WHAT HE SAID, WHAT HE HEARD, AND WHAT HE SAW.
Back again!—A turtle—which means a tortoise—is fond of his shell; but
if you put a live coal on his back, he crawls out of it. So the boys
say.
It is a libel on the turtle. He grows to his shell, and his shell is in
his body as much as his body is in his shell.—I don't think there
is one of our boarders quite so testudinous as I am. Nothing but a
combination of motives, more peremptory than the coal on the turtle's
back, could have got me to leave the shelter of my carapace; and after
memorable interviews, and kindest hospitalities, and grand sights, and
huge influx of patriotic pride,—for every American owns all America,—
"Creation's heir,—the world, the world is"
his, if anybody's,—I come back with the feeling which a boned turkey
might experience, if, retaining his consciousness, he were allowed to
resume his skeleton.
Welcome, O Fighting Gladiator, and Recumbent Cleopatra, and Dying
Warrior, whose classic outlines (reproduced in the calcined mineral of
Lutetia) crown my loaded shelves! Welcome, ye triumphs of pictorial art
(repeated by the magic graver) that look down upon me from the walls of
my sacred cell! Vesalius, as Titian drew him, high-fronted, still-eyed,
thick-bearded, with signet-ring, as beseems a gentleman, with book and
carelessly-held eyeglass, marking him a scholar; thou, too, Jan Kuyper,
commonly called Jan Praktiseer, old man of a century and seven years
besides, father of twenty sons and two daughters cut in copper by
Houbraken, bought from a portfolio on one of the Paris quais; and ye
Three Trees of Rembrandt, black in shadow against the blaze of sunlight;
and thou Rosy Cottager of Sir Joshua,—thy roses hinted by the peppery
burin of Bartolozzi; ye, too, of lower grades in nature, yet not
unlovely nor unrenowned, Young Bull of Paulus Potter, and Sleeping Cat
of Cornelius Visscher; welcome once more to my eyes! The old books
look out from the shelves, and I seem to read on their backs something
besides their titles,—a kind of solemn greeting. The crimson carpet
flushes warm under my feet. The arm-chair hugs me; the swivel-chair
spins round with me, as if it were giddy with pleasure; the vast
recumbent fauteuil stretches itself out under my weight, as one joyous
with food and wine stretches in after-dinner laughter.
The boarders were pleased to say that they were glad to get me back. One
of them ventured a compliment, namely,—that I talked as if I believed
what I said.—This was apparently considered something unusual, by its
being mentioned.
One who means to talk with entire sincerity,—I said,—always feels
himself in danger of two things, namely,—an affectation of bluntness,
like that of which Cornwall accuses Kent in "Lear," and actual rudeness.
What a man wants to do, in talking with a stranger, is to get and to
give as much of the best and most real life that belongs to the two
talkers as the time will let him. Life is short, and conversation apt to
run to mere words. Mr. Hue I think it is, who tells us some very good
stories about the way in which two Chinese gentlemen contrive to keep up
a long talk without saying a word which has any meaning in it. Something
like this is occasionally heard on this side of the Great Wall. The best
Chinese talkers I know are some pretty women whom I meet from time to
time. Pleasant, airy, complimentary, the little flakes of flattery
glimmering in their talk like the bits of gold-leaf in eau-de-vie de
Dantzic; their accents flowing on in a soft ripple,—never a wave,
and never a calm; words nicely fitted, but never a colored phrase or a
high-flavored epithet; they turn air into syllables so gracefully, that
we find meaning for the music they make as we find faces in the coals
and fairy palaces in the clouds. There is something very odd, though,
about this mechanical talk.
You have sometimes been in a train on the railroad when the engine was
detached a long way from the station you were approaching? Well, you
have noticed how quietly and rapidly the cars kept on, just as if the
locomotive were drawing them? Indeed, you would not have suspected that
you were travelling on the strength of a dead fact, if you had not seen
the engine running away from you on a side-track. Upon my conscience,
I believe some of these pretty women detach their minds entirely,
sometimes, from their talk,—and, what is more, that we never know the
difference. Their lips let off the fluty syllables just as their fingers
would sprinkle the music-drops from their pianos; unconscious habit
turns the phrase of thought into words just as it does that of music
into notes.—Well, they govern the world, for all that,—these
sweet-lipped women,—because beauty is the index of a larger fact than
wisdom.
——The Bombazine wanted an explanation.
Madam,—said I,—wisdom is the abstract of the past, but beauty is the
promise of the future.
——All this, however, is not what I was going to say. Here am I,
suppose, sealed—we will say at a dinner-table—alongside of an
intelligent Englishman. We look in each other's faces,—we exchange a
dozen words. One thing is settled: we mean not to offend each other,—to
be perfectly courteous,—more than courteous; for we are the entertainer
and the entertained, and cherish particularly amiable feelings to each
other. The claret is good; and if our blood reddens a little with its
warm crimson, we are none the less kind for it.
——I don't think people that talk over their victuals are like to say
anything very great, especially if they get their heads muddled with
strong drink before they begin jabberin'.
The Bombazine uttered this with a sugary sourness, as if the words had
been steeped in a solution of acetate of lead.—The boys of my time used
to call a hit like this a "side-winder."
——I must finish this woman.—
Madam,—I said,—the Great Teacher seems to have been fond of talking as
he sat at meat. Because this was a good while ago, in a far-off place,
you forget what the true fact of it was,—that those were real dinners,
where people were hungry and thirsty, and where you met a very
miscellaneous company. Probably there was a great deal of loose talk
among the guests; at any rate, there was always wine, we may believe.
Whatever may be the hygienic advantages or disadvantages of wine,—and
I for one, except for certain particular ends, believe in water, and, I
blush to say it, in black tea,—there is no doubt about its being the
grand specific against dull dinners. A score of people come together in
all moods of mind and body. The problem is, in the space of one hour,
more or less, to bring them all into the same condition of slightly
exalted life. Food alone is enough for one person, perhaps,—talk,
alone, for another; but the grand equalizer and fraternizer, which works
up the radiators to their maximum radiation, and the absorbents to their
maximum receptivity, is now just where it was when
"The conscious water saw its Lord and
blushed,"
—when six great vessels containing water, which seems to have been
carefully purified, so as to be ready for the marriage-feast, were
changed into the best of wine. I once wrote a song about wine, in which
I spoke so warmly of it, that I was afraid some would think it was
written inter pocula; whereas it was composed in the bosom of my
family, under the most tranquillizing domestic influences.
——The divinity-student turned towards me, looking mischievous.—Can
you tell me,—he said,—who wrote a song for a temperance celebration
once, of which the following is a verse?—
Alas for the loved one, too gentle and fair
The joys of the banquet to chasten and share!
Her eye lost its light that his goblet might shine,
And the rose of her cheek was dissolved in his wine!
I did,—I answered.—What are you going to do about it?—I will tell
you another line I wrote long ago:—
Don't be "consistent,"—but be simply true.
The longer I live, the more I am satisfied of two things: first, that
the truest lives are those that are cut rose-diamond-fashion, with many
facets answering to the many-planed aspects of the world about them;
secondly, that society is always trying in some way or other to grind
us down to a single flat surface. It is hard work to resist this
grinding-down action.—Now give me a chance. Better eternal and
universal abstinence than the brutalities of those days that made wives
and mothers and daughters and sisters blush for those whom they should
have honored, as they came reeling home from their debauches! Yet better
even excess than lying and hypocrisy; and if wine is upon all our
tables, let us praise it for its color and fragrance and social
tendency, so far as it deserves, and not hug a bottle in the closet and
pretend not to know the use of a wine-glass at a public dinner! I think
you will find that people who honestly mean to be true really contradict
themselves much more rarely than those who try to be "consistent." But
a great many things we say can be made to appear contradictory, simply
because they are partial views of a truth, and may often look unlike at
first, as a front view of a face and its profile often do.
Here is a distinguished divine, for whom I have great respect, for I owe
him a charming hour at one of our literary anniversaries, and he has
often spoken noble words; but he holds up a remark of my friend the
"Autocrat,"—which I grieve to say he twice misquotes, by omitting the
very word which gives it its significance,—the word fluid, intended
to typify the mobility of the restricted will,—holds it up, I say, as
if it attacked the reality of the self-determining principle, instead
of illustrating its limitations by an image. Now I will not explain any
farther, still less defend, and least of all attack, but simply quote
a few lines from one of my friend's poems, printed more than ten years
ago, and ask the distinguished gentleman where he has ever asserted
more strongly or absolutely the independent will of the "subcreative
centre," as my heretical friend has elsewhere called man.
—Thought, conscience, will, to make them all thy own
He rent a pillar from the eternal throne!
—Made in His image, thou must nobly dare
The thorny crown of sovereignty to share.
—Think not too meanly of thy low estate;
Thou hast a choice; to choose is to create!
If he will look a little closely, he will see that the profile and the
full-face views of the will are both true and perfectly consistent.
Now let us come back, after this long digression, to the conversation
with the intelligent Englishman. We begin skirmishing with a few light
ideas,—testing for thoughts,—as our electro-chemical friend, De Sauty,
if there were such a person, would test for his current; trying a little
litmus-paper for acids, and then a slip of turmeric-paper for alkalies,
as chemists do with unknown compounds; flinging the lead, and looking
at the shells and sands it brings up to find out whether we are like
to keep in shallow water, or shall have to drop the deep-sea line;—in
short, seeing what we have to deal with. If the Englishman gets his
Hs pretty well placed, he comes from one of the higher grades of the
British social order, and we shall find him a good companion.
But, after all, here is a great fact between us. We belong to two
different civilizations, and, until we recognize what separates us, we
are talking like Pyramus and Thisbe,—without any hole in the wall to
talk through. Therefore, on the whole, if he were a superior fellow,
incapable of mistaking it for personal conceit, I think I would let out
the fact of the real American feeling about Old-World folks. They are
children to us in certain points of view. They are playing with toys we
have done with for whole generations. That silly little drum they are
always beating on, and the trumpet and the feather they make so much
noise and cut such a figure with, we have not quite outgrown, but play
with much less seriously and constantly than they do. Then there is a
whole museum of wigs, and masks, and lace-coats, and gold-sticks, and
grimaces, and phrases, which we laugh at, honestly, without affectation,
that are still used in the Old-World puppet-shows. I don't think we
on our part ever understand the Englishman's concentrated loyalty and
specialized reverence. But then we do think more of a man, as such,
(barring some little difficulties about race and complexion which the
Englishman will touch us on presently,) than any people that ever lived
did think of him. Our reverence is a great deal wider, if it is less
intense. We have caste among us, to some extent, it is true; but there
is never a collar on the American wolf-dog such as you often see on the
English mastiff, notwithstanding his robust, hearty individuality.
