Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 074.djvu/193

1853.]

In place of "for" in the last line but one, the corrector proposes "but," and Mr Collier approves, remarking that but "seems more consistent with the course of the dialogue." If, however, we attend to the sequence of thought in this passage, it will be apparent that the change not only fails to render the dialogue more consistent, but that it altogether destroys its consistency, converting very good sense into downright nonsense; smartness into drivel. When Proteus says that Leander who crossed the Hellespont was more than over shoes in love, Valentine catches him up," 'tis true: no doubt of it: he must have been more than over shoes in love; for you, who never swam the Hellespont at all, are actually over boots in love." The reasoning here seems very plain. If Proteus, without swimming the Hellespont, was over boots in love, surely the very least that could be said of Leander, who did swim it, must be that he was more than over shoes in love. "Your remark, friend Proteus, though very true, is not very recondite. It is decidedly common-place, and such as I should scarcely have expected to hear from a person of your wit and penetration. Pray favour us with something a little more original and profound." All this banter, and we venture to think it rather happy, is implied in Valentine's words—

But change this "for" into "but," and the whole point of the dialogue is gone. Let this new reading be adopted, and future commentators will be justified in declaring that Shakespeare's words were sometimes without meaning. This single and apparently in-significant instance in which the corrector has palpably misconceived his author, compels us to distrust his capacity, and ought to go far to shake the general credit of his emendations.

To alter "blasting in the bud," into "blasted in the bud," is merely an instance of excessive bad taste on the part of the MS. corrector. We see nothing worthy of approval or animadversion until we come to two lines which are quoted from ''Act III. Scene 2''—

where it may be a question whether "wean" (the corrector's suggestion), might not be judiciously substituted for "weed." If rapid extirpation was intended to be expressed, "weed" is the word; otherwise we are disposed to prefer "wean," as better fitted to denote the contemplated alienation of Julia's affections from Proteus.

In ''Act IV. Scene 2'', a whole new line is introduced; and as there is no evidence to prove that the corrector did not write this line himself, we must protest against its insertion in the genuine writings of Shakespeare. The interpolation is in italics. Eglamour says to the distressed Silvia, who is requesting him to be her escort—

Johnson explains grievances as sorrows, sorrowful affections—an explanation which renders the interpolated line quite unnecessary. Shakespeare understood the art of ne quid nimis, and frequently leaves something to be supplied by the imagination of his reader or hearer. Besides, it would have been indelicate in Eglamour to have alluded more particularly to the "loves" of Silvia and Valentine.

If the MS. corrector had ever sees Scene IV. effectively acted, he must have perceived how completely one good point would have been destroyed by his unwise insertion of the word "cur." Launce, servant to Proteus, has been sent by his master with a little dog as a present to Silvia. Launce has lost the lap-dog, and has endeavoured to make compensation by offering to Silvia his own hulking mongrel in its place. These particulars are thus recounted