The Shakespeare cyclopædia and new glossary ...

Front matter

•it it ^

H/MSv^

>0

Contents

PAGE.

Preface, ix

Introduction by Professor Dowden: "The Language of Shakespeare considered as an Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Knowledge, " ' . xv

Preface

HE purpose for which this volume was written is to furnish those MhY'^A ^®^^^^s and lovers of Shakespeare who have not easy access to an 1^^^^ elaborately annotated copy of the poet's works, with such notes and explanations of obsolete words, obscure passages and unfamiliar allusions as will enable them to get close to the mind of the great dramatist and thus derive from his works an amount of pleasure and profit which otherwise would be unattainable. For while it is undoubtedly true that there is not a single play which, as a whole, cannot be easily understood by any one who has a fair common school education, and this without any aid from glossaries or commentaries, it is also true that there are in Shakespeare many obsolete words as well as many allusions and expressions which, although quite clear to those whose reading has been extensive, are not familiar to many who are really anxious to fully enjoy their Shakespeare. For example : When Hamlet likens his mother to "Niobe, all tears," the intelligent reader would like to know something about Niobe and the cause of her grief. So, too, when, in The Tempest, Sebastian says of Gonzalo that "his word is more than the miraculous harp," it would certainly add to the pleasure and profit of the earnest reader to have this allusion explained. Then, again, in regard to old customs : When, in Love's Labour's Lost, Biron says of Longaville that "he comes in like a perjure, wearing papers," the expression carries no force unless we have a knowledge of the old custom on which it was based. In addition to this there are many words which have lost their original significance and consequently have not to present-day readers that force and beauty which they formerly had. Such, for example, is the word silly. As usually defined it has no special significance in the speech of the British Captain in Gymheline, Act V, Sc. 3, line 86, but as it is explained for the first time in these pages it has a force and beauty which are truly Shakespearean— lighting up with a single word the whole story of a daring exploit.

To thoroughly enjoy Shakespeare we must fully understand him, and, unfortunately, the " Glossaries " which are appended to most copies of Shakespeare's works are too meagre to give us the information that is required. It is to supply this want in compact form and at a moderate cost that this book has been written; and we have not hesitated to take the element of cost into consideration in this connection, although bibliophiles and collectors may generally regard a cheap book as a poor one. But to the class to whom this volume is addressed — the common people whose whole education has been ac(|uired in our common

(ix)

PREFACE.

schools, this point is one of considerable importance. Fortunately, cheap and really good editions of Shakespeare's works are easily procured. A copy with sound text, legible type, good paper and neat and durable cloth binding may be obtained in this country for a dollar or even less, and in England the "Shilling Shakespeare " is a feature of every book-stall. If to one of these cheap copies any person who desires to read Shakespeare understandingly should add the present volume, I think he will have a fairly good outfit for the intelligent enjoyment of the poet's works.

It is very obvious that in a work like the present there is not much opportunity for originality, but in a few cases I have offered new glosses which I think must commend themselves to those who are competent to form a sound opinion in the matter. Indeed, they have already received the commendation of some of our foremost Shakespearean scholars. On turning to the words childed, kindlesSy odd-even, prick, silly, silly cheat, the reader will find examples of what I mean ; and there are a few passages in which the sense is, I think, obscured by typographical errors in the generally accepted text for which I have suggested a correction. I take this opportunity to say, however, that I am in entire accord with those who deprecate any interference with the text of the old editions for the purpose of what some are pleased to call "improvement "; I think that even the Cambridge edition has gone too far in this direction. It is only in the case of the most obvious typographical errors that we are justified in making an alteration. This subject I have discussed at greater length on a subsequent page under the heading " Sources of Error in the Text."

As regards the sources upon which I have depended for information, a few words may not be out of place, especially as I have not thought it necessary to give a formal list of the books which I have read or consulted. In executing a work of this kind the shelves of public libraries, however accessible thej^ may be, and however attentive and efficient the librarians may prove, must be regarded as accessory helps and not as a chief dependence. Occasionally they may enable us to make an indispensable reference to some rare book, but the great bulk of the work of study, comparison and extracting must be done where the writer has continuous control of a large number of volumes. Now, the extent of even a moderate collection of Shakespeareana is sufficient to appall most private collectors. The number of volumes would easily run into five figures — a library which is beyond the reach of most men, myself included. It is, therefore, obvious that most workers in this department have to content themselves with a careful selection of moderate extent. For many years I have been accumulating a small collection of such books as I found useful or interesting in my Shakespearean reading, and when I came to put my work into final shape I endeavored to add to these such books and editions as were absolutely necessary. For the early Folios and Quartos I have had, of course, to depend upon public libraries or reprints — volumes costing from $500 to !|9,000 being entirely out of the

PREFACE. xi question. Of the First Folio, however, there are several excellent reproductions; two of these I have, as well as the admirable reprint of Lionel Booth. It happens also that several of the modern editions of Shakespeare have added to their contents exact reprints of some of the Quartos, so that no earnest student need be greatly handicapped in this respect. Of the editions between Kowe and Malone, such as those of Theobald, Warburton, Johnson, Steevens and others, it is easy to procure copies, and I have endeavored to quote from the books themselves and not at second-hand. Outside of these the great source of information in regard to early glosses and comments has been the Third Variorum of 1821, in twenty-one volumes. Boswell, to whom Malone left all his notes and materials for a new edition, seems to have been most painstaking and judicious, and his work must always prove indispensable so far as old glosses and comments are concerned.

