Puslapio vaizdai

P. 613.-408.-204.

Yet, though thou stand'st more sure than I could do,
Thou art not firm enough, since griefs are green;
And all thy friends, which thou must make thy friends,
Have but their stings and teeth newly ta'en out.

I incline to admit Mr. Tyrwhitt's emendation. Mr. Seymour, of the Theatre Royal, Norwich, thus explains this passage: "all those capable "or likely to assist you, and whom it is incum"bent on you to conciliate and attach to your If this be the true explanation (which I am rather inclined to think) Mr. Tyrwhitt's emendation is inadmissible.



and had a purpose now

To lead out many to the holy land;

Lest rest, and lying still, might make them look
Too near unto my state.

I think Dr. Johnson is right.

P. 616.-411.-208.

Shal. Davy, Davy, Davy,-let me see, Davy; let me see:
Yea, marry, William cook, bid him come hither.

It may be true that anciently the lower orders of the people had no surnames, but this passage does not tend to prove it. Mr. Steevens's note might be well spared. "The note upon William "cook (says Heron) is in the true antiquarian "style, and as such I leave it. Coke, I have no "doubt, was a proper name as well as Canning." By William cook, Shallow certainly means, William the cook. Of this I should have thought no one could have doubted.

P. 620-415.-214.

Ch. Just. Sweet princes, what I did, I did in honour,
Led by the impartial conduct of my soul;
And never shall you see, that I will beg
A ragged and fore-stall'd remission.

I believe Malone is right.

P. 639-431.-238.

Dol. I'll tell thee what, thou thin man in a censer! I
will have you as soundly swinged for this, you blue-

Petruchio speaks of a censer in a barber's


P. 641.-433.-240.

Host. Thou atomy thou!

Dol. Come, you thin thing: come, you rascal !
1 Bead. Very well.

Rascal, it is true, does sometimes mean lean deer, but I cannot think it does here. Mr. Steevens's note seems to me to merit Heron's animadversion.

P. 642.-434.-242.

Pist. "Tis semper idem, for absque hoc nihil est :
"Tis all in every part.

I agree with Mr. Steevens that "this speech "accords but little with the phraseology of Falstaff; and, on the contrary, agrees well "with that of Pistol.'

[blocks in formation]

Chorus. O, for a muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention !

"Shakespeare (says Heron) knew nothing of "the allusions pointed out by his commentators. "What absurdity to imagine that Shakespeare, "whose learning they utterly deny, should be "skill'd in all the systems of philosophy!

A muse of fire is a fiery, ardent vein of poetry."
Letters of Literature, p. 175.

P. 4.-447.-264.

Can this cockpit hold

The vasty fields of France? or may we cram,
Within this wooden O, the very casques,
That did affright the air at Agincourt?

Mr. M. Mason is indisputably right. Dr. Johnson's criticism on this expression is injudicious in the extreme. It was certainly (as Mr. M. Mason observes) the poet's intention to represent the circle in which they acted in as contemptible a light as he could. He speaks in the same strain in the chorus to the fourth act.

"And so our scene must to the battle fly;

Where (O for pity!) we shall much disgrace,

"With four or five most vile and ragged foils

[ocr errors]

Right ill disposed, in brawl ridiculous,

"The name of Agincourt."

P. 4.-447.-264.

The very casques

That did affright the air at Agincourt.

The word is spelt casks in some of the editions. I have doubted whether Shakespeare did not mean barrels of gunpowder, which I think may more properly be said to affright the air than the helmets. So understood, it reminds us of the following passage in Milton:

Immediate in a flame,

But soon obscured with smoke, all heav'n appear'd,
From those deep-throated engines belch'd, whose roar
Embowell'd with outrageous noise the air,
And all her entrails tore, &c.

P. L. Book 6, 584.

It is no objection to this explanation to say that no gunpowder was used at the battle of Agincourt. Shakespeare frequently falls into such mistakes. Hotspur talks of gunpowder in the First Part of Henry the Fourth; and afterwards in this play he speaks of "devilish cannon.'

P. 5.-448.-265.

Suppose, within the girdle of these walls,
Are now confin'd two mighty monarchies,
Whose high upreared and abutting fronts
The perilous, narrow ocean parts asunder.

Mr. Steevens is certainly wrong; there should be a comma between perilous and narrow, as Mr. M. Mason has clearly shewn.

P. 5.-449.-266.

Think, when we talk of horses, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i'the receiving earth.
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there; jumping o'er times;
Turning the accomplishments of many years
Into an hourglass.

Dr. Johnson's observation is not just. The passage is rightly explained by Steevens and Monk Mason.

P. 10.-453.-271.

Cant. The king is full of grace, and fair regard.
Ely. And a true lover of the holy church.
Cant. The courses of his youth promis'd it not.
The breath no sooner left his father's body,
But that his wildness, mortified in him,

Seem'd to die too.

The character of Henry V. reminds us of what Tacitus says of Titus: "Lætam voluptatibus "adolescentiam egit, suo quam patris imperio "modestior." Hist. II. 2.

P. 13.-454.-274.

Ely. And so the prince obscur'd his contemplation
Under the veil of wildness; which, no doubt,
Grew like the summer grass, fastest by night
Unseen, yet crescive in his faculty.

This reminds us of the following passage:

Non liquidi gregibus fontes, non gramina desunt;

Et quantum longis carpent armenta diebus,

Exiguâ tantum gelidus ros nocte reponet.

P. 16.-457.-277.

Georg. II. 200.

K. Hen. For God doth know, how many, now in health,
Shall drop their blood in approbation

Of what your reverence shall incite us to:

Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,

How you awake the sleeping sword of war.

Impawn is, I believe, rightly explained by Warburton.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »