he never wrote or else;' and the great probability seems to be that he wrote welcome." How are those who have no faith in the authority of the corrector, or in Mr. Collier's assurance, to be convinced that the poet did not write "or else." They are words quite suited to the circumstances of Edward, and signify briefly, death or victory. What has "welcome" to do here? What energy or expression is superinduced by it? Mr. Collier may rest assured that it is a mere impertinent interference with the old text. Ib. The substitution of E'en for "Men" in the following lines: : And so obsequious will thy father be, E'en for the loss of thee, having no more, was very judicious and one of the few rectifications of typographical errors which may fairly be attributed to the correctors of Mr. Collier's second folio. ACT III. SCENE III. P. 294. Two unnecessary pieces of meddling here occur, changing thy for "thee," and the interpolation of warlike, without the slightest reason or necessity. ACT IV. SCENE VII. P. 296. The same remark applies to the interpolation of he in the sarcastic line of Gloster :: A stout wise captain, and soon persuaded. But these unlicensed liberties Mr. Collier thinks meritorious deeds! SCENE VIII. Ib. "The old corrector informs us that mind has been misprinted 'meed,' where King Henry says,— That's not my fear; my meed hath got me fame; "and the context tends to convince us that the alteration was and that the poet did not intend to use proper, 'meed' in the sense of merit. The mild and pious King refers not so M much to his own acts, as to the gentle character of his disposition; and, in conformity with this view, he remarks, just afterwards, as the passage has been uniformly printed,— My mildness hath allay'd their swelling griefs, "Water-flowing' seems a poor and tautologous epithet for 'tears;' and bitter-flowing is substituted in the corrected folio, 1632. Water-standing eyes' is used afterwards, but under very different circumstances." There cannot be a doubt that meed is the authentic word of the poet, who has used it before in this play, for merit or desert, Act ii. Sc. 1, when Edward says of himself and his brothers,― Each one already blazing by our meeds. That the King would speak of his mind having got him fame is very much more unlikely. The proposed substitution of bitter-flowing for "waterflowing," is very plausible, and merits attention. ACT V. SCENE V. Pp. 296, 297. "The young Prince having been stabbed by Edward, Clarence, and Gloster, Margaret exclaims, O traitors! murderers ! They that stabb'd Cæsar shed no blood at all, Did not offend, nor were not worthy blame, "This passage cannot have reached us as Shakespeare wrote it, because one foul deed being present, and only equal to another, also present, would not show either of them off as more heinous. An evident and easy mistake, either by the copyist or by the printer, has represented our great poet as writing what is little better than illogical nonsense; and the corrector of the folio, 1632, by placing a single letter in the margin, has shown us what, we think, must have come from Shakespeare's pen: O traitors! murderers! They that stabb'd Cæsar shed no blood at all, "That is, if this foul deed had been by, to follow up the stabbing of Cæsar, the latter act would have appeared no crime in comparison." The "illogical nonsense" is, I fear, not in the reading of the old copy, but in Mr. Collier's conception of it. "To equal it," is to liken or compare with it; see Baret's Alvearie, under the word equal. "To compare or equal to, Equiparo." The words, "If this foul deed were by," manifestly show that the deeds were to be in juxtaposition, not to follow each other; and to sequel it would be the "illogical nonsense," which the poet, who is remarkable for his logical concinnity, would never have used, although Mr. Collier thinks that it "must have come from Shakespeare's pen."! SCENE VI. Pp. 297, 298. “Henry, referring to the birth of Richard, tells him, The owl shriek'd at thy birth, an evil sign; The night-crow cried, aboding luckless time. "For 'aboding,' as one word, the corrector writes a boding, as two words; and for time,' he writes tune, The night-crow cried, a boding luckless tune. "This appears to be the right reading, for in the older play, which is here followed more exactly than usual, the words are the same; but it is, nevertheless, to be admitted that in Henry VIII.' Shakespeare used 'aboded' for forboded, and that 'time' was often misprinted tune. There is the same double reason for altering 'indigested' to indigest, just below; it stands so in the older play, and it is changed so in the margin of the folio, 1632; the line, too, consists only of the regular number of syllables in the old play, the additions being, in all probability, corruptions. This circumstance is, therefore, adverse to the opinion expressed in note 3 on this page." (Collier's Shakesp. vol. v. p. 334.) Can it be possible that Mr. Collier could for a moment imagine that the evident error of the old play, tune for time, could be the "right reading" in Shakespeare? when both the folios have so distinctly— The night-crow cry'de, aboding lucklesse time. With regard to the change of "indigested" to indigest, Mr. Collier would have done better to adhere to his former opinion, thus expressed:-" This is only one of Shakespeare's numerous twelve-syllable lines, which modern editors would reduce to ten, by reading indigest, and omitting the conjunction." The innovation is, however, nothing new; Mr. Collier to support his new acquaintance suppresses the fact that Malone reads, To wit, an indigest deformed lump with the following note:-"The folio has indigested; but the metre and the old play show that it was a misprint."! SCENE VII. P. 298. The folios, where King Edward adverts to the losses sustained during the civil war, have two lines thus printed : Three dukes of Somerset, threefold renown, For hardy and undoubted champions. "The corrector of the folio, 1632, instructs us to read,— Three dukes of Somerset, threefold renown'd For hardy and redoubted champions. "Modern editors have 'renown'd,' and it is the word in the older play; but, like the folios, it has undoubted' for redoubted." As renown'd is the reading of all editions of modern times, it was hardly worth notice. In regard to the substitution of redoubted for undoubted,' it is a needless alteration of the poet's word, undoubted is dauntless. "To doubt is to fear,also to cause to fear; to daunt: and undoubted undaunted dauntless." This interpretation of the word was kindly furnished me by Dr. Richardson, to whose excellent Dictionary I have been much indebted on many occasions. 165 P. 300. "WE KING RICHARD III. ACT I. SCENE I. WE notice the following, not so much as an emendation, but as a change of the received text, which the old corrector would, perhaps, not have thought it necessary to make, had it not accorded with some other than the usual authorities. All copies of this play, of our own or of former times, give this line, I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion; whereas, by a marginal note in the folio, 1632, we are told to read, I, that am curtail'd thus of fair proportion." "Not so much as an emendation, but as a change"!! So we are at liberty to make whatever changes may suit our caprice! Emendation is out of the question! Where is the evidence for "authority" in this absurd interpolation? Ib. "There is a considerable increase of contempt, as well as an improvement in the verse, in the following line, where same is added in manuscript, not being found in any printed copy: Was it not she, and that good man of worship, "If Woodeville could be read as a trisyllable, there is no absolute need of the addition." 66 No absolute need, indeed! The interpolation only adds a considerable increase of contempt" for such impertinent meddlers. P. 301. The change of "posthorse" to posthaste, we may allow to be an admissible correction of a probable misprint, and therefore "possibly right." |