Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 074.djvu/460

456 Act V. Scene 1.—"If I may trust," says Romeo,

The MS. corrector reads—

which Mr Collier defends on the ground of what follows in Romeo's speech:—

But if the "death," of which the corrector supposes Romeo to speak, has any reference to the death of which he has dreamt, what a ludicrous and unmeaning epithet the word "flattering" is! Flattering death! Why flattering? It is the most senseless adjunct that could be employed in the place. It was his revival from death by the kisses of Juliet that formed the "flattering" part of his dream. This emendation, therefore, must be dismissed as a most signal failure. Mr Singers suggestion, though not necessary, is better. He reads, "the flattering soother sleep." But the text ought to be allowed to stand as it is. "The flattering truth of sleep" merely means—the pleasing truth promised to me in dreams.

Scene 3.—We conclude our observation on this play with the remark, that there is no necessity whatever for changing "outrage" into outcry in the line where the Prince says—

All who are present have been driven nearly distracted by the tragedies they are called upon to witness, and therefore the meaning undoubtedly is—"seal up the mouth of distraction for a while,"

— Act I. Scene 1.—The commentators have been very generally at fault in their dealings with the following line. The cynical Apemantus says—

Warburton proposed, "that I had so hungry a wit to be a lord." Monk Mason suggested, "that I had an angry wish to be a lord." The MS. corrector, combining these two readings, gives us, "that I had so hungry a wish to be a lord." Dr Johnson says, "The meaning may be—I should hate myself for patiently enduring to be a lord. This is ill enough expressed. Perhaps some happy change may set it right. I have tried and can do nothing, yet I cannot heartily concur with Dr Warburton." Warburton's emendation is substantially the same as the MS. corrector's—and therefore we have Dr Johnson's verdict against its admissibility. His own interpretation is unquestionably right, although he gave it with great hesitation. No change whatever is required. The passage is perfectly plain if we take "to be" as standing for "in being." "That I had no angry wit in being a lord." It is the pleasure and pride of my life to cherish a savage disposition; but in consenting to be a lord I should show that I had in a great measure foregone this moroseness of nature—and therefore "I should hate myself, because I could have had no angry wit, no splenetic humour upon me, when I consented to be a lord."

Scene 2.—Dr Delius (of whom favourable mention has been made in our second article) deals very sensibly with the following case. "At Timon's table," says he, "Apemantus declares himself to be a water-drinker, because water, unlike strong drink, never leads a man into crime. He says—

The old corrector, hankering after rhymes, changes 'sinner' into fire. But had Apemantus indulged in such an unutterable platitude at Timon's banquet, as the remark that water was not fire, the rest of the guests would most assuredly have turned him to the door. What shall we say when we find Mr Collier seriously believing that Shakespeare's word was fire!" Well done, Doctor!