July 30. 1853.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



97 



The reading of the old corrector — 

 " . . . , As if 



The scene you play were true," 



■would be nonsense ; because, so far as the prince 

 appearing to be Bohemia's son (which was what 

 he was most anxious about), the scene to be 

 played was really true ! 



The last correction I have now to notice is in 

 the soliloquy of Autolycus in p. 522. : where Mr. 

 Collier proposes to read, " who knows how that 

 may turn luck to my advantage," instead of " may 

 turn hack to my advantage." I see no advantage 

 in the change, but the very reverse. " Who 

 knows but my availing myself of the means to do 

 the prince my master a service, may come back to 

 me in the shape of some advancement ? " This 

 seems to me to be the author's meaning, and it is 

 legitimately expressed. How frequently it has 

 been said that an evil deed recoils upon the head 

 of the perpetrator ! Then why not a good deed 

 turn lack to reward the doer ? Cecil Harbottle. 



P. S. — It is rather singular that A. E. B., who, 

 as I have already shown, has so completely shelved 

 me in his remarks upon "Aristotle's checks," 

 should now complain of the very same thing him- 

 self, and say that his " humble auxilia have been 

 coolly appropriated, without the slightest acknow- 

 ledgment." However, as our opinions coincide 

 upon the passage in question, I am not disposed 

 to pick a quarrel with him. I cannot, however, at 

 all concur in his alteration of the passage in King 

 Lear : " Our means secure us," to " Our means 

 recuse us." I will certainly leave him " in the 

 quiet possession of whatever merit is due to this 

 resto7-ation" or rather this invention ! Can A. E. B. 

 show any other instance in which Shakspcare has 

 used the verb recuse ; or will he point out any 

 other author who has adopted it in the sense re- 

 ferred to ? Johnson calls it a "juridical word :" 

 and T certainly liave no recollection of having met 

 with it, except in judicial proceedings. 



I can neither subscribe to the emendation of 

 A. E. B., nor to that of the old commentator, but 

 infinitely prefer the original words, which appear 

 to me perfectly intelligible. The sense, as it 

 strikes me, is, that however we may desire things 

 which we have not, the means we already possess 

 are sufficient for our security ; and even our de- 

 fects prove serviceable. Blindness, for instance, 

 will make a man more careful of himself; and 

 then the other faculties he enjoys will secure him 

 from harm. 



''King Lear," Act IV. ^c. 1.— 



" Our means secure us, and our mere defects 

 Prove our commodities." 



I should not object to your correspondent 

 A. E. B.'s conjectural emendation, "recuse" for 

 "secure," but that, unless my memory and Ays- 



cough are both deceptive, the word " recuse " is 

 nowhere to be found in Shakspeare ; nor, as far as 

 I know, in any dramatist of the age. If it be used 

 by any of the latter, it is probably only in the 

 strict legal meaning, which is quite different from 

 that which A. E. B. would attach to it. This is 

 conclusive with me ; for I hold that there is no 

 sounder canon in Shakspearian criticism than 

 never to introduce by conjecture a word of which 

 the poet does not himself elsewhere make use, or 

 which is not at least strongly sanctioned by co- 

 temporary employment. 



I therefore, as the passage is flat nonsense, re- 

 turn to the well-abused "corrector's" much mo- 

 dester emendation, " wants " for " means." 



And now permit one word in defence of this 

 deceased and untoward personage. 



I think much of the unpopularity into which he 

 has fallen with a certain class of critics, is owing 

 to their not allowing him fair play. 



Suppose a MS. placed in our hands, containing, 

 beyond all doubt, what Mr. Collier's corrected 

 second folio is alleged to contain, authoritative 

 emendations of the text : what should we, d priori, 

 expect to find in it ? 



That text is abominably corrupt beyond a 

 doubt; it contains many impossible readings, 

 which must be misprints or otherwise erroneous ; 

 it contains also many improbable readings, harsh, 

 strained, mean, inadequate, and the like. 



Now it is excessively unlikely that a truly cor- 

 rected copy, could we find one, would remove all 

 the impossible readings, and leave all the impro- 

 bable ones. 



It is still more unlikely that, in correcting the 

 improbable passages, it would leave those to which 

 Mr. A., or Mr. B., or Mr. C, ay, or all of us to- 

 gether, have formed an attachment from habit, 

 predilection, or pi*ejudice of some kind. Such 

 phrases as " the blanket of the dark," " a man that 

 hatli had losses," " unthread the rude eye of re- 

 bellion," and many more, have become consecrated 

 in our eyes by habit; they have assumed, as it 

 were, the character of additions to our ordinary 

 vocabulary ; and yet I think sound reason itself, 

 and that kind of secondary reason or instinct which 

 long familiarity with critical pursuits gives us, 

 conibine to suggest that, occurring in a corrupt 

 text, they are probably corruptions; and cor- 

 ruptions in lieu of some very common and even 

 prosaic phrases, such as the corrector substitutes 

 for them, and such as no conjectural critic would 

 venture on. . 



In short, the kind of disappointment which 

 many of these corrections unavoidably give to the 

 reader, is with me an ax-gument in favour of their 

 genuineness, not against it. 



And, lastly, in so very corrupt a text, it is d 

 priori probable that many phrases which appear 

 to need no correction at all, are misprints or mis- 



