« السابقةمتابعة »
TIMON OF ATHENS.
[Vol. vi. Collier; vol. ix. Knight.)
Scene 2.-C. p. 517; K. p. 202.
But yond' man is ever angry.”
Mr. Knight, however, retains the misprint of the folios : “ Rowe,” he says, “ changed very to ever, marking an antithesis with the Latin sentence. The introduction of a scrap of Latin is not at all in Shakspere's manner, nor indeed is any part of the speech.”
In the first place, the writer of the speech (whether Shakespeare or not) evidently intended to contrast " furor brevis" with "
ever angry." Secondly, “ very” is a common typographical error for “ ever :" a line of Beaumont and Fletcher's King and No King (act iv. sc. 4) had been rightly given in all editions,
“ Children and fools are ever credulous,” till 1812, when Weber's printer altered it thus;
“ Children and fools are very credulous.”
“ If my good master be not ever angry,
Act iii. sc. 3.
SCENE 2.-C. p. 528; K. p. 215.
With clamorous demands of debt, broken bonds,
And the detention of long-since-due debts,
Against my honour ?" “ So the old copies uniformly. Malone altered the text to • date-broken bonds, which may be said to derive some countenance from the next line; but we feel bound, as no change is required by the sense, to adhere to the words of the poet, as far as they have been handed down to us in the folio, 1623.” COLLIER.
So too Mr. Knight, who observes; “ We print this passage as in the original. Malone reads,–
• With clamorous demands of date-broken bonds.' It scarcely appears to us that any change is necessary; for 'the detention of long-since-due debts' is merely an amplification of the clamorous demands of debt.'”
Now, Malone's correction is, as he himself remarks, established beyond a doubt by a passage in the preceding scene (a passage which Mr. Collier and Mr. Knight have prudently forborne to mention), viz.;
“ his days and times are past,
reliances on his fracted dates
SCENE 2.-C. p. 532; K. p. 219.
“ So the gods bless me,
And set mine eyes at flow.”
has occasioned a good deal of comment: the ' wasteful cock' seems to mean the flowing eyes of Flavius, which ran to waste, in vain grief at his lord's boundless expenditure. Pope, not understanding the allusion, substituted • lonely room ;' and Sir T. Hanmer took ' wasteful cock’ to be a cock-loft, a garret lying in waste.' COLLIER. Mr. Collier's remark, that in the line,
I have retir'd me to a wasteful cock,"
“the ó wasteful cock' seems to mean the flowing eyes of Flavius," is the more astounding, since that line is immediately followed by
“ And set mine eyes at flow.” Nares (Gloss. in v. Wasteful) and Mr. Knight refer the wasteful cock” to the preceding “ spilth of wine;” Mr. Knight, moreover, wishing to alter the text (which I believe to be free from any corruption)
“ I have retired me from a wasteful cock.” One thing is quite clear,—that " wasteful cock” can only mean' a pipe with a turning stopple running to waste,' whether we refer it to the "spilth of wine,” or whether we adopt the following interpretation by Capell;
“ Cock is - cock of water, and wasteful-running to waste, in some outhouse or place adjoining; for the thought of retiring to such a cock is suggested by what was passing within doors.”—Notes and Various Readings, &c., vol. i. 81.
SCENE 2.-C. p. 539; K. p. 226.
Is every flatterer's sport.” “ We adhere to the old reading, thinking that it affords at least as good a meaning as the modern change of sport' to spirit.” COLLIER.
Mr. Knight also retains " sport;" which appears to me to be the veriest nonsense.
SCENE 5.—Ć. p. 549; K. p.
In vain ? his service done
1 Sen. What's that?
Why, say, my lords, he has done fair service,
How full of valour did he bear himself
2 Sen. He has made too much plenty with him,
“ The folio, 1632, reads, · Why, I say, my lords,' &c., but needlessly, the meaning being, 'Why, admit, or acknowledge, my lords, that he has done fair service.'” COLLIER.
Mr. Knight also gives (without any note) the reading of the first folio; which is manifestly wrong.
“ Why, say” means “Why, admit, or acknowledge,” only when the speaker is either himself admitting, or requiring others to admit, something, before he proceeds to discuss the matter in question. But here Alcibiades is not arguing; he is making a simple assertion,-repeating with greater emphasis what he has previously stated;
“Why, I say, my lords, he has done fair service," &c. The point after" wounds” ought to be (as in Mr. Knight's edition) a point of admiration.
In the last of the above speeches, “ him,” which Mr. Collier (in opposition to the other modern editors) has adopted from the first folio, makes the passage nonsense : the second folio gives the obvious correction, “ 'em.” That “him" and “ 'em” were frequently confounded by early printers, has been already shewn: see p. 64. .
SCENE 3.-C. p. 566 ; K. p. 252.
" What! think'st
And skip when thou point'st out?" On the reading, “ moist,” Mr. Collier says ne verbum quidem. Mr. Knight, who also gives it, has the following note;
“ This epithet was changed by Hanmer to moss'd. Whiter, upon his principle of the association of ideas, thus explains the use of the word moist :- Warm and moist were the appropriate terms in the
days of Shakespeare for what we should now call an air'd and a damp
T. Dispatch, and give me a shirt !
T. Go into the kitchen and warme it.'
If the reader of Whiter's explanation "smiles,” it ought to be with contempt at such ingenious trifling. “Moist” (an epithet of no propriety here) is clearly the transcriber's or printer's error for “mosst” (moss'd). The tree under which Oliver lay sleeping had its boughs “ moss'd with age.” As you like it, act iv. sc. 3. So the trees to which Apemantus here refers were “ moss'd”- they had “outliv'd the eagle."
SCENE 3.-C. p. 573.
Steal not less, for this
SCENE 5.-C. p. 588 ; K. p. 272.
Then, dear countryman,