MEANING OF "PRENZIE."
(Vol. iv., pp. 63, 64.)
As your correspondent A. E. B. has endeavoured to strengthen the case in favour of the word precise being the proper reading of "prenzie," will you allow me to suggest a few further points for consideration in inquiring into the meaning of this word?
I am afraid your etymological readers are in danger of being misled by the plausible theory that "prenzie" is not an error of the press or copyist, but a true word. In reference to this view of the case, as taken by your several correspondents, allow me to suggest, first: that Shakspeare was no word-coiner; secondly, that, for application in a passage of such gravity, he would not have been guilty of the affectation of using a newly-imported Scotch word; and, thirdly, that, as we may reasonably infer that he was essentially popular in the choice of words, so he used such as were intelligible to his audience. A word of force and weight sufficient to justify its use twice in the passage in question, if merely popular, would surely not so entirely have gone out of use; whereas if merely literary it would still be to be found in books.
My greatest objection to the word precise is its inharmoniousness in the position it holds in the verse; and this objection would not be removed by adopting Mr. Singer's suggestion of accentuating the first syllable, which must then be short, and the word pronounced pressis? How horrible! Besides, if that were the case, as Shakspeare does not vary in his accent, the corroboratory passage on which the advocates of precise depend would read, then, thus:
"Lord Angelo is pressis,
Stands at a guard with envy, scarce confesses," &c.;
the double ending rhyme giving it the air of burlesque. The appropriateness of precise, moreover, depends chiefly upon its being assumed to express the quality of a precision, which has not only not been proved, but which I am inclined very much to doubt.
Has it not been a true instinct that has guided the early English commentators to the choice of words of the form of "princely," "priestly," and myself to "saintly," and do not the two passages taken together require this form in reference to a character such as that of a prince, a priest, or a saint? For instance, the term pious might be applied to Angelo, equally well with priestly or saintly; but it could not correctly be applied to garb or vestments, while either of the latter could.
In what respect is the "cunning" of the "livery of hell" shown, if "the damnedst body" be not invested in "guards" of the most opposite character? Shakspeare never exactly repeats himself, though we frequently find the same idea varied in form and differently applied. The following passage from Othello, Act II. Sc. 3., appears to be intended to convey the same idea as the one in question, and thus strengthens the opinion that, if not saintly, one of like form and meaning was intended:
"Divinity of hell!