Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

your four negatives make your two affirmatives-why then the worse for my friends and the better for my foes," &c.) but thus egregiously ignorant, instead of

"Nor to her bed no homage do I owe,"

this editor has stupidly printed,

"Nor to her bed a homage do I owe."

Again, in "As You Like It," for "I cannot go no further," this blockhead of an editor has substituted "I can go no further." In "Much Ado about Nothing," for "There will she hide her To listen our purpose."

this corrupting editor has presumed to relieve the halting metre by printing,—

"There will she hide her

To listen to our purpose."

In these instances, I feel convinced that the editor is right, and consequently that the critic is the blockhead who is wrong. In what follows also, I am decidedly of opinion that the scale inclines in favour of the former of these deadly opposites. The double comparative is common in the plays of Shakspeare, says Malone :— true, as I am willing to allow; but always, as I am persuaded, in consequence of the illiteracy or the carelessness of the first transcriber: for why should Shakspeare write more anomalous English than Spenser, Daniel, Hooker, and Bacon? or why in his plays should he be guilty of barbarisms with which those poems of his *,

* In his "Venus and Adonis," and his " Rape of Lucrece," printed under his immediate inspection; and in his 154 Sonnets, printed from correct MSS., and no doubt with his knowledge, are not to be found any of these barbarous anomalies. "The Passionate Pilgrim," and "The Lover's Complaint," are, also, free from them. Worser and lesser may sometimes occur in these poems: but the last of these improprieties will occasionally find a place in the page of modern composition. In the “ Rape of

that were printed under his own immediate eye, are altogether unstained? But, establishing the double comparative as one of the peculiar anomalies of Shakspeare's grammar, Malone proceeds to arraign the unfortunate editor as a criminal, for substituting, in a passage of Coriolanus, more worthy for more worthier; in Othello-for," opinion, a sovereign mistress, throws a more sufer voice on you," " opinion, &c. throws a more safe voice on you;" and, in Hamlet, instead of "Your wisdom should show itself more richer to signify this to the doctor," "Your wisdom should show itself more rich to signify this to the doctor." Need I express my conviction that in these passages the editor has corrected the text into what actually fell from Shakspeare's pen? Can it be doubted also that the editor is accurate in his printing of the following passage in "A Midsummer Night's Dream?" As adopted by Malone it stands, "So will I grow, so live, so die, my lord, Ere I will yield my virgin patent up Unto his lordship, whose unwished yoke

My soul consents not to give sovereignty."

i. e., says the critic, to give sovereignty to, &c.-To be sure and, without the insertion, in this instance, of the preposition, the sentence would be nonsense.

published by the editor, it is,

"So will I grow, so live, so die, my lord,

Ere I will yield my virgin patent up
Unto his lordship, to whose unwish'd yoke

My soul consents not to give-sovereignty."

As it is

Having now sufficiently demonstrated the editor's ignorance of Shakspeare's language, let us proceed with his

Lucrece," the only anomaly of the double negative, which I have been able to discover, is the following: ·

"She touch'd no unknown baits, nor fear'd no hooks,"

and the same impropriety may be found in three or four instances in the Sonnets. And substituted for nor would restore these few passages to perfect grammar.

critic to ascertain his ignorance of Shakspeare's metre and rhythm. In" The Winter's Tale *," says Malone, we find,

"What wheels, racks, fires; what flaying, boiling

In leads and oils !"

Not knowing that ' fires' was used as a dissyllable, the editor added the word burning, at the end of the line (I wish that he had inserted it before' boiling')—

"What wheels, racks, fires; what flaying, boiling, burning." It is possible that fires may be used by Shakspeare as a dissyllable, though I cannot easily persuade myself that, otherwise than as a monosyllable, it would satisfy an ear, attuned, as was his, to the finest harmonies of verse; yet it may be employed as a dissyllable by the rapid and careless bard; and I am ready to allow that the defective verse was not happily supplied, in that place at least, with the word, burning, yet I certainly believe that Shakspeare did not leave the line in question as Malone has adopted it, and that some word has been omitted by the carelessness of the first transcriber. In the next instance, from Julius Cæsar, I feel assured that the editor is right, as his supplement is as beneficial to the sense, as it is necessary to the rhythm. Malone's line is,

"And with the brands fire the traitor's houses:" the editor's

"And with the brands fire all the traitors' houses."

