388 SOME NEW EMENDATIONS IN SHAKESPEARE. 
“ For mine,” says Staunton, ‘ which no one can for a moment 
doubt to be a corruption, we would suggest that the poet wrote 
mean, 2.€., equivalent, just and the like, the sense being, that the 
proportion of thanks and payment might have been equal to your 
deserts.” J cannot think Staunton as happy as usual in this 
emendation. The word Shakespeare wrote here was, I suspect, 
“more,” not ‘‘ mine,” or ‘“‘mean.” The substitution of more makes 
the passage clear. Had Macbeth’s deserts been Jess, the proportion 
of the king’s thanks and payments would certainly have been more. 
What immediately follows confirms this correction, for the king 
goes on: 
** Only I have left to say, 
More is thy due than more than all can pay.” 
As an instance of the absurd rubbish, absolute jargon, which the 
printers were ready to give as Shakespeare, I may cite a line from a 
speech of the witty Mercutio as it is given in all the old editions 
but one— 
“* Ory but ‘ah me’—Provant but love and day.” 
The true reading being — 
‘* Appear thou in the likeness of a sigh, 
Speak but one rhyme and I am satisfied, 
Cry but ‘ah me,’ pronounce but love and dove.” 
The ah me is the sigh, love and dove stands for the rhyme. Oddly 
enough, “ah me” is the very first word which Juliet speaks or 
sighs as she enters in the next scene. 
It is no part of such a paper as the present to lay down any 
general canons of criticism on the subject of Shakespearean emenda- 
tions. But the following dicta will, I venture to think, be accepted 
by most Shakespearean students : 
1. That the sole object and justification of any emendation in the 
text of Shakespeare, should be to eliminate any thing which 
Shakespeare did not write, and to substitute if possible the ipsissima 
verba of the author. 
3. That any passage which is obscure and unintelligible may be 
assumed to be corrupt. 
3. That any line which is not rhythmical may be suspected not to 
be Shakespeare’s. 
The first and second of the foregoing propositions will, I think, 
commend themselves to most Shakespearean scholars. The second 
