"PRENZIE" IN "MEASURE FOR MEASURE"
(Vol. iii., p. 522)
The suggestion of _primzie_ is too ingenious, and too apparently happy,
to be passed over without adducing some reason for refusing to give it
the preference to Tieck's reading of _precise_.
The terminal adjuncts _zie_, _sie_, _some_, generally imply some playful
diminutive variation of the original word, certainly they never add
force or gravity to it: _prim_, in itself, is a diminutive of
_primitive_, and applies more to external appearance than to internal
character. I do not think, therefore that even _prim_ would be a word
sufficiently dignified for the situation and context; much less is its
diminutive _primsie_.
It seems to me that the character of Angelo is generally mistaken; he is
too often looked upon as a mere hypocrite, whereas Shakspeare depicts
him, before his fall, as a rigid but _sincere_ ascetic. This view of his
character accounts for his final condemnation of Claudio: he has no
mercy for _the crime_, even while committing it himself; and he was just
the man who, had he escaped detection, would probably have passed the
remainder of his life in the exercise of self-inflicted penance.
Viewing Angelo, therefore, as a man proverbial for rigidly virtuous
conduct; who stood "at a guard with envy;" who challenged scrutiny; and
who was above the tongue of slander; I do not think that _primsie_ can
be looked upon as an appropriate designation in the mouth of Claudio. He
would use some word in the greatest possible contrast to the infamous
conduct Isabella was imputing to Angelo: _primsie_ would be weak and
almost unmeaning, and, as such, I will not receive it as Shakespeare's,
so long as the choice of a better remains.
Does not Shakspeare, by his frequent repetition of _precise_, in this
play, seem purposely to stamp it with that peculiar signification
necessary to his meaning, that is, rigidly virtuous? Another example of
it, not, I believe, before noticed, is where Elbow describes his "two
notorious benefactors" as "precise villains," "void of all profanation
that good Christians ought to have."
The humour of this is in the contrast afforded by Elbow's association of
incongruous and inconsistent terms, causing Escalus to exclaim, "Do you
hear how he misplaces?" _Precise_ therefore in this place also requires
a meaning as opposite as possible to villany, something _more_ than
formal, in order that the humour may be fully appreciated.
With respect to Halliwell's quotation from Fletcher's poems, it
certainly confers upon _prin_ a very different meaning from any that
_prim_ is capable of receiving: the context requires _prin_ to have some
signification akin to _fleshless_; like "bodyes at the resurrection,
just rarifying into ayre." _Prin_, in this sense, would seem to have
some relation to _pine_, since _pin_ and _prin_ were synonymous.