Here the editors read: 'cure thy braines-Now useles boil within thy skull,' and note 'Probably Shakespeare intended the second bracket to follow "skull," interpreting Alonso's brain is but a tumour'! But the difficulty merely arises through the unexpected but not uncommon omission of a relative: 'your brains that are uselessly seething in your head.'

According to the editors, points often have the virtue of stagedirections, and these they have liberally supplied. The device is legitimate enough, and though no reader will agree in every case, the practice is undoubtedly effective. The interpretation of 'beauty's canker' in I. ii. 420 is admirable. In 11. i. 280 'dagger' should surely be 'sword' (cf. 289).

(iii) The last new method employed in the present edition is connected with the supposed discovery of three pages of Shakespeare's writing and Mr Dover Wilson's own investigations of the misprints and spellings of the 'good' quartos. While the bibliographical data limit in a general way the scope of permissible emendation, these indicate the lines on which legitimate conjecture should proceed. As regards Shakespeare's autograph I think the editors are in a more difficult position than they realize. They admit that Sir E. M. Thompson's thesis is not universally accepted by scholars, but they claim general agreement that the pages are in a hand at least of the same class as' Shakespeare's and that this is enough to make' them an instrument of the highest value for an editor of Shakespeare.' I should like to share this optimistic view, but I cannot. If the pages are autograph, well and good; if not, they/ tell us nothing that we did not know before and are practically useless for criticism. The editors are, however, perfectly entitled to their belief that we know how Shakespeare wrote' and its use in their textual labours. To criticize those labours fairly we must accept their belief -and this I do all the more willingly as, taking everything into account, I think that it is probably correct.

The editors' analysis of possible literal confusions and therefore of probable misprints deserves careful attention. There is unfortunately an initial ambiguity that introduces some confusion. In the "English hand, which Shakespeare wrote,' certain peculiarities are observable. Do they mean 'In the "English" hand, as Shakespeare wrote it'? If so, their analysis depends entirely on the Maunde Thompson hypothesis. Or do they mean 'In the "English" hand, which is the one Shakespeare wrote'? If so, much of their analysis is invalid. While, for instance, n and u are generally interchangeable, there should normally be no confusion between w and r. Again it is only in a certain type of English hand that confusion between e and d is possible, and even in this the resemblance is often only in the final position. Other points will appear anon: here it is sufficient to point out the editors' failure to carry analysis far enough. There is one particular way in which this failure appears to me to vitiate a good deal of the work of emendation, namely the tacit assumption that resemblance is always reciprocal. Because a may resemble n it does not follow that n can resemble a, or,

more important, because a badly made e tends to resemble o, a badly made o does not therefore resemble e (for I cannot agree that the main distinction is the after link). But, it is urged, a compositor familiar with the possible confusions of a given hand-or class of hands-will be on the look out for them and may assume them wrongly. This is true, but it is a reflex action which can never have the same operative force as direct resemblance. A printer may automatically read 'less' as 'loss because the e has in fact become an o, and he may carelessly print 'loss' though it makes nonsense. He will not automatically read 'loss' as 'less,' and it is only if he has some reason for doubting the reading 'loss' that his knowledge of the hand may suggest the possibility of 'less.' (At least this is my own feeling, and, though I may be wrong in the instance chosen, the principle is unaffected.) The argument also applies to spellings. For instance 'thee' may be written 'the' and a careless compositor will print 'the' where 'thee' is required. But his knowledge of this ambiguity would be no inducement to him to print 'thee' for 'the' where the latter satisfied the sense.

I propose to take certain instances from the editors' notes and to show how failure of analysis combines with other causes to invalidate some of their conjectures. (For the most part these are conjectures only and are not admitted into the text.) And I will begin with those involving what I have called reflex action. Thus v. i. 41: masters Hanmer read ministers," which is a better reading, and if written with a minim short might easily have been mistaken for "maisters." Here the appeal to principle is legitimate, since, if the word was miswritten, the printer would have to use his ingenuity to guess what was intended. Also I may suggest that if the dot of the first i took the form of an acute accent (cf. facsimile, 1. 5, 'him') it might look like the head of a tall a (cf. 1. 1, marry'). Certainly ministers' is an admirable conjecture and might almost be admitted into the text. Very different is that of Troubles thee o'er' (folio Trebbles') in II. i. 218. The editors' suggestion is that 'trovbles' was misread 'trebbles,' but 'troubles' is a much more usual word than 'trebbles' and therefore there would be no temptation to the compositor to mistake o for e. Moreover, though v may sometimes resemble b the confusion is hardly likely where a b follows for comparison. As regards sense, 'Troubles' certainly lends point to what follows, but it hardly fits the immediate context. Of course 'over-trouble' means to trouble too much, but there seems no ground whatever for supposing that 'trouble over' could have the same sense. These are graphic cases: now for spelling. In I. ii. 173 the editors follow Rowe in altering 'Princesse' to 'princes,' noting that 'Shakespeare would spell "princess" as "princes." I doubt this, but he might. A printer, however, seeing 'princes' would naturally read it as 'princes,' and since 'princes' gives far easier sense than 'princesse' it is illegitimate to invoke reflex action. Again on v. i. 231, 'We were dead of sleep,' they note: 'Pope reads asleep," which is quite possible, the compositor incorrectly expanding "a" to "of." It is perfectly true that 'of' was sometimes written ‘a,' but to suppose that a printer confronted with such a familiar word as

