Without intending to follow MR. COLLIER through the course of his argument, I should like to notice one or two points. The usage of Shakspeare's day admitted many variations from the stricter grammatical rules of our own; but no usage ever admitted such a sentence as this,—for though elliptically expressed, MR. COLLIER treats it as a sentence,—
"Most busy, least when I do it."
This is neither grammar nor sense: and I persist in believing that Shakspeare was able to construct an intelligible sentence according to rules as much recognised by custom then as now.
But, indeed, does not MR. COLLIER virtually admit that the text is inexplicable in his very attempt to explain it? He sums up by saying "that in fact, his toil is no toil, and that when he is 'most busy' he 'least does it,'" which is precisely the reverse of what the text says, if it express any meaning at all. I will agree with him in preferring the old text to any other text where it gives a perfect meaning; but to prefer it here, when the omission of a single letter produces an image at once noble and complete, would, to my mind, savour more of superstition than true worship.
P.S. It should be observed that MR. COLLIER'S "least" is as much of an alteration of the original text as MR. SINGER'S "busyest", the one adding and the other omittng a letter. The folio of 1632, where it differs front the first folio, will hardly add to the authority of MR. COLLIER himself.
SAMUEL HICKSON.
Oct. 10. 1850.
If one, who is but a charmed listener to Shakspeare, may presume to offer an opinion to practised interpreters, I should suggest to MR. SINGER and MR. COLLIER, another and a totally different reading of the passage in discussion by them from the exquisite opening scene of the 3d Act of the Tempest.
There can be little doubt that "most busy" applies more poetically to thoughts than to labours; and, in so much, MR. SINGER'S reading is to be commended. But it is equally true that, by adhering to the early text, MR. COLLIER'S school of editing has restored force and beauty to many passages which had previously been outraged by fancied improvements, so that his unflinching support of the original word in this instance is also to be respected. But may not both be combined? I think they may, by understanding the passage in question as though a transposition had taken place between the words "least" and "when".
"Most busy when least I do it,"
or,—
"Most busy when least employed."
forming just the sort of verbal antithesis of which the poet was so fond.
An actual transposition of the words may have taken place through the fault of the early printers; but even if the present order be preserved, still the transposed sense is, I think, much less difficult than the forced and rather contradictory meaning contended for by MR. COLLIER. Has not the pause in Ferdinand's labour been hitherto too much overlooked? What is it that has induced him to forget his task? Is it not those delicious thoughts, most busy in the pauses of labour, making those pauses still more refreshing and renovating?
Ferdinand says—
"I forget,"—
and then he adds, by way of excuse,—
"But the sweet thoughts do even refresh my labours,
Most busy when least I do it."
More busy in thought when idle, than in labour when employed. The cessation from labour was favourable to the thoughts that made it endurable.
Malone quarrelled with the word "but", for which he would have substituted "and" or "for". But in the apologetic sense which I would confer upon the last two lines of Ferdinand's speech, the word "but", at their commencement, becomes not only appropriate but necessary.
A.E.B.
Leeds, October 8. 1850.
"LONDON BRIDGE IS BROKEN DOWN."
(Vol. ii., p. 258.)
Your correspondent T.S.D. does not remember to have seen that interesting old nursery ditty "London Bridge is broken down" printed, or even referred to in print. For the edification then of all interested in the subject, I send you the following.
The old song on "London Bridge" is printed in Ritson's Gammer Gurton's Garland, and in Halliwell's Nursery Rhymes of England; but both copies are very imperfect. There are also some fragments preserved in the Gentleman's Magazine for September, 1823 (vol. xciii. p. 232.), and in the Mirror for November 1st of the same year. From these versions a tolerably perfect copy has been formed, and printed in a little work, for which I am answerable, entitled Nursery Rhymes, with the Tunes to which they are still sung in the Nurseries of England. But the whole ballad has probably been formed by many fresh additions in a long series of years, and is, perhaps, almost interminable when received in all its different versions.
The correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine remarks, that "London Bridge is broken down" is an old ballad which, more than seventy years previous, he had heard plaintively warbled by a lady who was born in the reign of Charles II., and who lived till nearly that of George II. Another correspondent to the same magazine, whose contribution, signed "D.," is inserted in the same volume (December, p. 507.), observes, that the ballad concerning London Bridge formed, in his remembrance, part of a Christmas carol, and commenced thus:—
"Dame, get up and bake your pies,
On Christmas Day in the morning."
The requisition, he continues, goes on to the dame to prepare for the feast, and her answer is—
"London Bridge is broken down,
On Christmas Day in the morning."
The inference always was, that until the bridge was rebuilt some stop would be put to the dame's Christmas operations; but why the falling of a part of London Bridge should form part of a Christmas carol it is difficult to determine.
A Bristol correspondent, whose communication is inserted in that delightful volume the Chronicles of London Bridge (by Richard Thomson, of the London Institution), says,—
"About forty years ago, one moonlight night, in a street in Bristol, his attention was attracted by dance and chorus of boys and girls, to which the words of this ballad gave measure. The breaking down of the bridge was announced as the dancers moved round in a circle, hand in hand; and the question, 'How shall we build it up again?' was chanted by the leader, whilst the rest stood still."
Concerning the antiquity of this ballad, a modern writer remarks,—
"If one might hazard a conjecture concerning it, we should refer its composition to some very ancient date, when, London Bridge lying in ruins, the office of bridge master was vacant, and his power over the river Lea (for it is doubtless that river which is celebrated in the chorus to this song) was for a while at an end. But this, although the words and melody of the verses are extremely simple, is all uncertain."
If I might hazard another conjecture, I would refer it to the period when London Bridge was the scene of a terrible contest between the Danes and Olave of Norway. There is an animated description of this "Battle of London Bridge," which gave ample theme to the Scandinavian scalds, in Snorro Sturleson; and, singularly enough, the first line is the same as that of our ditty:—
"London Bridge is broken down;
Gold is won and bright renown;
Shields resounding,
War horns sounding,
Hildur shouting in the din;
Arrows singing,
Mail-coats ringing,
Odin makes our Olaf win."
See Laing's Heimskringla, vol. ii. p. 10.; and Bulwer's Harold, vol. i. p. 59. The last-named work contains, in the notes, some excellent remarks upon the poetry of the Danes, and its great influence upon our early national muse.
EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.
[T.S.D.'s inquiry respecting this once popular nursery song has brought us a host of communications; but none which contain the precise information upon the subject which is to be found in DR. RIMBAULT's reply. TOBY, who kindly forwards the air to which it was sung, speaks of it as a "'lullaby song,' well-known in the southern part of Kent and in Lincolnshire."
E.N.W. says it is printed in the collection of Nursery Rhymes published by Burns, and that he was born and bred in London, and that it was one of the nursery songs he was amused with. NOCAB ET AMICUS, two old fellows of the Society of Antiquaries, do not doubt that it refers to some event preserved in history, especially, they add, as we have a faint recollection "of a note, touching such an event, in an almost used-up English history, which was read in our nursery by an elder brother, something less than three-fourths of a century since. And we have also a shrewd suspicion that the sequel of the song has reference to the reconstruction of that fabric at a later date."
J.S.C. has sent us a copy of the song; and we are indebted for another copy to AN ENGLISH MOTHER, who has accompanied it with notices of some other popular songs, notices which at some future opportunity we shall lay before our readers.—ED.]
ARABIC NUMERALS
(Vol. ii., pp. 27. 61.)
I must apologise for adding anything to the already abundant articles which have from time to time appeared in "NOTES AND QUERIES" on this interesting subject; I shall therefore confine myself to a few brief remarks on the form of each character, and, if possible, to show from what alphabets they are derived:—