This confronting of two civilizations is always a grand sensation to me;
it is like cutting through the isthmus and letting the two oceans swim
into each other's laps. The trouble is, it is so difficult to let out
the whole American nature without its self-assertion seeming to take a
personal character. But I never enjoy the Englishman so much as when he
talks of church and king like Manco Capac among the Peruvians. Then you
get the real British flavor, which the cosmopolite Englishman loses. The
best conversation I have had with one of them for a long time, lively,
fluent, courteous, delightful, was a variation and illustrative
development in elegant phrases of the following short sentences.
Englishman.—Sir, your New-World civilization is barbarism.
American.—Sir, your Old-World development is infancy.
How much better this thorough interpenetration of ideas than a barren
interchange of courtesies, or a bush-fighting argument, in which each
man tries to cover as much of himself and expose as much of his opponent
as the tangled thicket of the disputed ground will let him!
——My thoughts flow in layers or strata, at least three deep. I follow
a slow person's talk, and keep a perfectly clear under-current of my own
beneath it. My friend the Autocrat has already made a similar remark.
Under both runs obscurely a consciousness belonging to a third train of
reflections, independent of the two others. I will try to write out a
mental movement in three parts.
A.—First part, or Mental Soprano,—thought follows a woman talking.
B.—Second part, or Mental Barytone,—my running accompaniment.
C.—Third part, or Mental Basso,—low grumble of an importunate
self-repeating idea.
A.—White lace, three skirts, looped with flowers, wreath of
apple-blossoms, gold bracelets, diamond pin and earrings, the most
delicious berthe you ever saw, white satin slippers——
B.—Deuse take her! What a fool she is! Hear her chatter! (Look out of
window just here.—Two pages and a half of description, if it were
all written out, in one tenth of a second.)—Go ahead, old lady! (Eye
catches picture over fireplace.) There's that infernal family nose! Came
over in the "Mayflower" on the first old fool's face. Why don't they
wear a ring in it?
C.—You'll be late at lecture,—late at lecture,—late,—late,—late——
I observe that a deep layer of thought sometimes makes itself felt
through the superincumbent strata, thus:—The usual single or double
currents shall flow on, but there shall be an influence blending with
them, disturbing them in an obscure way, until all at once I say,—Oh,
there! I knew there was something troubling me,—and the thought which
had been working through comes up to the surface clear, definite, and
articulates itself,—a disagreeable duty, perhaps, or an unpleasant
recollection.
The inner world of thought and the outer world of events are alike in
this, that they are both brimful. There is no space between consecutive
thoughts or between the never-ending series of actions. All pack tight,
and mould their surfaces against each other, so that in the long run
there is a wonderful average uniformity in the forms of both thoughts
and actions,—just as you find that cylinders crowded all become
hexagonal prisms, and spheres pressed together are formed into regular
polyhedra.
Every event that a man would master must be mounted on the run, and no
man ever caught the reins of a thought except as it galloped by him. So,
to carry out, with another comparison, my remark about the layers of
thought, we may consider the mind, as it moves among thoughts or events,
like a circus-rider whirling round with a great troop of horses. He can
mount a fact or an idea, and guide it more or less completely, but he
cannot stop it. So, as I said in another way at the beginning, he can
stride two or three thoughts at once, but not break their steady walk,
trot, or gallop. He can only take his foot from the saddle of one
thought and put it on that of another.
——What is the saddle of a thought? Why, a word, of course.—Twenty
years after you have dismissed a thought, it suddenly wedges up to you
through the press, as if it had been steadily galloping round and round
all that time without a rider.
The will does not act in the interspaces of thought, for there are no
such interspaces, but simply steps from the back of one moving thought
upon that of another.
——I should like to ask,—said the divinity-student,—since we are
getting into metaphysics, how you can admit space, if all things are in
contact, and how you can admit time, if it is always now to something.
—I will thank you for the dry toast,—was my answer.
——I wonder if you know this class of philosophers in books or
elsewhere. One of them makes his bow to the public, and exhibits an
unfortunate truth bandaged up so that it cannot stir hand or foot,—as
helpless, apparently, and unable to take care of itself, as an Egyptian
mummy. He then proceeds, with the air and method of a master, to take
off the bandages. Nothing can be neater than the way in which he does
it. But as he takes off layer after layer, the truth seems to grow
smaller and smaller, and some of its outlines begin to look like
something we have seen before. At last, when he has got them all off,
and the truth struts out naked, we recognize it as a diminutive and
familiar acquaintance whom we have known in the streets all our lives.
The fact is, the philosopher has coaxed the truth into his study and put
all those bandages on; of course it is not very hard for him to take
them off. Still, a great many people like to watch the process,—he does
it so neatly!
Dear! dear! I am ashamed to write and talk, sometimes, when I see how
those functions of the large-brained, thumb-opposing plantigrade are
abused by my fellow-vertebrates,—perhaps by myself. How they spar for
wind, instead of hitting from the shoulder!
——The young fellow called John arose and placed himself in a neat
fighting attitude.—Fetch on the fellah that makes them long words!—he
said,—and planted a straight hit with the right fist in the concave
palm of the left hand with a click like a cup and ball.—You small boy
there, hurry up that "Webster's Unabridged!"
The little gentleman with the malformation, before described, shocked
the propriety of the breakfast-table by a loud utterance of three words,
of which the two last were "Webster's Unabridged," and the first was an
emphatic monosyllable.—Beg pardon,—he added,—forgot myself. But let
us have an English dictionary, if we are to have any. I don't believe in
clipping the coin of the realm, Sir! If I put a weathercock on my house,
Sir, I want it to tell which way the wind blows up aloft,—off from the
prairies to the ocean, or off from the ocean to the prairies, or any
way it wants to blow! I don't want a weathercock with a winch in an old
gentleman's study that he can take hold of and turn, so that the vane
shall point west when the great wind overhead is blowing east with all
its might, Sir! Wait till we give you a dictionary, Sir! It takes Boston
to do that thing, Sir!
——Some folks think water can't run down-hill anywhere out of
Boston,—remarked the Koh-i-noor.
I don't know what some folks think so well as I know what some fools
say,—rejoined Little Boston.—If importing most dry goods made the
best scholars, I dare say you would know where to look for 'em.—Mr.
Webster couldn't spell, Sir, or wouldn't spell, Sir,—at any rate, he
didn't spell; and the end of it was a fight between the owners of
some copyrights and the dignity of this noble language which we have
inherited from our English fathers,—language!—the blood of the soul,
Sir! into which our thoughts run and out of which they grow! We know
what a word is worth here in Boston. Young Sam Adams got up on the stage
at Commencement, out at Cambridge there, with his gown on, the Governor
and Council looking on in the name of his Majesty, King George the
Second, and the girls looking down out of the galleries, and taught
people how to spell a word that wasn't in the Colonial dictionaries!
R-e, re, s-i-s, sis, t-a-n-c-e, tance, Resistance! That was in '43,
and it was a good many years before the Boston boys began spelling it
with their muskets;—but when they did begin, they spelt it so loud that
the old bedridden women in the English almshouses heard every syllable!
Yes, yes, yes,—it was a good while before those other two Boston boys
got the class so far along that it could spell those two hard words,
Independence and Union! I tell you what, there are a thousand lives,
aye, sometimes a million, go to get a new word into a language that is
worth speaking. We know what language means too well here in Boston to
play tricks with it. We never make a new word till we have made a new
thing or a new thought, Sir! When we shaped the new mould of this
continent, we had to make a few. When, by God's permission, we abrogated
the primal curse of maternity, we had to make a word or two. The
cutwater of this great Leviathan clipper, the OCCIDENTAL,—this
thirty-masted wind-and-steam wave-crusher,—must throw a little spray
over the human vocabulary as it splits the waters of a new world's
destiny!
He rose as he spoke, until his stature seemed to swell into the fair
human proportions. His feet must have been on the upper round of his
high chair;—that was the only way I could account for it.
Puts her through fust-rate,—said the young fellow whom the boarders
call John.
The venerable and kind-looking old gentleman who sits opposite said he
remembered Sam Adams as Governor. An old man in a brown coat. Saw him
take the Chair on Boston Common. Was a boy then, and remembers sitting
on the fence in front of the old Hancock house. Recollects he had a
glazed 'lection-bun, and sat eating it and looking down on to the
Common. Lalocks flowered late that year, and he got a great bunch off
from the bushes in the Hancock front-yard.
Them 'lection buns are no go,—said the young man John, so called.—I
know the trick. Give a fellah a fo'penny bun in the mornin', an' he
downs the whole of it. In about an hour it swells up in his stomach as
big as a football, and his feedin's sp'ilt for that day. That's the
way to stop off a young one from eatin' up all the 'lection dinner.
Salem! Salem! not Boston,—shouted the little man.
But the Koh-i-noor laughed a great rasping laugh, and the boy
Benjamin Franklin looked sharp at his mother, as if he remembered the
bun-experiment as a part of his past personal history.
Little Boston was holding a fork in his left hand. He stabbed a boulder
of home-made bread with it, mechanically, and looked at it as if it
ought to shriek. It did not,—but he sat as if watching it.
——Language is a solemn thing,—I said.—It grows out of life,—out of
its agonies and ecstasies, its wants and its weariness. Every language
is a temple, in which the soul of those who speak it is enshrined.
