« ZurückWeiter »
[this fashion bequeathed ... charged] me. By will, but a poor thousand crowns; and, as thou sayest, charged my brother, on his blessing, to breed me well.” What is there in this difficult or obscure ? The nominative my father is certainly left out, but so left out that the auditor inserts it, in spite of himself.' Sir WILLIAM BLACKSTONE pronounced Dr Johnson's reading . awkward English,' and preferred to read thus : 'As I remember, Adam, it was in this fashion."He bequeathed me by will,” &c. Orlando and Adam enter abruptly in the midst of a conversation on this topic; and Orlando is correcting some misapprehension of the other. As I remember, says he, it was thus. He left me a thousand crowns; and, as thou sayest, charged my brother,' &c. This same reading of Blackstone was also proposed by RITSON (p. 57) with, however, a different punctuation - it was on this fashion he bequeathed me by will,' &c. •From the near resemblance,' says HEATH, p. 143, between “fashion" and father, it seems extremely probable that this last word was the word omitted, which led in consequence to the omission also of the possessive my. Read, therefore, “As I remember, Adam, it was upon this fashion; my father bequeathed me,” &c.' CALDECOTT is satisfied with what he terms the following easy and natural interpretation : " It was upon this fashion bequeathed me by (my father in his] will, &c., and, as thou say'st [it was, or he there] charged my brother,” ' &c. But it is not a question of interpretation; on that score the passage is perfectly plain, it is simply a question of grammatical construction; as LETTSOM says (ap. Dyce, ed. iii) from the use of it was’ before 'bequeathed' and
charged, it is impossible to say whether these two words are aorists or past parti. ciples; if they are past participles we have no antecedent for the his' in his bless. ing'; if they are aorists a nominative is lacking to either the one or the other. DYCE (ed. iii) says that as fashion’ is the last word of the line, he has little doubt that he' was omitted by a mistake of the compositor, wherein the present editor agrees with him, especially when it is remembered how easy would have been the omission if he' were expressed, as it often is, by the single letter, 'a.' At the same time, it is not to be forgotten that the nominative is sometimes omitted where it can be readily supplied from the context, as here.-See Ham. II, ii, 67; Mer. of Ven. I, i, 102, or Abbott, $ 399.-ED.
4. poore a] CALDECOTT (and Dyce, ed. ii, cites the passage presumably with approval): A is one, a number. Suppose then the bequest had been two or five or ten, you see how insufferable would be this expression, 'ten poor thousand crowns.' But further-'a thousand crowns' are words of the Will, which the speaker quotes ; and thereby makes them, as 'twere, a substantive to his adjective ‘poor.' Cf. Ant. & Cleop. V, ii, 236: What poor an instrument May do a noble deed.' [There is, how. ever, no necessity for explaining the construction as a quotation from the Will. WORDS. WORTH (p. 12) points out a similar use in the Bible of the indefinite article prefixed to plural substantives. Thus in] Luke ix, 28, we read, “It came to pass about an eight days after these sayings,' where the expression an eight days' has been retained from Tyndale's trans. in 1534. In like manner, in the Apocryphal Book, 1 Macc. iv, 15: “There were slain of them upon a three thousand men.' Wright and ROLFE apparently regard 'poor' as a simple adjective, and the present case as an instance of the common transposition of the article, and refer to Abbott, $ 422; but Abbott himself refers this passage to $ 85, and considers “poor' as used adverbially; which is perhaps a little strained. To me the simplest explanation would be to consider it as a transposition not of the article but of the adjective, for the sake of greater emphasis; which is, after all, practically the same as Wright's and Rolfe's explanation.—ED.
there begins my fadneffe : My brother laques he keepes at schoole, and report speakes goldenly of his profit : for my part, he keepes me rustically at home, or(to speak more properly) staies me heere at home vnkept : for call you that keeping for a gentleman of my birth, that differs not from the stalling of an Oxe? his horses are bred better, for besides that they are faire with their feeding, they are taught their mannage, and to that end Riders deerely hird : but I (his brother) gaine nothing vnder
7. sadnefe :) sadness. Pope et seq. 10. Paies] sayes F, F, fays F.
stys Warb. Sing. 7. Iaques] Apart from the fact that in the introduction of this character here and at the close of the story Shakespeare merely follows Lodge, there may be found, I think, an additional reason for it in the dramatic needs of the Fifth Act. In that Act it is needful that we should at once see how the changed fortune of the Senior Duke affects also the fortunes of Oliver and Orlando; and this connection in fortune is instantly suggested to us by seeing in Jaques, the messenger of good tidings, a brother of the two men in whom we are most interested. That the name Jaques was not only given to this character, but retained after the introduction of another and more prominent Jaques, is a proof either of haste (as Wright ingeniously suggests, and wherein I agree) or of careless indifference. But the character itself, a third brother, whatsoever his name, was retained, I believe, to meet the requirements of the close of the drama. Perhaps, too, it was to meet those same requirements that, in the tender treatment of a younger brother by Oliver, and in the latter's capacity to discern the fine traits in Orlando's character, we are to detect the elements of a better nature in Oliver, a soul of goodness in things evil, which will need but the refining influence of Celia's love to work a satisfactory reformation of his character, and thus go far to obliterate, or at least to soften, in this charming play 'the one smirch' therein, which Swinburne finds in the marriage of Celia and Oliver.-ED.
