6

editions. Leontes, in grief and remorse, states a fact, and adds mournfully true;' to which Paulina naturally subjoins that it is 'too true.' Nearly all editors, from the time of Theobald to our own day, have disturbed the authentic text, and have made Paulina say, 'True, too true, my lord,' to which there might be little objection, if it had been what Shakespeare probably wrote. The word 'true,' printed, as it is, without a capital in the folio, 1623, could hardly have found its way into the preceding line by a mere error of the press."

Mr. Collier has now so completely divested himself of the superstitious reverence with which, in other days, he regarded the folio of 1623, that one would hardly have expected to find him still retaining its flagrant blunder in the present passage, even though the Ms. Corrector (by an oversight, doubtless) has made no sort of alteration here. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable that any person reading the above speeches with moderate attention should fail to see that the word "true" at the end of the first speech has been shuffled out of its place, and that it should be restored to Paulina thus,—

66

Destroy'd the sweet'st companion that e'er man
Bred his hopes out of.

Never to marry, but by my free leave?

Leon. Never, Paulina; so be bless'd my spirit!

Paul. Then, good my lords, bear witness to his oath.

Cleo. You tempt him over-much.

Cleo.

Good madam,-I have done.

Paul. Yet, if my lord will marry,-if you will, sir,

No remedy but you will-give me the office

To choose you a queen,' &c.

Good madam,—I have done.] Steevens proposed to transfer 'I have done' to Paulina, who has any thing but concluded. Malone adopted the change, which seems on every ground objectionable. Cleomenes endeavours to interpose, but finding it vain, he gives over the attempt with 'I have done,' and then Paulina continues."

When, in my own edition of Shakespeare, I adopted the regulation suggested by Steevens,

Yet, if my lord will marry," &c.,

my friend, Mr. John Forster, favoured me with the following remarks: "The only thing that could justify the notion of Cleomenes feeling himself overborne by Paulina's vehemence, and retreating with an 'I have done,'-would be, that the second speech of Paulina should be but a close to the impetuous rush of the first. On the contrary, the 'Yet' introduces a concession on her part, which properly follows the 'I have done.'

P. 112,-act v. sc. 3.

6

Would I were dead, but that, methinks, already
I am but dead, stone looking upon stone.'

I AM BUT DEAD, STONE LOOKING UPON STONE.] This most beautiful and lost line is recovered from the corr. fo. 1632. The Rev. Mr. Dyce in his 'Few Notes,' p. 81, takes the singular objection that although the new line at first appeared to him so exactly in the style of Shakespeare that, like Mr. Collier, he felt thankful that it had been furnished;' yet presently afterwards he found that it was 'too Shakesperian;' that is to say, that the poet could not have written it, because it was so very much in his style. This is strange logic even for a commentator. Mr. Singer (who introduces his own absurd punctuation) complains with Mr. Dyce that Shakespeare would 'not so soon have repeated himself,' and then a passage is quoted, and marked with italic type, in which Shakespeare repeats himself not, as here at a distance, but within four lines. So much for fact, as well as logic. Mr. Dyce at last is obliged to admit that the line is 'ingeniously constructed,' having before said that it is exactly in the style of Shakespeare.' Let others try their hands at lines 'exactly in the style of Shakespeare,' where it is allowed on all sides that something is wanted; and if they succeed, we will venture to say they will not give us lines in the least degree resembling that which Mr. Singer has in this place furnished. Does Mr. Dyce (and we fearlessly appeal to him as a man of taste and experience) think Mr. Singer's line 'exactly in the style of Shakespeare,' either in measure or meaning? As to the line supplying the hiatus in the corr. fo. 1632, we are more than content to have recovered it, and it must now ever stand as part of

the text of our great dramatist: in the German edition, to which we have so often with pleasure referred, it is thus well rendered," &c.

As Mr. Collier cannot bring himself to quote fairly any thing I have written, I subjoin that portion of my Few Notes, &c. which touches on the line in question:

"Mr. Collier is mistaken in saying that Warburton considered the text as defective: Warburton's note runs thus; 'The sentence complete is;

but that, methinks, already I converse with the dead.' But there his passion made him break off? Still, there is room to suspect that something has dropt out: and, on first reading the new line,

'I am but dead, stone looking upon stone,'—

it appeared to me so exactly in the style of Shakespeare, that, like Mr. Collier, I felt thankful that it had been furnished.' But presently I found that it was too Shakesperian. "Only a few speeches before, Leontes has exclaimed; 'O, thus she stood,

Even with such life of majesty (warm life,

As now it coldly stands), when first I woo'd her.