Because time softens its outlines and rounds the sharp angles of its
cornices, shall a fellow take a pickaxe to help time? Let me tell you
what comes of meddling with things that can take care of themselves.—A
friend of mine had a watch given him, when he was a boy,—a "bull's
eye," with a loose silver case that came off like an oyster-shell from
its contents; you know them,—the cases that you hang on your thumb,
while the core or the real watch lies in your hand as naked as a
peeled apple. Well, he began with taking off the case, and so on from
one liberty to another, until he got it fairly open, and there were the
works, as good as if they were alive,—crown-wheel, balance-wheel, and
all the rest. All right except one thing,—there was a confounded little
hair had got tangled round the balance-wheel. So my young Solomon
got a pair of tweezers, and caught hold of the hair very
nicely, and pulled it right out, without touching any of the
wheels,—when,—buzzzZZZ! and the watch had done up twenty-four hours in
double magnetic-telegraph time!—The English language was wound up to
run some thousands of years, I trust; but if everybody is to be pulling
at everything he thinks is a hair, our grandchildren will have to
make the discovery that it is a hair-spring, and the old Anglo-Norman
soul's-timekeeper will run down, as so many other dialects have done
before it. I can't stand this meddling any better than you, Sir. But
we have a great deal to be proud of in the lifelong labors of that old
lexicographer, and we mustn't be ungrateful. Besides, don't let us
deceive ourselves, the war of the dictionaries is only a disguised
rivalry of cities, colleges, and especially of publishers. After all,
the language will shape itself by larger forces than phonography and
dictionary-making. You may spade up the ocean as much as you like, and
harrow it afterwards, if you can,—but the moon will still lead the
tides, and the winds will form their surface.
——Do you know Richardson's Dictionary?—I said to my neighbor the
divinity-student.
Haöw?—said the divinity-student.—He colored, as he noticed on my face
a twitch in one of the muscles which tuck up the corner of the mouth,
(zygomaticus major,) and which I could not hold back from making a
little movement on its own account.
It was too late.—A country-boy, lassoed when he was a half-grown colt.
Just as good as a city-boy, and in some ways, perhaps, better,—but
caught a little too old not to carry some marks of his earlier ways of
life. Foreigners, who have talked a strange tongue half their lives,
return to the language of their childhood in their dying hours.
Gentlemen in fine linen, and scholars in large libraries, taken by
surprise, or in a careless moment, will sometimes let slip a word they
knew as boys in homespun and have not spoken since that time,—but it
lay there under all their culture. That is one way you may know the
country-boys after they have grown rich or celebrated; another is by the
odd old family names, particularly those of the Hebrew prophets, which
the good old people have saddled them with.
——Boston has enough of England about it to make a good English
dictionary,—said that fresh-looking youth whom I have mentioned as
sitting at the right upper corner of the table.
I turned and looked him full in the face,—for the pure, manly
intonations arrested me. The voice was youthful, but full of
character.—I suppose some persons have a peculiar susceptibility in the
matter of voice.—Hear this.
Not long after the American Revolution, a young lady was sitting in her
father's chaise in a street of this town of Boston. She overheard a
little girl talking or singing, and was mightily taken with the tones of
her voice. Nothing would satisfy her but she must have that little girl
come and live in her father's house. So the child came, being then nine
years old. Until her marriage she remained under the same roof with
the young lady. Her children became successively inmates of the lady's
dwelling; and now, seventy years, or thereabouts, since the young lady
heard the child singing, one of that child's children and one of her
grandchildren are with her in that home, where she, no longer young,
except in heart, passes her peaceful days.—Three generations linked
together by so light a breath of accident!
I liked the sound of this youth's voice, I said, and his look when I
came to observe him a little more closely. His complexion had something
better than the bloom and freshness which had first attracted me;—it
had that diffused tone which is a sure index of wholesome lusty life.
A fine liberal style of nature it seemed to be: hair crisped, moustache
springing thick and dark, head firmly planted, lips finished, as one
commonly sees them in gentlemen's families, a pupil well contracted, and
a mouth that opened frankly with a white flash of teeth that looked as
if they could serve him as they say Ethan Allen's used to serve their
owner,—to draw nails with. This is the kind of fellow to walk a
frigate's deck and bowl his broadsides into the "Gallant Thunderbomb,"
or any forty-portholed adventurer who would like to exchange a few tons
of iron compliments.—I don't know what put this into my head, for it
was not till some time afterward I learned the young fellow had been in
the naval school at Annapolis. Something had happened to change his plan
of life, and he was now studying engineering and architecture in Boston.
When the youth made the short remark which drew my attention to him, the
little deformed gentleman turned round and took a long look at him.
Good for the Boston boy!—he said.
I am not a Boston boy,—said the youth, smiling,—I am a Marylander.
I don't care where you come from,—we'll make a Boston man of you,—said
the little gentleman.—Pray, what part of Maryland did you come from,
and how shall I call you?
The poor youth had to speak pretty loud, as he was at the right upper
corner of the table, and Little Boston next the lower left-hand corner.
His face flushed a little, but he answered pleasantly,—telling who
he was, as if the little man's infirmity gave him a right to ask any
questions he wanted to.
Here is the place for you to sit,—said the little gentleman, pointing
to the vacant chair next his own, at the corner.
You're go'n' to have a young lady next you, if you wait till
to-morrow,—said the landlady to Little Boston.
He did not reply, but I had a fancy, that he changed color. It can't
be that he has susceptibilities with reference to a contingent young
lady! It can't be that he has had experiences which make him sensitive!
Nature could not be quite so cruel as to set a heart throbbing in
that poor little cage of ribs! There is no use in wasting notes of
admiration. I must ask the landlady about him.
These are some of the facts she furnished.—Has not been long with her.
Brought a sight of furniture,—couldn't hardly get some of it up-stairs.
Hasn't seemed particularly attentive to the ladies. The Bombazine
(whom she calls Cousin something or other) has tried to enter into
conversation with him, but retired with the impression that he was
indifferent to ladies' society. Paid his bill the other day without
saying a word about it. Paid it in gold,—had a great heap of
twenty-dollar pieces. Hires her best room. Thinks he is a very nice
little man, but lives dreadful lonely up in his chamber. Wants the care
of some capable nuss. Never pitied anybody more in her life,—never see
a more interestin' person.
——My intention was, when I began making these notes, to let them
consist principally of conversations between myself and the other
boarders. So they will, very probably; but my curiosity is excited about
this little boarder of ours, and my reader must not be disappointed, if
I sometimes interrupt a discussion to give an account of whatever fact
or traits I may discover about him. It so happens that his room is
next to mine, and I have the opportunity of observing many of his ways
without any active movements of curiosity. That his room contains heavy
furniture, that he is a restless little body and is apt to be up late,
that he talks to himself, and keeps mainly to himself, is nearly all I
have found out.
One curious circumstance happened lately, which I mention without
drawing an absolute inference.—Being at the studio of a sculptor with
whom I am acquainted, the other day, I saw a remarkable cast of a left
arm. On my asking where the model came from, he said it was taken
direct from the arm of a deformed person, who had employed one of the
Italian moulders to make the cast. It was a curious case, it should
seem, of one beautiful limb upon a frame otherwise singularly
imperfect.—I have repeatedly noticed this little gentleman's use of his
left arm. Can he have furnished the model I saw at the sculptor's?
——So we are to have a new boarder to-morrow. I hope there will be
something pretty and pleasant about her. A woman with a creamy
voice, and finished in alto rilievo, would be a variety in the
boarding-house,—a little more marrow and a little less sinew than our
landlady and her daughter and the bombazine-clad female, all of whom are
of the turkey-drumstick style of organization. I don't mean that these
are our only female companions; but the rest being conversational
non-combatants, mostly still, sad feeders, who take in their food as
locomotives take in wood and water, and then wither away from the table
like blossoms that never come to fruit, I have not yet referred to them
as individuals.
I wonder what kind of a young person we shall see in that empty chair
to-morrow!
——I read this song to the boarders after breakfast the other morning.
It was written for our fellows;—you know who they are, of course.
THE BOYS.
Has there any old fellow got mixed with the boys?
If there has, take him out, without making a noise!
Hang the Almanac's cheat and the Catalogue's spite!
Old Time is a liar! We're twenty to-night!
We're twenty! We're twenty! Who says we are more?
He's tipsy,—young jackanapes!—show him the door!—
"Gray temples at twenty?"—Yes! white, if we please;
Where the snow-flakes fall thickest there's nothing can freeze!
Was it snowing I spoke of? Excuse the mistake!
Look close,—you will see not a sign of a flake;
We want some new garlands for those we have shed,—
And these are white roses in place of the red!
We've a trick, we young fellows, you may have been told,
Of talking (in public) as if we were old;—
That boy we call "Doctor," and this we call "Judge";—
It's a neat little fiction,—of course it's all fudge.
That fellow's the "Speaker,"—the one on the right;
"Mr. Mayor," my young one, how are you to-night?
That's our "Member of Congress," we say when we chaff;
There's the "Reverend"—What's his name?—don't make me laugh!
That boy with the grave mathematical look
Made believe he had written a wonderful book,
And the ROYAL ACADEMY thought it was true!
So they chose him right in; a good joke it was, too!
There's a boy,—we pretend,—with a three-decker-brain,
That could harness a team with a logical chain;
When he spoke for our manhood in syllabled fire,
We called him "The Justice," but now he's "The Squire."
And there's a nice youngster of excellent pith,—
Fate tried to conceal him by naming him Smith,—
But he shouted a song for the brave and the free,—
—Just read on his medal,—"My country,"—"of thee!"
You hear that boy laughing?—You think he's all fun,—
But the angels laugh, too, at the good he has done.
The children laugh loud as they troop to his call,
And the poor man that knows him laughs loudest of all!
Yes, we're boys,—always playing with tongue or with pen,—
And I sometimes have asked,—Shall we ever be men?
Shall we always be youthful and laughing and gay,
Till the last dear companion drops smiling away?
Then here's to our boyhood, its gold and its gray!
The stars of its Winter, the dews of its May!
And when we have done with our life-lasting toys
Dear Father, take care of thy children, the Boys!