8. schoole] There was apparently no distinction drawn between a School and a University. Hamlet went to school' in Wittenberg.
10. staies] WARBURTON, whose cacoethes meliorandi was, of a truth, insanabile, here proposed to substitute sties, and, with more assurance than logic, asserts that the emendation is confirmed by the subsequent allusion to stalling of an ox.' Even Dr JOHNSON was overborne, and pronounced sties not only better, but more likely to be Shakespeare's word. MASON (p. 80) cogently observes that if sties had been the original reading the subsequent comparison would have been taken from hogs, not from oxen.' Dyce in his first edition pronounced Warburton's emendation 'very probable, and asserted that there was ' not the slightest force in the objection urged against it by Mason,'—a note which Dyce withdrew in his third edition. There is no emphasis here, I think, on the word stays '; any emphasis on this word would in fact impair the antithesis between “keep' and “unkept,' which is meant to be of the strongest.–ED.
14. mannage] This good English translation (whereof see many examples in Schmidt s. v.) is now, I think, quite lost, and we have returned to its French original, manége.-ED.
him but growth, for the which his Animals on his dunghils are as much bound to him as I : besides this nothing that he so plentifully giues me, the something that nature gaue mee, his countenance seemes to take from me : hee lets mee feede with his Hindes, barres mee the
19. countenance] discountenance Warb. Han.
20. Hindes] hinds F.
19. countenance) WARBURTON reads discountenance; JOHNSON pronounces the change needless, 'a countenance is either good or bad;' and here it means, says CAPELL, “an evil countenance.' CALDECOTT interprets it, the mode of his carriage towards me,' which DYCE cites with approval. Wright gives its meaning as 'favour, regard, patronage,' and Schmidt as appearance, deportment. It is not difficult to paraphrase it on these lines, so as to meet the requirements of an expression which we all of us almost instinctively understand at once. And yet I cannot but think that WALKER has here detected a refinement of meaning which has been hitherto unobserved. He asks (Crit. iii, 59): • Does not “his countenance” here mean his entertainment of me, the style of living which he allows me ? Selden's Table Talk, art. Fines : “ The old law was, that when a man was fined he was to be fined salvo contenemento, so as his countenance might be safe, taking countenance in the same sense as your countryman does, when he says, If you will come unto my house I will show you the best countenance I can; that is, not the best face, but the best entertainment. The meaning of the law was, that so much should be taken from a man, such a gobbet sliced off, that yet notwithstanding he might live in the same rank and condition he lived in before; but now they fine men ten times more than they are worth.” Such, I think, is the meaning of the word in Chaucer, Persones Tale, Remedium Luxuria : “This maner of women, that observen chastitee, must be clene in herte as well as in body and in thought, and mesurable in clothing and in contenance, abstinent in eting and in drinking, in speking and in dede,” &c. Spenser, Shepheards Calender, Ægl. v [l. 81, ed. Grosart] : “But shepheards (as Algrind used to say) Mought not live ylike, as men of the lay: With them it fits to care for their heire, Enaunter ther heritage doe impaire; They must provide for meanes of maintenaunce, And to continue their wont countenaunce." So understand, Faerie Qucene, Bk. v, cant. ix [l. 239, ed. Grosart] : “ Then was there brought as prisoner to the barre, A Ladie of great countenance and place, But that she it with foul abuse did marre;" &c.' Walker also cites an example from Ford, but it is not perfectly clear to me that in this case the meaning is the same; Dog, a Familiar devil, in The Witch of Edmonton, says to Cuddy Banks (p. 263, ed. Dyce): Nor will I serve for such a silly soul : I am for greatness now, corrupted greatness; There I'll shug in, and get a noble countenance;' &c.—ED.
19. seemes] CAPELL thinks that we have here another example of that singular usage of the common verb “seem” which is so conspicuous in' Macb. I, ii, 46: “ should he look That seems to speak things strange, and Ib. I, v, 27: Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem To have thee crown'd withal;' • in both of which it comprehends the idea of desire or intention; so here “seems to take from me” means -seems as if it wished to take from me.' I think this is slightly over-refined. Give to seem' its common meaning of appear, and is not then the wish or the will implied ?-ED.
place of a brother, and as much as in him lies, mines my
Orlan. Goe a-part Adam, and thou shalt heare how he will shake me vp.
Oli. Now Sir, what make you heere?
Orl. Marry sir, I am helping you to mar that which God made , a poore vnworthy brother of yours with idleneffe.
