The English of Shakespeare; illustrated in a philological commentary on his Julius Cæsar

Front matter

H HHi nn

WmmmWsSmm

WMmmm

Preface

TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

A year ago I let a class at school take Julius Ccesar as their first reading in Shakespeare, and made daily use of this book of Professor Craik's in teaching them. They noted down all the more important points as I gave them, and, without having seen the book, learned the better part of it pretty thoroughly. It took more time than I had ever before given to a single play, — considerably more, of course, than would have been necessary if the book had been in the hands of the scholars ; but the results satisfied me that it was time well spent. I never had a class that became so heartily interested in Shakespeare, or that went on so rapidly and so well in reading other plays. It was the success of this experiment with the book that led me to think of editing it. I wanted it for my own classes, and I venture to hope that it may be of service to other students of Shakespeare, whether in school or out

of school.

vi Preface to the American Edition.

In editing the book I have omitted some portions of it; but I believe I have sacrificed nothing which may not be readily found in other books, especially in the last revised edition of Webster's Dictionary, to which I have rarely referred the reader, but which he will do well to consult on all points of etymology discussed by Prof. Craik. Whatever may be its other merits or demerits, it is the first English Dictionary yet published that may be safely taken as an authority on the etymology of the language.

The portions of the original work which I have retained, I have thought it best to give precisely as the author wrote them. Here and there I have abridged a paragraph, and in two or three instances I have changed a word or phrase ; but none of these variations from the rule I had laid down for myself are of any importance. Where I could not accept the author's explanation of a passage, I have generally given his views as well as my own, since the reader might prefer the former to the latter. My own notes are in all cases enclosed in brackets. The cases in which the author (as on pages 49, 161, and 270) has put an explanatory word or remark in brackets, are very few and wholly unimportant.

The text of the play also I have left as Prof. Craik gives it. In seven instances, however, I have corrected obvious misprints. In 66 I give " He is a noble Roman " instead of " He is noble Roman "

Preface to the American Edition. vii

(see note on 155) ; in 256, "further" for "farther" (see note on 45) ; in 309 " true-fixed " for " true fixt ; " in 401 " masters" for " master" (see note on the passage) ; in 412 " o'ershot" (First Folio, " o'reshot") for "overshot;" in 745 "ere" (as in First Folio) for " e'er ; " and in 775 " than " for " then." I have also changed the spelling of a few words (as " deckt," " pluckt," etc.) in which Prof. Craik follows the Folio.* The punctuation, too, I have sometimes changed, but in no case where the interpretation of the passage depended upon it (see note on Even by the rule, etc., 7°8)-

As far as possible, I have verified the references to other Plays and to other authors, and have corrected many little errors, the majority of which were either slips of the pen or misprints. Quite likely I have overlooked similar errors of my own ; if so, I shall esteem it a favor to be informed of them.

In revising the notes I have made use of Dyce's edition of Shakespeare, Collier's Second edition,! Singer's, Staunton's, Hudson's, White's, and Clark and Wright's " Cambridge Edition ; " carrying out

* I have retained the -our in all words like valour, favour, etc., except honor and its derivatives. I changed that word (perhaps not wisely, on the whole) because I found that the Folio had honor 'in the majority of cases, and even in " honor for his valour " in 374.

f Craik's references are to the First edition. In the Second Collier has adopted many of Craik's suggestions.

viii Preface to the American Edition.

as well as I could Prof. Craik's plan of giving the readings adopted by the different editors, and their comments on difficult or disputed passages.

I have added largely to the references to Bible passages illustrating Shakespeare's English. I had done a good part of this work some months before I met with The Bible Word-Book, by Eastwood and Wright (London, 1866) ; but in revising my notes for publication I made free use of that admirable little book, and drew from it considerable additional matter.

To Prof. F. J. Child, of Harvard College, for the encouragement he has given me in my work, and for many valuable criticisms and suggestions, I am under especial obligations.

W. J. R.

Cambridge, Feb. 15, 1867.

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

In this attempt to illustrate the English of Shakespeare, I would be understood to have had a twofold purpose, in conformity with the title of the volume, which would naturally be taken to promise something of exposition in regard both to the language or style of Shakespeare and to the English language generally.

My first business I have considered to be the correct exhibition and explanation of the noble work of our great dramatist with which the volume professes to be specially occupied. I will begin, therefore, by stating what I have done, or endeavored to do, for the Play of Julius CLesar.