* * * * *
[Footnote A: The Works of William Shakespeare. Edited, etc., by
RICHARD GRANT WHITE. Vols. II., III., IV., and V. Boston: Little, Brown,
& Co. 1858]
We doubt if posterity owe a greater debt to any two men living in 1623
than to the two obscure actors who in that year published the first
folio edition of Shakspeare's plays. But for them, it is more than
likely that such of his works as had remained to that time imprinted
would have been irrecoverably lost, and among them were "Julius Caesar,"
"The Tempest," and "Macbeth." But are we to believe them when they
assert that they present to us the plays which they reprinted from
stolen and surreptitious copies "cured and perfect of their limbs," and
those which are original in their edition "absolute in their numbers as
he [Shakspeare] conceived them"? Alas, we have read too many theatrical
announcements, have been taught too often that the value of the promise
was in an inverse ratio to the generosity of the exclamation-marks, too
easily to believe that! Nay, we have seen numberless processions of
healthy kine enter our native village unheralded save by the lusty
shouts of drovers, while a wretched calf, cursed by stepdame Nature with
two heads, was brought to us in a triumphal car, avant-couriered by
a band of music as abnormal as itself, and announced as the greatest
wonder of the age. If a double allowance of vituline brains deserve such
honor, there are few commentators on Shakspeare that would have gone
afoot, and the trumpets of Messieurs Heminge and Condell call up in our
minds too many monstrous and deformed associations.
What, then, is the value of the first folio as an authority? We are
inclined to think that Mr. Collier (for obvious reasons) underrates
it, and that Mr. White sometimes errs in the opposite direction. For
eighteen of the plays it is the only authority we have, and the only
one also for four others in their complete form. It is admitted that
in several instances Heminge and Condell reprinted the earlier quarto
impressions with a few changes, sometimes for the better and sometimes
for the worse; and it is most probable that copies of those editions
(whether surreptitious or not) had taken the place of the original
prompter's books, as being more convenient and legible. Even in these
cases it is not safe to conclude that all or even any of the variations
were made by the hand of Shakspeare himself. And where the players
printed from manuscript, is it likely to have been that of the author?
The probability is small that a writer so busy as Shakspeare must have
been during his productive period should have copied out their parts for
the actors, himself, or that one so indifferent as he seems to have been
to the mere literary fortunes of his works should have given any great
care to the correction of such copies, if made by others. The copies
exclusively in the hands of Heminge and Condell were, it is manifest,
in some cases, very imperfect, whether we account for the fact by the
burning of the Globe Theatre or by the necessary wear and tear of years,
and (what is worthy of notice) they are plainly more defective in some
parts than in others. "Measure for Measure" is an example of this, and
we are not satisfied with being told that its ruggedness of verse is
intentional, or that its obscurity is due to the fact that Shakspeare
grew more elliptical in his style as he grew older. Profounder in
thought he doubtless became; though, in a mind like his, we believe that
this would imply only a more absolute supremacy in expression. But, from
whatever original we suppose either the quartos or the first folio to
have been printed, it is more than questionable whether the
proof-sheets had the advantage of any revision other than that of the
printing-office. Steevens was of opinion that authors in the time of
Shakspeare never read their own proof-sheets; and Mr. Spedding, in his
recent edition of Bacon, comes independently to the same conclusion.[B]
We may be very sure that Heminge and Condell did not, as vicars, take
upon themselves a disagreeable task which the author would have been too
careless to assume.
[Footnote B: Vol. III. p. 348, note. He grounds his belief, not on the
misprinting of words, but on the misplacing of whole paragraphs. We were
struck with the same thing in the original edition of Chapman's Biron's
Conspiracy and Tragedy. One of the misprints which Mr. Spedding notices
affords both a hint and a warning to the conjectural emendator. In the
edition of The Advancement of Learning printed in 1605 occurs the
word dusinesse. In a later edition this was conjecturally changed to
business; but the occurrence of vertigine in the Latin translation
enables Mr. Spedding to print rightly, dizziness.]
Nevertheless, however strong a case may be made out against the Folio of
1623, whatever sins of omission we may lay to the charge of Heminge and
Condell, or of commission to that of the printers, it remains the only
text we have with any claims whatever to authenticity. It should be
deferred to as authority in all cases where it does not make Shakspeare
write bad sense, uncouth metre, or false grammar, of all which we
believe him to have been more supremely incapable than any other man who
ever wrote English. Yet we would not speak unkindly even of the blunders
of the Folio. They have put bread into the mouth of many an honest
editor, publisher, and printer, for the last century and a half; and he
who loves the comic side of human nature will find the serious notes of
a variorum edition of Shakspeare as funny reading as the funny ones
are serious. Scarce a commentator of them all, for more than a hundred
years, but thought, as Alphonso of Castile did of Creation, that, if
he had only been at Shakspeare's elbow, he could have given valuable
advice; scarce one who did not know off-hand that there was never a
seaport in Bohemia,—as if Shakspeare's world were one which Mercator
could have projected; scarce one but was satisfied that his ten
finger-tips were a sufficient key to those astronomic wonders of poise
and counterpoise, of planetary law and cometary seeming-exception, in
his metres; scarce one but thought he could gauge like an ale-firkin
that intuition whose edging shallows may have been sounded, but
whose abysses, stretching down amid the sunless roots of Being and
Consciousness, mock the plummet; scarce one but could speak with
condescending approval of that prodigious intelligence so utterly
without congener that our baffled language must coin an adjective to
qualify it, and none is so audacious as to say Shakspearian of any
other. And yet, in the midst of our impatience, we cannot help thinking
also of how much healthy mental activity this one man has been the
occasion, how much good he has indirectly done to society by withdrawing
men to investigations and habits of thought that secluded them from
baser attractions, for how many he has enlarged the circle of study and
reflection; since there is nothing in history or politics, nothing in
art or science, nothing in physics or metaphysics, that is not sooner or
later taxed for his illustration. This is partially true of all great
minds, open and sensitive to truth and beauty through any large arc
of their circumference; but it is true in an unexampled sense of
Shakspeare, the vast round of whose balanced nature seems to have been
equatorial, and to have had a southward exposure and a summer sympathy
at every point, so that life, society, statecraft serve us at last but
as commentaries on him, and whatever we have gathered of thought, of
knowledge, and of experience, confronted with his marvellous page,
shrinks to a mere footnote, the stepping-stone to some hitherto
inaccessible verse. We admire in Homer the blind placid mirror of the
world's young manhood, the bard who escapes from his misfortune in poems
all memory, all life and bustle, adventure and picture; we revere in
Dante that compressed force of lifelong passion which could make a
private experience cosmopolitan in its reach and everlasting in its
significance; we respect in Goethe the Aristotelian poet, wise by
weariless observation, witty with intention, the stately Geheimerrath
of a provincial court in the empire of Nature. As we study these, we
seem in our limited way to penetrate into their consciousness and to
measure and master their methods;—but with Shakspeare it is just the
other way; the more we have familiarized ourselves with the operations
of our own consciousness, the more do we find, in reading him, that
he has been beforehand with us, and that, while we have been vainly
endeavoring to find the door of his being, he has searched every nook
and cranny of our own. While other poets and dramatists embody isolated
phases of character and work inward from the phenomenon to the special
law which it illustrates, he seems in some strange way unitary with
human nature itself, and his own soul to have been the law- and
life-giving power of which his creations are only the phenomena. We
justify or criticize the characters of other writers by our memory and
experience, and pronounce them natural or unnatural; but he seems to
have worked in the very stuff of which memory and experience are made,
and we recognize his truth to Nature by an innate and unacquired
sympathy, as if he alone possessed the secret of the "ideal form and
universal mould," and embodied generic types rather than individuals.
In this Cervantes alone has approached him; and Don Quixote and Sancho,
like the men and women of Shakspeare, are the contemporaries of
every generation, because they are not products of an artificial and
transitory society, but because they are animated by the primeval and
unchanging forces of that humanity which underlies and survives the
forever-fickle creeds and ceremonials of the parochial corners which we
who dwell in them sublimely call The World.
But the dropping of our variorum volume upon the floor recalls us
from our reverie, and, as we pick it up, we ask ourselves sadly, Is it
fitting that we should have a Shakspeare according to plodding Malone
or coarse-minded Steevens, both of whom would have had the headache all
their lives after, could one of the Warwickshire plebeian's conceptions
have got into their brains and stretched them, and who would have hidden
under their bedclothes in a cold-sweat of terror, could they have
seen the awful vision of Macbeth as he saw it? No! and to every other
commentator who has wantonly tampered with the text, or obscured it
with his inky cloud of paraphrase, we feel inclined to apply the
quadrisyllable name of the brother of Agis, king of Sparta. Clearly, we
should be grateful to an editor who feels it his chief duty to scrape
away these barnacles from the brave old hull, to replace with the
original heart-of-oak the planks where these small but patient
terebrators have bored away the tough fibre to fill the gap with
sawdust!
This task Mr. White has undertaken, and, after such conscientious
examination of his work as the importance of it demands, after a painful
comparison, note by note, and reading by reading, of his edition with
those of Messrs. Knight, Collier, and Dyce, our opinion of his ability
and fitness for his task has been heightened and confirmed. Not that we
always agree with him,—not that we do not think that in respect of the
Folio text he has sometimes erred on the side of superstitious reverence
for it, and sometimes in too rashly abandoning it,—but, making all
due exceptions, we think that his edition is, in the phrase of our New
England fathers in Israel, for substance, scope, and aim, the best
hitherto published. The chief matter must in all cases be the text, and
the faults we find in him do not, as a general rule, affect that. Some
of them are faults which his own better judgment, we think, will lead
him to avoid in his forthcoming volumes; and in regard to some, he will
probably honestly disagree with us as to their being faults at all. No
conceivable edition of Shakspeare would satisfy all tastes;—sometimes
we have attached associations to received readings which make impartial
perception impossible; sometimes we have imparted our own meaning to
a passage by too steady pondering over it, just as in twilight an
inanimate thing will seem to move, if we look at it long, though the
wavering be truly in our own overstrained vision; sometimes our personal
temperament will insensibly warp our judgment;—but Mr. White has
generally shown so just a discrimination, that there are few instances
where we dissent, and in these a pencil will enable every one to edit
for himself. Any criticism of an edition of Shakspeare must necessarily
concern itself with seemingly insignificant matters, often with a
comma or a syllable,—and the danger is always of degenerating into a
captiousness and word-catching unworthy the lover of truth for its own
sake. We shall endeavor to be minute without being small.
