"O thou dissembling cub, what wilt thou be
When time has sow'd a grizzle on thy case?"
Twelfth Night, Act. V. Sc. 1.
Mr. Singer (Vol. vi., p. 584.) by directing attention to the circumstance of cub being a young fox, has proved, at least to me, that case is the proper word,—a proof, among many, of the hazard of tampering with the text when not palpably wrong.
Cub is the young fox, and fox, vixen, cub are like dog, bitch, whelp,—ram, ewe, lamb, &c. The word is peculiar to the English language, nothing at all resembling it being to be found in the Anglo-Saxon, or any of the kindred dialects. Holland, in his Plutarch (quoted by Richardson), when telling the story of the Spartan boy, says "a little cub, or young fox;" and then uses only cub. It was by analogy that the word was used of the young of bears, lions, and whales: and if Shakspeare in one place (Merchant of Venice, Act II. Sc. 1.) says "cubs of the she-bear," he elsewhere (Titus Andronicus, Act IV. Sc. 1.) has "bear-whelps." I further very much doubt if cub was used of boys in our poet's time. The earliest employment of it that I have seen is in Congreve, who uses "unlicked cubs," evidently alluding to young bears: and that is the sense in which cub is still used,—a sense that would not in any case apply to Viola.
Thos. Keightley.
IMPRECATORY EPITAPHS.
There is a class of epitaphs, or, we should rather say, there are certain instances of monumental indecorum which have not as yet been noticed by the many contributors on these subjects to your pages. I refer to those inscriptions embodying threats, or expressing resentful feelings against the murderers, or supposed murderers, of the deceased individual. Of such epitaphs we have fortunately but few examples in Great Britain; but in Norway, among the Runic monuments of an early and rude age, they are by no means uncommon.