Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 2.djvu/635

 ii. DEC. 31, 1904.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

From these quotations it would appear that the two expressions, in the judgment of eminent commentators, are practically synonymous in meaning, and therefore no alteration was required.

RICHD. WELFOKD.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

The emendation of "varlet" to "harlot," of the correctness of which there can scarcely be any doubt, has been proposed already by Hanmer. G. KRUEGER.

Home Tooke considered varlet to be the same word as harlot, the aspirate being changed to v. This is probably the true explanation. Thersites uses an unusual form of the word, hence Patroclus's demand for an explanation. Singer adopted the reading harlot.

The matter is fully discussed in the Boswell-Malone ( Variorum' (1821) and in Dyce's k Shakespeare.'- ISAAC HULL PLATT.

The Players, New York.

The expression is just the kind that Thersites would use with its double meaning, and so require the explanation that Patroclus demands. Theobald was the first to alter the reading to harlot, but it was not adopted, being too plain to be questioned.

TOM JONES.

In the invaluable collection of Baskish 'Refranes y Sentencias,' published in Pamp- lona in 1596, and preserved in the library of the castle at Darmstadt, the proverb "Doguna jan dogu ta arlot gara biortu " (which, like " the more part of them," is in the Biscayan dialect) is translated into Castilian thus : " Lo que tenemos hemos comido y nos hemos buelto pobres," i.e., That which we have we have eaten ; and we are turned into poor people. It is worth noting that arlot was turned into Baskish in the sense of poor.

E. S. DODGSON.

'THE Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA': FRIAR PATRICK (10 th S. ii. 344). Touching Dr. Appleton Morgan's emendation in ' The Two Gentlemen of Verona,' I think "Friar Lau- rence " is not necessarily an error for " Friar Patrick." Another friar may be meant, but this is not likely, as there seems to be no need for a second. It is not likely to be a printer's blunder. No printer could mistake Patrick for Laurence. To leave this, then, out of account, three possible ways occur to me in which the error may have arisen. It may have been a blunder of the copy-reader, of a copyist, or of the author himself.

Perhaps the subject will seem more in- teresting if it is noted that a similar

blunder occurs in the same play. In Act L. sc. ii., Speed, being in Milan, welcomes Launce to Padua, a place with which the plot has no relations whatever. Now this associates ' The- Two Gentlemen ' with * The Taming of the- Shrew ' almost as clearly as the heterophony: of Laurence for Patrick does with ' Romeo- and Juliet.' This double confusion would not be likely to occur to the copy-reader, nor to a copyist, unless he were indeed the editor of the First Folio, and had all the plays more or less in mind, and that is not very probable,, for the reason that in the order of the Folio the three plays are widely separated. But in the order of their production it is con- ceded that they must have come pretty near together. It appears to me that the most probable explanation is that the author had the three plays in mind at the same time, and that the confusion was his own. Indeed, this is rendered more probable by the fact that there is still another blunder in the same play, which is demonstrably the author's own. In Act V. sc. iv. 11. 128-9, Valentine says :

Do not name Sylvia thine ; if once again Verona shall not hold thee. Here she stands.

The context shows that Milan is meant,, but Milan will not fit the metre, and Shake- speare must have written Verona. As part of the action of the play does occur in Verona,, it is easy to see how this accident probably happened, and it is significant only in this, that,Shakespearehaving been convicted of one blunder, it seems more likely that the other two were his also. If this could be positively shown to be the case it would seem to be pretty strong evidence that * The Two Gen- tlemen,' ' Romeo and Juliet,' and ' The Taming of the Shrew' were written at about the same time, but of course we never can be quite sure about anything connected with these matters. ISAAC HULL PLATT.

The Players, New York.

'TWELFTH NIGHT/ I. i. 5-7 (10 th S. ii. 343). In reading my letter again it appears to me that perhaps I ought to have added something to it. Shakspeare's "sound " was not corrected to *' South " until the time of Pope. Yet Milton, if he was remembering Shakspeare, would seem to have had the correct, and not the corrupt, word in his mind. Steevens has mentioned that in Sidney's * Arcadia' is the following : "more sweet than a gentle south-west wind which comes creeping over flowery fields." It is likely that both Shakspeare and Milton knew the passage. Milton, with poetical instinct, would see that " sound " was a mistake. If;