"My operant powers my functions leave to do." In both cases the error was occasioned by the preceding "my." P. 521. (50) "Even with the very comment of thy soul," &c. So the quartos, 1604, &c.-The folio has ". of my Soule," &c.—See my Remarks on Mr. Collier's and Mr. Knight's eds. of Shakespeare, p. 214.—Mr. Knight declares himself "not convinced" by what I have there said in support of the reading of the quartos; but Mr. Collier most probably will now agree with me, for he tells us, that “among other adoptions [by the Ms. Corrector] from the quartos may be mentioned 'comment of thy soul' instead of 'comment of my soul' of the folios." 66 A writer in The Critic for 1854, p. 317,-having found, in a review, an extract from a work of Henry Peacham, where “ Sabell colour, i.e. flame-colour,” is mentioned,-feels assured that we ought to read here "a suit of sabell." Another correspondent in The Critic for the same year, p. 373, observes that “sabell” or “sabelle” is properly a fawn-colour a good deal heightened with red, and that the term came from the French "couleur d'isabelle."-According to the Dict. de l'Acad. Fr., " isabelle" is a colour "entre le blanc et le jaune, mais dans lequel le jaune domine. Il se dit surtout du poil des chevaux." 66 P. 526. (52) "Oph. Still better, and worse. Ham. So you must take your husbands." So the quarto, 1603, except that it has "husband."-The other quartos have "Ham. So you mistake your husbands;" which is the reading of the folio, except that it omits "your." P. 526. (53) “Begin, murderer; pox, leave thy damnable faces, and begin." So the folio;-with which the quarto, 1603, nearly agrees,— "begin. Murdred Begin, a poxe, leaue thy damnable faces and begin."— The later quartos omit "pox;" and Mr. Knight, generally so devoted to the folio, omits it too. (Need I observe that, in Shakespeare's time, this imprecation undoubtedly referred to the small-pox? Our author in Love's Labour's lost, act v. sc. 2, makes Katherine exclaim "A por of that jest !") P. 526. (54) "the croaking raven doth bellow for revenge." These words are usually given in the modern editions as a quotation,—which probably they are. P. 527. (55) "Why, let the strucken deer go weep," &c. A quotation probably. P. 527. (56) "A very, very-pajock.” Here "pajock" is certainly equivalent to peacock. I have often heard the lower classes in the north of Scotland call the peacock-the "peajock:" and their almost invariable name for the turkey-cock is "bubblyjock.”—These four lines (excepting the word “pajock”) would seem to be a quotation. "For if the king like not the comedy," &c. P. 527. (57) P. 529. (59) "Re-enter Players with recorders. O, the recorders :—let me see one." So the quartos, 1604, &c. (except that there the stage-direction stands "Enter the players with recorders”).—The folio has,— "Enter one with a Recorder. O the Recorder. Let me see ;”—an alteration which I have not the slightest doubt we must attribute to the “company,” who were obliged to be economical both of persons and properties. A single recorder, indeed, suffices for the mere business of this scene: but the alteration is quite at variance with what precedes, p. 527, "Come, some music! come, the recorders!" P. 529. (59) "and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think," &c. So the quartos, 1604, &c. (in the quarto, 1603, there is no more of this than "Zounds do you thinke," &c.).—The folio has “ yet cannot you make it. Why, do you thinke," &c.-"The folio," observes Mr. Knight, "omits speak. The poet may have meant to say, yet cannot you make this music, this excellent voice; for Guildenstern might have made the pipe speak, but he could not command it to any utterance of harmony. We now prefer to consider the folio erroneous." That Mr. Knight should labour to explain a reading which he now allows to be an erroneous one! How it originated is plain enough: when "Sblood" was struck out, to be replaced by "Why," the preceding word “speak” was at the same time accidentally struck out. May be right: but the alteration made by Hanmer (and by Mr. Collier's Ms. Corrector), "I'll sconce me even [the quartos, 1604, &c. have "euen"] here," cannot be called an improbable one,—the corresponding words in the quarto, 1603, being “I'le shrowde myselfe behinde the Arras."-That Hanmer's alteration, which has long been adopted on the stage, should not be noticed in the Variorum Shakespeare, is sufficiently strange. P. 533. (61) "Ham. Mother, mother, mother!" So the folio.-Not in the quartos, 1604, &c.-There is, however, a trace of it in the quarto, 1603, P. 533. (62) 66 "Ham. Mother, mother, O are you here? How is't with you mother?" Queen. Come, come, you answer with an idle tongue. So the quartos, 1604, &c. (these two speeches are not in the earliest quarto). -The folio has "Ham. Go, go, you question with an idle tongue;" which is adopted by Caldecott (and by Dr. Delius), under the idea that here Hamlet should echo as closely as possible the words of his mother. It was formerly adopted by Mr. Knight also; but he now adheres to the reading of the quartos; and wisely,-for the "an idle" of the folio was evidently caught by the transcriber or compositor from the preceding line. Such faulty repetitions are extremely frequent in the folio throughout this play: eg. in act i. sc. 5 (p. 492), it has, "Hor. There's no offence my Lord. Ham. Yes, by Saint Patricke, but there is my Lord,” &c. (instead of " but there is, Horatio," &c.) and in act v. sc. 2 (p. 575), "Ham. Come on, sir. Laer. Come on sir" (instead of "Come, my lord"). See also notes (29), (32), (47), (49), (49), (83). P. 536. (63) "What would your gracious figure?” So the quartos, 1604, &c.