(Vol. iv., pp. 37. 121.)
I think A. E. B. has not understood MR. HICKSON'S argument in reference
to this word. Perhaps the latter may not have expressed himself very
clearly; and not having by me his original paper on the subject, I
cannot cite his exact words; but his argument I take to be to this
effect:--In construction of the passage there is a double comparison,
which, though perfectly clear to the intelligent reader, causes some
confusion when a doubt is first raised as to the meaning of the word,
and which can be cleared up only by a thorough analysis. "The
cloud-capp'd towers," &c., are first compared with "the baseless fabric
of this vision," _like which_ they "shall dissolve," and afterwards with
"this insubstantial pageant," _like which_ (_having "faded"_) they shall
"leave not a rack behind." A given object can be said to "leave behind"
only that which was originally of its elements, and for this reason only
a general term such as _wreck_ or _vestige_ will accord with the
construction of the passage.
I am sorry to find that any one should misquote Shakspeare for the
purpose of obtaining a temporary triumph: probably, however, in the
instance I am about to cite, A. E. B. has really fallen into the common
error of regarding two similes as one. He says, giving the substance of
Shakspeare's passage, "the globe itself shall dissolve, and, like this
vision, leave not a wreck behind." What Shakspeare in substance _does_
say is, "The globe itself, _like this vision_, shall dissolve, and,
_like this faded pageant, shall_ leave not a rack behind." A. E. B.'s
question, therefore, "in what was the resemblance to the vision to
consist, if not in melting, like it, into thin air?" is thus answered:
The resemblance _does_ consist in _dissolving_, or "melting" away.
My object in making these remarks is not to express an opinion on one
side or the other, but to draw the attention of your readers to the real
question at issue. I therefore say nothing as to whether Shakspeare may
or may not have had a prevision of the nebular theory; though I cannot
see that this would be in the least affected by our decision as to the
meaning of this word, since the _wrack_ or _wreck_ of the world might
well be represented by the "vapour" for which A. E. B. contends. As,
however, this gentleman says such is its meaning "beyond all doubt," (a
rather dogmatic way of settling the question, by the way, seeing that a
doubt had been thrown upon it in the very paper he has engaged himself
to answer,) I should like to be informed if there is any authority for
the use of the word in Shakspeare, or his cotemporaries, as _mere_
"haze" or "vapour." I have generally understood it to mean a
_particular_ description of cloud, or, as some say, more properly, the
course of the clouds in motion.
In fine, as Prospero did undoubtedly point to the dissolution of the
globe and all that it contained, it is quite clear that it could in such
case leave neither "cloud" nor "vapour," nor anything else behind it.
The simple question then remains: Is the word _rack_, as elsewhere used
by Shakspeare and his contemporaries, logically applicable there?