February 1, 1901.1 



KNOWLEDGE. 



31 



MRS. QUICKLVS 

 "TABLE OF GREEN FIELDS." 



llV the KCV. 1). K. FoTlIElil.NL.llAM, MA. (CANTAli). 



O.NE of the ple<isuies of life in ;i remote Highland 

 village is to take down my old volumes of Knowledge, 

 and tiu-n over the sparkling pages of Mr. Proetor's 

 eouductoi-ship. While oceupied thus a short time ago, 

 my attenUon was struck by an artielo bearing the 

 pseudonym of MaJvolio, and dealing with the text of 

 Shakspcre. An inexhaustible subject truly ! For 

 whether it be true or not that the llucnt bard scarce 

 effaced a line, yet the critics and commentators of three 

 centuries have done their worst, effacing, blotting, blur- 

 ring, adding, correcting, altering, spoiling, until in many 

 cases the original text seems to be hopelessly lost be- 

 neath the load of conjectural emendation. True lovers 

 of English literatui'e cannot but protest against this 

 treatment of the poet's work, and there is a growing 

 desire among them to retui-u to the original folio editions 

 of the plays, rather than yield further acceptance to 

 the corruptions introduced by successive editors. 



That the folio te.xt of Shakspcre is sometimes in- 

 correct and requires emendation may be readily granted : 

 but it is unhappily true that many alterations have 

 been made in pui-e wantonness of spirit, and have no 

 justificAtiou whatever. One may i-ecollect, for instance, 

 how Hamlet is addressed by the courtiea- Osric as " yoiu- 

 friendship.' Osric is a Euphuist, and delights in the 

 use of strange and affected language. But when the 

 clumsy pen of an undisceming editor has altered 

 '■ friendship ' to '' loi-dship,*' poor Osric's character is 

 gcme for ever, and he is nothing more than a common- 

 place young man, who might almost be mistaken for 

 sensible. 



An instance of still worse emendation might be cited 

 from Julius Cssar. It will be remembered that before 

 his assassination the conspirators approach him with a 

 petition, and each of them kneels in order to present 

 it, Caesar protesting the while and bidding them rise. 

 Cinna falling at his feet is repulsed with " Hence ! wilt 

 thou lift up Olympus ■ " Immediately afterwards Decius 

 Brutus kneels, and is more kindly met with, " Do not, 

 Brutus, bootless kneel.'' All this is simple enough. It 

 happens, however, that there is another Brutus on the 

 stage, the famous Marcus Brutus, and there is no 

 direction to indicate whether he is kneeling or not, 

 though the previous language makes it probable that 

 he is. Editors, however, have generally supposed him 

 to be still standing, and taking Cassar's words as 

 addressed to him (very absurdly, one cannot help think- 

 ing), they have ventui-ed to jilter " do '' into " doth," 

 and to add a mark of interrogation at the end. It will 

 surely be agreed that in this Ccise there is no need for 

 any alteration whatever, and that the altei'atioii 

 actually made is vastly inferior to the original reading 

 of the folio. 



These two instances have been deliberately chosen 

 from many hundreds, as representing different classes 

 of passages to which conjectm-e has been applied. In 

 the one case Osric's own language, like Mrs. Malaprop s, 

 tempts us to correct him ; though only a dull wit should 

 yield to such temptation. But the other is an example 

 of editorial licentiousness that cannot be too strongly 

 condemned. 



But the most famous of all critical conjectures applied 

 to the text of Shakspere is Theobald's correction of the 

 hostess' language (she is known to us as Mrs. Quickly, 

 though now married to Pistol) in describing the death 



of Sir John Falstaff. The folio rciids : — 



Aftor I saw him fumblo with t)ie slieets aiul pUiy with llower^ 

 auj smile 11)100 liis fiugor's end, I knew there was but one way ; 

 for his nose was as sharp as a jien and a table of gteeu fields. 

 " Ilownow, Sir John!" quuth I, &c. (King Henry the I'lfth, II. 3). 



The reading is sufficiently surprising as it stands. 

 That Falstaff's nose might look as pointed as a pen is 

 not impossible. Indeed, such a sharpening of the noso 

 was then looked for as a sign of approaching death. 

 But the table of green fields is loo outrageous a com- 

 par'ison, even for Hostess Quickly. Here, if ever, is a 

 case where conjecture seems legitimate, or even neces- 

 sary, and one editor at least has risen to the occasion 

 with a poetical instinct that is far from common among 

 critics generally. 



Let us deal with the bad alterations first. In 

 Staunton's opinion they need only be mentioned to bo 

 laughed at. But at all events Mrs. Quickly (or Pistol) 

 is a comic chaa-aicter, and laughter will not be out of 

 place. For " and a table of green fields," then we aro 

 invited respectively to read " in a table of green fields," 

 " on a table of green frieze," and " or as stubble 011 

 shorn fields." Only the last of these makes any im- 

 provement in the simile, but the conjecture is too bold 

 to have a place in legitimate criticism. Even bolder, 

 however, was Pope's treatment of the passage, and it 

 is right to give it in his own words : "' A table was 

 here directed to be brought in, and this direction crept 

 into the text from the margin. Greenfield was the name 

 of the property man in that time who furnished imple- 

 ments for the actors. A table of Greenfield's." Pope's 

 suggestion must stand or fall by its own merits, for 

 comment is superfluous. 



Better, however, is forthcoming. These suggestions 

 may be left to .speak for themselves and provide merri- 

 ment for Staunton's followers, while we pass on to the 

 conjecture now generally received. Some xmknown 

 gentleman in the early part of the seventecntli century 

 had altered " table " to " talked," and left a manuscript 

 note in the margin of his Shakspere. This note caught 

 Theobald's eye, and with admirable instinct he corrected 

 " talked " to " babbled," thus reading " and a' babbled 

 of green fields." We thus get a complete and beautiful 

 picture of Sir John's last moments, and may well feel pity 

 for the poor knight, fumbling with the sheets, playing 

 with flowers, smiling on his finger's end, while his 

 thoughts turned from that sordid Eastcheap inn to the 

 far off country " and a' babbled of green fields." 



The trouble is that the emendation is a great deal too 

 poetical. It is not in keeping with Mistress Quickly 's 

 character, however much that character may have beeiL 

 etherealized by Pistol's companionship. We have not 

 to deal with Sir John's '' finer end " so much as with 

 her recollection and description of it ; and even if tho 

 knight's thoughts had been sufficiently purified by the 

 ajiproach of death to take delight in rustic scenes, sho 

 was hardly the woman to notice it. She was kindly 

 enough in her way, and could " lay more clothes on his 

 feet" when he wanted them, or call in his friends to 

 witness his burning " quotidian tertian," or essay, to 

 comfort him (knowing him to be at the point of death) 

 by bidding him " not think of God, for there was no 

 need to trouble himself with any such thoughts yet." 

 Her religious character is further manifested by the 

 reflection that Sir John is now in Arthur's bosom, and 

 that the incarnation of devils would give them an 

 objectionable colour. She remembers too that ho was 

 rheumatic (accent on the first syllable), and, therefore, 

 unaccountable for his words, and that he cried out of 

 sack, and talked of the whore of Babylon. But she is 



