"Dogberry. A rich fellow enough, go to: and a fellow that hath had losses; and one that hath two gowns, and everything handsome about him."
I can quite sympathise with the indignation of some of my cotemporaries at the alteration by Mr. Payne Collier's mysterious corrector, of "losses" into "leases." I am sorry to see a reading which we had cherished without any misgiving as a bit of Shaksperian quaintness, and consecrated by the humour of Gray and Charles Lamb, turned into a clumsy misprint. But we must look at real probabilities, not at fancies and predilections. I am afraid "leases" is the likelier word. It has also a special fitness, which has not been hitherto remarked. Many of the wealthy people of Elizabeth's reign, particularly in the middle class, were "fellows that had had leases." It will be recollected that extravagant leases or fines were among the methods by which the possessions of the church were so grievously dilapidated in the age of the Reformation. Those who had a little money to invest, could not do so on more advantageous terms than by obtaining such leases as the necessity or avarice of clerical and other corporations induced them to grant; and the coincident fall in the value of money increased the gain of the lessees, and loss of the corporations, to an extraordinary amount. Throughout Elizabeth's reign parliament was at work in restraining this abuse, by the well-known "disabling acts," restricting the power of bishops and corporations to lease their property. The last was passed, I think, only in 1601. And therefore a "rich fellow" of Dogberry's class was described, to the thorough comprehension and enjoyment of an audience of that day, as one who "had had leases."
Scrutator.
May I be allowed a little space in the pages of "N. & Q." to draw Mr. Collier's attention to some passages in which the old corrector appears to me to have corrupted, rather than improved, the text? Possibly on second thoughts Mr. Collier may be induced to withdraw these readings from the text of his forthcoming edition of our great poet. I give the pages of Mr. Collier's recent volume, and quote according to the old corrector.
Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act II. Sc. 2., p. 21.:
"That I, unworthy body, as I can,
Should censure thus a loving gentleman."
Can for am spoils the sense; it was introduced unnecessarily to make a perfect rhyme, but such rhymes as am and man were common in Shakspeare's time. Loving for lovely is another modernism; lovely is equivalent to the French aimable. "Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives," &c. The whole passage, which is indeed faulty in the old copies, should, I think, be read thus:
"'Tis a passing shame
That I, unworthy body that I am,