Undoubtedly Ethics, the correction of Blackstone and Collier's folio.
For 'Balk' the editors read talk, but it is right.
F. Q. iii. 2. 12.
Here and elsewhere in this play, and nowhere else, the printer seems to have added an s to 'Gramercie.' I follow Collier's folio in reading now were for 'thou wert.'
So I have printed it, but Pray or Now might be better.
The 3rd folio properly read Our for 'Their.'
As 'longly' occurs nowhere else, it is probably only a printer's error for longingly, which I have given. This omission of a syllable is by no means unusual. (See on M. for M. iv. 2; All's Well, i. 3.)
With Singer I read he for 'she.'
We should perhaps read charge for 'charm'; for it is the tongue that is charmed. We have, however,
A King and no King, v. 4.
'Masters' is the correction of Theobald for mistress of the folio. Master and mistress are confounded also in v. 1, and in Mer. of Ven. iv. 1, 2 Hen. IV. ii. 4, 2 Hen. VI. i. 3, Tim. ii. 2. Mistress was frequently written misteris, which may have been partly the cause of the confusion.
For 'to hear,' which makes very poor sense, Warburton most happily read to th' ear. He was equally happy in Tim. i. 2.
For 'yours' Thirlby most properly read ours.
For Bion. I read Gre., in which I had been anticipated by Capell, Tyrwhitt, and Heath; so that it is certain. In my Edition will be found the correct punctuation of the whole passage.
There is either an aposiopesis or a line lost after this; I think the latter.
There is apparently something wrong here. As 'what!' is almost invariably followed by an interrogative, I would read 'will this gentleman'; we might also insert an adj. before 'gentleman,' or read all of us for 'us all.' The speech, however, as it is a single line, may be as the poet wrote it; I have therefore let it stand in my Edition.
To avoid the jingle we might read 'I do hear.'
I have no doubt that for 'that' we should read then. (See Introd. p. 68.)
For 'seek' I read deed; Rowe read feat.
Perhaps for 'sir' we should read signior, and for 'walk' look.
So we should arrange the passage.
We might read 'Not such a jade.' Mr. Dyce reads, after Collier's folio, 'as bear you,' which is better, and which I follow.
For 'me' Rowe properly read in.
There must be a line at least lost after this.
Rime demands for 'cunning' the reading of Steevens, doing. Wooing and doing have already rimed in this scene. (See also Tr. and Cr. i. 2, ad fin.)
All are agreed to read change with 2nd folio; and as 'old' evidently makes no sense, Theobald read odd. With Rowe I prefer new. (See Introd. p. 66.)
The 2nd folio adds yes, Malone them, Dyce guests after 'invite'; my own conjecture was aye. Would it not be better, however, to read as I have done, "Make friends be invited, and proclaim the banns"? There is an exactly similar omission of be in All's Well, i. 3, where there can be no doubt. We might also read simply 'friends invited'; but I doubt, after all, if it were not best to read "Make invite friends too and proclaim the banns," which would agree better with the character of the speaker.
Is it quite evident that old has been omitted in the first line. Rowe, who is followed, prefixed it to the first 'news.' I think it is better with the second, as in Collier's folio.
Collier's folio reads "The Amours or forty Fancies."
Sense and metre demand the negative. There is, I think, a break in sense at the end of the line.
So I find Tyrwhitt also correctly completed the line.
For 'sir' we should most certainly read signior. (See on Induction, sc. 1.)
This speech is prose in the 1st folio; in the 2nd it is arranged as verse, but not well. In my Edition I have rearranged it, as I find Reed also had done.
S. Walker conjectured my grange; the Cambridge editors my garner.
I had also conjectured, like Capell, 'all the rest of.'
Pope also made this metric correction. Master and Mistress do not occur in this play as titles.
Rowe also added her.
If 'angel' be right, it must mean that he was an angel of deliverance to them. Singer and Dyce quote from Cotgrave's Dictionary "Angelot à la grosse escaille. An old Angel, and by metaphor a fellow of the old, sound, honest, and worthy stamp." But how could Biondello know his character? Some read engle, properly ingle; but this is rather, comrade, bosom-friend. In Gascoigne's Supposes, from which this part of the play is taken, he is termed "good soul," and it may be that the poet's word here was uncle—the conjecture also of a Mr. Bubier, in the Cambridge Edition—a term used of elderly persons. (See Index s. v. Nuncle.) Just afterwards he is said to be "surely like a father" and (iv. 5) Katherine says to the real Vincentio "Now I perceive thou art a reverend father."
'Marcantant' is the Italian mercante, mercatante, or mercadante. It may be corrupt.
As this is so very abrupt and not very clear, we might conjecture an effacement of will you make or something similar.
Here, again, the printer has put 'Sir' for Signior, and probably added the 'to' to make up the metre.
The 2nd folio reads 'Go with me, sir.'
Here is what seems to be a convincing proof of the effacement of the ends of lines in the MS. In the second line the 2nd folio inserted sir in the middle, and in the third it read 'most ready and most willing.' Lower down the ends of two lines more have been also effaced.
'Your son' belongs to first line; and as we have had (iii. 2) "And marry sweet Bianca with consent," we might complete the metre by reading 'with my full consent'; but it is more probable, as this page of the MS. appears to have been injured, that the loss was at the end. I read of me, Baptista, as (v. 1) we have "mine only son and heir to the lands of me, signior Vincentio." In the next line 'know' is most probably a mere printer's error. I have in my Edition, given hold, the reading of Collier's folio; but I think now that the right word is trow, which occurs more than once in Shakespeare in the sense of think, and which I find was also the conjecture of Hanmer.
The 1st folio has expect, which was rightly corrected in the 2nd. While was properly supplied by Capell.
