(Vol. ii., p. 354.)
In _All's Well that Ends Well_, Act I. Sc. 3., Helena says to the Countess,
speaking of her love for Bertram,--
"I know I love in vain; strive against hope;
Yet, in this captious and intenible sieve,
I still pour in the waters of my love,
And lack not to lose still."
It is not without hesitation that I venture to oppose MR. SINGER on a point
on which he is so well entitled to give an opinion. But I cannot help
thinking that MR. SINGER'S explanation, besides being somewhat too refined
and recondite, is less applicable to the general sense and drift of the
passage than that of Steevens, which Malone and Mr. Collier have adopted.
What I think wanting to Steevens' interpretation, is an increase, if I may
so express myself, of intensity. He takes the word, I conceive, in its
right bearing, but does not give it all the requisite force. I should
suggest that it means not merely "_recipient_, capable of receiving," but,
to coin a word, _captatious_, eager or greedy to receive, absorbing; as we
say _avidum mare_, or a _greedy gulf_. The Latin analogous to it in this
sense would be, not _capax_, or MR. SINGER'S _captiosus_, but _captax_, or
_captabundus_; neither of which words, however, occurs.
The sense of the word, like that of many others in the same author, must be
determined by the scope and object of the passage in which it is used. The
object of Helena, in declaring her love to the Countess, is to show the
all-absorbing nature of it; to prove that she is _tota in illo_; and that,
however she may strive to stop the cravings of it, her endeavours are of no
more use than the attempt to fill up a bottomless abyss.
The reader may, if he pleases, compare her case with that of other heroines
in like predicaments. Thus Medæa, in _Apollonius Rhodius_:
[Greek: "Pantê moi phrenes eisin amêchanoi, oude tis alkê Pêmatos."]
And the same lady in _Ovid_:
"---- Luctata diu, postquam ratione furorem,
Vincere non poterat. Frustra, Medea, repugnas.
----
Excute virgineo conceptas pectore flammas,
Si potes, infelix. Si possem sanior essem:
Sed trahit invitam nova vis."
Or Dido, in _Virgil_ or _Ovid_:
"Ille quidem malè gratus, et ad munera surdus;
Et quo si non sim stulta carere velim:
Non tamen Æneam, quamvis male cogitat, odi;
Sed queror infidum, questaque pejus amo."
Or Phædra, in _Seneca_:
----"Furor cogit sequi
Pejora: vadit animus in præceps sciens,
Remeatque, frustra sana consilia appetens.
Sic cum gravatam navita adversâ ratem
Propellit undâ, cedit in vanum labor,
Et victa prono puppis aufertur vado."
The complaints of all are alike; they lament that they make attempts to
resist their passion, but find it not to be resisted; that they are obliged
at last to yield themselves entirely to it, and to feel their whole
thoughts, as it were, swallowed up by it.
Such being the way in which Shakspeare represents Helena, and such the
sentiments which he puts into her mouth, it seems evident that the
interpretation of _captious_ in the sense of _absorbent_ is better adapted
to the passage than the explanation of it in the sense of _fallacious_.
"I know I love in vain, and strive against hope; yet into this
_insatiable_ and _unretaining_ sieve I still pour in the waters of my
love, and fail not to lose still."
I said that the sense of _fallacious_ seemed to be too refined and
recondite. To believe that Shakspeare borrowed his _captious_ in this
sense, from the Latin _captiosus_, we must suppose that he was well
acquainted with the exact sense of the Latin word; a supposition which, in
regard to a man who had _small Latin_, we can scarcely be justified in
entertaining. This interpretation is, therefore, too recondite: and to
imagine Helena as applying the word to Bertram as being "_incapable of
receiving_ her love," and "truly _captious_" (or deceitful and ensnaring)
"in that respect," is surely to indulge in too much refinement of
exposition.
That Shakspeare had in his mind, as MR. SINGER {66} suggests, the
punishment of the Danaides, is extremely probable; but this only makes the
explanation of _captious_ in the sense of _absorbent_ more applicable to
the passage, with which that of Seneca, quoted above, may be aptly
compared.
I am sorry that Johnson was so unfortunate as to propose _carious_ as an
emendation; but even in doing this, he had, according to my notion of the
lines, the right sense in view, viz., that of _letting through_ or
_swallowing up_, like a rotten tub or a quicksand.
I hope that MR. SINGER will take these remarks in good part, as being
offered, not from a wish to oppose his opinion, but from a conviction that
the interpretation now given is right, and from a desire that to every word
in Shakspeare should be assigned its true signification.