SCENE II. P. 301. The insertion of the line "To take is not to give,” from the quarto, 1597, was most probably derived from some later edition, unless we are to suppose that this fortunate corrector had all the early editions at his command!—a supposition highly improbable. The substitution of suppliant for servant," from the same source, which Mr. Collier says, "we may feel assured was the word of the poet," he rejected in his own edition, as a matter indifferent! 66 SCENE III. P. 302. "One of the most striking and satisfactory emendations in the corrected folio, 1632, occurs in Queen Margaret's denunciation of Richard, where she addresses him, in all editions, in the following terms : Thou elvish-mark'd, abortive, rooting hog, The slave of nature, and the son of hell, &c. "Here' slave of nature,' but especially son of hell,' sound so flatly and tamely near the conclusion of the curse, that an impression rises at once in the mind, that Shakespeare must have written something more fierce and vigorous. How, then, does the old corrector inform us that the last line ought to run? not as the words are spelt in the folio, 1623, and followed in that of 1632, The slaue of Nature, and the sonne of Hell, "but with two remarkable changes,— The stain of nature, and the scorn of Hell. "Stain and scorn must surely have been the language of our great dramatist; and when we bear in mind that 'stain' was of old spelt staine, and 'scorn' scorne, it is not difficult to discover how the blunders arose." Although Mr. Collier feels so confident that stain and scorn must have been the words of our great dramatist, I do not think that they are exactly the words he would have used: for Richard would have been rather the glory than the scorn of hell. It is remarkable that the corrector of my second folio should have tried his hand also on this passage, and, as it seems to me, with better success. He would read: The shame of nature and the spawn of hell. SCENE IV. P. 303. "The second Murderer, who was for saving the life of Clarence, says, in the quartos, I hope my holy humour will change;' in the folios,' I hope this passionate humour of mine will change;' and in the corrected folio, 1632,' I hope this compassionate humour of mine will change.' Although this word is also altered in my second folio, by the interlineation of the prefix com-; it may be doubted whether passionate is not the true reading when we recollect that in Hamlet we have passion for compassion: Would have made milch the burning eye of heaven, And passion in the gods. We have the verb to passionate in Spenser and in Titus Andronicus. Ib. The following lines, which are only in the folios, are there thus given :— Which of you, if you were a Princes sonne, Being pent from liberty, as I am now, If two such murtherers as yourselves came to you, Would not intreat for life, as you would begge The corrector, making a gratuitous interpolation, and altering the punctuation, would read thus, Which of you, If two such murderers as yourselves came to you, Were All that is necessary is the substitution of the word so as," which is judiciously done by the corrector of my second folio, the passage will then read :— for " Which of you, If two such murderers as yourselves came to you, Would not intreat for life? so you would beg Were you in my distress. The addition of the three words, and the alteration in the structure of the passage by the interpolator, are thus avoided, and the old copy closely adhered to. ACT II. SCENE I. P. 303. The corrector supplies the word guilty, which had been omitted by accident in the folio, 1632; for it is found in the first folio, as well as in the quartos, although Mr. Collier ignores the fact! and is the common reading. Ib. "Just above," says Mr. Collier, "an unimportant word is added to complete a defective line, which is not found in any known impression of the play, Come, Hastings, prithee, help me to my closet. "Modern editors have generally finished this line by adding to it,' Ah! poor Clarence!' a hemistich spoken by the king just before he goes out, which renders the line as redundant as it was before deficient." Does Mr. Collier really think this interpolation necessary? or that the reading of the old copy was not quite intelligible. Among the modern editors who without reason added the hemistich to the line, we must number Mr. Collier. Mr. Knight has not done so he has printed the passage as it stands in the folios : Come, Hastings, help me to my closet! SCENE II. P. 304. "The quartos, speaking of the death of Edward IV. represent him as having gone To his new kingdom of perpetual rest, "while the folios have it, To his new kingdom of ne'er changing night. "In the corrected folio, 1632, 'night' is made light. How it happens that the quartos in some places differ so materially from the folios has never been explained." This is a barefaced attempt of the conceited corrector, whoever he may have been, to alter the language of the poet to please his own capricious fancy. Nothing can be more certain than that the poet wrote To his new kingdom of ne'er changing night. For in Clarence's narration of his dream we have it again : I pass'd methought, the melancholy flood, With that sour ferryman which poets write of, Such instances as these are quite sufficient to show us what reliance is to be put on the meddlings of this corrupter of the text of Shakespeare, or on Mr. Collier's perpetual inuendoes of his having had access to better authority than we possess ! ACT III. SCENE I. P. 304. "Two emendations, for which we have reason to be thankful, are made in the opening of Buckingham's speech, where he is arguing that the Duke of York cannot be entitled to sanctuary on account of his youth and innocence. Cardinal Bourchier maintains that sanctuary ought in no case to be violated: God in heaven forbid We should infringe the holy privilege Of blessed sanctuary! not for all this land, "The words, in heaven,' are not in the folios, but were inserted by the corrector of the folio, 1632, and they accord with the text of the quartos; but in Buckingham's reply we encounter two changes, which we can hardly hesitate in admitting, since they so importantly contribute to enforce and explain the meaning of the poet. The first line of what Buckingham addresses to the Cardinal (as always hitherto printed), is needlessly offensive and coarse in its terms; and the third line contains two misprints which have been the source of much speculation between Warburton, Johnson, Malone, &c. The passage, as invariably given, is this:— You are too senseless-obstinate, my lord, Weigh it but with the grossness of this age, You break not sanctuary in seizing him. "For senseless-obstinate,' a strange and unmannerly compound, the corrector of the folio, 1632, states that we must substitute words quite consistent with the good breeding of Buckingham, and at the same time quite consistent with the argument he is employing, viz. that the Cardinal is too rigid and scrupulous in his unwillingness to violate sanctuary, in a case for which it was never intended:: You are too strict and abstinent, my lord, Too ceremonious and traditional : You break not sanctuary in seizing him. 6 "The point for which Buckingham contends is, that age and purity, such as belong to little York, did not require the holy privilege,' and could not claim it; the goodness of his age,' refers to the youth and innocence of the prince, and those words have been, (in all cases but in one of the quartos, where greatness is found) misprinted the grossness of this age.' Warburton suggested greenness as the true reading; but the errors were 'grossness' for goodness, and 'this' for his. These mistakes are remedied in the folio, 1632; and nothing but an excess of carelessness could have been guilty of them." What "reason have we to be thankful" for this precious piece of pragmatic interference with the old authentic reading? It is quite evident that the suggestion of Warburton has led to it, yet his reading "greenness of his age" would be preferable to the corrector's goodness, which is unmeaning. Johnson's exposition of the old reading was nearly right: "Weigh the act of seizing him with the grossness, i. e. plainness, simplicity of these times, it will not be considered as a violation of sanctuary," for as we have it in More's History of Richard III. “he that taketh one out of saintuarye to do him good, I say plainely that he breaketh no saintuarye." The substitution of strict and abstinent for "senseless obstinate," in the first line, is a violent and unnecessary change, senseless could never be misprinted for strict and. Were we to read "his age" instead of " this age," grossness might then possibly ex |