I have given what I believe to be a more nearly authentic text than has yet appeared. Julitis Ccesar is, probably, of all Shakespeare's Plays, the one of which the text has come down to us in the least unsatisfactory state. From whatever cause it has happened, the passages in this Play as to the true reading of which there can be much reasonable doubt are, comparatively, very few. Even when anything is wrong in the original edition, the manner in which it is to be set to rights is for the most part both pretty obvious and nearly certain. There

(ix)

x The Author's Preface.

are, perhaps, scarcely so many as half a dozen lines of any importance which must be given up as hopelessly incurable or even doubtful. It is, I should think, of all the Plays, by much the easiest to edit ; both the settlement of the text and its explanation are, I conceive, simpler than would be the case in any other ; and it is for that reason partly that I have selected it for the present attempt.

The alterations which I have found it necessary to make upon the commonly received text do not amount to very many ; and the considerations by which I have been guided are in every instance fully stated in the Commentary. The only conjectural innovations which I have ventured upon of my own are, the change of " What night is this? " into " What anight is this!" in the speech numbered 117; the insertion of " not" after " Has he," in that numbered 401 ; and the transposition of the two names Liccilius and Lucius in that numbered 520. The first and second of these three corrections are of little moment, though both, I think, clearly required ; the third I hold to be both of absolute certainty and necessity, and also of considerable importance, affecting as it does the whole course of the Fourth Act of the Play, restoring propriety and consistency to the conduct of the action and the parts sustained by the various personages, and vindicating a reading of the First Folio in a subsequent speech (570), which, curiously enough, had never been previously noticed by anybody, but has been silently ignored and departed from even by those of the modern editors who have professed to adhere the most scrupulously to that original text.

The Author's Preface. xi

For the rest, the present text differs in nothing material from that which is found in all the modern editions, unless it be that I have restored from the First Folio one or two antiquated forms, — such as 'em for them, and moe in several places for more, — which have been usually suppressed, although 'em remains familiar enough in our colloquial speech, or at any rate is still perfectly intelligible and unambiguous, and moe is sometimes the only form that will suit the exigencies of the verse. . . .

As for the present Commentary on the Play of Julius Cccsar, it will be perceived that it does not at all aspire to what is commonly distinguished as the higher criticism. It does not seek to examine or to expound this Shakespearian drama aesthetically, but only philologically, or with respect to the language. The only kind of criticism which it professes is what is called verbal criticism. Its whole aim, in so far as it relates to the particular work to which it is attached, is, as far as may be done, first to ascertain or determine the text, secondly to explain it ; to inquire, in other words, what Shakespeare really wrote, and how what he has written is to be read and construed.

Wherever either the earliest text or that which is commonly received has been deviated from to the extent of a word or a syllable, the alteration has been distinctly indicated. In this way a complete representation is given, in so far at least as regards the language, both of the text of the editio princeps and of the texttts receptus. I have not sought to register with the same exactness the various readings of the other texts, ancient and modern ; but I bexii The Author's Preface.

lieve, nevertheless, that all will be found to be noted that are of any interest either in the Second Folio or among the conjectures of the long array of editors and commentators extending from Rowe to our own day.

Then, with regard to the explanation of the text : I confess that here my fear is rather that I shall be thought to have done too much than too little. But I have been desirous to omit nothing that any reader might require for the full understanding of the Play, in so far as I was able to supply it. I have even retained the common school-boy explanations of the few points of Roman antiquities to which allusions occur, such as the arrangements of the Calendar, the usages of the Lupercalia, etc. The expression, however, is what I have chiefly dwelt upon. The labors of scores of expositors, embodied in hundreds of volumes, attest the existence in the writings of Shakespeare of numerous words, phraseologies, and passages the import of which is, to say the least, not obvious to ordinary readers of the present day. This comes partly from certain characteristics of his style, which would probably have made him occasionally a difficult author in any circumstances ; but much more from the two facts, of the corrupted or at least doubtful state of the text in many places, and the changes that our national speech has undergone since his age. The English of the sixteenth century is in various respects a different language from that of the nineteenth. The words and constructions are not throughout the same, and when they are they have not always the same meaning. Much of Shakespeare's vocabulary has ceased to

The Author's Preface. xiii

fall -from either our lips or our pens; much of the meaning which he attached to so much of it as still survives has dropped out of our minds. What is most misleading of all, many words and forms have acquired senses for us which they had not for him. All such cases that the Play presents I have made it my object to notice. Wherever there seemed to be any risk of the true meaning being mistaken, I have, in as few words as possible, stated what I conceived it to be. Where it was not clear to myself, I have frankly confessed my inability to explain it satisfactorily.

