MSU

LIBRARIES
“

RETURNING MATERIALS:

 

 

 

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wi11
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

THE GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE, 1731-1785:

 

A CHAPTER IN SHAKESPEARE SCHOLARSHIP

By

Martin James Wood

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1984

Li? W :

)
J

.-
.4-
.n—/

@Copyright by
MARTIN JAMES WOOD
1984

ABSTRACT

THE GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE, 1731-1785:
A CHAPTER IN SHAKESPEARE SCHOLARSHIP

 

By

Martin James Wood

The history of Shakespeare textual scholarship, which traces
the evolution of printed editions of Shakespeare's dramatic
works from inaccurate and often incomprehensible early edi-
tions to the versions now considered settled and authorita-
tive, has always concentrated primarily on eighteenth-cen-
tury editors such as Rowe, Johnson, Steevens, and Malone.
The contributions of other scholars and dedicated amateurs
have largely gone unnoticed. One indispensible resource for
identifying the work of these forgotten contributors, the
Gentleman's Magazine of eighteenth-century London, has long
been recognized as an essential aid to the study of contem-
porary English literary, cultural, political, and social
history. With regard to Shakespeare's text, however, it has
been ignored. To correct this oversight, the present dis-
sertation locates and examines all suggestions, emendations,
explanatory notes, and conjectural readings for Shakespeare
which were sent to or reprinted in the pages of the Gentle-
man's Magazine during the years 1731-1785. These entries
are reprinted in the dissertation according to the plays
they concern, and are followed immediately by responses of

contemporary editors and scholars; by notes tracing their

Martin James Wood

later inclusion in important scholarly and variorum
editions; by supplemental references to linguistic and his-
torical dictionaries; and finally by a brief account of
their representation in or influence upon a major modern
edition of Shakespeare. As it turns out, more than half of
the entries in the magazine have left a distinct trail in
the progress of his text, although only a very few have
since been properly attributed to the persons who first
suggested them. Many of the rest now survive as corrections
by Steevens, Malone, or other scholars, who merely borrowed
them from the accounts in the Gentleman's Magazine. The
dissertation also includes an appendix listing all other
references to Shakespeare that appeared in the magazine
during the fifty-five years of the study. Together these
findings not only establish the magazine's influence on
Shakespeare scholarship in eighteenth-century England, but
also provide additional evidence of its continuing impor-

tance to literary and historical scholars.

 

This dissertation is dedicated with great respect
to
Professor Arthur Sherbo

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My work on this project was made much easier by the
tireless assistance of Jannette Fiore and Anne Tracy,
Librarians in Special Collections at Michigan State
University. Professors Jay Ludwig and Douglas Peterson
offered frequent and indispensible comments and suggestions
during my composing process. Professor Robert Uphaus has
for many years been a valued teacher, friend, and ally;
even without his extraordinary efforts during the course of
this dissertation, he would have secured forever my highest
esteem. My colleague Carol Hale has been at once my most
demanding critic and my dearest friend; the effect of her
advice and counsel can be seen on every page. Finally, I
owe my deepest thanks to Professor Arthur Sherbo. From the
inception of this project through its latest drafts, he
offered guidance and expertise with great generosity;
furthermore, he made available the results of his
unpublished research on neglected Shakespeareans,
particularly Thomas Holt White, without which my own
research would be woefully incomplete. His published work
is a model for the pages that follow; his approval will be

the best measure of my success.

iv

Chapter I.
Chapter II.
Chapter III.
Chapter IV.
Chapter V.
Chapter VI.
Appendix

Bibliography

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
The Comedies
The Histories
The Tragedies
The Romances

Conclusion

31
87
112
175
192
207

217

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In the middle quarters of the eighteenth century a new
species of literary inquiry appeared, an inquiry for which
the necessity is now as patently obvious as its origin is
widely misunderstood. The new species was Shakespeare
textual scholarship, and its origin lay in the combined
effect of two seemingly unrelated forces. The first was the
appearance of the pioneering scholarly editions of Shake-
speare's plays by Alexander Pope, Lewis Theobald, Sir Thomas
Hanmer, and William Warburton. Clearly enough these stand
as progenitors of the new species, marking out the territory
where their offspring would eventually thrive. Less obvious
is the effect of the second force: the rise of a literate
and relatively prosperous middle class whose new demand for
reading material was matched only by its ability to purchase
printed copy in many new forms. At first, this demand was
variously satisfied by the newspaper and by the novel, or
roughly speaking, the historical and the literary forms of
print. My concern lies rather with that peculiar composite
of both, the magazine. I am specifically interested in the
first of this type, Edward Cave's Gentleman's Magazine, 95
Traders Monthly Intelligencer.

The Gentleman's Magazine had the good fortune to arrive

on the literary scene at the one time when its potential to
influence Shakespeare scholarship was very high. I will
argue that because of its propitious circumstances, because
of the special talents of its early contributors, especially
Samuel Johnson and John Hawkesworth, and because of its
policy of printing the correspondence of dedicated amateurs,
the Gentleman's Magazine participated significantly in the
establishment of Shakespeare's text. I will demonstrate its
significance through a long series of excerpts from its
pages, and through the traces left by these items in the
succeeding editions of Shakespeare's works. But I will show
also how its influence has attracted little direct atten—
tion, and how, consequently, scholars today are generally
unaware of its important contribution.

Before I make any further suggestions about the impor-
tance of the Gentleman's Magazine to the rise of Shakespeare
scholarship, I need to discuss briefly the magazine itself.
Its general history has been portrayed in varying degrees of
detail by John Nichols, who edited the magazine after 1778,
and by Walter Graham and C. Lennart Carlson, scholars of the
present century; therefore I will limit my outline to the
kind of sketch made by a host of writers after them. Con-
ceiving of his project literally as a "magazine," in 1731
Cave introduced a publication intended to store up the best
of what had been printed elsewhere each month. His magazine
was by all accounts a rapid and impressive success. John

Abbott calls the magazine "a document so rich that a fair

reconstruction of the period could be made from its files
alone" (111). Part of its richness springs from its diver-

sity; Abbott notes how the Gentleman's Magazine (hereafter

 

the EM) "appealed even more than the Spectator to the intel-
lectual eclecticism of the middle class" (86). Efforts at
the reconstruction of which Abbott speaks benefit immea-
surably from what the Reverend Andrew Kippis, a later con—

tributor to the magazine, called its ability to preserve "

a
multitude of curious and useful hints, observations, and
facts, which otherwise might never have appeared; or, if
they had appeared in a more evanescent form, would have
incurred the danger of being lost" (Carlson v). But they
were not lost, and the magazine has become increasingly
recognized as an invaluable aid for any who would study the
period. James Kuist has recently written, "Certainly the
frequent references to the EM by contemporaries and histo-
rians alike suggest that among the periodicals of its day
this one has been found by its readers to deserve our
attention" (3).

The success of the GM, given its intended audience,
should come perhaps as no surprise; its early contents
supplemented reprints of the most popular periodicals--such
enduring titles as the Craftsman, the Free Briton, the £522;
Street Journal--with miscellaneous pieces on every con-
ceivable topic and lists of demographic and financial sta-
tistics. Thus the magazine had something for everyone at a
time when nearly everyone wanted everything he could read.

Cave appreciated the potential demand for his service when

he wrote in his first issue's Introduction that the newspa-
pers "of late are so multiplied, as to render it impossible
unless a man make it a business, to consult them all." Cave
made it his business, and he thrived. Carlson notes that
miscellanies had existed before, both in their seventeenth-
century form, "essentially learned and literary" (35), and
in the historical or poetical form closer to the QM'S time.
The earlier miscellanies faded because they had not looked
to the newly emerging middle class for their audience,
Carlson agrues; in using the focus of the newer journals the
EM actually "represented the culmination of a tradition,
rather than the inception of one" (53). As Donald Keesey
has written, comparing the GM to the miscellanies, Cave "did
substantially the same thing; he simply did it more tho-
roughly" (6). His product became, in Robert Mayo's words,
"for twenty-five Years the leading magazine of any class in
England" (159).

Whether the fifl's success is measured by the number of
its volumes, readers, or imitators, that success surely
helped attract the services of the period's finest young
literary minds. Samuel Johnson wrote to Cave in 1734 with a
proposal for his own literary employment with the magazine,
and actually began to write for it in 1738 (Boswell 1:77).
John Hawkesworth joined him there in 1740, a time during
which, Abbott notes, "the brightest hope for one who would
live by his pen lay at St. John's Gate, Clerkenwell, the

home of the Gentleman's Magazine" (20). Coinciding with the

advent of these two, the EM began to shift its emphasis from
newspaper reprints to more original material. Carlson
asserts that in 1735 the magazine regularly began to include
correspondence from readers, who sent at first mostly theo-
logical essays, but by the middle of the next decade many
theatrical ones as well. While the majority of dramatic
essays appear to have come not from numerous correspondents
but from one regular associate, Carlson is still correct to
notice an increased emphasis on theatrical or literary
matters. This newest attention, he writes, appeared along
with "the beginning of a period of new and awakening criti-
cal activity on the part of the theatrically-minded in
general" (137). So closely did Johnson's arrival coincide
with this new emphasis that mere chance is an unacceptable
explanation.

According to Joseph Wood Krutch, Johnson's initial
proposal to Cave was to "supply poems, inscriptions, etc.,
never published before, as well as short dissertations,
critical remarks on authors ancient and modern, etc." (43).
This was an entirely original proposal "since the magazine
at the time was almost exclusively political and newsy," and
Krutch's remark that "it also suggested a direction which
the magazine was presently to take" does not, I think, state
Johnson's influence clearly enough. The magazine had been
neither literary nor original; Johnson suggested it become
both, and it gradually did so beginning in l735--the year
after Johnson's proposal. Carlson writes, "In Cave's later

years his magazine became increasingly learned, scientific,

and literary" (27). Cave died in 1754, so his "later years"
coincide pretty well with the years of Johnson's greatest
influence at the magazine. Carlson notes further that
Johnson's contribution after 1738 was far more than that of
a mere writer, since "from 1738 to 1745 he seems to have had
editorial supervision of the magazine" (21); Arthur Sherbo
observes that he "was virtually editor of the EM in 1742"
(Editor 23).

As if to endorse the new course plotted first by
Johnson, Hawkesworth's efforts, after his arrival in the
early 1740's, guided Cave's publication even more intently
on a literary venture. He reviewed books and plays from
that period until the early 1770's, writes Abbott, though he
never signed his name; and when Johnson relinquished his own
supervisory status to pursue other interests, it was Hawkes-
worth who took up the reins. He advanced from a supervisor
of poetry columns to one who "helped direct the magazine as
a whole." When he succeeded Johnson, he made of the EM "one
of the most important literary reviews of the age" (87). In
1756 Hawkesworth assumed a post that could have been called

"literary editor,"

and in general helped turn the E! into a
forum for literary discussion (20). Charles Gray, Sherbo,
Keesey, Donald Eddy, and Abbott have demonstrated that
Hawkesworth was the magazine's reviewer for all his years
there after 1748, responsible for all the numerous reviews

signed "X" and a good many more besides.

Johnson's participation in Shakespeare scholarship is

well known, and his work at the GM during the years he was
planning his edition, as I shall soon argue, suggests that
the EM was already involved itself. What is not known at

all is Hawkesworth's major role in that scholarship. Out—

side of a few essays in his Adventurer, Hawkesworth's corpus

 

demonstrates little that would qualify him to be considered
as a respectable scholar of Shakespeare. In the chapters
that follow, I hope to rectify this oversight. His edi-
torial work at the EM both informed and shared in the maga-
zine's contribution to Shakespeare studies. Meanwhile,
Johnson remained important within the EM, occupied though he
was with his own major projects; Keesey reports how "two
modern Johnson scholars [Donald Greene and Sherbo] have
claimed for him no fewer than ten of the magazine's dramatic
reviews for the period between 1750 and 1754" (23). Thus
Abbott concludes that during the early 1740's--when the GM
began strongly to become a literary forum—-Cave relied upon
the services of his "main co-adjutors" Johnson and
Hawkesworth (106).

Having largely assumed the general interests of men
like Johnson, the EM was eventually to share some of their
specific preoccupations as well. Cave and Johnson
c00perated in many early literary performances, such as
indeed "it may be assumed that the first meeting" between
Savage and Johnson "took place at St. John's Gate" (Krutch
80). But the publication there of Johnson's Miscellaneous

Observations 2g the Tragedy g£_Macbeth (1745) may have been

the venture closest to Johnson's heart, since it accompanied
Johnson's announcement of his intention to edit Shakespeare.
That twenty years were to pass before his edition appeared
can stand as testimony both to his loathing to do the work
and to his profound desire to see the work finally done.
Johnson wanted badly to edit Shakespeare, to correct the
insufficient scholarship of those who had gone before him.
It is no coincidence that Johnson's interests subsequently
became reflected in the pages of the EM. In the press
generally, Keesey has found, "Shakespeare was receiving

' and over the

considerable attention during this period,'
coming years the GM "printed several articles--some of them
quite detailed and learned—-dealing with Shakespeare's

work" (14).

Equally important are the fifl's frequent reviews of the
many books on Shakespeare that made their appearance in the
next thirty years. The reviewer for these was almost surely
Hawkesworth. Nichols probably erred when he reported that
1765 was the year when Hawkesworth added "his own concise,
but valuable critical remarks, and afterwards a regular
Review" (lvi) to the magazine's contents. Abbott now
argues convincingly that Hawkesworth was discussing books in
some length by 1748, that the expansion of the review was
obvious by December 1750, and that "by May 1752 specific
attention is called to the critical nature of the section

with the title, 'Books publish'd . . . with Remarks'" (98).

Thus, at a time when interest in Shakespeare was stirring,

when Samuel Johnson wished to edit the plays, when the GM
had begun to focus more frequently upon literary interests,
and when John Hawkesworth was its book reviewer, the perio-
dical began to make available--to a greater segment of the
reading public than any other publication could boast--
learned articles and essays on Shakespeare criticism and

Shakespeare textual scholarship.

ii

It is no longer necessary to argue, as D. Nichol Smith
was obliged to in 1903, that eighteenth-centry England
admired Shakespeare as much as any other period (Essays
xiii). Ronald B. McKerrow claims that because scholarship
has gone far beyond the work of the period's critics, we may
be tempted to "let them and their too numerous quarrels rest
in peace"; but he hastens to add that the Shakespeare we
know today is "largely the Shakespeare of Rowe, Pope, Theo-
bald, Johnson, and the other eigteenth-century editors"
(103-4). Shakespeare's status had been a good deal less
certain than it is today, not only because of the notorious
neoclassical "rules" Shakespeare was supposed to have disre-
garded, but also because he was a relatively recent writer.
Large differences in language did not dispel from early
eighteenth-century minds the notion that Shakespeare was an
author only just now passed away, one whose dramas should
not be treated as anything other than plays to be performed,

and of course altered as the need arose. The notion of a

correct text for Shakespeare simply did not occur to the
public that purchased books.

Printers contributed to this problem by setting their
type from the most readily available versions of Shake-
speare's plays. The earliest texts of some of them, the
various quarto editions printed in his own lifetime, were
hard to locate and obtain for use as copy, and scarcely
seemed necessary to the printers anyway. After all, the
folio versions of the plays were much easier to come by, and
appealed more to the eye. The first of these, printed in
1623 by Isaac Jaggard and Edward Blount, was no longer
commonly available by 1700, but three new folio editions had
succeeded it. What is hard for us to understand in retro-
spect is that Shakespeare was, for the early eighteenth
century, merely a very good recent playwright. A newer
edition is--must be--a better edition; spelling and punctu—
ation conventions were changing, words were becoming obso-
lete, or their meanings altered, and readers wanted their
texts to reflect these trends toward "normal modernization"
(McKerrow 105). When the Second Folio appeared in 1632,
the Third in 1663 and 1664, and finally the Fourth in 1685
(well into the period of John Dryden's career), readers and
libraries alike gladly replaced the old with the new. No
less a library than the Bodleian actually sold its copy of
the First Folio for a pittance when the Third became
available. Nichol Smith writes, "No one at this time gave
any thought to the authority of the First Folio" (Shake-

speare 30). And even as late as 1765, Thomas Tyrwhitt could

10

write, in his Observations and Conjectures Upon Some

Passages 3; Shakespeare, "As I had formerly read Him [Shake-

 

speare], with more attention to his text, than is usually
given to the works of a modern Author. . .." At the begin-
ning of the century especially, textual authority was hardly
an issue.

Neoclassic principles were an issue, however; Brian
Vickers notes the well-documented effect of the returning
Stuart King and his Court from their long stay in France
after the Civil War, and in particular their effect on
Shakespeare's reception. Cultural reverberations from the
return "produced a tension between an idolatry for our
greatest dramatist and the highly developed critical con-
cepts of rules, decorum, propriety, the unities, and so on--
that amalgam of Aristotle and Horace borrowed from the
French seventeenth century (who had themselves borrowed it
from the Italian sixteenth century) which was to determine
Neoclassical attitudes to Shakespeare for several gener—
ations" (1:4). This tension, Vickers suggests, was more
readily resolved by changing the poet than "the taste of the
age" (5). Such turn-of-the-century neoclassicists as Thomas
Rymer and Jeremy Collier criticized Shakespeare, often
bitterly, for supposed violations of decorum and poetic
rules, and for his failure to observe "poetic justice." The
innocent Cordelia simply should not have been killed. For
critics such as these, Vickers writes, Shakespeare "had to

be attacked more often than praised" (2:1).

11

It must not be conceived that no Neoclassicists
defended Shakespeare; those who did, Vickers notes, readily
found such strategies as blaming his faults on his era,
ignoring them for the richness of his characters, or cher-
ishing them for their testimony that his genius was possible
because he knew no rules (9). But his detractors were
legion, and they cried for alterations. Their efforts cer-
tainly changed the texts. The argument can be made, how-
ever, that the large changes wrought upon Shakespeare by
deliberate adaptation and alteration were scarcely more
drastic than some of the small changes that crept into the
text by omission and error, and which proved much harder in
the end to identify and correct. There was virtually no
Shakespeare textual scholarship before the eighteenth cen-
tury, Vickers reports, and no real "editing." Regarding the
three reprintings of the First Folio, with successive and
often clumsy correction, "it is too early to speak of
'editing' Shakespeare, if by that we mean a systematic
review of the text and the authorities for it," or any
attempt to gloss unfamiliar words or usages (1:11).

The eighteenth century began with major changes in
editors' approaches to texts. When Nicholas Rowe first
attempted what we would now call a scholarly edition of
Shakespeare, the opportunity lying before him was without
precedent, and was to be forever without equal. Rowe could
not have known in 1709 that the playwright then generally
considered a recent and rough-hewn genius would be univer-

sally acknowledged at the century's end to be the premier

12

English poet. Although Rowe certainly appreciated Shake-
speare's merit, and judged him worthy, finally, of a com-
plete and corrected edition of his plays, the editor could
not have predicted the enormous scholarly response his own
effort would stimulate. Vickers has called him "the most

' and while

disseminated Shakespeare critic before Johnson,‘
Rowe's approach to editing was a selective, intrusive,
"liberal" view, nonetheless "as the century advanced the
norm adjusted itself to Rowe" (2:9).

Rowe had the pioneer's privilege. All of Shakespeare
lay open to him; his entire landscape comprised the scat-
tered quartos and the four Folio editions, and though they
were not exactly virgin territory, neither were they settled
lands by any means. Compositors' errors, compounded with
each successive Folio, needed now to be detected and the
original readings restored. But Rowe was more interested in
producing a readable and performable edition of the plays
than in establishing any kind of authority for his text. As
Nichol Smith has put it, "Rowe had no suspicion of the
textual problems awaiting his successors" (Essays xxviii).
Emulating the Folio publishers before him, he took the most
recent edition, the Fourth Folio, as his copy-text. He
revised what he found there, but his emendations were less
the result of an exhaustive survey than of a desultory
glance. In other words, he did what the printers before him
had done. As McKerrow has put it, the edition was just

another example of the "normal modernization still conti-

13

nuing" (105). But, however leisurely his effort, Rowe did
refer to the earliest editions, and in this exertion he was
the first. For Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet be consulted the
quartos as well, adding lines that had been omitted in the
Folios (Vickers 15). He made corrections in the text where
he could amend an error, and conjectures when he could not.
That there were fewer of the former and more of the latter
than a full collation could have justified is far less
important than his having "made the first start" (Krutch
284). His most important contribution was to give the text

' adding dramatis personae,

"the shape of a modern edition,‘
correct entrance and exit directions, act and scene
divisions, localities, and an account of Shakespeare's life
(Vickers 2:15).

What Rowe did not do was to improve very much "the
mangled condition of Shakespeare," as Theobald put it in his
1733 edition. The next attempt after Rowe's was Alexander
Pope's. As he was embarking on his project, his friend
Francis Atterbury wrote him,

I have found time to read some parts of Shakespeare

which I was long acquainted with. I protest to you, in

an hundred places I cannot construe him, I don't under-
stand him. The hardest part of Chaucer is more intel-
ligible to me than some of those Scences, not merely
thro the faults of the Edition, but the Obscurity of

the Writer: for Obscure he is, & a little (not a

little) enclin'd now and then to Bombast, whatever

Apology you may have contriv'd on that head for him

[Vickers 2:7].

In some ways Pope did better than Rowe, and in others worse.

He consulted more quartos, but what he restored, and what

14

new passages he elected to omit depended more upon his own
taste than any settled editorial philosophy. Such emen-
dations "have caused him to be looked on as an injudicious
meddler" (McKerrow 118). Not that there was any learned
theory of editing to be found in his day; those critics who
did comment upon Rowe's edition, Charles Gildon for one, did
not discuss textual matters. Criticism was moving forward--
Addison began to argue against the tenets of strict Neoclas-
sicism, "poetic justice" in Spectator No. 40, for example—-
but textual scholarship was not yet in the air. Some, like
George Sewell, called for Shakespeare's plays just as Shake-
speare wrote them, but he was arguing against adaptation,
and probably did not really consider the implications of
textual authority (Vickers 2:15, 272, 327).

If Pope's faults were many and his emendations arbi-
trary, at least his concern for a corrected text was one
worth sharing. He had "a wrong idea of his duties," notes
Nichol Smith, but "he made a great advance on Rowe,"
creating in some senses "our first thorough edition" (Shake-
speare 33, 35). He was the first to make an appreciable use
of the the quartos, for example. Writing in his Peface
against "the many blunders and illiteracies of the first
Publishers" of Shakespeare's works, Pepe calls attention to
the poor quality of the quartos due to

the excessive carelessness of the press. Each page is

so scandalously false spelled, and almost all the lear-

ned or unusual words so intolerably mangled that it's
plain there either was no Corrector to the press at all

or one totally illiterate. If any were supervised by
[Shakespeare] himself I should fancy the two parts of

15

Henry £1, and Midsummer-Night's Dream might have been
so, because I find no other printed with any exactness;
and (contrary to the rest) there is very little vari—
ation in all the subsequent editions of them.

Pope goes on to blame all the additions and deletions he
does not care for on the poor taste of the actors who put
Shakespeare's work through the press (Vickers 410). Then he
makes a statement which, however little he heeded it him-
self, nonetheless represents a fair if early notion of an

editor's proper duties:

This is the state in which Shakespeare's writings lye
at present, for since the above-mentioned Folio [1623]
all the rest have implicitly followed it without having
recourse to any of the former, or ever making the
comparison between them. 'It is impossible to repair
the Injuries already done him; too much time has
elaps'd, and the materials are too few. In what I have
done I have rather given a proof of my willingness and
desire than of my ability to do him justice. I have
discharg'd the dull duty of an Editor to my best
judgment, with more labour than I expect thanks, with a
religious abhorrence of all Innovation, and without any
indulgence to my private sense or conjecture. The
method taken in this Edition will show it self. The
various reading are fairly put in the margin so that
every one may compare 'em, and those I have prefer'd
into the Text are constantly £3 fide Codicum, upon
authority [Vickers 2:414].

Pope's first edition appeared in 1723. By 1726 it had
come under attack from various writers, none so able or
determined as Lewis Theobald, whose treatise Shakespeare
Restored: ng‘g Specimen gf the Many Errors, As well Com-
mitted, gs Unamended, by M£;_£2£g.l£_fli§_kg£g Edition 2f

this Poet was printed that year. He set out to offer emen-

dations of his own, but with Pope's example before him he

16

was able to announce a more defensible format, intending

to quote the Passages as they are read, with some part
of their Context, in Mr. Pope's Edition; and likewise
to prefix a short Account of the Business and Circum-
stances of the Scenes from which the faulty Passages
are drawn; that the readers may be inform'd at a single
View, and judge of the Strength and Reason of the
Emendation without a Reference to the Plays themselves
for that purpose. But this will be in no kind neces-
sary where Faults of the Press are only to be correc-
ted. Where the Pointing is wrong, perhaps that may not
be alone the Fault of the Printer, and therefore I may
sometimes think myself obliged to assign a Reason for
my altering it.. . . Wherever our Poet receives an
Alteration in his Text from any of my corrections or
Conjectures I have throughout endeavor'd to support
what I offer by parallel Passages, and Authorities from
himself.
Theobald's significant aim was to assist the reader in
determining how much is Shakespeare, how much editor, in any
given passage. To complete this ambition Theobald said he
"distinguish'd the Nature of my Corrections by a short
marginal Note to each of them." And he expressed severe
objections to emendations which "substituted a fresh
reading" when "there was no Occasion to depart from the
Poet's text." For all of these considerations, he wrote,
"an Editor of Him [Shakespeare] ought to be a Critic upon
him too" (Vickers 2:427, 432, 431). Theobald was thus the
first truly conservative editor of Shakespeare, and unfortu-
nately the last for quite some time. In a letter of 8 April
1729 to William Warburton, who would have done well to heed
it, Theobald outlined the function of the careful editor,
pledging "to make the smallest deviations that I can pos-

sibly from the text; never to alter at all where I can by

any means explain a passage into sense; not ever by any

17

emendations to make the Author better when it is probable
the text came from his own hands " [458].

Theobald's first edition of Shakespeare appeared in
1733, followed by a second in 1740. J. Isaacs writes, "His
edition of 1733 makes him the great pioneer of serious
Shakespeare scholarship" (306). Oddly enough, despite his
attacks on Pope, and despite the fact that he listed Pope's
as one of the "Eiditions of No Authority," he based his text
on Pope's, and as Nichol Smith notes, that edition served as
Theobald's authority "far too much" (Shakespeare 40). The
gains he made in the discipline of textual scholarship
stagnated in the next few years as Hanmer and Warburton
issued their own editions in 1744 and 1747. These were
strongly characteristic of the "selective theory of editing"
(McKerrow 130), the species of editing according to taste
that Theobald had argued against. Nichol Smith is correct
to speak of Theobald as moving the art of textual scholar-
ship forward, and Hanmer somewhat backward, even if he does
caution, "It is easy to underestimate the value of Hanmer's
edition" (Essays xxviii). And even Warburton's edition has
its redeeming qualities. He provoked a vigorous negative
response, and, as Vickers argues, "in answering him, critics
were in fact engaged in the process of restoring Shake-
speare's text" (4:40).

It was during this period of textual backsliding that
the EM began to move into the field of literary criticism

and scholarship. Its editors and correspondents turned

18

their attention gradually to Shakespeare's unintelligible
lines, taking up the matter of emendations, conjectures,

illustrations (we would call them "explanations"), and

parallel passages in Shakespeare's sources in a grand effort

to "restore" their poet's words. This was the time when
Johnson, soon to have his Miscellaneous Observations gg_
Macbeth published by Cave, was effectually editor of the
magazine, when Johnson and Hawkesworth were Cave's "coadju-

" when Hawkesworth was beginning to review books—-some

tors,
of them on Shakespeare--and to reprint selected portions in
the magazine. Guided by these two men of letters, the EM

was helping to educate its readers in their growing desire

to appreciate England's greatest poet. At the GM, Johnson

refined the editorial skills that were to produce the first

Shakespeare combining the strengths of all its predecessors.

When Johnson left, Hawkesworth began his reviews, and
encouraged readers to participate by printing their sug-
gestions, their etymologies, their anecdotes. Isaacs
writes, "From the 1760's onward scholarship moved with

lightning pace"; a tremendous amount of new material was

becoming available, and an "interlocking of scholars and new

fact" catalyzed the new discipline (309). Thanks largely to

Hawkesworth, one medium through which this material was

transmitted was the Gentleman's Magazine.

19

 

iii

The Gentleman's Magazine contains, as has been shown,
the most important collection of literary and critical arti-
cles and letters of any periodical during the crucial early
years of Shakespeare scholarship. Its editorial format
virtually guaranteed that excerpts from significant and
controversial publications, as well as correspondence from
amateurs and critics who were as yet unpublished, would find
their way into its pages. Many of these items, as the
following chapters will show, have played a direct part in
establishing Shakespeare's text. Few, however, are known to
scholars today. The frenzy with which the effort moved
forward those early years helped hide the traces of many who
contributed. Later, when the furor subsided, subsequent
editors made their way as best they could through the con-
fusion. As Horace Howard Furness lamented in the Preface to
his 1913 New Variorum Edition a: A Midsummer Night's Dream,
"The successive winnowings are all forgot, to which the text
has been subject for nigh two hundred years. Never again
can there be such harvests as were richly garnered by Rowe,
Theobald, and Capell, and when to these we add Steevens and
Malone of more recent times, we may rest assured that the
gleaning for us is of the very scantiest, and reserved only
for the keenest and most skilful eyesight" (lO:xxi).

Some of these fruitful emendations reached their
first large audience in the EM; many saw print nowhere else,

and have since been forgotten. For these latter contri-

20

butions, oblivion is not necessarily a just fate; the rescue
of but a few insightful pieces of textual scholarship will
justify the effort exerted to find them. In other
instances, suggestions of dubious merit may nevertheless
contribute to our understanding of the progress of Shake—
speare scholarship, and therefore deserve inclusion in a
thorough study. For still others, the contributors have
remained unknown or, worse, been wrongly identified;
Steevens and Malone are today remembered for emendations
they borrowed from amateurs with names like Kynaston and
Holt White. Here of course the record should be set
straight. All oversights, in other words, regarding Shake-
speare textual scholarship during this unique period must be
corrected by any available means. Such is the purpose of
this dissertation.

The GM contributions to Shakespeare studies actually
should come under four heads, only one of which concerns
textual scholarship and, hence, is discussed in the chapters
below. First, articles and letters of literary criticism
often appeared, many of them about Shakespeare's plays.
Second, a great exchange of information, much of it anec-
dotal or traditional, occupied many columns devoted to
readers' queries and responses. For each item from these
two categories, complete references to GM volume and page
numbers appear in the Appendix following chapter 6. The
third type of contribution comprises the emendations, illus-
trations, and identifications of source passsages which

together form a comprehensive approach--given the state of

21

the art then--to textual scholarship. Within this category,
readers' suggestions, editors' reviews, and authors' trea-
tises all found places in the EM.

I have collected every emendation and every explanatory
note to be found in the pages of the EM from 1731 through
1785, the year after Johnson's death. These constitute the
primary entries in the chapters ahead. I have also con-
sulted the variorum editions of Shakespeare, particularly
the New Variorum Series begun by Furness in 1871, to learn
whether the items selected by the §M_editors have become
part of the received body of Shakespeare scholarship, and
whether their authors have received proper credit. The
reports in the variorum editions, together with other per-
tinent sources as needed, make up the secondary commentary
in the entries below.

There appears also in the EM a fourth species of Shake-
speare scholarship I have not included in my discussion.

Two major contributors, Thomas Holt White and Sir Walter
Rawlinson, along with a few less active correspondents,
reported many passages they considered parallels to various
classical verses. The dispute over what these similarities
meant--whether Shakespeare did or did not read and imitate
the classical authors--inspired two important treatises, one
on each side of the issue. Peter Whalley's 1748 Enquiry
i££2_£hg Learning gf Shakespeare, which was reviewed and
excerpted in that year's QM, took the position that Shake-

speare was familiar with the classics, and indeed had

22

written a translation of Ovid (18:113). On the other side
was Richard Farmer's Essgy_gg the Learning 2£_Shakespeare,
published in 1767 and reviewed in that year's QM (37:121).
Farmer argued that Shakespeare's apparent familiarity with
classical authors could actually be traced to translations
by his contemporaries. Rawlinson had read Farmer's book,
but defended his "imitations" by noting "that most of the
following extracts are made from authors of whom it does not
appear there was any translation in the days of Shakespeare;
which precludes all possibility of his having come at a
knowledge of such authors through the medium of his mother
tongue. Where translations were to be had (as Dr. Farmer
has amply proved) he would not barely imitate, but borrow."
Rawlinson offered his examples "as instances at least of a
close coincidency, if not amounting to certain marks of
imitation" (50:518). As contributor "A.C.'s" response to
Holt White reveals, even contemporaries were favoring the

agency of 'coincidence" over "imitation." "A.C." argues at

some length that "there are innumerable thoughts that must

' and asks whether the

be common to mankind in all ages,‘
statement "This is fine weather" can be counted a case of
plagiarism (55:499). I have excluded the parallels from my
discussion because their utility is finally very slight to
the establishment of text. As with other references in the
GM to Shakespeare, however, I have listed the page refer-
ences for these suggested parallels in the Appendix, where

interested readers may now find them.

