It was the opinion of the sagacious Tyrwhitt that 'If not' is a mere insertion of the printer's, suggested by 'Is not' in the preceding line. I have, however, little doubt but it should be, as I have printed it, "Is it not a usuring kindness?"
Collier's folio reads purses. In that case 'they' should be we.
For 'corner'd' some read coned, crowned, cover'd. Singer and Dyce curtain'd. I have given cover'd.
Malone, who is usually followed, reads 'done work.'
Perhaps 'take' should be make.
For 'remedied' Singer read remitted. I adopt render'd, the reading of M. Mason.
So it stands in the folio here and in the subsequent speeches; but as Malone rightly saw, it should be 1 Cit.
All attempts to make sense of 'scale' having been most complete failures, it only remains to read, with Theobald, stale.
Massinger, Unnat. Comb. iv. 2.
So perhaps it were better to read.
The your, for 'a,' of Collier's folio seems preferable.
Such also is the punctuation of Warburton. 'To be' to be in being. See Introd. p. 70.
We should either read hath for 'have,' or we for 'been.'
So the folio reads; an evident misprint for contemning. The aposiopesis removes all need of alteration. The usual reading is contending, that of 2nd folio.
"Catched it again; or whether his fall enraged him."
The usual substitution of or for and.
I read, with Johnson, but for 'nor.'
A line at least has, I think, been left out after the first; or there may be an aposiopesis.
It is evident from the context that the poet wrote Ye, not 'The,' as in Ant. and Cleop. v. 2. They were written alike.
'Budge' in its present sense seems to be a very feeble term; but in Cole's Dictionary we have "To budge, pedem referre;" and in 3 Hen. VI. i. 4,
There seems to be an allusion to deer in 'rascals.' We had the same allusion above in
I read forth for 'four'; 'command' is the nom. to 'draw.'
Here 'bragg'd' is, bragged of, that you brag of; 'progeny' progenitors, and 'whip' the implement with which they scourged their foes. Chaucer (Tr. and Cr. ii.) terms Hector the "Grekis yerd."
By 'him' in the second line can only be meant the parasite, and what is the meaning of his being an 'overture for the wars'? I feel convinced that it is a printer's error for a noun; and I read pipes, which might be thus mistaken. The meaning then would be, when things are so, let pipes and tabors, not trumpets and drums, be used in our armies, grown thus effeminate.
With the fullest conviction I read for 'brother's guard' household hearth; for that was the very place where he did find him. "He got him up straight to the chimney hearth, and sate him down" (North's Plutarch, p. 232). Besides, we never hear that Aufidius had a brother; and it should be under, not upon, the guard; a man is, or stands, on his own not on another's guard. In Rich. II. iv. 1 we have "under his household roof;" and household hearth occurs in Campbell's Gertrude of Wyoming, iii. 17.
Regarding 'beesome' as a corruption, the editors have all adopted Theobald's reading, bisson, which occurs in Hamlet (ii. 2) in the sense of blinding. Mr. Singer, however, quotes from Huloet's Dictionary "Blynde or Beasomborne, cæcigenus," which proves the text to be right.
We might supply turn'd to sense.
There is perhaps an aposiopesis here; otherwise I should incline to read touch, as Mr. Knight and Collier's folio also read.
Editors in general read meet. I read 'We are met.'
Collier's folio read prest, i.e. ready; but no change is needed. "And then we shall be bless'd To do your pleasure" (King John iii. 1). It is the same as happy of the present day.
I do not see the meaning of 'painted' here. Perhaps the right word is parted, i.e. burst open, as it had been closed on him, i. 5. In Rom. and Jul. ii. 5 we have the same change of ar to ain.
For 'auburn' the folio has abraham.
As, in Othello (i. 1), the folio reads "tongued consuls" for "toged consuls" of the 4to, editors here properly read toge for 'tongue'; the 2nd folio has gown. As 'woolvish' offers very little sense, we should, with Collier's folio, read woolless; for it has been already (ii. 1) termed "the napless vesture of humility."
That a line has been lost here is beyond doubt. Pope, who is generally followed, added, "And Censorinus, darling of the people." But as the words in North's Plutarch are "so surnamed because the people had chosen him censor twice," it might be better to read "And Censorinus, he that was so nam'd."
With Malone I read Cor., to whom it is better suited. The names are often given wrong in this play.
The folio reads 'O God!' the judicious alteration is Theobald's, as usual. See on Ham. ii. 2.
For 'our' Southern read their, which seems to have been the poet's word.
As I have never met with 'native' in the sense of origin, source, I think, and so did Mason, that the right word is motive.
I do not think that the text is, in any place in these plays, more certainly correct than it is here; yet some late editors adopt without hesitation bisson multitude, the reading of Collier's folio. By 'bosom multiplied' the poet means the union or complex of the bosoms, i.e. hearts, affections, of the people. In his next speech Cor. uses in a similar manner "multitudinous tongue;" and in ii. 2 we meet "multiplying spawn." In Lear (v. 3) we have "the common bosom;" and in our poet's Lover's Complaint "That he did in the general bosom reign."
For 'Jump' Pope read vamp, Singer imp. 'Jump' is risk, hazard, and the verb seems, like so many others, to be here causative.
So the speech is given in the folio. In the Globe Shakespeare it is given Senators, etc., and what follows as the discordant cries of the various parties, which certainly seems to be more effective.
I think this should be Cor., and I have so given it.
This speech evidently belongs to Com.
I think we should either omit 'upon us,' or for 'us' read you.
So, I think judiciously, Tyrwhitt arranges, and he has been generally and properly followed. The folio gives the whole to Menenius, to whom it is not at all suited.
