The ancient copies have "men," and the modern ones "sad." Ev'n was also proposed by Mr Dyce some little time ago. The other specious correction is "bitter-flowing" for "water-flowing," in the lines where the king says (Act IV. Scene 8),
"My mildness hath allayed their swelling griefs,
My mercy dried their water-flowing tears."
But "water-flowing" may simply mean flowing as plentifully as water, and therefore our opinion is, that the corrector's substitution ought not to be accepted. "Soft carriage" (Act II. Scene 2), recommended by the margins, instead of "soft courage," is not by any means so plausible. "Soft courage" may be a Shakespeareanism for soft spirit. The Germans have a word, sanftmuth—literally soft courage—i. e., gentleness; and therefore Shakespeare's expression is not what Mr Collier calls it, "a contradiction in terms."
Act V. Scene 5.—The young prince having been stabbed by Edward, Clarence, and Glo'ster, Margaret exclaims—
"O, traitors! murderers!
They that stabb'd Cæsar shed no blood at all,
Did not offend, nor were not worthy blame,
If this foul deed were by to equal it"—
which, of course, means that Cæsar's murderers would be pronounced comparatively innocent, if this foul deed were set alongside their act. The margins propose,
"If this foul deed were by to sequel it"—
than which nothing can be more inept.
King Richard III.— Act I. Scene 3.—Richard is thus agreeably depicted:
"Thou elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog,
Thou that wast seal'd in thy nativity,
The slave of nature, and the son of hell!"
The correction here proposed is—
"The stain of nature, and the scorn of hell."
But the allusion, as Steevens says, is to the ancient custom of masters branding their profligate slaves; and, therefore, "slave" is unquestionably the right word. As for the "scorn of hell," that, in certain cases, might be a compliment, and is no more than what a good man would desire to be.
Act III. Scene 1.—Buckingham is endeavouring to persuade the Cardinal to refuse the privilege of sanctuary to the Duke of York. The Cardinal says—
"God in heaven forbid
We should infringe the holy privilege
Of blessed sanctuary! not for all this land
Would I be guilty of so deep a crime,
Buckingham. You are too senseless-obstinate, my lord,
Too ceremonious and traditional:
Weigh it but with the grossness of this age,
You break not sanctuary in seizing him."
That is, do not go to your traditions, but take into account the unrefining character and somewhat licentious practice of this age, and you will perceive that you break not sanctuary in seizing him; for common sense declares that a youth of his years cannot claim this privilege. This interpretation renders the MS. corrector's inept substitution, "the goodness of his age," quite unnecessary. Strict and abstinent for "senseless-obstinate" is still worse.
Act III. Scene 7.—To change "his resemblance" into disresemblance, is to substitute a very forced and unnatural reading for a very plain and obvious one. Glo'ster asks Buckingham,
"Touched you the bastardy of Edward's children?"
"I did," answers Buckingham, who then goes on to say, "I also touched upon his own (i.e. Edward the Fourth's) bastardy,"
"As being got, your father then in France,
And his resemblance not being like the Duke,"
—that is, I also touched upon his resemblance (which is no resemblance) to his (reputed) father the Duke. "Disresemblance" has not a shadow of probability in its favour.
Act IV. Scene 3.—Mr Collier seriously advocates the change of "bloody dogs" into "blooded dogs," in the lines about the two ruffians.
"Albeit they were fleshed villains, bloody dogs."
"Blooded dogs" means, if it means anything, dogs that have been let blood, and not dogs that are about to draw blood as these dogs are. There seems to be nothing in the other corrections of this play which calls for further notice.
King Henry VIII.— Act I. Scene 1.—Speaking of Cardinal Wolsey, Buckingham says,
