Replies.

SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF "CAPTIOUS" AND "INTENIBLE." SHAKSPEARE'S "SMALL LATIN."
(Vol. ii., p. 354.; Vol. iii., p. 65.)

This is another discussion in which Shakspeare's love of antithesis has not been sufficiently recognised.

The contrast in this case is in the ideas—ever receiving, never retaining: an allusion to the hopeless punishment of the Danaïdes, so beautifully appropriate, so unmistakeably apparent, and so well supported in the context, that I should think it unnecessary to offer a comment upon it had the question been raised by a critic less distinguished than MR. SINGER; or if I did not fancy that I perceive the origin of what I believe to be his mistake, in the misreading of another line, the last in his quotation.

The hopelessness of Helena's love is cheerfully endured; she glories in it:

"I know I love in vain—strive against hope—

Yet still outpour the waters of my love,

And lack not to lose still."

This last line MR. SINGER reads, "and fail not to lose still;" but surely that is not Helena's meaning? She means that her spring of love is inexhaustible; that, notwithstanding the constant, hopeless waste, there lacks not (a supply) "to lose still!"

Johnson was one of those commentators enumerated by MR. SINGER, of whom he observes, as a matter of surprise, "that none of them should have remarked that the sense of the Latin 'captiosus,' and of its congeners in Italian and French, is deceitful, fallacious;" "and," he adds, "Bacon uses the word for 'insidious,' 'ensnaring.'" But surely Johnson the commentator was no other than Johnson the lexicographer; and yet, for these precise definitions of "captious," which J. S. W. thinks "too refined and recondite" for Shakspeare's "small Latin," we need apply to no higher source than to that familiar household companion—Johnson's Dictionary, wherein is anticipated the citation of Bacon, and even of the French word "captieux."

It could not therefore be from ignorance that Johnson failed to propose this recondite sense, but from a conviction that it would not represent the true meaning of Shakspeare.

It will be perceived that, in appreciation of "captious," I side with Steevens, Malone, Knight, Collier, and even with J.S.W.; in whom, however, with his irreverent allusion to "a man who had small Latin," I can recognise no true worshipper of Shakspeare.

Why should Shakspeare be constantly twitted with this "small Latin," as if the "school-like gloss" of a hundred Porsons could add one scintilla to the glory of his name? His was the universal language of nature; and well does MR. SINGER remark that "We all know, by intuition as it were, what Shakspeare meant." It is true that we discuss his mere words in the endeavour to school our understandings to HIS level; but he, hedged by the divinity of immeasurable genius, must, himself, be sacred;—to attempt to measure his attainments by our finite estimation, is indeed sacrilege!

In retailing Ben Jonson's unluckily chosen expression, J.S.W. does not seem to be aware that it has been doubted, and ably doubted, by Mr. Knight, in his History of Opinion, that Jonson himself used it by any means in the pedagogue sense usually adopted. And it does seem scarcely credible that Jonson would give utterance to a puff so miserably threadbare, so absurd too on the very face of it; for in what possible way could an alleged deficiency of Greek and Latin in Shakspeare, affect a comparison, made by Jonson, between Shakspeare and the poets of Greece and Rome? As well might it be said that ignorance of the Greek language, in Napoleon Buonaparte, would prevent a parallel between him and Alexander the Great! What if Ben Jonson meant his fifth line to continue the supposition of the first?—"though" is a word which has a hypothetical, as well as an admissive meaning; and there is no difficulty in reading his lines in this way:

"If I thought my judgment were of yours, and though thy learning were less; still I would not seek to compare thee with modern men, but call forth thundering Eschylus," &c.

But I should like to ask J. S. W., as the nearest example from the same play, which does he really think would require the larger Latin,—to discover the trite and only meaning of "captiosus," or to use triple in the sense conferred upon it in Helena's description, to the King, of her father's legacy? We have not at present in the English language any equivalent for that word as Shakspeare used it, and of which he has left us another example in Antony and Cleopatra, where the triumvir is called "the triple pillar of the world." We have failed to take advantage of the lesson given us by our great master, and consequently our language is deprived of what would have been a most convenient acquisition.

It is true that Johnson gives a definition of "triple," in reference to its application to Antony, viz., "consisting of three conjoined;" but that meaning, however it might be applicable to the triumvirate collectively, is certainly not so to the members individually. To meet Shakspeare's use of the word, the definition must be extended to "consisting of, or belonging to, three conjoined:" a sense in which "triplex" was undoubtedly used by the Latins. Ovid would call the triumvirate "viri triplices," and of course each one must be "vir triplex;" but perhaps the clearest instance of the triune application is where he addresses the Fates (in Ibin. 76.) as spinning out "triplici pollice" (with triple thumb) the allotted task. Now as only one of the sisters held the thread, there could be but one individual thumb engaged (although with a sort of reflective ownership to all three); and there can be no question that Ovid would apply the same term to the shears of Atropos, or the distaff of Clotho.

