« EdellinenJatka »
And on the justice of my flying hence,
with me: If not, to hide what I have said to thee, That I may venture to depart alone.
Egl. Madam, I pity much your grievances,
This evening coming.
At friar Patrick's cell,
Egl. I will not fail your ladyship. Good morrow,
Good morrow, kind sir Eglamour. [Exeunt.
5 AND THE MOST TRUE AFFECTIONS THAT YOU BEAR,] This line is from the corr. fo. 1632; and unless it were intended that Eglamour should say, that Silvia's “grievances" were “virtuously placed” it is required, although never missed until our discovery of the corr. fo. 1632, which contains it in MS. in its margin. What Eglamour means is, that he pities the grievances and affections of Silvia, and since the latter were virtuously placed, he would assist.her in her flight. This is the first new line obtained from the same authority, and we welcome it as a fortunate recovery of what otherwise must have remained imperfect.
6 RECKING as little] i. e. Caring as little: it is spelt Wreaking in the folios, and we wonder that the Rev. Mr. Dyce, and those who would preserve wrack for what we now universally spell “wreck,” do not also prefer this old spelling of wreak, since it would introduce another element of confusion into our language : to wreak properly means to revenge, but here in the folios it is used for reck, to care, and in Patrick Hannay's poem of “ Philomela,” 8vo, 1622, p. 57, we find to wrecke (so spelt) used for to revenge:
“ The world shall know
I was not slow
To wrecke a wronged maid.” Taking it by itself, the words “ To wrecke a wronged maid " would be the very reverse of what was intended by the poet. In fact, to wreak, i. e. to revenge, to reck, i. e. to care, and to wreck, i. e. to ruin (A. S. wræccan) are totally different words, and ought to be kept as distinct as possible by modern uniformity of orthography. With all respect, we must once for all say, that the attempt to reintroduce such words and spelling into our language, as wrack, vild, swound, sterve, debosh, &c. is nothing short of preposterous.
Enter LAUNCE with his dog.
Launce. When a man's servant shall play the cur with him, look you, it goes hard : one that I brought up of a puppy; one that I saved from drowning, when three or four of his blind brothers and sisters went to it. I have taught him, even as one would say precisely, thus I would teach a dog. I was sent to deliver him as a present to mistress Silvia from my master, and I came no sooner into the diningchamber, but he steps me to her trencher, and steals her capon's leg. Oh! 'tis a foul thing, when a cur cannot keep himself in all companies. I would have, as one should say, one that takes upon him to be a dog indeed, to be, as it were, a dog at all things. If I had not had more wit than he, to take a fault upon me that he did, I think verily, he had been hang'd for't: sure as I live, he had suffer'd for't. You shall judge. He thrusts me himself into the company of three or four gentleman-like dogs under the duke's table: he had not been there (bless the mark) a pissing while, but all the chamber smelt him. “Out with the dog !” says one;
" what cur is that ?” says another; “whip him out,” says the third ; “hang him up,” says the duke. I, having been acquainted with the smell before, knew it was Crab, and goes me to the fellow that whips the dogs: “Friend," quoth I, “do you mean to whip the dog??” “Ay, marry, do I,” quoth he. “ You do him the more wrong," quoth I; “'twas I did the thing you wot of.” He makes me no more ado, but whips me out of the chamber. How many masters would do this for his servant? Nay, I'll be sworn, I have sat in the stocks for puddings he hath stolen, otherwise he had been executed : I have stood on the pillory for geese he hath kill'd, otherwise he had suffer'd fort. Thou think'st not of this now :-nay, I remember the trick you served me, when I took my leave of madam Silvia. Did I not bid thee still mark me, and do as I do? When didst thou see me heave up my leg, and make water against a gentlewoman's farthingale ? Didst thou ever see me do such a trick ?
7 - "Do you mean to whip the dog ?”] “Do” is from the corr, fo. 1632, and as it is a necessary part of the interrogation, we need not doubt that the small word had escaped in the press.
Enter PROTEUS and JULIA.
