« PreviousContinue »
ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO VOL. II.
THE COMEDY OF ERRORS.
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. P. 139. “and yet, ere I go, let me go with that I came for; which is, with knowing what hath passed between you and Claudio." The Cambridge Editors print, with the old eds.,
with that I came; which is," &c.; and they observe in a note, “The same construction, i. e. the non-repetition of the preposition, is found in Marston's Fawne, act i. sc. 2 (vol. ü. p. 24, ed. Halliwell), With the same stratagem we still are caught.'”
A friend remarks; "If, according to the Cambridge Editors, the construction be the same,' Beatrice must be understood as saying, 'let me go with that I came with,'—which would amount to an entreaty to Benedick to let her go without being either robbed or ravished.”
P. 119. Note 21. “Mr. Collier's Ms. Corrector reads 'importable."" So says Mr. Collier in his Notes and Emendations, &c., 1852 and 1853, and in the second edition of his Shakespeare, 1858 (where he adopts that reading); but in the Notes and Emendations appended to Coleridge's Seven Lectures, &c., 1856, Mr. Collier makes the Corrector read “unportable.” After all, the difference is hardly worth mentioning, as both words are decidedly wrong.
LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST.
A whitely wanton with a velvet brow," The Cambridge Editors print “ A wightly wanton," &c.; explaining “wightly” to mean "nimble.” But I agree with Mr. W. N. Lettsom, who observes to me; " I have no doubt that here 'whitely' is the right reading, and that it means sallow, without colour, having a 'cheek of cream,' which Shakespeare associates with black hair, eyes, and eyebrows in As you like it, act iii. sc. 5;
'Tis not your inky brows, your black-silk hair,
Your bugle eyeballs, nor your cheek of cream,' &c.". And see in my note ad l. an example of the word " whitely-faced.”
"Hol. Of piercing a hogshead!" The Cambridge Editors print “Hol. Piercing a hogshead!" under the idea that "the word ‘Of,' which in the original Ms. was part of the stage-direction (prefix] 'Holof.,' has crept into the text. This is a very ingenious mode of accounting for a word which certainly would be better away: but (the prefixes to speeches in early plays being always much contracted) the prefix “Holof.” never occurs either in the quarto or the folio ed. of this comedy; it is always abbreviated to “Hol.;" and what makes still more against the hypothesis of thc Cambridge Editors is the fact, that to the present speech both the quarto and the folio prefix “ Nath.”
P. 208. “Nath. Laus Deo, bone intelligo.
Hol. Bone !—bone for bene : Priscian a little scratched; 'twill serve." The Cambridge Editors print
“Nath. Laus Deo, bene intelligo.
Hol. Bon, bon, fort bon, Priscian! a little scratched, 'twill serve." I can conceive nothing more unlikely than that Holofernes should call Nathaniel “Priscian," and that he should not (to use the words of the Editors in their note) “admit his perfect accuracy," even when poor Nathaniel is guiltless of any blunder. Besides, French sounds rather oddly from the mouth of Holofernes.
P. 226. " fortuna della guerra."
P. 242. Note 38. For “(with the quarto) 'thin belly's doublet” read “ (with the quarto) 'thinbellies doublet.'"
P. 244. Note 56. “The old eds. have 'annothanize,'" &c. I ought to have mentioned that the word was rightly altered in the second folio to “anatomize."
P. 251. Note 112.
P. 257. Note 165. " Here the modern editors, with the exception of Capell," &c. I ought to have added “and of the Cambridge Editors."
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE.
P. 356. Note omitted. If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not
As to thy friend -" So the second folio.—The earlier eds, have “ As to thy friends,"-in opposition to the context.
P. 418. Note 15.
“Hanmer and Walker read 'godly.'” But that alteration was originally made by Rowe.
P. 420. Note 30. For “(the Bible of 1611 having there the spelling, &c." read “ (Tyndale's Bible 1625 or 1526 having there the spelling 'ieves,' the Bible of 1599 and the Bible of 1629, the spelling ‘Jewesse,' -not to mention other Bibles).”
P. 423. Note 56. “till Steevens restored 'Salerio';" For “Steevens" read " Capell.”—That the Cambridge Editors should find fault with me for not keeping in that scene the old name “Salerio,” is no more than might be expected, considering the many monstrous errors of transcribers and printers which they retain, throughout their edition, as the words of Shakespeare: for instance, in the opening scene of Much udo about Nothing, they give, with the early copies,
“Leon. I learn in this letter that Don PETER of Arragon comes this night to Messina
I find here that Don PETER hath bestowed much honour on a young Florentine called Claudio.
Mess. Much deserved on his part, and equally remembered by Don Pedro," &c.