498 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 86. 



higher source than to that familiar houseliold 

 companion — Johnson's Dictionary, wherein is an- 

 ticipated the citation of Bacon, and even of the 

 French word " captieux." 



It could not therefore be from ignorance that 

 Johnson failed to propose this recondite sense, but 

 from a conviction that it would not represent the 

 true meaning of Shakspeare. 



It will be perceived that, in appreciation of 

 " captious," I side with Steevens, IMalone, Knight, 

 Collier, and even with J.S. AV.; iu whom, however, 

 with his irreverent allusion to " a man who had 

 small Latin," I can recognise no true worshipper 

 of Shakspeare. 



Why should Shakspeare be constantly twitted 

 with this "small Latin," as if the '■'■school-like 

 gloss" of a hundred Persons could add one S(Mntilla 

 to the glory of his name ? His was the universal 

 language of nature ; and well does Mr. Singer 

 remark that " We all know, by intuition as it 

 were, what Shaksi)eare meant." It is true that we 

 discuss his mere words in the endeavour to school 

 our understandings to his level ; but he, hedged 

 by the divinity of immeasurable genius, must, 

 himself, be sacred; — to attempt to measure his 

 attainments by our finite estimation, is indeed 

 sacrilege ! 



In retailing Ben Jonson's unluckily chosen 

 expression, J. S. W. does not seem to be aware 

 that it has been doubted, and ably doubted, by 

 Mr. Knight, in his History of Opinion, that 

 Jonson himself used it by any means in the peda- 

 gogue sense usually adopted. And it does seem 

 scarcely credible that Jonson would give utterance 

 to a puff so miserably threadbare, so absurd too 

 on the very face of it ; for in what possible way 

 could an alleged deficiency of Greek and Latin 

 in Shakspeare, aflect a comparison, made by Jonson, 

 between Shakspeare and the poets of Greece and 

 Rome? As well might it be said that ignorance 

 of the Greek language, in Napoleon Buonaparte, 

 woidd prevent a parallel between him and Alex- 

 ander the Great! AVhat if Ben Jonson meant liis 

 fifth line to continue the supposition of the lirst ? 

 — "■thoxigh"' is a word which has a hypothetical, as 

 well as an admissive meaning; and there is no 

 difficulty in reading his lines in this way : 



" If I thought ray judgment were of yours, and 

 though thy k-arning were less ; still I would not seek 

 to compare thee witli modern men, but call forth 

 thundering Eschylus," &c. 



But I should like to ask J. S. W., as the nearest 

 example from the same play, which does he really 

 think would require the larger Latin,— to discover 

 the trite and only meaning of " captiosus," or to 

 use triple in the sense conferred upon it in Helena's 

 description, to the King, of her father's legacy ? 

 We have not at present in the English languao-e 

 any equivalent for that word as Shakspeare used it, 

 and of which he has left us another example in 



Antony and Cleopatra, where the triumvir is 

 called " the triple pillar of the world." We have 

 failed to take advantage of the lesson given us by 

 our great master, and consequently our language 

 is deprived of what would have been a most con- 

 venient acquisition. 



It is true that Johnson gives a definition of 

 "triple," in reference to its application to Antony, 

 viz., "consisting of three conjoined;" but that 

 meaning, however it might be applicable to the 

 triumvirate collectively, is certainly not so to the 

 members individually. To meet Shakspeare's use 

 of the word, the definition must be extended to 

 "consisting of, or belonging to, three conjoined:" 

 a sense in which " triplex " was midoubtedly used 

 by the Latins. Ovid would call the triumvirate 

 " viri triplices," and of course each one must be 

 " vir triplex ;" but perhaps the clearest instance 

 of the triune application is where he addresses the 

 Fates (in Ibin, 76.) as spinning out " triplici 

 pollice " (with triple thumb) the allotted task. 

 Now as only one of the sisters held the thread, 

 thej-e could be but one individual thumb engaged 

 (although with a sort of reflective ownershij) to 

 all three) ; and there can be no question that Ovid 

 would ajijily the same term to the shears of Atropos, 

 or the distaff of Clotho. 



Here, then, is a really recondite meaning, fiiirly 

 traced to Shakspeare's own reading ; for had he 

 borrowed it from any one else, some trace of it 

 would be found, and Warburton need not have 

 stultified himself by his sapient note — " impro- 



TERLT USED FOR THIRD.'" 



But to return to " captious," there is, after all, 

 no such great difference whether it be one's goods, 

 or one's wits, that are taken possession of; or 

 whether the capture be effected by avidity or 

 fraud ; both meanings unite in our own word 

 " caption : " and there seems no good reason why 

 "captious" should not derive from ^'caption," as 

 readily as "cautious" from "caution." It is for 

 the antithesis I contend, as a key to the true sense 

 intended by Sliakspeare : the whole play is full 

 of antitheses, uttered especially by Helena; — and 

 certainly, if we recognise the allusion to the Da- 

 nai'des (as who will not ?), we caiuiot, without 

 depriving it of half its force and beauty, receive 

 "captious" in the sense of " deceptions." The 

 Danaides icere not deceived — the essence of their 

 punishment was utter absence of hope ; Tantalus 

 icas deceived — the essence of /((.$ punishment was 

 hojie ever recurring. 



With respect to the suggestion of "capacious" 

 by W. F- S. (p. 229.), he could not have read 

 Mr. Singer's paper with attention, or he would 

 have perceived that he had been anticipated by 

 Farmer, who, by elision, had obviated the metrical 

 objection of J. S. W. (p. 430.) But the meaning 

 of " capacious" is " capable of containing," and, 

 as such, it would be more than antithetical, it 



