SHAKSPEARE READINGS, NO. IX.
"It lies as sightly on the back of him
As great Alcides' shoes upon an ass."—King John, Act II. Sc. 1.
"The ass was to wear the shoes, and not to bear them on his back, as Theobald supposed, and therefore would read shows. The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to by our old poets, as the ex pede Herculem was a familiar allusion of the learned." (Mr. Knight in 1839.)
Fourteen years' additional consideration has not altered Mr. Knight's view of this passage. In 1853 we find him putting forth a prospectus for a new edition of Shakspeare, to be called "The Stratford Edition," various portions from which he sets before the public by way of sample. Here we have over again the same note as above, a little diversified, and placed parallel to Theobald's edition in this way:
"It lies as sightly on the back of him
As great Alcides' shows upon an ass."
| "The folio reads 'Great Alcides' shoes.' Theobald says, 'But why shoes, in the name of propriety? For let Hercules and his shoes have been really as big as they were ever supposed to be, yet they (I mean the shoes) would not have been an overload for an ass.'" | "The 'shoes of Hercules' were as commonly alluded to in our old poets, as the ex pede Herculem was a familiar allusion of the learned. It was not necessary that the ass should be overloaded with the shoes—he might be shod (shoed) with them." |
Now who, in reading these parallel notes, but would suppose that it is Mr. Knight who restores shoes to the text, and that it is Mr. Knight who points out the common allusion by our old poets to the shoes of Hercules? Who would imagine that the substance of this correction of Theobald was written by Steevens a couple of generations back, and that, consequently, Theobald's proposed alteration had never been adopted?
I should not think of pointing out this, but that Mr. Knight himself, in this same prospectus, has taken Mr. Collier to task for the very same thing; that is, for taking credit, in his Notes and Emendations, for all the folio MS. corrections, whether known or unknown, necessary or unnecessary.
Indeed, the very words of Mr. Knight's complaint against Mr. Collier are curiously applicable to himself:
"It requires the most fixed attention to the nice distinctions of such constantly-recurring 'notes and emendations,' to disembarrass the cursory reader from the notion that these are bonâ fide corrections of the common text....
"Who cares to know what errors are corrected in" (the forthcoming Stratford edition), "that exist in no other, and which have never been introduced into the modern text?"—Specimen, &c., p. xxiv.
The impression one would receive from Mr. Knight's note upon Theobald is, that Shakspeare had his notion of the shoes from "our old poets," while the learned had theirs from ex pede Herculem; but where the analogy lies, wherein the point, or what the application, is not explained. Steevens' original note was superior to this, in so much that he quoted the words of these old poets, thereby giving his readers an opportunity of considering the justness of the deduction. The only set-off to this omission by Mr. Knight is the introduction of "ex pede Herculem," the merit of which is doubtless his own.
But it so happens that the size of the foot of Hercules has no more to do with the real point of the allusion than the length of Prester John's; therefore ex pede Herculem is a most unfortunate illustration,—particularly awkward in a specimen sample, the excellence of which may be questioned.
It is singular enough, and it says a great deal for Theobald's common sense, that he saw what the true intention of the allusion must be, although he did not know how to reconcile it with the existing letter of the text. He wished to preserve the spirit by the sacrifice of the letter, while Mr. Knight preserves the letter but misinterprets the spirit.
Theobald's word "shows," in the sense of externals, is very nearly what Shakspeare meant by shoes, except that shoes implies a great deal more than shows,—it implies the assumption of the character as well as the externals of Hercules.
Out of five quotations from our old poets, given by Steevens in the first edition of his note, there is not one in which the shoes are not provided with feet. But Malone, to his immortal honour, was the first to furnish them with hoofs:
"Upon an ass; i.e. upon the hoofs of an ass."—Malone.
But Shakspeare nowhere alludes to feet! His ass most probably had feet, and so had Juvenal's verse (when he talks of his "satyrâ sumente cothurnum"); but neither Shakspeare nor Juvenal dreamed of any necessary connexion between the feet and the shoes.
Therein lies the difference between Shakspeare and "our old poets;" a difference that ought to be sufficient, of itself, to put down the common cry,—that Shakspeare borrowed his allusions from them. If so, how is it that his expositors, with these old poets before their eyes all this time, together with their own scholarship to boot, have so widely mistaken the true point of his allusion? It is precisely because they have confined their researches to these old poets, and have not followed Shakspeare to the fountain head.
There is a passage in Quintilian which, very probably, has been the common source of both Shakspeare's version, and that of the old poets; with this difference, that he understood the original and they did not.
Quintilian is cautioning against the introduction of solemn bombast in trifling affairs:
"To get up," says he, "this sort of pompous tragedy about mean matters, is as though you would dress up children with the mask and buskins of Hercules."
["Nam in parvis quidem litibus has tragœdias movere tale est quale si personam Herculis et cothurnos aptare infantibus velis.">[
Here the addition of the mask proves that the allusion is purely theatrical. The mask and buskins are put for the stage trappings, or properties, of the part of Hercules: of these, one of the items was the lion's skin; and hence the extreme aptitude of the allusion, as applied by the Bastard, in King John, to Austria, who was assuming the importance of Cœur de Lion!
It is interesting to observe how nearly Theobald's plain, homely sense, led him to the necessity of the context. The real points of the allusion can scarcely be expressed in better words than his own:
"Faulconbridge, in his resentment, would say this to Austria, 'That lion's skin which my great father, King Richard, once wore, looks as uncouthly on thy back, as that other noble hide, which was borne by Hercules, would look on the back of an ass!' A double allusion was intended: first, to the fable of the ass in the lion's skin; then Richard I. is finely set in competition with Alcides, as Austria is satirically coupled with the ass."
One step farther, and Theobald would have discovered the true solution: he only required to know that the shoes, by a figure of rhetoric called synecdoche, may stand for the whole character and attributes of Hercules, to have saved himself the trouble of conjecturing an ingenious, though infinitely worse word, as a substitute.
As for subsequent annotators, it must be from the mental preoccupation of this unlucky "ex pede Herculem," that they have so often put their foot in it. They have worked up Alcides' shoe into a sort of antithesis to Cinderella's; and, like Procrustes, they are resolved to stretch everything to fit.
A. E. B.
Leeds.