"In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets;
As stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star,
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands,
Was pale almost to dooms-day with eclipse."
_Hamlet_, Act I. Sc. 1.
Such is the present state of the text; and notwithstanding its evident
corruption, it has been judiciously preferred by modern editors to the
various emendations and additions which, even to the manufacture of a
complete line alleged to be deficient, had been unscrupulously made in
it.
But the slight change I now wish to propose, in the substance of one
word, and in the received sense of another, carries such entire
conviction to my own mind of accordance with the genuine intention of
Shakspeare, that I may perhaps be pardoned if I speak of it with less
hesitation than generally ought to accompany such suggestions,
particularly as I do not arrogate to myself its sole merit, but freely
relinquish to Malone so much of it as is his due.
With Malone however the suggestion, such as it was, appears to have been
but a random guess, abandoned as soon as formed, and avowedly prompted
by very different considerations from those that have actuated me. That
he should have been on the very brink, as it were, of the true reading,
and yet fail to discover it, is only to be accounted for by his
subjection to that besetting sin of the day which denied to Shakspeare
all philological knowledge except what he might derive through his own
language.
In order to give Malone strict justice, I shall transcribe his
suggestion, together with the comment by which Steevens appears to have
stifled it in the birth:--
"The disagreeable recurrence of the word stars in the second line
induces me to believe that As stars, in that which precedes, is a
corruption. Perhaps Shakspeare wrote:--
_Astres_ with trains of fire--
----and dews of blood
_Disasterous_ dimm'd the sun.
The word _astre_ is used in an old collection of poems entitled
_Diana_, addressed to the Earl of Oxenforde, a book of which I
know not the date, but believe it was printed about 1580. In
_Othello_ we have _antres_, a word of exactly a similar
formation."--_Malone._
"The word _astre_ (which is nowhere else to be found) was
affectedly taken from the French by John Southern, author of the
poems cited by Mr. Malone. This wretched plagiarist stands
indebted both for his verbiage and his imagery to
Ronsard."--_Steevens._
Hence, according to Malone's own account, the consideration by which
_he_ was led to the suggestion of "astres" was "the disagreeable
recurrence of _stars_ in the second line."
He did not perceive the analogy between _aster_ and _disaster_, which
renders a verbal antithesis of these two words so extremely probable
with Shakspeare!--he did not apparently think of "asters" at all,
although that word is so close to the text that it may be almost said to
be identical with it; and, notwithstanding that "aster" had been so long
familiarised in every English garden as to be literally under his nose,
he must search out "astre" in obscure and contemptible ballads, in order
that Shakspeare might be sanctioned in the use of it.
But it is absolutely incredible that any person to whom _astre_
suggested itself should not also be reminded of _aster_. The conclusion
therefore is almost unavoidable, that Malone and Steevens considered the
latter word as too learned for poor Shakspeare's small acquirements.
They would not trust him, even for a synonyme to star, unless under the
patronage of John Southern!
At least such was the spirit in which too many of the commentators of
that day presumed to treat Shakspeare,--him to whom, if to any mortal,
his own beautiful language is applicable--
"How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty!
In apprehension how like a god!"
Let us be thankful we have fallen to better times.
It is only by the occurrence of such difficulties as the present, which,
after remaining so long obscure, are at last only resolvable by
presupposing in Shakspeare a depth of knowledge far exceeding that of
his triflers, that his wonderful and almost mysterious attainments are
beginning to be appreciated.
In the present case he must not only have known that the fundamental
meaning of _aster_ is a spot of light[1], but he must also have taken
into consideration the power of _dis_ in producing an absolute reversal
in the meaning of the word to which it may be prefixed. Thus, _service_
is a benefit, _disservice_ is an injury, while _unservice_ (did such a
word exist) would be a negative mean between the two extremes.
Similarly, if _aster_ signify a spot of light, a name singularly
appropriate to a comet, _disaster_[2] must, by reversal, be a _spot of
darkness_, and "_disasters in the sun_" no other than what we should
call spots or maculæ upon his disk.
[Footnote 1: Ἀστὴρ, ab ἄω, luceo.]
[Footnote 2: Ἀνάστερος, obscurus.]
Can there remain a doubt, therefore, that Shakspeare intended the
passage to read as follows, which, requiring neither addition nor
alteration of the text as transmitted to us--saving one slight change of
"as stars" into "asters,"--must be perfectly intelligible to every
reader, especially if accompanied by the simple note of explanation
which I subjoin to it:--
"In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets
Asters with trains of fire and dews of blood,
Disasters in the sun[3], and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands,
Was sick almost to dooms-day with eclipse."
[Footnote 3: Spots or blotches.]