Shakespeare's meaning. If "power" means inclination, the sense would be this—I rail on this commodity, not because I have no inclination to clutch my hand on the fair angels that would salute my palm, but because I have not yet been tempted; when temptation comes, I shall doubtless yield like my neighbours. But power never means, and cannot mean inclination; and Mr Collier has not attempted to show that it does; and therefore the new reading must be to this effect—"I rail on this commodity, not because I am unable to close my hand against a bribe," &c. But Faulconbridge says the very reverse. He says—"I rail on this commodity, not because I have the power to resist temptation, or am able to shut my hand against the fair angels that would salute my palm; for I have no such power: in this respect I am just like other people, and am as easily bribed as they are." The new reading, therefore, must be dismissed as a wanton reversal of the plain meaning of Shakespeare.
Act III. Scene 3.—We approve of the corrector's change of the word "race," the ordinary reading, into ear, in the following line about the midnight bell—
"Sound one unto the drowsy ear of night."
The old copies read on instead of one, which was supplied—rightly, as we think—by Warburton. The MS. corrector makes no change in regard to on.
Act III. Scene 4.—The passionate vehemence of Constance's speech is much flattened by the corrector's ill-judged interference. Bewailing the loss of her son, she says—
"O, that my tongue were in the thunder's mouth;
Then with a passion would I shake the world:
And rouse from sleep that fell anatomy,
Which cannot hear a lady's feeble voice,
Which scorns a modern invocation."
For "modern" the MS. corrector would read "widow's"! And Mr Collier, defending the new reading, observes that Johnson remarks, "that it is hard to say what Shakespeare means by modern." Johnson does make this remark. Nevertheless the meaning of the word "modern" is perfectly plain. It signifies moderate—not sufficiently impassioned; and we are called upon to give up this fine expression for the inanity of a "widow's invocation"! In the same lines this reckless tamperer with the language of Shakespeare would change
"Then with a passion would I shake the world,"
into
"Then with what passion would I shake the world."
Act IV. Scene 2.—In the following lines a difficulty occurs which seems insuperable, and which the MS. corrector has certainly not explained, although Mr Collier says that his reading makes "the meaning apparent." King John, in reply to some of his lords, who have tried to dissuade him from having a double coronation, says—
"Some reasons of this double coronation
I have possessed you with, and think them strong:
And more, more strong (when lesser is my fear)
I shall endue you with."
This is the common reading; but why the king should give them more and stronger reasons for his double coronation, when his fears were diminished, is not at all apparent. The strength of his fears should rather have led him at once to state his reasons explicitly. The MS. correction is—
"And more, more strong, thus lessening my fear,
I shall endue you with."
But how the communication of his stronger reasons should have the effect of lessening the king's fear, is a riddle still darker than the other. The possession of these reasons might lessen the usurper's fears; but surely the mere utterance of them could make no difference, if the MS. corrector had written, "thus lessening your fears," there would have been some sense in the emendation; and, if a new reading be required, this is the one which we venture to suggest.
Act IV. Scene 3.—We confess that we prefer the MS. corrector's line,
"Whose private missive of the Dauphin's love,"
to the ordinary reading,
"Whose private with me of the Dauphin's love."