Here, then, is a really recondite meaning, fairly traced to Shakspeare's own reading; for had he borrowed it from any one else, some trace of it would be found, and Warburton need not have stultified himself by his sapient note—"IMPROPERLY USED FOR THIRD!"

But to return to "captious," there is, after all, no such great difference whether it be one's goods, or one's wits, that are taken possession of; or whether the capture be effected by avidity or fraud; both meanings unite in our own word "caption:" and there seems no good reason why "captious" should not derive from "caption," as readily as "cautious" from "caution." It is for the antithesis I contend, as a key to the true sense intended by Shakspeare: the whole play is full of antitheses, uttered especially by Helena;—and certainly, if we recognise the allusion to the Danaïdes (as who will not?), we cannot, without depriving it of half its force and beauty, receive "captious" in the sense of "deceptious." The Danaïdes were not deceived—the essence of their punishment was utter absence of hope; Tantalus was deceived—the essence of his punishment was hope ever recurring.

With respect to the suggestion of "capacious" by W.F.S. (p. 229.), he could not have read MR. SINGER's paper with attention, or he would have perceived that he had been anticipated by Farmer, who, by elision, had obviated the metrical objection of J.S.W. (p. 430.). But the meaning of "capacious" is "capable of containing," and, as such, it would be more than antithetical, it would be contradictory, to "intenible." If capacious be consistent with leaky, then the "uxor secreti capax" must have been rather an unsafe confidante.

A. E. B.

Leeds, June 5. 1851.

EARTH THROWN UPON THE COFFIN.
(Vol. iii., p. 408.)

The origin of this ceremony must undoubtedly be sought in man's natural desire to cover a dead body from the public view. The casting a handful of soil on the coffin is emblematic of the complete inhumation. The most ancient writings have allusions to the shamefulness of a corpse lying uninterred. Being thrown outside the walls of Jerusalem, with the burial of an ass (Jeremiah xxii. 19.), was regarded as the worst possible fate.

Wheatly's observations upon this point, in his annotations on the burial service in the Prayer Book, are as follows:

"The casting earth upon the body was esteemed an act of piety by the very heathens (Ælian, Var. Hist., l. v. c. 14.), insomuch that to find a body unburied, and leave it uncovered, was judged amongst them a great crime (Hor. l. i. od. 28. v. 36.). In the Greek Church this has been accounted so essential to the solemnity, that it is ordered to be done by the priest himself (Goar, Eucholog. Offic. Exeq., p. 538.); and the same was enjoined by our own rubric in the first Common Prayer of King Edward VI.: 'Then the priest casting earth upon the corpse,' &c. But in our present Liturgy (as altered in Queen Elizabeth's reign, 1559), it is only ordered that it 'shall be cast upon the body by some standing by:' and so it is generally left to one of the bearers, or sexton, who, according to Horace's description (injecto ter pulvere, vid. supra), gives three casts of earth upon the body or coffin, whilst the priest pronounces the solemn form which explains the ceremony, viz. 'earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.'"

The note in Horace upon the three words above quoted is very much to the point:

"In sacris hoc genus sepulturæ tradebatur, ut si non obrueretur, manu ter jacta terra, cadaveri pro sepultura esset." (Vet. Schol.)

The ancients thought that the spirit of an unburied corpse could not reach the Elysian fields, but wandered disconsolate by the Styx, until some pious hand paid the customary funeral rites. See the case of Patroclus (Iliad, xxiii. 70, et seq.). To lay the unquiet ghost, a handful of earth on the bodily remains would suffice:

"Pulveris exigui jactu compressa quiescent."

The indignity of a public execution is much aggravated by allowing the body of the criminal to remain exposed, as in the case of the five sons of Saul whose corpses were guarded by Rizpah (2 Sam. xxi.); and in our own recent custom of ordering pirates and the worst kind of murderers, to be gibbeted in chains, as a monumental warning.

Three or four summers ago I buried an Irish reaper, who had suddenly died in the harvest-fields. About half a dozen fellow-labourers, Irish and Roman Catholics like himself, bore him to the grave. At the words earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, they threw in handfuls of soil; and, as soon as the service was over, they filled up the grave with spades which they had brought for the purpose. No doubt, there was religious prejudice in all this; but their behaviour was most reverent, and what they did seemed to arise from the generous instinct to cover the dead body of a comrade.

ALFRED GATTY.

Wheatly on the Common Prayer (ch. xii. §5.) derives this custom from the ancients, and adds that—

"In the Greek Church, the casting earth upon the body has been accounted so essential to the solemnity, that it is ordered to be done by the priest himself. And the same was enjoined by our own rubric in the first Common Prayer of King Edward VI."

