(_Continued from_ Vol. vii., p. 568.)
Not being minded to broach any fresh matter in "N. & Q.," I shall now only
crave room to clear off an old score, lest I should leave myself open to
the imputation of having cast that in the teeth of a numerous body of men
which might, for aught they would know to the contrary, be as truly laid in
my own dish. In No. 189., p. 567., I affirmed that the handling of a
passage in _Cymbeline_, there quoted, had betrayed an amount of obtuseness
in the commentators which would be discreditable in a third-form schoolboy.
To substantiate that assertion, and rescue the disputed word "Britaine"
henceforth for ever from the rash tampering of the meddlesome sciolist, I
beg to advertise the ingenuous reader that the clause,--
"For being now a favourer to the Britaine,"
is in apposition with _Death_, not with Posthumus Leonatus. In a note
appended to this censure, referring to another passage from L. L. L., I
averred that MR. COLLIER had corrupted it by chancing the singular verb
_dies_ into the plural _die_ (this too done, under plea of editorial
licence, without warning to the reader), and that such corruption had
abstracted the true key to the right construction. To make good this last
position, two things I must do first, cite the whole passage, without
change of letter or tittle, as it stands in the Folios '23 and '32; next,
show the trivial and vulgar use of "contents" as a singular noun. In Folio
'23, thus:
"_Qu._ Nay my good Lord, let me ore-rule you now;
That sport best pleases that doth least know how.
Where Zeale striues to content, and the contents
Dies in the Zeale of that which it presents:
Their forme confounded, makes most forme in mirth
When great things labouring perish in their birth."
Act IV. p. 141.
With this the Folio '32 exactly corresponds, save that the speaker is
_Prin._, not _Qu_.; _ore-rules_ is written as two words without the hyphen,
and _strives_ for _striues_. I have been thus precise, because criticism is
to me not "a game," nor admissive of cogging and falsification.
I must now show the hackneyed use of _contents_ as a singular noun. An
anonymous correspondent of "N. & Q." has already pointed out one in
_Measure for Measure_, Act IV. Sc. 2.:
"_Duke_. The _contents_ of this is the returne of the Duke."
Another:
"This is the _contents_ thereof."--Calvin's 82nd _Sermon upon Job_, p.
419., Golding's translation.
Another:
"After this were articles of peace propounded, y^e _contents_ wherof
was, that he should departe out of Asia."--The 31st _Booke of Justine_,
fol. 139., Golding's translation of Justin's _Trogus Pompeius_.
Another:
"Plinie writeth hereof an excellent letter, the _contents_ whereof is,
that this ladie, mistrusting her husband, was condemned to die,"
&c.--_Historicall Meditations_, lib. iii. chap. xi. p. 178. Written in
Latin by P. Camerarius, and done into English by John Molle, Esq.:
London, 1621.
Another:
"The _contents_ whereof is this."--_Id._, lib. v. chap. vi. p. 342.
Another:
"Therefore George, being led with an heroicall disdaine, and
nevertheless giuing the bridle beyond moderation to his anger,
vnderstanding that Albert was come to Newstad, resolued with himselfe
(without acquainting any bodie) to write a letter vnto him, the
_contents_ whereof was," &c.--_Id._, lib. v. chap. xii. p. 366.
If the reader wants more examples, let him give himself the trouble to open
the first book that comes to hand, and I dare say the perusal of a dozen
pages will supply some; yet have we two editors of Shakspeare, Johnson and
Collier, so unacquainted with the usage of their own tongue, and the
universal logic of thought, as not to know that a word like _contents_,
according as it is understood collectively or distributively, may be, and,
as we have just seen, in fact is, treated as a singular or plural; that, I
say, _contents_ taken severally, every _content_, or in gross, the whole
mass, is respectively plural or singular. It was therefore optional with
Shakspeare to employ the word either as a singular or plural, but not in
the same sentence to do both: here, however, he was tied {121} to the
singular, for, wanting a rhyme to _contents_, the nominative to _presents_
must be singular, and that nominative was the pronoun of _contents_. Since,
therefore, the plural _die_ and the singular _it_ could not both be
referable to the same noun _contents_, by silently substituting _die_ for
_dies_, MR. COLLIER has blinded his reader and wronged his author. The
purport of the passage amounts to this: the _contents_, or structure (to
wit, of the show to be exhibited), breaks down in the performer's zeal to
the subject which it presents. Johnson very properly adduces a much happier
expression of the same thought from _A Midsummer Night's Dreame_:
"_Hip._ I love not to see wretchedness o'ercharged;
And duty in his service perishing."
The reader cannot fail to have observed the faultless punctuation of the
Folios in the forecited passage, and I think concur with me, that like
many, ay, most others, all it craves at the hands of editors and
commentators is, to be left alone. The last two lines ask for no
explanation even to the blankest mind. Words like _contents_ are by no
means rare in English. We have _tidings_ and _news_, both singular and
plural. MR. COLLIER himself rebukes Malone for his ignorance of such usage
of the latter word. If it be said that these two examples have no singular
form, whereas _contents_ has, there is _means_, at any rate precisely
analogous. On the other hand, so capricious is language, in defiance of the
logic of thought, we have, if I may so term it, a merely auricular plural,
in the word _corpse_ referred to a single carcase.
I should here close my account with "N. & Q." were it not that I have an
act of justice to perform. When I first lighted upon the two examples of
_chaumbre_ in Udall, I thought, as we say in this country, it was a good
"fundlas," and regarded it as my own property. It now appears to be but a
waif or stray; therefore, _suum cuique_, I cheerfully resign the credit of
it to MR. SINGER, the rightful proprietary. Proffering them for the
inspection of learned and unlearned, I of course foresaw that speedy
sentence would be pronounced by that division, whose judgment, lying ebb
and close to the surface, must needs first reach the light. I know no more
appropriate mode of requiting the handsome manner in which MR. SINGER has
been pleased to speak of my trifling contributions to "N. & Q.," than by
asking him, with all the modesty of which I am master, to reconsider the
passage in _Romeo and Juliet_; for though his substitution (_rumourers_
vice _runawayes_) may, I think, clearly take the wall of any of its rivals,
yet, believing that Juliet invokes a darkness to shroud her lover, under
cover of which even the fugitive from justice might snatch a wink of sleep,
I must for my own part, as usual, still adhere to the authentic text.