—The folio has "What would you gracious figure?" (the compositor having here omitted by mistake the letter r,-just as he has done afterwards in this play, p. 567, "Strengthen you patience in our last night's speech"); and accordingly Caldecott, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Collier do not scruple to print "What would you, gracious figure ?" P. 538. (64) "That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat, This passage (from "That monster" to "put on" inclusive) is only in the quartos, 1604, &c.-It has been variously pointed and explained: the above punctuation (which Mr. Knight is mistaken in supposing that he was the first to adopt) appears to me preferable, on the whole.-Theobald, at Thirlby's suggestion, printed, "who all sense doth eat Of habits evil, is angel," &c. and the Rev. J. Mitford (Gent. Magazine for Feb. 1845, p. 132) proposes, "who all sense doth eat, If habit's devil, is angel," &c. P. 538. (65) "And master the devil, or throw him out," &c. This passage (from "the next more easy" to "wondrous potency" inclusive) is only in the quartos, 1604, &c.: the two earliest have "And either the deuill," &c.; the later quartos read as in the text,-affording a sense, but still leaving the metre imperfect (though Mr. Collier seems to think otherwise).—The line has been altered to "And master even the devil," &c., and to " And either curb the devil," &c.—Sidney Walker (Shakespeare's Versification, &c. p. 75) cites it thus, "And either master the devil or throw him out," &c.— and by mistake attributes that lection to the quarto, 1604. P. 541. (66) 66 so, haply slander,— Whose whisper o'er the world's diameter," &c. This passage (from "Whose whisper" to "woundless air" inclusive) is only in the quartos, 1604, &c., and imperfect at the commencement. To complete the sense, Theobald inserted "for haply, slander," which was afterwards slightly altered as above. P. 544. (67) "till I know 'tis done, Howe'er my haps, my joys were ne'er begun." So the folio.-The quartos, 1604, &c. have "———➖➖➖ my ioyes will nere begin:" but a rhyme was evidently intended here.-Johnson suggested that “haps” ought to be "hopes;" and Mr. Collier's Ms. Corrector agrees with him;— see Mr. Collier's one-volume Shakespeare. P. 545. (68) “Yes, it is already garrison'd.” Has been altered to "O, yes, it is," &c. P. 546. (69) "Twere good she were spoken with," &c. At the commencement of the scene the quartos, 1604, &c. have "Enter Horatio, Gertrad, and a gentleman;" and, up to this point, they make the dialogue pass between the Queen and the "Gentleman." They then have, "Hora. "Twere good she were spoken with, for she may strew Let her come in. Enter Ophelia. Quee. To my sicke soule, as sinnes true nature is," &c.— The folio omits the "Gentleman," and as far as "Though nothing sure, yet much unhappily" inclusive, distributes the speeches as in the present edition. It then has, "Qu. 'Twere good she were spoken with To my sicke soule (as sinne's true Nature is)," &c.— There certainly is room for suspecting that the omission of the "Gentleman" is to be attributed to the players. But be that as it may, there can be no doubt that if a modern editor adheres to the folio in omitting the "Gentleman," he ought to restore to Horatio (what comes very awkwardly from the Queen),― ""Twere good she were spoken with, for she may strew and that, whether he chooses to retain or omit the "Gentleman," he ought to make the Queen's speech commence with "Let her come in." The old eds. have " did not go," &c.,‚—a reading which had been rejected for many a long year, when Caldecott with great pomp restored the "not" to the text. "Contra fidem omnium codicum," he says, "and following a leader whom they concur in reprobating, the modern editors read 'to the grave go,' -Caldecott, though far advanced in life when he edited Hamlet, being, it would seem, still ignorant that a whole series of "codices" will very often agree in the grossest error. "His shroud, or corpse, 'did not go bewept with truelove showers,' for his was no love-case; his death had the tragical character of fierce outrage," &c. &c. That any one should fail at once to perceive that the original reading "did not go" is utterly irreconcilable with the preceding "Larded with sweet flowers"! And that any one should have the folly to suppose that the ballad now sung by Ophelia must apply in minute particulars to her father! Enough for her that it is a ditty about death and burial; no matter that its hero is a youthful lover,-he was cut off by a sudden fate, and so far resembled Polonius.-Here Mr. Knight also retains "not."-So does Mr. Collier in the first ed. of his Shakespeare, remarking, however, that it "may possibly be an error:" in his one-volume ed. I find that he omits it on the authority of his Ms. Corrector. P. 548. (71) “Will nothing stick our person to arraign,” &c. So the quartos, 1604, &c.-The folio has " our persons to Arraigne," &c.; and But the king is certainly speak so Caldecott, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Collier. ing of himself only: compare what he has before said to the Queen on the same subject (the death of Polonius), p. 540; VOL. V. "O heavy deed! It had been so with us, had we been there: His liberty is full of threats to all; To you yourself, to us, to every one. Q Q |