The Gentleman's Magazine began in 1731; my investi-

23

gation stops with Johnson's death because with him ended an
era in the development of textual editing techniques.
Johnson was the last, more or less, of those editors influ-
enced by the practice McKerrow has called "the selective
theory of editing" (130). Those who came after, notably
George Steevens, Edmond Malone, Isaac Reed, and the younger
James Boswell, adhered distinctly to a more modern school,
practicing more thorough and more careful collation, and
less imaginative revision. To extend my kind of investi-
gation much beyond 1785 would invoke the law of diminishing
returns. The original items in the early QM came mostly
from individual correspondents, many of whom probably
pursued Shakespeare as a hobby, and who had to yield the
arena now to those who made a business of him. For the
myriad small contributions our only record is the EM. Their
suggestions constitute about half of the entries in the
following chapters.

Often, as I have noted, the EM examined the books
written by those for whom Shakespeare's text was a profes-
sional interest; the entries on them are often much more
complex. The contents of these books were often excerpted
in reviews, at first by Hawkesworth, and after 1773, by John
Duncombe. For these, of course, the GM is not our only
source, but a true picture of the magazine's contribution to
Shakespeare scholarship cannot faithfully be drawn without
including them. In the most important of these instances,

the review of Thomas Tyrwhitt's Observations and Conjectures

24

(1765), I consulted the original text to perform my own
collations, for naturally the EM and the New Variorium
(hereafter N1) promulgate error themselves. Perhaps more
important than the book excerpts themselves, however, are
the comments of the reviewers, Hawkesworth and Duncombe;
these too have become entries below. And then, because of
Johnson's connection with Hawkesworth and the GM generally,
and because Johnson's figure in particular looms too large
and casts too long a shadow to be taken lightly, I have
frequently examined his work as well. Invariably I con-
sulted his own words when other critics referred to his
opinion; my own such references are made to the Yale volumes
oprohnson 23 Shakespeare, edited by Arthur Sherbo. Finally
I examined each controverted passage in a modern edition to
see how it has come through the last century. My selection
is the Riverside edition, chosen for its admirably conser-
vative textual policy, its excellent Textual Notes, and its
ready availability.

All of this information is arranged below in a manner
designed to make it most useful. Thus a typical entry
quotes the Shakespeare lines in question; then the EM
reviewer's comments, if any; other pertinent commentary, if
any, from the author of the suggested emendation, or from
Johnson, or both; occasionally a definition from the QED;
the N! annotation; and finally the current judgment as
represented in the Riverside edition, if that judgment
differs from or sheds light upon the commentary it follows.

I have arranged the passages together with others from

25

the same play, regardless of the relative dates of the
original entries in the EM, so the emendations for each play
can be comprehended at once. No other arrangement promised
accessibility to all readers. Unfortunately, this has
required me to abandon all attempts at narrative continuity
in chapters 2-5; it is my hope that the increased usefulness
of the discussions will lessen the effect of this disad—
vantage. Plays are arranged in chapters according to their
type as the Riverside editors have classified them:
Comedies, Histories, Tragedies, and Romances. Order within
each type also reflects the Riverside practice.

My copy-text throughout is that of the First Folio
(1623); in the rare event that this Folio does not contain
the passage or lines under discussion, I identify the copy-
text explicitly. I found I could not rely on all commen-
tators' quotations of Shakespeare, nor on the EM version
thereof. As I have said, the various eighteenth-century
editors themselves generally found their source text in
whatever edition had appeared most recently. For the twin
purposes, then, of external authority and internal consis-
tency, I accepted Johnson's judgment when he said of the
Folios, "I collated them all at the beginning, but after-
wards used only the first" (Yale 7:96). At times this means
I must backtrack to explain precisely which text a commen-
tator had been reading, but that is a small price to pay for
consistency and predictability.

I have, however, introduced some slight changes to make

26

readers' location of references more simple. The names of
some characters have been silently changed, for example, to
conform to modern usage, since most readers can find
"Touchstone" sooner than "Clowne," or "Countess" sooner than
"Old Lady" in AllLs‘ngl. Lineation and act and scene
divisions follow the Riverside edition. Certain publication
conventions, as for example the use of italic type where we
would use single marks of quotation today, have been
silently altered to reflect modern practice. Finally, I
have silently regularized the spelling of Shakespeare's name
throughout.

For all the plays save twelve, N1 is the variorum text
consulted. The remaining plays still await the completion
of their N1_editions, so for these twelve, I consulted Isaac
Reed's 1813 edition; because it remains largely the work
Reed inherited from Steevens, it is frequently known as
Reed's 1813 Steevens, or the Second Variorum. Only £351;
gigs, then generally considered not to be Shakespeare's,
prompted no emendations in the magazine within the years I
have specified, and hence is absent below.

Along the way I have attempted to identify anonymous or
pseudonymous authors, including the many who sign their
correspondence with initials. Success rate in this endeavor
has not been high. Such attributions as are possible have
come about, in general, because of the work of the Nichols
family of publishers. John Nichols' Rise and Progress gf
the Gentleman's Magazine (1821) and, more recently, the

invaluable work, The Nichols File 2; "The Gentelman's Mag -

27

zine," edited by James N. Kuist (1982), provide lists iden-
tifying all authors the Nichols associates were able to
track down. Authors not identified may be assumed to be
missing from these lists. Proper credit is given with each
successful identification, including of course those few I
was able to attribute myself.

Omitted from consideration below are those plays
included in the Third and Fourth Folios, and hence thought
by some eighteenth-century critics to be Shakespeare's work,
but now known not to be his; of these, only The History gf
Thomasl Lord Cormwell and Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham
received any significant attention in the Gentleman's Maga-
gigg, and then only because Malone included them in his

Second Supplement.

Short Titles and Editions

In the text to follow, the Gentleman's Magazine will be
referred to as the EM. References will be in the form of
volume, page (in parentheses). To assist the memory,
readers may note that the year of the volume and that
volume's number are always related by the number 30, such
that Volume 1 contains the 1731 issues, Volume 2, 1732,
Volume 18, 1748, Volume 35, 1765, and so on. After 1782 the
magazine expanded its format so as to require two parts for
each volume, Part 1 comprising January through June, and
Part 2 the rest of the year. Therefore, for Volumes 53, 54,

and 55, it will be necessary to refer to volume and part,

28

 

for example (53,2:933). The New Variorum series, begun in
1871 and as yet incomplete, will be referred to as N1; a
complete list equating volume numbers, plays included, and
dates of publication, will be found in the Bibliography. In
general all editions will be indicated by italics, for
example, £1 for the First Folio, 92 for a Second Quarto;
Johnson's 1765; 1813; Riverside; and so forth. Addition-
ally, the following short titles will be used, including the

volume and page number of their first notice in the EM:

Enquiry--Enguiry into the Learning 2: Shakespeare, Peter
Whalley (18:133).

Essay--Essay 23 the Learning 2: Shakespeare, Richard Farmer
(37:121).

Dictionary-55 Dictionagy gf the English Language, &c.,
Samuel Johnson, 1755.

Observations—-Observations and.Conjectures upon Some
Passages gf Shakespeares, Thomas Tyrwhitt (35:582).

23 Shakespeare-—Critica1 Observations upon Shakespeare, John
Upton (16:224).

Reliques--Reliques ganncient English Poetry, Thomas Percy
(35:181).

Remarks--RemarksJ Critical and Illustrative, 2g the Text and

 

 

Notes gf the Last Edition gf Shakespeare, Joseph
Ritson (53,2:593).
Revisal--A Revisal gf Shakespeare's Text [Benjamin Heath],

(35:65).

29

Supplement--Supplement £2 the Edition 2f Shakespeare's
Plays, &c., Edmond Malone (50:375).
Second Supplement--Appendix £2 the Supplement £2 the Edition

gf Shakespeare (unpublished), Edmond Malone (53,1:505).

Finally, a list of contemporary editions and treatises
on Shakespeare may prove useful. The four Folios and all

quartos appeared before the eighteenth century; this list

begins with Rowe.

 

 

 

Rowe (first) 1709
Rowe (second) 1714
Pope (first) 1725
Theobald (Restored) 1726
Pope (second) 1728
Theobald (first) 1733
Theobald (second) 1740
Hanmer 1744
Anonymous 1745
Warburton 1747
Whalley (Enguiry) 1748
Heath (Revisal) 1765
Percy (Religues) 1765
Johnson . 1765
Tyrwhitt (Observations) 1765
Johnson 17653
Farmer (Essay) 1767
Capell 1768
Johnson 1768
Johnson and Steevens 1773
Johnson and Steevens 1778
Malone (Supplement) 1780
Malbne (Sec. Supplement) 1783
Ritson (Remarks) 1783
Johnson and Steevens 1785
Heron [Pinkerton] (Letters) 1785
Malone 1790
Steevens 1793
Rann 1794?
Reed's Steevens 1803
Reed's Steevens 1813
Boswell's Malone 1821

30

CHAPTER II

THE COMEDIES

THE COMEDY OF ERRORS

III.i.105 Balthazar. For slander lives vpon succession;

For euer hows'd, where it gets possession.

Malone's Sgpplement, published in 1780 and reviewed in the

 

QM for that year, was intended asva companion volume to the
most recent Johnson-Steevens edition, the 1118, and con-
tained new observations on Shakespeare, both critical and
textual. Regarding this passage, Malone declares, "Posses-

sion is pronounced as a trisyllable; and therefore the line

I '1

should be printed: 'where it, &c., instead of the

"where't" he finds in the 1778.

Immediately following his quotation of Malone's remark, the
GM reviewer, who is presumably John Duncombe, adds his
opinion: "We think it should also be printed 'housed,' &c"
(50:376). It is difficult to comprehend how Duncombe be-
lieves that the two syllables of "housed" can "also" fit

into this line of pentameter if "possession" commands three

syllables.
Evidently this particular couplet has met with frequent

31

revision; since the days of £1, editors seem to have
tinkered with the verses to make them match. Johnson con—
centrates upon the first line, finding it two syllables shy
(Yale 7:355). For his part, Reed ignores the Malone propo-
sal and Duncombe's addition as well. For 1813 he adopts the
reading of £2, which adds "once" after "where" (20:394-5).
Thomas Tyrwhitt, who always used E2, is given credit in the

1813 for finding this reading.

Riverside mentions no problem with the couplet, printing the

lines as they appear in El (92).

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW

Ind.ii.17 Sly. Am not I Christopher Slie, old
Sies sonne of Burton-heath . . . Aske Marrian Hacket

the fat Alewife of Wincot, if shee know me not:

Joseph Ritson's Remarks, published in 1783, attracted the
notice of that year's QM, which reprints his observations on
this passage and several others in a large excerpt for the
book review department. He is referred to only as "Mr. R."
throughout the review. On this present passage Ritson
quotes Steevens ("read 'Barton-heath'; Barton and Woodman-
cot, vulgarly Woncot, being both in Gloucestershire, near
the residence of Justice Shallow") and Thomas Warton (who

mentions "Wilncotte" as the full name of a village in

32

Warwickshire with which, he says, Shakespeare was well
acquainted; "the house kept by our genial hostess still
remains, but is at present a mill."). Ritson's only contri—
bution here, amid much sarcasm, informs the public, "Burton-
Dorset is a village in Warwickshire." His remarks about
Warton's familiar reference to the "genial hostess" and to
what villages Shakespeare knew very well are stinging
indeed. The Q! reviewer, presumably Duncombe, evidently
feels that this is Ritson's characteristic tone, for he
writes, "These Remarks can proceed from no other than the
virulent pen of Wartono-Mastix, the modern Zoilus, who,
however just his criticisms, by the manner in which he
conveys them, cannot fail to disgust his readers and irri-

tate his opponents" (53,2:593-4).

1813 quotes Ritson's contribution, but Malone appears to
have settled the matter by noting, "as Dr. Farmer and Mr.
Steevens have observed," that "among Sir A. Cockayn's Egggg.
there is an epigram on Sly and his ale, addressed to Mr.
Clement Fisher of Wincot." Malone notes further that there
is a village in Warwickshire called "Barton on the Heath"

(9:30).

Riverside reports that parish records of Wincot, "a small

 

village about four miles from Stratford," locate a family of

Hacketts there in the 1590's (112).

33

I.i.10 Lucentio. Pisa renowned for graue Citizens
Gaue me my being, and my father first
A Merchant of great Trafficke through the world:
Vincentio's come of the Bentiuolij,

Vincentio's sonne,

Most commentators, writes Reed in his 181;, accept Pope's
emendation of the last line quoted, "Vincentio his son," as
though it were the sole text; Reed himself has adopted it
(9:40). Thomas Tyrwhitt, whose Observations was reviewed in
the 1765 and 1766 EM, begins here with Pope's version and

suggests that the passage be read and pointed thus,

and my father first,
A merchant of great traffic thro' the world,
Vincentio, come of the Bentivolii.

Vincentio his son,

thus beginning a new sentence with the last line. The GM
review continues by quoting Tyrwhitt, "'Vincentio his son,'

is the same as 'Vincentio's son'" (36:24).

1813 incorporates the emendation into its text, with proper

attribution (9:40).

Riverside attributes the significant change, "Vincentio's

come" to "Vincentio, come, to Hanmer; about Tyrwhitt's

altered punctuation it is silent (140).

34

I.ii.28 Grumio. Nay 'tis no matter sir, what he leges in

Latine.

Tyrwhitt reads, "what be lgggs." Johnson had left the line
alone; Hawkesworth understands why as he comments in the
1766 EM review that Petruchio's Italian has been misunder-
stood by Grumio, and that the whole humor in the passage
consists in poking fun at Grumio's ignorance of Latin.
Tyrwhitt's suggestion, notes Hawkesworth, would not under-
score the humor at all, but overturn it (36:23). "Alas!
poor Shakespeare," he writes, appropriating the line with

which Tyrwhitt had closed his Observations (54).

1813 quotes Tyrwhitt's observation without including
Hawkesworth's commentary from the GM. Steevens remarks, "I
suppose, what he alleges in Latin. Petruchio has just been
speaking Italian to Hortensio, which Grumio mistakes for the
other language." Next Reed quotes [John] M.[onck] Mason as
arguing in favor of Tyrwhitt and against Steevens; lastly,
Reed prints Steevens' reply, "I was well aware that Italian
was Grumio's native language, but was not, nor am now,
certain of our author's attention to this circumstance"

(9:54—5).

Riverside notes, "'1eges: alleges" (117).

35

THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA

I.ii.92 Lucetta. There wanteth but a Meane to fill your
Song.

"Omega,"

a perceptive critic whose identity remains unknown,
writes to the 1784 GM to comment on three separate passages
in this play. He explains "mean" by writing, "The 'tenor'

part is so called in the old books of psalmody" (54,1:407).

"Old" was the correct epithet even in "Omega's" time; OED

lists this usage as occurring no more recently than 1721.

1813 cites Steevens for the "tenor" gloss, evidently unaware

of "Omega's" precedence (4:193).

I.ii.130 Lucetta. What, shall these papers lye, like Tel-
Tales here?
Julia. If you respect them; best to take them
vp.
Lucetta. Nay, I was taken vp, for laying them
downe.
Yet here they shall not lye, for catching cold.

Julia. I see you haue a months minde to them.

Referring to "a month's mind," "Omega" writes in the same
correspondence as above, "If I mistake not, the expression
is still used in the same sense, i.e. you want to have them,

have a liking to them" (54,1:407).

36

1813 quotes several commentators, including Johnson and
Steevens, to the effect that the phrase is used in connec-
tion with obsequies and remembrance (4:196-7). Johnson
reprints Zachary Grey's gloss ("an 'anniversary' in times of
popery"), and remarks that the phrase "in the ritual sense
signifies not desire or inclination, but remembrance, yet I
suppose this is the true original of the expression" (Yale

"

7:163). OED reports that the phrase meant, allusively, an

' from Shakespeare's time

inclination, a fancy, a liking,'
well into the nineteenth century. Now whether Johnson meant
that the "true original" was "inclination" or Grey's "anni-
versary" is not immediately clear; if "Omega" understood him
to mean the former, then perhaps his note comes in response

to Johnson's. In any event, Reed appears unaware of

"Omega's" contribution.

Riverside glosses "month's mind" as "strong desire" (150).

 

II.i.169 Speed. All this I speak in print, for in print I

found it.

For his third note in the 1784 GM, "Omega" provides the
following explanation for "in print": "Exactly--with preci-
sion." He goes on to report that the expression is still
used with reference to matters of dress, arrangement of
furniture, and mode of speaking (54,1:407). Although few
eighteenth-century references are listed, QED reports

instances of "Omega's" definition from Lyly's time until as

37

late as 1881, including this very passage in Two Gentlemen.
Furthermore, the specific reference "Omega" makes to dress

and furniture is exactly what OED finds from 1621 onward.

According to 1813, Steevens is the one who suggests "with
exactness" as the meaning of the phrase. "Omega" remains

unacknowledged (4:212).

Riverside notes, "speak in print: speak precisely" (153).

 

II.iv.209 Proteus. 'Tis but her picture I haue yet beheld,
And that hath dazel'd my reasons light:
But when I looke on her perfections,

There is no reason, but I shall be blinde.

The Reverend John Kynaston, who invariably signed his fre-
quent contributions with the letter "Q," writes to the 1775
GM to correct a couple of "trivial errors" in Johnson's
edition (surely the 1111). One such error he finds here,
where Johnson has called the use of the word "picture" a
"slip of attention, for he had seen her in the last scene,
and in high terms offered her his service" (Yale 7:166).
Kynaston responds, "Protheus uses the word "picture" figura-
tively"; here it means, he writes, "her exterior form only."
In the following line, accordingly, "her perfections" refer
to her "graces of mind" (45:368-9). While QED does not
specifically support this extension of the meaning of

"picture," Kynaston is probably right about what Shakespeare

38

had in mind. The attribution to Kynaston of the "Q" letters
can be found in the 1791 EM, in a letter from "R.B."
(61,2:1021). Kynaston's obituary appears in the 1783
volume, where he is described as "a gentleman whose friendly

labours have frequently embellished our magazine,' and as

"this valuable correspondent" (53,2:627-8).

1813 records Steevens as suggesting "outward form" for

"picture,' and Malone, "perfections of mind" for "perfec-

tions." Nowhere is Kynaston's clear precedence mentioned

(4:227—8).

Riverside notes, "picture: outer show" (156).

LOVE'S LABOURS LOST

V.ii.332 Berowne. To shew his teeth as white as Whales

bone.

Thomas Holt White, brother to the naturalist Gilbert White
of Selbourne, was another frequent correspondent to the EM.
His contributions, almost always signed "T.H.W." (Kuist 155;
Nichols lxxvii), treated of topics ranging from botany to
Shakespeare. For the passage above, Holt White finds, in
King Alfred's "Preface" to Orosius, that the sea mammal now

' and he

called a walrus was once known as a "horse-whale,'
assumes therefore that the "bone" Berowne refers to is the

walrus tusk. White sent this suggestion to the 1785 EM

39

(55,1:277). Holt White's remarks later appear, properly

attributed, in Reed's and Steevens' 1803 (5:334).

_1_acknow1edges Holt White's contribution, but without men-
tion of the EM or of "T.H.W.," the signature he always used

(14:262). Doubtless Furness found the note in Steevens.
Riverside's explanation follows this lead, but without

attribution (205).

V.ii.782 Queen. But more deuout then these are our respects
Haue we not bene, and therefore met your loues

In their owne fashion, like a merriment.

[Riverside's copy-text for Love's Labours Lost is the first

 

quarto edition, which appeared in 1598. Q1 reads, "then
this our respects"; Hanmer altered the Q1 phrase to read,

"than this in our respects."]

Tyrwhitt, whose source text is always 11, suggests we read,

But more devout than these are your respects

Have we not seen.

Tyrwhitt's solution to the crux, then, is to have the Queen
accuse Berowne and the others of disrespect. This excerpt

from Observations appears in the 1766 GM (36:22).

Furness quotes Tyrwhitt for the 11, without mention of
the GM, adding that perhaps simply transposing "these are"

to "are these" would be alteration enough (14:307-8).

4O

Riverside adopts Hanmer's emendation, placing his "in"

 

within the usual brackets (210). Hanmer was evidently alone

among his contemporaries in following Q1.
V.ii.896 Song. And Cuckow-buds of yellow hew.

In a review of his Enguiry in the 1748 GM, Peter Whalley is
quoted as writing, "Shakespeare plainly intended to distin-
guish each flower by an epithet expressive of its colour,
but the cuckow has no tincture of yellow." He offers his
opinion that, since crocuses are yellow, the "celebrated
'cuckow' song" should read, "crocus buds." Whalley observes
as well "that much of the obscurity of Shakespeare's plays,
in common with the comedies and satires of antiquity, is
caused by allusions familiar to all at the time of writing,
but since irretrievably lost." The alliterative excesses in
the fourth act of the present play, for example, are a

satire upon the writing of Lyly, according to Whalley

(18:113).

11 mentions not only the Whalley observation, but also
Steevens' response: "Crocus Eggs is a phrase unknown to
naturalists and gardeners" (14:316). The QM is unmentioned,
so Furness must have read Whalley's remarks in the original

text.

Riverside reports J. W. Lever's discovery that Shakespeare

took this flower's name from John Gerard's Herbal (printed

41

1597). No one, however, seems to have identified positively

what flower the name designates (212).
V.ii.920 Song. While greasie Ione doth keele the pot.

Matthew Wendall writes to the April 1760 GM to discuss the
meaning of "keel." Wendall (who signs his name "M. W-—-l"
in this letter) quotes the definition "cool" in Johnson's
Dictionary, from the Saxon caelan, but suggests instead that
we read "Cale" or "Kale," the "chief winter-wort." He
argues that Joan appears to be a cook, so her duty is not to
£221_but to 2311 the pot. Once it is boiling, she is more
likely to add vegetables like kale to the pot than to cool

" and

it (30:169). In May, however, correspondents "T.A.
"Eboracensis" write separate letters to report that the
cooking term "keel" is still used in Yorkshire ("Eboracen-
sis" signifies "one of Yorkshire" in the old denomination
for that district). It means specifically to cool a boiling
pot with the ladle, often by removing some of the pottage
and gradually pouring it back in (30:219).

Not long after this exchange, Rawligh Witlim sends a
letter to the June issue that provides much the same defini-
tion, but includes considerable sarcasm (30:276-7). Witlim
supports his definition from Johnson's Dictionary and from
Nathan Bailey's Dictionarum Brittanicum of 1730. Finally,

Wendall writes back in September, this time under his full

name (see also Sherbo, Additions 233, for the attribution to

 

42

 

Wendall of the April letter). Here he accepts the correc-
tion of the various correspondents, but objects to Witlim's
unscholarly tone (30:405-6). Years later, an "M.Y.R."
writes to the 1785 GM to correct Wendall's April 1760
letter, evidently not having seen the three subsequent

communications (55,2:952).

By the time the Love's Labours Lost volume of the N!
appeared, Murray's New English Dictionary (now 912) had been
completed; Furness simply lists its definition for "keel,"
which is similar to those above (14:318). Thus the dispute

remains unrecorded, save in the GM.

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM

I.i.93 Lysander. You haue her fathers loue, Demetrius:

Let me haue Hermiaes: do you marry him.

The GM excerpts from Tyrwhitt's Observations include his
suggestion that we read, "Let me have Hermia," deleting the

possessive inflection (36:24).

11 lists Tyrwhitt's emendation in the textual collation
notes without any further comment (10:15). Indeed, while
the suggestion certainly seems an equally sensible reading,
it is difficult to see how it is any better than the origi-

nal version, which has at least the advantage of authority.
Riverside follows 91 (1600) throughout the play; here, the

43

1 version is the same.

II.i.45 Robin. When I a fat and beane—fed horse beguile,

Neighing in likenesse of a silly foale.

Writing to the 1785 EM, Holt White wonders whether "filly

foal" might not be a better reading (55:278).

Although Holt White receives no credit, E1_lists "filly" as
the reading of Steevens, Malone, and virtually every
nineteenth-century editor. It is also the reading of Q1
(1600). According to N1, the folios, Q1, Rowe, and most
editors after him, through and including Johnson, read
"silly" (10:55). One wonders what prompted the later edi-
tors to switch to the 91 version, if it was not Holt White's

note in the EM.

Riverside follows 91.

II.i.1ll Queen. The Spring, the Sommer,
The childing Autumne, angry Winter change

Their wonted Liueries,

Holt White writes about the word "childing" in the 1785 EM.
He quotes a fragment from Fairfax's translation of Tasso,
"B. 18 Stanza 26," as follows: "Childed an hundreth
nymphes." He notes further that the term is an old one in

botany, used "when a small flower grows out of a large one"

44

(55:278). As usual, he signs his letter "T.H.W." This
commentary was reprinted by Steevens in his 1793, correctly
attributed to Holt White, after which it appears in the

Variorums.

Furness employs the Fairfax quotation in the N1, giving Holt
White the credit for it (10:68). There is no doubt that
Furness discovered the explanation in the Shakespeare edi-
tions he collated, and not in the EM, for he does not know

who "T.H.W." was; see the notes for III.ii.149 below.

Riverside differs somewhat and follows OED in glossing
"childing" as "fruitful (literally, pregnant)" (228). ED

quotes this line from Midsummer Night's Dream among its

usage examples.

II.ii.45 Lysander. 0 take the sence sweet, of my innocence,

Loue takes the meaning, in loues conference,

Tyrwhitt proposes to alter "takes" to "take" (36:22), sub-
stituting the subjunctive for the indicative mood. In his
original treatise he writes, "That is, Let love take the

meaning" (Observations 34).

I_1's textual notes list Tyrwhitt's reading as the only
variant ever offered for "takes"; Warburton had suggested
transposing "conference" and "innocence" (10:105). Johnson
was able to paraphrase the lines without resorting to

Warburton's transposition: "In the conversation of those who

45

 

are assured of each other's kindness, not suspicion but love

 

takes the meaning" (Yale 7:149). Tyrwhitt had thought
Johnson's reading "intelligible," but proposed his altera—
tion to make the line "connect well with the former"

(Observations 34).

Riverside explains the line much as Johnson does.

III.ii.149 Helena. Can you not hate me, as I know you doe,

But you must ioyne in soules to mocke me to?

The 1766 §M_review reports that Tyrwhitt would read "ill
souls" for "in souls" (36:22). Holt White's later sugges-
tion of "shoals" for "souls" appears in a letter to the 1785

magazine (55,1:278).

_1 actually cites "T.H.W." in the EM for the "shoals" emen-
dation; had any of the later eighteenth-century editors
mentioned Holt White's suggestion, Furness would probably
have discovered who "T.H.W." was. As it is, Steevens‘gglg1
happened to ignore this entry, so Furness remained in the
dark.

Also listed among the collations for these lines is
Tyrwhitt's reading, with the important distinction that
Furness faithfully sets off "ill souls" in commas (10:146),
marking it off as the appositive phrase Tyrwhitt intended it

to be (Observations 33). The GM editor was not so careful.

Riverside prints the original lines without comment.

46

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

The 1765 EM reprints a lengthy excerpt from Thomas Percy's
newly published Religues (without printing its title--the
work is only referred to as "a collection of old English
Ballads"). In one entry, Percy (his name is misprinted
'Perey') quotes his discussion of the source of this play,

which he claims is the ballad "Gernutus the Jew of Venice":

Others have supposed that it was taken
from an incident related by Leti in his life of
Pope Sixtus Vth, said to have happened upon
Drakes's having plundered Saint Domingo in
Hispaniola; but Drake's expedition was not made
till 1585, and it is certain that a play of 1hg
121 'representing the greediness of worldly
chusers, and bloody minds of usurers,' had been
exhibited at a play—house, called the Bull, before
the year 1579. The ballad, which was probably
prior to this play as well as Shakespeare's,
appears by the first stanza to come from an
Italian writer, who may reasonably be supposed to
have been a novelist, so that perhaps it is upon
the whole quite probable that Shakespeare copied
the same original with the authors of the ballad,

and the play of The Jew [35:182].
Years before, QM correspondent "T.S." had written about the

47

Sixtus V story. His letter, printed in May of 1754, came in
response to an article he had seen in a recent number of the
Connoiseur, which (as it turns out) was written by Percy.
"T.S." believes the ballad comes from an Italian novel also—-
it declares as much in the first stanza--but wonders which
one. He also wonders about the source of that part of the
story concerning Portia and the caskets (24:221). In July of
the same year, "Paleophilus" writes to give Warton the credit
for discovering the reference to the novel in the first
stanza of the ballad. Nonetheless, he writes, Warton argues
that the novel does not exist, because it has not been heard
of since; Warton believes Shakespeare took the plot from the

ballad (24:311).

According to £1, Percy printed a copy of the entire ballad in
The Connoiseur for 16 May 1754; Furness believes Percy got
the hint for this source from Warton's Observations gfl_£hg
Fairy Queen of that year. Furness also reprints Percy's
commentary on Leti's Sixtus V story, but reports at length

that later scholars have discredited this (7:287-297).

Riverside follows modern scholarship in assuming a blend of
two different folk tales, one of which Shakespeare probably
found in Ser Giovanni's 11 Pecorone of 1558, and the other,

probably in the Gesta Romanorum, translated in 1577. River-

 

side also identifies the author of Percy's "worldly chusers"

quotation as Stephen Gosson, writing in 1579 (250).

48

II.ix.17 Portia. To these iniunctions euery one doth sweare
That comes to hazard for my worthlesse selfe.
Arragon. And so haue I addrest me, fortune now

To my hearts hope:

According to the 9M review, Tyrwhitt thinks the text above

should read,

And so have I. Address me, fortune, now

To my heart's hope.

Thus Tyrwhitt substitutes a vocative for a subjunctive appeal

to fortune (36:22).

_1 reports Tyrwhitt's interpretation, but does not enter any

change into the copy-text or textual notes (7:114).

Riverside keeps the original text and explains, "addres'd me:

prepared myself" (266).

V.i.155 Nerissa. yet for your vehement oaths,

You should haue beene respectiue and haue kept it.

For the 1784 EM, "Omega" illustrates this passage by writing,

"i.e. have had more respect to your oath--been more observant

of it" (54:407).

El appears unaware of "Omega."

as one might suspect by now,
but would not favor his interpretation in any event because,

despite the etymon, to read "observant" here is to employ a

49

fairly modern understanding of the word "respective."
Furness cites G. L. Craik's English 21 Shakespear for an

older meaning, "mindful" or "considerate" (7:259. 254).

Riverside notes, "respective: careful" (281).

THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR
II.i.219 Host. will you goe An-heires?

The 1765 EM contains a review of Benjamin Heath's anonymously
published Revisal, including many of his observations on this
and other passages of Shakespeare. In this instance, after
listing the emendations of Warburton ("on, heris?"--Scotch,
he says, for "master"), "Tibbald" ("on here?"), and Hanmer

"on, hearts?"

("on, Mynheers?"), Heath offers one of his own:
He argues, "'Hearts' is an expression suited to the jovial
character of 'mine host,’ and when spelt the ancient way,

'herts, is very like the old corrupt reading" (35:66).

Heath's suggestion has apparently been appropriated by Stee-
vens, whom 181; quotes as writing, "For this substitution of
an intelligible for an unintelligible word, I am answerable."
Reed also offers Malone's suggestion, "and hear us," but it
is finally Heath's emendation--though Reed thinks it

Steevens'--that has become the 1813 text (5:75).

Riverside notes, "A crux. The most widely adopted emendation

is Theobald's Mynheers, Dutch for "sirs" (299). Note the

50

 

discrepancy between Heath's and Riverside's attribution of

 

"Mynheers."

III.i.17 Evans. To shallow Ruiers to whose falls: melodious

Birds sings Madrigalls:

The 1765 EM review of Percy's Religues quotes him as
attributing this song not to Shakespeare, as was customary,
but to Christopher Marlowe. The song, "The Passionate

Shepherd to his Love, together with Sir Walter Raleigh's
"The Nymph's Reply to the Shepherd," were both "generally
imputed to Shakespeare himself."‘ But Marlowe and Raleigh
truly wrote them, Percy argues, "for so says Isaac Walton in
the compleat angler, a book of great credit, first printed in
1653, and the same also passed for Marlowe's in the opinion
of his contemporaries." 0n the other hand, Percy also
includes Pericles among other works generally imputed to

Shakespeare in his lifetime, but, he writes, "of which he is

known not to have been the author" (35:182).

1813 notes that Warburton was among those attributing
Marlowe's lines to Shakespeare, and gives Percy credit for

finding the true authors' names in Walton's Compleat Angler
(5:111).

Riverside notes Shakespeare's debt to Marlowe (304).

51

III.ii.87 Host. I will to my honest Knight Falstaffe, and
drinke Canarie with him.
Ford. I thinke I shall drinke in Pipe-wine first

with him, Ile make him dance.

In an excerpt for the Observations review, the 1766 EM prints

 

Tyrwhitt's reading of "drink horn-pipe wine." Evidently, he
can make no sense of the expressions "drink in" or "Pipe-

' and sees here yet another opportunity for a jest on

wine,'
the cuckold's horns. Following this entry, the GM reviewer,
probably Hawkesworth, notes his own preference for the origi-
nal reading. He recalls that "pipe" is also "a vessel in
which wine is kept: Pipe-wine is kept in a pipe, and Ford
here, by a conceit common to Shakespeare, alludes to pipe[,]

the instrument of dancers music, and immediately adds, I'll

make him dance" (36:23).

