« ElőzőTovább »
themselves and put it here, without troubling
mezided, but altering these to their. But that some time might be given to the two women to Confetti
together, the players, I suppose, took part of the "speech, beginning at No might nor great
, However, we are obliged to them for not giving us their own impertinency; as they have frequently done in Stiler places.' WARBUATÒN.
Icannot agree that these lines are placed here by tlie players. The sentiments are commoni
, and such as Prinice, given to reflection, must 'liave often pre
There was a necessity to fill up the time in Which the ladies collverse apart, and they must have quick 'tongues and ready apprehen:ions, if they maderstood cach other while this speech was uttered. JOHNSON.
. P. 147, 1. 3. "False eyes - That is , * Eyes insidigus ară taitcrous joursom. 147) 1. 6. Hun with these false and most
confrarious quests Upon thy doings!] Different reports, running counter to each other. JOHNSON.
1 incline to think Sitions, in
False and contrarious quesis in this place
às the rack, i. e. fleeting cloud, renders the object behind it obscure, and of undetermined form,
STEEVENS. F. 147, 1. 23. 24. Sith that the justice of your
title to him Doth flourish the deceit.]: A metaphor taken from embroidery, where a coarse ground is filled up, , and covered with figures of rich mate rials and elegant workmanship. WARBURTON. Flourish is ornament in general. STEEVENS.
Dr. Warburton's illustration of the metaphor seems to be inaccurate. The passage from another of Shakspeare's plays, quoted by Mr. Steevens, suggests to us the true one. ** The term Nourish, alludes to the flowers impressed on the waste printed paper and old books, with which trunks are commonly lined.
HENLEY. When it is proved that the practice alluded to, was as: ancient as the time of Shakspeare, Mr. Henley's explanation may be admitted. · STEEVENS. · P. 147, 1. 25. Our corn's to reap, for yet our
tythe's to sow.] As before, the blundering editors have made a Prince of the priestly Angelo, so here they have made a priest of the Prince. We should read cilth, id e. our tillage is yet to make. The gain from which we expect our harvest ,' is not yet put into the ground. WARBURTON.
The reader is here attacked with a petty (506 phism. We should read, tilch, i. c. our tillage in có make. But in the text it is to sow; and who has ever said that his village was to sow? I believe tythe is right,, and that the expression is proverbial, in which trehe is taken, byt ap easy metonymy; for harvest. JOHNSON,
Dr. Warburton did not do justice to his OWIE conjecture; and no wouder, therefore, that Dr. Johnson has not. Tilth is provincially used for land tilld, prepared for sowing. Shakspeare, how. ever ,
has applied it before in its usual acceptation, FARMER.
Dr. Warburton's conjecture may be supported by many instances
in Markham's English Hus: bandman, 1635. TOLLET.
Tilth is used for crop; or harvest, by Gower,
„To 'sowe cockill with the corne,
„Which Christ sew first his own honde..
,- her plenteous womb
bound of land, tilth, vineyard, none.“
MALONE. - P. 148, 1.916 in an unipitied whipping ;] i e. an uimerciful one. STEEVENS. P. 1148 , 1.431. T'avour is countenance.
VSTEEVENS, P. 149, 1. 4. 5. me what mystery, etcs] Though I have adopted an emeridation independent of clie following note, : the omission of it would have been väwarrantable. STEEVEN.
what mistery there should be in hanging if I should be hang'!, I cannot imagines 8!
Abhor. Sir, it is a mistery.
Abhor. Every true man's apparel fits your chief:
Clo. If it be too little for your thief, your true man chinks it his enough; if it be too big for your chief, your thief thinks it little enough: so every true man's apparel fits your thief.] Thus it stood in all the editions till Mr. Theo bald's, and was, methinks, not very difficult' to be understood, The plain and humourous'' sense of they speech is this. Every true man's apparel, which the thief robs him of, fits the thief.
Why? Because, if it be too little for the chief, I the true man thinks it big enough: i. e. a pur.
chase too good for him. so that this fars the thief in the opinion of the true man. But if it be too big for the thief, yet the thief thiuk's it liccle enough: i, e. of 'value' little enough. So That ihis fits the thief in his own opinion. Where ve see, that ihe pleasantry of the joke cousists iv the equivocal sense of big enough, and little enough. Yet Mr. Theobald says, he can see Tho sense in all this, and therefore after's the whole thus:
Abhor, Every true man's apparel fler að til thief. Clown. If it be loo‘little for your true
Mlue manti your thief thinks it big enough: if ië be too bike for your trile man, your chief thinks it licile enough,
And for his 'alicration gives this extraordinary reason. I am satisfied the poet' interided a regular sollogism; and I submit it to judgement, whether my, regulation has not restored that wit and humour ruliich' was quite lost in the de pravation.
But the place is corrupti tizouglar
han's true man's apparel, erit u all edition's given
Mr. Theobald could not find it out. Let us con: sider it a little. The Hangman calls his trade a mistery: the Clown cannot conceive it, The Hangman undertakes to prove it in these words, Every true man's apparel, etc. but this proves the thief's trade a mistery, not the hangman's, Hence it appears, that the speech, in which the Hangman proved his trade a mistery, is lost. The very words it is impossible to retrieve, but one may easily understand what mcdium he employed in proving, it: without doubt, the very same the Clown employed to prove the thief's trade a mise tery, namely, that all sorts of clothes fiered the hangman. The Clown,
on hearing this argu. ment, replied, I suppose; to this effect: Whi, by the same kind of reas:
asoning, I can prove the chief's trade 200 to be a mistery. The other asks how, , and the Clown goes on 'as above, Every true
apparel fits your thief; if it he 100 litcie, etc. The jocular conluišion from
being an insinuation that thief and hangman were rogues alike, This conjecture Sikea spirit and integrity to the dialogue, which, in its present mangled condition, 'is altogether
shews the every
to the Clown, to whom indeed it belongs; and likewise that ihe present reading of that argament is the grue, WARBURTON.
If Dr. Warburton had attended to the argument to beja mystery, he would iloi have beeh' driven to take refuge in
the groundless supposition »that part of the dialogue had been lost or dropped..
- ghe: argument of the Hangman is cxàcily, 'similar: 19 xhat of the Bavyd. As the latter puts in his