Ant. and Cleop. iii. 10.
Wint. Tale, iv. 3.
See also Hen. VIII. iii. 1.
The word 'merchant' occurs here in two different senses; and when this play was written Shakespeare had long since abstained from such practices. One of them, therefore, must belong to the printer; if the first, then we might, and I think should, read vessel, if the second, owner. 'Merchant' certainly occurs in the sense of merchantman. See B. and F. Coxcomb, i. 3.
Theobald's arrangement; the folio gives 'So,' etc., to Seb.
Possibly the poet wrote receive, which seems more appropriate.
The editors in general read, with Malone, she'd for 'should'; but surely she was not the balance. We get very good sense by omitting either 'at' or 'o'; in my Edition I have, as Pope had done, omitted the latter; for o', or of, was sometimes added by the printers. (See on M. for M. iv. 4.) 'Weigh'd' is pondered.
Editors have taken strange liberties with the whole of this passage. Here they omit 'Bourne.'
It is very strange that none of the editors should have seen that the negative had been effaced or omitted. Surely the very last thing that Antonio could have wished was that he should hear them; and how could he if he went to sleep? Not, we may also see, is required by the metre. The latter part may be a half-aside.
Perhaps to complete the measure and improve the sense we should add, I say. The folio spells 'throes' throwes.
Though in my Edition I have not altered the text, I think we should read 'from whom coming' with Singer; 'we were all,' and 'cast up.' Musgrave proposed 'destin'd,' which is probably right. Rowe, followed by the other editors, omitted 'that' in the first line.
I must confess I do not clearly understand this passage. Surely as he was, as he had just said, in actual possession of Milan, his conscience could not 'stand' between him and it. Perhaps, however, we are to view 'stand' as in the conjunctive mood, and expressing a condition. Neither do I see clearly the meaning of 'candied' and 'melt' in this place.
Pope's reading, verity, is most certain. "'Tis verity, I assure you" (Mass. New Way, etc. i. 1).
Theobald, in my mind most properly, proposed sea-mells, of the existence of which term Malone and Reed have given abundant proofs; by the usual change of l to w we have sea-mew, the term now in use. Yet some editors persist in retaining the old printer's error, as limpets are in some places called scams or scammels, not reflecting that old limpets are to be preferred. Mr. Dyce reads staniels, after another conjecture of Theobald's.
In the folio it is 'trenchering,' caused by the participles in the preceding line.
The first line here is short, which it should not be, as it does not begin or end a paragraph. (See Introd. p. 82.) We should therefore arrange thus:
It is very remarkable that I never noticed this until after my Edition had been printed. However, I rectified it in the corrections.
This punctuation removes all difficulty. The entrance of Miranda causes him to break off.
The folio reads peetiesse. It escaped the Camb. editors.
Though, as Malone has shown, this construction is quite correct, still, as Pope also saw, the metre demands 'than I would suffer.' In the Maid's Tragedy (iv. 2) we have
where we must either read 'fit for,' or 'should fight,' to make any sense.
Perhaps for 'As' we should read An.
The first sentence here belongs, I think, to Stephano's last speech. See on As You Like it, ii. 1.
The folio has 'islands.' So in the Queen of Corinth (iii. 1), "Our neighbour islands would make of us." In both places sense and metre alike require islanders.
We should perhaps read on for 'of'; or, with Thirlby and Malone, transpose 'five' and 'one,' of which both Gifford and Dyce approved. Yet it may be that no change is necessary, for of and on are constantly used interchangeably, and o' stands for both. The 'of' of the text may, however, have been caused by the initial letter of the following word.
Mason arranged thus:—
Mr. Dyce properly rejects this arrangement, but on the last line he observes "They cannot with any propriety be reduced to a single line." Was Mr. Dyce unaware of the existence of six-foot lines in these plays? The true reason for rejecting this arrangement is, that in this play Shakespeare does not employ couplets.
The first folio has 'up you'; the necessary and obvious transposition was made in the fourth. Some editors, most unjustifiably, throw out 'you.'
For 'dowle' I read with confidence down, believing it to be a printer's error for dowlne, a mode of spelling down:
2 Hen. IV. iv. 2, fol.
Singer refers to dictionaries, etc., of the 17th century for the use of dowle; but they all probably found it only in this place.
For 'third,' which might easily have been a printer's error for thrid, i.e. thread, editors in general follow Theobald in reading this last word. It is easy to conceive how Miranda might be regarded as a thread or integral portion of her father's life, but not how she could be a third of it.
Of course Shakespeare wrote 'of her.' The editors, without, I believe, an exception, have 'boast her off'—a phrase unknown to the poet—introduced by the editor of the 2nd folio, who had little or no idea of emendation by transposition.
As it is difficult to make any good sense here of 'can' alone, we should perhaps read 'can make', or 'can give,' making 'Genius' a trisyllable, and the line of six feet.