'asleep,' making most obvious sense, would 'expand' it to 'of sleep' seems fantastic. To my mind, moreover, 'of sleep' is preferable.

Among other graphic emendations is the ingenious treatment of the crux in III. i. 15, Most busie lest, when I doe it.' The editors begin by assuming that the sense is expressed by Spedding's reading 'Most busiest when idlest.' They see in busie lest' (a compositor's normalized spelling of 'bizzye lest') a misreading and misdivision of 'bizy ydlest,' i.e. busy-idlest. This it will be seen involves the confusion of medial e and d, the frequency of which it is permissible to doubt. I should not press the objection, however, if the sense were more satisfying. But is it really reasonable to say that one is working hardest at a task when resting from it? Note further that Miranda completes the line, 'Alas, now pray you,' which makes it a foot too long. This raises the suspicion that the whole passage may be revisional and the corruption more than a mere misreading. The suggestion is confirmed by another passage a few lines before which the editors pass over in silence, but which seems to me clearly corrupt: namely 11. 4-6. The first of these is metrically defective; in the others we should expect 'but that The mistress.' Further the task is anyhow heavy, the contingent quality is odiousness; consequently sense seems to require 'my task would be as odious as heavy.' We could rewrite the passage:

Point to rich ends....This my mean task would be
As odious as heavy to me but that

The mistress which I serve quickens what's dead.

But if this is anything like correct the corruption can only have occurred through marginal revision.

The same doubt respecting the e:d confusion makes me just a little th sceptical as to the emendation 'eked' ('eekt') for 'decked' in I. ii. 155, though here the unusual spelling and possibly the initial position make it less unlikely. But is emendation needed? Prospero adorned the sea with tears as with pearls. The possibility of misdivision (as in ‘bizzye lest') is ingeniously used in v. i. 146 where the resolution of supportable' into support able,' combined with the substitution of 'less' for 'loss' (a legitimate e>o misprint aided by hypnotism !) and the retention of the folio deere' (='dere' not 'dear'), gives a reading which is admirable-up to a point. But have not the editors overlooked the construction? According to their interpretation both 'support' and 'means' seem to be the object of 'have,' which can hardly be correct. Another divisional emendation is 'Let's all on' for 'Let's alone' in IV. i. 232. I would suggest, however, that the more natural reading is 'Let't alone' (sc. the 'luggage')--the confusion of t and final s being fairly

easy.

In II. i. 93 a gallant effort is made to convert the apparently meaningless folio reading 'Gon. I.' into 'Gonzalo [rousing the king]. Sir!' The trick is done by supposing that the manuscript was written 'gonsir!' and misread 'gonsa I.' But this is impossible since 'I' would be written '7' which bears no resemblance to '!'! Throughout, indeed, the editors appear to me to suggest resemblances between letters in far too light

hearted a fashion. In v. i. 157, wishing to read 'These' (Theis') for "Their' they assert that final s (a tall letter) 'might easily be read' as r. (This seems really naughty, but it is true that if it is sufficiently badly written, as it sometimes is in the More manuscript, final is somewhat resembles r: thus 'theis' might be read ther' and printed their.') In the very next note (1. 175) after remarking that 'Yet' and 'Yes' are liable to confusion (which is perfectly true), they go out of their way to suggest that this was probably due to the use of the 'e'-form. But 'e' is properly a contraction for es and should not be used after e-Yet' is a monstrosity. Moreover this 'e' is a tailed letter which could not conceivably be confused with t, whereas the ordinary final s is a tall letter and, as mentioned above, the confusion is comparatively easy.

A really difficult expression is that in III. iii. 93: And his and mine loved darling.' Of course 'mine' for 'my' is common before a vowel, and the absolute form is permissible attributively when separated from the substantive-hers and mine adultery' illustrates both. Probably, therefore, there has been an accidental inversion and we should read: And mine and his loved darling.' The editors suggest that and mine' may be an error for admired' (cf. III. i. 37-8): 'mine' for 'mird' may be all right, but 'and' for 'ad' seems unlikely. Besides, 'his admired loved darling'-well, one can only hope that Shakespeare did not write it!

