"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, i.e., equivalent, just and the like, the sense being, that the 

 proportion of thanks and payment might have been equal to your 

 deserts." I 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 less, 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 — 



" Cry 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 all 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 j ustification 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 



