P. 230. (37) i.e. He has only, &c.-Mr. Collier prints "He has only," &c., and remarks; "Has only sent' in the original. Has is not unfrequently printed for 'He has' in the first folio, though usually with an apostrophe, thus, 'H'as' [Ha's].” But when the folio gives "Ha's," the apostrophe goes for nothing: see vol. iv. p. 525, note (35). (In the folio, the conclusion of the preceding speech stands thus, "And what ha's he sent now?" so afterwards, p. 253, according to the folio, "By that which ha's vndone thee," and, p. 256, "How ha's the asse," &c.)—Again, the folio reads literatim, p. 232, “Has much disgrac'd me in 't," &c.; ibid. "Had sent to me first," &c.; p. 259, "Has almost charm'd me," &c.; p. 260, “Has caught me in his eye," &c. "Has only sent his present occasion," &c. P. 230. (3) "that I should purchase the day before for a little part, and undo a great deal of honour !” Theobald printed 66 66 for a little "port" for a little dirt," &c.! Johnson proposes for a little park," &c.; Mason believes that the author wrote “ port" (and, as there was some danger of the reader's supposing that " meant wine, he explains it-show or magnificence); while Mr. Grant White (Shakespeare's Scholar, &c. p. 391) recommends Jackson's transposition, “that I should purchase the day before, and, for a little part, undo a great deal of honour :”—but all this conjecturing by no means proves that the old text is wrong. So Theobald.-The folio has "Flatterers sport." (Mr. Collier's Ms. Corrector,-see Mr. Collier's one-volume Shakespeare,-reads, poorly enough, “flatterer's port.") The second folio has "That thriu'd, give him over," &c.—Various alterations have been attempted here: and Mr. Knight and Mr. Collier adopt Johnson's conjecture, "Thrice give him over," &c. P. 232. (42) See note (37). "Has much disgrac'd me in 't," &c. P. 232. (43) "and 'mongst lords I be thought a fool.” The "I" was inserted by the editor of the second folio.-Such is the original arrangement of the passage: but perhaps the following is better, "That I'll requite it last? No: so it may prove An argument of laughter to the rest, And amongst lords I be thought a fool,”— “lords” in the last line being a dissyllable, as it sometimes is elsewhere. P. 233. (4) "Save only the gods: now his friends are dead," &c. The transposition generally adopted here by the modern editors, “Save the gods only: now," &c., is no doubt an improvement to the rhythm. The folio has "2 Varro."; which the modern editors have misunderstood. It certainly means "The two servants of Varro:" see note (49). P. 235. (46) The folio has ". "What do ye ask of me, my friends ?" P. 235. (47) "Flav. Ay," &c. The usual modern arrangement of this speech is very different; and (though the late Sidney Walker, Shakespeare's Versification, &c. p. 101, quotes that arrangement as the right one), I agree with Mr. Knight in greatly preferring the old regulation. P. 236. (49) "Hor. Serv. And mine, my lord." "In the old copy this speech is given to Varro [to '1 Var.']. I have given it to the servant of Hortensius (who would naturally prefer his claim among the rest), because to the following speech in the old copy is prefixed 2 Var., which, from the words spoken ['And ours, my lord'], means, I conceive, 'the two servants of Varro'." MALONE. P. 236. (49) "Lucius, Lucullus, and Sempronius; all," &c. So the second folio.-The first folio has, “Lucius, Lucullus, and Sempronius Vllorxa: All," &c.,— the strange name "Vllorxa" having crept in, it would seem, by some mistake. Johnson's correction.-The folio has "The fellow," &c. (which Boswell defends by observing that “Fellow is a common term of contempt"!!!). So the second folio.-Mr. Collier prints, with the first folio, "Why, say, my lords," &c.,-which he explains "Why, admit, or acknowledge, my lords," &c. But here Alcibiades is not arguing; he is making a simple assertion. So the second folio.-The first folio has "with him."