Although 1811 takes notice of Tyrwhitt's emendation, Reed
agrees with Johnson's decision to retain the original
reading. Tyrwhitt's suggestion, and Hawkesworth's reply,
evidently prompted Johnson to take notice of the lines.

After he had passed over them in silence in his 116;, Johnson
prepared a note for the 1111; there he identifies the quibble
in the word "pipe," both a vessel for wine and a musical
instrument, as the whole point of the line (Yale 7:335), just
as Hawkesworth had. Reed adduces the commentary of several
critics to show that "drink in" is used to indicate copious

consumption (5:124). OED does not specifically support

52

"drink in" for this sense, but its citation of "drink off,"

' and "drink out" with this meaning lends credence

"drink up,‘
to Reed's claim. Neither Johnson nor Reed acknowledge Hawke-

sworth's precedence.

Riverside ignores "drink in" but follows the 11 reading,

glossing "pipe-wine" much as Johnson does (306).

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

I.i.78 Messenger. I see (Lady) the Gentleman is not in your

bookes.

In his 1784 letter to the QM, "Omega" explains "in your
books" to mean "in your good graces--has not your good

opinion" (54,1:407).

11 does not mention "Omega" or the EM in its notes for this
line; the opinions it records are more concerned with the
origin of the phrase than its meaning. "In your favor" is

the meaning generally agreed upon (12:16).

Riverside notes, "books: i.e., good books, favor" (333).

I.i.257 Benedick. hang me in a bottle like a Cat, &
shoot at me, and he that hit's me, let him be clapt on
the shoulder, and cal'd Adam.

In another entry in the 1765 EM review of his Religues, Percy

53

identifies the "Adam" of this passage as Adam Bell, one of
"three noted outlaws, whose skill in archery rendered them as
famous in the N. of England, as Robin Hood and his fellows
were in the midland counties." Percy also adds a description
of a cruel game wherein cats suspended in a bag are beaten

from beneath by clowns (35:181).

_1 says that Theobald was the first to identify Benedick's
Adam as Adam Bell, and that Percy's Religues also properly
attributes the identification to Theobald (12:35). The QM

account of Percy's work makes no mention of Theobald here.

Riverside identifies Adam as above but without attribution

 

(335).
I.i.280 Benedick. and so I commit you.
Claudio. To the tuition of God. From my house, if
I had it.

Pedro. The sixt of Iuly. Your louing friend,
Benedick.
Benedick. . . . ere you flout old ends any

further, examine your conscience, and so I leaue you.

Thomas Holt White sent a lengthy communication to the 1783 GM
in which he discusses this among many other Shakespeare
passages. After adducing two possible explanations from
Johnson, White remarks, "Johnson's note on this passage does

not explain it, 'so I commit you,’ &c. is spoken in ridicule

54

of the formal endings of letters, that were in use in Shake—

speare's time" (53,2:934).

In its notes for this passage, _1 also reprints Johnson's
suggestions ("Before you endeavor to distinguish yourself any
more by antiquated allusions, examine whether you can fairly
claim them for your own," or "examine, if your sarcasms do
not touch yourself"), but fails to mention Holt White's

improvement upon them (12:39).

Riverside's gloss paraphrases both definitions, Johnson's and

Holt White's, without attribution (335).

II.iii.131 Leonato. for shee'll be vp twenty times
a night, and there will she sit in her smocke, till she

haue writ a sheet of paper:

In a letter to the 1780 GM, Dr. Samuel Henley provides an
historical speculation on these lines. Shakespeare included
this passage, Henley writes, intending to appear flattering
to Queen Elizabeth. Her enemy Queen Mary was supposed to
have remarked, in a famous letter to her pretended lover
Bothwell, that she was naked as she was writing. The letter,
Henley notes, is now known to have been forged (50:22).
Henley signs his QM letter "S.H.," according to his customary

practice (Kuist 78).

_1 makes no mention of any historical scandal connected with

these lines, nor of Henley's discovery of one. Riverside is

55

equally silent.

V.i.15 Leonato. If such a one will smile and stroke his
beard,

And sorrow, wagge, crie hem, when he should grone,

The Revisal excerpts in the 1765 GM review attend to these
lines, first noting the suggested readings of Warburton ("and
sorrow waive") and Theobald ("sorrow wage"), and then

offering Heath's own proposal:

And sorrowing, cry hem, when he should groan.

Heath explains, "i.e. while he is under the influence of

sorrow, disguise it" (35:67). Tyrwhitt's Observations also
provides an entry in the EM on this line. The 1766 volume

' and his further

reprints his reading of "gagge" for "wagge,'
observation that "to cry hem, is to cry courage" (36:22).
Tyrwhitt finds "cry hem" in this sense also in 1_Hgg£y_11,
II.vii, and links it etymologically to the "less intelli-

gible" form, "cry aim, found elsewhere in Shakespeare

(Observations 30).

N! cites Heath for his reading, and notes that the nine-
teenth-century editor Halliwell adopted it for his text.
Furness finds that Thomas Warton employed the same emenda-
tion, but believes that Warton came upon it independently.
Tyrwhitt is cited for his offering as well. In fact, many

have commented at length upon the line; Furness concludes,

56

"Let us unflinchingly consign this line to any limbo that

will receive it." The GM is not mentioned (12:239).

Riverside explains "sorrow wag" substantially as Johnson

does, without attribution (355).

V.i.142 Prince. I thinke he be angrie indeede.
Claudio. If he be, he knowes how to turne his

girdle.

Holt White in the 1783 GM mentions Johnson's and Steevens'
lack of success at explaining Claudio's apparent threat.
According to him, Johnson admits awareness of the proverbial
phrase "turning the buckle of one's girdle," but confesses
his ignorance of its meaning; Steevens, on the other hand,
compares it to an Irish saying about "tying up one's

' and declares that he takes Claudio's speech to mean

brogues,'
"If he is in a bad humour, let him employ himself till he is
in a better." White then offers his own interpretation:
"Large belts were worn with the buckle before, but in
wrestling the buckle was turned behind, to give the adversary

a fair grasp at the belt; therefore turning the buckle behind

was a challenge" (53,2:933).
White's remarks became a note in Steevens' 1793 (4:529).

_1 reports that several nineteenth-century editors have adop-
ted Holt White's reading. Furness certainly found the cita-

tion through Steevens; the GM is not mentioned (12:253).

57

Riverside seems to follow Steevens' earlier remarks,
evidently unaware of Holt White's more comprehensive

explanation (357).

AS YOU LIKE IT

I.ii.246 Rosalind. Weare this for me: one out of suites

with fortune

"Omega's" 1784 EM correspondence includes a gloss for "out of

"

suits": i.e. out of favour--at variance with" (54,1:407).

_1 reports that, while Johnson thought the phrase had origi-
nated in card games, and Steevens felt it pertained to
livery, the editor Halliwell (1857) quotes an "anonymous
critic" as supplying "out of favor" (8:42). Whether this

' or someone who had seen Omega's

critic might be "Omega,'
letter, or merely someone entirely independent, is probably

impossible to determine.
Riverside offers the general interpretations above without

attributing them (374).

I.ii.249 Orlando. My better parts
Are all throwne downe. and that which here stands vp

Is but a quintine, a meere 1iuelesse blocke.

For an example of a "Quintaine," "Omega" refers the reader

58

 

 

 

in the same letter as above to "Hasted's History 31 Kent,
folio, vol. II. p. 244." He adds, "Guthrie's remark, in

Johnson and Steevens, may stand" (54,1:407).

The Guthrie remark appears in 11 as having come from the 1765
Critical Review (20:407). William Guthrie rejects Warbur-
ton's "post or butt" definition and offers a more specific
description: a block or stake of wood upon which were hung
trophies and shields until contestants had knocked them all
down with lances, leaving only the block. Furness does not

mention "Omega" (8:43).

II.i.5 Duke Senior. Heere feele we not the penaltie of
Adam,

The seasons difference,

"Omega's" extended commentary continues here as he retains
the 11 reading, which had been emended by Theobald to read,
"Here feel we but the penalty." "Omega" chooses instead

merely to alter the punctuation:

Here, feel we not the penalty of Adam,

The season's difference?

Or, in other words, "Omega" asks, "Do we not here feel?"

(54,1:407).

11 reports that Theobald's emendation, "but," has been adop-

ted by most editors. Again, no reference appears either to

59

"Omega" or to his reasonable suggestion (8:61).

Riverside retains the folio reading, without "Omega's"

 

punctuation, but mentions Theobald's emendation as one

adopted by many editors (376).

II.iii.27 Adam. This is no place, this house is but a

butcherie;

"Omega" writes that "no place" should be taken to mean no

place "of safety, of refuge" (54,1:407).

_1 includes Knight's gloss, "this is no abiding-place," among

its notes; while it comes closest to "Omega's" of those

given, "Omega" himself remains unacknowledged (8:80).

Riverside notes, "place: dwelling place," (377).
II.vii.143 Jacques. His Acts being seuen ages.

In its book review department for the June issue, the 1783 EM
reprints portions of Malone's "Second Appendix" to his 1780
Supplement. Malone's title is confusing; since there was no

" the 1783 document is now known as the

"First Appendix,
Second Supplement. It is "unpublished" in any real sense,

because only fifty copies were produced, and those privately.
The QM reviewer (probably Duncombe) remarks, "A copy of this

unpublished pamphlet having accidentally fallen into our

hands, we are enabled to give our readers some account of

60

it." Here the EM quotes Malone's criticism of Warburton's
opinion that seven acts was "no unusual division" for plays
of Shakespeare's time. Except for one of Chapman's plays,
rarely is a play found divided into seven acts, Malone
reports. Surely, he writes, "it is not necessary to suppose
that our author alluded here to any such precise division of
the drama. His comparisons seldom run on four feet. It was
sufficient for him that a play was distributed into several
acts, and that (long before his time) human life had been
divided into seven periods" (53,1:505). Malone then cites
the 1613 Treasury 21 Ancient and Modern Times as reporting a

division of man's lifetime into seven ages in the works of

the Greek author Proclus.

11 quotes Malone for all of the above, and adds a great deal
more of his complete note, which the EM had also printed.

The QM is not named (8:122).

II.vii.182 Song. The heigh ho, the holly

An anonymous correspondent writes a letter to the 1768 EM
concerning the holly tree, and makes a brief reference to
this song. He suggests that we read, "Then heigh to the
holly," the tree being a logical place of solace and refuge
for the exiles (38:615). Then, for the 1784 volume, in a
lengthy article on the holly tree, "T.A.W." reproduces the
1768 observation, revealing that he himself had written it

(54,1:22). The Nichols File attributes the later article to

61

Thomas Holt White; in fact this is the earliest contribution
so attributed (Kuist 155). Thus "T.A.W." is a misprint for
"T.H.W.," the signature of the same Holt White who commented
on Shakespeare's plays extensively in later volumes of the
9!. The 1768 article is not mentioned in The Nichols 1113,
but by Holt White's own testimony ought to be acknowledged as

his.

11 is unaware of Holt White's suggestion, as is Riverside

and, evidently, most everyone else.

III.i.3 Duke. I should not seeke an absent argument
Of my reuenge, thou present:

"Omega" explains "absent argument" in a paraphrase, i.e.

past cause--remote reason" (54,1:407).

Furness, who usually appears unaware of "Omega" anyway, only
cites Johnson to explain this phrase; evidently none but
"Omega" felt the line needed an alternative elucidation
(8:135). "An 'argument,'" Johnson writes, "is used for the
'contents' of a book, thence Shakespeare considered it as
meaning the 'subject,' and then used it for 'subject' in yet

another sense" (Yale 7:251).

Riverside follows Johnson (382).

62

III.ii.184 Celia. O Lord, Lord, it is a hard matter for
friends to meete; but Mountaines may bee remoou'd with

Earthquakes, and so encounter.

"Omega" asks, "Should we not read, 'is it?'" (54,1:407).

_1 quotes Steevens' allusion to the proverb, "Friends may
meet, but mountains never greet" (8:156). In this light

"Omega's" suggestion would appear to dilute the humor.

III.ii.339 Rosalind. As the Conie that you see dwell where

shee is kindled.

Malone's Supplement excerpts in the 1780 11 include his
citation of Henley's explanation of "kindled": "Rather 'kind-
1ed,' led by her own kind or kindred" (50:376). Following
this entry, the £1 reviewer remarks, "'Kindled' is a tech—
nical term for the generation of rabbits." The reviewer--
presumably John Duncombe--appears to be the first to make

this observation on the passage.

11 quotes Skeat's Etymological Dictionary on "kindle": "bring
forth young." Furness goes on to note that the Cambridge
editors (1863) find the word divided by a hyphen at a line-
end in 11 (1685) and in both Rowe editions, which is probably
what led Pope to print "kind-led" in mid-line. Whether
Pape's edition provided the impetus for Henley's mistake is

difficult to say, since 11 mentions neither Malone, Henley,

63

nor Duncombe or the 11 on this point (8:172). ED agrees

with Skeat's definition, and quotes this line.

V.iv.64 Touchstone. According to the fooles bolt sir, and

such dulcet diseases.

One of Holt White's 11 letters mentions this passage, and
quotes Johnson's confession, "This I do not understand. For
'diseases' it is easy to read 'discourses'; but perhaps the
fault may lie deeper." White then offers his own emendation,

"Dull set Distics, or Distiches,‘ and quotes the dull,

familiar adage,

A fool's bolt

Is soon shot.

This emendation appears in the 1783 volume (53,2:934).

11 does not refer to Holt White's suggestion; Furness is
probably unaware of it since it is not mentioned in the later
Steevens or Malone editions. The explanations Furness quotes
indicate that most editors read the passage as it stands in

11, arguing only about their consequent interpretations

(8:271).

Riverside glosses "dulcet diseases" as the "pleasing dis-

comfort" one feels from a jester's barbs (398).

64

TWELFTH NIGHT, OR WHAT YOU WILL

II.ii.31 Viola. Alas, O frailtie is the cause, not wee,

For such as we are made, if such we bee:
According to the 11 review, Tyrwhitt suggests we read,
For such as we are made of, such we be,

meaning, one assumes, that we can be no better than the frail
flesh of which we are made (36:23). Incidentally, Tyrwhitt's

copy-text, 11, emended "O frailtie" to "our frailtie,’ which

he follows faithfully (Observations 44).

_1 notes that Tyrwhitt's suggestion has been widely adopted;

Furness himself endorses it as well (13:104).

Riverside admits the emendation into its text, within
brackets, but attributes it to "Thirlby" (416, 440). Dr.
Styan Thirlby supplied many emendations for Theobald, so his

is probably the earlier note.
II.iii.78 Toby. There dwelt a man in Babylon, Lady, Lady.
The 1765 §1_account of Percy's Religues includes his identi-

fication of this line as a scrap from the ballad, "Constant

Susannah," of which his book prints one stanza (35:182).

11 quotes Percy's identification among others' (13:121).

65

 

Riverside provides the identification without attribution

(418).

II.iii.101 Toby. Farewell deere heart, since I must needs

be gone.

This line, the Clown's reply to it, and the next ten or so
verses, Percy reports, come from the ballad, "Corydon's Fare-

well to Phyllis" (35:182).
11 quotes Percy's identification (13:124).

Again, Riverside identifies without attributing (418).

 

II.v.62 Fabian. Though our silence be drawne from vs with

cars, yet peace.

For "cars," Tyrwhitt suggests we read "cables"; this item
appears in a portion of the review carried over to the 11

"Supplement for 1765" (35:617).

_1 notes that the folios, other than the first, read "cares,"
and so do Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Warburton, and Capell.
Johnson's text also reads "cares," but he believes "carts" to
be "the true reading" (Yale 7:318). According to Furness,

' for his source reading, but this

Tyrwhitt prints 11's "cars'
is incorrect; Tyrwhitt always used 11, so in Observations
itself the source reading is "cares" (27). The 11 correctly

represents his c0py-text as "cares." Coleridge reads, with

66

Tyrwhitt, "cables," but none other in the 11 has done so

(13:164).

Riverside includes a long note on the passage, but little of

 

it is pertinent. "Cables" is not mentioned (421).

IV.ii.63 Clown. Nay I am for all waters.

Correspondent "T.P." writes to the 1750 11 to criticize
Warburton's edition, and to announce the imminent appearance
of the best edition to come, but he does not specify whose
edition that will be. In his remarks, he takes Warburton to
task for his comments on this passage. "T.P." writes, "80
foolish was I as to think this taken from the Italian pro-
verb, 12 mantello d'ogni acqua, 'I have a cloke for all
waters, applied, says Torriano, to one that can turn himself
to any kind o'thing. No, says our great critic, 'it is a
phrase taken from the actor's ability of making the audience
cry either with mirth or grief'" (20:252 [page number mis-

printed as 522]).

_1 cites [Zachary] Grey's friend Mr. Smith, in Grey's Criti—
cal, Historica1, and Explanatory Notes (1754), for this
explanation, complete with Italian translation. "T.P." is
probably a pseudonymous signature for Mr. Smith; two other
notes corroborating this fact appear in the chapters to
follow (pages 113 and 189 below). Furness mercifully omits

Warburton's note from the discussion (13:264).

67

Riverside glosses the phrase, which it says is "of unknown

 

origin,‘ much as "T.P." paraphrases it above (433).

THE HISTORY OF TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

I.iii.62 Ulysses. I giue to both your speeches: which were
such,
As Agamemnon and the hand of Greece
Should hold vp high in Brasse: and such againe
As venerable Nestor (hatch'd in Siluer)
Should with a bond of ayre, strong as the Axletree
In which the Heauens ride, knit all Greekes eares

To his experienc'd tongue:

As the 1766 Q1 excerpts from his Observations show, Tyrwhitt
suggests that in this passage Nestor be not "hatched" but

"thatched in silver,"

since the kind of engraving Tyrwhitt
knows as "hatching" has nothing to do with silver and is of
no use here. He objects also to the "bond of air," and
revises "air" to "awe." The 11 reviewer, presumably Hawkes-
worth, records his opinion that by "bond of air" Shakespeare
meant Nestor's eloquence, which captivated the Greeks with

sound alone. Hawkesworth does not discuss "hatched," however

(36:22).

._1 cites Tyrwhitt's emendations, but notes that Tyrwhitt had

withdrawn "thatched" before the Johnson-Steevens 1778 because

68

he had discovered that engraving (hatching) in silver was

"common in sword-hilts." As for "

awe," 11 quotes Steevens
from the same edition declaring the "bond of air" to mean
Nestor's compelling voice. Hawkesworth's comment thereon
remains unmentioned (26:72). But Hawkesworth himself may
have borrowed the idea. Although 11 quotes only the final
two sentences of what Johnson had to say here, his entire

note even in the first edition (1765) would seem to have

obviated the need for any further comment:

Ulysses begins his oration with praising those who
had spoken before him, and marks the characteris-
tick excellencies of their different eloquence,
strength and sweetness, which he expresses by the
different metals on which he recommends them to be
engraven for the instruction of posterity. The
speech of Agamemnon is such that it ought to be
engraven in brass, and the tablet held up by him
on the one side, and Greece on the other, to shew
the union of their opinion. And Nestor ought to
be exhibited in silver, uniting all his audience
in one mind by his soft and gentle elocution.
Brass is the common emblem of strength, and silver
of gentleness. We call a soft voice a "silver"
voice, and a persuasive tongue a "silver" tongue..
. . To "hatch," is a term of art for a particular
method of engraving. Hacher, to cut, French [Yale

8:913].

69

It is likely that Hawkesworth had access to Johnson's note

when he offered his own opinion.

Riverside's notes here generally follow Johnson and Steevens

rather than Tyrwhitt, without attribution to any (455).

III.ii.174 Troilus. when their rimes,
Full of protest, of oath and big compare;

Wants similes, truth tir'd with iteration,

On the same page with his excerpt above, the £1 reprints
Tyrwhitt's reformation of the verb "wants" to "want,"
following Rowe. Tyrwhitt then writes that the line lacks

sense and meter, and offers this emendation:

Wants similes of truth, tir'd with iteration.

Immediately following this entry, Hawkesworth asks, appro-
priately enough, how this version is any better in either

deficiency (36:24).

Without mention of the £1, _1 cites Tyrwhitt for his sug-
gestion, but records no other reading offered by anyone

(26:160-1).

Riverside follows the 11 reading.

70

ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL

I.i.126 Parolles. It is not politicke, in the Common-
wealth of Nature, to preserue virginity. Losse of
Virginitie, is rationall encrease,

Tyrwhitt would read, "national increase,' evidently wishing

to complete the "commonwealth" metaphor (35:617).

After citing Tyrwhitt, 1813 quotes from Steevens' explana-
tion, "'rational increase' may mean the regular increase by

which rational beings are propagated" (8:215).

Riverside follows Steevens (506).

I.iii.41 Countess. Such friends are thine enemies knaue.
Clown. Y'are shallow Madam in great friends,

Tyrwhitt suggests we read my for "

" so that the clown is

in,
not labelling her friendless, but rather confessing himself

grateful to those who take advantage of him (35:617).

1813 quotes Malone, who substitutes "e'

en" for the disputed
word. He writes, "The corruption of this passage was pointed
out by Mr. Tyrwhitt. For the emendation now made, I am
answerable." Malone also notes several other places in

Shakespeare where exactly this homonymic substitution has

occurred (8:236).

71

II I N

Riverside attributes Malone's e en to Hanmer, and considers

 

it "perhaps" a right reading. Tyrwhitt is ignored (509).

II.iii.20 Lafeu. I may truly say, it is a noueltie to the
world.
Parolles. It is indeede if you will haue it in

shewing, you shall reade it in what do ye call there.

Earlier editors had placed a comma after "indeed"; following

'1

this custom, Tyrwhitt goes on to read not "in shewing" but a

shewing" (35:617).

1111 cites Tyrwhitt both for the emendation offered in the Q1
and also for a dash between "showing" and "you." Evidently
Reed considers "in showing" to require no further illustra—
tion after he quotes Henley, who had written that the phrase

means "11 a demonstration" (8:278).

Riverside notes, "in showing: visible, i.e. set forth in

print" (516).

IV.ii.12 Diana. My mother did but dutie, such (my Lord)
As you owe to your wife.
Bertram. No more a'that:
I prethee do not striue against my vowes:

I was compell'd to her, but I loue thee

In the January, 1776 11, John Kynaston writes, "To the

instances of inattention which have escaped Dr. Johnson in

72

his excellent edition of Shakespeare (remarked page 368,
August Magazine,) permit me to add one more." He notes here
that Johnson could not properly explain the passage above
because he assumed that Bertram speaks of his marriage vows,
or of his vows of love to Diana. Kynaston considers
Johnson's emendations to be weak. He had suggested, "do not

" and "do not shrive--against my voice/

1111; against my vows,
I was compell'd"; the latter offered, Johnson writes,
"without much confidence" (Yale 7:394). Kynaston sees no
reason for emendation, glossing "do not strive against my
vows" as "do not oppose--do not urge any argument against"
the vows Bertram had made never to acknowledge his wife
Helena as his wife. The phrase here "is properly used for
'to oppose,' or to 'plead against'" (46:26). {911 supports

such a meaning, now obsolete, with a quotation as recently as

1600, from Haklyut's Voyages.

1813 quotes Steevens, "'Against his vows, I believe, means-—

'against his determined resolution never to cohabit with

Helena'; and this 'vow,' or 'resolution,'

he very strongly
expressed in his letter to the Countess." Clearly, Kynaston
anticipated Steevens by almost 20 years, but neither Steevens

nor Reed mentions Kynaston or his pseudonym "Q" (8:341).

Riverside explains "vows" much as Kynaston and Steevens do,

 

without attribution (529).

73

IV.v.64 Countess. My Lord that's gone made himselfe much
sport out of him, by his authoritie hee remaines heere,
which he thinkes is a pattent for his sawcinesse, and

indeede he has no pace, but runnes where he will.

Trying to make sense of "he has no pace, but runs where he
will," Tyrwhitt writes, "should we not read--no place, that
is, no station, or office in the family?" (35:617). As
recorded in the 91 review, Tyrwhitt claims to focus his
observations only on those passages "passed over in silence,
or attempted without success" by Johnson (35:583). This is
something of an inference on the reviewer's part, since
Tyrwhitt's exact words are "by former Commentators" (Observa-
tions 2); but it is quite clear that Johnson is indeed his
main foil. This particular passage was "passed over in

silence" in the 1765.

1§11 prints Tyrwhitt's suggested emendation, and follows it
with a note from Johnson: "A 'pace' is a certain or pre-
scribed walk, so we may say of a man meanly obsequious, that
he has learned his 'paces,' and of a horse who moves irregu-

" As is his invariable prac-

larly, that he has 'no paces.’
tice, Reed fails to name the editions from which he has

adduced textual or explanatory notes (8:377); Johnson in fact
wrote most of this note for the 1111, and the remainder (from

"and" to "paces") for the 1778 (Yale 7:399). Obviously, both

notes are responses to Tyrwhitt's suggestion.
Riverside follows Johnson, without attribution (535).

74

MEASURE FOR MEASURE

I.i.5 Duke. Since I am put to know, that your owne Science
Exceedes (in that) the lists of all aduice

My strength can giue you:

Most eighteenth-century editions read "not to know," fol-

"put to

lowing Rowe, who evidently could not make sense of
know." In a correspondence in the 1784 11 (54,1:407),
"Omega" explains "not to know" as meaning "not to 1earn--need

not be told (being convinced)."

1813 uses the 11 reading, reprinting Steevens' explanation
for it, "I am compelled to acknowledge." "Omega's" interpre-

tation of a discarded reading is not mentioned (6:187).

Riverside notes, "put to know: forced to recognize" (550).

I.i.50 Duke. No more euasion:
We haue with a leauen'd, and prepared choice

Proceeded to you;

As recorded in the 1765 11, Heath reproduces line 51 thus:
We have with a prepar'd and leaven'd choice

and then discusses emendations for "leaven'd." After uotin
q 8

fl

Warburton's "levell'd," Heath suggests we omit the and

leaven'd"; in its place we should read simply "unleaven'd,"

75

meaning, he writes, "uncorrupt" (35:67).

1813 overlooks Heath's suggestion. Reed limits his remarks
to indicating a preference for Johnson's gloss of "mature"

for "1eaven'd,' evidently deeming the original word a better

companion to "prepared" than Warburton's reading (6:196).

Riverside notes, "leaven'd: i.e. pervaded by the gradual

 

working of judgment (like the action of yeast in bread)"

(551).

I.ii.120 Claudio. Thus can the demy-god (Authority)
Make vs pay downe, for our offence, by waight
The words of heauen; on whom it will, it will,

On whom it will not (soe) yet still 'tis just.

Henley sends the 1780 11 several conjectures regarding this

"are

play because he had heard that Steevens and Malone
continuing their illustrations of this incomparable author."
Should his remarks "appear to be worthy of their notice," he
writes, "they are very much at their service." For the
passage above he alludes to a conjecture by a "Dr. Roberts"
which he wishes to reject in favor of the original text. The
Reverend Mr. Roberts of Eton was one of many who responded to
Steevens' appeal for notes to an upcoming edition, the 1111
(Sherbo, Editor 108, note 15); Roberts suggests we read

"swords of heaven" (1813 6:206-7). Henley writes, "Not-

withstanding Dr. Roberts's ingenious conjecture, the text is

76

certainly right" (50:21-2). He reasons that the "words"
referred to are those found at Romans 9:15,18 ("For he saith
to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I
will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. . .
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom

he will hardeneth").

1813 quotes this entire argument, attributing it correctly to
Henley, but not mentioning the 11 (6:206-7); Reed or Stee-

vens must have found the note in Malone's edition (1790).

Riverside notes that the passage is explained by a reference

 

to the biblical verses above, but does not attribute the

discovery to Henley (553).

I.ii.128 Claudio. Our Natures doe pursue
Like Rats that rauyn downe their proper Bane,

A thirsty euill, and when we drinke, we die.

"Omega" writes, in the 1784 11, that "raven" means to "devour

' "I mention this," he adds, "because I think I

greedily.‘
have seen a different explanation in Johnson and Steevens"

(54,1:407). OED supports "Omega's" gloss.

Johnson himself had evidently passed over this line without
comment (Yale 7:179). but Steevens defined "ravin" as "prey,"
according to Reed, who provides his own definition in the
1111, "eagerly or voraciously devour." Despite the very

close similarity of their glosses, Reed makes no mention of

77

"Omega" (6:207).

Riverside employs "Omega's" formulation precisely ("devour

 

greedily"), but without attribution to him (553).

I.iv.29 Isabella. Sir, make me not your storie.

The first entry reproduced in the 1783 91 review of Malone's
Second Supplement contains his comment on the passage above.
He suggests we read, "Mock me not:--your story." Malone
continues, "So in Macbeth: 'Thou com'st to use thy tongue--
thy story quickly." Lucio's reply to Isabella, "'Tis true,"
is now "pertinent and clear", Malone feels. "I have observed
that almost every passage in our author, in which there is
either a broken speech, or a sudden transition without a
connecting particle, has been corrupted by the carelessness

of either the transcriber or compositor."

.1111 reprints Johnson's and Steevens' explanations of the
passage as it originally stood. Johnson, for example, had
paraphrased, "Do not, by deceiving me, make me the subject
for a tale" (Yale 7:181). Reed then quotes Malone's conjec-
ture substantially as above (6:220). The 91 is not

mentioned.

Riverside retains the §1_reading, and glosses "story" as a

"theme for jesting or deception" (555).

78

II.i.204 Escalus. Master Froth, I would not haue you
acquainted with Tapsters; they will draw you Master

Froth, and you wil hang them:

Heath wishes to make the Froth/Tapster quibble more complete
by emending the passage to read, "and you will hang on them."
The suggestion is reprinted without comment in the 1765 11.
(35:67), but it must be noted that this reading would also

weaken the "draw/hang" quibble on criminal sentences.

1813 reprints Johnson's observation of the "cluster of
senses" for the word "draw," but does not mention Heath's

emendation (6:220).

Riverside suggests no emendation, and although it lists two

 

alternative explanations for "you will hang them," both carry

on the criminal-sentence metaphor suggested by "draw" (558).

III.i.59 Isabella. Therefore your best appointment make
with speed,

To Morrow you set on.

In his correspondence cited above, "Omega" also discusses a
problem with the phrase here, "set on." He asks, "Should we

not read 'out'?" (54,1:407).

1813 ignores "Omega" here and elsewhere. This passage is not
in any event a "great crux"; if anyone else has commented on

this phrase, Reed is not aware of it (6:297).

79

Riverside notes, "set on: set forth" (566).

 

IV.i.l Song. Take, oh take those lips away,

that so sweetly were forsworne,

The 1765 Religues review quotes Percy as writing that
Mariana's song is the first stanza of a ballad which appears
in its entirety in Beaumont and Fletcher's Bloopy Brothers.
Although its authorship is not certain, Percy reports, "Sewel

and Gildon have printed it as Shakespeare's" (35:183).

1813 notes that Theobald had found the ballad in Beaumont and
Fletcher first. But Percy can obviously claim precedence in
the Sewel and Gildon reference, for which 1813 gives Stee-

vens the credit. Percy is not mentioned in either instance

(6:338).

Riverside evidently believes the song to be Shakespeare's,

since no note appears.

IV.i.72 Duke. To bring you thus together 'tis no sinne,
Sith that the Iustice of your title to him

Doth flourish the deceit.

In another passage from Henley's long letter mentioned above,
he rejects as "inaccurate" Warburton's gloss for "flourish"
("embroidery"--1813). Henley thinks that Steevens came

closer when he compared this passage to a similar instance in

80

Twelfth Night, "empty trunks o'erflourished." Henley pro-

 

vides the specific definition, "flowers impressed on waste
printed paper and old books, with which trunks, etc., are
commonly lined" (50:22). Henley may think his definition more
accurate than Warburton's, but it hardly illuminates the

passage, which seems to demand a sense of "excuse' for

"flourish."

1111 records Henley's part in the debate, as well as Stee-
vens' later surmise that Henley's definition may not have
obtained as early as Shakespeare's time (6:344). Since the
11 is not mentioned, we may assume again that Reed found

Henley's note in the prior editions.

Riverside notes, "flourish: make fair, justify" (573). But

 

like my "excuse" gloss above, this one assumes a license

unsupported by OED.

IV.ii.43 Abhorson. Euerie true mans apparrell fits your

Theefe.

In the same letter, Henley discusses this passage, asserting
that "true man" is not always placed in opposition to "thief"
as Steevens had suggested in his earlier editions. In Gene-
sis 42:11, Henley reports, "true man" stands opposed to

"spies.' This seems less an illumination of Shakespeare than

a criticism of Steevens, however.

1813 makes note of Steevens' correction by Henley. Once

81

again, the £1 remains unmentioned (6:349).

Riverside follows Steevens, but makes no attribution to him

 

(573).

IV.ii.88 Duke. How now? what noise? That Spirit's possesst
with hast,

That wounds th'vnsisting Posterne with these strokes.

Continuing the 1780 letter, Henley responds to various pro-
posed emendations for this passage, all of which evidently
assume Rowe's "unresisting" to be the original reading.
Henley comments, "'Unresisting' after all seems to be the
true reading, and stands better in connexion with 'wounds'

than any of the proposed emendations" (50:22).