Both sense and metre counsel the ejection of 'to come' caused by the following 'you come.'
The rime evidently requires this addition, made also by Pope.
'Still' is Ritson's correction of so in the folio.
This is the reading of Capell, which I have followed; master's, that of Theobald, is perhaps better. The folio has mistress: see on i. 2.
Tyrwhitt, who has been followed by all succeeding editors, reads Pisa, which is no doubt right; but the error was the poet's.
The folio has come; but both sense and rime demand 'done,' Rowe's correction. We might also, as Mr. Collier observes, read gone; and this is perhaps the best.
So also Capell.
For 'docks' the editors read, after Rowe, 'dock'd'; but it is simpler to read 'dock,' the s being the usual printer's addition. We might even perhaps retain the text, reading 'see!'
Perhaps a rime and a seven-foot line were intended, in which case we should arrange thus, as Knight has also done;
This speech should be marked Aside. It is so in my Edition.
We should read 'monies,' the word Shylock always uses.
So it should be arranged.
'page' is Theobald's undoubted correction; 4tos and folio read rage.
Surely 'temple' has no meaning here. Must not the poet have written table. In Lucrece (st. 168), in the Var. Shakespeare, "Her sacred temple" is printed "Her sacred table." I am not aware that any critic has observed this palpable error. The term 'table,' it may be observed, was much more used by our forefathers than by us. Thus in The Elder Brother (iii. 4) Miramont says to his brother, "May be I'll see your table too," i.e. be of your dinner-party.
Mr. Dyce thinks Shakespeare wrote 'not know,' which occurs again in Lancelot's next speech. I have adopted his reading.
The 2nd folio properly read did. (See on Jul. Cæs. ii. 2.) This change of tense was not unfrequent. We often meet see for saw.
It might be better to read 'the judge.' Even at the present day printers confound these words.
I prefer this, the reading of the old copies, to 'Jewess,' Pope's reading, which is usually followed.
Rowe's correction for 'younger.'
So also at end of scene; but as in sc. ix. it is 'curtain,' I ascribe the s to the printer.
See also Capell.
Pope read wood may for 'timber do' of the 4tos and folio; Johnson, who is always followed, read tombs; I read woods. The meaning is that gilded wooden work was often worm-eaten.
So also Warburton.
'Where' is Rowe's correction; the original editions read Here, which may be right.
'Piece' is Rowe's correction for peize, and is, I think, right.
The originals all have voice; 'vice' is a correction, and a true one, of the 2nd folio.
Unless we take it ironically—which is unworthy of the poet—'beauty' here is nonsense. It plainly owes its origin to the preceding 'beautious.' Hanmer read dowdy; Sidney Walker gipsy—both bad. I read, with the utmost confidence, feature as the only word suited to the place. (See Index s. v.) Mr. Spedding, I find, conjectured visage or feature, apparently taking them to be synonymous.
For 'pale' Farmer read stale, perhaps needlessly.
Warburton read plainness, of which Mr. Dyce approves, and perhaps with reason. I have, however, made no change. Lead in fact never is pale; for its surface is always oxydized. Shakespeare, moreover, would hardly use the same term of two distinct substances. (See, however, on Rom. and Jul. ii. 5.)
I thus point and amend the passage, as Capell had done, followed only, I believe, by Knight. I am rather dubious of 'justice,' and should prefer interest or traffic.
I prefer 'misery,' the reading of the first 4to, to cruelty, that of the others and the folio.
These compounds of two adjectives—the first being used adverbially—are not by any means uncommon. They are frequent in Shakespeare; in Fletcher's Hum. Lieut. (iii. 2) we have "serious-true," and in his Chances (ii. 1) "glorious-foolish." (See on 1 Hen. IV. iii. 1.)
All the old editions read Mantua, but it is so certain that it must have been a mere slip of the poet or the printer that Theobald's correction has been universally and properly adopted. (See on Hen. V. iii. Chor.)
Rowe, I think properly, read Traject (tragetto It.).
Here 'it' seems to mean 'to live an upright life'; rather a harsh construction. It is not likely that the poet used 'mean' in the sense of mener Fr., yet it seems to be used so sometimes in Piers Ploughman.
The original editions all read "Cannot contain their urine for affection;" but that this cannot be right is proved by the context. The only question then is, should we read Master with Thirlby, or Mistress with the same and Capell. Nothing (see Introd. p. 59) is more common than the addition of s, while master and mistress are frequently confounded. (See on Taming of Shrew, i. 2.) On the whole, I prefer mistress. In the last line I read she for 'it,' evidently caused by that in the preceding line. For the meaning of 'affection,' see Index s. v.
The bag of the bag-pipe is no doubt generally covered at the present day with a piece of green baize, which is woollen; yet I incline with Hawkins and Steevens to read swollen; the s might easily have been lost, of which I think we have another example in the change of sway to wag (Much Ado, v. 1).
I prefer this punctuation.
Though by reading 'a Jew' we get sense, and Launce (Com. of Err. ii. 3) makes a Jew the type of hard-heartedness, and we have the same notion in Much Ado, ii. 3, I yet cannot but adhere to stint your for 'think you,' as I have given it in my Edition. It seems to me so much more forcible, and more suited to the calm resignation of Antonio; while in the other reading there is something of sneer or irony that is unpleasant. Nothing was easier than for the printer to read stint, the more unusual term, as think, and then to make your you for the sake of sense (see Introd. p. 67), and as they are pronounced nearly alike. However, judicet lector.
This is the reading of the Bridgewater copy of Heyes' 4to, only reading bleak for 'bleat'; in the Devonshire copy of that 4to it is:
In the folio:
So editions vary!