Mr. White reserves for a first volume (not yet published) his notices
of Shakspeare's life, his remarks upon the text, and other general
introductory topics. In the second volume, he gives us an excellent copy
of the Droeshout portrait, the preliminary matter of the Folio of 1628,
with notices of the writers of commendatory verses thereto prefixed, and
of the principal actors who performed parts in Shakspeare's plays. We
notice particularly his discussion of the authorship of the verses
signed J.M.S. as a good example of the delicacy and acuteness of his
criticism. Though he has the great authority of Coleridge against him,
we think that he has constructed a very ingenious, strong, and even
convincing argument against the Milton theory. Each play is preceded
by an Introduction, remarkably well digested and condensed, giving an
account of the text, and of the sources from which Shakspeare helped
himself to plots or incidents. We cannot but commend highly the
self-restraint which marks these brief and pithy prefaces, and the
pertinency of every sentence to the matter in hand. The Germans, (to
whom we are undeniably indebted for the first philosophic appreciation
of the poet,) being debarred by their alienage from the tempting
parliament of verbal commentary and conflict, have made themselves such
ample amends by expatiations in the unfenced field of aesthetics and
of that constructive criticism which is too often confined to the
architecture of Castles in Spain, that we feel as if Dogberry had
charged us in relation to them with that hopelessly bewildering
commission to "comprehend all vagrom men" which we have hitherto
considered applicable only to peripatetic lecturers. Mr. White wisely
and kindly leaves us to Shakspeare and our own imaginations,—two very
potent spells to conjure with,—and seems to be aware of the fact, that,
in its application to a creative mind like that of the great Poet, the
science of teleology may sometimes find itself as much at fault as it so
often is in attempting to fathom the designs of the Infinite Creator.
Rabelais solves the grave problem of the goodliness of Friar John's nose
by the comprehensive formula, "Because God willed it so"; and it is well
for us in most cases to enjoy Shakspeare in the same pious way,—to
smell a rose without bothering ourselves about its having been made
expressly to serve the turn of the essence-peddlers of Shiraz. We yield
the more credit to Mr. White's self-denial in this respect, because
his notes prove him to be capable of profound as well as delicate and
sympathetic exegesis. Shakspeare himself has left us a pregnant satire
on dogmatical and categorical esthetics (which commonly in discussion
soon lose their ceremonious tails and are reduced to the internecine dog
and cat of their bald first syllables) in the cloud-scene between Hamlet
and Polonius, suggesting exquisitely how futile is any attempt at a
cast-iron definition of those perpetually metamorphic impressions of the
beautiful, whose source is as much in the man who looks as in the thing
he sees. And elsewhere more directly,—Mr. White must allow us the old
reading for the sake of our illustration,—he has told us how
"Affection,
Master of passion, sways it to the mood
Of what it likes or loathes."
We are glad to see, likewise, with what becoming indifference the matter
of Shakspeare's indebtedness to others is treated by Mr. White in his
Introductions. There are many commentators who seem to think they have
wormed themselves into the secret of the Master's inspiration when they
have discovered the sources of his plots. But what he took was by right
of eminent domain; and was he not to resuscitate a theme and make it
immortal, because some botcher had tried his hand upon it before, and
left it for stone-dead? Because he could not help throwing sizes, was he
to avoid the dice which for others would only come up ames-ace?
Up to the middle of 1854,[C] there had been published in England and on
the Continent eighty-eight complete editions of Shakspeare in English,
thirty-two in German, six in French, and five, more or less complete,
in Italian. Beside these, his works had been translated into Dutch,
(1778-82,) into Danish, (1807-28,) into Hungarian, (1824,) into Polish,
(1842,) and into Swedish (1847-51). The numerous American editions are
not reckoned in this statement; and, to give an adequate notion of the
extent of the Shakspeare-literature, we should add that the number of
separately-printed comments and other illustrative publications already
exceeds five hundred. No other poet except Dante has received such
appreciation,—and not even he, if we consider in Shakspeare's case the
greater bulk of the works and the difficulty of the language. After so
many people had used their best wit and had their say, could there be
any unconsidered trifle left for a new editor? Could the sharpest eyes
find more needles in this enormous haystack? We do not pretend to have
examined the whole of this polyglot library, nay, but for Herr Sillig,
we had never heard of most of the books in it, but we are tolerably
familiar with the more important English editions, and with some of the
German comments,[D] and we must say that the freshness of many of Mr.
White's observations struck us with very agreeable surprise. We are
not fond of off-hand opinions on any subject, much more on one so
multifarious and complex as this,—we are a great deal too ready with
them in America, and pronounce upon pictures and poems with a b'hoyish
nonchalance that would be amusing, were it not for its ill consequence
to Art,—but we love the expression of honest praise, of sifted and
considerate judgment, and we think that a laborious collation justifies
us in saying that in acute discrimination of aesthetic shades of
expression, and often of textual niceties, Mr. White is superior to any
previous editor.
[Footnote C: Die Shakspere-Literatur bis Mitte 1854. Zusammengestellt
und herausgegeben von P.H. SILLIG. Leipzig. 1854.]
[Footnote D: Among which (setting aside a few remarks of Goethe) we are
inclined to value as highly us anything Tieck's Essay on the Element of
the Wonderful in Shakspeare.]
In proof of what we have said, we will refer to a few of the notes which
have particularly pleased us, and which show originality of view.
(Tempest, Act ii. Sc. 2.)
"'Nor scrape trenchering, nor wash, dish.'
"Dryden, Theobald, Dyce, Halliwell, and Hudson would have 'trenchering'
a typographical error for 'trencher,' which they introduce into the
text. Surely they must all have forgotten that Caliban was drunk,
and, after singing 'firing' and 'requiring,' would naturally sing
'trenchering.' There is a drunken swing in the original line which is
entirely lost in the precise, curtailed rhythm of—
'Nor scrape trencher, nor wash dish.'"
Other editors had retained "trenchering," but none, that we know, ever
gave so good a reason for it. Equally good is his justification of
himself for omitting Theobald's interpolation of "Did she nod?" in "Two
Gentlemen of Verona," Act i. Sc. 1. Other examples may be found in the
readings, "There is a lady of Verona here," (same play, Act iii. Sc. 1);
"Yet reason dares her on," (Measure for Measure, Act iv. Sc. 4);
"Hark, how the villain would glose now," (same play, Act v. Sc. 1);
"The forced fallacy," (Comedy of Errors, Act ii. Sc. 1); in the note
on "Cupid is a good hare-finder," (Much Ado, Act i. Sc. 3); the
admirable note on "Examine those men," (same play, Act iii. Sc. 1); the
readings, "Out on thee! Seeming!" (same play, Act iv. Sc. 1); "For I
have only silent been," (ibid.); "Goodly Count-Confèct," and note, (same
play, Act iv. Sc. 2); the note on "I do beseech thee, remember thy
courtesy," (Love's Labor's Lost, Act v. Sc. 1); on "Mounsieur Cobweb,"
and "Help Cavalery Cobweb to scratch," (Mid. Night's D., Act iv. Sc.
1); on "Or in the night," etc. (same play, Act v. Sc. 1); on "Is sum of
nothing," (Merchant of Venice, Act iii. Sc. 2); on "Stays me here at
home unkept," (As you like it, Act i. Sc. 1); on "Unquestionable
spirit," (same play, Act iii. Sc. 2); on "Move the still-piecing air,"
(All's Well, etc., Act ii. Sc. 2); and on "What is not holy," (same
play, Act iv. Sc. 2). We have referred to a few only out of the many
instances that have attracted our notice, and these chiefly for their
bearing on what we have said of the editor's refinement of appreciation
and originality of view. The merely illustrative and explanatory notes
are also full and judicious, containing all that it is important the
reader should know, and a great deal which it will entertain him to
learn. In the Introductions to the several plays, too, we find many
obiter dicta of Mr. White which are excellent in their clearness of
critical perception and conciseness of phrase. From that to the "Comedy
of Errors" we quote the following sentence:—
"Concerning the place and the period of the action of this play, it
seems that Shakspeare did not trouble himself to form a very accurate
idea. The Ephesus of "The Comedy of Errors" is much like the Bohemia of
"The Winter's Tale,"—a remote, unknown place, yet with a familiar and
imposing name, and therefore well suited to the purposes of one who, as
poet and dramatist, cared much for men and little for things, and to
whose perception the accidental was entirely eclipsed by the essential.
Anachronisms are scattered through it with a profusion which could only
be the result of entire indifference,—in fact, of an absolute want of
thought on the subject."—Vol. III. 189.
We think this could not be better said, if only we might supplant
"things" with the more precise word "facts"; for about things
Shakspeare was never careless. It is only that deciduous foliage of
facts which every generation leaves heaps of behind it dry, and dead,
that he rustles through with eyes so royally unconcerned. As a good
example of Mr. White's style, we should be inclined to cite the
Introduction to "Love's Labor's Lost," from which we detach this single
crystal:—
"It is ever the ambitious way of youthful genius to aim at novelty of
form in its first essays, while yet in treatment it falls unconsciously
into a vein of reminiscence; afterward it is apt to return to
established forms, and to show originality of treatment."
The temptation which too easily besets an editor of Shakspeare is to
differ, if possible, from everybody who has gone before him, though but
as between the N.E. and N.N.E. points in the circumference of a hair. We
do not find Mr. White guilty in this respect for what he has done, but
sometimes for what he has left undone in allowing the Folio text to
remain. The instance that has surprised us most is his not admitting
(As You Like it, Act iv. Sc. 1) the reading,—"The foolish coroners
of that age found it was Hero of Sestos," instead of the unmeaning one,
"chroniclers." He has been forced, for the sake of sense, to make some
changes in the Folio text which seem to us quite as violent, and we
cannot help thinking that the gain in aptness of phrase and coherence of
meaning would have justified him in doing as much here. He admits, in
his note on the passage, that the change is "very plausible"; but adds,
"If we can at will reduce a perfectly appropriate and uncorrupted word
of ten letters to one of eight, and strike out such marked letters as
h, l, and e, we may re-write Shakspeare at our pleasure." Mr.
