Sh<ib\*/»>triun Criticism. 



green frieze," which is quite a figure of upholstery. (Here let us 

 observe that the conclusive argument in favor of the received emenda- 

 tion seems to have escaped the attention of all the commentators until 

 White. A mere reading of the passage suggests it: "for after I saw 

 him fumble with the sheets mul phuj icilh /lowers, and smile upon his 

 fingers' ends, I knew there was but one way: for his nose was as sharp 

 as a pen, and 'a babbled of green fields." What more natural than to 

 talk of green fields after playing with flowers?) It is hard to believe 

 that Pope was serious when he conjectured that the words were a stage 

 direction for a " supe," by the name of Greenfields, to bring in a table. 



Perhaps the most disputed passage in Shakespeare is " that runa- 

 ways' eyes may wink," in Juliet's soliloquy, where she is longing for 

 the approach of night and her husband, that "Romeo may leap to 

 these arms untalked of and unseen." Who or what is " runaway ? " 

 Those commentators who preserve the word have different explana- 

 tions, some supposing it to mean Cupid, a runaway from Venus, while 

 others suppose it to mean the sun, Phaeton, the night, watchmen, or 

 Juliet herself. Others think it means vagabonds or tramps. Others 

 would read "enemies," "runagates," "unawares," " renomy's," 



"Luna's," "yonder," "runaway spies," "soon day's," "curious," 

 "envious," "ribald," "Uranus'," " no man's," "Cynthia's," "sunny 

 day's," "sun awake's," "sun away," "sun aweary," "rude day's," 

 while one imaginative person, having the legend of Godiva in mind, 

 would read, "no man's eyes may peep;" and the climax is capped by 

 one, who reading " runaways'," explains it by referring to boys who at 

 night tie a cat or a dog to a door-knocker, and then run away. Here 

 are thirty-three different explanations, and the conjectures cover 

 twenty-eight large pages in fine type in Mr. Furness' new edition. A 

 number of these conjectures may be easily set aside. The most in- 

 genious one, Cupid, is disposed ot by the reflection that he is usually 

 represented blind, and therefore his eyes would always wink. In this 

 very context Shakespeare speaks of "blind love:*' in Cymbeline he 

 speaks of the images of two "winking Cupids; " and he makes Mer- 

 cutio speak of "Venus' purblind son aiid heir," and the "blind bow 

 boy." If Cupid could see, then, as Mr. White observes, the marriage 

 night would be the very occasion when he would be and would be 

 desired to be wide-awake. No inanimate object will answer, because 

 Romeo's coming was thus to be " untalked cf " as well as " unseen." 

 " Enemies' eyes " will not serve, because friends' eyes would be just as 

 objectionable. Juliet would certainly not have wished her own eyes to 

 wink on this occasion. There is some plausibility in calling watch- 