On the other hand there are many cases in which the editors make excellent use of the graphic method of emendation. Johnson's 'soil' for 'soule' (1. ii. 29), Dryden's 'mind' for 'mad' (I. ii. 209), Staunton's 'blear-eyed' for 'blew-eyed' (I. ii. 269) all receive notable support. 'Sophy' for 'folly' in III. ii. 4 is ingenious and sufficiently plausible; so is 'I think thee, Ariel' (folio thank ') in IV. i. 64; in Iv. i. 184 'sweat' for 'feet' is brilliant. Special mention must be made of the very interesting endeavour to clear up the difficult passage, 1. ii. 99-102:

like one

Who having into truth, by telling of it,
Made such a sinner of his memory,
To credit his own lie.

Here the editors propose to read minted' for 'into,' when the lines are at once seen to be a metaphor from coining. The conjecture is palmary and is supported by an actual quotation (of 1664): Though it were in our power to mint Truth as we please.' When, however, they come to the graphic explanation they falter. Shakespeare is supposed to have written the word 'minted' a minim short, and the compositor to have read it inntoe.' I cannot believe that such a word as inntoe' would ever have entered the compositor's imagination: it is not a possible spelling. But I am not so certain that each half alone is impossible, and if Shakespeare wrote 'mn ted' I think it just conceivable that the compositor may have read it 'inn toe' and so printed into.' The further conjecture of finer' for 'sinner' is also ingenious and has good graphic and orthographic support. It bears out the metaphor neatly, but I am not sure that it improves the sense.

One specious alteration, ultimately dependent on writing, I rather

doubt. In II. i. 62-3 Gonzalo says that their drenched garments retain their freshnesse and glosses, being rather new dy'de then stain'd with salte water.' The editors print 'gloss, as being,' remarking that 'The emendation seems self-evident.' This is a somewhat discredited ground of acceptance. Moreover, the emendation involves the alteration of the comma, a serious point in this carefully punctuated text'! and the graphic explanation is difficult. On the editors' assumption Shakespeare must have written either 'glos as' or 'gloffe as' and the difference between medial and final s should have prevented the compositor from reading either as 'gloffes.' Really no alteration is needed. The garments could have but one 'freshness' but each material could have its several 'gloss,' and the sentence is just as well without the as': 'salt water having rather new dyed than stained them.' On the other hand I am tempted to read 'verity' for 'verily' in II. i. 318, the confusion being an easy one.

...

1857

Lastly I come to emendations dependent not on writing but on spelling. Good use is made throughout of Mr Dover Wilson's investigations into Shakespearian orthography and I will only call attention to a few points of possible criticism. A neat use of this evidence is seen in the first word of the play: Bos'n!' The folio prints the word fourteen times as 'Bote-swaine' but once (1. 12) inadvertently betrays Shakespeare's spelling 'Boson.' The editors therefore print the shortened form throughout, except once where 'Boatswain' is kept as befitting the speech of a king. This seems a pity-is it more necessary for a king than a duke? In II. i. 124 the folio reads: 'But rather loose her to an Affrican.' Here 'loose' may stand equally well for 'loose' or 'lose.' The editors prefer the former as more forcible and appropriate to theę speaker-Sebastian. But surely such speech is intolerably coarse. At ii. i. 185 on laugh me asleep' they note that laugh' and 'luff' were commonly spelt and pronounced alike 'loffe,' and that 'to luff asleep means to stop a boat by drawing into the wind. The supposed pun seems however rather far fetched. True, Shakespeare was an inveterate punster, but the editors are a little inclined to trade on his weakness. In II. i. 240 the folio reads: 'But doubt discovery there.' Shakespeare would probably write 'dout' which is an ambiguous spelling standing equally for doubt' and 'dout' (= do out). Since the folio makes no sense the editors choose the latter meaning. But they are constrained to alter it to 'douts,' and even so it is not clear that the passage will bear the proposed interpretation. In IV. i. 9 the editors regard the folio reading her of' as compositor's misdivision of Shakespearian spelling "herof." This is very plausible and infinitely preferable to the absurd second-folio reading her off,' followed by most editors. But one would perhaps rather expect thereof,' and it is possible that a line may have been lost. In IV. i. 90 the editors make the extraordinary suggestion that scandalled' is 'possibly an obsolete spelling of "sandalled," for which they compare the curious and apparently Shakespearian spelling 'scilens' for 'silence.' But the latter is only possible because it makes no difference to the pronunciation: sc could not possibly replace s before a.

6