Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 074.djvu/325

1853.] and the fine compound epithet which is supposed to have escaped the fingers of the old compositor, is soul-pure. We venture to think that Shakespeare used the right words to express his own meaning, and that the MS. corrector's fine compound epithet is one of the most lack-a-daisical of the daisies that peer out upon us from the margins of the folio 1632.

''Act III. Scene 1.—The words, "my disposer Cressida," have been satisfactorily shown by Mr Singer to mean, my handmaiden'' Cressida. Therefore the change of "disposer" into dispraiser, as recommended by the MS. corrector, is quite uncalled for. The speech, however, in which these words occur must be taken from Paris, and given to Helen.

''Act III. Scene 2''.—In the dialogue between Troilus and Cressida, the lady says, that she must take leave of him:

This conversation is not very clear; yet sense may be made of it. The lady says, that she is offended with her own company: the gentleman rejoins, that she cannot get rid of herself. "Let me try," says the lady; "I have a kind of self which resides with you—an unkind self, because it leaves me to be your fool; of that self I can get rid, because it will remain with you when I leave you." The MS. emendation affords no kind of sense whatsoever.

Scene 3.—In the following passage, in which it is said that the eye is unable to see itself except by reflection, these lines occur:

Mirrored, for "married," is certainly a very excellent emendation; but it may reasonably be doubted whether mirror was used as a verb in Shakespeare's time. "To mirror" does not occur even in Johnson's Dictionary. This consideration makes us hesitate to recommend it for the text; for "married," though, perhaps, not so good, still makes sense. On further reflection we are satisfied that "married" was Shakespeare's word. In this Scene Shakespeare says, "that the providence that's in a watchful state" is able to unveil human thoughts "in their dumb cradles," in their very incunabula—a finer expression certainly than the MS. corrector's substitution "in their dumb crudities."

''Act IV. Scene 4''.—Between Mr Collier and his corrector the following passage would be perverted into nonsense, if they were allowed to have their own way:

—that is, trusting rashly to their potency, which is better than impotency, and yet falls far short of perfect potency. Mr Collier hazards the opinion, that "unchangeful potency" would be a better reading. We cannot agree with him except to this extent that it would be a better reading than the one which the MS. corrector proposes,

which we leave to the approbation of those who can understand it.

Scene 5.—The lines in which certain ladies of frail virtue, or, in the stronger language of Johnson, "corrupt wenches," are spoken of, have given rise to much comment.

This is the ordinary reading. The margins propose,

We prefer the emendation suggested by Monck Mason and Coleridge,

—that is, who take the initiative, and address before they are addressed.

— Act I. Scene 1.—In his first emendation, the MS. corrector betrays his ignorance of the right meaning of words. The term "object," which nowadays is employed rather loosely in several acceptations, is used by Shakespeare, in the following passage, in its proper and original signification. One of the Roman