I have to announce the detection of an important misprint, which completely
restores sense, point, and antithesis to a sorely tormented passage in
_King Lear_; and which proves at the same time that the corrector of MR.
COLLIER'S folio, in this instance at least, is undeniably in error. Here,
as elsewhere (whether by anticipation or imitation I shall not take upon me
to decide), he has fallen into just the same mistake as the rest of the
commentators: indeed it is startling to observe how regularly he suspects
every passage that they have suspected, and how invariably he treats them
in the same spirit of emendation (some places of course excepted, where his
courage soars far beyond theirs; such as the memorable "curds and cream,"
"on a table of green frieze," &c.).
I say that the error of "the old corrector," in this instance, is
_undeniable_, because the misprint I am about to expose, like the
egg-problem of Columbus, when once shown, demonstrates itself: so that any
attempt to support it by argument would be absurd, because superfluous.
There are two verbs, one in every-day use, the other obsolete, which,
although of nearly opposite significations, and of very dissimilar sound,
nevertheless differ only in the mutual exchange of place in two letters:
these verbs are _secure_ and _r_ecu_s_e; the first implying _assurance_,
the second _want of assurance_, or refusal. Hence any sentence would
receive an opposite meaning from one of these verbs to what it would from
the other.
Let us now refer to the opening scene of the Fourth Act of _King Lear_,
where the old man offers his services to Gloster, who has been deprived of
his eyes:
"_Old Man._ You cannot see your way.
_Gloster._ I have no way, and therefore want no eyes;
I stumbled when I saw: full oft 'tis seen
Our means _secure_ us, and our mere defects
Prove our commodities."
Here one would suppose that the obvious opposition between _means_ and
_defects_ would have preserved these words from being tampered with; and
that, on the other hand, the _absence_ of opposition between _secure_ and
_commodious_ would have directed attention to the real error. But, no: all
the worretting has been about _means_; and this unfortunate word has been
twisted in all manner of ways, until finally "the old corrector" informs us
that "the printer read _wants_ 'means,' and hence the blunder!"
Now, mark the perfect antithesis the passage receives from the change of
_secure_ into _recuse_:
"Full oft 'tis seen
Our means recuse us, and our mere defects
Prove our commodities."
I trust I may be left in the quiet possession of whatever merit is due to
this restoration. Some other of my humble _auxilia_ have, before now, been
coolly appropriated, with the most innocent air possible, without the
slightest acknowledgment. One instance is afforded in MR. KEIGHTLEY'S
communication to "N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 136., where that gentleman not
only repeats the explanation I had previously given of the same passage,
but even does me the honour of requoting the same line of Shakspeare with
which I had supported it.
I did not think it worth noticing at the time, nor should I now, were it
not that MR. KEIGHTLEY'S {593} confidence in the negligence or want of
recollection in your readers seems not have been wholly misplaced, if we
may judge from MR. ARROWSMITH's admiring foot-note in last Number of "N. &
Q.," p. 568.