86 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[2-4 S. No 5., Fen, 2.56. 
and again in Zhe Roaring Girl, Act V. Sc. 2., 
p. 553. : 
“ §. Alex. Thou hast rais’d my joy to greater height, 
Than to that seat where grief dejected it.” 
In a note at p. 112. Act I. Se. 1. of The Family of 
Love, Mr. Dyce has “ ask] old ed. ‘axe,’ which 
though the genuine Saxon form of the word, and 
perhaps used here by Middleton, is now consi- 
dered so ludicrous a vulgarism, that I have sub- 
stituted the modern spelling ;” which amounts to 
this, because a form of word that Middleton may 
probably be supposed to have employed, and 
that, it may therefore be inferred, was not ludi- 
crously vulgar in his time, has become so after 
the lapse of two centuries and a half, his genuine 
text is to be corrupted, and a vestige of early 
English to be obliterated by the substitution of a 
form of word that Middleton did not write, in the 
stead of one which there is good reason to believe 
that he did: yet Mr. Dyce retains disgest, he re- 
tains alablaster, and, if I remember right, elsewhere 
takes Mr. Collier to task for discarding “ conster,” 
a form repeatedly employed by Shakspeare, hi 
contemporaries, and predecessors, in favour of 
construe, the form in use at present. This last 
word is written by Sir T. More in the self-same 
sentence, unless I forget myself, no fewer than 
three several ways, namely, conster, constrewe, and 
construe. But obscenity of expression was the 
Targumist’s blasphemous pretext for his marginal 
keri instead of ketiv, as being forsooth a creature 
of cleaner tongue than to read that, which he who 
made the tongue thought it no uncleanness to 
write. Why then should not a supervening and 
adscititious vulgarity in spelling justify editorial 
extrusion of an English author’s word from the 
text in deference to a genteeler orthography ? 
Yet had Jonathan or Onkelos the editing of the 
very wholesomest of our early dramatical compo- 
sitions, the margins under their censorship would 
be sadly blurred, where now they are altogether. 
blank ; and it might fairly be alleged in defence 
of the less squeamish practice, that what is ob- 
scene or indecent calls more loudly for purifica- 
tion than what is ludicrous and vulgar for refine- 
ment; that ribaldry gives juster scandal than 
incivility ; that to polish this and spare that, is to 
strain out a gnat and swallow a camel; not to 
mention that arrogancy less attaches to a proffer 
to cleanse the writings of man than the Scriptures 
of God. But dismissing the particular example, I 
would observe, generally, that displacement of the 
original spelling, on a re-edition of the literary 
products of a former age, by that successively pre- 
valent at later periods — a mischief in the case of 
Shakspeare dating as far back as the times of 
Rowe — has contributed, beyond what is often 
supposed, to the obscuring and misappreciation of 
language and sentiments which, in many instances, 
substantially become obsolete, or at leastwise 
quaint, through tract of years, are thus imbedded 
in literal innovations, that to the reader’s senses 
cancel an interval of centuries, and imperceptibly . 
subject superannuated idioms and thoughts to an 
illusion begotten of the modernised orthography, 
whereby the student contracts unawares a belief 
that he is perusing the familiar literature of his 
own day, and is thereupon led to form his judg- 
ment of clear or obscure, sense or nonsense, cor- 
rupt or incorrupt, by a false measure. Nor is 
this self-abuse alone incident to minds seques- 
‘tered from authentic documents, it is not unex- 
ampled even in such as are daily conversant 
among them’; how otherwise can one account for 
the ridiculous supposal of Mr. Collier, a gentle- 
man whose acquaintance with early English 
admits no question, that “cycles” could be the 
true reading for “shekels” in Measure for Mea- 
sure, because that word in the first folio happens 
to be spelt as it was frequently written by con- 
temporary historians and divines ; and, let me add, 
as it should be still spelt in any faithful edition 
of Shakspeare? Besides, the primitive orthogra- 
phy .of a word, with its subsequent modifications, 
oftentimes furnishes the most trustworthy, or, to 
adopt the barbarous diction of the day, the most 
reliable clue to the detection of typographical 
error, and recovery of the genuine lection. For 
example’s sake, in Macbeth of the first folio we 
find ‘“‘cyme” for the received reading ‘ senna,” 
in the second folio “czny,” in the fourth (the 
third I have never seen) ‘‘senna,” the introduc- 
tion of which last mode of spelling into this place 
of Shakspeare is by Mr. Collier erroneously attri- 
buted to Rowe. The explanation whereof is, 
that what we now write “senna” was first written 
“cene,” and is yet so pronounced by the peasantry, 
next “sene,” then “sena,” and lastly, as at pre- 
sent, “senng.” 
To return again to Middleton. Mr. Dyce's 
next note in the same page is “ overture] i.e. over- 
throw.” This may be true, but surely it ought 
to be confirmed by examples of like usage, not 
merely asserted. 
The Family of Love, Act V. Sc. 3., vol. ii. 
p- 201.: ' 
“ Gli. Here they come; in pain, I warrantthem. How 
works your physic, gallants? Do you go well to the 
ground?” : 
On this last phrase the editor has no comment. 
Did Mr. Dyce understand the meaning, or is it 
not, as I had hitherto supposed it to be, an ex- 
pression confined to Herefordshire? As its pur- 
port is possibly unknown to some readers, I may 
just remark that “ to go to ground” signifies “ to 
cover the feet.” W. R. ArrowsmirTa. 
(To be continued.) 
