Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

other, their identity is a manifest blemish: a blemish easily overlooked in the course of rapid composition, but certain to be corrected as soon as it is observed. If the editors had noticed the recurrence I cannot think that they would have refused the correction.

Having now come to the end of my list, I think I may again ask how many, and which, of these alterations are so injurious to the sense or effect of the passages in which they occur, that we can be certain they were not made by Shakspere himself? That most of them might have been made by anybody else-the faults they were meant to correct being obvious, and the correction easy-is no doubt true. But here we have a corrected copy of the play, in which not less than 350 alterations are admitted (by implication) to be Shakspere's; and upwards of 850 others, not distinguishable from the rest by any outward mark, are assumed to be not Shakspere's. And I want to know why, if he made 350 alterations, I am to suppose that he did not make the other 850? The reason must be founded upon something in the nature of the alterations themselves; for unless they bear evidence of an unskilful hand betraying itself by its work, we have no reason to think that anybody else made any alteration in the manuscript whatever; and hitherto I have not met with any evidence of such unskilful hand which may not be probably imputed to want of skill or care in the printer or the transcriber.

IV.

ALTERATIONS MADE TO REMOVE OBSOLETE PHRASES.

Alterations made to remove obsolete phraseology can hardly help us in this matter; because, as I have already observed, a phrase that had fallen out of popular use would have seemed as unfit in Shakspere's eyes as in those of any supposed corrector to be used in the theatre. Not to add that the language of the theatre re-acts upon the language of conversation, and many of the changes which took place in common speech may have been brought into fashion by Shakspere himself. But as the modification of "certain turns of phrase and uses of words" which had "become obsolete in the time of the

corrector" is distinctly urged as one of the proofs of the intervention of the supposed corrector, it may be well to give a few examples.

The earliest news we hear of an improved edition of Richard III. is in the title-page of the Quarto of 1602, upon which it is announced as 'newly augmented,' and though it was a false announcement,—no augmentations being found either in that or any of the subsequent Quartos,-it affords some reason for supposing that there had been at that time a promise, or an expectation, or at least a rumour, of an improved copy, and that Shakspere may have been really at work upon it. The style of the inserted speeches belongs, I should say, to that time, or not long before:-a time when Shakspere's versification was still growing smoother, sweeter, and more regular, and variety was sought through the skilful distribution of accent and pause, without trespassing upon the normal law of the five-measure line. And if the corrections were made at the same time, which seems likely, they are generally such as might have been expected.

1. Which is almost always changed to that; betwixt to between ; whilst to while or when. But these changes I should attribute rather to the increasing niceness of the poet's ear than to any new fashion of speech. Shakspere wanted to get rid of the harsh consonants and sibilants.

2. Another change, which is made, I think, invariably, requires a different explanation; for it substitutes the harsher combination for the smoother. The corrector evidently had an insuperable

To show how much room there was for improvement in that way and within these limits, compare any of the passages quoted in this paper, or any others that can be found in the play, with the following lines in Macbeth, supposed to have been written about 1605.

"Macduff. Stands Scotland where it did?

Rosse. Alas, poor country!

Almost afraid to know itself. It cannot

Be called our Mother, but our Grave; where nothing
But who knows nothing is once seen to smile:
Where sighs, and groans, and shrieks that rent the air
Are made, not mark'd; where violent sorrow seems

A modern ecstasy: the dead man's knell

Is there scarce ask'd for who, and good man's lives
Expire before the flowers in their caps,
Dying or ere they sicken."

The

objection to the use of wert as a second person singular. Quarto always reads thou wert:' the Folio always substitutes 'thou wast.' I do not think this can have been due to a change of fashion, for the fashion has prevailed against the grammarian, and 'thou wert' still keeps its place in poetry; where only it can now occur; thou' being obsolete for prose. But it seems to me not improbable that Shakspere had been referred to the grammar, and finding there I was: Thou wast,' had resolved to follow the rule.