-Perhaps the passage. ought to stand thus, "He has made too much plenty with 'em, he Is a sworn rioter," &c. but there is no end to doubts about the measure throughout this play. P. 239. (57) "If there were no foes, that were enough," &c. This halting line has been variously amended by the editors,-" Were there no foes, that were enough alone," &c.,-“ And, if there were no foes, that were enough," &c. So the second folio.-The first folio has "my Honour," &c. P. 240. (5) "Pours into captains' wounds? Banishment?" The second folio has " wounds? ha Banishment.” Here the folio has "Enter diuers Friends," &c.; while afterwards, p. 243, it has "Enter the Senators, with other Lords," and "Exeunt the Senators;" and prefixes to the respective speeches of the guests “1,” “2,” “ 3,” “ 4." As we cannot determine therefore when the speaker is a Senator and when he is a Lord, I have followed the recent editors in making the prefixes throughout "First Lord," "Second Lord," &c. P. 241. (61) “Tim. Ah, my good friend,-what cheer ?" After this the folio has “The Banket brought in,”—marking the stage-direction prematurely (as is often the case in dramas printed from the prompter's book; that the property-man might be ready with the articles required for the scene: see my Remarks on Mr. Collier's and Mr. Knight's eds. of Shakespeare, p. 148). I need hardly add, that the words "what cheer?" have no reference to the banquet. Has been altered to “your foes," &c.—Capell (Notes, &c. vol. ii. P. iv. p. 85) understands the old reading to mean "forfeits due to your vengeance." So Rowe. The folio has "legge of people," &c.—Mr. Collier's Ms. Corrector substitutes "tag of people," &c. P. 243. (61) "This is Timon's last; Who, stuck and spangled with your flatteries, In the folio the second line stands, "Who stucke and spangled you with Flatteries;" and so it is given by the more recent editors (without any note), though the correction which the passage so evidently demands was to be found in the eds. of Hanmer, Warburton, and Capell. (Hanmer printed "Washes them off;" but our early writers not unfrequently make "it" refer to a preceding plural.) Here (as already remarked) the folio has "Enter the Senators, with other Lords;" for which in the more recent editions is substituted "Re-enter the Lords, with other Lords and Senators," - Malone informing us in a note that the next two speeches "are spoken by the newly arrived Lords,”—as if Timon were giving an evening-party as well as a dinner. But, though the old stage-direction is awkwardly worded, it certainly was intended to have no other meaning than that the nobles who had been driven out by Timon now return to the stage. So Hanmer. The folio has "And yet Confusion liue;"-out of which Johnson, and Mr. Knight after him, endeavour to squeeze the same meaning as the words have with Hanmer's obvious correction. P. 245. (68) "From our to his," &c. In these lines Mason would transpose "From" and "to." P. 246. (9) "Who would be so mock'd with glory? or to live To have his pomp, and all what state compounds," &c. Here Mr. Collier's Ms. Corrector (who re-writes the passage) gives "Who would be so mock'd with glory, as to live," &c.,which is also Rowe's alteration; and which I am inclined to think, with a critic in Blackwood's Magazine for Oct. 1853, p. 457, makes nonsense.—Mr. Grant White (Shakespeare's Scholar, &c. p. 393) would read "or so live," &c. -From the Preface to Sidney Walker's Shakespeare's Versification (p. xxi.) I learn that he concurred with Mr. Collier's Ms. Corrector in violently changing "all what state compounds" to "all state comprehends." P. 246. (70) The folio has "do still," &c. P. 247. (71) "does still," &c. "Raise me this beggar, and deny't that lord; Here "deny't," which has been tampered with in various ways, is unquestionably right, the "it" meaning (to use Steevens's words) "a proportionable degree of elevation.”—The folio has “The senators shall," &c. So Mr. Singer (and so too Mr. Collier's Ms. Corrector).-The folio has "the Brothers sides," &c.-Mr. Singer's emendation was published in 1842: yet Mr. Knight retains in 1851 the blunder of the folio. |