In so far as the Commentary relates to the particular Play which it goes over, and professes to elucidate, it is intended to be as complete as I could make it, in the sense of not leaving any passage unremarked upon which seemed to be difficult or obscure. But, of course, it puts forward no pretensions to a similar completeness, or thoroughness, in respect of any further purpose. It is far from embracing the whole subject of the English of Shakespeare, or making any attempt to do so. It is merely an introduction to that subject. In the Prolegomena, nevertheless, I have sought to lay a foundation for the full and systematic treatment of an important department of it, in the exposition which is given of some principles of our prosody, and some peculiarities of Shakespeare's versification, which his editors have not in general sufficiently attended to. Such investigations are, I conceive, full of promise of new light in regard to the history both of the Plays and of the mind of their author.

Still less can the Commentary pretend to any xiv The Author's Preface.

completeness in what it may contain in reference to the history and constitution of the language generally, or of particular classes of words and constructions. Among the fragments, or specimens, however, — for they can be nothing more, — which occur in it of this kind of speculation, are a few which will be found, perhaps, to carry out the examination of a principle, or the survey of a group of connected facts, farther than had before been done ; such as those in the notes on Merely (45), on Its (54), on Shrew and Shrewd (186), on Statue (246), on the prefix Be (389), etc. . . .

G. L. C.

Contents

PAGE

PROLEGOMENA.

Shakespeare's Personal History I

SCENE I. — Rome. A Street. Enter Flavius, Marullus, and a Rabble of Citizens

t. Flav. Hence! home, you idle creatures, get you home. Is this a holiday ? What ! know you not, Being mechanical, you ought not walk, Upon a labouring day, without the sign Of your profession ? — Speak, what trade art thou ? i Cit. Why, Sir, a carpenter.

Mar. Where is thy leather apron, and thy rule? What dost thou with thy best apparel on? — You, Sir ; what trade are you ?

60 Julius Caesar. [act i.

2 Cit. Truly, Sir, in respect of a fine workman, I am but, as you would say, a cobbler.

Mar. But what trade art thou? Answer me directly.

6. 2 Cit. A trade, Sir, that, I hope, I may use with a safe conscience; which is, indeed, Sir, a mender of bad soles.

7. Mar. What trade, thou knave? thou naughty knave,

what trade?

8. 2 Cit. Nay, I beseech you, Sir, be not out with me : yet if you be out, Sir, I can mend you.

9. Mar. What mean'st thou by that? Mend me, thou saucy fellow?

2 Cit. Why, Sir, cobble you.

Flav. Thou art a cobbler, art thou ? 12. 2 Cit. Truly, Sir, all that I live by is with the awl. I meddle with no tradesman's matters, nor women's matters, but with awl. I am, indeed, Sir, a surgeon to old shoes ; when they are in great danger, I recover them. As proper men as ever trod upon neat's leather have gone upon my handiwork.

Flav. But wherefore art not in thy shop to-day? Why dost thou lead these men about the streets ?

2 Cit. Truly, Sir, to wear out their shoes, to get myself into more work. But, indeed, Sir, we make holiday to see Caesar, and to rejoice in his triumph. 15. Mar. Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home ?

What tributaries follow him to Rome, . To grace in captive bonds his chariot wheels? You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things I O, you hard hearts; you cruel men of Rome, Knew you not Pompey ? Many a time and oft Have you climbed up to walls and battlements, To towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops, Your infants in your arms, and there have sat The live-long day, with patient expectation, To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome : And, when you saw his chariot but appear, Have you not made an universal shout, That Tiber trembled underneath her banks, To hear the replication of your sounds Made in her concave shores ?

sc. ii.] Julius Caesar. 6i

And do you now put on jour best attire ? And do you now cull out a holiday ? And do you now strew flowers in his way, That comes in triumph over Pompey's blood ? Be gone !

Run to your houses, fall upon your knees, Pray to the gods to intermit the plague That needs must light on this ingratitude.

16. Flav. Go, go, good countrymen, and, for this fault, Assemble all the poor men of your sort ;

Draw them to Tiber banks, and weep your tears

Into the channel, till the lowest stream

Do kiss the most exalted shores of all. [Exeunt Citizens.

See, whe'r their basest metal be not moved !

They vanish tongue-tied in their guiltiness.

Go you down that way towards the Capitol ;

This way will I. Disrobe the images,

If you do find them decked with ceremonies.

17. Mar. May we do so?

You know it is the feast of Lupercal.

18. Flav. It is no matter ; let no images

Be hung with Caesar's trophies. I'll about,

And drive away the vulgar from the streets ;

So do you too, where you perceive them thick.

These growing feathers plucked from Caesar's wing

Will make him fly an ordinary pitch ;

Who else would soar above the view of men,

And keep us all in servile fearfulness. [Exeunt.