3. The substitution of I (aye) for yea, which is also, I think, invariable; of more or other for moe; and of you for thou (which is frequent, even where there is no change from singular to plural), is probably due to changes of fashion. But these modifications never involve any disturbance either of sense or metre, from which it can be inferred that they did not proceed from the author; and I doubt whether the number could be much increased even by a more diligent search than the question deserves. Still, therefore, I fail to find evidence of the intervention of an inferior hand: and even if it can be shown that Shakspere's later works contain many examples of the very same things for which the corrector shows distaste, I should not on that account feel justified in concluding that he was not himself the corrector. If he found that, in spite of the grammarians, the people continued to say 'thou wert,' and liked it better than 'thou wast,' he might naturally return to his former practice. He probably liked it better himself. And, again, if he found, after carrying blank verse to the highest perfection that was obtainable through smoothness and sweetness and such variety as could be combined with them, that he could produce finer effects by a due intermixture of irregularities and harshnesses-as in the management of his metre he undoubtedly did he would naturally return again to the use of sibilants and congested consonants. The question is whether these alterations were better or worse for the style of versification which he was cultivating when he made them. I think they were for the better. He had not exhausted the capabilities of that style. He had not yet begun to teach his blank-verse the great paces of which he afterwards found it capable, and in the paces to which he was then training it, it was not yet perfect.

[ocr errors]

Of the alterations which, not being referable to any of the above heads, not explicable as attempts either to correct supposed defects of metre, or to avoid recurrence of words, or to remove obsolete words and phrases, are described as 'arbitrary,' that is, made for no apparent reason, it is not necessary to say much. I have already noticed all of them that seem to me to be such as Shakspere would not have authorized; and the Cambridge editors, being bound by their principle to prefer the reading of the Quarto wherever they do not think that of the Folio not only better but so much better as to bear in itself evidence of Shakspere's hand, are not to be understood as meaning more by rejecting them than that such evidence is wanting. But as the question with me is still whether all these alterations ('errors of pen and press apart') were not of his hand, I will give a few examples of such as, in my opinion, he would have authorized; still making my selection from those which the editors have rejected.

V.

ALTERATIONS MADE TO REMOVE DEFECTS NOT
APPARENT TO THE EDITORS.

To understand in all cases why Shakspere liked one word or arrangement of words better than another is more than anybody can expect. He had fancies of his own, and saw and felt innumerable things which we cannot see and feel. But it sometimes happens that the reason is plain enough.

1.

I. ii. 172. "Teach not thy lips such scorn; for they were made For kissing, Lady," &c.

[blocks in formation]

"Teach not thy lip such scorn, for it was made

no doubt because s at the end of lips meeting s at the beginning of such was disagreeable to speak and hear.

2.

I. iii. 67. "Against my kindred, brothers, and myself."

The Folio reads children for kindred. I suppose because 'kindred' includes 'brothers.' Dorset and Grey were her children, Rivers and Woodville her brothers.

3.

I. iii. 109. "To be thus taunted, scorned, and baited at :"

The Folio reads :

"To be thus baited, scorned, and stormed at: "

to 'bait at' a thing being, I presume, an unwarranted expression. The bear was baited, not baited at.

I. iii. 320.

4.

"Cates. Madam his majesty doth call for you;
And for your Grace, and you my noble Lo:

Q. Eliz. Catesby we come. Lords will you go with us?
Riv. Madam we will attend your grace."

Here the Folio makes several small changes; for the purpose, I think, of distinguishing the parts more clearly. There remain on the stage, after old Queen Margaret's exit, the Queen, the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Rivers, Lord Grey, Lord Derby (who should have been called Lord Stanley), Lord Dorset, and Lord Hastings. As the message is worded in the Quarto, one of the Dukes is left out; the Queen, to whom it is addressed, answers for all, and Lord Rivers speaks in the name of the other Lords. The Folio puts it thus:

"And for your Grace, and yours my gracious Lord.

Qu. Catesby I come. Lords will you go with me?
Riv. We wait upon your grace."

Thus Catesby delivers the invitation to both the Dukes; and the Queen turns to the other Lords and invites them to accompany her; addressing herself probably more directly to her brother, Lord Rivers, who answers. It is a small thing, but it has been done on purpose, and, I think, varies and enlivens the action.

1 It is true that the Duke of Buckingham had just come from the King, which may account for the reading of the Quarto. In revising the MS. afterwards, the author himself might have forgotten that circumstance, and made the alteration for the reason which I (not remembering it at the time) have suggested.

« ZurückWeiter »