Oliuer. Marry fir be better employed, and be naught a while.
27. Scene II. Pope +.
31. heere?] heare? Fx here; Fz. Enter...] After line 30, Coll. et seq. 29. a-part] apart Ff.
33, 34. mar] marre F,F, 30. Adam retires. Dyce, Coll. ii.
37. be naught] do aught Han.
nought Warb. Johns. Cap. 20. Hindes] SKEAT (Dict. s. v.): A peasant. The d is excrescent. Anglosaxon hina, a domestic; but the word is unauthenticated as a nom. sing., and is rather to be considered a gen. pl.; so that hina really stands for hina man=a man of the domestics. [I have heard an Irish farmer in this country constantly use the word when referring to farm-labourers.—ED.)
20. barres] ABBOTT, $ 198: Verbs of ablation, such as bar, banish, forbid, often omit the preposition before the place or inanimate object. Thus, “We'll bar thee from succession.'—Wint. T. IV, iv, 440, or "Of succession '- Cymb. III, iii, 102, becomes • Bars me the place,' [in the present instance], and also in Mer. of Ven. II, i, 20.
21. mines] WRIGHT: Undermines the gentleness of my birth, and so destroys it.
31. make] STEEVENS: That is, What do you here? So, in Ham. I, ii, 164. CALDECOTT: We find the same play upon the word between the King and Costard in Love's Lab. L. IV, iii, 190.
34. Marry] Wright: An exclamation from the name of the Virgin Mary, used as an oath. Here it keeps up a poor pun upon mar.'
37, 38. be naught a while] WARBURTON, after a fling at Theobald, says that this is a North-country proverbial curse equivalent to a mischief on you. So, Skelton [Agaynste A Comely Coystrowne, 1. 62] •Correct fyrst thy self; walk, and be nought! Deme what thou lyst, thou knowyst not my thought.' Or rather,' says CAPELL, ' Be hang'd to you! for that is now the phrase with the vulgar.' STEEVENS pronounced Warbur40
Orlan. Shall I keepe your hogs, and eat huskes with them? what prodigall portion haue I spent, that I should come to such penury?
Oli. Know you where you are sir?
44. whom] home F.
45. him] he Pope +, Cap. Steev. Coll. Sing, Clke, Ktly, Huds.
ton's explanation .far-fetched,' and said that the words meant ‘no more than this: “ Be content to be a cypher, till I shall think fit to elevate you in consequence.” It was certainly a proverbial saying, and is found in The Storie of King Darius, 1565: “Come away, and be nought awhile, Or surely I will you both defyle."' JOHNSON, until he had learned the meaning from Warburton, supposed the phrase to mean : 'It is better to do mischief than to do nothing.' WHITER affirms that the meaning is manifestly: 'Retire,-begone, or as we now say in a kind of quaint, colloquial language, make yourself scarce,-vanish,-vote yourself an evanescent quantity.' GifFORD, in a note on Jonson's Bartholomew Fair (p. 421, where the phrase "be curst awhile' occurs), lashes, of course, Steevens and Malone (“from Mr Whiter,' he sighs, better things might be expected'), and then states that the explanation of Warburton is as correct as it is obvious, and may be proved" by witnesses more than my pack will hold.” It will be sufficient to call two or three: “ Peace and be naught! I think the woman be phrensic"-Tale of a Tub [II, i, p. 160]; “If I stir a foot, hang me; you shall come together yourselves, and be naught”-Green's Tu Quoque [p. 206, ed. Hazlett]. It is too much, perhaps,' he continues, 'to say that the words “an hour,” “awhile,” are pure expletives, but it is sufficiently apparent that they have no perceptible influence on the exclamations to which they are subjoined. To conclude, be naught, hanged, curst, &c. with, or without an hour, a while, wherever found, bear invariably one and the same meaning; they are, in short, petty and familiar maledictions, and cannot be better rendered than in the words of Warburton-a plague, or a mischief on you!' DYCE (Remarks, p. 60): Since the origin of verbal criticism, nothing more satisfactory has been written than the copious note of Gifford. .... The first part of Warburton's note is wrong; the expression was certainly not confined to the North country.'
40. prodigall portion] This may be a case of prolepsis; that is, 'what portion have I prodigally spent;' thus also the gentle condition of blood' in line 46, “the condition of gentle blood,' or as in two weak evils, age and hunger,' II, vii, 138, and elsewhere. Schmidt's Lexicon (p. 1420) gives many instances. Or, since the allusion is so clear to the Parable, it might be possibly the genitive of apposition, and equivalent to 'what prodigal's portion have I spent;' in this case the two words should be joined by a hyphen.-ED.
45. him] For other examples of where · him’ is put for he, by attraction to whom understood, see ABBOTT, $ 208. Here the "whom' precedes so closely that it might be almost termed a case of attraction through proximity.
45, &c. The emphasis here is, I think : 'I know you are my eldest brother, &c.,