"Most busy, least when I do it."
This is the reading of the second folio. The first folio has "lest;" but, of course, least and lest are the same word in the arbitrary spelling of that early period. We maintain that this lection makes as excellent and undeniable sense as could be desired.
"Most busy, least when I do it;"
—that is, "when I do it (or work) least, then am I most busy, most oppressed by toil." More fully stated, the obvious meaning is "this labour of mine is so preciously sweetened, so agreeably refreshed by thoughts of Miranda's kindness, that I really feel most busy, most burthened, most fatigued, when I am least occupied with my task; because, then I am not so sensible of being the object of her sympathy and approval." Shakespeare intends that Ferdinand should express the ardour of his attachment to Miranda in a strong hyperbole; accordingly, he makes him say, "I am most busy, when I am least busy;" because the spirit of Miranda does not cheer and inspire my idleness, in the way in which it cheers and inspires my labour. Theobald's line expresses, although in an imperfect manner, this same hyperbole conversely. "I am least busy, when I am most busy; because, when I am working hardest, the spirit of Miranda is present to refresh and alleviate my toils." But Shakespeare's mode of expressing the exaggeration is both stronger and finer than Theobald's, which in point of language is exceedingly lame and defective. Our only doubt, in restoring the old reading, is in regard to the word "it" Perhaps it would be as well away, and we might read more perspicuously
"Most busy,—least when I do."
The measure being already redundant, the word could be spared. But its absence or presence makes little or no difference, and, with it, or without it, we hope to see this restoration of the original text, which, of course, requires no authority except its own to establish it, embodied is all future editions of our great national dramatist
The only new reading in this play which we have some hesitation in condemning, is the following. The witch Sycorax is spoken of (Act V. Scene 1.) as one
"That could control the moon, make flows and ebbs,
And deal in her command without her power."
This is the ordinary text. The MS. corrector proposes " with all power" and, at first sight, this correction looks like an improvement; for how could the witch deal in the moon's command, if she had not got the moon's power? On second thoughts, however, we believe that Mr Knight, who defends the common reading, is right. By power, we are here to understand legitimate authority; and of this Sycorax has none. By means of her spells and counternatural incantations she could make ebbs and flows, and thus wielded to some extent the lunar influences; but she had none of that rightful and natural dominion over the tides of the ocean which belongs only to the moon. Our verdict, therefore, is in favour of the old reading. We pass from "The Tempest" with the remark that the other new readings proposed by Mr Collier's emendator have here and elsewhere been conclusively set aside, in our estimation, by the observations of Mr Knight and Mr Singer; and we again protest against any adulteration of the text of this play by the introduction even of a single word which the MS. corrector has suggested.
The Two Gentlemen of Verona.—Nothing connected with Shakespeare is small, and therefore we make no apology for calling the reader's attention to what some people might consider a very small matter—the difference between for and but in the following lines. Act I. Scene 1.—Valentine and Proteus, "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," are saying good-bye to each other, the former being on the eve of setting out on his travels. Valentine, the traveller, says to his friend—
—"on some love-book pray for my success.
Proteus. Upon some book I love, I'll pray for thee.
Valentine. That's on some shallow story of deep love,
How young Leander cross'd the Hellespont.
Proteus. That's a deep story of a deeper love,
For he was more than over shoes in love.