Henley appears not to have considered Johnson carefully, who

' out of

writes, "The three folios have it "unsisting postern,‘
which Mr. Rowe made "unresisting," and the rest followed him.
Sir Tho. Hanmer seems to have supposed "unresisting" the word
in the copies, from which he plausibly enough extracted

' but he grounded his emendation on the very

"unresting,'
syllable that wants authority" (Yale 7:203). That Henley can
consider Rowe's unmetrical and unilluminating reading to be
the true one against the unanimity of the Folios is rather
curious. However, Johnson also confesses his puzzlement at

"unsisting." OED finds no other instance of this word's

occurrence.

82

1813 appropriately ignores Henley, reproduces all of
Johnson's commentary here, and finally notes that Sir William
Blackstone took "unsisting" to mean "never at rest," an

explanation Reed says Steevens adopts (6:352-3).

Riverside is satisfied with no one emendation (574).

 

IV.ii.1OO Duke. This is his Lords man.

Provost. And heere comes Claudio's pardon.

The 11 review of Tyrwhitt's Observations includes his conjec-
tures upon this passage. 0n the grounds that the Provost,
who had just remarked that he expects no countermand, is
unlikely suddenly to alter his opinion, Tyrwhitt proposes
that the two speakers' names have been switched here, so that
each man should actually recite the other's line (36:22).
Following this entry, the 11 reviewer, probably Hawkesworth,
declares that he is not persuaded by this reasoning. He
argues, generally, that since the Provost has also just said,
"Happely You something know," he is willing to believe in, if

not to expect, a stroke of good fortune for Claudio.

1111 mentions Tyrwhitt's suggestion, then records Johnson's
comment that "Either reading may serve equally well."

Johnson defends this opinion with the same reason Hawkesworth
gives for rejecting Tyrwhitt's emendation (6:354). Reed

overlooks Hawkesworth's comment, however, and neglects to say

83

that Johnson's note appears in his 1773 (Yale 7:204); Hawkes-
worth and the 11 have thus anticipated Johnson's opinion by

several years.

Riverside adopts Tyrwhitt's conjecture and reassigns the
speeches; furthermore "Lords" in line 100 is changed to
"Lordship's" following Rowe. Both changes are properly
attributed and enclosed within the customary brackets (574,

586).

IV.iv.23 Angelo. But that her tender shame
Will not proclaime against her maiden losse,
How might she tongue me? yet reason dares her no,

For my Authority beares of a credent bulke,

Henley's letter to the 1780 Q1 treats of this passage. He
observes that Warburton "is evidently right" in preserving
the 11 reading, though he is wrong in his explication of it
("The circumstance dares her to reply no to me, whatever I
say" [1111 6:375]). "The expression is a provincial one,"
Henley writes, "and very intelligible." Reason itself "de-
fies her to do it, as by this means she would not only

' but also as she would certainly

publish her 'maiden loss,
suffer from the imposing credit of his station and power"

(50:22).

In addition to providing Warburton's explication, 1813 notes
Theobald's substitution of "note" for "no"; Hanmer's "her:

No"; and Steevens' "not." Henley's explanation is given as

84

well. Reed finally admits into his text Malone's suggestion:

Yet reason dares her?--no:

For my authority . . .

Malone asserts that this use of "dare" is "yet a school-

phrase" (6:375-7).

Riverside follows 11, and notes, "dares her no. Not satisfac-

 

torily explained, but the sense is clear: reason forbids it"

(578).

V.i.353 Lucio. show your knaues visage with a poxe
to you: show your sheeperiting face, and be hang'd an

houre: will't not off?

Henley here argues that Johnson "is much too positive" in
asserting that "an hour" is an expression of "no particular
use here"; "The Poet evidently refers to the ancient mode of
punishing by the collistrigium, or the original pillory,"
writes Henley, "made like that part of the pillory at present
which receives the neck, only it was placed horizontally, so
that the culprit hung suspended in it by his chin, and the

back of his head" (50:22).

1813 cites Henley substantially as above (6:405), without
mention of the £1. Evidently this is another instance in

which either Malone or Steevens found Henley's remarks

85

"worthy of their notice,‘ and used them, whence Reed found

them.

There is no evidence that Riverside is aware of Henley's
conjectures, and indeed seems rather to echo Johnson here

(582).

V.i.497 Duke. Looke that you loue your wife: her worth,

worth yours

Heath objects to the "works" substituted by Hanmer and War-
burton for the second "worth" above; according to the 1765 11
review of his Revisal, Heath believes instead that we should

read "worth's" in place of the first one (35:67).

1111 ignores Heath, but quotes Johnson as disapproving of the
Hanmer emendation (6:413-4). Johnson leaves the text itself
unamended from the 11 version here, but interprets the clause
much as Heath does. Indeed, Johnson stands much in Heath's
debt; his silent borrowings from Heath's Revisal, which
appeared in February, some eight months before the October
publication of Johnson's own edition, are thoroughly docu-
mented in Arthur Sherbo's Samuel Johnson, Editor 11

Shakespeare.

 

86

CHAPTER III

THE HISTORIES

THE FIRST PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH

I.iv.8 Master Gunner. The Princes espyals haue informed me,
How the English, in the Suburbs close entrencht,
Went through a secret Grate of Iron Barres,
In yonder Tower, to ouer-peere the Citie,
And thence discouer, how with most aduantage

They may vex vs with Shot or with Assault.

As the 1765 11 review of Tyrwhitt's Observations reports, he

 

suggests we read "Wont" for "Went" (35:616). The Master
Gunner is explaining a strategem the English have used, and
how he thinks they may be ambushed at the grate the next
time they come to survey the city. In Tyrwhitt's view, the
strategem has become a frequent practice by the time the
gunner speaks. Furthermore, the original reading sounds as
though the English have gone through the grate itself, while
"wont" does not. Tyrwhitt's emendation thus makes very good

sense.

Following this passage, the 11 editor, probably Hawkesworth,

87

asserts his preference for the original reading. He argues
that the gunner, "hoping they might go thither again for the
same purpose, had planted a piece of ordnance against it,
but had watched three days for their going thither again,
without success. This does not look as though they were
'wont' to go; (i.e.) went frequently. The sense sems to be,
having heard that they went once, I have conceived hopes
that they may go again" (35:616). But whether or not they
were 'wont' to peer through, the English appear, exactly as

expected, and are ambushed.

1111 omits mention of the 11, but cites Tyrwhitt, admits his
revision into its text, and then quotes Malone as follows:
"The emendation proposed by Mr. Tyrwhitt is fully supported
by the passage in Hall's Chronicle, on which this speech is
formed" (13:37). Johnson's only comment on these lines,
which appears first in the Appendix added to the last volume
of the first edition (1111), notes how the English went "111
through a secret grate" but merely approached the grate and
looked through. He adds, "I did not know till of late that

this passage had been thought difficult" (Yale 8:569).

Riverside admits Tyrwhitt's conjecture into its text, with

proper attribution (602, 628).

88

THE SECOND PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH

III.ii.16O Warwick. See how the blood is setled in his
face.

Oft haue I seeme a timely-parted Ghost,
Of ashy semblance, meager, pale, and bloodlesse,
Being all descended to the labouring heart,
Who in the Conflict that it holds with death,
Attracts the same for aydance 'gainst the enemy,
Which with the heart there cooles, and ne're returneth,
To blush and beautifie the Cheeke againe.
But see, his face is blacke, and full of blood:
His eye-balles further out, than when he liued,

Staring full gastly, like a strangled man:

"S.H.," whom one would assume to be Samuel Henley (see page
55 above), but who is not cited in Kuist for this particular
entry, writes to the November 1781 11 to criticize an author
in the Critical Review for his remarks on Trinder's Essay pp
English Grammar. The author there, writes Henley, applauds
Trinder's use of the passage above to illustrate a fine
point of grammar; according to the report, Trinder thinks

that the phrase "Who in the conflict that it holds" uses

" I!

who correctly because the ghost is human, and "it" cor-

rectly because its sex is unknown. Henley considers this
judgment "farfetched and absurd in the highest degree"

because Shakespeare does not refer to the ghost when he

" "

writes who and "it" here. Rather, "it appears perfectly

89

plain that Shakespeare means the heart, to which the blood
has all descended, 'it' attracting the same for aidance
gainst the enemy, 'death.'" Henley suggests we read "which"
for "who," and then alter the subsequent "which" to "that"
to avoid repetition. Henley concludes that "the whole will
be intelligible, except that I do not know what is meant by
'timely-parted'" (51:504).

In the next issue of the 11, the "Supplement for 1781"
printed in January 1782, "B.B.C.C." writes to add further
strictures to Henley's. He asserts that a text he remem-
bers, but cannot now locate, reads "timely-parted corse,"

not "ghost,' and that the body here spoken of had suffered
"a violent and untimely death." He remarks, "I am surprised
at your inserting so weak a criticism as that of Mr.
Trinder's on the description of the murdered corpse of Duke
Humphrey" (51:625-6). An anonymous writer, probably a 11
editor or even Duncombe himself, next inserts a note of
corrections in the January 1782 issue to report much the

"

same thing as "B.B.C.C., but properly attributing the

"corse" reading to "Dr. Johnson" (52:23).

1813 omits any mention of these opinions, but quotes instead
from Johnson: "All that is true of the body of a dead man is

here said by Warwick of the soul. I would read,
0ft have I seen a timely-parted coarse,

But of two common words how or why was one changed for the

other?" (Yale 8:589). Johnson speculates that a transcriber

9O

inserted "ghost" because he could not account for the use of
"timely—parted" when speaking of a body. But 1111 quotes
Steevens and Malone as reporting that Shakespeare's contem-
poraries often interchanged the two words (13:289).
Johnson's suggested reading is likely the source for
"B.B.C.C.'s" confidence that "corse" is the true reading;
perhaps Johnson's edition is the remembered text he cannot

find.

'3 "

Riverside in effect agrees with Henley that who refers to

 

the heart, but notes, "timely-parted ghost: i.e., the corpse
of one who has died a natural death" (649). Riverside thus

agrees with Steevens and Malone against Johnson.

THE THIRD PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH

V.vi.lO King. What Scene of death hath Rosius now to Acte?

"W.R." of "S--- Hall, Sussex," wrote to the 11 in 1784 to
comment on errors he had found in Johnson's most recent
edition, the.1111. His remarks on this passage concern
Johnson's collaborator Steevens. He asserts that Steevens
was not right to adduce this line to prove Roscius a trage-
dian, since Horace and Quintillian both testify otherwise.
He quotes, "Horat. Epis. II. Lib. II v. 62 'Quae gravis
Aesopus, quae doctus Roscius egit,'" in which line, he

writes, "the epithets assigned them are clearly intended to

91

distinguish their different walks." His Quintillian quota-
tion, from "Lib. II cap. 3," is rather more persuasive:

"Roscius citator, Aesopus gravior fuit, quod ille Comedias,

 

hic Tragoedias egit" (54,2:885).

 

1111 cites Malone as quoting this entry, and identifying
"W.R." as being "probably Sir Walter Rawlinson." "But it is
not in Quintillian or in any other ancient writer we are to
look in order to ascertain the text of Shakespeare," Malone
continues. "Roscius was called a tragedian by our author's
contemporaries . . . and this was sufficient authority to
him, or rather to the author of the original play, for there

this line is found" (14:200).

Riverside identifies Roscius as an actor without specifying

 

his genre (703).

THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD THE THIRD

I.iii.241 Queen Margaret. Why strew'st thou Sugar on that

Bottel'd Spider,

The excerpts from Ritson's Remarks in the 1783 11 include
his judgment of Johnson's explanation on this passage as
"very little worse than none at all." Ritson identifies the
"bottled spider" particularly as "the large bloated spider,
with a deep black shining skin, generally esteemed the most

venemous" (53,2:593).

92

11 cites both Ritson and Johnson, without mentioning the 11
(16:101). Johnson had written, "A 'spider' is called bot-
tled because, like other insects, he has a middle slender
and a belly protuberant. Richard's form and venom make her

liken him to a spider" (Yale 8:618).

Riverside appears to decide against Ritson, noting, "bot-

tled: swollen, big-bellied" (720).

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF KING JOHN

I.i.23l Bastard. Philip, sparrow, Iames,

There's toyes abroad, anon Ile tell thee more.

Holt White writes to the 1785 11, "The Sparrow is called

Philip from its note" (55:278,.signed "T.H.W.").

Steevens' 1793, Reed's 1803, and the Boswell—Malone 1821 all

use White's note with proper attribution.

11 ignores T.H.W. and Holt White, but quotes several others
who later said substantially the same thing about "Philip"

and sparrows. V also notes that Warburton had emended the

passage to read, "Spare me,‘ which is probably what prompted

Holt White to explain it (19:61). But Johnson had already

noted his own preference for "the old reading,’ adding, "Dr.
[Zachary] Gray [i.e. Grey] observes, that Skelton has a poem

to the memory of Philip Sparrow; and Mr. Pope in a short

93

note remarks, that a sparrow is called Philip" (Yale 7:409).

I.i.268 Bastard. He that perforce robs Lions of their
hearts,

May easily winne a womans:

In the 1765 11 review of Percy's Religues, the reviewer
Hawkesworth refers to the legend alluded to here, "an epi-
sode of Richard the First, which the reader will seek in
vain in any true history" (35:179). He quotes Percy as
finding that the exploit was "first related in the old

romance of Richard Coeur de Leon."

‘_1 cites Percy's identification as above (19:67).

Riverside leaves the lines untouched and unremarked (772).

 

II.i.369 France. I we do locke
Our former scruple in our strong barr'd gates:
Kings of our feare, vntill our feares resolu'd

Be by some certaine king, purg'd and depos'd.

As recorded in the 1766 11 review, Tyrwhitt's Observations

 

include his suggestion that we read "King'd of our fears."
Tyrwhitt compares the similar usage in 13111 1, II.iv, where
the Dauphin says, "She is so idly King'd" (36:24). In his
own pamphlet, though not in the 11 excerpt, Tyrwhitt adds,

"It is scarcely necessary to add, that, 'of,' here (as in

94

numberless other places) has the signification of, 'by'"

(Observations 50).

11 includes Tyrwhitt's reading among its textual collations,
noting that Malone and many others accepted it. But Furness
himself interprets "Kings" to refer to the "gates" of the

previous line (19:127-9).

Riverside does not comment. Incidentally, Riverside gives

 

 

the speech to Hubert, citing a conjecture by the modern

scholar E. A. J. Honigmann (776, 799).

THE TRAGEDY OF KING RICHARD THE SECOND

II.i.225 Ross. . . .

226 Willoughby. . . .

A correspondent "R." inserts a query in the 1784 11 regar-
ding the characters of this play. He writes, "Lord Wil-
loughby was certainly Willoughby of Eresby; but who was Lord

Ross?" (54,2:732).

.1111 does not mention "R.," but quotes Steevens on the
subject of Ross: "Now spelt 'Roos,' one of the Duke of
Rutland's titles" (11:4). Whether Steevens volunteered this
information, or was prompted to action by the 11 query, is

not possible to determine from Reed's note.

Riverside identifies neither lord.

 

95

II.i.l32 Gaunt. onne with the present sicknesse that I
haue,
And thy vnkindnesse be like crooked age,

To crop at once a too-long wither'd flowre.

The 1784 11 reviews Thomas Davies' Dramatic Miscellanies,
111, largely an account of eighteenth-century theatrical
life. The work does include a few critical passages, but
the 11 reviewer notes, "We are more pleased with the anec-
dotes they contain, than with the criticism, however excel-
lent." Why reviewer Duncombe would prefer the anecdotes is
clear to the reader who encounters Davies' windy critical
preoccupation with such issues as what liquor sack may be in
Henry 11, why a fellow in Henry VIII must be a brazier by
evidence of his red face, and how much the wonderful Eliza-
beth was once admired. For the passage above, Davies notes

Johnson's reading of "crooked edge,‘ and Steevens' approval

of that reading for its image of Time and his scythe.

I

Davies prefers the original "age,' which he paraphrases,

"i.e., the many infirmities of age" (54,1:360).

Although 1813 ignores Davies' illustration, Reed cites both
Johnson and Steevens. Johnson had suggested changing not

II II

only age to "edge," but also "like" to "time's,"

which

yields,

And thy unkindness be time's crooked edge

To crop at once-—

96

Johnson confessed he could not apprehend how age could crop

anything "at once,‘ nor how the idea of 'crookedness" re-
lates to "cropping" (Yale 7:435). Reed follows notes from
Johnson and Steevens with [John] M.[onck] Mason's explana-
tion: "Shakespeare had probably two different but kindred
ideas in his mind: the bend of age, and the sickle of time,
which he confounded together" (11:51—2). The first of
Mason's ideas pretty much encompasses Davies' illustration.
Mason's Comments pp the Several Editions p1 Shakespeare,

which went through more than one edition itself, first

appeared in 1785.

Riverside's silence on this issue perhaps reflects our more

liberal attitude toward a poet's use of words.

THE FIRST PART OF HENRY THE FOURTH

I.ii.4O Prince. As is the hony, my old Lad of the Castle:

Correspondent "P.T." sent a lengthy letter to the 1752 11
entitled, "Observations of Shakespeare's Falstaff," in which
he argues that the actual Sir John Oldcastle could not have
provided the model for Falstaff. "P.T." must then account
for this line, of course, which so many have seen as a
reference to Oldcastle. He suggests that "my old lad" be

set off with commas as a vocative phrase:

97

As is the honey, my old lad, of the Castle.

This has the effect of breaking up the "old Lad of the
Castle" phrase often taken as Shakespeare's hint--or slip--
linking Falstaff and Oldcastle. Such an effect is fine with
"P.T.," who argues that the historical Oldcastle was no such
buffoon as plays have portrayed him. Nor did Shakespeare
need to remind his audience of the supposed Falstaff-Oldcas-
tle similarity, he asserts. The real Olcastle, a Protestant
martyr in "P.T.'s" eyes, was long forgotten by the time he
had given his name, through a quirk of history, to the stock
buffoon character already very popular on the Elizabethan
stage. Shakespeare took this popular clown and made him so
much more effective a character that there was no longer any
need or desire to identify him as a commonplace figure. The
"Castle" in "P.T.'s" reading becomes a famous tavern to
which the Prince and Falstaff would frequently resort

(22:459-61).

In the textual notes, _1 cites "P.T.," as found in the fig,
for this suggestion (21:31). The El editor for this play,
Samuel B. Hemingway, adopts the Q; text of 1598 almost in
its entirety: 91 here reads "of Bible" after "hony." Rowe
had used the [1 text above, and perhaps "P.T." followed
Rowe. Had "P.T.'s" source been an edition taken from 9;,
his emendation would not has been as attractive to him; "the

honey of Hibla of the Castle" is a highly unlikely reading.

98

Riverside follows the quarto here, and reports the tradi-

tional allusion to Oldcastle (849).

I.iii.201 Hotspur. By heauen, me thinkes it were an easie
leap,

to plucke bright Honor from the pale-fac'd Moone,

Holt White discusses this passage among other remarks in a
1783 letter to the g5. He reports that Warburton had found
Hotspur's language in this passage gallant and heroic, but
that despite this testimony, all others have seen the speech
"as bombast." He continues, "Beaumont and Fletcher thought
it a proper object of ridicule, and as such have licen—

tiously quoted it in the Knight of the Burning Pestle"

 

(53,2:933). He then inserts the quotation.

Evidently, Holt White's note has never been used elsewhere.
It appears in none of the Steevens, Reed, or Malone edi-
tions, nor is it mentioned by Hemingway in the Hi. In any
event, Theobald had said a similar thing in his 112;. War-
burton appears to be the only commentator who admires these

lines (21:75-6).

II.i.l Carrier. Heigh-ho, an't be not foure by the day, Ile

be hang'd. Charles waine is ouer the new Chimney, and

yet our horse not packt.

The 1783 fig excerpts from Ritson's Remarks include his

99

elucidation of "Charles' wain." Ritson says he is indebted

"to a learned friend,"

and defines the phrase as "the vulgar
name given to the constellation called the Bear. But why
'Charleses wain'? What 'Charles'? It is, in fact, a mere

corruption of the 'Chorles' or 'Churls' wain (Sax. ceorl, a

countryman.)" (53,2:593).

fl! quotes Ritson's illustration, but does not mention the GM

(21:87).

Riverside identifies the allusion as being to 'Charlemagne's

 

wagon,’ or the Great Bear, without referring to Ritson or

his differing etymology (854).

IV.ii.11 Falstaff. If I be not asham'd of my Souldiers, I

am a sowc't-Gurnet:

Rawligh Witlim's angry exchange with Matthew Wendall in the
1760 Qfl does not end with "keel the pot" (see page 42
above), but discusses "gurnet" as well. The sarcastic
Witlim asserts that the word is a variation of "grunt," and
"souc'd gurnet" means a pickled hog (30:276). Wendall
writes back to counter that "gurnet" is a salt water fish,
and that if Witlim would be more careful, he could find both
"gurnet" and "keel" in Johnson's Dictionary (30:405).
Although Witlim is wrong in this specific instance, he is
not far afield; the American Heritage dictionary reports

that "gurnet" does indeed derive from "grunt,' except that

in this instance the grunt is a noise the fish makes when

100

brought ashore.

Years later, as a sequel to the above exchange, "D.Y."
prints a plate of the "Red Gurnet" in the 1767 fig (37:34]).
The Nichols File does not refer to this specific page of the
93, but a 1773 article signed "D.Y." is attributed to David
Henry (Kuist 78). Henry is the "ingenious young printer"
who collaborated with Richard Cave on the editing, printing,
and publishing of the £3 after the death of its founder,
Richard's uncle Edward Cave, in 1754 (Nichols xlviii). It

is a safe bet that Henry is also the "D.Y." of 1767.

'_1 quotes Johnson, Steevens, and Malone for their defini-
tions, which differ slightly, but all see humor and contempt
in the expression. The gfl debate, earlier than any of these
scholars' editions, is ignored. Hemingway settles for a
quotation from the 922: "Gurnet: gurnard.. . . Used as a

term of opprobrium (21:264).

THE SECOND PART OF HENRY THE FOURTH

I.ii.58 Chief Justice. . . .

Regarding the real identity of the Lord Chief Justice in
this play, "M.E." writes to the 1781 EH to dispute the
traditional belief that Sir William Gascoigne was the judge
who disciplined Prince Hal. "M.E." argues that since Gas-

coigne died in 1412, the last year of Henry IV's reign, he

101

could not be the man who speaks to Henry V about the treat-
ment he had given the new king as a young prince. "M.E."
takes historian John Trussel to task for reporting the
disciplinary incident and the subsequent discussion,
assuming all the while that the Justice was Gascoigne.
Trussel did not even have Shakespeare's excuse of "licence"
for his deviation from possibility, writes "M.E." (51:516).

The Qfl furnishes here a full-page portrait of Gascoigne.

_1 quotes G. R. French's Shakespeareana Genealogica (1869),
which states that a Sir William Hankford was Gascoigne's
successor, and the DNB, which reports that Hankford takes
Gascoigne's place in one version of the legend. Matters are
further confused, however, in that the 1412 date above may
well be imprecise. In any event, "M.E." and the 95 are

absent from the inconclusive N1 discussion (23:5-6).

Riverside assumes Gascoigne to be the Justice involved (890,

 

867).

II.iv.33 Falstaff. When Arthur first in Court—-(emptie the

Iordan) and was a worthy King:

Percy finds this fragment's source in a ballad entitled "Sir
Lancelot du Lake," according to the 1765 review of Religues
(35:182).

N1 errs in thinking Steevens to be first with this dis-

covery. Percy is not mentioned (23:167).

102

Riverside identifies the ballad without attribution (898).

 

II.iv.284 Falstaff. Ha? a Bastard Sonne of the Kings? And

art not thou Poines, his Brother?

In one excerpt from Ritson's Remarks in the 1783 CE review,
Ritson asks, "His brother? whose brother? The King's, or
his bastard son's?" Instead, Ritson suggests we omit a

' which he calls "a vulgar

comma and read "Poins his brother,’
corruption of the genetive case." He continues, with char-
acteristic sarcasm, "That so easy a mark should never before
be hit is strange indeed. But the meaning, though obviously
wrong to the eye, can never be mistaken by the dullest ear.

Such an advantage in this, and in many other instances, has

the stage over the closet" (53,2:594).

Ll reports that the quarto version reads "Poins his,"
lending Ritson's suggestion a good deal of authority.
According to Ni's textual notes, Rann adopts Ritson's
"Poins's" for his 1124. ‘_1 quotes Ritson in the explanatory

notes as above, but makes no mention of the GM (23:204).

Riverside follows the quarto reading, and appends no note to

 

this line.

III.ii.23 Shallow. and Will Squele a Cot-sal—man,

Ritson reports that Steevens had explained a "Cotswold man"

103

(so it reads in Ritson's text) by paraphrasing, "i.e., one
skilled in gymnastic excercises." But Ritson has a nearly
opposite illustration; he quotes two instances in which, he
says, the expression signifies a timid individual: "As yt

' and "You stale old ruffian, you

were a lyon of Cotswoll,’
lyon of Cotswoll." Ritson remarks, "It is rather unlucky
that the ingenious commentator did not comprehend the force

of this expression. A 'lyon of Cotswold' is a sheep"

(53,2:594).

_l quotes Steevens' explanation as above. Malone is cited,
however, as writing that the Cotswold games did not begin
until the reign of James I, so Steevens' illustration is
probably anachronistic. Matthias A. Shaaber, the N! editor
for this play, comments, "Though Malone is very probably
right, the commentators uniformly annotate this phrase with
references to the Cotswald games, and even Onions glosses it

" Shaaber's finding of uniformity obviously

'athletic man.'
does not include Ritson's suggestion, which is ignored, as

is the EM (23:237).

Riverside identifies only the region in Gloucestershire

 

referred to, making no further explanation, perhaps wisely

(904).

104

IV.iii.6 Falstaff. Well then, Colleuile is your Name, a
Knight is your Degree, and your Place, the Dale.
Colleuile shall still be your Name, a Traytor your
Degree, and the Dungeon your Place, a place deepe

enough: so shall you be still Colleuile of the Dale.

The 1766 QM review quotes Tyrwhitt, "But where is the wit,
or the logic of this conclusion?" He offers the following

instead:

and the dungeon your Place, a dale deep enough,

in the belief that thus is the logic improved and the wit
sharpened. The QM reviewer, probably Hawkesworth, follows

this suggestion with a lengthy commentary of his own.

Now as to the logic of this passage, it
certainly consists in the proof that a dungeon is
a valley; which the proposed emendation wholly
destroys.

A deep place is a dale;

But a dungeon is a deep place,

Therefore a dungeon is a dale.

This logic, such as it is, is very suitable
to the character it is imputed to; and as to the
wit of the conclusion, there is at least as much
wit in this humorous sophistry by which Falstaff
supposes he proves a dungeon to be a dale, as in

his calling a dungeon a dale arbitrarily, and then

105

saying Colevill of the dungeon, is Colevill of the
dale.

Beside the words 'deep enough,‘ are redun—
dant, if the alteration takes place: If the dun-
geon be a dale, Colville of the dungeon will be
Colevill of the dale, whether this dale be deep or
not; neither can a dungeon with any propriety be
said to be deep as a dale, though it may properly
be said to be deep as a place.

Falstaff infers, that the dungeon is a dale
from its depth; he does not first affirm it to be

a dale, and then to be deep [36:23].

N! cites Tyrwhitt for his suggestion, and then quotes
Johnson in reply, from the 1113, "The sense of 'dale' is
included in 'deep'; 3 'dale' is a deep place: a 'dungeon' is
a deep place: he that is in a 'dungeon' may be therefore
said to be 'in a dale'" (Yale 7:512). Hawkesworth's
opinion, once again a virtual anticipation of Johnson's, has

been left unrecorded (23:323).

Riverside follows the original reading.
V.iii.102 Falstaff. Let King Couitha know the truth thereof.

The 1765 EM review of Religues notes Percy's agreement with
Warburton that there was once as "old bombast play" of King
Cophetua, and Percy's report of a ballad entitled, "King

Cophetua and the Beggar Maid" (35:182).

106

;1 quotes Johnson, who acknowledges his debt to Percy for
this ballad's identification. Ni does not mention Warbur-

ton, or any "old bombast play," or the 93 review (23:427).

Riverside notes the allusion to the ballad without attribu-

 

tion (920).

THE LIFE OF HENRY THE FIFTH

11.1.36 Quickly. O welliday Lady, if he be not hewne now, we

shall see wilful adultery and murther committed.

The gfl account of Malone's Supplement quotes his text as

 

reading, "well-a-day, lady." From this reading Malone pro-
ceeds to declare, "Surely, 'lady' has crept into this pas—
sage by the compositor's eye glancing to the preceding word.
It seems to have no meaning here." Malone's own source text
was "the quarto" (1§1§_12:323); had he known of the [1
reading reproduced above, he might not have been so sure of
the compositor's backward glance. Following this quotation,
the EM reviewer Duncombe, also ignorant of the El version,
nonetheless offers quite a satisfactory response: "To us it
seems obviously to mean 'by our lady,‘ or 'by'r Lady,‘ a

kind of oath very common in those times" (50:376).

1813 does not mention any discussion connected with this

phrase, though several paragraphs are devoted to "hewn."

107

Reed also uses Malone's spelling of "well-a-day,‘ and his

1

use of "drawn' for "hewn" (12:322-3).

Riverside notes, "Lady: (by Our) Lady, a mild oath" (941),

 

without attribution to the reviewer Duncombe.

IV.Chorus.15 The Countrey Cocks doe crow, the Clocks doe
towle:
And the third howre of drowsie Morning nam'd,
Prowd of their Numbers, and secure in Soule,
The confident and ouer-lustie French,

Doe the low-rated English play at Dice;

The 1765 EM excerpts from Tyrwhitt's Observations record his

' which creates a

suggestion here of "name" for "nam'd,'
second, parallel verb for the subject "Clocks." He also
begins a new sentence with "Proud" of line 17 (35:616).
Tyrwhitt's source text, accurately reproduced in the QM, had
differed from the £1 version only in placing the phrase "the
third . . . nam'd" within parentheses; the phrase was still
to be read as an absolute describing the circumstances
attendant upon the action of the subject "French" two lines
later. Both the original and Tyrwhitt's versions make gram-

matical sense, but Tyrwhitt's has the advantage of superior

logical sense as well.

1813 cites Tyrwhitt for this suggestion, omitting mention of
the EM, and admits his alteration into its text. Reed

quotes Steevens's approbation, "I have admitted this very

108

necessary and elegant emendation." But Malone is also
quoted, and he favors "with almost equal probability" a

suggestion from Hanmer, to read "morning's named,‘ making of

the two words a new subject and verb altogether (12:419).

Riverside prints "name" in the text, within the customary

 

brackets, and cites Tyrwhitt for the conjecture (955, 974).

IV.i.289 King. 0 God of Battailes, steele my Souldiers
hearts,
Possesse them not with feare; Take from them now
The sence of reckning of th'opposed numbers:

Plucke their hearts from them.

In response to this text, Tyrwhitt suggests, according to
the EM review,
Take from them now
The sense of reckoning, if the opposed numbers

Pluck their hearts from them!

Hawkesworth's silence following this emendation may be taken
as approval (36:23). The revision is a sound one; in this
version Henry is not asking that his soldiers' hearts and

reckoning abilities be removed without qualification.

1813 reports that Theobald also had found the passage in
need of revision; he suggested "lest the opposed numbers."
Reed then reprints Tyrwhitt's emendation, along with his

accompanying explanation (not included in the EM excerpt)

109

that Theobald's suggestion is inferior to his own because it
deviates more from the source text. "In conjectural criti-
cism, as in mechanics," Tyrwhitt writes, "the perfection of
the art, I apprehend, consists in producing a given effect
with the least possible force" (Observations 44). Steevens
has added, "It will be the lot of few critics to retire with
advantage gained over my lamented friend, Mr. Tyrwhitt"

(12:399).

Riverside adopts Tyrwhitt's "if," within brackets, with

 

proper attribution (958, 974).

THE FAMOUS HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF HENRY THE EIGHTH

II.iv.lll Queen Katherine. You haue by Fortune, and his
Highnesse fauors,
Gone slightly o're lowe Steppes, and now are mounted
Where Powres are your Retainers, and your words
(Domestickes to you) serue your will, as't please

Your self pronounce their Office.

In his excerpts printed in the 1765 EM, Tyrwhitt suggests
that we read "your wards" for "your words" here. He argues,
"The Queen rises naturally in her description. She paints
the powers of government depending upon Wolsey under three
images: as his retainers, his wards, his domestick servants

(35:616).

110

1813 cites Tyrwhitt as above, omitting mention of the £3,

and quotes Steevens as supporting the emendation (15:96).

Riverside retains the £1 reading, but expresses a lack of

 

confidence in its own gloss: "your words . . . office: i.e.
words, like menial servants, are made to serve any function

that you choose to give them (?)" (996).

111

CHAPTER IV

THE TRAGEDIES

THE TRAGEDY OF TITUS ANDRONICUS

IV.i.89 Marcus. And sweare with me, as with the wofull
Feere
And father of that chast dishonoured Dame,

Lord Iunius Brutus sweare for Lucrece rape,

According to the review of Observations in the 1765 EM,
Tyrwhitt suggests we restore the word "feere" to the text as

"peer," the word found in all the

above, in place of
eighteenth-century editions. Tyrwhitt finds this reading in
his familiar £2. and defines the word "feere" as "companion"

(35:583). In this particular usage, he writes, it means

"metaphorically, a 'husband'" (Observations 15).

