SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE.

Zachariah Jackson.—"N. & Q." will not, I am sure, refuse to give his due to Zachariah Jackson, the author of Shakspeare's Genius Justified, by showing to how great an extent the conjectures of Jackson had, by thirty-four years, anticipated the Notes and Emendations. I subjoin a list of the old corrector's emendations, which are also found in Jackson's work:

Play.Text.Emendation.Page in
Collier.		Page in
Jackson.
Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act II. Sc. 1."In telling her mind.""In telling you her mind."18.9.
Merry Wives of Windsor, Act I. Sc. 3."She carves.""She craves."30.17.
Measure for Measure, Act I. Sc. 3."Propagation of a dower.""Procuration of a dower."43.39.
Ditto Ditto Act III. Sc. 2."What say'st thou, trot?""What say'st thou, troth?"49.44.
Taming of the Shrew, Act IV. Sc. 4."Except they are busied.""Except while they are busied."152.127.
All's Well that Ends Well, Act III. Sc. 1."Happiness and prime.""Happiness in prime."159.89.
Twelfth Night, Act V. Sc. 1."Then cam'st in smiling.""Thou cam'st in smiling."181.31.
Winter's Tale, Act IV. Sc. 3."So attir'd, sworn.""So attir'd, so worn."192.142.
Henry V., Act V. Sc. 2."Untempering effect.""Untempting effect."264.229.

Besides these nine verbatim coincidences, the following four are very approximate.

Taming of the Shrew, Induction, Sc. 2:

Folios.—"And when he says he is, say that he dreams."

Collier MS.—"When he says what he is, say that he dreams."—Notes and Emendations, p. 142.

Jackson.—"And what he says he is, say that he dreams."—Restorations and Illustrations, p. 114.

Taming of the Shrew, Act II. Sc. 1.:

Folios.—"No such jade, Sir, as you, if me you mean."

Collier MS.—"No such jade to bear you, if me you mean."—Notes and Emendations, p. 147.

Jackson.—"No such jade as you,—bear! if me you mean."—Restorations and Illustrations, p. 119.

1 Henry VI., Act V. Sc. 3.:

Folios.—"Confounds the tongue, and makes the senses rough."

Collier MS.—"Confounds the tongue, and mocks the sense of touch."—Notes and Emendations, p. 276.

Jackson.—"Confounds the tongue, and makes the senses touch."—Restorations and Illustrations, p. 233.

Cymbeline, Act III. Sc. 4.:

Folios.— ... "Some jay of Italy, Whose mother was her painting, hath betray'd him."

Collier MS.—"Who smothers her with painting, hath betray'd him."—Notes and Emendations, p. 495.

Jackson.—"Who smoother was: her painting hath betray'd him."—Restorations and Illustrations, p. 375.

Besides these four emendations, which at any rate are very suggestive of those in Mr. Collier's folio, I beg to call attention to Jackson's defence of Theobald's (and his own) proposition to read untread for unthread, in King John, Act V. Sc. 4., which is strikingly like Mr. Collier's defence of the same reading in the margin of the Folio 1632. The whole of Jackson's notes on King John are well worth reading. I beg to mention two of these, as illustrations of old Jackson's acuteness, when not under the warping influence of the cacoëthes emendandi. His defence of untrimmed bride, in Act II. Sc. 1., is most convincing. He says,—

"Constance stimulates [Lewis] to stand fast to his purpose, and not to let the devil tempt him, in the likeness of an untrimmed bride, to waver in his determination; for that the influence of the Holy See would strip King John of his present royalty. Where then would be the great dowry Lewis was to receive with his wife? At present he has only the promise of five provinces, and 30,000 marks of English coin; therefore as the dowry has not been paid, Blanche is still an untrimmed bride."—Recollections and Illustrations, p. 179.

His note on the use of invisible, in Act V. Sc. 7., is also excellent:

"Death having prayed upon the reduced body of the king, quits it, and now invisible, has laid siege to the mind."

I have elsewhere stated my opinion that "all Jackson's emendations are bad." I should have added that some few are very plausible and specious, and worthy of consideration. I will mention one in King John, Act IV. Sc. 2. Pembroke says,—

"If, what in rest you have, in right you hold," &c.

Now, rest and right are no antithesis, nor are they allied in meaning. Jackson inserts a t' between in and rest—

"If, what int'rest you have in right you hold," &c.—

which he supports by admirable parallels from the same play. I will cite one more example of Jackson's sagacity, from his notes on 1 Henry IV., Act I. Sc. 3. Hotspur says,—

"Never did bare and rotten policy," &c.

Jackson reads,—

"Never did barren rotten policy," &c.

Mr. Collier never once refers to Jackson. Mr. Singer, however, talks familiarly about Jackson, in his Shakspeare Vindicated, as if he had him at his fingers' ends; and yet, at page 239., he favours the world with an original emendation (viz. "He did behood his anger," Timon, Act III. Sc. 1.), which, however, will be found at page 389. of Jackson's book. I may be in error, but I cannot but think such ignorance, on the part of professional Shakspearians, very culpable.

C. Mansfield Ingleby.

Birmingham.

