This is evident nonsense. Rowe read hopes and affairs for 'ropes' and 'scarre'; and to this emendation, or Mitford's of case for 'scarre,' I see no very serious objection. We have "make envy" (Hen. VIII. v. 2), "make doubt" (Ib.), "make comfort" (Cymb. i. 2), "making practice" (Meas. for Meas. iii. 2). Why then object to "make hopes?" even though it is to be found nowhere else in Shakespeare. 'Scarre,' however, is probably right; in Lingua (i. 6) we have, "Poets will write whole volumes of this scar." It must be remembered that scare was written scarre, and so as a substantive 'scarre' may be fright, alarm, flutter, perturbation. Finally, it is even possible that 'ropes' may be right, a line being lost; something of this sort: "Of oaths and vows to scale our fort, in hope."
Here, as elsewhere, we have has and had confounded.
I think it would be better to read, as I have done, is for 'in' (see on King John, iv. 2), and conceal for 'reveal,' unless for the latter we should prefer reading veil. Perhaps also we might retain 'reveal,' and read when for 'till.'
Malone's first thought was most for 'meant.' Mr. Dyce proposes mean and; I think he is right, and have followed him. (See on Rom. and Jul. i. 3.)
The context seems to require die, not 'live'; so here, as elsewhere, we may happen to have a substitution of the contrary term. (See Introd. p. 66.)
This would seem to be one of the places where 'or' is for and.
Both sense and metre require this addition.
As 'revives' seems to make no sense, we might read reproves, or rather invites. "The time invites you. Go." (Ham. i. 3.)
For 'sure' we should, I think, read since.
Warburton's conjecture of moat for 'mood' is very specious, but, I fear, nothing more. 'Muddied' and 'mood' form what is termed a paronomasia.
The Cambridge editors adopt Warburton's reading similes. I doubt if either was the poet's word.
It was the 3rd folio that supplied one.
The context would suggest blaze to any one, as it did to Theobald.
He means Helena, but I do not see how 'nature' applies to her. Perhaps we should read motive; or some other word.
Something seems evidently lost here; for the address to Bertram is too abrupt. I would read 'seasonable weather.' We have, 'Like an unseasonable stormy day (Rich. II. iii. 2); and there was in the Liturgy, at that time, "a prayer for seasonable weather." The phrase 'day of season,' I believe, occurs nowhere else. Lower down—probably in the same page of the MS.—there appears to be an effacement of the same kind, and the loss of an entire line.
Is it not amazing that no one seems ever to have perceived that a line must have been lost between the last two lines? It may have been of this kind, "Another object met my wandering fancy." Capell, I find, read 'At the first sight.'
I read 'last time' and e'er for 'ere.' Rowe read e'er she; but the text is right.
The proper word would seem to be told, not 'bade'; but bid was used in the sense of tell or say, as in "bid farewell," etc.
As 'ingaged' is usually the same as engaged, a sense which would be absurd here, we might venture to read 'ungaged,' or 'uningaged. (See on Com. of Err. ii. 2.)
So Steevens also reads.
The second 'sir' is an evident error. The 2nd folio omits it, and reads 'are such.' I read, as Tyrwhitt had done, since.
For 'hit,' which is probably wrong, Capell read it; Pope, who is generally followed, his. It is very hard to choose; as each makes good sense, each is a natural printer's error.
I accept without hesitation the excellent correction of Collier's folio, and of Sidney Walker, infinite cunning. In Tr. and Cr. iii. 2, we read 'coming in dumbness,' where Pope made the proper correction cunning.
As I can make little sense of 'diet,' I read deny.
The negative is required for both sense and metre.
'New' is the correction of Rowe; the 4tos and folio have Now.
Collier's folio gives the right word, 'revelry.'
The verse in this play is strictly decasyllabic. The 2nd folio omits 'man,' with Mr. Dyce's approval. In omitting be, I have been preceded by Theobald.
The 2nd folio needlessly reads 'to whose.'
Common sense dictates the transposition made here of the last lines. There is no note on this passage in the Cambridge Shakespeare; so none of the known critics can have noticed it. The third line, it is evident, had been an addition made by the poet in the margin.
Singer transposes these lines. It is, by the way, surprising how many transpositions there are in this play; but it was not necessary to transpose here, and his doing so arose from his misunderstanding the second line; in which the allusion is most probably to the Cestus of Venus.
For 'your words' Hanmer read 'Yours would,' an excellent emendation, and generally adopted.
'Sweet' and 'stranger companies' are Theobald's corrections of swelled and strange companions. "More certain emendations," says Mr. Dyce, "were never made."