I am asham'd: does not the stone rebuke me,

For being more stone than it ?—O royal piece,
There's magic in thy majesty, which has

My evils conjur'd to remembrance, and
From thy admiring daughter took the spirits,
Standing like stone with thee!

Now, which is the greater probability?—that Shakespeare (whose variety of expression was inexhaustible) repeated himself in the line,

'I am but dead, stone looking upon stone'?

or that a reviser of the play (with an eye to the passage just cited) ingeniously constructed the said line, to fill up a supposed lacuna? The answer is obvious."

It is to the speech adduced in the above extract that Mr. Collier alludes when he says; "a passage is quoted, and marked with italic type, in which Shakespeare repeats him

self not, as here at a distance, but within four lines." But that passage contains no offensive repetition like the one of which Mr. Singer and I "complain;" for there Leontes does not twice say that he is turned to stone, - in the concluding line, "Standing like stone with thee," he speaks of his daughter.

P. 114,-act v. sc. 3.

"now, in age,

Is she become the suitor.'

The Rev. Mr. Dyce bestows nearly a page of his 'Remarks' (35) to show that there should be no note of interrogation here. Such points are the very 'small deer' of criticism, and should be reserved for the 'small beer' of poetry. It was, as in 'Richard III.,' a mere error of the press, worth correcting, but surely not with such pomp."

I have already given a signal proof of the treacherousness of Mr. Collier's memory (see p. 76); and he must excuse my believing that here again he forgets, - my believing that, in his first edition, he deliberately adopted from the folio the interrogation-point after "suitor,"—just as, in the preceding speech of Paulina, he adopted from the folio (ay, and explained),

66
"On, those that think it is unlawful business
I am about; let them depart."

KING JOHN.

P. 136,―act ii. sc. 1.

666

"My lord Chatillon may from England bring

That right in peace, which here we urge in war;
And then we shall repent each drop of blood,
That hot rash haste so indiscreetly shed.'

INDISCREETLY] So the corr. fo. 1632, and with such obvious fitness that, like the old annotator, we erase indirectly, which has hitherto always been considered the text. Mr. Singer, too, prints 'indiscreetly,' here acknowledging his obligation."

On this alteration an anonymous critic writes as follows: "Indirectly' is Shakespeare's word. The Ms. corrector sug

gests 'indiscreetly'—a most unhappy substitution, which we are surprised that the generally judicious Mr. Singer should approve of. Indiscreetly' means imprudently, inconsiderately. Indirectly' means wrongfully, iniquitously, as may be learnt from these lines in King Henry V., where the French king is denounced as a usurper, and is told that Henry

'bids you, then, resign

Your crown and kingdom, indirectly held

From him the native and true challenger.'

It was certainly the purpose of Constance to condemn the rash shedding of blood as something worse than indiscreet — as criminal and unjust and this she did by employing the term 'indirectly' in the Shakesperean sense of that word." Blackwood's Magazine for Sept. 1853, p. 304.

P. 141,-act ii. sc. 1.

"All preparation for a bloody siege,

And merciless proceeding by these French,

Come 'fore your city's eyes, your winking gates,' &c.

COME 'FORE your city's eyes,] The folios misprint 'Come 'fore' Comfort, and it was an error for which it is not difficult to account: we derive the emendation from the corr. fo. 1632. Rowe, seeing that Comfort must be wrong, conjectured that the true word was Confront, and such has been the ordinary text. There is a singular confirmation of the misprint of Comfort for 'Come 'fore' in the folio, 1632, itself, for in 'Henry VI. Pt. ii.,' A. iii. sc. 2, we meet with a line which stands thus:

'Comfort, my sovereign, gracious Henry com fore.' In the last instance comfort' ought, of course, to be repeated."

Here, in his former edition, Mr. Collier gave, with the old copies, "Comfort your city's eyes," &c., gravely telling us in a note that "King John is evidently speaking ironically." To that reading, no doubt, his present one, "Come 'fore your city's eyes," &c., is vastly superior, inasmuch as sense is far better than nonsense; but then, again, compared with Rowe's emendation, "Confront your city's eyes," &c., it is miserably prosaic and feeble. — In the next scene we have;

"Strength match'd with strength, and power confronted power." and in Hamlet, act iii. sc. 3;