(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 "prince_ly_,"
"priest_ly_," and myself to "saint_ly_," 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!
When devils will their blackest sins put on,
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,
As I do now."
Any of your readers who are acquainted with the common careless
handwriting in use at the time, will greatly oblige by informing me if
it be beyond likelihood that a word commencing with the letter _s_
should have been read as though it began with _p_.
I have no intention of continuing the contest on the meaning of
"eisell," nor should I have felt it necessary to notice the remarks of
J. S. W. in No. 91., had they been avowedly in opposition to mine and
MR. SINGER'S. But when the advocate assumes the ermine, and proceeds to
sum up the evidence and pass judgment, I feel it only right that those
points in which he has _misrepresented_ my argument should not be passed
over. I did _not_ say "that the word cannot mean a river because the
definite article is omitted before it." What I did say was, that
"English idiom requires an article _unless it be personified_." Milton's
lines merely confirm this, though I am willing to admit that the
argument is of little weight When, however, J. S. W. expresses his
surprise that "a gentleman who exhorts," &c., had not looked to the
_general drift_ of the passage, I fancy he cannot have read my first
observations with regard to it, in which I say "the _idea_ of the
passage appears to be," &c. What is this but the "general drift?" Before
finally leaving this subject, allow me to explain, that, in objecting to
the terms "mere verbiage" and "extravagant rant" of a correspondent, I
took them _together_. I included the latter perhaps hastily. But,
however "extravagant" the "rant" of his real or assumed madmen may be, I
am satisfied that there is _no_ "mere verbiage" to be found in
Shakspeare.