The decasyllabic form must be preserved. Pope read as I do.
In the 4tos and folio 'Fairy.' (See Introd. p. 52.)
This is the reading of the folio; the 4tos, which all the editors follow, have hast. I prefer the former; for Shakespeare invariably employs the verb substantive with 'stolen away,' except in the case of a doubly-compound tense.
Theobald proposed and then rejected 'winter-cheer.' I should prefer summer for 'winter' (see Introd. p. 66); for in Dr. Forman's Diary of the year 1594—which year Shakespeare had certainly in view—we read, "This monethes of June and July were very wet and wonderfull cold, like winter, that the 10 dae of Julii many did syt by the fyer, yt was so cold; and soe was it in Maye and June; and scarse too fair dais together all that tyme, but it rayned every day more or lesse. Yf it did not raine then was it cold and cloudye.... There were many gret fludes this sommer."
2 Hen. IV. iv. 4.
It is possible, however, that the error may lie in 'want,' for which we might read have, or some other word.
For 'chin' Grey read chill; Tyrwhitt, whom some follow, thin. But it is probably one of those inadvertencies so frequent in our poet.
Thirlby's just correction of stay and stayeth.
For 'there' in the second line, Mr. Dyce reads—and perhaps rightly—here.
I read and arrange the whole passage thus:
In the second line I have transposed 'oxlip' and 'violet'; for the former 'nods' and the latter does not, "With cowslips wan, that hang the pensive head" (Lycidas, v. 14). In the third I give o'er for 'over.' The transposition which follows is imperatively demanded by the sequence of ideas, and we have other instances in this play. The fifth and sixth lines may have been an addition made by the poet or transcriber in the margin, and taken in in the wrong place by the printer. (See on i. 1.) If 'And' be the right word in the last line, something must have been lost, ex. gr. "Upon her will I steal there as she lies;" but the poet's word may have been what I have given, Then, strongly emphaticized, and written Than, the two first letters of which having been effaced, the printer made it 'And.' The very same thing seems to have taken place in L. L. L. v. 2. It may also have been that yn, then, was taken for &, and.
The rime demands the old form hear. (See on Com. of Err. iii. 2.)
The transposition 'her shows' of the folio is merely one of those of which we have so many examples in these plays. The usual reading is that of the 2nd folio, 'here shows.'
It would seem better to read 'not ripe'; or 'ripe' may be a verb.
This and the two following lines are transposed in Roberts' 4to and the folio.
Mr. Dyce, with whom I agree, adopts the excellent reading of Coleridge and Sidney Walker, 'knee-deep.'
Woman Killed with Kindness.
Pope added so, which is required by metre and rime, and yet is wanting in all the old editions.
For 'princess' Hanmer read pureness; Collier proposes impress; but no change is needed. 'White' is whiteness, and 'princess of pure white' is sovereign lady of whiteness, i.e., white in the highest degree. I suspect that Chaucer wrote emperes in
Leg. of Good Women.
The 2nd folio read 'O and is'; Malone added now; we might also add then. A syllable certainly is wanting.
Here 'prayers' is the correction by Theobald of praise of the original editions.
This is the reading of the folio, which, with the addition of me—evidently rubbed out at the end—gives excellent sense and metre. For 'sir' the 4tos read he'll, which makes the passage abrupt.
The same omission was made by Pope.
For 'news' Collier's folio, followed by Singer, reads means. I think they are right.
Rowe read light for 'love,' and Johnson and Singer have followed him. But it seems to be Cephalus that is meant.
It should be 'fairies.' (See on ii. 1.)
The reading hitherto has been 'May all,' but the transposition restores the grammar.
The 4to and folio read or. The correction is Thirlby's.
Fisher's 4to has 'nights,' of which I have made a dissylable, as being more Shakespearean than 'the night's' of the folio and Roberts' 4to, which most feebly and inharmoniously throw the emphasis on 'the.' This gen. occurs more than once in our poet's earlier plays.
With Hanmer I incline to read boar.
Here, too, I suspect that the poet wrote 'mountains.' 'Seem'd in next line is the reading of the 2nd folio; the originals have seeme.
This is the reading of Fisher's 4to; Roberts' and the folio read 'might be'; which does not suit the metre of this play. Egeus breaks in and interrupts him.
Green's Tu Quoque.
The ordinary correction is that of Capell, 'as doth'; an Anon. read 'All melted.'
'Saw' is Steevens' correction of see; in L. L. L. iv. 1, we have "I came, see and overcame." 'In sickness' is Farmer's correction of 'a sickness' of the originals.