Pro. Sebastian is thy name? I like thee well,
Jul. In what you please: I will do what I can.
[TO LAUNCE. Where have you been these two days loitering?
Launce. Marry, sir, I carried mistress Silvia the dog you
Pro. And what says she to my little jewel ?
Launce. Marry, she says, your dog was a cur; and tells you, currish thanks is good enough for such a present.
Pro. But she receiv'd my dog?
Launce. No, indeed, did she not. Here have I brought him back again.
Pro. What! didst thou offer her this cur from me ?
Launce. Ay, sir: the other squirrel was stolen from me by a hangman boy in the market-place; and then I offer'd her mine own, who is a dog as big as ten of your's, and therefore the gift the greater.
Pro. Go; get thee hence, and find my dog again, Or ne'er return again into my sight. Away, I say! Stayest thou to vex me here? A slave that still an end turns me to shame. [Exit LAUNCE. Sebastian, I have entertained thee, Partly, that I have need of such a youth, That can with some discretion do my business,
8 What! didst thou offer her this cur from me?] “Cur" is from the margin of the corr. fo. 1632, and is necessary to complete the otherwise defective line. In Launce's answer, the words “hangman boys” have occasioned difficulty: the folio, 1623, has it “ hangman's boys," and that of 1632 “hangman's boy:" the corr. fo. 1632 gives us " a hangman boy,” meaning what Shakespeare elsewhere calls “a gallows boy," and that we have no doubt is the true reading. In Heywood's “Edward IV." we have “hangman” twice over applied to the King by old Hobbs in a similar manner : hangman was a mere epithet, and “a hangman boy” is a rascally boy—a boy that deserved to be hanged. The alteration in Mr. Singer's folio, 1632, very remarkably corresponds.
still an end] Monck Mason truly states that “ still an end," and "most an end," are expressions which mean commonly, generally.
For ’tis no trusting to yond foolish lowt;
Jul. It seems, you lov'd not her, to leave her token'.
Not so: I think, she lives.
Jul. Because, methinks, that lov’d she you, as well
alas! Pro. Well, give her that ring; and therewithal This letter that's her chamber.-Tell
lady I claim the promise for her heavenly picture. Your message done, hie home unto my chamber, Where thou shalt find me sad and solitary.
[Exit. Jul. How many women would do such a message ? Alas, poor Proteus ! thou hast entertain'd A fox to be the shepherd of thy lambs. Alas, poor fool! why do I pity him, That with his very heart despiseth me? Because he loves her, he despiseth me; Because I love him, I must pity him. This ring I gave him when he parted from me, To bind him to remember my good will, And now am I (unhappy messenger!) To plead for that which I would not obtain ; To carry that which I would have refus'd; To praise his faith which I would have disprais'd. I am my master's true confirmed love,
to leave her token.] “ Not leave her token,” folio, 1623. Lower down, we are responsible for the inversion “ lov'd she," instead of she lov'd.
But cannot be true servant to my master,
Enter SILVIA, attended. Gentlewoman, good day. I pray you, be my mean To bring me where to speak with madam Silvia.
Sil. What would you with her, if that I be she?
Jul. If you be she, I do entreat your patience
I am sent on.
Sil. Ursula, bring my picture there.– A picture brought.
Jul. Madam, so please you to peruse this letter?:-
Sil. I pray thee, let me look on that again.
Sil. There, hold '.
Jul. Madam, he sends your ladyship this ring.
Sil. The more shame for him that he sends it me;
? Madam, so please you to peruse this letter.] The words “so ” and “ to," accidentally omitted in printing, and making the measure perfect, are derived from the corr. fo. 1632. In the last line of Silvia's next speech but one, easy of the folio, 1632, is altered to “ easily" of the folio, 1623.
3 There, hold.] Opposite wor the old annotator on the fo. 1632 wrote in the margin, “ Giving it back,” having previously added in the same way the words “Giving a letter,” and “Giving another letter" as stage-directions, in order, probably, that the performers should make no mistake. These notes are not necessary to the understanding of what was done, as the play is, and has been, printed, and we have therefore omitted them,