Notes and Queries, Number 190, June 18, 1853

Here one would suppose that the obvious opposition between means and defects would have preserved these words from being tampered with; and that, on the other hand, the absence of opposition between secure and commodious would have directed attention to the real error. But, no: all the worretting has been about means; and this unfortunate word has been twisted in all manner of ways, until finally "the old corrector" informs us that "the printer read wants 'means,' and hence the blunder!"

Now, mark the perfect antithesis the passage receives from the change of secure into recuse:

"Full oft 'tis seen
Our means recuse us, and our mere defects
Prove our commodities."

I trust I may be left in the quiet possession of whatever merit is due to this restoration. Some other of my humble auxilia have, before now, been coolly appropriated, with the most innocent air possible, without the slightest acknowledgment. One instance is afforded in Mr. Keightley's communication to "N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 136., where that gentleman not only repeats the explanation I had previously given of the same passage, but even does me the honour of requoting the same line of Shakspeare with which I had supported it.

I did not think it worth noticing at the time, nor should I now, were it not that Mr. Keightley's confidence in the negligence or want of recollection in your readers seems not have been wholly misplaced, if we may judge from Mr. Arrowsmith's admiring foot-note in last Number of "N. & Q.," p. 568.

    A. E. B.

Leeds.

SHAKESPEARE'S USE OF THE IDIOM "NO HAD" AND "NO HATH NOT."

(Vol. vii., p. 520.)

We are under great obligations to the Rev. Mr. Arrowsmith for his very interesting illustration of several misunderstood archaisms; and it may not be unacceptable to him if I call his attention to what seems to me a farther illustration of the above singular idiom, from Shakspeare himself.

In As You Like It, Act I. Sc. 3., where Rosalind has been banished by the Duke her uncle, we have the following dialogue between Celia and her cousin:

"Cel. O my poor Rosalind! whither wilt thou go?
Wilt thou change fathers? I will give thee mine.
I charge thee, be not thou more grieved than I am.

Ros. I have more cause.

Cel. Thou hast not, cousin:
Pr'ythee be cheerful: know'st thou not, the duke
Hath banish'd me, his daughter?

Ros. That he hath not.

Cel.No hath not? Rosalind lacks, then, the love
Which teacheth thee that thou and I are one.
Shall we be sunder'd," &c.

From wrong pointing, and ignorance of the idiomatic structure, the passage has hitherto been misunderstood; and Warburton proposed to read, "Which teacheth me," but was fortunately opposed by Johnson, although he did not clearly understand the passage. I have ventured to change am to are, for I cannot conceive that Shakspeare wrote, "that thou and I am one!" It is with some hesitation that I make this trifling innovation on the old text, although we have, a few lines lower, the more serious misprint of your change for the charge. I presume that the abbreviated form of the = y

was taken for for y

, and the r in charge mistaken for n; and in the former case of am for are, indistinctness in old writing, and especially in such a hand as, it appears from his autograph, our great poet wrote, would readily lead to such mistakes. That the correction was left to the printer of the first folio, I am fully persuaded; yet, in comparison with the second folio, it is a correct book, notwithstanding all its faults. That it was customary for men who were otherwise busied, as we may suppose Heminge and Condell to have been, to leave the correction entirely to the printer, is certain; for an acquaintance of Shakspeare's, Resolute John Florio, distinctly shows that it was the case. We have this pithy brief Preface to the second edition of his translation of Montaigne:

"To the Reader

"Enough, if not too much, hath beene said of this translation. If the faults found even by myselfe in the first impression, be now by the printer corrected, as he was directed, the work is much amended: if not, know that through mine attendance on her Majesty, I could not intend it; and blame not Neptune for my second shipwracke. Let me conclude with this worthy man's daughter of alliance: 'Que t'ensemble donc lecteur?'

Still Resolute John Florio."

    S. W. Singer.

Mickleham.

Shakspeare (Vol. vii., p. 521.).—May I ask whether there is any precedent (I think there can be no excuse) for calling Shakspeare's plays "our national Bible"?

    A Clergyman.

Minor Notes

The Formation of the Woman, Gen. ii. 21, 22.—The terms of Matthew Henry on this subject, in his learned Commentary, have become quite commonplace with divines, when speaking of the ordinance of marriage:

"The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam: not made out of his head, to top him; nor out of his feet, to be trampled upon by him; but out of his side, to be equal with him; under his arm, to be protected; and near his heart, to be beloved."

Like many other things in his Exposition, this is not original with Henry. It is here traced to the Speculum Humanæ Salvationis of the earliest and rarest printed works. Some of your readers can probably trace it to the Fathers. The verses which follow are engraven in block characters in the first edition of the work named, and are copied from the fifth plate of specimens of early typography in Meerman's Origines Typographicæ: Hague, mdcclxv.:

"Mulier autem in paradiso est formata
De costis viri dormientis est parata
Deus autem ipsam super virum honestavit
Quoniam Evam in loco voluptatis plasmavit,
Non facit eam sicut virum de limo terræ
Sed de osse nobilis viri Adæ et de ejus carne.
Non est facta de pede, ne a viro despiceretur
Non de capite ne supra virum dominaretur.
Sed est facta de latere maritali
Et data est viro pro gloria et socia collaterali.
Quæ si sibi in honorem collata humiliter præstitisset
Nunquam molestiam a viro unquam sustinuisset."

    O. T. D.
Singular Way of showing Displeasure.—

"The earl's regiment not long after, according to order, marched to take possession of the town (Londondery); but at their appearance before it the citizens clapt up the gates, and denyed them entrance, declaring their resolution for the king (William III.) and their own preservation. Tyrconnel at the news of this was said to have burnt his wig, as an indication of his displeasure with the townsmen's proceedings."—Life of James II., p. 290.

    E. H. A.

The Maids and the Widows.—The following petition, signed by sixteen maids of Charleston, South Carolina, was presented to the governor of that province on March 1, 1733-4, "the day of the feast:"

"To His Excellency Governor Johnson

"The humble Petition of all the Maids whose names are underwritten:

"Whereas we the humble petitioners are at present in a very melancholy disposition of mind, considering how all the bachelors are blindly captivated by widows, and our more youthful charms thereby neglected: the consequence of this our request is, that your Excellency will for the future order that no widow shall presume to marry any young man till the maids are provided for; or else to pay each of them a fine for satisfaction, for invading our liberties; and likewise a fine to be laid on all such bachelors as shall be married to widows. The great disadvantage it is to us maids, is, that the widows, by their forward carriages, do snap up the young men; and have the vanity to think their merits beyond ours, which is a great imposition upon us who ought to have the preference.

"This is humbly recommended to your Excellency's consideration, and hope you will prevent any farther insults.

"And we poor Maids as in duty bound will ever pray.