For the various readings of different editions and suggested new readings, I have depended upon the "Cambridge Shakespeare," edited by William Aldis Wright (9 vols., 1891). This might well be known as the Fourth Variorum. The editions of Singer, Knight, Collier, Verplanck, Hazlitt, Hudson, Dyce, White, Staunton, C. and M. Clarke, Eolfe, The Eugby, The Clarendon Press, "The Leopold" (Delius and Furnivall), "The Henry Irving" (Marshall, Symonds, Verity and Adams), Dowden, Craig and others have all been laid under contribution, as well as the "English of Shakespeare," by Craik ; "The Shakespearian Grammar," by Abbott; the "Shakespeare-Lexicon," by Schmidt, and the works of Douce, Nares, Caldecott, Dyer, Patterson, Ellacombe, Beisley, Grindon," etc., and I freely acknowledge the aid I have derived from them.

Special acknowledgment is due to " The New Variorum " edition of Dr. Horace Howard Furness. This must form the foundation stone of all future collections of Shakespearean literature ; it is so thorough, accurate and comprehensive that after consulting it upon any disputed point the student feels that he has heard all that is to be said upon the subject. In the thirteen volumes already issued (twelve plays), one is pretty sure to find a discussion of the most important Shakespearean words, allusions and dark passages which occur in the other plays, and by the aid of a Concordance it is easy to see just where to look for what is wanted. Some may think that I have drawn too freely from this noble work, but at most I have merely dipped my little bucket into the tide of a full flowing river and given my readers a taste of its pure and refreshing waters.

For information in regard to Mythology and Classical Biography I have gone to the great storehouse of such knowledge, the " Dictionary of Greek and Eoman Biography and Mythology," edited by William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D., and I cannot too fully acknowledge my indebtedness. To those who wish to extend their studies in this direction this work is invaluable.

In regard to credits in the body of the "Cyclopaedia" my rule has been as follows : Wherever I have made an exact quotation and was sure of the author I have placed the extract within quotatioit marks ?ind have appended the author's xii PREFACE.

name. In many cases, however, the exigencies of space have compelled me to abridge or condense, and where this has been done the author's name has been retained, but the quotation marks have been omitted. Where the definition or explanation has so far become common property that I have been unable to trace the originator, no credit has been given. In this connection I would remark that perhaps the reader may notice a number of glosses for which I have given no credit, but which in recent Shakespearean literature have been credited to Schmidt, which in general means his " Shakespeare-Lexicon." My reason for this omission is that they have long been the common property of Shakespearean commentators, and why Rolfe, Fleming and others should credit to Schmidt that which belongs to his predecessors is not easily understood, but that they have done so every careful student knows. A curious result of Schmidt's habit of omitting credit may be found in the writings of the late Eichard Grant White. White wrote a justly severe criticism of the "Shakespeare- Lexicon " for the AtlantiG Monthly and, provoked no doubt by the abusive insolence which Schmidt so often exhibits towards commentators of English blood, his remarks are sometimes rather bitter. But in the case of one of his most severe notes, his condemnation is directed against a gloss which originated, not with Schmidt, but with Dr. Johnson from whom Schmidt " conveyed" it !

In every case my sole object has been to discover and present the meaning which Shakespeare himself actually intended, and not that which he might have intended or, as some of the early commentators have actually put it, which he ought to have intended. Imaginative interpretations are so easily devised that, with many, the temptation to let fancy run riot becomes very great.

The attentive reader cannot fail to notice the number of instances in which I have referred to Scottish literature and lexicons for explanations and illustrations of the language of Shakespeare. With a single exception, I know of no Shakespearean commentator who has given special attention to the light which the language of the lowland Scotch throws upon many of the dark passages in Shakespeare's writings. That exception is Dr. Charles Mackay, who has published a " Glossary of the Obscure Words and Phrases in Shakespeare." Dr. Mackay, however, being a highlander, depends more on Gaelic than upon lowland Scotch, and his etymologies often differ widely from those of Skeat, Mahn and other recognised authorities. I notice, however, that Dr. Furness and one or two others are turning their attention in this direction and with good results. But in order to make effective use of this source of information there is needed something more than an acquaintance with dictionaries. Having been familiar from childhood with the Scottish language as a living and spoken tongue, I feel confident that I have been able to give a correct interpretation of several words and phrases of which the explanations hitherto given have, to say the least^ not been quite satisfactory. I do not refer, of course, to the purely Scottish words which so frequently occur in Shakespeare, such as bonny, chapman, neif, pash,