'Banks' may be either the margins of streams or hillocks, or slight elevations of land; but 'brims,' which can only be the edges or margins of hollows, shows that it is the former that is meant. 'Pioned' seems to be a word of Shakespeare's own creation; for, finding the word pioneer in common use, and pyonings—a word of Spenser's coinage—in the Faerie Queen (ii. 10. 63) signifying defences, the work of pioneers, he thought himself at liberty to form a verb pion. This is generally taken to mean dig; and 'twilled' is supposed to be a term transferred from cloth, etc., and signifying ridged; and so the passage is made to mean dug, and laid out in ridges, which, however, hardly accords with the context. Steevens, on the other hand, read 'pioned and lilied'; but neither the piony nor the lily can properly be regarded as a wild flower (though the former is said to grow on the Severn), and such only could be meant here. Others again for 'twilled' read tilled, or give strange meanings to 'twilled.' My own opinion is, that the sense which Shakespeare gave to his 'pioned' was fenced, and that 'twilled' was a printer's error. We may observe that 'and twilled' is pronounced an twilled, which differs very slightly in sound from 'and willow'd.' (See Introd. p. 52.) By reading, then, "Thy banks with pioned and willow'd brims" we get most excellent sense, the idea in the poet's mind being the bank of a stream, fenced, as it were, and secured against overflow, with a range of willows along its edge, and 'betrimmed,' i.e. adorned, with primroses, violets, and other wild flowers; for "April showers bring forth May flowers." I have not hesitated to make this correction in my Edition.
In my Edition I have here transposed the adjectives (See on i. 1). We are to take 'cold,' as so frequently, in the sense of cool, which agrees well with flowers growing on the edge of a stream, while it seems absurd to term them 'chaste.' 'Nymphs' is evidently maidens; for if the Naiades were meant there would be an article.
This must be the right reading, as the folio has gras'd. Some would read graz'd, which can hardly be right.
For 'broom' Hanmer read brown, which I have adopted; though contrary to my rule (see Introd. p. 51), as I have met no earlier authority for this use of brown than Milton. The poet's word may have been broad or trim. The broom never attains a height to justify the terming it a 'grove.' Dyer, a good authority, has in his Fleece "low-tufted broom," and Bloomfield (Rural Tales) "tufts of green broom," both using the proper term. I doubt if 'grove' is ever used of any but forest-trees.
No one has ever made, or can make, sense of this. For 'Spring' Collier's folio reads Rain—no great improvement. The fact is, as the context plainly shows, that the poet's word was Shall. With this simple change the whole passage becomes clear and grammatical, and forms a parallel to the fairy-blessing at the end of Mids. Night's Dream.
Some copies of the folio read 'wife' for 'wise'; which has become the general reading, even that of the Cambridge Edition. I prefer, as more Shakespearian, the other reading, which is also that of all the succeeding folios.
The word in the folio is windring; so it is doubtful whether we should read winding or wandering. 'Sedg'd' may have been sedge; for the sound is exactly the same in this place.
The folio reads "my son, in a moved sort."
This is undoubtedly the true reading. The folio has racke, but instances of this error are common. See my note on Milton's Par. Reg. iv. 452. We have wrack for rack in
1 Hen. VI. ii. 5.
With Malone, I read are for the second 'all.' In the same way we have "sir, sir," in All's Well, v. 2.
With Theobald I read 'Let us along,' which connects so well with what follows: we have this very expression in Wint. Tale, v. 2; and see on L. L. L. iv. 3. Hanmer read 'Let it alone.'
It is better, I think, to correct thus than, with the editors, to read 'boil'd.'
Lear, ii. 4.
Cymb. i. 7.
Still I think that the final syllable of servant may have been effaced.
This is the reading of the folio, and I see no need of reading with editors 'entertain'd.'
With Collier's folio I read e'er for 'or.'
This is a remarkable instance of the use of whom for who in the nominative. See W. Tale, ad fin.
For 'our' in the first line we must of course read her with Thirlby and Theobald. It was probably caused by the 'Our' of the next line; but from similarity of pronunciation our is sometimes confounded with her and a.
For 'them' we should perhaps read her.
With Capell I read 'as strange a.' We have just had
I confidently read 'element,' that is air, his return to which had been already promised him.
The 2nd folio properly read I for 'It.'
In the only other place where 'conversion' occurs in these plays it signifies change; but it may be conversation.
Ham. 1603.
This, and all that has been written upon it, is sheer nonsense. As 'shoes' and shews are alike in sound, Theobald proposed this last word; but as there was neither picture nor tale existing on the subject, I prefer shew'd in the conjunctive mood. We might also, and better perhaps, read should. After 'Alcides'' 'lion's robe' is of course to be understood. The allusion to the ass in the lion's skin is manifest.
By an ordinary error (Introd. p. 66) 'Lewis' is substituted for Philip, both here and in the heading of the next speech.
Rowe read Confront, Capell Confronts, Collier's folio Come 'fore, which last is, I think, the best.
I have, it will be seen, made a necessary transposition in the last line. It is strange that no one seems to have observed the error.
The 2nd folio for 'roam' reads run, and ronne might easily become rome. See on Ham. i. 3.
Tyrwhitt proposed 'King'd.' We should punctuate 'Kings of our fear!' i.e. Kings whom we fear.
Collier's folio reads niece. In the Two Gent. (iv. 1) we have, "An heir and niece allied unto the Duke," where all the editors read near.
Thirlby proposed a for 'as.'
'Stay' is hindrance, impediment.
Capell properly read shall for 'still.'
For 'aid' Mason and Collier's folio read aim.
The poet probably wrote 'you'll' think.
Hanmer reads stout for 'stoop,' but I see no need of change. We talk of a person being bowed to the earth with grief, and this is what the poet meant. 'Owner' was used of one who simply had, as "But like the owner of a foul disease" (Ham. iv. 1).
Collier's folio reads Heaven for 'Him,' which is very good.
This would seem intended to express the indecent haste of the wedding, the bride having, as it were, no trousseau, but being married in her ordinary clothes. In ii. 2 it was termed an "unlook'd-for, unprepared pomp." Theobald proposed 'and trimm'd' and 'betrimm'd'; Dyce reads 'uptrimm'd.'