That MR. HICKSON should have discovered no graver objections to certain
suggestions of mine respecting the text of Shakspeare than those he has
brought forward, is of itself no slight testimonial in their favour.
In one instance I have already (Vol. v., p. 210.) shown MR. HICKSON (I
trust _satisfactorily_) that his then somewhat similar objection had no
weight; nor do these now advanced appear much more formidable.
As to the passage from _As You Like It_, which MR. HICKSON remarks is
capable of a moral as well as a physical interpretation--undoubtedly it is!
But, in the first place, it must still remain a matter of opinion _which_
sense best accords with the context: and, secondly, even admitting the
moral sense to be the true one, still it does not necessarily disturb the
analogy between it and {588} Imogen's allusion to the _jay of Italy_. In
that case, also, the _moral_ sense may be understood as implying the
absence of all principle other than that derived from her own gaudy vanity.
Were I disposed to cavil, I might, in my turn, question MR. HICKSON'S
estimate of Phebe's beauty. Surely Rosalind's depreciation of it is not
real, but only assumed, for the purpose of humbling, Phebe! _Inky brows,
black silk hair, bugle eye-balls, cheek of cream_--these are not items in a
catalogue of ugliness!
MR. HICKSON'S second objection (p. 573.) is to my explanation of the
demonstrative _that_ in the Duke's opening speech in _Measure for Measure_.
He thinks that, according to "the language we in England use," the Duke
would have used the word _this_ instead of _that_.
Does MR. HICKSON seriously mean to say that Shakspeare's language is to be
scanned by our present ideas of correctness? Is the bold sweep of the
Master's hand to be measured by the graduation of modern convention? Are
there no instances in Shakspeare of the indiscriminate substitution of
personal and impersonal pronouns--of active and passive participles--of
words and phrases waiting upon the magician's wind, like familiar spirits,
to be moulded to his will, and acknowledging no rule but of _his_ creation?
But, in the present case, I will not admit that any such licence is
necessary. To MR. HICKSON'S question, "Is this the language we in England
use?" I answer, It is!
We do, even at the present day, say to a messenger, "Take _that_ to," &c.,
even before we have transferred the missive from our hand to his. I can
even fancy an individual, less anxious perhaps about grammar than
benevolence, stretching forth to some unfortunate, and exclaiming, while
yet his intended gift was in his own keeping, "_There needs but_ THAT _to
your relief--there it is!_"
It does not seem to have occurred to MR. HICKSON that the same "fatal
objection" which he brings forward against _that_, might also be pleaded
against _there_. When the Duke says, "_There_ is our commission:" why not,
"_Here_ is our commission"? _There_ stands precisely in the same relation
to _that_, as _here_ does to _this_!