Notes and Queries, Number 184, May 7, 1853

"To steal from spiritual labour a brief span,"

appears quite tame and poor in comparison with

"To steal from spiritual leisure a brief span,"

and, moreover, destroys all the poetry of the thought. Nor can I see the slightest difficulty in the sense of the original passage. The king means to say that Wolsey cannot steal from the little leisure afforded him by his spiritual labours "a brief span, to keep his earthly audit:" and surely this is much more poetical than the substituted passage.

In p. 323., from the same play, we have—

"to the sharp'st kind of justice,"

transformed to "sharp'st knife of justice:" but I cannot assent to this change. The obvious meaning of the poet is, that the contempt of the world, "shutting all doors" against the accused, is a sharper kind of justice than any which the law could inflict: but, to be given up to "the sharp'st knife of justice" could only mean, being consigned to the public executioner,—which was just what Katherine was deprecating.

In p. 325. the lines relating to Wolsey's foundations at Ipswich and Oxford are printed thus in the folio—

"one of which fell with him,
Unwilling to outlive the good that did it:"

that is, unwilling to outlive the virtues which prompted it,—a passage teeming with poetical feeling: but the commentator has ruthlessly altered it to—

"Unwilling to outlive the good man did it;"

which, I submit, not only destroys all the poetry, but is decidedly not English!

The next passage I would notice is from Much Ado about Nothing, p. 76. How, I would ask, can the phrase—

"And sorrow wag,"

be a misprint for "call sorrow joy?" No compositor, or scribe either, could possibly be misled by any sound from the "reader" into such a mistake as that! The words "and sorrow wag," I admit, are not sense; but the substitution of "call sorrow joy" strikes me as bald and common-place in the extreme, and there is no pretence for its having any authority. If, then, we are to have a mere fanciful emendation, why not "bid sorrow wag?" This would be doing far less violence to the printed text, for it would only require the alteration of two letters in the word "and;" while it would preserve the Shakspearian character of the passage. "Wag" is a favourite expression in the comedies of the Bard, and occurs repeatedly in his works. The passage would then run thus—

"If such a one will smile and stroke his beard,
Bid sorrow wag—cry hem! when he should groan."

In p. 73. we find—

"Soul-tainted flesh," &c.

substituted for "foul tainted flesh;" and we are told that the critics have been all wrong, who supposed that Shakspeare intended any "metaphor from the kitchen!" If so, what meaning can be attached to the line—

"And salt too little which may season give?"

If that is not a metaphor from the kitchen, I know not what could be? I still believe that "foul tainted flesh" is the correct reading. The expression "soul-tainted flesh" is not intelligible. It should rather be "soul-tainting flesh." The soul may be tainted by the flesh: but how the flesh can be soul-tainted, I cannot understand.

Turning further back, to p. 69., we find it asserted, quite dogmatically, that the word "truths" of the folios ought to be "proofs;" but no reason whatever is offered for the change. I cannot help thinking that "seeming truths" is much the most poetical expression, while in "seeming proofs" there is something like redundancy,—to say nothing of the phrase being infinitely more common-place!

In the play of the Tempest, p. 4., the beautiful passage—

"he being thus lorded
Not only with what my revenue yielded," &c.,

is degraded into "he being thus loaded," &c. Can there be a moment's doubt that "lorded" was the word used by Shakspeare? It is completely in his style, which was on all occasions to coin verbs out of substantives, if he could. "He being thus lorded," i. e. ennobled "with what my revenue yielded," is surely a far superior expression to "being thus loaded,"—as if the poet were speaking of a costermonger's donkey!

Again, in p. 10.:

"Wherefore this ghastly looking?"

or, this ghastly appearance? Who will venture to say, that the substitution of "thus ghastly looking" is not decidedly a change for the worse?

In the Merchant of Venice, p. 118.:

"and leave itself unfurnished,"

is altered to "leave itself unfinished!" I confess I cannot see the slightest warrant for this change. The words—

"having made one,
Methinks IT should have power to steal both his,"

distinctly show that the author was alluding to the eye only, and not to the portrait and how could the eye (already made) describe itself as unfinished? Surely the sense is unfurnished, that is, unfurnished with its companion, or probably with the other accessories required to complete the portrait.

P. 119. has the line—

"And swearing 'til my very roof was dry,"

transmogrified into—

"And swearing 'til my very tongue was dry."

Now, why "this lame and impotent conclusion?" What can be a more common expression than the "roof of the mouth?" and it is just the part which is most affected by a sensation of dryness and pricking, after any excitement in speaking, whereas the tongue is not the member that suffers!

In As You Like It, p. 127., in the line—

"Mistress dispatch you with your safest haste,"

the last two words are made "fastest haste," which, to say the least, are tautology, and are like talking, of the "highest height", or the the "deepest depth!" Surely, the original form of words, "Dispatch you with your safest haste