and again in The Roaring Girl, Act V. Sc. 2., p. 553. :
" S. Alex. Thou hast razW my joy to greater height, Than to that seat where grief dejected it."
In a note at p. 112. Act I. Sc. 1. of The Family of Love, Mr. Dyce has " ask] old ed. ' axe,' which though the genuine Saxon form of the word, and perhaps used here by Middleton, is now consi- dered so ludicrous a vulgarism, that I have sub- stituted the modern spelling ; " which amounts to this, because a form of word that Middleton may probably be supposed to have employed, and that, it may therefore be inferred, was not ludi- crously vulgar in his time, has become so after the lapse of two centuries and a half, his genuine text is to be corrupted, and a vestige of early English to be obliterated by the substitution of a form of word that Middleton did not write, in the stead of one which there is good reason to believe that he did : yet Mr. Dyce retains disgest, he re- tains alablaster, and, if I remember right, elsewhere takes Mr. Collier to task for discarding " conster," a form repeatedly employed by Shakspeare, his contemporaries, and predecessors, in favour of construe, the form in use at present. This last word is written by Sir T. More in the self-same sentence, unless I forget myself, no fewer than three several ways, namely, conster, constrewe, and construe. But obscenity of expression was the Targumist's blasphemous pretext for his marginal keri instead of hetiv, as being forsooth a creature of cleaner tongue than to read that, which he who made the tongue thought it no uncleanness to write. Why then should not a supervening and adscititious vulgarity in spelling justify editorial extrusion of an English author's word from the text in deference to a genteeler orthography ? Yet had Jonathan or Onkelos the editing of the very wholesomest of our early dramatical compo- sitions, the margins under their censorship would be sadly blurred, where now they are altogether blank ; and it might fairly be alleged in defence of the less squeamish practice, that what is ob- scene or indecent calls more loudly for purifica- tion than what is ludicrous and vulgar for refine- ment ; that ribaldry gives juster scandal than incivility ; that to polish this and spare that, is to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel ; not to mention that arrogancy less attaches to a proffer to cleanse the writings of man than the Scriptures of God. But dismissing the particular example, I would observe, generally, that displacement of the original spelling, on a re-edition of the literary products of a former age, by that successively pre- valent at later periods a mischief in the case of Shakspeare dating as far back as the times of Eowe has contributed, beyond what is often supposed, to the obscuring and misappreciation of language and sentiments which, in many instances,
substantially become obsolete, or at leastwise
quaint, through tract of years, are thus imbedded
in literal innovations, that to the reader's senses
cancel an interval oflienturies, and imperceptibly
subject superannuated idioms and thoughts to au
illusion begotten of the modernised orthography,
whereby the student contracts unawares a belief
that he is perusing the familiar literature of his
own day, and is thereupon led to form his judg-
ment of clear or obscure, sense or nonsense, cor-
rupt or incorrupt, by a false measure. Nor is
this self-abuse alone incident to minds seques-
tered from authentic documents, it is not unex-
ampled even in such as are daily conversant
among them"; how otherwise can one account for
the ridiculous supposal of Mr. Collier, a gentle-
man whose acquaintance with early English
admits no question, that "cycles" could be the
true reading for " shekels " in Measure for Mea-
sure, because that word in the first folio happens
to be spelt as it was frequently written by con-
temporary historians and divines ; and, let me add,
as it should be still spelt in any faithful edition
of Shakspeare ? Besides, the primitive orthogra-
phy of a word, with its subsequent modifications,
oftentimes furnishes the most trustworthy, or, to
adopt the barbarous diction of the day, the most
reliable clue to the detection of typographical
error, and recovery of the genuine lection. For
example's sake, in Macbeth of the first folio we
find " cyme " for the received reading " senna,"
in the second folio "caeny," in the fourth (the
third I have never seen) "senna," the introduc-
tion of which last mode of spelling into this place
of Shakspeare is by Mr. Collier erroneously attri-
buted to Rowe. The explanation whereof is,
that what we now write " senna " was first written
" cene," and is yet so pronounced by the peasantry,
next " sene," then " sena," and lastly, as at pre-
sent, "senna."
To return again to Middleton. Mr. Dyce's next note in the same page is " overture] i. e. over- throw." This may be true, but surely it ought to be confirmed by examples of like usage, not merely asserted.
The Family of Love, Act V. Sc. 3., vol. ii. p. 201. :
" GIL Here they come ; in pain, I warrant them. How works your physic, gallants? Do you go well to the ground? "
On this last phrase the editor has no comment. Did Mr. Dyce understand the meaning, or is it not, as I had hitherto supposed it to be, an ex- pression confined to Herefordshire ? As its pur- port is possibly unknown to some readers, I may just remark that " to go to ground " signifies " to cover the feet." W. R. ABROWSMITH.
(To be continued.)
