The Shakespeare-Expositor. Thomas KeightleyЧитать онлайн книгу.
music breeds delight in loathing ear.
F. Q. i. 8. 44.
For delight in the last line we might read dislike, but I think we should rather read annoy; for in these cases, as we may see, no resemblance in form or sound is to be sought. I therefore in Othel. iii. 3, reject the emendation of Pope and 4to 1630 of feels for keeps, because it was evidently suggested by the slight similarity of form, and does not perfectly suit the context. The reader will find an excellent instance in As You Like It, ii. 3.
My news shall be the news to that great feast.
Ham. ii. 2.
So the folio reads; the 4to has more correctly fruit.
Surely Shakespeare never wrote
To seek thy help, by beneficial help.
Com. of Err. i. 1.
He that they cannot help him,
They that they cannot help.
All's Well, i. 3.
As this error never occurs in Jonson and Massinger, and only, I believe, in the instance given above in Beaumont and Fletcher, and has no æsthetic advantage or beauty to recommend it, it seems quite absurd to suppose that Shakespeare, whose vocabulary was the largest of all, and whose ear was so fine and correct, should have found pleasure in it. Surely a just critic will sooner lay the blame on the printer and the careless editors, very different in this respect from those of Beaumont and Fletcher, who seem never to have hesitated to correct an error when they discovered it.
The resemblance in form above alluded to is of great importance, under the name of ductus literarum, in the eyes of Mr. Dyce, and it should always be attended to; for it is usually caused by the attempt of the printer to make out illegible writing. The following are striking instances:—
In Peele's Edward I. these lines occur.
To calm, to qualify, and to compound,
Thank England's strife of Scotland's climbing peers.
That the last line is nonsense was clear to every one; but no critic ever could emend it. The true reading, however, is doubtless The enkindled, which flashed suddenly on my mind one time when I was considering the passage. It was probably the resemblance of sound chiefly that misled the printer.
At the end of Marston's Insatiate Countess we meet the following unmeaning line,
Like Missermis cheating of the brack,
which Steevens corrected most happily thus—
Like Mycerinus cheating of the oracle,
having discerned the allusion to Herod. ii. 133.
It is very curious that the word substituted is often the very opposite of the right word. I myself once wrote—and so it is printed—diameter for circumference. In Mrs. C. Clarke's most valuable Concordance we have "humorous plebeian" for "humorous patrician." I have met with next for last and none for some; so in The Mer. of Ven., ii. 2, where the folio has "Is sum of nothing," the 4tos read "Is sum of something." In Lear v. 3, the folio reads
The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices
Make instruments to plague us;
while the 4tos have "pleasant virtues."
In All's Well, iii. 2, and Taming of the Shrew, iii. 1, we have old for new. In a proof-sheet which I lately saw there was a quotation of
The paths of glory lead but to the grave;
and the printer had substituted life for "grave," though, as the entire stanza was given, he had the rime to guide him. Many instances of this practice will be found in Love's Labour's Lost. In La Giovanezza, a poem of the Italian poet Pindemonte, I have just met with brutte where the rime and the sense require belle.
It does not seem to have been observed that printers will actually insert words, for the sake of sense or metre, when they have made a mistake. In my Life of Milton, I had occasion to quote a passage from his prose works containing "with a conscience that would retch;" and of this the printer made "with a conscience that he would relish;" and so, I am sorry to say, it is printed. See on Mer. of Ven. iv. 1.
And stones did cast, yet he for nought would swerve.
F. Q. v. 12. 43.
As the rimes are deserved, preserved, observed, the poet must have written e'er swerved or nothing swerved.
In her right hand a fire-brand she did toss.
F. Q. iii. 12, 17.
The rimes are embost, lost, so that Spenser must have written tost, making, as usual, a dissyllable of fire. That it was not the poet himself that made the mistake is clear; for in
Till Arthur all that reckoning defrayed (ii. 10, 49)
the edition of 1750 has did defray.
A contrary error to this is where the printer has made one word of two, caused either by sound or by illegible writing. For instances, see on Com. of Err. iii. 1, Tw. Night, i. 1, Mer. Wives, v. 5, Ant. and Cleop. iv. 9, Macb. iii. 4.
The fact of effacement in the manuscript, on which I have laid such stress in the section on Omission, has also been a cause of substitution; for, the original word having become nearly or totally illegible, the transcriber or compositor, in order to make sense, used to give some term of his own. Thus we have yes for I will, Meas. for Meas. iii. 1, yea for even so, Rich. II. iii. 1, ay for I will, Ham. iv. 7, as is proved by the metre. These are all at the beginning of the line, and hence their liability to effacement. See also on All's Well, ii. 1, Twelfth Night, iv. 3, Rich. II. i. 3, and elsewhere.
Finally, substitutions are often quite capricious, making no sense whatever. For "he went circuit," where my manuscript was perfectly legible, I once got "the local circuit;" so also "the merits" for "there an echo;" "establishment" for "established government." In Alison's Life of Lord Castlereagh, one of the pall-bearers at the funeral of the Duke of Wellington was Sir Peregrine Pickle (Maitland); in all editions of Joseph Andrews we have in one place "Sir John" for "Sir Thomas" Booby.
It is to be observed that to unto, till until, on upon, though although, e'er ever, &c., were frequently confounded. It is therefore the merest printer-worship to hesitate at altering them when the metre requires it. A further observation is, that even down into the eighteenth century, it was the custom to write y for th in monosyllables beginning with this last (þ, A. S.), as ye the, yn then, yt that, yu thou; yr your was another abridgment; and hence confusion has often arisen. In these plays we have that for then in four places (see on Tr. and Cr. i. 2); and in Paradise Regained (i. 137) we have then for thou, and also, I think, in Tw. Night, v. 1.
11.
Such, then, are the various sources of error in the original editions of Shakespeare's plays, the correction of which and restoration of the poet's real sense are, as I have said, the task of the genuine critic, and one in which, except in a very few instances, success is not to be by any means despaired of.
As a means of obtaining it, I would, as I have done, lay it down as a rule that no word or phrase should be employed in restoration which is not to be found in the poet's own works, or at least in those of his contemporaries. It is obvious that by so doing we shall greatly diminish the risk of failure. It is a curious fact, that not unfrequently two or even three corrections are so equally good, that it is exceedingly difficult to choose between them, and that the final choice thus becomes