« 이전계속 »
What hath he said ?
I do not think this line should be pointed as Mr. M. Mason recommends : I think the common pointing is right.
Nature would not invest herself
I am not sure that I yet understand this passage, though we have the notes of no fewer than five commentators upon it.
Oth. It is not words, that shake me thus :
Mr. Steevens's first explanation of these words is clearly the true one.
and she can weep, sir, weep;
I agree with Mr. Malone.
Oth. Concerning this, sir,- well-painted passion!
I can by no means agree with Mr. Steevens. I think an abrupt sentence was intended.
Sir, I obey the mandate,
I do intreat that we may sup together. I cannot think with Mr. Steevens that this is addressed to Desdemona.
Oth. You are welcome, sir, to Cyprus.—Goats and monkies!
[Exit. I heartily concur with Mr. Steevens.
but (alas !) to make me
I wish to read the hand of scorn, with Mr. Rowe and the subsequent editors.
I prefer the reading of the folio, and moving.
Here I kneel :-
I think we should read or thought, with Mr. Pope; though the old reading is certainly explicable.
I think with Mr. Malone that we should read a special. Thiş reading is adopted in the edition of 1785.
It is now high supper-time,
grows to waste.
This is the right reading. I agree with Mr. Steevens that Mr. Malone's last explanation is the true one.
be counterfeits; let's think't unsafe To come in to the cry, without more help. I doubt whether these words are rightly ex. plained by Dr. Johnson. We have afterwards in this act, О heavy hour! where heavy certainly has not the sense attributed by Dr. Johnson to it in this place.
(Cas. and Rod. are borne off. Stay you, good gentlemen :-Look you pale, mistress? I concur with Mr. Steevens and Mr. Reed in preferring the reading of the folio, gentlemen, to that of the quarto, gentlewoman.
I think Dr. Johnson has misapprehended the meaning of this passage, which is rightly explained by Mr. Steevens.
Put out the light, and then put out the light. I am persuaded that Dr. Farmer and Mr. Malone are right, and that it was not the author's intention that the line should be pointed in the manner suggested by Upton and Warburton. I do not agree with Mr. Malone in thinking that we should read thy light.
When I have pluck'd thy rose
I incline to prefer the rose, the reading of the folio, to that of the quarto, thy rose.
I think Messrs. Ritson and Steevens are clearly right.
Are there no stones in heaven,
I think this is rightly explained by Mr. Malone.
one, whose hand, Like the base Judean, threw a pearl away, Richer than all his tribe.
I think Judean is the right reading. I understand the pearl in the literal sense. I find it difficult to conceive that there is any allusion to the story of Herod and Mariamne; if there be, I think the allusion is extremely obscure. Mr. Steevens's explanation and illustration of this passage appear to me happy and highly probable.
one, whose subdu'd eyes,
Their medicinal gum. I prefer medicinal, the reading of the quarto of 1622, to that of the folio, medicinable.
To you, lord governor,
Rymer's censure of the character of Iago is unfounded, and deserved no answer; but Warburton's answer to it is not just. Had there been no other soldier in the play but lago, no solid objection would have lain against his character: it would not have been inferred thence that all soldiers are villains. In the Eunuch of Terence there is no soldier but Thraso; but who ever dreamt of concluding, on that account, that all soldiers are vain-glorious boasters? “ Shakespeare (says Dr. Johnson) always makes “ nature predominate over accident, and, if he
preserves the essential character, is not very “ careful of distinctions superinduced and ad" ventitious. His story requires Romans or “ kings, but he thinks only on men. He knew