July 10. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



n. 



expressions having a remarkable resemblance in 

 coinmoa, viz. : 



" multiplying spawn," 

 "multitudinous tongue," 

 " bosom multiplied," 

 and the concurrence of these three is stronfrly pre- 

 sumptive of the authenticity of any one of them. 



3. Because, in the speech wherein bosom multi- 

 plied occurs — the matter in discussion being the 

 policy of having given corn to the people g-ra7is — 

 when Coriolanus exclaims, "Whoever gave that 

 , counsel, nourished disobedience, fed the ruin of 

 the state;" these two words, of themselves, seem 

 intended to be metaphoricid to the subject: but 

 •when he goes on to inquire, " how shall this bosom 

 muJtiplied digest the senate's courtesy," it becomes 

 manifest that digest continues the metaphor which 

 nourished and fed had begun. And if, in addition, 

 it can be shown that bosom was commonly used as 

 the seat of digestion, then the inference appears to 

 be irresistible, that bosom multiplied is a phrase ex- 

 pressly introduced to complete the metaphor. Now, 

 that bosom was so used, and by Shakspeare, is easily 

 proved. Here is one example, from the Second 

 Fart or Henry IV., Sc. 1. : 



" Thou beastly feeder 



» . . . disgorge thy glutton bosom." 



But I shall go still further : I assert that Shak- 

 speare nowhere has used digest in the purely mental 

 sense; that is, without some reference, real or 

 figurative, to the animal function of the stomach. 

 Certainly there is one seeming (+xception; but even 

 that, when examined into, arises from a palpable 

 misinterpretation, which, when corrected, returns 

 witli redoubled force in favour of the assertion. 



I refer to the apologue of « the belly and the 

 members," already alluded to, in which the follow- 

 ing passa-re is, in all the editions, as fur as I am 

 aw-are, pointed in this way : 

 •' The senators of Rome are this good bellyi 



And you the mutinous members : For examine 



Their counsels and their cares; digest tilings rightly, 



Touching the weal o' the common ; you shall find 



No public benefit, which you receive, 



But it proceeds, or comes, from them to you, 



And no way from yourselves." 

 ^ If this reading were correct, it would doubtless 

 affijrd an example of the use of digest in the ab- 

 stract sense ; but it is in reality a gross misprision' 

 of the true meaning of the passage, and is only 

 another proof of how far we are still from possess- 

 ing a correctly printed edition of Shakspeare. The 

 proper punctuation would be this : 

 " The senators of Rome are this good belly. 



And you the mutinous members 1 — For examine 



^ Their counsels, and their csires digest things rightly 

 E Touching the weal o' the common !— you shall find"— 

 &c. 



^^Forexamiue" isdntroduced merely to*dtversify 

 the- discourse, and to fix the attention of the lis- 



teners; it might be wholly omitted without injury 

 to the sense : but in the pixssage as it now stands, 

 examine is made an effective verb, having for its 

 objects the counsels and cares of the senators ; . 

 while digest is made auxiliary to and synonymous ' 

 with examine, and, like it, is in the imperative 

 mood, as though addressed to the people,, instead 

 of being, as it ougiit to be, in the indicative, with 

 counsels and cares for its agents. It is a curious 

 instance of how completely the true sense of a 

 passage may be distorted by the misapplication of 

 a few commas. 



Digest, therefore, in this passage, as elsewhere, 

 is in direct allusion to the animal iuiiction. Tlie 

 very essence and pith of the parable of " the belly 

 and the members" is to place in opposition the 

 digestive function of the belly with the more active^ 

 offices of the members ; and the application of the 

 p.irable is, that "Me senators are this good belly," 

 their counsels nnd their cares digest for the general, 

 good, and distribute the resulting benefits through- 

 out the whole community. This is the true read- 

 ing ; and no person who duly considers it, or who 

 has compared it witli the original in Plutarch, but 

 must be satisfied that it is so. 



4. Because, since digest is thus shown to have 

 been invariably used by Shakspeare with reference 

 to the animal function, bosom mulliplied, having- 

 close relation with that function, is in strict anaioL'y 

 with the prevailing metaphor of the play ; while, 

 on the other hand, bisson multitude has no rehitioa ' 

 with it at all; and therefore, had the latter been 

 the genuine expression, it would have been asso- 

 ciated, not with digest, but with some verb bearing 

 more reference to the function of sights than to 

 that of deglutition or concoction. 



5. Because I cannot perceive why there should 

 be any greater difficulty in the metaplioi-ical allu- 

 sion to the bosom multiplied digesting the sennte^s 

 courtesy, than to the mvltiiudinous tongue licking 

 the sweet tvhich is their poison. There is, in fact, ' 

 such a close metaphorical resemblance between the 

 two expressions, that one can scarcely be doubted, 

 so long as the other is received as genuine. 



The foregoing arguments in favour of the old 

 reading may seem to be unnecessarily elaborate;; 

 the more especially so that none of the early com- . 

 mentators ai)pear to have suspected anything wrong 

 in it; not even Monk Mason, altlnrngh he was 

 meddling witii the very passage in question when .' 

 he proposed to substitute motive for native. But 

 when a sort of .superconjectural authority is claimed 

 for a questionable and unnecessary innovation, on ' 

 the score of presumed internal evi<lence of authen- 

 ticity (" N. & Q.," Vol. v., p. 485.), it is time for 

 every true conservative of Shakspeare's text to ' 

 bestir himself in its defence. A. E, B~ ' 



Leeds. 



P.S. Since writii'g the foregoingj the following . 

 passage has occurred to , me ; as furnishing an etb" t 