1813 gives Tyrwhitt the credit for finding "feere" and for
applying its definition in the metaphorical sense here
(although Reed mistakenly identifies Tyrwhitt's source as
the "first folio"). Tyrwhitt is also quoted as calling this

reading "incontestably the true one." Steevens agreed with

112

him in his own editions (21:86—7). OED supports a defini-

tion such as the one Tyrwhitt offers.

THE TRAGEDY OF ROMEO AND JULIET

I.iv.37 Romeo. For I am prouerb'd with a Grandsier Phrase,
Ile be a Candle-holder and looke on,
The game was nere so faire, and I am done.
Mercutio. Tut, duns the Mouse, the Constables owne
word,
If thou art dun, weele draw thee from the mire.
Or saue your reuerence loue, wherein thou stickest

Vp to the eares,

The same "T.P." identified as Grey's friend Mr. Smith in
chapter 2 above, page 67, wrote again to the EM in 1750 to
comment upon this disputed passage. Noting first that Pope
had omitted the lines, "T.P." proceeds to ridicule War-
burton, who had explained "constable's own word" as if
Mercutio thereby pretends Romeo's proverbs are some kind of

password for the constable: "dun,"

said Warburton, refers to
Romeo's dark complexion. Next "T.P." offers his own emenda-
tion: we are to read "ward" for "word." Mercutio's obscure
phrase hence becomes "Dun's the mouse, the Constable's own
ward." The whole problem begins with a quibble on the word

"done," "T.P." writes, and Mercutio only means, "Nothing to

it," because they are standing in Capulet's "own ward,"

113

where Capulet is least likely to tolerate any kind of distu-
rbance or altercation. "T.P." claims that the sequel bears
this out, since Capulet soon chastises Tybalt for causing
trouble in his house. The letter to the GM closes with
"T.P." ridiculing Warburton further, claiming that by now
all of Warburton's edition has been "committed to the

flames" (20:362).

_X omits any reference to "T.P." or to the GM, and conse—
quently does not mention the "ward" emendation. Malone
writes, "I know not why, this phrase seems to have meant
'Peace: be still!'" and guesses it is perhaps because a
constable remains quiet while apprehending malefactors

(1:58).

Riverside notes that the phrase "dun's the mouse" was a

 

proverb meaning "be silent and unseen"; the editor remarks,

"hence the association with constables" (1064).

I.iv.72 Mercutio. 0n Courtiers knees, that dreame on
Cursies strait:

' which

Tyrwhitt reports that F; reads "countries knees,‘
leads him to suspect that the true reading may be "counties
(i.e., noblemen)" (35:582). The word "courtiers" appears

again in E; in the very next line, and Tyrwhitt notes that

other editors have strayed so far as to change this second

"courtiers" to "lawyers." But "lawyers" is the reading of

114

all the quartos and £1.

NV quotes Tyrwhitt's conjecture among the textual notes,

ignoring the GM (1:64).

Riverside reads "courtiers'" (1065).

II.i.13 Mercutio. Young Abraham Cupid he that shot so true,

When King Cophetua lou'd the begger Maid,

The 1765 EM review of Percy's Religues reports his discus-
sion of the old ballad "King Cophetua and the Beggar-Maid,"
also mentioned in chapter 3 above, page 106. Percy quotes
a line thus: "The blinded boy that shot so trim." He sug-
gests, "It is, therefore, not improbable that Shakespeare
wrote 'shot so trim,‘ and that the players or printers not
knowing the allusion, might alter it to 'shot so true';

'trim,'

besides being the more humorous expression, seems
most likely to have been put into the mouth of Mercutio"
(35:181). Just prior to this entry, the GM review had

noted Percy's reference to this passa e in a discussion of
q 8

Much Ado About Nothing and the famous archer Adam Bell (page

 

53 above). There Percy suggests that the "Abraham Cupid" of

Romeo and Juliet makes no particular sense; the line should

 

read "Adam Cupid," alluding to Bell.

N1 quotes the Cambridge Shakespeare (1865) to the effect
that Pope was the first to call attention to the ballad

mentioned, but did not admit "trim" into his text. Cam-

115

bridge then cites Percy for the "trim" reading in his
Religues, notes N1, but the GM is not mentioned. Steevens
appears to be the first to have changed his text to "trim,"
in his 112;. ‘N! does not cite Percy for his note on
"Abraham Cupid," giving that credit to Upton instead

(1:87-9).

Riverside retains "Abraham" for its reference to a thieving

 

beggar called the "Abraham man," and follows 91, published
in 1597, where the reading is, indeed, "trim" (1067). Percy
was obviously not aware of the 91 version; he would have

been gratified to know it supports his conjecture.

THE TRAGEDY OF JULIUS CAESAR
IV.iii.136 Brutus. Ile know his humor, when he knowes his
time:

What should the Warres do with these Iigging Fooles?

The 1783 EM account of the Second Supplement records

 

Malone's disapproval of Capell's "jingling" emendation for
"jigging" here. He writes that Capell has over six hundred
"capricious and unwarrantable" alterations. As "jig" meant
a metrical composition, he notes, "jigging fools" refers to
"silly poets" (53,1:507). In fairness it must be noted that
Malone was continually escalating the number of "unwarran-
table" emendations he counted in Capell, and never docu-

mented more than a handful (Vickers 6:349n).

116

N! defends Capell by noting that many editors followed Pope,
the originator of "jingling," but that Capell alone suffered
Malone's attack; not even Pope is blamed. H. H. Furness,
Jr., the editor of the Ni edition of Julius Caesar, defends
Capell from the attack, writing, "Malone and Steevens were
ever unjust to Capell, though often silently adopting or
appropriating his sagacious emendations." N! makes no

mention here of the GM (17:216).

Riverside follows Fl without comment.

 

THE TRAGEDY OF HAMLET, PRINCE OF DENMARK

I.i.117 Horatio. As stars with trains of fire, and dews of
blood,

Disasters in the sun;

[The passage in which these lines occur does not appear in
El: the version above is Riverside's, which follows 92
(1604/5) but modernizes the spelling. The two lines have
long been troublesome, since they follow a complete sen-
tence, yet contain no verb of their own, and bear no other
syntactic connection with their neighbors. Rowe had emended

them as follows:

Stars shone with trains of fire, dews of blood fell;

Disasters veil'd the sun.

117

Rowe's emendation was followed by most eighteenth-century

editors.]

The 1783 EM review of Malone's Second Supplement reprints

 

his retraction of a note he had written previously.

"Instead of my former, I wish to substitute the following
note," he writes. "The words 'shone,' 'fell,' and 'veil'd,'
having been introduced by Mr. Rowe without authority, may be
safely rejected." He suggests a change "nearer to the

original copy":

Astres, with trains of fire and dews of blood,

Disastrous, dimm'd the sun.

Malone concedes that there is no authority for 'astres'
either, but reasons that it would be a coinage from astrum
exactly parallel to Shakespeare's 'antres,' in Othello, from
antrum. "If, however, this be thought too licentious,"

Malone writes, he offers "His stars,"

referring to Caesar.
As authority for "dim" used as a verb, Malone cites The

Tempest, Richard III, and Sonnet 18 (53,1:507).

 

N1 quotes Malone's "astres" among its explanatory notes. No
editor has followed this reading. The GM is not mentioned

(3:18).

Riverside annotates line 116 thus: "One or more lines may

have been lost between this line and the next" (1143).

118

I.ii.65 Hamlet. A little more then kin, and lesse then

kinde.

In a letter to the 1774 GM, Rev. John Kynaston ("Q") writes
from Caerhaes, Cornwall, to review the illustrations War-
burton, Johnson, and Hanmer have offered for this line.
Warburton considers "kind" to be an adjective here, and adds

N

it, in the place of "and, to the King's line immediately

preceding:
But now my cousin Hamlet, kind my son?

This would seem, however, to require Hamlet to call himself
cruel with his reply. Johnson thinks instead that "kind" is
used here in its Teutonic sense of "child." He writes,
"Hamlet therefore answers with propriety, to the titles of

'

'cousin' and 'son, which the King had given him, that he

was somewhat more than 'cousin, and less than son'" (Yale
8:961). Turning to Hanmer, Kynaston examines his assertion,
supported with lines from Gorbuduc, IV.i, and Shakespeare's
Richard 1;, IV.i., that "kin and kind" is merely a common
proverbial expression for relatives, which Hamlet twists in
order to exaggerate the differences between himself and his
uncle. Finally, Kynaston suggests that his own interpre-
tation is closer to the mark. He writes that "kind" also

' and that the significance of Hamlet's remark

means "nature,'
lies in the fact that he and his uncle have an "unnatural"
relationship because it is "founded in two unnatural crimes,

murder and incest" (44:455-6). OED reports instances of

119

this usage in other sources.

_X cites Steevens for the explanation of "unnatural" for
"less than kind," including Steeven's argument that "kind"
means "nature." No mention is made of "Q" or Kynaston, who

was clearly first with this suggestion (3:33).

Riverside's gloss is very close to Johnson's.

I.v.76 Ghost. Cut off euen in the Blossomes of my Sinne,

Vnhouzzeled, disappointed, vnnaneld,

In the same letter with the entry above, Kynaston turns his
attention to this troublesome passage, and in so doing
initiates an extended debate that continues through several

issues of the magazine. He quotes Capell first,

Unhousel'd, unanointed, unanneal'd,

but centers his discussion upon the "unnaneld" of El. Pope,

he notes, suggested we read it in the sense of "un-knell'd,"

or "no knell rung,‘ emphasizing how the former King departed

this world unaccompanied by proper and sufficient obsequies.
In response to Pope, Theobald offered "unaneal'd," by which

' deriving this word, in Kynaston's

he meant "un-anointed,'
account, from the Teutonic 32.213, "without oil." In
Theobald's version, then, the missing ceremony is extreme
unction. Kynaston derives his own suggestion, "unannul'd,"

from the Latin annulus, or "ring,' and explains that the

120

King must have been interred without a ring on his finger.
According to Ducarel's Anglo-Norman Antiquities, Kynaston
reports, kings are invariably buried with their rings on.
He reasons that the departure from invariable practice in
this circumstance indicates that Hamlet's father met with
foul play (44:455-6).

Two months later, in December, an anonymous corre-
spondent writes wishing to "disannul" Kynaston's suggestion.
He declares that the line seems clearly to concern solemn
rites, so a reference to a custom merely ceremonial would be
incongruous. Besides, he reminds readers, Hamlet says else-
where that his father had received a royal burial. The
correspondent inclines towards Theobald's explanation-—
without naming him--and wonders whether "unanointed" crept
into the line from a marginal gloss for "unanneal'd"
(44:553-4). Such a supposition cannot occur to one who
takes El as the source text, of course. He also declares
his preference for "unappointed" over "disappointed."

Kynaston writes back in February of the following year
to assert his conviction that "unappointed" is "too general"
in this context. "The poet is evidently here describing the
particular kinds of preparation which the King wanted, when
sent to the grave." But he now agrees with this correspon-
dent in the matter of solemn rites. Perhaps, notes
Kynaston, one should follow Pope's reading, since the
passing bell is rung after unction. in order that the depar-
ting soul may receive the prayers of all nearby Christians

at the propitious moment. In this interpretation the three

121

elements of the disputed line appear in correct chronologi-
cal order (45:80).

A year later, in the March 1776 issue, "J.B." of New-
castle upon Tyne writes to illustrate the line using Anglo—
Saxon records. According to "a very scarce and curious copy
of Fabian's Chronicle, printed by Pynsen, 1516," Pope Inno-
cent had interdicted all of England, forbidding mass or any
other Christian rite to be performed there. Nonetheless,
"J.B." quotes, "there were dyverse placys in Englond, whiche
were occupyed with dyvyne Servyce all that season by Lycence
purchaced than or before, also Chyldren were crystenyd
thoroughe all the Lande and Men houselyd and aneyld (Fol. 14
Septima Pars Johannis)" [I suspect the emphasis is
"J.B.'s"]. "J.B." asserts that the Anglo-Saxon hgggl
(eucharist) and £13 (oil) "are plainly the roots" of those
words. Hence, "pp 511$ should seem to signify 'oiled' or
anointed by way of eminence, i.e. having received extreme
unction." "J.B." points out that the historian is here
speaking expressly of the "VII Sacraments." He concludes,
"If I mistake not, our poet has been very conversant in this
Chronicle (46:124)."

It goes on. The anonymous respondent to Kynaston's
initial remark above now writes back in April 1776 to report
a discovery he made while reading a description of the death
of the Earl of Mordaunt, which he located in "an account
["by Halsted"] of the several families that have possessed

Drayton, &c. in Northamptonshire, now the estate of Lord

122

George Germaine." He finds that "unabsolved" and "unas—
soiled" can both stand instead of "un-anointed," and dec-
lares that he prefers "unappointed." He explains, "I mean,
in the sense of 'properly fitted out for a journey to the
other world.‘ In Lambard's Topographical Dictionary we
have, p. 227, 'Ryd princely appointed.'" As for the ori-
ginal (and ongoing) debate concerning "unnaneld," he thinks
that the word is fine except for its spelling, which is
quite a trivial cause for dispute (46:175).

Finally, in June, "Juvenis" writes to suggest that this
and similar debates be settled by emendations using words
that ggppd most similar to those in the original texts. His
reasoning holds that the plays were never carefully written
down, but were instead printed from the reports of people
who had heard them presented. More errors have probably
come from faulty hearing, he suspects, than any other means.
Because "Juvenis" finds "disappointed" insufficiently
expressive of meaning, he searches for a substitute that
sounds similar but expresses more. Thus, he writes, folk
history, coming to him by means of "many ancient persons,
who have received the tradition from their forefathers,"
informs him that the preparation of dying Christians for
burial required that they be "houseld" (given the sacra—
ment), "unctioned" (anointed), and finally knelled by the
"passing bell." Evidently he wishes to admit emendations
from both Pope and Theobald after all (46:266-7).

The last word of all comes, appropriately, from the GM.

reviewer himself, presumably Duncombe. In a 1785 review of

123

Robert Heron's Letters pf Literature, Duncombe writes that

 

three of the letters, 6, l8, and 38, "contain remarks and

criticisms on the last edition of Shakespeare,‘ the Johnson

and Steevens 1785. The Letters, Duncombe notes, reveal

' but this knowledge is accompanied

"considerable knowledge,‘
by "much acrimony." Perhaps because the GM had discussed
this great Hamlet crux at considerable length already, Dun-
combe does not present any detail concerning Heron's com-
ments on the present passage, except to indicate that Heron
has indeed referred to it. Duncombe himself then goes on to

"unanneal'd" occurs once in Holinshed and two or

report that
three times in Fox's ngk‘gf Martyrs, "where it is explained
at length." As for the other disputed word, Duncombe would
read "unappointed." He adds, evidently in criticism of

'

Heron, that no one wanted elucidation of 'unhousel'd"

(55,2:546).

N1 ignores Kynaston's "unannul'd" ("no rings on") and his
later comments agreeing with Pope; makes no mention of the
anonymous correspondent's two suggestions; overlooks

"J.B.'s" discovery in Fabian's Chronicle which tends to

 

support Theobald's "unaneal'd"; but, at last, among its
textual notes, actually cites "Juvenis" in the GM for his
"unknell'd" (3:103). Furness further overlooks Duncombe's
comments with respect to Heron. But Heron himself is not
entirely ignored by the N1. In its 1909 volume of Richard
111, Furness' son H. H. Furness, Jr., writes, "'Robert

Heron, Esq., was the assumed name of a Scotchman, John

124

Pinkerton, author, among other works, of a volume entitled
Letters pf Literature, which, on account of its violent and
dogmatic assertions, excited much controversy at the time of

its publication in 1785" (16:101).

Johnson confesses in his 11§§_that he has not satisfied
himself yet on this passage; his restoration of the El
"disappointed" from Theobald's "unappointed" may have caused
some of the dissension above. He notes, "'Disappointed' is
the same as 'unappointed,' and may be properly explained
'unprepared'; a man well furnished with things necessary for

any enterprise, was said to be well 'appointed'" (Yale

8:971).

Riverside notes, "Unhous'led: without the Eucharist. disap-
pointed: without (spiritual) preparation. unanel'd: una-
nointed, without extreme unction" (1150). No attributions

are given.

II.i.108 Polonius. I am sorrie that with better speed and
iudgement

I had not quoted him.

The Reverend Samuel Denne, who signed his hundred or more

contributions with the initial letters of his two parishes,
"W. & D." (Kuist 55) writes to the 1776 GM to comment upon
this passage. Denne suggests we read "quoited" in prefer-

ence either to the El text, to Warburton's "noted,' or to

125

Johnson's gloss of "reckon" for this particular sense of
"quote" ("to take the 'quotient' or result of a computation"
[Yale 8:972]). The "old quarto" reads "coted," and, writes
Denne, "I have a notion that 'coit' or quoit' . . . was
oftener spelt indiscriminately with a 'c,' or a 'q,' than

'quote." "Cote" or "coit" or "quoit" thus alike mean

"

"observe, but "quote" does not. Denne then links "speed,"

judgement,‘ and "cast,' other words in Polonius' speech, all
in one jest with "quoit." He considers "quoit" an especi-
ally "quaint" expression entirely befitting Polonius

(46:512).

_1 prints this suggestion in the textual notes with faithful
attribution to "W. & D." and the GM (3:128), but does not

know that "W. & D." was Denne.

Riverside follows Q; precisely, reading "heed" for "speed"
as well as "coted" for "quoted"; "coted" is indeed glossed

as "observed" (1152), but without attribution.

III.i.58 Hamlet. Or to take Armes against a Sea of

troubles,

Reverend John Kynaston ("Q" as above, but in this early
letter writing from his residence at Wigan, prior to his
retirement to Caerhaes) writes to the 1772 GM concerning
this celebrated mixed metaphor. He quotes Pope's "arms

'

against a siege of troubles,‘ and Warburton's declaration,

"Without question Shakespeare wrote--Against Assail of

126

Troubles." Then Kynaston discusses similar instances of
this species of metaphor in great literature. In Prometheus
Vinctus of Aeschylus ("the Athenian Shakespeare"), he finds

"The stormy sea of dire calamity," line 671, and, at 810-11,

My plaintive words in vain confus'dly beat

Against the waves of hateful misery.

Kynaston adds that he does not take this similarity of
expression to mean that Shakespeare knew Aeschylus. "All
that is hereby intended is, to shew, from the example of a
genius as bold and eccentric as his own, that the harsh
constructing of a metaphor, or the jumbling of different
ones in the same sentence, is not peculiar to Shakespeare,
nor a sufficient reason to authorize an alteration of his
text" (42:418). Not long after this September letter,
Kynaston writes back in December to add that he has found
two "modern" works, the Latin Iambics of Baudius ("Dominici
Baudii Epistol. Cent. 1. Epist. x") and the "Sentimental
Journey thro' Greece" of M. DeGuys, which demonstrate simi-
larly harsh metaphors (42:556).

Years later, "Phosphorus" writes to the 1784 GM, spea-
king of Shakespeare's poetic art, "It seems to me, that he
only took the first strong metaphor which came into his
head, to express himself forcibly and pathetically, and then
another and another, as the subject rose upon them, but had
no idea of making them connected with or dependent on each

other." As an example of this in a classical poet, he

127

quotes Terence's "I am walled about with so many and so

great difficulties that I cannot swim out" (54:84).

_1 cites Theobald for a comment about Shakespeare's "freedom

in combining metaphors,‘ which is similar to Kynaston's

remark. But Theobald quotes from Aeschylus and from the

prophet Jeremiah to show how "sea"

has been used to stand
for "army." Thus, in a sense, Theobald argues that the
metaphor is not quite so mixed as we might think. He doubts
that any change in the line is necessary, but offers a
couple anyway. Kynaston and "Phosphorus," who forthrightly

admit that Shakespeare was not concerned to keep his meta-

phors unified, are passed over-in silence (3:207).

Johnson remarks, in part, "I know not why there should be so
much solicitude about this metaphor" (Yale 8:981). There is

not much, today; Riverside is silent on this line.

III.i.74 Hamlet. When he himselfe might his Quietus make

With a bare Bodkin?

An anonymous correspondent writes in 1765 that he has found
an almanac from 1667, and that "among other memorable things
there mentioned, I find as follows-~‘Julius Caesar slain
with bodkins." Recalling the passage above, he concludes,
"Shakespeare did not mean, as I perceive it is generally
understood, 'a little utensil of ladies for their hair'--but

a 'dagger, which, it seems, was then called a 'bodkin,'

though I have not been able to find it in any Dictionary or

128

Glossary." He has found it also, he says, in Sydney's
Arcadia (35:229). He writes back two years later, stating
he now understands that men always travelled with "this

little instrument of defense" (37:57).

N! cites Theobald's Shakespeare Restored (1726) for its "old

usage" gloss of "dagger" for "bodkin,"

and reports that
Theobald found it in Chaucer's "Monk's Tale." Theobald had
previously mentioned and discarded the current "hair imple—

ment" definition. The GM correspondent was unaware of Theo-

bald's reading, obviously, and receives no mention (3:212).

Riverside lists no attribution for its note, "bare bodkin:

 

mere dagger" (1160).

III.i.78 Hamlet. The vndiscouered Countrey, from whose
Borne

No Traueller returnes,

"N.R." writes in 1768 to convey his impression that here
Shakespeare contradicts himself, since the Ghost himself is

clearly a returned traveller (38:237).

_V notes that this contradiction was spotted as early as
Theobald's 1733, and later in Farmer's 1767 Essay (3:213-4).

Neither Johnson nor Riverside mention it at all.

129

III.ii.12 Hamlet. I could haue such a Fellow whipt for
o're-doing Termagant: it out-Herod's Herod. Pray you

auoid it.

Holt White's letter in 1783 includes his critique of Percy's
definition for Termagant, which reads in part, "a Saracen
diety, clamorous and violent in old moralities." Holt White
responds, "The Saracens were Mahometans before the Crusaders
were acquainted with them, and consequently had no 'die-
ties'; the 'unity' of the diety being the principle part of

the creed that Mahomet enjoined his followers" (53,2:935).

Evidently Steevens felt it necessary to alter Percy's formu-
lation somewhat, since he quotes Percy, according to N1, as

writing that Termagant was the name for "the god of the

 

Saracens" (emphasis mine). Perhaps Steevens was influenced
by Holt White's objection. In any event, White is not

mentioned at this passage in N1 (3:226).

Riverside calls Termagant "a supposed god of the Saracens,
whose role in medieval drama . . . was noisy and violent"
(1161). Incidentally, Riverside prints 91's "would" for

"could" in line 12.

IV.v.104 Messenger. And as the world were now but to begin,
Antiquity forgot, Custome not knowne,
The Ratifiers and props of euery word,

They cry choose we? Laertes shall be King,

130

The Tyrwhitt excerpts include his suggestion that we read

"work" for "word" (35:616).

NV cites Tyrwhitt's suggestion in its explanatory notes and
indicates that Capell adopted it; no mention of the GM
appears (3:338). Warburton had suggested "ward," and

Johnson, "weal," in the sense of "government" (Yale 8:997).

Riverside notes, "word: pledge, promise" (1173).

V.i.61 1 Clown. In youth when I did loue, did loue,

me thought it was very sweete;

Percy reports that this song was taken from three stanzas of
the poem, "The Aged Lover Renounceth Love." According to
the 1765 review of Reliques, he writes that it is supposed

to be the work of [Thomas] "Lord Vaux" (35:181).

_1 states that Theobald was the first to discover the origin
of the Clown's song, but that he was misled by the title-
page of his source volume into believing it the work of
Surrey. Percy may have been the first contemporary to name
Lord Vaux as the author, but Furness also finds the attribu-
tion in Gascoigne's "Epistle to a Young Gentleman." The
only mention of Percy comes in reference to some comments he

made on corrupted lines in Shakespeare's quotation (3:380-

81).

Riverside identifies the song and its author (1178).

131

V.i.147 1 Clown. It was the very day, that young Hamlet was

borne,

The 1783 review of Ritson's Remarks reprints his criticism
of Sir William Blackstone's comments on this line.
Blackstone had interpreted from the clown's words here and
later, at line 162, that Hamlet is now thirty years old.
But he must have been much younger in the first act,
Blackstone argued, as he was still going to school. There-
fore Shakespeare must have forgotten by the fifth act what

' writes

he had written in the first. "In fact, however,’
Ritson, "the poet has forgot nothing; . . . men may study,
or reside at the University at any age" (53,2:595).
Immediately following this excerpt, the GM reviewer
writes that everybody knows, including Blackstone from his
own experience, that men can attend school at all ages. The
critical issue, writes the reviewer—-presumably Duncombe-~is
that no princes have studied at the University that late in
life; thus Blackstone was justified in calling attention to
the discrepancy. Duncombe then criticizes Ritson for inva-
riably writing "hisself" for "himself," and committing simi-
lar blunders with the language. The review concludes with a

letter about Ritson's book reprinted from St. James's

Chronicle, part of which reads, "His Commentary is confined

 

to topicks of a most trivial and insignificant nature. He
explains nothing that is of any consequence to Shakespeare's
real merit and character.. . . Not a single important or

shining passage of Shakespeare is the subject of any one of

132

his elaborate elucidations." The letter is signed "Alci-

!

phron,' and is itself followed by a virulent, pro-Ritson

reply, from "Justice."

ii overlooks both Ritson and the EM, but cites Dr. Benno

Tschischwitz (Shakespeare's Saemmliche Werke, 1869) for

 

 

correcting Blackstone on the point Ritson had attempted to

make (3:390).

THE TRAGEDY OF OTHELLO, THE MOOR OF VENICE

I.i.20 Iago. One Michaell Cassio, a Florentine

(A Fellow almost damn'd in a faire Wife)

Among the Observations excerpts printed in the 1765 GM is

 

Tyrwhitt's suggestion that we read "life" for "wife" here.
Cassio is unmarried, and evidently has not yet met Bianca.
Tyrwhitt argues that a fellow can be damned in a fair life
according to the biblical verse, "Cursed is he of whom all

men speak well" (35:582).

_1 quotes Tyrwhitt after reporting that Hanmer had offered
"phyz" for "wife," and that Theobald had wondered whether
the Florentine supposedly damned was not Iago himself. This
last suggestion probably came from Warburton (see Yale
8:1012). It would require Iago to have heard Othello speak

of him this way, and now to relate that speech verbatim to

Roderigo. Such a requirement has kept everyone except Heath

133

from considering Warburton's suggestion further. The GM is
not mentioned (5:5-10). Johnson writes, "This is one of the
passages which must for the present be resigned to currup-

tion and obscurity" (Yale 8:1012).

Riverside notes, "Unexplained. Perhaps Shakespeare origi-
nally intended to follow his source Cinthio in giving Cassio

a wife" (1203).

I.iii.261 Othello. 1 therefore beg it not
To please the pallate of my Appetite:
Nor to comply with heat the yong affects
In my defunct, and proper satisfaction.

But to be free, and bounteous to her minde:

In the same review excerpt as above, Tyrwhitt suggests that
we make sense of this passage by transposing the last two

lines, connecting them with a comma:

Nor to comply with heat, the young affects;
But to be free and bounteous to her mind,

In my defunct and proper satisfaction:

Tyrwhitt continues, "I would then recommend it to considera-
tion, whether the word 'defunct' (which would then be the
only remaining difficulty) is not capable of a significa-
tion, drawn from the primitive sense of its Latin original
[defungor, finish, discharge] which would very well agree

with the context" (Observations 5).

134

Kynaston writes a few years later to comment upon this
passage. He explains first how Warburton equates "heat" and

"appetite" with "young affects,"

and how Tyrwhitt transposes
the lines. Then he indicates his own agreement with Capell
in making "affects" stand in apposition with the other two

words, placing the phrase within parentheses:

Nor to comply with heat (the young Affects

In me defunct) and proper satisfaction[.]

Kynaston defends his choice by citing instances where the

word "affects" was used to mean "affection,"

as in Richard
II, I.iv, and Love's Labours Lost, I.i., as well as in

Beaumont and Fletcher's Bloody Brother, III.i. Furthermore,

 

Kynaston writes, such a use would be apt for one who des-

cribes himself, as does Othello, as being "quaint" or "rude

of speech" (43:69).

_V cites Upton's Qp Shakespeare for "in my defunct"; perhaps
Capell first read it there. Tyrwhitt's transposition sug-
gestion is quoted in N! as well. Furness comments, charac-
teristically, that since we all agree on Shakespeare's sense
here, we should not worry about his precise expression;
after all, "Would his fame be seriously impaired, or stabbed
to the centre, if we cautiously whispered among ourselves
that he now and then wrote carelessly?" Furness does not

mention Kynaston, "Q," or the GM at all (6:72-3).

Johnson reads exactly as Kynaston says Capell does. He adds

135

to his 1773, "Mr. Upton had, before me, changed 'my' to

c c,

me , but he has printed young 'effects,' not seeming to

know that 'affects' can be a noun" (Yale 8:1021).

Riverside glosses the lines much as does Johnson, but in the
textual notes cites Steevens for the reading that features
it

me" and parentheses (1242). Steevens surely borrowed this

from Johnson, or Capell, or Upton.

II.i.303 Iago. If this poore Trash of Venice, whom I trace
For his quicke hunting, stand the putting on,

Ile haue our Michael Cassio on the hip,

Writing to the 1763 GM as "T. Row," Samuel Pegge reviews one
other emendation for this pasage before offering his own.
For "Trash" and "trace," Warburton had read "Brach" and
"cherish." The 91 "crush," he declared, was "plainly a

corruption of 'cherish.'"

Pegge argues that there are no
male brachs, and nowhere else does he find "brach" used in
the derogatory sense Iago intends to apply here to Roderigo.
The whole passage, says Pegge, comes comes down to the
trash-trace quibble, "trace" here meaning "follow." "Now
this pun, once conceived in the author's head, led him to
proceed in the metaphor, and afterwards led him to carry on
the speech in words borrowed from hounds and the chace, it
being one of the sort itself: insomuch that these metapho-

rical allusions do not commence at the word 'trash,' but at

the word 'trace'; from which point the metaphor is suffi-

136

ciently followed and preserved, as there are no less than
three terms of the chase employed, trace, quick hunting,

putting on." Pegge further cites Henry VIII, III.ii.[44],

 

for this use of 'trace': "Now all my joy trace the conjunc-

tion" (33:160).

_1 traces various readings, including those of Malone (who
follows Q1), Theobald ("brach . . . trace"), Warburton as
above, and Steevens ("trash . . . trash," by the latter
meaning a hanging on of weights to slow an overly-eager
dog). Then Furness endorses a note by Halliwell quite
similar to Pegge's: "The meaning seems to be--if this wret-
ched fellow, whose steps I carefully watch in order to
quicken his pace, follows my directions, I will have our
Michael Cassio on the hip." But Pegge, "T. Row," and the EM

remain unacknowledged (6:121-2).

Riverside follows £1, and notes, "trace. Obscure. The

 

meaning must be something like 'train,' or 'check to make
more eager." Steevens' "trash" is cited as having the same

signification (1215).

II.iii.89 Iago. King Stephen was and-a worthy Peere,

His Breeches cost him but a Crowne,

Percy reports that this stanza comes from the Ballad, "Take

Thy Old Cloak About Thee" (35:182).

_1 quotes Percy's identification of this source without

137

mentioning the QM (6:131).

Riverside identifies the ballad by the name, "King Stephen

was a Worthy Peer." No citation is given (1216, 1631).

III.iii.447 Othello. Arise blacke vengeance, from the

hollow hell,

Holt White writes to the 1783 QM to suggest a rebuttal to
Warburton's judgment that "hollow hell" is "a poor unmeaning
epithet." White refers the reader to Paradise 1251, 1:314
["He call'd so loud, that all the hollow deep /Of hell
resounded"], for proof that the phrase has had meaning to
others as well as to Shakespeare (53,2:935). Early in the
following volume, "Y." writes to ask whether any harm is
done by the epithet, even if one concedes that Milton was
drawn into a poor usage by Shakespeare. "Y." quotes the

similar vastum inane, tinnit inane of Vergil (54:84).

_1_reports that most editors had adopted "thy hollow cell"
of Q1. "Hell" was not generally restored, notes Furness,
until Knight's 1Qfl1. It is possible that Holt White influ—
enced Knight indirectly, by means of the various Steevens
editions. Furness favorably quotes Holt White for the
reference above, without mentioning the QM or "Y." Presu-
mably MM found White's note through Steevens. The "hollow
hell" suggestion appears in the Johnson-Steevens 11Q§ and in

Malone's 1790 over the initials "H.T.W.," an error for

138

" which Furness did not

White's usual QM signature, "T.H.W.,
recognize (see page 46 above). But finally "Holt White" is
named in Steevens' 1793, and there, no doubt, Furness found

him.

Edited for an age less fastidious about its poetic language,

Riverside ignores the dispute and follows £1.

 

III.iv.46 Othello. A liberall hand. The hearts of old,
gaue hands:

But our new Heraldry is hands, not hearts.

The 1783 review of Ritson's Remarks quotes his criticism of
Warburton for seeing "too refined and complex" a meaning in
this passage; Warburton had seen the lines as satire on
James I's money-raising creations of baronets. Ritson
writes, "Without it can be proved that this play existed, in
its present shape, prior to the order of baronets, one may,
pretty safely, admit that this passage contains an allusion
to the arms allotted them. But that Shakespeare intended to
sneer at the establishment . . . is not quite as obvious
(53,2:593). Following this entry, the QM reviewer Duncombe
ridicules "Mr. R's" grammar: "The vulgarism of 'Without' for
'Unless' cannot escape the intelligent reader." But Dun—
combe makes no substantive comment on Ritson's criticism

here.

Although Ml quotes many other critics writing against War-

burton's note, Ritson is ignored (6:219). Johnson, however,

139

had called the historical interpretation "very judicious and

acute,' and considered any emendation unnecessary (Yale

8:1036).

Riverside provides an explanatory gloss for the lines, but

mentions no political allusion (1225).

IV.iii.28 Desdemona. She had a Song of Willough,
An old thing 'twas: but it express'd her Fortune,

And she dy'd singing it.

The QM review of Percy's Reliques quotes his identification
of this song as one entirely appropriate for Desdemona's own
circumstance. It had originally been called, "A Lover's

' and was later known

Complaint Being Forsaken of His Love,'
as "Willow, Willow, Willow" (35:182). Percy writes that the
words Desdemona sings a few lines later vary only slightly

from the versions he has found.

MM cites Percy's identification without mention of the QM

(6:277).

Riverside notes only, "Willow. Symbolic of disappointed

love" (1233).

V.i.ll Iago. I haue rub'd this yong Quat almost to the
sense,

And he growes angry.

140

Heath's Revisal, as quoted in the 1765 review, reports that
most editors have read "gnat" for "quat." Among the excep-
tions, he writes, are Upton's "quail" and Theobald's "knot,"
which Theobald had said was a small bird of Lancashire.
Still others, says Heath, have read "quab." Heath declares
that he remains unsatisfied with any, but offers no sugges-
tion of his own (35:111).

Following this entry, the QM reviewer, probably Hawkes-
worth, notes that "quat" is "an old word still used in many
parts of England for a 'pimple,' which is very likely to be
made 'angry' by 'rubbing.' This passage, therefore, the
correction of which has given the critics so much trouble,
probably wants no correction."" QQQ agrees with this defini-

tion for "quat,"

citing this very line. With this entry,
Hawkesworth closes his review, commenting, "This book being
chiefly an hyper criticism on the criticisms of the present
Bishop of Gloucester [Warburton], will afford neither so
much entertainment nor instruction as if it had been written
on a more general plan. And without the bishop's edition of
Shakespeare it cannot be read without perpetual vexation and
disappointment: for the reader is not referred to the pas-

sage by the act and scene of the play in which it occurs,

but by the volume and page of the bishop's edition."

.Ml follows the progress of the "quat" dispute through the
early editors, but because Johnson's summary is very similar

to Heath's, I quote Johnson:

This is a passage much controverted among the

141

editors. Sir T. Hanmer reads "quab," a "gudgeon";
not that a gudgeon can be "rubbed" to much
"sense," but that a man grossly deceived is often

' Mr. Upton reads "quail,"

called a "gudgeon.'
which he proves, by much learning, to be a very
cholerick bird. Dr. Warburton retains "gnat,"
which is found in the early quarto. Theobald

would introduce "knot,"

a small bird of that name.
I have followed the text of the folio, and the
third and fourth quartos.

A "quat" in the midland counties is a

"pimple,' which by rubbing is made to smart, or is

"rubbed to sense.‘ Roderigo is called a "quat" by
the same mode of speech, as a low fellow is now
termed in low language a "scab." "To rub to the

sense," is "to rub to the quick" [Yale 8:1044].

M1 quotes Johnson's explanation as above, which is clearly
similar to Hawkesworth's. _1 does not mention the QM review
(6:283). But the Heath-Hawkesworth-Johnson connection is
intriguing. The Revisal was published in February; Hawkes—
worth wrote his review for the February and March issues;
Johnson's edition came out in October. It is difficult to
say whether Johnson here attended to Heath's work as he
finished his own edition. That he repeats the same critical
history as Heath in this instance is little evidence one way
or another, all by itself; it helps little to know that

Johnson's sentence on Theobald's suggestion, "knot," was not

142

added until his 111;. But frequent coincidence suggests
something more; see Arthur Sherbo's Editor for a complete
account of Johnson's borrowings from Heath. The similarity
between Johnson's words and Hawkesworth's, on the other
hand, is too striking to be called a coincidence. It is
likely that the two friends were well aware of each other's
work; it is even possible that Hawkesworth provided Johnson
with materials from the Revisal review in advance of their
publication. In any event, two facts are certain: "quat"
does not appear in Johnson's Dictionary, printed in 1755;

and it is Johnson who is now remembered for supplying the

gloss Hawkesworth printed first in the QM.

Riverside notes, without attribution, " uat: im 1e, small
9 P P

boil. sense: quick" (1234).

THE TRAGEDY OF KING LEAR

I.iv.226 Lear. Do's any heere know me?
This is not Lear:
Do's Lear walke thus? Speake thus? Where are his eies?
Either his Notion weakens, his Discernings
Are Lethargied. Ha! Waking? 'Tis not so?
Who is it that can tell me who I am?
Fool. Lears shadow.
[Lear. I would learn that, for by the marks of

sovereignty,

143

Knowledge, and reason, I should be false persuaded
I had daughters.
Fool. Which they will make an obedient father.]

Lear. Your name, faire Gentlewoman?

[Riverside prints lines 232-5 in brackets as above, for the
lines do not appear in its copy-text, £1; their source is Q1
(1608) and Q1 (1619). In addition, Riverside combines
Lear's first two phrases into one full line. Lineation
above is Riverside's, as always, so the second £1 line above
does not bear a separate number; it is part of 226. Pope

had ended 232 after "marks," had rewritten 233 thus:
Of sovereignty, of knowledge, and of reason,
and had omitted 235 altogether.]

In the 1766 review of Observations, Tyrwhitt is quoted as

suggesting that we read and punctuate as follows:

for by the marks
Of sovereignty, of knowledge, and of reason,
I should be false persuaded--I had daughters--

Your name fair gentlewoman?

Tyrwhitt offers his reading in place of Johnson's, which
follows £1 faithfully, omitting the bracketed portion above

(36:24).

MM, which prints the quarto portion of this passage in

prose, cites Steevens (1773) for the punctuation and line

144

arrangement he had actually only borrowed from Tyrwhitt, who
is overlooked among MX's textual notes. Those notes also
record that only Knight's 1Q£1 has adopted the "daughters--"
punctuation Tyrwhitt suggests. The explanatory notes, how-
ever, do quote Tyrwhitt, and Furness seems to think his
illustration as good as any (5:83). While Johnson prints
only the £1 lines in his 1ZQ§_text, he quotes the quarto
passage (with slight inaccuracy) in his notes with the
remark, "I think the folio in this place preferable." This
note was omitted for the 1111, into which Steevens had
inserted Tyrwhitt's. Beneath this insertion Johnson writes,
"This note is written with confidence disproportionate to
the conviction which it can bring. Lear might as well know
by the marks and tokens arising from sovereignty, knowledge,
and reason, that he had or had not daughters, as he could
know by anything else. But, says he, if I judge by these
tokens, I find the persuasion false by which I had long

thought myself the father of daughters" (Yale 8:671).

Riverside inclines rather more toward Trywhitt than toward
Johnson, though neither man is mentioned in its gloss: "i.e.
everything-—the outward signs that I am king, my memory, my
common sense--suggests (falsely) that I am the man who had

daughters" (1263).

145

II.iv.152 Lear. Aske her forgiuenesse?

Do you but marke how this becomes the house?

"Gold-Cap" writes to the 1744 QM to quote Hanmer's emenda-
tion for this passage, an emendation which "Gold-Cap" under-

stands to have been suggested by Mr. Kinnesman:

Do you but mark--how this becometh--us?

"Gold-Cap" quotes from "other editions,‘ which read "becomes

the use,"

an eighteenth-century innovation. But "Gold-Cap"
is not aware of the £1 reading, which makes Hanmer's emenda-
tion less attractive. "Gold-Cap" takes his name in part
from five verses he quotes, supposedly written by Pope as
additions to Book IV of the Dunciad, but which were ordered
suppressed when Pope died before the appearance of Hanmer's
1133. The alleged addition would follow line 113 of Book

IV, and satirizes Hanmer's Oxford-sponsored edition; a

couplet reads,

On whom three hundred gold-capt youths await

To lug the pond'rous volume off in state.

"Gold-Cap" is thus identifying himself as an Oxford student.
Incidentally, this is the earliest item presenting an emen-
dation or illustration of Shakespeare to appear in the QM

(14:611).

_1 lists the suggestion among its textual notes as one of

Hanmer's. No commentators or editors have adopted it.

146

"Gold-Cap" receives no mention, not that one would expect
him to (5:152). Johnson believes "no reader is satisfied"

' and reads,

with "becomes the house,'

Do you but mark how this becometh--thus.

The two phrases, he thinks, might easily have been con—

founded by the printers (Yale 8:769).

Riverside glosses "becomes the house" as "befits family

 

decorum" (1271).

III.iv.138 Edgar. But Mice, and Rats, and such small Deare,

Haue bin Toms food, for seuen long yeare:

In the 1765 review of Reliques, Percy is quoted as remarking
that while critics often change "deere" to "geer" or
"cheer," he has found the following lines in the old
"Romance of Sir Bevis"; the lines refer to that knight's

hardships in a dungeon:

Rattes and myse and such smal dere

Was his meate that seven yere.

This is the second of two items selected by the QM reviewer
Hawkesworth for use in the introductory part of his review.
He writes, "In the first volume of this collection there are
all the ballads that illustrate Shakespeare, and to this
part the Editor has prefixed an essay on the origin of the

English stage, which contains many things not to be found in

147

any other" (35:180). After the 133p passage above he
writes, "To these we shall add a more particular account of
the ballads that illustrate Shakespeare, which may serve as
a supplement to some critical remarks, inserted the two
preceding months, see p. 110" (181). The remarks he men-
tions are those appearing in his recent review of Heath's
Revisal. This comment demonstrates the kind of particular
concern Hawkesworth had for Shakespeare studies, or perhaps
the concern he knew his readers had. He could have drawn
excepts from any of the scores of ballads Percy had printed,
but chose to limit them to one central theme: relevance to

Shakespeare scholarship.

MM cites Capell as one who found the source of Edgar's lines
in the ballad, which Capell named "Life of Sir Bevis."
Percy's precedence is not acknowledged. Furness also notes
that most editors after Warburton and Hanmer (who read
"geer") have retained "deer" (5:197). Johnson writes that
"'deer' in old language is a general word for wild animals"

(Yale 8:686). OED agrees, citing this line.

Riverside notes, "deer: animals. (Lines 137-39 are adapted

from the romance Bevis 21 Hampton.)" No attribution appears

(1277).

IV.vi.91 Lear. 0 well flowne Bird: i'th'clout, i'th'clout:

Hewgh.

Sir Walter Rawlinson's 1784 letter argues that Warburton's

148

reading here of "barb" for "bird" is clearly an error, since
Lear is speaking of the sport of archery, of "shooting at
butts," in which the "bird" is the arrow and the "clout" is
the white center of the target. Rawlinson finds corrobora-
tion for his suggestion in "Green's 13 guogue," which he
identifies as "a comedy written by John Cooke, in the reign

of Q. Elizabeth" (54,2:885).

[Ml finds that Warburton, Theobald, and Hanmer read "barb,"

and gives the definition for clout from Nares' 1822 Glossapy

 

(5:276-7). Rawlinson, "W.R.," and the QM are not mentioned.

Riverside notes, "bird: i.e. arrow. clout: centre of

target" (1286).

THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH

I.ii.14 Sergeant. And Fortune on his damned Quarry smiling,

Shew'd like a Rebells Whore:

Among the excerpts from his Revisal in the 1765 QM, Heath's
commentary on this passage notes that while all modern
editors (he can only mean all since Hanmer) read "quarrel,"
the original reads "quarry" and should be retained. He
writes, "Quarry is a term in falconry, signifying the game
of the hawk after she has seized, and while she is feeding
on it; metaphorically it signifies havock of any kind."

Heath cites further instances in Macbeth, "quarry of mur-

149

V

dered deer,’ and in Coriolanus, "I'll make a quarry"

 

(35:110).

_11 reports Heath's restoration of the £1 "quarry." But
Alexander Dyce is quoted as ridiculing Heath's citation of
the "quarry of murdered deer" from IV.iii.206, on the
grounds that, according to Heath's illustration, this would
have to mean the game killed by the deer. Although Dyce's
comment seems to confuse the partitive with the possessive
genetive, as well as to ignore Heath's suggestion of a
metaphorical extension of the term, "quarry" has not been a
popular reading for many reasons. Johnson quotes the line

using "quarry, then notes, "Thus the old copy, but I am

inclined to read 'quarrel.' 'Quarrel' was formerly used for

' or for 'the occasion of a quarrel,’ and is to be

'cause,
found in that sense in Hollingshead's account of the story
of Macbeth, who, upon the creation of the Prince of Cumber-
land, thought, says the historian, that he had 'a just
quarrel' to endeavor after the crown" (Yale 8:755). ‘Ml

quotes Elwin's Shakespeare Restored of 1853 as endorsing

Johnson's opinion. No mention of the QM appears (2:11).

Riverside prints "quarre1,' within brackets, attributing the

change to Hanmer (1312, 1340).

150

I.ii.36 Sergeant. If I say sooth, I must report they were
As Cannons ouer-charg'd with double Cracks,

So they doubly redoubled stroakes vpon the Foe:

[Riverside adds "so they" of line 38 to the end of 37, thus
beginning 38 with "Doubly," but makes no reference to this
emendation, nor lists any alternate reading in the textual
notes. Clearly either line 37 or 38 requires considerable
elision to be read as pentameter with "so they" superadded.
It is uncharacteristic of Riverside, to say the least,
silently to commit such an alteration from the sole autho-
rity for this play, E1. M1 locates this altered lineation

in The Globe Edition (1864) and in The Clarendon Press

 

Series (1869).]

Responding to commentators like Theobald who object to
"cracks" as something a cannon could even once be charged
with, Heath writes that the line is correct as £1 gives it.
According to the 1765 review of Revisal, he calls it an
instance of "metonomy of the effect for the cause,"
(35:110). Theobald had also deleted "doubly," and changed

the punctuation thus,

As cannons overcharg'd, with double cracks

So they redoubled strokes

Johnson thinks little is gained by Theobald's emendation,
and writes, "That a 'cannon is charged with thunder' or

'with double thunders' may be written, not only without

151

nonsense, but with elegance, and nothing else is here meant
by 'cracks'" (Yale 7:8). This time Johnson has a clear
claim for the precedence of his note over Heath's: these
remarks appear in his 1745 pamphlet, Miscellaneous Observa-

tions 22 the Tragedy g1 Macbeth.

_1 quotes Johnson, and Malone in support of him, but takes

no notice of Heath or the QM (2:15).

Riverside notes, "cracks: charges" (1313).

I.ii.60 Ross Nor would we deigne him buriall of his men,
Till he disbursed, at Saint Colmes ynch,

Ten thousand Dollars, to our generall vse.

Writing to the 1754 QM, "P.[aul] Gemsege" (an anagram for
Samuel Pegge) corrects the reading in Warburton, "at Colmes—
kill-isle," to "at Clomeskill's isle." He notes that the
island was named for the male English saint, Columba, and
has variously been called "Columba et Cella," "Columcelli"
(by Bede), and "Columkille," whence "Clomes-kill-isle" de-
rives, though inaccurately. The trouble is that this formu-
lation does not distinguish Columba from a different saint,
Columb, and would further indicate only the island of his
"cell," or tomb. As though matters were not sufficiently
complicated, Pegge mentions another St. Columba, a female,
whose name does not pertain to the island in any way
(24:495). "Gemsege" writes again in the next volume to

expand upon his note, having found "a worse error" in

152

another spelling, "Colmes-hill," for the place to which
Duncan's body was carried at II.iv.33. This last can refer
only to Columbae mons vel tumulus, says Pegge, while the
correct "Colmeskill" is short for Columbae 23113, "the usual

burying place of the antient Scottish Kings."

Pegge con-
cludes, "Read therefore we must, 'Colmeskill,'" which when
found alone is used as ellipsis for the island itself

(25:6).

MM ignores "Gemsege,"

or Pegge, and the QM, but quotes
Steevens as saying that those editors who read "Colmes-kill-
isle," Pope, Theobald, Warburton, Johnson, and (with variant
spelling) Hanmer, do so without authority, for there are in
reality two separate but similarly named islands, Colme's
Inch and Colm-kill. Shakespeare was referring to that
island where, says Steevens, the Danes were defeated:

Colme's Inch. "Inch" or "inshe" is Irish for "island"

(2:20).

Riverside follows the £1 text above.

I.iii.6 First Witch. Aroynt thee, Witch, the rumpe-fed

Ronyon cryes.

"S.H.," probably Henley again (Kuist 78), writes in 1784
that the "Ronyon's" cry is "explained by saying that the
Rauntree, or Rantry, is in the North considered as a preser-

vative against witches, and that this was probably written,

153

'I've Rauntree, witch,’ or 'A rauntree, witch,’ that is, you
cannot come near me, I've Rauntree to protect me"
(54,2:731).

A later QM issue contains the letter attributed to Sir
Walter Rawlinson (page 91 above) which purports to examine
some of Johnson's errors; it also refers to "S.H.'s" letter
on this passage. Rawlinson discusses Johnson's explanation

of "aroynt,' and asserts that a print to which Johnson

referred, and erroneously called a "drawing,"

was entirely
wrongly described; the print depicts "Our Savior," not "St.
Patrick," putting to rout "8 Devil," not "the Devils," by

saying, "Out out Arongt,‘ as written on "a label issuing out

of his mouth." Rawlinson defines the word as "Avaunt,

Begone,"

a meaning he says is already known, but whose
etymology is probably as "your ingenious Correspondent"
[Henley] explains it (54,2:885).

Finally, in the succeeding QM issue, the correspondence
already cited from "M.Y.R." (page 43 above) includes commen-
tary on this passage as well. "M.Y.R." writes that "S.H."

' but a simpler explanation can be made. "In

is "ingenious,'
Derbyshire the word 'aroint' is frequently made use of by
the common people, instead of 'stand away,’ or 'be gone,‘ in
which latter sense Shakespeare certainly intended to use
it." "M.Y.R" closes with a wish that "some Warwickshire
gentlemen" would listen to the vulgar dialect in their

region for a while and "rescue their bard from obscurity"

(55,2:952).

154

MM notes the many inconclusive etymologies available for
"aroint." Among those he cites, Furness actually includes
that of "S.H." in the QM; he does not know it is Henley,
however. Neither Rawlinson nor "M.Y.R." are mentioned. His
reference to "S.H." includes a misprint, citing page 73

instead of 731 in QM volume 54 (2:22).

Johnson does indeed describe the print as Rawlinson reports
(Yale 8:757). He writes that he obtained the print from
"Hearne's collections" (Thomas Hearne's Ectypa 12112, 1737).
But Rawlinson's complaint could not prompt Johnson to revise
his account in later editions; the announcement of his
death, complete with a lengthy biographical sketch and a

Latin epitaph, appears in the very same issue of the QM.

Riverside notes, "Aroint: be gone" (1313)." But OED finds
the word only in Shakespeare, and has not discovered its

origin.

I.iii.147 Macbeth. Time, and the Houre, runs through the

roughest Day.

Rawlinson's letter continues, noting that no editors are
satisfied with "hour" in this passage, and suggests that we
read "tide," if it be not "too great a violence to the
text," for the line would then clearly allude to the pro-

verb, "Time and tide stay for no man" (54,2:886).

Johnson is one of those unsatisfied editors; he writes, "I

155

suppose every reader is disgusted at the tautology in this

passage, 'Time and the hour, and will therefore willingly

believe that Shakespeare wrote it thus,

Come what may,

Time! On!--the hour runs thro' the roughest day.

Johnson concludes with a rather lengthy justification for
this reading (Yale 8:760). But Ml quotes a helpful explica—
tion from Grant White's Words and Their Uses (1871): "The
use of 'tide' in its sense of hour, 1M3 hour, led naturally
to a use of 'hour' for 'tide.' 'Time and the hour' in this
passage is merely an equivalent of time and tide-~the time
and tide that wait for no man." Rawlinson clearly had the

right idea, but MM does not mention him or the QM (2:42).

I.iv.24 Macbeth. And our Duties are to your Throne, and
State,
Children, and Seruants; which doe but what they should,
By doing euery thing safe toward you Loue

And Honor.

The 1765 review of Heath's Revisal reprints his suggestion
of "Serves" for "safe" in this passage. Heath quotes the
emendations offered by Warburton ("Fief'd"), Hanmer
("Shap'd"), and Johnson ("doing nothing Save," in the
Macbeth pamphlet), and then provides his own "Serves." We
are to understand "that" between "everything" and "Serves"

(35:111). Since £1, by the way, an improper arrangement of

156

lines before and after this passage has been corrected such
that "safe" (or "Shap'd" or "Save" or what you will) begins
a line, and hence takes a capital letter.

The QM reviewer Hawkesworth indulges in conjecture
himself on this passage. First he reports that John Upton

(Critical Observations gp_Shakespeare, 1746) has cited

 

Shakespeare's use of "safe" as a verb in Antony and Cleo-
pggpg, when Antony says in Act I [iii.70], "you should safe
my going," but that Upton has not thought to apply that
meaning here. Because such application would require us to

read,

by doing everything

To safe toward your love and honor,

'safe,'

Hawkesworth then speculates, "Probably as the word
in this sense, was not common even in Shakespeare's time, it
might need explanation, and somebody might have written in
the margin as a gloss, 'to ward'; 'ward' being then commonly
used in the same sense in which Shakespeare here uses
'safe.' It is easy to conceive how the how words 'to ward'
in the margin might creep into the text as one, 'towards,'
and how the word 'to' might be removed to admit them.'" It

is difficult to conceive how Hawkesworth thought this scena-

rio "easy to conceive."

Ml cites Heath for "Serves" among the textual notes, but
overlooks the QM emendation and conjecture (2:47). In the

1765, Johnson defends his own early reading, but not enthu-

157

 

siastically; he writes, "It is probable that his passage was

first corrupted by writing 'safe' for 'save, and the lines

then stood

doing nothing

Safe tow'rd your love and honour.

which the next transcriber observing to be wrong, and yet
not being able to discover the real fault, altered to the
present reading.. . . I am afraid none of us have hit the

right word" (Yale 8:762).

Riverside simply notes, "Safe toward: to secure" (1315).

 

I.vii.l6 Macbeth. Besides, this Duncane

Hath borne his Faculties so meeke;

The 1780 review of Malone's Supplement includes a response
to his quotation of Henley's suggested punctuation. Henley,
writes Malone, would read the passage "as Mr. Henderson

' The reviewer Dun-

speaks it: 'Besides this; Duncan, &c.'
combe remarks, "Mr. Garrick, the best commentator on Shake-
speare, spoke it otherwise, and the old reading seems to us

much the most natural, and also agreeable to our author's

idiom" (50:376).

_M cites "Anon.' for the suggestion Malone prints as

Henley's. Duncombe's response is overlooked (2:71).

158

II.i.52 Macbeth. and wither'd Murther,
Alarum'd by his Centinell, the Wolfe,
Whose howle's his Watch, thus with his stealthy pace,
With Tarquin's rauishing sides, towards his designe

Moues like a Ghost.

As quoted in the 1783 review of his Second Supplement,
Malone writes that a line seems to have been dropped from
this passage. Malone begins with reading "strides" for

' one of Pope's few widely-adopted emendations.

"sides,'
Then, noting that Lust and Murder are two separate entities
in the parallel passage from Shakespeare's 3323 g; Lucrece,
Malone reasons that although separate personifications would
be appropriate here as well, Lust is unmentioned. Therefore

Malone believes a compositor overlooked a line that once

read something to this effect:

thus with his stealthy pace
Enters the portal; while night-waking Lust
With Tarquin's ravishing strides, towards his design

Moves like a ghost.

"Of this kind of negligence," writes Malone, "there is a
remarkable instance in the present play, as printed in the
folio, 1632 [:1], where the following passage is thus exhi-

bited [I.vii.8]:

that we but teach

Bloody instructions, which being taught, return

159

To plague the ingredience of our poison'd chalice

To our own lips.

"If this mistake had happened in the first copy, and had
been continued in the subsequent impressions, what diligence
or sagacity could have restored the passage to sense?"

Malone then quotes the £1 version as follows:

that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
To plague the inventor. This even-handed justice
Commends the ingredience of our poison'd chalice

To our own lips [QM 53,1:506].

MM cites Malone's emendation among the textual notes, omit—
ting mention of the QM, and noting that Malone later
withdrew his suggested addition (2:92). Johnson was not one
of those who favored "strides," by the way; he revised the
line to read, "With Tarquin ravishing, slides toward his

design, Moves like a ghost" (Yale 8:770).

Riverside adopts Pope's "strides,' with attribution, but

otherwise follows E1 (1319, 1340).

160

III.i.128 Macbeth. I will aduise you where to plant your
selues,
Acquaint you with the perfect Spy o'th'time,
The moment on't, for't must be done to Night,

And something from the Pallace:

The 1765 Observations review includes Tyrwhitt's suggestion

that we read,

Acquaint you with the perfect spot, the time,

The moment on't

on the grounds that what must be perfect are the spot and

time, and that there is no spy we know of (35:583).

MM cites Tyrwhitt in the textual notes, but lists no others
who have adopted his suggestion. Steevens believes that a
full stop should come after "yourselves"; the "Acquaint"
sentence would therefore be vocative (2:147). Johnson

" "perfect" here meaning

changes "the perfect" to "a perfect,
"well instructed" or "well informed." "Accordingly," he
writes, "a third murderer joins them afterwards at the place

of action" (Yale 8:779).

Riverside follows [1, and provides a gloss to the effect

that "spy" can also signify "information" or "intelligence"

(1324).

161

V.v.34 Messenger. The Wood began to moue.

Writing to the 1752 QM, "T.C." reports that there was once a
Highland custom wherein certain clans would carry tree bran-
ches and boughs as identifying insignia of their familial
affiliations. Usually these branches were mere sprigs,
because wood is so scarce in most of the Highlands, but near
Birnham the insignia could be much larger. "T.C." claims to

have heard this account from an innkeeper during a journey

north (22:458).

_1 ignores "T.C.," but cites Dyce as locating the source for
this incident in Holinshed. Deloney's 1607 ballad in praise

of Kentishmen, printed in Strange Histories, evidently cele-

 

 

brates the deception also (2:285).

THE TRAGEDY OF ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA

I.iv.10 Lepidus. I must not thinke
There are, euils enow to darken all his goodnesse:
His faults in him, seeme as the Spots of Heauen,

More fierie by nights Blacknesse;

[Riverside follows the lineation established with £1, which
corrects the meter of lines 10 and 11 by transferring "There

are," to the end of 10, and deleting the comma.]

Kynaston writes to point out one of Johnson's "trivial

162

errors": judging this comparison to be "forced and harsh."
While Johnson argued that stars should "beautify the night,"
and that "blackness" has no corresponding quality in the
counterpart to Lepidus' figure of speech, Kynaston answers,
"The comparison is neither 'forced' nor 'harsh,' if the
proper point of likeness in it be attended to." He reminds
us that authors have at other times employed metaphors whose
parts only took in the properties of comparison that were
pertinent. For example, Ajax is once compared to an ass in
the 1113Q, only because he persevered obstinately despite
suffering repeated blows. The beauty of the night sky,
writes Kynaston, is here "foreign to Shakespeare's purpose."
Because Antony is possessed of many fine attributes, his
faults seem more conspicuous by means of those very quali-
ties." Antony's "goodness" is thus "the counterpart of the

simile which answers to night's blackness,‘ and for which

Johnson had sought in vain (45:369).

_1 quotes an explanation from Steevens that sounds remark-
ably like Kynaston's, but Kynaston himself is not mentioned,
nor his signature "Q," nor the QM. Furness notes his own
preference for Capell's explanation that Antony's faults

seem more obvious against the blackness of the rising crisis

of war (15:60).

This is another instance of our having become less fasti-
dious about our use of poetic language; Riverside does not

even gloss the lines.

163

II.v.43 Cleopatra. Yet if thou say Anthony liues, 'tis
well,
Or friends with Caesar, or not Captiue to him,

Ile set thee in a shower of Gold,

For H!

tis well," Tyrwhitt suggests we read "is well," ap-
plying the predicate adjective to Antony, not to the report

itself, and supplying the verb for the subsequent parallel
clauses (35:583). The 1765 review adds no comment to this

excerpt.

M£_quotes Tyrwhitt, though not from the QM, and notes that
while most subsequent editors have followed his reading, the
change "is not absolutely necessary" and so should be

eschewed (15:134).

Riverside eschews it.

 

II.v.82 Cleopatra. These hands do lacke Nobility, that they
strike

A meaner then my selfe:

The 1783 review of Malone's Second Supplement quotes his
conjecture that these lines were a criticism of Queen Eliza-
beth, by then deceased, who publicly had struck the Earl of

Essex (53,1:506).

M1 repeats Malone's point in less specific terms, but adds,
"What cared Shakespeare, at such a moment, for Elizabeth and

all her court? He was Cleopatra" (15:137).

164

II.v.115 Cleopatra. Bring me word quickly,
Let him for euer go, let him not Charmian,
Though he be painted one way like a Gorgon,

The other wayes a Mars.

When Tyrwhitt's commentary on these lines appears in the

1765 review, his source text reads,

Let him for ever go--let nim not--Charmion,
for which he suggests we read,

Let him for ever go--1et him--no—-Charmion

Tyrwhitt writes that the emotional, broken speech of the
source is not as apopropriate as his suggestion, which reads

as though Cleopatra struggles with indecision (35:583).

According to MX"S textual notes, the version printed as
Tyrwhitt's source is from Capell, but Johnson had it thus in
his 11Q2, some two or three years before Capell; furthermore
it is Johnson to whom Tyrwhitt is responding throughout his
pamphlet. Tyrwhitt's suggestion above is cited, without
mention of the QM; it was adopted by Rann (1121) and
Wordsworth (15:142). Johnson's note reads, "She is now
talking in broken sentences, not of the messenger, but of

Antony" (Yale 8:852).

With the exception of a comma for Capell's (Johnson's) final
dash, Riverside uses his punctuation here; or, put another

way, follows Rowe exactly (1360).

165

III.ii.39 Caesar. Farewell my deerest Sister, fare thee
well,
The Elements be kind to thee, and make

Thy spirits all of comfort: fare thee well.

In a letter to the 1783 QM, Holt White discusses these lines
by first quoting Johnson's and Steevens' explanations.
Johnson had guessed that the elements referred to are those
of the body; Steevens had written, "May the four elements,
of which the world is composed, be kind." White suggests
that "the elements" are those two, air and water, most
likely to have any effect on Octavia's passage over the sea;
the import of the line, then, is merely, "I wish you a good
voyage" (53,2:935). Such a meaning for "elements" is listed
in the OED from the fourteenth well into the nineteenth
centuries; it remains today as the only surviving reference

' when we use it to refer to the

to the original "elements,'
weather.

Malone did not make use of Holt White's suggestion in
his 1ZQQ, but Steevens' 1121 cites White, and the note is

preserved in the subsequent Steevens and Reed editions, and

in Malone's and Boswell's 1821.

MM does not mention Holt White, but after quoting several
others, Furness writes, "Caesar means no more than 'May you
have a comfortable journey.'" With Holt White's identical
interpretation abundantly available in the collated edi-

tions, Furness' ignorance of it is curious. In any event,

166

as an alternate reading to the one he presents as his own,
Furness suggests that Johnson's paraphrase is good except
for the connotations of its final word, 'cheerful' (15:178-
9). Johnson had written, "This is obscure. It seems to
mean, "May the different 'elements' of the body, or princi-
ples of life, maintain such proportion and harmony as may

keep you cheerful" (Yale 8:853).

Riverside does not decide between the Johnson and Holt White

 

glosses, noting, without attribution, "The elements: i.e.
external nature as it will affect her journey (?) or the
bodily humors that determine her own health and state of

mind (7). Perhaps both: 'may all things go well with you'"

(1364).

III.vii.3 Cleopatra. Thou hast forespoke my being in these
warres,
And say'st it it not fit.'
Enobarbus. Well: is it, is it.
Cleopatra. If not, denounc'd against vs why should

not we be there in person.
[3; corrects "it it" to "it is."]

As his note indicates in the 1765 QM excerpts from Observa-
tions, Tyrwhitt first follows contemporary practice by adop-

ting Rowe's emendation and Hanmer's versification,

Is't not denounced against us?

Why should not we be there in person?

167

Then he offers his own reading, differently punctuated,

Is't not? Denounce against us

Why should not we be there in person? [35:583]

Although M1 cites Tyrwhitt, without mention of the QM, and
notes Steevens' and Reeds' adoption of this emendation,
Furness approves of the 11 reading. Versification has

varied from editor to editor since Hanmer (15:207-8).

Riverside, which here departs from 11 only to follow the
minor 11 correction to line 4, notes that many editors adopt
Rowe's emendation. Riverside explains the disputed line,
somewhat uncertainly, "even if it were not declared against

me (?)" (1367).