On Three Passages in "Measure for Measure."—I have to crave a small space in your columns, which have already done much good service for the text of Shakspeare, to make a very few remarks on three passages in the play of Measure for Measure. It is no sweeping change of reading that I am about to advocate, nor, as I think, anything over ingenious; inasmuch as, in two of the passages in question, I propose to defend the reading of the first folio, which, I contend, has been departed from unnecessarily; while, in the third, I suggest the simple change of an f into an s.

In Act II. Sc. 4., these lines occur in Angelo's soliloquy, in my folio of 1623:

"The state whereon I studied

Is like a good thing, being often read,

Growne feard and tedious."

Mr. Knight, and other editors, read feard, as in the original, but give no explanation; though such a strange epithet would seem to require one. I propose to read seared, i.e. dry, the opposite of fresh. This, as the saying is, "requires," I think, "only to be pointed out to be admitted."

Lower down in the same scene we find the following passage, in one of Angelo's addresses to Isabel:

"Such a person,

Whose creadit with the judge, or owne great place,

Could fetch your brother from the manacles

Of the all-building law."

The word building has always been a stumbling-block to editors. Johnson first proposed to read binding, and his successors have adopted it, and such is now the generally received reading. Mr. Collier's old corrector is also in favour of the same change. I have always felt convinced, however, that building was the word which Shakspeare wrote. That which answers to it in the A.-S. is bytling, bytleing, a building; bytlian, to build; which are inflected from byth, biotul, a hammer or mallet (whence our beetle); so that the strict meaning of the verb is firmare, confirmare, to fasten, close, or bind together. This will give much the same meaning to building as that implied in the proposed substitute binding.

Not having met with the word used in this peculiar sense by any old writer, I could not venture to maintain the reading of the folio on these grounds, which I have just mentioned, alone. At length, however, I have been successful, and I am now able to quote a passage from a work published very shortly before this play, entitled:

"The Jewel House of Art and Nature", &c., "faithfully and familiarly set downe according to the Author's owne experience, by Hugh Platte, of Lincoln's Inne, gentleman. London, 1594."

in which this word building is used in precisely the same sense as that which I defend. In "the Preface of the Author," the following passage occurs:

"I made a condicionall promise of some farther discouerie in arteficiall conceipts, then either my health or leisure would then permit: I am now resolued (notwithstanding the vnkind acceptation of my first fruits, which then I feared and hath since falne out, is a sufficient release in law of the condition) to make the same in some sort absolute (though not altogether according to the fulnesse of my first purpose), and to become a building word unto me."

I apprehend that this parallel instance is all that is wanting to preserve, for the future, the reading of the first folio unimpaired.

The third passage on which I have a remark to offer, is that much tormented one in Act III. Sc. 1., which stands in my first folio thus:

"Cla. The prenzie, Angelo?

Isa. Oh, 'tis the cunning liuerie of hell,

The damnest bodie to inuest, and couer

In prenzie gardes."

I need not say a word about the various suggestions of primzie, priestly, princely, precise, &c., which have appeared from time to time; my business is solely with the original word in the first folio. I have always felt sure that this is none other than the poet's own word, and no error of the printer; for how could it be possible to make a gross mistake in a word which occurs twice within four lines, and one, moreover, so unusual; the printer must surely have been able to decipher the letters from one of the two written specimens. It will be observed that there is a comma after prenzie in the original, indicating that the word is a substantive, not an adjective. Now what is the Italian for a prince? Not only principe, but also prenze; and in like manner we find principessa and prenzessa. I have no doubt that what Shakspeare did write was—

"The prenzie, Angelo?"

while a little lower down he converted the word into an adjective:

"To inuest and couer

In prenzie gardes."

It is obvious to remark that this meaning of prenzie exactly fits the sense: Angelo was a prince, and he was clad in robes of office, adorned with princely "gardes," or trappings. Shakspeare, no doubt, was very well acquainted with Italian tales and poems; the word may have become quite familiar to him. His intention here, in putting the term in question into Claudio's mouth, may have been to give an Italian character to the scene, introducing thus the local term of dignity of the deputy; thus recalling the audience, by the occurrence of a single word, to the scene of the plot; for though this is said to be in Vienna, yet it is to be observed that not a name throughout the play is German, everything is Italian. And let it not be objected that the use of this word involves an obscurity which Shakspeare would have avoided; we are hardly able to judge, now-a-days, whether a particular word was obscure or not in his time: at all events, there would be no difficulty in adducing instances of what we should call more obscure allusions, and I think there can be little doubt that the well-educated in those days well understood the Italian prenze to mean a prince.

H. C. K.

—— Rectory, Hereford.

"Hamlet" and G. Steevens.—In Act I. Sc. 4., Horatio asks Hamlet "What does this mean, my Lord?" (The noise of music within). Hamlet replies:

"The king doth wake to-night, and takes his rouse,

Keeps wassel, and the swaggering up-spring reels."

G. Steevens, in a note of this passage, says: "The swaggering up-spring was a German dance." Is not the allusion directed to the king, whom Hamlet describes as "a swaggering up-spring," or "upstart?" Should not the line—

"O horrible, O horrible, most horrible!"

in the Ghost's narrative in the fifth scene, be given to Hamlet?

James Cornish.

Falmouth.