June 5. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



535 



head, MInyard — both in Somerset; and Kenil- 

 worth, sometimes called Killingworth, in War- 

 wickshire. Baixiolensis. 



HEiuevieS. 



MR. HALLIWEIiL S ANNOTATED SHAKSPEARE FOLIO. 



" This volume contains several hundred very curious 

 and important corrections, amongst which I may men- 

 tion an entirely new reading of the diflScult passage at 

 the commencement of Measure for Measure, which car- 

 ries conviction with it ; and shows, what might have 

 been reasonably expected, that that to is a misprint for 

 a verb." — Mr. Halliwell in Notes §• Queries, p. 485. 



In common, doubtless, with many other of your 

 reader3, I am curious to know what this verb can 

 be, which, while carrying conviction with it, is yet 

 so mysteriously withheld from publication. 



In a small pamphlet, published a month or two 

 since by Mr. Halliwell, in opposition to Mr. 

 Collier s folio, be lays down at p. 7. " a canon in 

 philology;" from which he deiluces the following 

 as one of the " circumstances under which no manu- 

 script emendation of so late a date as 1 632 will be 

 admissible.'^ ■ 



"It will not be admissible in any case M-here good 

 sense can be satis*actorily made of the passage as it 

 stands in the original, even although the correction 

 may appear to give greater force or harmony to the 

 passage." 



Now, in the case referred to from Measure for 

 Measure, I had previously (" N. & Q." Vol. v., 

 p. 410.) shown to Mr. Hai.liwell that '■'■ good 

 sense can be satisfactorily made of the passage as it 

 stands in the original:" and therefore I feel the 

 greater curiosity to know what this verb can be 

 which carries conviction to him even in the face of 

 his own canon f A. E. B. 



Leeds. 



RESTIVE. 



Can the editor, or any of the readers of " N. 

 & Q." account for the very prevalent misuse of 

 the word restive or restiff? Of course, everybody 

 knows that the affix ive or iff does not imply 

 "privation," but the opposite; and that therefore 

 restive means — as we find it defined in our dic- 

 tionaries — " unwilling to stir," "inclined or deter- 

 mined to rest," &c. ; but yet the most common 

 use of the word now would require it to mean 

 "unwilling to rest," "rest/ess," "unquiet," &c. 

 As the word is most frequently employed in news- 

 paper paragraphs, in describing accidents arising 

 from the restiveness, or much more frequently rest- 

 lessness, of horses, we can easily account for the 

 misuse of the word in such cases : as the free use 

 of the whip, which is sure to follow the restiveness 

 of a horse or ass, is almost as surely followed by a 



sudden restlessness, at least when the nobler ani- 

 mal is under chastisement ; what ends in restless- 

 ness and running away has thus got confounded 

 with what it only has become, in some cases ; while 

 in others nothing is more common than to find the 

 sudden shying and starting ofi" of a horse, which 

 has been anything but restive, described as such 

 by some forgetfulness of the meaning of the word. 

 Were the misuse of the word confined to such 

 cases, however, it might not be worthy of notice 

 in " N. & Q." ; but I think it will be found to 

 extend further : for instance, in The Eclipse of 

 Faith (recently published), although evidently 

 written by a scholar, and one who weighs the 

 meaning of words, I find the following passage : 



" ' But,' said Fellowes, rather warmly, for he felt 

 rather restive at this part of Harrington's discourse," 

 &c. 



Here the word is evidently employed (instead 

 of ?'estless *) figuratively for impatient; although I 

 am not aware that a "bumptious" person might 

 defend the word actually used, in the sense that 

 the listener refused to go along further with the 

 speaker. Still I think restlessness was the idea 

 intended to be conveyed in the above passage, 

 and that "impatient" would have been the better 

 word, considering that it follows " hefeW J. K.» 



Brompton. 



REASON AND UNDERSTANDING ACCORDING TO 

 COLERIDGE, 



There is. a remarkable discrepancy in the state- 

 ments of Coleridge respecting reason and under- 

 standing. 



(1.) Friend, vol. i. pp. 207-8. (Pickering.) — 



" That many animals possess a share of understand- 

 ing perfectly distinguishable from mere instinct we all 

 allow. Few persons have a favourite dog, without 

 making instances of its intelligence an occasional topic 

 of conversation. They call for our admiration of the 

 individual animal, and not with exclusive reference to 

 the wisdom in nature, as in the case of aTopf)}, or ma- 

 ternal instinct : or of the hex-ingular cells of the bees. 

 . . . . We hear little or nothing of the instincts of the 

 ' half-reasoning elephant,' and as little of the under- 

 standing of caterpillars and butterflies." 



Aids to Reflection, vol. i. pp. 171-3. (Picker- 

 ing ) Here, after quoting two instances from 

 Hiiber about bees and ants, he says, — 



" Now I assert that the faculty in the acts here 

 narrated does not differ in kind from understanding." 



Does Coleridge mean to tell us that bees and 

 ants have the same fiiculty (understanding) as dogs 

 and elephants ? 



'•' Or instead of "fidgetty," as one would likely have 

 expressed it in familiar conversation. 