The next charge, brought against the editor, may be still more easily repelled. In a noted passage of Macbeth

"I would while it was smiling in my face

Have pluck'd my nipple from its boneless gums,
And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn

As you have done to this.".

*Act iii. sc. 2.

"Not perceiving," says Malone, " that 'sworn' was used as a dissyllable," (the devil it was!) “He (the editor) reads had I but so sworn,'"—much, as we think, to the advantage of the sense as well as of the metre; and supplying, as we conceive, the very word which Shakspeare had written, and the carelessness of the transIcriber omitted. 'Charms' our Poet sometimes uses, according to Malone, as a word of two syllables.”— No! impossible! Our Poet might, occasionally, be guilty of an imperfect verse, or the omission of his transcriber might furnish him with one: but never could he use "charms" as a word of two syllables. We feel, therefore, obliged by the editor's supplying an imperfect line in "The Tempest" with the very personal pronoun which, it is our persuasion, was at first inserted by Shakspeare. In the most modern editions, the line in question stands-" Cursed be I that did so! all the charms," &c. but the second folio reads with unquestionable propriety, "Cursed be I that I did so! all the charms," &c. Ashour' has the same prolonged sound with fire, sire, &c. and as it is possible, though, with reference to the fine ear of Shakspeare, I think most improbable, that it might sometimes be made to occupy the place of two syllables, I shall pass over the instance from "Richard II." in which Malone triumphs, though without cause, over his adversary; as I shall also pass over that from "All's Well that Ends Well," in which a defective line has been happily supplied by our editor, in consequence of his not knowing that 'sire' was employed as a dissyllable. In the first part of Henry VI."" Rescued is Orleans from the English," is prolonged by the editor with a syllable which he deemed necessary because he was ignorant that the word, English,' was used as a trissyllable. According to him the line is " Rescued is Orleans from the English wolves." We rejoice at this result of the editor's ignorance; and we wish to know who is there who can believe that English' was pronounced, by Shakspeare or his contemporaries, as Engerlish, or even as Engleish, with three syllables? Again, not knowing that

66

[ocr errors]

'Charles' was used as a word of two syllables (and he was sufficiently near to the time of Shakspeare to know his pronunciation of such a common word: but the blockhead could not be taught the most common things), this provoking editor instead of

"Orleans the bastard, Charles, Burgundy,"

has printed,

66

"Orleans the bastard, Charles, and Burgundy."

In the next instance, I must confess myself to be ignorant of Malone's meaning. "Astræa being used," he says, as a word of three syllables" (I conclude that he intended to say, as a word of four syllables, the dipthong being dialytically separated into its component parts, and the word written and pronounced Astraëa), for "Divinest creature, Astræa's daughter," the editor has given, "Divinest creature, bright Astræa's daughter."-Shameless interpolation! Not aware that 'sure' is used as a dissyllable, this grand corrupter of Shakspeare's text has substituted, "Gloster, we'll meet to thy dear cost, be sure,” for “ Gloster, we'll meet to thy cost, be sure."-Once more, and to conclude an examination which I could extend to a much greater length in favour of this much-injured editor, but which I feel to be now becoming tedious, for,

"And so to arms, victorious father,"

as the line is sanctioned by Malone,' arms,' being used, as he asserts, for a dissyllable (arms a dissyllable !), the second folio presents us with

"And so to arms, victorious, noble father."

I have said enough to convince my readers of the falsity of the charges of stupidity and gross ignorance, brought by Malone against the editor of the second folio edition of our Poet's dramatic works. I am far from assuming to vindicate this editor from the commission of many flagrant errors: but he is frequently right, and was unquestionably conversant, let Malone assert what he

« ZurückWeiter »