White has already admitted that "chroniclers" is not perfectly
appropriate in admitting that the change is "very plausible"; and he has
no right to assume that the word is uncorrupted,—for that is the very
point in question. As to the disparity in the number of letters, no one
familiar with misprints will be surprised at it; and Mr. Spedding, in
the edition of Bacon already referred to, furnishes us with an example
of blunder[E] precisely the reverse, in which one word of eight letters
is given for two of ten, (sciences for six princess,)—the printer
in both cases having set up his first impression of what the word was
for the word itself. Had this occurred in Shakspeare, instead of Bacon,
we should have had a series of variorum notes like this:—
[Footnote E: Bacon's Works, by Ellis, Spedding, & Heath. Vol. III. p.
303, note.]
"That sixpence was the word used by our author scarcely admits of
doubt. From a number of parallel passages we select the following:—
'Live on sixpence a day, and earn it.'—Abernethy.
'I give thee sixpence? I will see thee and-so-forthed
first!'—Canning.
'Be shot for sixpence on a battlefield.'—Tennyson.
'Half a crown, two shillings and sixpence.'—Niemand's Dictionary.
Moreover, we find our author using precisely the same word in the
'Midsummer Night's Dream':—
'Thus hath he lost sixpence a day during his life.'" JONES.
"Had the passage read 'two princes,' we might have thought it genuine;
since 'the two kings of Brentford' must have been familiar to our great
poet, and he was also likely to have that number deeply impressed on
his mind by the awful tragedy in the tower, (see Richard the Third,)
where, it is remarkable, precisely that number of royal offspring
suffered at the hands of the crook-backed tyrant. The citation from
Niemand's Dictionary, by the Rev. Mr. Jones, tells as much in favor of
two princes as of sixpence; for how could the miseries of a divided
empire be more emphatically portrayed than in the striking, and, as it
seems to me, touching phrase, HALF a crown? Could we in any way read
'three princes,' we should find strong support in the tradition of
'the three kings of Cologne,' and in the Arabian story of the 'Three
Calenders.' The line quoted by Thomson, (Shakspeare, by Thomson, Vol.
X. p. 701.) 'Under which King Bezonian, speak or die!' (though we agree
with him in preferring his pointing to the ordinary and meaningless
'Under which King, Bezonian,' etc.) unhappily can throw no light on the
present passage till we know how many King Bezonians are intended,
and who they were. Perhaps we should read Belzonian, and suppose a
reference to the Egyptian monarchs whose tombs were first explored by
the intrepid Belzoni. The epithet would certainly be appropriate and in
Shakspeare's best manner; but among so many monarchs, a choice of two,
or even three, would be embarrassing and invidious." BROWN.
"As for the 'Three Calenders,' there can be no reasonable question that
Shakspeare was well acquainted with the story; for that he had travelled
extensively in the East I have proved in my 'Essay to show that Sir
Thomas Roe and William Shakspeare were identical'; and that he was
familiar with the Oriental languages must be apparent to any one who has
read my note on 'Concolinel' (Love's Labor's Lost, Act iii. Sc. 1).
But that 'six princes' is the true reading is clear from the parallel
passage in "Richard the Third," which I am surprised that the usually
accurate Mr. Brown should have overlooked,—'Methinks there be Six
Richmonds in the field.'" ROBINSON.
"I was at first inclined to the opinion of the late Mr. Robinson, but
maturer consideration has caused me to agree with the eloquent and
erudite Jones. There is a definite meaning in the word sixpence; and
a similar error of the press in Lord Bacon's 'Advancement of Learning,'
where the context shows that sixpences and not sciences was the word
intended, leads me to suspect that the title of his opus magnum should
be De Augmentis Sixpenciarum. Viewing the matter as a political
economist, such a topic would have been more worthy of the Lord
Chancellor of England; it would have been more in accordance with what
we know of the character of 'the meanest of mankind'; and the exquisite
humor of the title would tally precisely with what Ben Jonson tells us
in his 'Discoveries,' under the head Dominus Verulamius, that
'his language (where he could spare or pass by a jest) was nobly
censorious.' Sir Thomas More had the same proneness to merriment,
a coincidence the more striking as both these great men were Lord
Chancellors. A comic stroke of this description would have been highly
attractive to a mind so constituted, and might easily escape the notice
of a printer, who was more likely to be intent upon the literal accuracy
of the Latin than on the watch for extraordinary flights of humor."
SMITH.
But we must return from our excursion into an imaginary variorum,
delightful because it requires no eyesight and no thought, to the more
serious duty of examining the notes of Mr. White. We have mentioned a
single instance in which we differ with him as to the propriety of a
fanatical adherence to the text of the Folio of 1623. We differ, because
we think that sense is not all that we have a right to expect from
Shakspeare,—that it is, indeed, merely the body in which his genius
creates a soul of meaning, nay, oftentimes a double one, exoteric and
esoteric, the spiritus astralis and the anima caelestis. Had the
passage been in verse, where the change might have damaged the rhythm,
—had it been one of those ecstasies of Shakspearian imagination,
to tamper with which because we could not understand it would be
Bottom-like presumption,—one of those tempests of passion where every
word reeks hot and sulphurous, like a thunderstone new-fallen,—in any
of these cases we should have agreed with Mr. White that to abstain was
a duty. But in a sentence of lightsome and careless prose, and where the
chances are great that the word to be changed is the accident of the
printer and not the choice of the author, we say, give us a text that is
true to the context and the aesthetic instinct rather than to the Folio,
even were that Pandora-box only half as full of manifest corruptions as
it is.
In the "Two Gentlemen of Verona," (Act iii. Sc. 1,) Mr. White prefers,
"She is not to be fasting in respect of her breath," to "She is not to
be kissed fasting in respect of her breath,"—an emendation made by
Rowe,[F] and found also in Mr. Collier's Corrected Folio of 1632. We
cannot agree with him in a reading which seems to us to destroy all the
point of the passage.
[Footnote F: Mr. Dyce says the word supplied by Rowe was "fasting," a
manifest slip of the pen, and worth notice only as showing how easily
errors may be committed.]
In Dumain's ode, (Love's Labor's Lost, Act iv. Sc. 3,) beginning,
"On a day, (alack the day!)
Love, whose month is ever May,"
Mr. White chooses to read
"Thou, for whom Jove would swear
Juno but an Ethiop were,"
rather than accept Pope's suggestion of "ev'n Jove," or the far better
"great Jove" of Mr. Collier's Corrected Folio,—affirming that "the
quantity and accent proper to 'thou' make any addition to the line
superfluous." We should like to hear Mr. White read the verse as he
prints it. The result would be something of this kind:—
Thou-ou for whom Jove would swear,—
which would be like the 'bow-wow-wow before the Lord' of the old
country-choirs. To our ear it is quite out of the question; and,
moreover, we affirm that in dissyllabic (which we, for want of a better
name, call iambic and trochaic) measures the omission of a half-foot
is an impossibility, and all the more so when, as in this case, the
preceding syllable is strongly accented. Even had the poem been meant
for singing, which it was not, for Dumain reads it, the quantity would
be false, though the ear might more easily excuse it. Such an omission
would be not only possible, but sometimes very effective, in trisyllabic
measures,—as, for instance, in anapests like these,—
"'Tis the middle of night by the castle clock,
And the owls have awakened the crowing cock,"—
where iambs or spondees may take the place of the first or second foot
with no shock to the ear, though the change of rhythm be sensible
enough,—as
'Tis th[)e] d[=e][=e]p midnight by the castle clock,
And [)o]wls have awakened the crowing cock.
We quite agree with Mr. White and Mr. Knight in their hearty dislike of
the Steevens-system of versification, but we think that Coleridge (who,
although the best English metrist since Milton, often thought lazily and
talked loosely) has misled both of them in what he has said about the
pauses and retardations of verse. In that noblest of our verses, the
unrhymed iambic pentameter, two short or lightly-accented syllables
may often gracefully and effectively take the place of a long or
heavily-accented one; but great metrists contrive their pauses by the
artistic choice and position of their syllables, and not by leaving
them out. Metre is the solvent in which alone thought and emotion can
perfectly coalesce,—the thought confining the emotion within decorous
limitations of law, the emotion beguiling the thought into somewhat of
its own fluent grace and rebellious animation. That is ill metre which
does not read itself in the mouth of a man thoroughly penetrated with
the meaning of what he reads; and only a man as thoroughly possessed
of the meaning of what he writes can produce any metre that is not
sing-song. Not that we would have Shakspeare's metre tinkered where it
seems defective, but that we would not have palpable gaps defended as
intentional by the utterly unsatisfactory assumption of pauses and
retardations. Mr. White has in many cases wisely and properly made
halting verses perfect in their limbs by easy transpositions, and we
think he is perfectly right in refusing to interpolate a syllable, but
wrong in assuming that we have Shakspeare's metre where we have no metre
at all. We are not speaking of seeming irregularities, of lines broken
up by rapid dialogue or cut short by the gulp of voiceless passion, nor
do we forget that Shakspeare wrote for the tongue and not the eye, but
we do not believe he ever left an unmusical period. Especially is this
true of passages where the lyrical sentiment predominates, and we beg
Mr. White to reconsider whether we owe the reading
"All overcanopied with luscious woodbine"
(instead of lush)
to the printers of the Folio or to Shakspeare. Even if we accept
Steevens's "whereon" instead of "where" in the first verse of this
exquisite piece of melody, and read (as Mr. White does not)
"I know a bank whereon the wild thyme grows,"
it leaves the peculiar lilt of the metre unchanged. The varied
accentuation of the verses is striking; and would any one convince
himself of the variety of which this measure is capable, let him try to
read this passage, and the speech of Prospero, beginning "Ye elves of
hills," to the same tune. In the verses,
"And ye that on the sands with printless foot
Do chase the ebbing Neptune, | and do fly him
When he comes back,"
observe how the pauses are contrived to echo the sense and give the
effect of flux and reflux. Versification was understood in that day as
never since, and no treatise on English verse so good, in all respects,
as that of Campion (1602) has ever been written. Coleridge learned from
him how to write his "Catullian hendeca-syllables," and did not better
his instruction.[G]
[Footnote G: For the comprehension of the laws of some of the lighter
measures, no book is so instructive as Mother Goose's Melodies. That
excellent lady was one of the best metrists the language has produced.]