III.x.10 Scarus. Yon ribaudred Nagge of Egypt,

Tyrwhitt, who follows 11 in reading "You" for "Yon," further

suggests "hag" for "nag" (35:583).

Without mentioning the QM, _1 notes that Tyrwhitt's reading
is adopted by nineteenth—century editors Collier and Singer
(15:217). In his 11Q1, Johnson attends only to the meaning
of "ribaudred," but in the 1111 he adds Tyrwhitt's note and
his own refutation, "The brieze [four lines later], or
oestrum, the fly that stings cattle, proves that 'nag' is

the right word" (Yale 8:856).

Riverside follows 11,

168

III.xiii.1 Cleopatra. What shall we do, Enobarbus?

Enobarbus. Thinke, and dye.

Tyrwhitt responds here to Johnson's opinion that Hanmer's
"drink" for "think" is unnecessary. Johnson had explained,
"Think, and die'; that is, 'Reflect on your folly, and leave
the world,' is a natural answer" (Yale 8:858). In his own
pamphlet, Tyrwhitt elaborates, "I grant it would be, accor-
ding to this explanation, a very proper answer from a Mora-
list or a Divine; but Enobarbus, I doubt, was neither the
one nor the other" (Observations 10). He offers "wink," on

the authority of Beaumont and Fletcher, in whose Sea Voyage

 

Tibalt says to Aminta in I.i., "wink and die" (35:583).

_1 quotes Tyrwhitt without mention of the QM review

(15:233).

Riverside notes, "Think: grieve. Thought often signified

'melancholy, grief'; see IV.vi.34-35" (1370).

IV.xii.19 Antony. Fortune, and Anthony part heere, euen
heere
Do we shake hands? All come to this? The hearts
That pannelled me at heeles, to whom I gaue
Their wishes, do dis-Candie, melt their sweets

On blossoming Caesar:

"Ruricola" writes to the 1747 QM to suggest an alternative

to one of "the Rev. Mr Upton's ingenious observations," his

169

emendation of "pannell'd" into "paged." "Ruricola" refers
also to Theobald's corresponding "pantler'd." His alterna-

tive is "spannell'd,' inspired by the devoted behavior of

the dog (17:179).

V ignores "Ruricola,"

citing Hanmer for his earlier
"spaniel'd," of which "Ruricola" is doubtless unaware
(15:293). Johnson adopts Hanmer's substitution, deeming it

an emendation "with which it was reasonable to expect that

even rival commentators would be satisfied" (Yale 8:863).

Riverside reads "spannelled,' in the customary brackets,

with proper attribution to Hanmer in the textual notes (1377,

1390).

THE TRAGEDY OF CORIOLANUS

I.i.135 Menenius. I send it through the Riuers of your
blood

Euen to the Court, the Heart, to th'seate o'th'Braine,

Tyrwhitt suggests we read, "to the seat, the brain"
(35:583). He does not consider the received expression to
be Shakespeare's, who "uses 'Seat' for 'Throne,' the 'Royal

Seat'" (Observations 17).

M1 quotes Tyrwhitt's suggestion, but records only Rann

(1794) as adopting the change (20:47-8).

170

Riverside retains the 11 reading, but glosses the line much

 

as Tyrwhitt does (1397).

I.ix.45 Martius. When Steele growes soft, as the Parasites
Silke,

Let him be made an Ouerture for th'Warres:

Tyrwhitt reads,
Let this be made a coverture for the wars.

Hawkesworth quotes Tyrwhitt as claiming authority for
"coverture" in 11, but is mistaken (35:583); 11 also reads
"ouerture' here. Tyrwhitt is defending his emendation by
analogy with a passage in 111 Mgppy 11, for which 11 does
indeed read "coverture" for "overture." Hawkesworth did not
attend carefully enough to a confusing paragraph in Tyr-

whitt's Observations, page 19._

_1 includes thirteen pages of explanatory notes on this
passage, one of which is Tyrwhitt's. The M1 editor for this
play, H. H. Furness, Jr., writes that Tyrwhitt was followed

by many editors in this emendation (20:146, 158).

Riverside follows 11, but labels "overture" as "hard to

 

'

explain,‘ and quotes Tyrwhitt's conjecture as one adopted by

"many editors" (1405).

171

THE LIFE OF TIMON OF ATHENS

II.ii.9 Caphis. Good euen, Varro:

Because later lines reveal that this scene occurs in the
afternoon before dinner, many editors had suggested altering
"even" to a more appropriate time of day. For his part,
Johnson had written, "I do not suppose the passage corrupt:
such inadvertencies neither author nor editor can escape"
(11Q1; Yale 8:718). Tyrwhitt writes, however, that we
should read the text as it stands, because by "even" Shake-
speare means any time after noon. In support of this asser-
tion Tyrwhitt adduces passages from Romeo and Juliet and
Hamlet, which latter, at I.i., Tyrwhitt notes has also been

often mistakenly emended (35:616). The Romeo and Juliet

 

passage reads as follows:

II.iv.109 Nurse. God ye good morrow Gentlemen.
Mercutio. God ye godden faire Gentlewoman.
Nurse. Is it godden?
Mercutio. 'Tis no lesse I tell you: for the
bawdy hand of the Dyall is now vpon the pricke of

Noone.

1813 quotes Tyrwhitt in support of the original text,

without mentioning the QM review (19:59).

172

III.iii.1l Sempronius. Must I be his last Refuge? His
Friends (like Physitians)

Thriue, giue him ouer: Must I take th'Cure vpon me?

Instead of the "thrived" he says most editors read, Tyrwhitt
suggests we read "shriev'd," so that the word now refers not

to the physicians but to the patient (35:583).

_1Q11 quotes Tyrwhitt, and not the QM, but reports also
Malone's warning that both Tyrwhitt and Hanmer (who had
suggested "try'd") founded their conjectures on the
"thriv'd" substitution made by the 11 editor, "the first and
principal corrupter of these plays," in Malone's view
(19:92). Johnson notes that Theobald "misrepresented" the
word "thriv'd" as the old reading he was restoring (Yale

8:723).

Riverside follows 11.

IV.iii.115 Timon. Let not the Virgins cheeke
Make soft thy trenchant Sword: for those Milke pappes
That through the window Barne bore at mens eyes,
Are not within the Leafe of pitty writ,

Tyrwhitt suggests two significant alaterations,

Let not the virgin's cheek
Make soft thy trenchant sword; nor those milk paps

That through the widow's barb bore at men's eyes

173

Tyrwhitt thinks Shakespeare would not call the breasts of a
virgin "milk paps"; furthermore, he finds that "barb" meant
"veil" in Shakespeare's day (35:616).

The QM reviewer Hawkesworth responds by commenting on
the equal impropriety, strictly speaking, of assigning "milk
paps" to a widow. "The sentiment which Shakespeare intended
to express, is this: 'Let not the looks of the virgin induce
thee to spare her, for her breasts, though intended for the
purpose of suckling infant innocence, are, notwithstanding,

' Hawkesworth points out that Shake-

destitute of pity."
speare used a similar figure of speech twice earlier in this
passage, with the white-bearded usurer and honest-habited

bawd, and that, consequently, Tyrwhitt's suggestion would

disrupt the rhetorical pattern thereby established.

1Q11 quotes Tyrwhitt, but omits Hawkesworth's commentary or
any mention of the QM (19:146-7). Responding to Warburton's
suggested "window-lawn," Johnson wrote, "The reading is more
probably 'window-bars.' The virgin that shows her bosom
through the lattice of her chamber" (Yale 8:731). Hawkes—
worth doubtless had access to this note when he wrote his
review of Tyrwhitt. Johnson's emendation has generally

survived.

Riverside prints ~bars" within the customary brackets,

properly attributing the conjecture to Johnson (1476).

174

1

CHAPTER V

THE ROMANCES

CYMBELINE

I.i.l 1 Gentleman. You do not meet a man but Frownes.

Our bloods no more obey the Heauens

Then our Courtiers:

Still seeme, as do's the Kings.

[Riverside joins virtually all editors in following Rowe's

 

lineation here, printing these as two full pentameter lines

ending in "bloods" and "courtiers,' and a final half line as

above awaiting completion by the next speaker.]

The 1765 QM review of Observations quotes Tyrwhitt's sugges-
tion that we omit the colon after "courtiers" and the "s"
after "Kings." The lines then mean, adds Tyrwhitt, that the
courtiers "still look as the King does" (35:582). In his
own pamphlet, Tyrwhitt goes on to remark that the passage
paraphrases what the speaker will say again at line 13: that

the courtiers "wear their faces to the bent of the King's

looks" (6). Reviewer Hawkesworth does not comment.

175

Without mention of the QM, M1 notes that Tyrwhitt's emenda-

tion "has been accepted more widely than any other" (18:9).

Tyrwhitt was offering his view almost as a direct response
to Johnson's note in his 1191. It reads, "This passage is
so difficult, that commentators may differ concerning it
without animosity or shame." Johnson decides "that the
lines stand as they were originally written, and that a
paraphrase, such as the licentious and abrupt expressions of
our author too frequently require, will make emendation
unnecessary" (8:874). Tyrwhitt obviously disagreed. In
contrast, one might say that Riverside agrees completely;
the editor accepts no emendation, and supplies a paraphrase
that differs from Johnson's without animosity or shame.
Riverside then refers the reader to lines 12-14, as does

Tyrwhitt (1521).

I.vi.44 Jachimo. Sluttery to such neate Excellence, oppos'd
Should make desire vomit emptinesse,

Not so allur,d to feed.

The QM excerpts quote Tyrwhitt,

Should make desire vomit. Emptiness

Not so allured to feed.

If the sense of this emendation is difficult to discover,
perhaps the fault lies in the fact that here the QM's

account of Tyrwhitt (35:583) differs from Tyrwhitt's actual

176

words. The emendation in Observations reads,

Should make desire vomit, emptiness

Not so allure to feed [page 8].

M1 quotes Tyrwhitt correctly, without reference to the QM.
Furness remarks further that the image presented is unat-
tractive, and "Discussion makes it only more repulsive"
(18:84). Johnson was not loath to discuss it; for the 119;
he had printed the lines unemended, supplying a brief expla-
nation. But for the 1111 he reprints Tyrwhitt's note with
the remark, "This is not ill conceived; but I think my own
explanation right. 'To vomit emptiness' is, in the language
of poetry, to feel the convulsions of eructation without

plenitude" (Yale 8:882).

Riverside also glosses the lines without emending (1528).

 

III.ii.35 Imogen. Good wax, thy leaue: blest be
You Bees that make these Lockes of counsaile. Louers,
And men in dangerous Bondes pray not alike,
Though Forfeytours you cast in prison, yet

You claspe young Cupids Tables: good Newes Gods.

Rowe had set the example for all the early editors by
imagining "Forfeytours" to be a spelling for "forfeitures,"
and emending accordingly. Not until Tyrwhitt's pamphlet was
the error rectified. According to the QM review, he writes,

"In Cymbeline, for 'forfeitures, read, with the folio

177

edition, 'forfeitours,'

which will preclude Mr. Johnson's
long note and conjecture" (35:582). Actually this is just a
brief paraphrase of Tyrwhitt's comment, though in the main
preserving what he said. The folio he mentions is, as

always for him, "the Folio Edition 1632" (Observations 12),

or.11.

_1 notes, without mentioning the QM, that Hanmer had
restored "forfeiters" long before Tyrwhitt's work appeared
(18:186). Nonetheless, Hanmer's emendation did not influ-
ence Johnson, because the 1111 followed Rowe. Hence
Johnson's "long note and conjecture" explaining it.
Tyrwhitt's comments, on the other hand, had a direct effect,
perhaps aided by its exhibition in the QM review; Johnson's
1111 reads "forfeiters," and the "long note" is withdrawn

(Yale 8:889).

Riverside adopts Hanmer's spelling of the 11 word, with

 

proper attribution (1562).

V.v.318 Belarius. He it is, that hath
Assum'd this age:

'1 "

Tyrwhitt suggests that for age '

'gage,' meaning

we read
"engagement." He intends this to refer to the pledge
Belarius made some eight lines earlier, that he and the two
youths would "dye all three" if he could not prove the

youths to be of as noble a birth as Cymbeline himself

(35:582). Tyrwhitt's attention to "age" results from his

178

 

confusion over the sense of "Assum'd" here. He takes

"assumed" to mean "took on" or "put on,’ correct connota-

' since

tions elsewhere but inappropriate with "this age,’
Belarius has truly grown old. Tyrwhitt does not extend the
meaning to "reached" or "attained," which would resolve the

difficulty. Hawkesworth has no comment.

M1 mentions Tyrwhitt's suggestion among others, but does not

adopt the emendation. Furness lists Steevens as the first

 

to explain "assumed" as "reached" (18:425).

Riverside follows 11 and notes, "Assum'd: reached" (1559).

 

This gloss is generally supported by citations in the OED.

V.v.334 Belarius. Your pleasure was my neere offence, my
punishment
It selfe, and all my Treason that I suffer'd,

Was all the harme I did.

Hawkesworth reports that Tyrwhitt reads "mere offence" for

' Tyrwhitt means "mere" in its usual Eliza-

"near offence.'
bethan signification of "entire" (35:583). In his pamphlet,
he goes on to argue that the old spelling "neere" (as above)

was closer to "meere" than to "deare,' which was Johnson's

suggestion (Observations 13).

Without reference to the QM, _1 cites Tyrwhitt's emendation,
and reports its adoption by nearly every editor since. Only

Capell, Malone, and Steevens, and their successors Reed and

 

179

Boswell, have decided against the reading. Johnson himself
had justified "dear" in the 1111 with the paraphrase, "The
offence which cost me so 'dear' was only your caprice." He
made no revision in subsequent editions (8:907). Furness
himself prefers to assume that a transposition of words has
occurred in the 11 line, such that the original should have

read, "Your pleasure was neere my offence" (18:426).

Riverside prints "mere" within the customary brackets, and
gives proper attribution to Tyrwhitt in the textual notes

(1563).

THE WINTER'S TALE

V.iii.56 Paulina. Indeed my Lord,
If I had thought the sight of my poore Image
Would thus haue wrought you (for the Stone is mine)

Il'd not haue shew'd it.

The review of Observations reports that Tyrwhitt would read
the lines without the parentheses, and with this further

alteration:

Would thus have wrought you, for the stone i'th'mine

I'd not have shew'd it.

In other words, I'd not have displayed it as a stone statue.

Tyrwhitt adds, "A 'mine of stone,’ or 'marble, would not at

180

present perhaps be esteemed an accurate expression, but it
may still have been used by Shakespeare" (35:616). Hawkes—

worth prints the suggestion without comment.

M1 quotes Tyrwhitt's proposal, as well as Johnson's reply to
it (11:294). Johnson had passed over this passage silently
in his 1111, but for the 1111 he reproduces Tyrwhitt's
remarks, and adds, "To change an accurate expression for an
expression confessedly not accurate, has somewhat of retro-
gradation." Johnson retains the 11 text. But the real
problem with Tyrwhitt's reading is not whether "stone
i'th'mine" could represent "marble" in Shakespeare's day.
Paulina is still concealing the fact that the statue is
Hermione. As she has not yet told him it is anything other
than marble, she cannot now say she regrets representing it

that way.

Riverside follows 11, pausing only to gloss "wrought" as

"moved" (1602).

THE TEMPEST

I.ii.19 Prospero. nor that I am more better

Then Prospero. Master of a full poore cell,

In a letter to the 1784 QM, "Omega" glosses "full" as

"really, truly" (54,1:407).

181

M1 cites Alexander Dyce for his paraphrase, "That is, com—

plete." Furness is unaware of "Omega's" precedence (9:25).

Riverside notes, "full: very" (1612). No attribution

 

appears.

I.ii.99 Prospero. Like one
Who hauing into truth, by telling of it,
Made such a synner of his memorie
To credite his owne lie, he did beleeue

He was indeed the Duke,

The 1765 review of Heath's Revisal includes his remarks on
this passage as well as an elaborate reply from the reviewer
Hawkesworth. Heath quotes both Warburton and Hanmer in
order to demonstrate how they were incorrect with their
notes. Warburton altered line 100 to read, "Who having unto
truth by telling oft." Heath objects because "to make a
man's 'memory a sinner unto truth' is strange English."
Furthermore, the review quotes him, "the nominative 'one,'
with its adjective or participle, and their connecting pro-
noun relative, 'who having made,' are left destitute of any
corresponding verb to which they may be referred." 0n the
other hand, Hanmer's edition reads, "Who loving an untruth
and telling't oft." Heath cannot accept this "because it
wants the necessary appearance of probability." By this I
suppose he means it requires too many departures from the

earliest text, F1. Heath's own su position is "that a line
__ P

182

has been dropped, and that the passage is corrupt besides."
But Heath offers no emendation of his own. Hawkesworth then

replies,

But with respect to his objections against
the emendation in Warburton's edition, if he re-

' is still

collects that "as I am a sinner to God,'
a very common expression, he will not think the
expression, "a sinner unto truth," so strange; and
upon a review of the passage perhaps, he will
think that the verb "believe,' at the end of the
4th verse, is the verb corresponding with the

' its adjective or participle, and

nominative "one,'
their connecting pronoun relative.

He believed, he was indeed, the Duke, like
one who having made his memory so great a sinner
to truth, by the frequent repetition of a lie, as
to credit it.

To make the construction perfect, it is con-
fessed that the participle "having," should be
changed into the preterite "had"; but such inaccu-

racies are by no means proofs of corruption in

Shakespeare's text [35:66].

_1 takes notice neither of Heath's remarks nor of Hawkes-
worth's reply. Furness comments instead that "however loud
the outcry by the critics against this involved sentence,
Shakespeare had been, as usual, eminently successful and

peculiarly happy in conveying his precise meaning to one and

183

all. There is not the smallest variation in the universal

apprehension of the meaning of Prospero's speech" (9:39).

Riverside notes, "into: unto, against ('into truth' modifies

'sinner'). To: as to" (1613).

I.ii.426 Ferdinand. my prime request
(Which I do last pronounce) is (0 you wonder)

If you be Mayd, or no?

Reverend John Kynaston ("Q") writes in 1772 to reject
Capell's reading of "Maid" in favor of Pope's and War-

burton's "made."

He is unaware of the 11 support for
Capell, but believes that the comparison here is drawn
between a woman and a goddess. "Maid," for Kynaston, would
raise the different question of virginity, which he con-
siders Miranda too delicate to understand. He quotes her
speech in III.i, "Hence bashful cunning, And prompt me

plaine and holy innocence,"

to prove that her virtue is not
affected but true (42:573). Kynaston has overlooked
Johnson's reading as well as 11's, for Johnson corrects
Warburton. Had Kynaston known of Johnson's remarks for this
play, he would have been less likely to remark also that the

sea language is "inaccurate and un-seaman like"; Johnson

made substantially the same observation in his 1765.

M1 makes no mention of Kynaston or "Q," noting that "made,"

which first appeared in 11 (1685), was the reading held by

184

all editors from Rowe to Steevens, Reed, and Boswell, except

for Johnson and Capell (9:84).

Riverside glosses "maid" as "a human maiden, not a goddess"
(1617). Kynaston was right in his explanation, but insisted

on the wrong word.

I.ii.468 Miranda. Make not too rash a triall of him, for

Hee's gentle, and not fearfull.

Several of the Revisal excerpts concern passages from 112
Tempest. Here Heath takes issue with Hanmer's emendation,
"gentle though not fearful."~ Hanmer interpreted "fearful"
to mean "afraid"; Heath points out that the phrase can

' so no emendation is neces-

easily mean "not to be feared,’
sary. Hawkesworth concurs in this opinion (35:66). 912
lists "Causing fear" as a definition for "fearful" from the
fourteenth through the nineteenth centuries. Heath also

wishes to read "harsh" for "rash," but Hawkesworth does not

comment on this suggestion.

M1 cites Ritson's Remarks for providing the best explanation

' Furness con-

of "fearful" with his paraphrase, "terrible.'
siders this reading to interpret both "fearful" and "gentle"
according to "their usual acceptations" (9:90). He does not

know that Heath anticipated Ritson by nearly twenty years.

Heath's "harsh" is ignored as well.

Riverside defines "gentle" as "of high birth," and "fearful"

185

as "cowardly" (1618). In this view, however, Miranda's
words must be seen as a warning to her father, instead of

the Opposite sense the other emenders intend.

II.i.258 Antonio. how shall that Claribell
Measure vs backe to Naples? keepe in Tunis,

And let Sebastian wake.

The review of Observations quotes Tyrwhitt as emending the

 

"back to Naples" he finds in "later Editors" to one closer
to his favorite old copy, 11. From its "back by Naples" he

proposes to read,

Measure us back? B'w'y, Naples; keep in Tunis

And let Sebastian wake.

This he considers a corruption of "God be with you," or
"farewell" (36:22). Had he known that those "later Editors"
had the authority of 11 behind them, he might not have made

this suggestion. Hawkesworth is silent.

_1 records Tyrwhitt's emendation with the note, "Tyrwhitt,
misled by the later Folios and Rowe, emended what he sup-
posed to be the true text by what he called 'a spirited
turn'" (9:119). In fact, however, Tyrwhitt had called his
change "a less alteration" than the one he thought he was
correcting. The effect of his change, not the change
itself, is what he actually calls a "spirited turn" (Obser-

vations 32).

186

Riverside retains the 11 reading.

 

III.ii.133 Caliban. Art thou affeard?

"Omega's' 1784 letter also reports that "afeard" above is
still the dialect of the West of England for 'afraid'"

(54:407).

M1 notes only that Rowe spells the word "afraid" from the
outset. No dispute over its meaning is recorded anywhere

(9:171).

IV.i.64 Iris. Thy bankes with pioned, and twilled brims

Which spungie Aprill, at thy hest betrims;

The Revisal review quotes Heath's suggestion of "lillied"
for "twilled." Heath objects to the "tulip'd" of "Modern
editions." He argues, "Tulips never grow on the banks of
rivers, nor do they appear ever to have been used in gar-
lands, for which the brittleness of their foot stalks ren-
ders them unfit." In contrast, "Lillies are known to grow

on the banks of rivers,‘ and have been made into garlands,

as he demonstrates with two quotations from Milton (35:66).

M1 quotes Heath, doubtless from the Revisal and not QM.
Furness finds that this emendation "has met with more appro-
val than any other" (9:195). But he suspects that the two

words "pioned" and "twilled" are correct ones whose agricul-

187

tural significations are no longer known. OED does not list

 

an unequivocal definition for them, but quotes this line.

Riverside notes, "pioned and twilled: undercut by the stream
and retained by interwoven branches" (1629). No source for

this definition is given.

V.i.4O Prospero. by whose ayde
(Weake Masters though ye be) I haue bedymn'd

The Noone-tide Sun,

Heath suggests we read "weak ministers." But Hawkesworth
points out that Hanmer had made the same suggestion earlier.
Writes Hawkesworth, "He has throughout his work offered many
emendations as his own, which are to be found in Hanmer"

(35:66).

Neither Heath not the QM is mentioned when Furness cites

Hanmer for "ministers,' a suggestion which has been followed

by no other editor (9:236).

V.i.89 Ariel. In a cowslips bell, I lie,

There I cowch when Owles doe crie,

The excerpts from Revisal continue with Heath's observation
that a full stop should be placed after "couch," and a new
sentence begun with "When owls do cry." Heath accepts
Warburton's declaration that owls cry only in winter, and so

concludes that Ariel could not then lie in a cowslip's bell.

188

__‘V

 

Hawkesworth does not comment (35:66).

M1 quotes Heath's suggestion, followed by Steevens' asser-
tion that the time "when owls do cry" is at night, in any

season. Furness does not mention the QM (9:242).

V.i.174 Miranda. Yes, for a score of Kingdomes, you should
wrangle,

And I would call it faire play.

"T.P.'s" letters to the 1750 QM_(see pages 67 and 113 above)

attend in part to this passage, which "T.P." would alter to,

Yes, for a score of kingdoms; and should I wrangle,

You would call it fair play.

"T.P." blames a "blundering transcriber" for the original
reading, of which he can make little sense. "But," he adds,
"Mr. Warburton allows the old reading to be right (for he
alters nothing) and only by the help of a pretty little
short note makes the sense as plain as the nose on a man's
face" (20:252, misprinted as 522). "T.P." graciously pro-
vides the "pretty little short note" as follows: "i.e. If
the subject, or bet, were kingdoms: 'score' not signifying
the number 'twenty,' but 'account.'" "T.P.'s" contempt for
the note is rather more comprehensible than his assertion

that Warburton "alters nothing."

_1 prints this emendation, which Furness calls "unwarran-

ted," as the suggestion of "Mr. Smith" in Zachary Grey's

189

Critica11Historica1J and Explanatory Notes, printed in 1754

 

(9:251). This is the second note from "T.P." in the QM to
show up in M1 as "Mr. Smith's"; the first is on page 67
above. In Grey's preface to his work, he acknowledges help
from the Reverend William Smith of Harleston, in Norfolk
(xii; Vickers 4:154). The connection between Smith and
"T.P." is not immediately clear. It is even possible that
"T.P." and Smith are the same person; in addition to these
identical notes, others of Smith's notes demonstrate a sar-
casm similar to "T.P.'s." Furthermore, in the QM excerpt
above, "T.P." interrupts his mockery of Warburton long
enough to announce that the "best edition" of Shakespeare is
soon to appear. The "T.P." letters precede Grey's work by
some four years. Perhaps the heralded "best edition" has
some connection with Grey's work, or with Grey's expressed
hope that either Thomas Edwards or John Upton would publish
an edition which would see "the genuine text of Shakespeare

restored" (Vickers 4:147).

Riverside also considers any emendation unwarranted,

retaining the 11 reading.

V.i.286 Stephano. O touch me not, I am not Stephano, but a

Cramp.

"Omega" writes that "a Cramp" signifies a cramp "all over,
wholly" (54,1:407). It is curious that "Omega" thought this

line needed explanation. Perhaps Warburton's puzzlement had

190

misled him; Warburton wrote, "It is plain a joke is inten-
ded, but where it lies is hard to say." M1 quotes War-
burton's note as the only confusion recorded on this
passage; to all other commentators, the sense is clear
(9:264). But one need only look at these thousands of lines
intently enough, and after a time the clearest passage may
become opaque. We who examine Shakespeare's text may con—
sider ourselves fortunate that his genius and reputation

have never really depended upon our efforts.

191

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

At the beginning of this discussion, I made some points
about the role of the Gentleman's Magazine in Shakespeare
textual scholarship which I would like to recall at this
time. First, the early years of the QM's existence, and
therefore the period I selected as the beginning of my
inquiry, coincided with a time in English literary history
that might well have thrust greatness upon the magazine had
it not achieved greatness otherwise. Shakespeare was
becoming interesting again to the public, and no less a
figure than Samuel Johnson was preparing an edition of the
poet's dramatic works. At the same time, the popular and
highly successful Gentleman's Magazine gradually turned its
attention away from political concerns and toward literary
ones. Its reviewer and literary editor, John Hawkesworth,
himself a close friend and associate of Johnson's, early
demonstrated a deep and continuing interest in the drama,
and especially in Shakespeare's plays. When the issue of
Shakespeare textual scholarship arose, its first popular
forum was the literary department of the QM.

Another point I made had to do with standards of

192

textual editing and, particularly, with the practice of
emendation. Warburton and Hanmer had returned to Pope's bad
habit of emending to personal taste instead of authority, a
habit only inherently evil if readers forget that they are
reading not Shakespeare but Pope's Shakespeare, or War-
burton's. The new notion of Shakespeare as an author whose
exact words had special importance gradually brought about
significant changes in the way scholars read his works.
Johnson, then leaving virtual editorship of the QM to
prepare his own Shakespeare, considered carefully the
question of textual authority. His successor, Hawkesworth,
readily printed articles and letters concerned with matters
of text, educating the public in new standards and practices
that were only then developing. Discoveries in etymology,
research on Shakespeare's contemporaries, and even bits of
anecdotal history were sent to the magazine in the hope that
someone could make intelligent use of them. The popular
forum, in other words, was also a scholarly one.

A brief discussion of the way this diverse forum was
used will help focus my conclusions concerning its value.
On the popular side, Brian Vickers has described the way in
which, by the time of Johnson's edition of Shakespeare, the
literary members of the English populace had become acutely
aware of the "unsettled nature" of Shakespeare's text.
Perhaps predictably, given the desultory nature of those
readers' literary preoccupations, many saw here an opportu-
nity to contribute something of value to the growing body of

knowledge regarding their country's premier poet. And

193

 

 

contribute they did. As Vickers has put it, "Suggesting
emendations was almost a national pastime, for which everyone
felt himself to be qualified" (5:21).

As for the scholarly side of the forum, there are ways
in which Warburton, and those editors fortunate enough to be
not quite so bad as he, actually helped the new pastime
along by opening themselves to attack from every person
possessed of a well-equipped library, or a seasoned, judi-
cious taste, or a confirmed delusion of either. Books
appeared following every edition, in the grand tradition of
Theobald's Shakespeare Restored, denouncing the newest edi-
tion as though it were a tale told by an idiot. In some
instances, Theobald's critique of Pope for example, the
attacks were not entirely unjustified. And Thomas Edwards'
The Canons g1 Criticism (1750) is generally considered an
accurate, brilliant, and necessary rebuke of Warburton's
sorry performance. Of course there were those, on the other
hand, whose virulent attacks were motivated less by a desire
to prevent a poor edition from seriously misleading the
public, than by personal motives of revenge or gain.

William Kenrick's hostile Review 11 Doctor Johnson's New
Edition 21 Shakespeare (1765) is largely an example of this
latter type, though Arthur Sherbo has demonstrated that
Kenrick had some valid points (Editor 31). But editions
and books responding to them played only one part in fos-
tering the society's young concern with the correction of

Shakespeare's text. Other independent pamphlets appeared,

194

some of them truly seeking to contribute to the debate
without acrimony or pettiness. Thomas Tyrwhitt declared at
the outset of his pamphlet, for example, that it was not his
intention "to enter into the merits of Mr. Johnson's perfor-
mance" (Observations 2). The QM's participation in the new
pastime actually began at this stage, strictly speaking; for
most of these editions, responses, and pamphlets, the QM
carried reviews, references to which will be found in the
Appendix following.

All this scholarly activity in turn increased public
interest in the condition of Shakespeare's text. And the
very publications that helped pique its interest also pro—
vided a means with which to pursue it. Almost as a natural
consequence of their formats, the literary journals of the
period all gave some space to contributors' responses, which
in this circumstance often meant suggestions for resolving
textual difficulties. In Vickers' words, "the columns of
the Gentleman's Magazine or the‘111 James's Chronicle were
filled with correspondence on the great cruxes," giving rise
to continuing controversies that spanned years (5:21). The
QM's participation, in particular, can be summarized under
three heads: excerpts from treatises published elsewhere,
commentary sent from individual readers, and the reviewers'
responses to both.

It should be stated immediately that the QM's partici-
pation in the overall effort to restore Shakespeare's text
was serious and selective enough to have a long-lasting

effect. That is, textual commentary suggested in its pages

195

has survived to influence later editors at a surprisingly
respectable rate. From 1744 through 1785, suggested expla-
nations, emendations, and sources for songs and lyrics
totaling some 186 items were printed in the QM, One might
suspect, assuming an amateur status for most of the contri-
butors, that most of their suggestions proved eventually to
be of questionable value to the study of Shakespearean
drama. But out of this original 186, only 88 items have
effectively been forgotten. Even this can be qualified,
however; "forgotten" in this sense means only that the items
have either been ignored entirely by later editors, specifi-
cally the compilers of the variorum editions, or have been
silently borrowed by other scholars. Many original QM emen-
dations survive, in other words, but credit for the sugges-
tion or discovery has gone to someone else. Counting these
erroneous attributions, then, only 53 items appear to have
disappeared entirely, while some 35 have survived as the
original ideas of men other than those who first published
them. All in all, some 133 out of an original 186 textual
suggestions printed in the QM between 1731 and 1785 have
survived for possible consideration by Shakespeare scholars.
My early assumption that the majority of the sugges-
tions came from unpublished amateurs is not precisely true.
In fact it was exactly half and half: 93 items were sent by
various readers, while another 93 were reprinted in QM
reviews of books or pamphlets written by such professional

men of letters as Thomas Percy, Benjamin Heath, Thomas

196

 

 

Tyrwhitt, Joseph Ritson, and Edmond Malone. It is difficult
if not impossible to estimate the extent to which the QM
contributed to the preservation of these writers' sugges-
tions. Taking a conservative point of view, one could make
a valid case that the importance of their works was already
evident when the QM chose to review them, that the reviews
were performed only because it was quite obvious that the
books were important. Such reasoning leads to the assertion
that their emendations would have survived with or without
the QM. But it would not be possible, I think, to prove
that the QM had no influence on the popularity or, ulti—
mately, the importance of these works. The magazine was
simply too popular, read by too many, admired by too large a
portion of the learned society to wield no influence.
Scholars were solicitous of a good report in the QM, and by
the middle of the century they did not complain when the
magazine reprinted major segments of their books, simply
because they knew its approbation would further spread their
ideas, and perhaps ultimately sell more books.

Writers' acquiescence in the QM's review practices
produced some interesting effects. To call the review of
Tyrwhitt's Observations a series of "excerpts," for example,
is almost ridiculous, because only a couple of his entries
out of the entire pamphlet fail to appear in the review.