For the Greek Church Wheatly refers to Goar Rituale Græcorum, p. 538. The passage, which I transcribe from Goar, runs as follows:—

"Et cadaver in monumento deponitur. Sacerdos vero terram batillo tollens superinjecit cadaveri, dicens, 'Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus: orbis terrarum et qui habitant in eo.' His peractis cadaveri superinfundunt lampadis oleum, aut e thuribulo cinerem. Atque ita ut moris est, sepulchrum operiunt dum dicuntur moduli," &c.

The following reference may also be added, Goar, 556., "Officium funeris monachorum," where the earth is directed to be thrown "in crucis modum."

N. E. R. (a Subscriber.)

ON THE WORD "PRENZIE" IN "MEASURE FOR MEASURE."
(Vol. iii., p. 401.)

"The first folio," says Dr. Johnson, "has in both places prenzie, from which the other folios made princely, and every editor may make what he can." It will not be difficult, I conceive, to find out what sense Shakspeare meant to convey by this word, and to show that what he meant he has expressed with sufficient accuracy, though his meaning was soon after misunderstood. Our language owes much of its wealth of words to the talent which our great poet possessed for coining them—a talent which he exercised with marvelous tact: and if now and then some of them failed for want of being properly printed, we may rather wonder that so many obtained currency, than that a few ceased to circulate soon after they were first introduced.

The idea intended to be conveyed by the word prenzie, is that which is expressed in the following passages:

"All this I speak in print; for in print I found it."

Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act II. Sc. I.

"I will do it, Sir, in print."

Love's Labour's Lost, Act III. Sc. I.

on which Steevens remarks:

"In print means with Exactness—with the utmost Nicety."

He supports this meaning by quotations from other dramatic writers of the same age:

"Not a hair about his Bulk, but it stands in print." (1605)

"I am sure my husband is a Man in print, in all things else." (1635.)

When, therefore, Claudio, who, as your correspondent LEGES observes, is aware of Angelo's reputation for sanctity, exclaims in astonishment:

"The prenzie Angelo?"

he means the same as if he had said:

"What! that Man in print?"

"The printsy Angelo?"

But prenzie is a term applied to apparel as well us to character; and how does this accord with the interpretation here given?

"O 'tis the cunning livery of hell,

The damned'st body to invest and cover

In prenzie guards!"

Here again we are supplied by Steevens with apt quotations in illustration from other writers of the same age:

"Next, your Ruff must stand in print." (1602.)

and

"This Doublet sits in print, my Lord!" (1612.)

"In printsy guards" means the same, therefore, as "Guards in print," or, robes put on "with exactness—with the utmost nicety."

Printsy is a word of the same formation with tricksy; and the phrase, "The printsy Angelo!" is as good English as "My tricksy Ariel!" It was probably pronounced prentsy (prenzie) in the time of Shakspeare; the word print being derived from empreinte. Sir W. Scott speaks of "a prent book," for a printed book. Besprent is the participle of besprinkle. Of similar formation with printsy and tricksy, are linsy, woolsy, and frowsy; but as all these adjectives, except the first, are derived from nouns representing natural or familiar things, while printsy is founded on a word having no connexion with any obvious idea, it is probable that this difference may account for the fact that printsy so early fell into disuse, while the rest were retained without difficulty.

By the word printsy, those four conditions are fulfilled for which your correspondent so properly contends:—1. the word is "suitable to the reputed character of Angelo." 2. It is "an appropriate epithet to the word guards." 3. It supplies "the proper metre in both places." 4. It is "similar in appearance to the word prenzie."

No other word has been produced which so fully represents the formality and hypocrisy of Angelo, as described in the quotations so conveniently brought into one view by your correspondent, though one of the epithets made use of comes very near the mark: "Lord Angelo is precise!"

JOHN TAYLOR.

ZACHARIE BOYD.
(Vol. i., pp. 298. 372. 406.)

I would refer your correspondents H. B., H. I. (p. 372.), and PHILOBODIUS and MR. JERDAN (p. 406.), to the following volumes: The Last Battle of the Soule in Death, by Mr. Zacharie Boyd, Preacher of God's Word in Glasgow, edited by Gabriel Neil, Glasgow, 1831; McUre's History of Glasgow, with Appendix, Glasgow, 1830.