In "Measure for Measure," (Act i. Sc. 1,) in this passage,—
"what's open made
To justice, that justice seizes: what knows the law
That thieves do pass on thieves?"
does Mr. White believe the "that" and "what" are Shakspeare's? Does he
consider
"To justice, that justice seizes: what knows the law"
an alexandrine,—and an alexandrine worthy of a student and admirer of
Spenser? Should we read it thus, we should dread Martial's sarcasm of,
Sed male cum recitas. We believe that Shakspeare wrote
"What's open made
To Justice, Justice seizes; knows the Law
That thieve do pass on thieves?"
We have pointed out a passage or two where we think Mr. White follows
the Folio text too literally. Two instances we have noted where he has
altered, as we think, for the worse. The first is (Tempest, Act iii.
Sc. 3) where Mr. White reads,
"You are three men of sin whom Destiny
(That hath to instrument this lower world
And what is in't) the never-surfeited sea
Hath caused to belch you up,—and on this island
Where man doth not inhabit; you 'mongst men
Being most unfit to live. I have made you mad."
The Folio reads, "Hath caused to belch up you"; and Mr. White says in
his note, "The tautological repetition of the pronoun was a habit,
almost a custom, with the Elizabethan dramatists." This may be true,
(though we think the assertion rash,) but certainly never as in
this case. We think the Folio right, except in its punctuation. The
repetition of the "you" is emphatic, not tautological, and is demanded
by the whole meaning of the passage. Ariel is taunting the persons
she addresses, with the intention of angering them; and the "you" is
repeated, because those highly respectable men cannot at first bring
their minds to believe that such unsavory epithets are addressed to
them. We should punctuate thus, following the order of the words in the
Folio,—
"Hath caused to belch up,—you! and on this island,
Where man doth not inhabit;—you 'mongst men
Being most unfit to live. I have made you mad."
In the "Comedy of Errors," (Act ii. Sc. 2,) Adriana, suspecting her
husband of unfaithfulness, says to him,—
"For, if we two be one, and thou play false,
I do digest the poison of thy flesh,
Being strumpeted by thy contagion.
Keep, then, fair league and truce with thy
true bed;
I live distained, thou undishonored."
Such is the reading of the Folio. Mr. White reads,
"I live distained, thou one dishonored."
But we cannot help thinking that the true reading should be,
"I live distained, though undishonored,"
which is a less forced construction, and coincides with the rest of the
passage,—"I am contaminate through thee, though in myself immaculate."
In "As You Like it," (Act ii. Sc. 3,) Mr. White (with the Folio and some
recent editors) calls the Duke's wrestler, "the bonny priser of the
Duke." The common reading is "bony," which seems to us better, though
we believe brawny to be the word intended. We likewise question
Mr. White's explanation of the word priser, which, he says, "is
prize-fighter, one who wins prizes." One who "fights for prizes" would
have been better; but we suspect that the word is more nearly akin
with the French prise (in the sense of venir aux prises) than with
prix. We should prefer also "Aristotle's ethicks" (Taming of the
Shrew, Act i. Sc. 1) to the ordinary "Aristotle's checks," which is
retained by Mr. White. In "Much Ado about Nothing," (Act ii. Sc. 1,) we
have no doubt that Mr. Collier's corrector is right in reading "sink
apace," though Mr. White states authoritatively that Shakspeare would
not have so written. It is only fair to Mr. White, however, to say that
he is generally open-minded toward readings suggested by others, and
that he accepts nearly all those of Mr. Collier's Corrected Folio on
which honest lovers of Shakspeare would be likely to agree. In comparing
his notes with the text, our eye was caught by a verse in which there
seems so manifest a corruption that we shall venture to throw down the
discord-apple of a conjectural emendation. In the "Merchant of Venice,"
(Act iii. Sc. 2,) where Bassanio is making his choice among the caskets,
after a long speech about "outward shows" and "ornament," he is made to
say that ornament is,
"in a word,
The seeming truth which cunning times put on
To entrap the wisest."
We find it hard to believe that times is the right word here, and
strongly suspect that it has stolen the place of tires. The whole
previous tenor of the speech, and especially of the images immediately
preceding that in question, appears to demand such a word.
We have said, that we considered the style and matter of Mr. White's
notes excellent. Indeed, to the purely illustrative notes we should
hardly make an exception. There are two or three which we think in
questionable taste, and one where the temptation to say a sharp
thing has led the editor to vulgarize the admirable Benedick, and to
misinterpret the text in a way so unusual for him that it is worth a
comment. When Benedick's friends are discussing the symptoms which show
him to be in love, Claudio asks,
"When was he wont to wash his face?"
Mr. White annotates thus:—
"That the benign effect of the tender passion upon Benedick in this
regard should be so particularly noticed, requires, perhaps, the remark,
that in Shakspeare's time our race had not abandoned itself to that
reckless use of water, whether for ablution or potation, which has more
recently become one of its characteristic traits."
Now, if there could be any doubt that "wash" means cosmetic here, the
next speech of Don Pedro ("Yea, or to paint himself?") would remove
it. The gentlemen of all periods in history have been so near at least
to godliness as is implied in cleanliness. The very first direction in
the old German poem of "Tisch-zucht" is to wash before coming to table;
and in "Parzival," Gurnamanz specially inculcates on his catechumen the
social duty of always thoroughly cleansing himself on laying aside his
armor. Such instances could be multiplied without end.
In annotating Shakspeare, it would, perhaps, be asking too much of
an editor to give credit to its first finder for every scrap of
illustration. The immense mass of notes already existing may, perhaps,
be fairly looked upon as a kind of dictionary, open to every one,
and the use of which implies no indebtedness. Mr. White, in general,
indicates the source whence he has drawn, though we have sometimes found
him negligent in this respect. He says, in the Advertisement prefixed to
his second volume, "that in every case, where no such credit is
given for a restoration, a conjecture, or a quotation, the editor is
responsible for it; and as he is disinclined to the giving of much
prominence to claims of this sort, he has, in those cases, merely
remarked, that 'hitherto' the text has stood thus or so." We have not
been at the trouble of verifying every one of Mr. White's "hithertos,"
but we did so in two plays, and found in "Midsummer Night's Dream" four,
and in "Much Ado" two cases, where the reading claimed as a restoration
occurred also in Mr. Knight's excellent edition of 1842. These
oversights do not affect the correctness of Mr. White's text, but they
diminish our confidence in the accuracy of the collation to which he
lays claim.
The chief objection which we have to make against Mr. White's text is,
that he has perversely allowed it to continue disfigured by vulgarisms
of grammar and spelling. For example, he gives us misconster, and
says, "This is not a mis-spelling or loose spelling of 'misconstrue,'
but the old form of the word." Mr. Dyce insisted on the same
cacographical nicety in his "Remarks" on the editions of Mr. Collier and
Mr. Knight, but abandons it in his own with the artless admission that
misconstrue also occurs in the Folio. In one of the Camden Society's
publications is a letter from Friar John Hylsey to Thomas Cromwell, in
which we find "As God is my jugge";[H] but we do not believe that jug
was an old form of judge, though a philological convict might fancy
that the former word was a derivative of the latter. Had the phrase
occurred in Shakspeare, we should have had somebody defending it as
tenderly poetical. We cannot but think it a sacrifice in Mr. White that
he has given up the whatsomeres of the Folio. He does retain puisny
as the old form, but why not spell it puisné and so indicate its
meaning? Mr. White informs us that "the grammatical form in use in
Shakspeare's day" was to have the verb govern a nominative case!
Accordingly, he perpetuates the following oversight of the poet or
blunder of the printer:—
[Footnote H: Suppression of the Monasteries, p. 13.]
"What he is, indeed,
More suits you to conceive, than I to speak of."
Again, he says that who, as an objective case, "is in accordance with
the grammatical usage of Shakspeare's day," (Vol. II. p. 86,) and that,
"considering the unsettled state of minor grammatical relations in
Shakspeare's time," it is possible that he wrote whom as a nominative
(Vol. V. p. 393). But the most extraordinary instance is where he makes
a nominative plural agree with a verb in the second person singular,
(Vol. III. p. 121,) and justifies it by saying that "such disagreements
… are not uncommon in Shakspeare's writings, and those of his
contemporaries." The passage reads as follows in Mr. White's edition:—
"A breath thou art,
Servile to all the skiey influences
That dost this habitation where thou keep'st
Hourly afflict."
Hanmer (mistaking the meaning) read do. Porson objected, on the ground
that it was thou and not influences which governed dost. Porson
was certainly right, and we wonder how any one could ever have
understood the passage in any other way. The mediaevals had as much
trouble in reconciling free-will with judicial astrology as we with the
divine foreknowledge. A passage in Dante, it appears to us, throws light
on the meaning of the Duke's speech:—
"Lo cielo i vostri movimenti inizia;
Non dico tutti; ma posto ch' io 'l dica
Lume v' è dato a bene ed a malizia,
E libero voler che, se fatica
Nelle prime battaglie col ciel dura,
Poi vince tutto se ben si notrica."
Purg., Cant. xvi.
Cielo is here used for the influence of the stars, as is clear from a
parallel passage in the "Convito." Accordingly, "Though servile to all
the skyey influences, it is thou, breath as thou art, that dost hourly
afflict thy body with the results of sin." But even if this be not the
meaning, is Mr. White correct in saying that influence had no plural
at that time?[I] Had he forgotten "the sweet influences of Pleiades"?
The word occurs in this form not only in our version of the Bible,
but in that of Cranmer, and in the "Breeches" Bible. So in Chapman's
"Byron's Conspiracy," (Ed. 1608, B. 3,)
"Where the beames of starres have carv'd
Their powerful influences."
[Footnote I: Mr. White cites Dr. Richardson, but the Doctor is not
always a safe guide.]
Mr. White repeatedly couples together the translators of the Bible and
Shakspeare, but he seems to have studied their grammar but carelessly.
"Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you," is a
case in point, and we ought never to forget our danger from that dusky
personage who goes about "seeking whom he may devour." At a time
when correction of the press was so imperfect, one instance of true
construction should outweigh twenty false, and nothing could be easier
than the mistake of who for whom, when the latter was written
wh[=o]. A glance at Ben Jonson's English Grammar is worth more than
all theorizing. Mr. White thinks it probable that Shakspeare understood
French, Latin, and Italian, but not—English!