I would read 'in his mouth.' "My voice is in my sword" (Macb. v. 7). "He wears his tongue in his arms" (Tr. and Cress. iii. 3).
I read our for 'one,' as Theobald also proposed. In Ant. and Cleop. (i. 4) we have "One great competitor," where the sense demands our; and in Son. xcix. "Our blushing shame," where editors read, as sense requires, One.
I omit 'in peace,' as it had just occurred, is needless, and disturbs the metre.
Here Collier's folio places the entrance of Volumnia, and I think rightly.
The son, son, son! of Collier's folio is much better. She never elsewhere says Sir to him. See on Meas. for Meas. iii. 1.
'Thwartings' is the emendation of Theobald for things of the folio.
There is, I think, either an aposiopesis at the end of the first line; or a line is lost, as Volumnia is speaking quite calmly; or, to stoop, to yield, or something of that sort is omitted.
Here again Theobald emended, herd for 'heart.'
So I think we should point to make sense.
The metre requires a syllable; the 2nd folio reads to.
'Roated' is probably roted; but no such verb occurs elsewhere as rote. Boswell proposed rooted.
There can be little doubt that only was the word omitted.
By these slight corrections this place gains sense—a thing it never had before. All through the speech, it may be observed, Volumnia acts the part she would have her son perform. The transposition he had made in the first line—where the folio has 'Which often thus'—having perplexed the printer, he took 'humble' for a verb, and so introduced 'or' to try to make sense. (Introd. p. 67.) Mr. Dyce says "the passage now stands as Shakespeare wrote it." Why, then, has he not given us the sense of it?
It might be better to omit the first 'my' and 'to.'
For an exactly similar effacement at the end of a scene see on Temp. iii. 1.
I do not well understand 'worth' here. Rowe read word; but I cannot approve of it; wreak would seem better. We have "a heart of wreak" (iv. 5); also Tit. And. iv. 3, 4. See on M. for M. ii. 1.
The preposition should be 'fore, for, or to.
The 2nd folio reads 'extremity,' and it is usually followed, and is perhaps right; yet the text is not wrong. See Introd. p. 72.
Though this may seem devoid of sense, it is, I think, what the poet wrote. If so, we must take 'wounded' actively, like "Under my burden groan'd" (Temp. i. 2). "It is twice blessed" (M. of Ven. v. 1) etc.; and then 'gentle' will denote that the blows were open and honourable ones. (See the parallel passage in Tr. and Cress, i. 3.) If this should not satisfy, we might perhaps read in the gentle-minded. Pope read 'gentle-warded.' 'Cunning' here is skill taken in a good sense, as in "May my right-hand forget her cunning" (Ps. cxxxvii).
Perhaps the right reading would be den.
The negative seems required to make sense.
She had, according to herself, no other son (see i. 3); and again she says of herself (v. 3), "While she, poor hen, fond of no second brood." I have never met with 'first' in the sense of noblest, that given it here by the critics. I would therefore read fairest. In Tr. and Cr. we have "fair Lord Æneas"(i. 3); "fair Prince" (iii. 1, v. 1); "fair Diomed" (iv. 1); fair beholders (Prol.).
Southern read exposure, which probably the poet wrote.
I give this speech to Vir., to whom it is better suited. Her only other speech in this scene is "O Heavens! O Heavens!"
Steevens read approved, Singer appayed. The poet probably wrote has, pronounced as, of which the printer made 'is.'
With Steevens, I read hate for 'have.' This change of adjacent letters is a common error with printers.
A line is apparently lost here; or there is an aposiopesis.
Steevens, without being aware of the metric requirement, made the same addition.
I agree with Steevens in regarding this passage and the comments on it as being equally unintelligible. The meaning seems to be one which Shakespeare frequently expresses (see Tr. and Cr. i. 3, ii. 3, iii. 3)—self-praise is no praise. 'Unto itself commendable' is, then, standing high in the possessor's estimation. The sense yielded by 'tomb' and 'chair' is most trivial, and I would therefore venture to propose
Charms and spells, we know, were murmured or muttered in a low tone ("wizards that peep and that mutter" Is. viii. 19); and if the final letters of charmer's had been effaced—like in him a few lines higher—and only char left, the printer might easily have taken it for 'chair,' and so have made 'tomb' to correspond. For 'chair' Singer reads hair; Collier's folio cheer. Charmer occurs in Oth. iii. 4, and the poet had met with it in his Bible. I have introduced it again in Ant. and Cl. iv. 8.
For 'fouler' Dyce reads faulter, Singer foil'd are. We might also conjecture fall, and; the final d in this last not being sounded. Fall and fail come thus together in "Fall Greeks, fail fame; honour or go or stay" (Tr. and Cr. v. 1). It seems, however, safest to read, with Malone, as I have done, founder. We have "All his tricks founder" (H. VIII. iii. 2). What is said of fire in the first line is a favourite idea with our poet. We have it again in Two Gent. ii. 4, K. John, iii. 1. It is an allusion to the homœopathic mode of curing a burn by holding it to the fire. By the fires, etc., he means Coriolanus and himself.
I do not well understand 'bare' here. Mason read base, which is not quite satisfactory.
I would supply How, then, should I return?
This is also the punctuation of Delius.
For 'in gold' we might read a god: "He sits 'mongst men, like a descended god" (Cymb. i. 7). But it may be his chair of state that is meant.
A line is lost between the two last lines.
As 'verified' would seem to have been suggested by the following 'verity,' we might read, with Hanmer, magnified, or perhaps repeat 'amplified.'