Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 074.djvu/458

454 the MS. corrector's emendation. It seems more natural to say that a person is disenchanted from the power of love by the shield of chastity, than to say that she is enchanted therefrom by means of that protection.

The following remark by Mr Collier puzzles us excessively. Scene 4, in the fine description of Queen Mab, this line occurs—

But "courtiers" have been already mentioned. "To avoid this repetition," says Mr Collier, "Pope read ' lawyer's nose;' but while shunning one defect he introduced another, for though the double mention of 'courtiers' is thus avoided, it occasions the double mention of lawyers. in what way, then, does the old corrector take upon himself to decide the question? He treats the second 'courtiers' as a misprint for a word which, when carelessly written, is not very dissimilar—

That counsellors," continues Mr Collier, "and their interest in suits at court, should be thus ridiculed, cannot be thought unnatural." But are not counsellors lawyers? and is not this precisely the same blunder as that which Mr Collier condemns Pope for having fallen into? Surely Queen Mab must bare been galloping to some purpose over Mr Collier's nob, when he forgot himself thus marvellously. It seems that there must be a repetition, and therefore it is better to let it fall on the word "courtiers" than on the word "lawyers," or its synonym, counsellors,—for "courtiers" is the original text.

''Act II. Scene 2''.—We are so wedded to the exquisite lines about "the winged messenger of heaven,"

that it is with the utmost unwillingness we consent even to the smallest change in their expression. But it seems that "lazy-puffing" (an evident misprint) is the reading of the old editions; and this goes far to prove that lazy-passing (the MS. correction) is the genuine word—the long ſſ having been mistaken by the compositor for ﬀ. Although as a matter of taste, perhaps of association, we prefer "lazy-pacing," still lazy-passing is very good, and we have little doubt that it is the authentic reading. We agree also with Mr Cole here in thinking that "unbusied youth" for" unbruised youth" (Ace II. Scene 3) comes, as he says, "within the class of extremely plausible emendations." "Weak dealing" (scene 4), in the mouth of the nurse, may very well be a malapropism for "wicked dealing," and therefore the text ought not to be disturbed. The MS. corrector is, perhaps, right in his alteration of the line about Juliet's cheeks (Scene 5), where the nurse says—

For "straight at any," he reads, "straightway at my." But the point would require further consideration before the change can be recommended, with certainty, for the text.

Act III. Scene 2.—In this scene there occurs one of the most disputed passages in the whole of Shakespeare, and one on which conjectural emendation and critical explanation have expended all the resources both of their ingenuity and their stupidity' without reaching any very memorable result, except in one instance, which we are about to mention with hearty commendation. The difficulty presents itself in the lines where Juliet says—

Who is "Runaway"? He is a printer's (not devil but) blunder, says the old corrector; we should read enemies. Those may read enemies who choose. We certainly shall not—no, not even at the bidding of Queen Victoria herself. We shall not turn ourselves into a goose to please the ghost of an old amateur play-corrector, though he should keep rapping at us till his knuckles are worn out. Read Rumourers, says Mr Singer. No, Mr Singer, we will not read Rumourers. Read this thing, and read that thing, say other wise authorities: no, gentlemen, we shall not read anything except what Shakespeare wrote, and we know for certain that the word which he wrote was "Runaway's," just as it stands in the books; for we learnt this from a medium;—