The folio omits 'are ... awake.' Capell also added But and an Anon. yet. The poet's words may, however, have been, "Are you sure we are awake? it seems to me." But that would make the preceding speech terminate in a manner that does not occur in this play.
'Strange' is a very feeble word here. If, as I have ventured to do, we read 'sable snow,' we have a parallel to 'hot ice.' Upton read black; Staunton swarthy; Hanmer scorching.
As there are no short lines in this play, I think a word has been lost in the first line. I read faltering, Theobald read 'willing duty.'
A line riming with the first appears to be lost. Some read 'by name hight,' making a triplet; but I cannot agree with them.
Theobald reads moon for 'man.' The correction is ingenious, but not certain. I have, however, adopted it.
So Singer reads; others 'A lion's fell.'
This is the reading of the 2nd folio; for the old editions repeat 'beams' from the preceding line. "Phebus of gold his stremès down hath sent" (Chauc. Merch. Tale), was probably in the poet's mind; or
(Induct. to Mir. for Magistrates.)
Rime demands Theobald's 'lily brows.'
'Behowls' is Warburton's correction of beholds of the originals. It is proved to be right by the following passage of Marston's Antonio's Revenge:—
As this play was not printed till 1602, this may be an imitation of the passage of our text.
Singer and a friend of Mr. Staunton's very judiciously transposed these lines, the third, or rather fourth transposition in this play. We may observe that twice before it was the second line of the couplet that commenced with 'Ever.' For a fifth transposition in the original editions, see on iii. 1. By the 'owner' is meant the occupant of the 'chamber.' Malone read 'shall it,' which is the usual reading.
It is very strange that none of the critics should have seen that S. is Signior, not Saint. The poet probably wrote it Sr; for we shall find in the subsequent part of the play sir twice used for signior, the ordinary address in plays the scene of which lies in Italy. The 4to edition of 1631 omits S., but it is of no authority. I should feel inclined to read the next line, "Humph, Go to thy cold bed, and wärm thee," which occurs again in Lear (iii. 4). It may have been borrowed from some unknown play; but there is nothing like it in Kyd's Spanish Tragedy, which is evidently referred to in what precedes.
Theobald, whom most editors follow, induced by the reply of Sly, read thirdborough. But might not Sly have mistaken the word?
'Brach' cannot be right; for brach was bitch (see Index s. v.), and what sportsman would say Bitch Sweet lips, for instance, of one of his hounds? In the usual manner the printer was led away by the 'brach' in the following line. The original word must have been a verb, and, were we not aware of what critics usually are, we might wonder at Johnson's most simple and natural emendation, Bathe not being universally adopted. In his whole speech the lord shows his affection for his hounds; for the charge about coupling Clowder with another hound is evidently owing to his being united to an ill-conditioned dog. Poor Merriman, it is plain, had got a swelling in the leg or elsewhere—for that is the only possible meaning of 'emboss'd' in this place; so when the Prince (1 Hen. IV. iii. 3) calls Falstaff an "embossed rascal," he means swollen up—the proper remedy for which was bathing or fomenting with warm water; and this he directs to be done. But Mr. Collier tells us that "a dog or a deer is said to be embossed when fatigue makes them foam at the mouth;" from which all that can be inferred is that Mr. Collier is no sportsman; for any one who has been out with hounds knows that when fatigued they pant and put out their tongues, but never foam. Shakespeare, who apparently knew something of hunting, has correctly, "Lolling the tongue with slaughtering" (Cymb. v. 3), alluding to hounds. On the other hand, Mr. Dyce most confidently reads Trash, i.e., put a "heavy collar, strap or rope dragging loose on the ground" on him to check his speed. I fear that Mr. Dyce is no sportsman either. At least at the present day hounds do not carry weight; for that, I suppose, is what he means. He probably understood 'emboss'd' in the same sense as Mr. Collier. I adopt Johnson's reading, though aware that in cases of this kind (Introd. p. 65) we should not look for any similarity of form (Mr. Dyce's ductus literarum) in the word to be substituted. (See on Othel. iii. 3.) Here, for example, we might read Mind, or some other word.
In the first four lines I have, with previous editors, given the correct punctuation, and have omitted the superfluous s after Vincentio in the fourth. In the following line the metre shows that something is wrong, and it may be that 'Vincentio's' should be Lucentio his, for nothing is more common than this confusion of proper names. (See on King John, ii. 1.) Hanmer I find also made this correction. At the same time it is equally probable that something has been omitted, and that we should read 'only son,' or 'son and heir,' as in v. 1. It is one of those cases in which choice is difficult. I have given the first in my Edition of the plays; but I now greatly prefer the third.