The review itself continued through three monthly issues.
What advantage accrues to Tyrwhitt in allowing the QM vir-
tually to reprint his pamphlet (albeit he had no choice) if

it is not the advantage of a favorable report and a positive

197

broadcasting of his ideas? Thus one could counter the
conservative argument by asserting that the QM did indeed
help make the books as important as they eventually became.
A look at the survival rate of the reprinted items may lend
credence to this assertion. Heath has not fared as well as
the others (eight of twelve suggestions lost), but excluding
the review of his Revisal, among the eighty items reprinted
in the QM from the books and pamphlets, a mere nine have
been effectively lost to the inheritors of Shakespeare
scholarship. Either the QM had an uncanny aptitude for
assessing the importance of the ideas it selected to review
(not a worthless aptitude in its own right), or else its
participation in the establishment and recognition of this
importance was more effectual than the conservative argument
would allow. And it is furthermore significant that the one
work which has not done so well also received an unfavorable
review in the magazine (page 141 above). Clearly, it is not
unreasonable to suggest that the QM played a major role in
securing the public's interest in these important works.

If the magazine's importance to Shakespeare textual
scholarship rested solely on the success of the books and
pamphlets it chose to review, however, its significance for
the textual scholar would now be quite limited. We come
then to the second head under which the QM's importance can
be assessed, the contributions of readers. The magazine's
influence must be measured at least as much by its encoura-

gement of what Vickers called a national pastime. Amateur

198

scholars read the editions that appeared every few years, or
the pamphlets and books responding to them, or perhaps the
QM reviews of all of these; they consulted their personal
libraries, or their personal canons of criticism, and, from
all over the country, sent suggestions, emendations and
illustrations to the QM. The editors, whom I have assumed
throughout to be John Hawkesworth before 1773 and John
Duncombe after, generously printed a great many suggestions
through the years; half of the items reproduced in the
preceding chapters came from individual correspondents.

It is to be expected that suggestions however percep-
tive from amateurs however talented will have been lost at a
higher rate than those of their professional contemporaries.
The amateurs' names are unfamiliar, or they are pseudonymous
and often unknown to this day. They have written no books
of scholarship that later editors might consult. Even con-
temporary editors probably did not know them, otherwise they
might have sent their emendations not to the QM but to the
professionals then at work. Those ambitious amateurs who
sent material to the editors anyway, and met with little or
no success, turned to the QM perhaps as a last resort. A
long letter sent by Sir Walter Rawlinson to the 1780 QM
helps illustrate how this may have worked. He forwarded
many emendations and instances of what he considered to be
obvious borrowings from the classical authors, with the
remark that he had already sent them to Johnson and Stee-
vens, who had made little use of them. Hence, he writes, he

offers them "to the public, through the channel of your

199

useful Magazine" (50:518). Dr. Samuel Henley thought to
make use of the opposite route, offering his emendations to
the QM because he had heard that Steevens and Malone "are
continuing their illustrations of this incomparable author";
he says he hopes his remarks are "worthy of their notice, in
which event "they are very much at their service" (50:21).
In yet other circumstances, contributors wrote to the QM
with their suggestions simply because it had become the most
effective forum for their message. One writes anonymously
to the May, 1765 issue, "While almost every body is making
emendations, annotations, or illustrations, of some part or
other of Shakespeare, with the principle of which your
magazine is enriched, give me leave to take this opportunity
of throwing one mite into the treasury, which I accidentally
cast my eye upon the other day" (35:229). While one might
guess that a suggestion by an unknown individual sent to a
single literary journal would have to be extremely striking,
or very lucky, or both, to be noticed and adopted by an
editor of Shakespeare, this anonymous writer obviously
believes otherwise. What is more, my research indicates
that he is substantially correct.

Despite the adverse circumstance, many suggestions did
indeed survive. The majority did not, it is true; among the
93 unsolicited items discussed in the preceding chapters are
71 which have gone unacknowledged by the later editors.

That appears to leave only 22 surviving entries. As I noted

above, however, this does not mean that all the other 71

200

have been lost to scholars, only that those correspondents
who first suggested them have not received proper credit for
their ideas. In fact, seventeen of these 71 have not been
lost at all, but have survived as the original work of
someone else. This means that 39 items, or more than half,
have come to the attention of later editors. Since it is
preferable that worthy emendations or explanations be some-
how preserved regardless of attribution, we may consider the
QM to have been quite important already; after all, more
than half of the contributors' suggestions it printed have
made their way into the record of Shakespeare scholarship in
one form or another.

Ideally, however, we would preserve the idea, the
original emendation, alongside the name of the person who
first published it; therefore, proper attribution has been
one of my chief concerns. Even the unfortunate Heath, whom
I excepted from my discussion of the professionals above,
would profit from an analysis of who took credit for what.
Vickers points out that Heath did not receive the most
favorable of assessments by the editors of the Monthly
Review or the pro-Warburton Critical Review (4:49-50), and I
have already quoted the QM on the subject in chapter 4
above (141). Furthermore, Arthur Sherbo has demonstrated how
frequently Johnson borrowed from Heath, often silently
(Editor 31-39). It was even Heath's lot to have some of the
entries in the QM review of his Revisal appropriated by
others. Thus of the eight items he contributed which, as I

said above, have been lost, only three can be said to be

201

truly forgotten, because four have become the property of
later editors. (The remaining one survives also, properly
attributed however to Sir Thomas Hanmer, who thought of it
first.) It is impossible to estimate what influence the QM
review had on those who later adopted Heath's ideas, or even
whether they saw it at all. But much can be made of coinci-
dence; the Revisal appeared in February, the QM review in
March, and Johnson's edition in October. One of Johnson's
borrowings was featured in the review. Whether the QM
account played a part in Johnson's activity remains to be
determined, but his early connections with the magazine, his
admiration of it, and his friendship with its current re-
viewer Hawkesworth are well documented.

And what of those amateurs less famous than Heath?
The Reverend John Kynaston presents an interesting example.
From 1772 through 1776 Kynaston sent ten suggestions for
emendations, signing them with the letter "Q" and posting
them from his residence at Wigan and, later, Caerhaes. His
interests evidently included both tragedy and comedy, for he

discussed passages in Hamlet, Othello, and Antony and Cleo-

 

pgppg as well as Two Gentlemen 11 Verona, All's Well that
1111‘M111, and 111 Tempest. None of the ten survives as his
idea, unfortunately, but four are now attributed to George
Steevens and one to Malone, for a total of five suggestions
preserved--not a bad legacy for an amateur. A second pseu-
donymous contributor I have been unable to identify, but the

sixteen suggestions of "Omega" ought to be properly attri—

202

buted if ever his name is discovered. Seven of them have
survived as emendations or explanations in the variorums,
the credit for six of them going to Steevens, Isaac Reed,
and the nineteenth-century editors Dyce, Halliwell, and
Knight. The position of the QM as an influential forum for
Shakespeare scholarship cannot improve so long as the sug-
gestions that first appeared in its pages are erroneously
understood to be the work of later scholars.

Other contributors have not suffered quite so much
anonymity. For example, Thomas Holt White, brother of the
naturalist Gilbert White of Selbourne, was a frequent
correspondent to the magazine, sending in emendations and
"parallels" from 1783 until well beyond the scope of my
investigation, on into the 1790's. Not including a 1768
suggestion which he virtually repeated in 1784, Holt White
submitted thirteen entries during the years I have investi-
gated, five of which are mentioned in the variorums. Four

of these appear over the signature "Holt White,"

a sure sign
that the variorum editor found them in Steevens, who used
that name in preference to the "T.H.W." which White used
when corresponding with the QM. But in the fifth instance,
the editor actually cites "T.H.W." in the QM for the emenda-
tion. These circumstances suggest that Steevens and, on
occasion, New Variorum editor Horace Howard Furness con-
sulted the QM as they prepared their texts. Holt White's
survival rate thus is quite good; it becomes even more

impressive if we consider that one additional suggestion

appears to have been borrowed silently by Furness himself.

203

Furthermore, several of the remaining contributions I must
now record as "lost" I was nonetheless able to describe in
preceding chapters as having influenced later editors. Most
significant among these, perhaps, is Holt White's discovery

of a quarto reading for 1 Midsummer Night's Dream (Puck's

 

"filly foal") which has been widely adopted ever since, and
always without attribution. All in all, White's letters to
the QM have proven quite significant to later scholars.

I turn to the third test of the QM's influence, the
magazine's reviewers. They were not silent during the half-
century either. Hawkesworth and Duncombe occasionally res-
ponded directly to the suggestions in the books they were
reviewing, offering emendations of their own at times. Four
of Hawkesworth's eight contributions of this type have been
entirely ignored, while the other four are now found as
notes in the editions of Samuel Johnson. Four of Duncombe's
six entries have also survived, but none under his own name.
It is not likely that the names Hawkesworth or Duncombe
appear on anyone's list of important Shakespeareans, but it
is clear their role has been larger than was suspected.
Their influence was felt; only their names were unnoted.

Thus, giving proper consideration to the QM editors,
its contributors, and those whose books it reviewed, I must
conclude that its influence on eighteenth-century attempts
to establish Shakespeare's text was significant, pervasive,
and probably essential to a discipline that was only then

coming into existence. Certainly, in any event, the maga—

204

zine was important to Johnson; he refined his critical and
editorial skills there, and what miscellaneous information
he was able to glean from its columns for use in his
Dictionapy and his Shakespeare is impossible to calcu-

late. Perhaps the magazine was even more important to
Steevens; whatever else he took from the QM, he was able to
take possession of ten of its best Shakespeare entries and
claim them as his own. But the QM's true contributions have
only vary rarely been linked to its name. In all, only five
of the items appearing during the years I investigated are
acknowledged in the variorums as originating in the QM. I
have demonstrated the inaccuracy and, I trust, the injustice
of this. Future scholars concerned with these matters will
do well to adjust the record and, more to their own benefit,
attend more closely to so important a publication.

Nor is such close attention enough. An Appendix
follows which lists all the articles, letters, and referen-
ces concerning Shakespeare and his works that I was able to
locate in the pages of the QM from 1731 until 1785. The
research can be carried beyond that rather arbitrary date,
of course; while theories of textual editing evolved suffi-
ciently in the latter years of the century that my particu-
lar focus would itself be far less productive in the later
volumes, other matters of Shakespeare scholarship and criti-
cism continue to be debated and discussed in the magazine
for some years. But even if future research is limited to
the years I have examined, a wealth of material in the QM

remains to be consulted. This investigation has concen-

205

trated only on textual scholarship. Hundreds of articles
and letters dealing with Shakespeare in general, with source
studies, with applications of Shakespearean situations to
contemporary politics, with David Garrick's performances,
adaptations, and his Shakespeare Jubilee, with other compa-
nies' performances, and with Johnson and his role as an
editor and critic of Shakespeare, all appeared in the QM
volumes I have consulted. In addition to these, the
numerous reviews of Shakespeare editions and published cri-
tical articles can keep the student of Shakespeare criticism
busy for many months. The volume and page references for
all of this material appear, for exceptionally curious rea-

ders, in the Appendix following.

206

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Other References to Shakespeare in the Gentleman's Magazine

1731-1785

Applications of Shakespeare to Contemporary Matters

Letter from the Weekly Review, from "Falstaff" 1:207
Allusion to Hamlet in Weekly Review, on Fortune 2:967

London Journal quotes Craftsman quoting John of Gaunt

(Henry 1) 3:24 ‘

 

Allusion to Othello and jealousy in Auditor 3:30
Auditor quotes Hamlet on concern for soul 3:114

Grubstreet Journal's "Antient Pistol" in theatrical
management dispute 3:286

Free Briton quotes Iago on reputation 3:468
Shakespeare's distinction between dogs and men 5:119

Craftsman quotes Measure for Measure on abuse of authority
by princes 7:557

 

The need to cite Shakespeare while composing 16:101
A Latin version of Hamlet's "To be" soliloquy 16:379

London Evening Post quotes Measure for Measure, II.vii, on
mercy 16:425

Definition supported by citation of Twelfth Night 19:66

World applies Falstaff's words on his trade, robbery, to all
who labor 26:334

207

Editions of Shakespeare, and other Treatises

(The first number is the one the work bears in the List of
Books for a given month.)

45. "Shakespeare's Plays, 7 volumes with Notes Explanatory
and Critical by Mr. Theobald." 4:56

28. Verses to Hanmer on his Edition of Shakespeare 13:672
Pope's "Hanmer" additions to the Dunciad 14:611

1. "The Works of Shakespeare, copied from the 4to edition
printed at Oxford, and carefully revis'd by the former
editions. In 6 volumes 8v pr 1L.lOs." [Author still
unknown. See Sherbo, Warburton.] 15:280

51. "Critical Observations upon Shakespeare. By John Upton.
Hawkins." 16:224

8. "A new canto of Shakespeare's fairy queen" [mistake for
Spencer?] 16:672

31. "The works of Shakespeare. By Mr. Pope and Mr.
Warburton, in 8 vols 8vo. pr. 2L.8s." 17:252

"Just Publish'd (Price Is.) Miscellaneous Observations on
the Tragedy of MACBETH. Printed at St. John's Gate, where
may be had the life of Richard Savage, Esq." [Both by
Samuel Johnson.] 17:252

14. "An Enquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare. By Peter
Whalley, A.B." [With review] 18:48

16. "An answer to Mr. W---s preface to his edition of
Shakespeare." 18:48

17. "A supplement to Warburton's edition of Shakespeare."
18:192

11. "An attempte to rescue that aunciente English poet and
play-wrighte, Maister Williaume Shakespere, from the many
errours charged on him by certaine new-fangled wittes."
[Anon.] 18:576

Sonnet attacking Warburton for his version of "Pope's
Shakespeare" 21:373

5. "Remarks on a late edition of Shakespeare." Printer
Norris 21:574

208

28. "A new edition of Shakespeare's works, with a glossary,
from the Oxford edition in 4to in 9 pocket vols." [From
Hanmer's edition.] 22:46

41. "Miscellaneous observations on the tragedy of Hamlet."
[Anon.] 22:47

57. "The beauties of Shakespeare, regularly selected from
each play." [Anon.] 22:147

34. "Shakespeare illustrated. 2 vols. 55. Millar. By the
author of the Female Quixote [Charlotte Lennox]. 9 novels
& a Play that served as sources for Othello, Measure for
Measure, Romeo and Juliet, Cymbeline, Twelfth Night,
Macbeth, the Winter's Tale, the Comedy of Errors, and
Hamlet." [with review] 23:250

34. "Critical, historical, and explanatory notes on
Shakespeare by Zachary Grey, LL.D." 24:247

21. "Conjectures on original composition, by Dr. Young." [A
comparison of Shakespeare and Jonson] 29:230

"Some Account of a Work lately published, entitled, A
Revisal p1 Shakespeare's Text." [Benjamin Heath] 35:65

 

Above continued 35:110
A remark on the above, by W.H.T--n. 35:127

"Some Account of a Collection of Old Ballads, lately
published in 3 volumes in 12mo by Tho. Perey [misprint for
Percy]. (Dodsley)" [This is Percy's Reliques p1 Ancient
Epglish Poetpy] 35:179

1."The Plays of William Shakespeare, with the corrections
and illustrations of various commentators; to which are
added notes. By Samuel Johnson." [With review consisting
of excerpts from the Preface, and reprinting of all of the
so-called "General Observations," Johnson's "short stric-
tures," which the QM calls the "general censure of faults,
or praise of excellencies, that are added to the end of
most plays."] 35:479

1. "A review of Dr. Johnson's new edition of Shakespeare.
By William Kendrick [Kenrick]." [With review] 35:529

18. "Observations and Conjectures Upon some passages of
Shakespeare. [By Thomas Tyrwhitt.]" [With review and
almost complete excerpts, printed over the next three
issues of the QM] 35:582

"Twenty Plays of Shakespeare. Collated. By George
Steevens." 36:38

209

"A Defence of William Kenrick's review of Johnson's
Shakespeare." [Anon.] 36:38

19. "An Imitation of Shakespeare. By William Kenrick."
36:38

"Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare. By Richard Farmer,
M.A." 37:121

"Introduction to the School of Shakespeare" [Anon.] 44:134

"Shakespeare's Macbeth, Collated with the old and new
editions. [Anon.] Owen pub." 44:278

Mention of optimistic anticipation of [Thomas] Warton's
History 11 English Poetry 44:429

"Cursory Remarks on Tragedy, on Shakespeare, &c." [Anon.]
45:88

"The morality of Shakespeare's drama illustrated. By Mrs.
Griffith" 45:93

43. "Six Old Plays, on which Shakespeare founded his
Measure for Measure, Comedy of Errors, Taming of the
Shrew, King John, Henry IV, Henry V, and King Lear.
Edited by John Nichols." 49:258

54. "Supplement to the Edition of Shakespeare's Plays,
published in 1778, by Samuel Johnson and George Steevens.
Containing additional Observations by several of the for-
mer Commentators: To which are subjoined the genuine Poems
of the same Author, and seven plays that have been
ascribed to him. With notes, by the Editor and others. 2
vols. large 8vo. 18$. Bathurst." [By Edmond Malone.

This is his Supplement. With review.] 50:375

90. "A Second Appendix to Mr. Malone's Supplement to the
last edition of the plays of Shakespeare: Containing Addi-
tional Observations by the Editor of the Supplement.
8vo." [Now known as the Second Supplement. With review.]
53:505

99. "Remarks, Critical and Illustrative, on the Text and
Notes of the last Edition of Shakespeare. 8vo." [Joseph
Ritson, identified in the review only as "Mr. R."] 53:593

39. "Dramatic Miscellanies. By Thomas Davies." [With
review] 54:281

"Letters of Literature. By Robert Heron [Pseudonym for
John Pinkerton. With review.] 55:546

210

Garrick, David, and Shakespeare

"Dramaticus," in Champion #455, writes of Garrick's
remarkable talent of characterization 12:527

 

Brief mention 16:104

Record of pamphlet, "A letter to Mr. Garrick," on his
purchase of patent for Drury Lane theatre 17:300

A Prologue by Garrick 20:422
A pamphlet, "Shakespeare and Garrick," listed 25:574

Poem to Garrick, written as though the writer were a
grateful Shakespeare returned from the dead 28:539

Garrick's Prologue to Florizell and Perdita [adaptation of
The Winter's Tale] 32:86

 

Poem to Garrick 35:138
Poem on Garrick and Shakespeare 37:378

A view of Shakespeare's birthplace, sent for upcoming
Jubilee 39:344

Details of "Approaching festival at Stratford" [Garrick's
Jubilee] 39:375

Garrick's Ode at the Stratford.Jubilee; with a collection
of poems from same, and a masque 39:446-7

Garrick's "Song" on the Jubilee 39:455
Sarcastic poem on the Jubilee 39:504
Comedy of the Jubilee 39:549

Defense of Garrick's Jubilee Ode 39:585
Poem on Garrick and Shakespeare 41:463

"Q" [Kynaston] on Garrick's interpretation of Shakespeare's
description of night 44:24

Poem, Invitation to the Jubilee 45:394
Poem to Garrick 45:444
Poem on Garrick's death, by "W.O." 49:208

Biographical anecdotes of Garrick 49:280

211

 

Poem to Shakespeare, on Garrick 49:281

A list of Garrick's published works, many of which are
alterations of Shakespeare plays 49:338

"English Prologues and Epilogues from Shakespeare to
Garrick." [Book review] 49:507

Garrick's Memoirs [from Thomas Davies] 50:330

Garrick in Davies' Dramatic Miscellanies 54:281

General

The degenerate times prefer Senesino to Shakespeare 1:56
Cibber plunders Shakespeare: Universal Spectator 1:72

On Shakespeare and Jonson: Universal Spectator 1:153

 

On Robin Goodfellow: The Craftsman 1:238

 

Love not Shakespeare's subject: Fog's Journal 1:246
Panegyric as satire in Marc Antony's speech 1:296
"Shakespeare's lofty strain," vs. moderns 1:493

Farce and Pantomime: Read's Journal 2:566

Mr. Carpenter as Sly in 11531: Grub-Street Journal 2:593
Shakespeare's puns and jingles: Universal Spectator 2:643
Scarborough's cliffs and 131;: Universal Qpectator 2:741

Shakespeare justly censured by Rymer: Applebee's Journal
2:786

Punning as Shakespeare's corruption: Universal Qpectator
2:902

Shakespeare and Addison: Fgg's Journal 2:917
Shakespeare's immodesty: Universal Spectator 2:965
Elegy for Wilks, actor of Hamlet 2:1025

New theater in Goodman's Fields: Monthly Intelligencer

2:1028

212

Art or Genius, not both: Universal Spectator 2:1104

Tom Cynick's complaints on actors: Auditor 3:67
Shakespeare and poetic diction: Grubstreet Journal 3:120
Satiric verses on Theobald: Grubstreet Journal 4:135

On Plays 8:7

Stage a mirror for statesmen: Craftsman 9:245

 

Letter from "Pistol" to Common—Sense 10:132
Shakespeare's "Lover's Complaint" 10:249

"On Shakespeare," from "Q" [not Kynaston] 15:213
Bawdy poem on Shakespeare 18:184

Otway's vs. Shakespeare's characters 18:551

The gentlemen in Othello 21:119-23

Remarks on 1215 22:253

"Verses on reading Shakespeare" 23:287

"Crito's" dream vision of Shakespeare: Adventurer 23:422

 

Help sought to defend Shakespeare 24:233

Shakespeare's Cardinal Wolsey error (Henry VIII): Paul
Gemsege [Samuel Pegge] 25:300

Poem on Shakespeare 25:373

Epitaph by Shakespeare for Tom a Combe 28:486
0n the Stratford bust of Shakespeare 29:257
Refutation of above defense 29:380

Reply to above 29:454

Shakespeare's poem "Beauty's Value" 30:39
Demolition of Shakespeare's house 30:308
Brief history of Shakespeare's stage 31:216
Anecdote 31:221

Sheridan's anecdote 31:268

213

Johnson's anecdote 35:475

Life of Quin, actor of Falstaff 36:132

Elegy on Powell, actor 39:407

Voltaire's complaints on Johnson's edition 41:392
Jonson and Shakespeare (as art vs. nature) 42:522

On scene divisions in the editions 43:547

Poems complaining of Shakespeare's commentators 43:572

Kynaston's praise of Shakespeare's description of night in
Macbeth 44:24

Answer to above 44:76

Kynaston counters with Midsummer Night's Dream description
of night 44:105

Shakespeare's biblical allusions 44:106

"Scrutator" on Warburton, Hanmer, Dr. Smith, and the Oxford
edition [Hanmer's] 51:27

Epitaph by Shakespeare for Elias James 51:363
"Misopiclerus" on Shakespeare's anachronisms 51:608
Dispute on spelling of "Shakespeare" 52:511

Two editions of Milton's "On Shakespeare" 53:128

"T.S." on the necessity of emendations despite occasional
absurdities 53:571

"W.J.'s" correction of Henry 1 history 53:585-9

Rev. Mr. Costard, Twickenham, on language of tragedy
53:835-8

J. Bowle's objection to spelling of "Shakspere" 54:253

"N.T.A.'s" remarks on Mr. Wilks' Hamlet 54:569

214

Johnson, Samuel, and Shakespeare
(Not included here are the numerous references to Johnson's

opinions in the emendations collected in chapters 2-5
above.)

Announcement of publication of the edition 35:479
Voltaire's complaints on above 41:392
Kynaston discusses Johnson's "trivial errors" 45:368

Johnson's inconsistencies in pronouncements on diction
53:929

Complaints about nit-picking in critiques of Johnson's
edition 54:360

Biographical sketch (by Thomas Tyer) and obituary of
Johnson, with epitaph 54:899-911

Listing for "Shakespeare" says only "See Johnson, Samuel"
54:1ndex

Reprint of Johnson's letter to Birch requesting works of
Shakespeare's contemporaries 55:8

"Parallel" Passages and Supposed Sources

Falstaff and Tully's Verres: Craftsman 1:245

Review of Whalley's Enguiry 18:25

"Rider's" view: Socrates and Shakespeare 21:566

Sidney's Arcadia as source of Edgar subplot in 131; 37:57
Biblical allusions 44:106

u

Sir Walter Rawlinson's finding of classical 'imitations"

50:518-20
Thomas Holt White's "parallels" 53:933-35
Thomas Holt White, continued 55:277-8

Response to above 55:498

215

 

Performances of Shakespeare, Alterations, Prologues and
Epilogues

32211 11 at new theatre 2:1028

Prologue to 131;, at Covent-Garden 3:204

"An Epistle to the Countess of Shaftsbury; with 3 Prologue
and Epilogue on Shakespeare. By Mr. Cooke, pr. 6d."
13:56

Mr. Arne sets 11 You Like 11 song to music 14:98

Poem to Jenny Cibber on her Juliet 14:558

Thompson's Coriolanus 19:33

Garrick's Prologue 20:422

Gentlemen performing Othello 21:105

The Fairies, an opera of Midsummer Night's Dream 25:93

 

The Winter's Tale, altered 26:47
Prologue to above 26:86

"Catherine and Petruccia, a comedy of 3 acts, from
Shakespeare" 26:95

"The Tempest; an opera; from Shakespeare" 26:95

"Cymbeline, King of Britain, a tragedy. Altered from
Shakespeare, by C. Marsh" 29:88

"Cymbeline, a tragedy. Altered from Shakespeare, by W.
Hawkins 29:184

A Prologue to the Tempest 30:586
"Bell's edition of Shakespeare's acting plays." 44:86

Prologue and Epilogue to Lear, by George Keate, Esq. 53:429

216

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbot, John Lawrence. John Hawkesworth: Eighteenth-Century
Man 11 Letters. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1982

 

Alexander, Peter, ed. Studies 1p Shakespeare: British
Academy Lectures. London: Oxford University Press,
1964.

 

 

Bate, Walter Jackson. Samuel Johnson. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1979.

Boswell, James. The Life 21 Samuel JohnsonJ LL.D. London:
Oxford University Press, 1924.

 

Carlson, C. Lennart. The First Magazine. Providence:
Brown, 1938.

 

 

Eddy, Donald. "John Hawkesworth: Book Reviewer to the
Gentleman's Magazine." Philological Quarter1y 43

(1964): 223-38.

 

 

Edwards, Thomas. The Canons 11 Criticism and Glossapyp
Being 1 Supp1ement pp Mr. Warburton's Edition 21
Shakespeare. London: Printed for C. Bathurst, 1765;
reprint ed., Eighteenth-Century Shakespeare Series, no.
7. London: Frank Cass and Company, 1970.

 

 

 

Graham, Walter. English Literary Periodicals. New York:
Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1930.

Granville-Barker, Harley, and Harrison, G. B., eds. A
Companion pp Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1949.

 

Gray, Charles H. Theatrical Criticism 1p London pp 1795.
New York: 1931.

Greene, Donald. "Was Johnson Theatrical Critic of the
Gentleman's Magazine?" Review 21 English Studies
3 (1952): 158-61.

 

Isaacs, J. "Shakespearian Scholarship." A Companion pp
Shakespeare Studies. Harley Granville-Barker and

217

 

Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionagerf £13_English Langupge: 1p
which the Words Are Deduced from their Originalsl an nd
Illustrated 11 their Different SIgnifications 11

Examples from the Best Writers. London: Printed by W.
Strahan, for J. and P. Knapton, et al., 1755; reprint

ed., New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1967.

 

 

Keesey, Donald Earl. "Dramatic Criticism in the Gentleman's
Magazine, 1747-1784." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1964.

 

Krutch, Joseph Wood. Samuel Johnson. New York: Henry Holt
and Company, 1944.

Kuist, James M., ed. The Nichols File Lf the "Gentleman's
Magazine" Attributions Lf Authorship and Other
Documentation in Editorial Papers at the Folger
Library. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982.

Mayo, Robert. The English Novel 11 the Magazines 1740—1815.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1962.

McKerrow, Ronald B. "The Treatment of Shakespeare's Text by
His Earlier Editors, 1709-1768." Studies 11
Shakespeare. Peter Alexander, ed. Pp. 103-31.

Pollard, A. W. "Shakespeare's Text." A Companion to
Shakespeare Studies. Harley Granville- Barker and G. B.
Harrison, eds. Pp 263- 86.

 

Nichols, John. The Rise and Progress Lf the "Gentleman's
Magazine". London: J. Nichols, 1821; reprint ed., The
Garland Series English Book Trade. New York: Garland
Publishing, Inc. 1974.

 

Shakespeare, William. The Norton Facsimile Lf the First
Folio 11 Shakespeare. Prepared by Charlton Hinman.
New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1968.

 

Shakespeare, William. Shakespeare as Put Forth in 1623: A
Reprint Lf Mr. William ShakespeareTE Comediesj—
Histories: & Tragedies. London: printed for Lionel
Booth by J. —Strangeways and H. E. Walden, 1864.

Shakespeare, William. Works. The New Variorum Edition
Series. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Co.

Antony and Cleopatra. Vol. 15. Horace Howard Furness,
ed. 1907.

1§_You Like 11. Vol. 8. Horace Howard Furness, ed.
1890.

Coriolanus. Vol. 20. Horace Howard Furness, Jr., ed.
1928.

218

Cymbeline. Vol. 18. Horace Howard Furness, ed. 1913.

Hamlet. Vol. 3. 3rd ed. Horace Howard Furness, ed.
1877.

Henry IYi Part l. Vol. 21. Samuel Burdett Hemingway,
ed. 1936.

 

Henry IV, Part ll. Vol 23. Matthias A. Shaaber, ed.
1940.

Julius Caesar. Vol. 17. Horace Howard Furness, Jr.,
ed. 1913.

King John. Vol. 19. Horace Howard Furness, Jr., ed.
1919.

 

King Lear. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Horace Howard Furness, ed.
1880.

 

Love's Labours Lost. Vol 14. 2nd ed. Horace Howard
Furness, ed. 1906

Macbeth. Vol 2. Horace Howard Furness, ed. 1873.

The Merchant 2£_Venice. Vol. 7. Horace Howard
Furness, ed. 1888.

A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Vol 10. Horace Howard
Furness, ed. 1895.

 

Much Ado about Nothing. Vol. 12. 2nd ed. Horace
Howard Furness, ed. 1899.

Othello. Vol. 6. Horace Howard Furness, ed. 1886.

Richard II . Vol 16. 2nd ed. Horace Howard Furness,

Jr., ed. 1909.

Romeo and Juliet. Vol. 1. Horace Howard Furness, ed.
1871.

The Tempest. Vol. 9. Horace Howard Furness, ed.
1895.

Troilus and Cressida. Vol. 16. Harold N. Hillebrand,
ed. 1953.

Twelfth Night. Vol. 13. Horace Howard Furness, ed.
1901.

 

The Winter's Tale. Vol. 11. Horace Howard Furness,
ed. 1898.

219

Shakespeare, William. Works. 21 Vols. Edited by Isaac
Reed. London: for J. Nichols and Son, 1813. Volume
4: The Tempest, Two Gentlemen Lf Verona, A_Midsummer-
Night' 3 Dream. Vol.5: The Mergy Wives Lf Windsor,
Twelfth Night. Vol. 6: Much Ado About Nothing, Measure
for Measure. Vol. 8: As You Like Lt, All' 8 Well That
Ends Well. Vol. 9: The Taming Lf The Shrew, The
Winter's Tale. Vol. 11: Richard _ll', Henry 11 Part 1.
Vol. 12: HHenry IV Part ll, Henry X. Vol 13: Henry VI
Part I, Henry VI Part II. Vol. 14: Henry VI Part III,
"Dissertation on Henry VI " Richard III. Vol. 15:
Henry7VIII, Troilus and Cressida. Vol. 19: Timon gé
Athens, Othello. Vol. 20: Romeo and Juliet, A Comedy
Lf Errors. Vol. 21: Titus Andronicus, Pericles, Prince
Lf Tyre, "Appendix," "Glossarial Index."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shakespeare, William. Works. The Riverside Shakespeare.
Edited by G. Blakemore Evans, et a1. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1974

Sherbo, Arthur. "Additions to the Nichols File of the

Gentleman's Magazine." Studies lg Bibliography 37
(1983): 228-33.

 

Sherbo, Arthur, ed. Johnson 23 Shakespeare. Introduction
by Bertrand H. Bronson. Yale Edition of the Works of
Samuel Johnson, Vols. 7 and 8. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1968.

Sherbo, Arthur. Samuel Johnsony Editor 2: Shakespeare.
Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, no. 42.
Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1956.

Sherbo, Arthur. "Warburton and the 1745 Shakespeare."

Journal Lf English and Germanic Philology 51 (January
1952): 71- 82.

Smith, D. Nichol, ed. Eighteenth Century Essays 23
Shakespeare. Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1903.

Smith, David Nichol. Shakespeare Lg the Eighteenth Century.
London: Oxford University Press, 1928.

Vickers, Brian, ed. Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage. 6
Vols. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1974-81. Vol. 2: "1693-1733"; 1974. Vol. 3: "1733—
1752"; 1975. Vol. 4: "1753-1765"; 1976. Vol. 5:
"1765-1774"; 1979. Vol. 6: "1774-1801"; 1981.

Walker, Alice. "Edward Capell and his Edition of

Shakespeare." Studies 13 Shakespeare. Peter
Alexander, ed. Pp. 132-48.

220