As the first of these vols. is now very scarce (a limited number being printed by subscription), the following extracts may be interesting to some of your readers, and at the same time correct some errors of our correspondents:—

"Mr. Zacharie Boyd was descended from the family of the Boyds of Pinkill (Carrick, Ayrshire). He was cousin to Mr. Robert Boyd, of Trochrigg, who was appointed Principal of the University of Glasgow in 1615. The date of his birth is not exactly known; some time previous to 1590. He received his education at the school of Kilmarnock. The first notice we have of him is in a letter to Principal Boyd, from David Boyd, in 1605, wherein he says, 'There is a friend of yours, Zacharie Boyd, who will pass his course at the colledge within two years.' After having finished his course at the University of Glasgow, he studied at the College of Saumur, in France, under his relation, Robert Boyd: he returned to his native county in 1621. In 1623 he was ordained Minister of the Barony Parish of Glasgow, in which situation he continued till his death in 1653-1654."

Mr. Zacharie Boyd was never Principal or a Professor in Glasgow College: the only office he ever held in the college was that of Lord Rector (an honorary office annually elected), which he held in the years 1634, 1635, 1645. He was a great benefactor to the college, to which he left 20,000l. Scots, for buildings and bursaries.

The crypt below Glasgow Cathedral, called St. Mungo's Crypt, was the barony church in Zacharie's time, and where he preached; it is this same place which Sir Walter Scott so well describes in Rob Roy (vol. ii. chap. 3., edition in 48 vols.), where Francis Osbaldistone heard sermon. Z. Boyd was, both in prose and verse, a very voluminous writer; his works, however, are chiefly in MS. in the library of Glasgow College.

In addition to editing The Last Battle, Mr. Neil has examined the "Poetical Works" in MS.; and has given a summary of the whole in the Appendix to the Biographical Sketch; and has printed for the first time upwards of 3000 lines from the poetical MSS.

With regard to Mr. Boyd's poetry, the following account from Neil's Biographical Sketch may be accounted satisfactory, with reference to the lines often quoted as from Zacharie Boyd's Bible:

"The work, however, which has given the greatest public notoriety to his name as a poetical writer, is that generally called 'Zacharie Boyd's Bible,' said to be a metrical version of the whole Scriptures—an arduous task indeed, if ever he contemplated the undertaking. But such a book as this has existed only in name, not in reality; at least, it is nowhere to be found among his works. The only one approaching to it is a metrical version of the 'Four Evangels,' which proceeds through the Gospels of the New Testament by chapter and verse.... And, among other works, he produced two volumes under the title of 'Zion's Flowers,' and it is these which are usually shown as his Bible, and have received that designation. These volumes consist of a collection of Poems from select subjects in Scripture History, such as Jonah, Jephtha, David and Goliath, &c., &c., rendered into the dramatic form, in which various 'Speakers' are introduced, and where the prominent parts of the Scripture narrative are brought forward and amplified. We have a pretty close parallel to these in the 'Ancient Mysteries' of the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries, and in the Sacred Dramas of more modern writers.

"It is from this work, Zion's Flowers, that the various quotations which have occasioned so much mirth to the public are said to have been made, but not one of these which are in circulation are to be found there: the only 'genuine extract from these MSS. is that printed by Pennant.'"—Biog. Sketch, p. 14. et seq.

The "genuine extract" will be found in Pennant's Tour in Scotland, vol. ii. p. 156.

PHILOBODIUS, "NOTES AND QUERIES," Vol. i., p. 406., will find the four lines he quotes given differently there.

S. WMSON.

P.S. To show the extent of Mr. Boyd's poetical perseverance, I subjoin a note of the contents of one of his poetical MSS.:—the Flowers of Zion, generally called Zacharie Boyd's Bible.

David and Goliath contains about 850lines.
Historie of Jonah 1130"
—— of Samson 2100"
—— of Jephtha 720"
The Flood of Noah 860"
The Tower of Babylon 930"
The Destruction of Sodom 2000"
Abram commanded to sacrifice Isaac 840"
Historie of the Baptist 800"
The Fall of Adam 900"
Abel murdered 900"
Pharaoh's Tyranny and Death 2480"
Historie of Jacob and Esau 750"
—— of Jacob and Laban 1400"
Jacob and Esau reconciled 720"
Dinah ravished by Shechem 440"
Joseph and his Brethren}1615"
Joseph tempted to Adultery
Nebuchadnezzar's Fierie Furnace 3280"
Also at the end—
The World's Vanities (Divided into 8 Branches:—1st. Strength, 2nd. Honour, 3rd. Riches,4th. Beautie,5th. Pleasure, 6th. Wisdom, 7th. Children, 8th. Long Life) contains about 550lines.
The Popish Powder Plot (The Speakers—Christ—King James—Elizabeth—Peeres of England—The Lords appointed to trye the Traitors—The Earls of Nottingham, Suffolke, the Lord Monteagle—The Sherriffe of Worcester—The Devill—the Jesuit Gerrard—Robert Catesby—Thomas Percy, Guy Faux, &c. &c. &c.) contains about 1560lines.