PREFACE. xiii reek, wee, yeild, etc., etc., but to the peculiar shades of meaning which many modern English words have in Shakespeare and which differ from the meanings ordinarily assigned to them, a striking instance of which is found in the word silly. A.nd here it may be well to note that by the Scottish language I do not mean that corrupted jargon which has become familiar to the American public under the name of "kail-yard literature." The Scottish language has its dialects just as we find a dialect for every county in England and for every State in our Union, and our " kail-yard" friends do not always choose the best. Shakespeare ridiculed this very form when he put it into the mouth of Captain Jamy, but the number of true Scottish words which he himself uses shows the intimate relations which existed between that language and his speech. This relation was freely acknowledged long after the days of Shakespeare. I have on my shelves "A Complete Commentary on Milton's Paradise Lost," published in 1744, by James Paterson, M. A., in which he claims to explain, amongst others, the words of "Old English or Scottish." Not only the meaning, but the pronunciation of many words was nearly alike in the two languages and frequently very different from the English of the present day, so that, as I have noted under the word shovel, if Shakespeare were to appear in London or New York in one of his own plays it is more than probable that only educated Scotchmen could understand him. In pursuing this line of study, however, I have endeavored to prevent my natural predilection for my mother tongue from leading me into the swamp of forced definitions and fanciful etymologies; in other words, I have tried to prevent a valuable line of investigation from degenerating into a "fad."

Those who are familiar with Elizabethan literature know that, however the morals of Shakespeare's time may compare with those of the present day, it cannot be denied that the language then in common use, not only amongst men, but women and even "ladies of quality," was such as would not now be tolerated anywhere except perhaps in the very lowest society ; and while, in the matter of decency, Shakespeare stands head and shoulders above most of his contemporaries, there are, nevertheless, in his plays many words and phrases which cannot be read aloud, much less discussed where young people are present. In preparing this Cyclopedia I have kept constantly in mind the fact that it is intended for use in families, and I have therefore excluded every subject which cannot be freely discussed in the family circle.

The line-numbers which I have used are those of the " Globe," chiefly because this is the standard adopted by the great majority of those who have occasion to give a reference to a passage in Shakespeare. Even where the reader is using an edition in which the lines are not numbered, these line-numbers are a great aid to the quick finding of any required passage ; and by taking a slip of cardboard and marking off spaces showing 10, 15, 20 and 25 lines as measured on the copy in use, it is very easy to get quite close to any passage without incurring the trouble of actually counting. But it is to be hoped that in future xiv PREFACE.

all editions of Shakespeare will have the lines numbered according to some generally recognised standard. This is something that might be easily done even with an abridged edition ; and it is greatly to be desired that future editions of the "Globe" should have the line-numbers at intervals less infrequent than those in the present edition. Jumps of more than one hundred lines are altogether too great ; the index numbers should appear at every tenth line at least.

It has not always been an easy matter to decide just what words should be admitted to this glossary and what ones omitted, and the room wJiich exists for tJie exercise of good judgment in this matter is well shown by a comparison of the different glossaries appended to the various editions of Shakespeare's works. A large percentage of words that are admitted to some glossaries are not found in others and vice versa. Dr. Johnson stated this difficulty very clearly in his famous preface. He says : " It is impossible for an expositor not to write too little for some, and too much for others. He can judge what is necessary oniy by his own experience; and how long soever he may deliberate, will at last explain many lines which the learned will think impossible to be mistaken, and omit many for which the ignorant will want his help. These are censures merely relative, and must be quietly endured."

Where I have presented views of my own which differ from those usually held, I have endeavored not only to give sound reasons for my own peculiar opinions, but to present also, in an unprejudiced manner, the arguments of the other side. To do this has sometimes demanded more space than the subject under discussion would have seemed to require, but if by any means we can attain to the truth, all considerations of space and labor must give way.

I am fully aware of the fact that I have frequently laid myself open to the charge of presumption by offering definitions and interpretations which differ from those of the great lights of Shakespearean exegesis, but I cannot help that. Perhaps the atmosphere of New Jersey leads to that kind of independence. Some years ago we had in our city a Justice of the Peace whose legal attainments were of a grade which frequently led to a reversal of his decisions, though, like the British at Waterloo, he never seemed to know when he was beaten. On one occasion, when a case of more than usual importance was being tried in his court, a prominent lawyer, who had been engaged by one of the litigants, very respectfully called his honor's attention to certain decisions of the Supreme Court which seemed to be adverse to the views which he had propounded. Nothing abashed, however, he simply retorted : " Mister Smith, I would have you to understand that that is where I differ from the Shuprame Coort. "

And so in these cases, even at the risk of being considered a copesmate of our Paterson Justice, I can only say : That is where I differ from Furness, Rolfe, Schmidt and the acknowledged authorities.

Paterson, N. J., April, 1902. JOHN PHIN.