The truth is, that, however forms of spelling varied, (as they must
where both writers and printers spelt phonographically,) the forms of
grammatical construction were as strict then as now. There were some
differences of usage, as where two nominatives coupled by a conjunction
severally governed the verb, and where certain nouns in the plural were
joined with a verb in the singular,—as dealings, doings, tidings,
odds, and as is still the case with news. It is not impossible that
the French termination in esse helped to make the confusion. We have
in the opposite way made a plural of riches, which was once singular.
Some persons used the strong preterites, and some the weak,—some said
snew, thew, sew, and some snowed, thawed, sowed. Bishop Latimer
used the preterite shew, which Mr. Bartlett, in his "Dictionary of
Americanisms," pronounces to be the shibboleth of Bostonians. But such
differences were orthoepic, and not syntactic.
We regret Mr. White's glossological excursions the more because they are
utterly supererogatory, and because they seem to imply a rashness of
conclusion which can very seldom be laid to his charge as respects the
text. He volunteers, without the least occasion for it, an opinion that
abye and abide are the same word, (which they are not,) suggests
that vile and vild (whose etymology, he says, is obscure) may
be related to the Anglo-Saxon hyldan, and tells us that dom is
Anglo-Saxon for house. He pronounces ex cathedrâ that besides is
only a vulgar form of beside, though the question is still sub
judice, and though the language has contrived adverbial and
prepositional forms out of the distinction, as it has, in the case of
the compounds with ward and wards, adverbial and adjectival ones.[J]
He declares that the distinction between shall and will was
imperfectly known in Shakspeare's time, though we believe it would not
be difficult to prove that the distinction was more perfect in some
respects than now. We the less value his opinion on these points as he
himself shows an incomplete perception of the difference between would
and should. (See Vol. V. pp. 114, 115, "We would now say, 'all
liveliness,'" and "We would now write, 'the traits of,'" etc.) He says
that the pronunciation commandèment was already going out of use two
centuries and a half ago. Mr. Pegge speaks of it as a common Cockneyism
at the beginning of this century. Sometimes this hastiness, however,
affects the value of an elucidatory note, as where he tells us that a
principality is "an angel of the highest rank next to divinity" [deity],
and quotes St. Paul, breaking off the passage at the word in question.
But St. Paul goes on to say powers,—and there were, in fact, three
orders of angels above the principalities, the highest being the
Seraphim. An editor should be silent or correct, especially where there
is no need of saying anything.
[Footnote J: It is singular, if the s be a corruption, that the
Germans should have fallen into the same in their vorwärts and
rückwärts. We are inclined to conjecture the s a genitival one,
supplying the place of a missing of and von respectively. We
formerly said, "of this side," "of that side," etc.; but the idiomatic
sense of of is so entirely lost, that Mr. Craik (English of
Shakspeare) actually supposes o'clock and o'nights to be
contractions of "on the clock," "on nights," and that, although we
still say habitually, "of late," "of old." The French use of de,
and the Italian of di, is parallel. The Italians have also their
avanti and davante, and no one forgets Dante's
"Di quà, di là, di su, dí giù, gli mena."
]
But it is after Mr. White has been bitten by the oestrum of
Shakspearian pronunciation that he becomes thoroughly contradictory of
himself, especially after he has taken up the notion that "Much Ado
about Nothing" is "Much Ado about Noting," and that the th was
not sounded in the England of Shakspeare. After that, his theory of
rhetorical variety seems to become that of Geoffroy, "dire, redire, et
se contredire." First he tells us, (Vol. II. p. 94,) that "the old form
'murther' should be retained because it is etymologically correct, and
because it was the uniform orthography of the day, [a hasty assumption,]
and the word was pronounced in accordance with it." Next, (in order to
sustain his anti-th theory,) he says, (Vol. III. p. 227,) that "the
last syllable of 'murder,' then written _mur_th_er_, seems to have been
pronounced somewhat like the same syllable of the French meurtre."
He assures us (Vol. III. p. 340) that raisin was pronounced as we now
pronounce reason, and adds, "The custom has not entirely passed
away." Certainly not, as any one who knows Thackeray's "Mulligan of
Ballymulligan" is aware. But Mr. White (having forgotten for a moment
his conclusion that swears was anciently sweers) quotes (Vol. V. pp.
399-400) from the "Haven of Health" as follows:—"Among us in England
they be of two sorts, that is to say, great Raysons and small
Raysons" (the Italics are our own). In "Love's Labor's Lost," he
spells Biron Birone, (Chapman spelt it Byron,) as being nearer the
supposed pronunciation of Shakspeare's day; but finding it rhyming with
moon, he is obliged also to assume that moon was called mown, and
is severe on Mr. Fox for saying Touloon. He forgets that we have other
words of the same termination in English for whose pronunciation Mr. Fox
did not set the fashion. The French termination on became oon in
bassoon, pontoon, balloon, galloon, spontoon, raccoon, (Fr. raton,)
Quiberoon, Cape Bretoon, without any help from Mr. Fox. So also
croon from (Fr.) carogne,—of which Dr. Richardson (following
Jamieson) gives a false etymology. The occurrence of pontoon in
Blount's "Glossographia," published before Mr. Fox was born, shows the
tendency of the language.[K] Or did Mr. Fox invent the word boon?
[Footnote K: Let us remark, in passing, that the spellings "Berowne,"
"Petruchio," and "Borachio" are strong indications that the manuscript
copies of the plays in which they occur were dictated to an amanuensis.]
The pronunciation of words in Shakspeare's time is a matter of no
particular consequence, except that it may be made the basis of
conjectural emendation. This consideration gives the question some
importance, and, as error is one of those plants which propagate
themselves from the root, it is well to attempt its thorough eradication
at the outset.
Autolycus sings,—
"If tinkers may have leave to live,
And bear the sow-skin bowget;
Then my account I well may give,
And in the stocks avouch it."
Upon this Mr. White has the following note:—
"'The sow-skin bowget':—i.e. budget; the change of orthography being
made for the sake of the rhyme; about which our early writers, contrary
to the received opinion, were very particular. Even Ben Jonson, scholar
and grammarian as he was, did not hesitate to make radical changes in
orthography to obtain a perfect, in place of an imperfect rhyme. The
fact is important in the history of our language." (Vol. V. pp. 398-9.)
Readers of our older literature are familiar with what the early writers
of treatises on poetry say upon this subject, concerning which, under
the head of licentia poetica, they give some rather minute directions.
But we think Mr. White's expression "radical changes" a little strong.
The insurmountable difficulty, however, in the way of forming a decided
judgment, is plain at the first glance. You have not, as Dr. Kitchener
would say, caught your hare; you have no standard. Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes? How shall you determine how your first word is pronounced?
and which of two rhyming words shall dominate the other? In the present
instance how do we know that avouch was sounded as it is now? Its
being from the French would lead us to doubt it. And how do we know that
bowget was not pronounced boodget, as it would be, according to Mr.
White, if spelt budget? Bishop Hall makes fool rhyme with cowl.
That ou was sometimes pronounced oo is certain. Gill (of whom
infra) says that the Boreales pronounced wound, waund, and gown,
gaun or geaun.
Mr. White supposes that ea was sounded like ee. We are inclined to
question it, and to think that here again the French element in our
language has made confusion. It is certain that ea represents in many
words the French e and ai,—as in measure and pleasure. The
Irish, who were taught English by Anglo-Normans, persist in giving
the ea its original sound (as baste for beast); and we Northern
Yankees need not go five miles in any direction to hear maysure and
playsure. How long did this pronunciation last in England? to how
many words did it extend? and did it infect any of Saxon root? It
is impossible to say. Was beat called bate? One of Mr. White's
variations from the Folio is "bull-baiting" for "bold-beating." The
mistake could have arisen only from the identity in sound of the ea
in the one with ai in the other. Butler, too, rhymes drum-beat with
combat. But beat is from the French. When we find least, (Saxon,)
then, rhyming with feast, (French,) and also with best, (Shakspeare
has beast and blest,) which is more probable, that best took the
sound of beest, or that we have a slightly imperfect rhyme, with the
[=a] somewhat shorter in one word than the other? We think the latter.
One of the very words adduced by Mr. White (yeasty) is spelt yesty
in the Folio. But will rhymes help us? Let us see. Sir Thomas Wyat
rhymes heares and hairs; Sir Walter Raleigh, teares and
despairs; Chapman, tear (verb) with ear and appear; Shakspeare,
ear with hair and fear, tears with hairs, and sea with
play; Bishop Hall, years with rehearse and expires, and meales
with quailes. Will Mr. White decide how the ea was sounded? We think
the stronger case is made out for the [=a] than for the ee,—for
swears as we now pronounce it, than for sweers; though we fear our
tired readers may be tempted to perform the ceremony implied by the verb
without much regard to its orthoëpy.
Mr. White tells us that on and one were pronounced alike, because
Speed puns upon their assonance. He inclines to the opinion that o had
commonly the long sound, as in tone, and supposes both words to have
been pronounced like own. But was absolute identity in sound ever
necessary to a pun, especially in those simpler and happier days?
Puttenham, in his "English Poesy," gives as a specimen of the art in
those days a play upon the words lubber and lover, appreciable
now only by Ethiopian minstrels, but interesting as showing that the
tendency of b and v to run together was more sensible then than
now.[L] But Shakspeare unfortunately rhymes on with man, in which
case we must either give the one word the Scotch pronunciation of mon,
or Hibernicize the other into ahn. So we find son, which according
to Mr. White would be pronounced sone, coquetting with sun; and Dr.
Donne, who ought to have called himself Doane, was ignorant enough to
remain all his life Dr. Dunn. But the fact is, that rhymes are no safe
guides, for they were not so perfect as Mr. White would have us believe.
Shakspeare rhymed broken with open, sentinel with kill, and
downs with hounds,—to go no farther. Did he, (dreadful thought!) in
that imperfect rhyme of leap and swept, (Merry Wives,) call the
former lape and the latter (Yankicè) swep'? This would jump with
Mr. White's often-recurring suggestion of the Elizabethanism of our
provincial dialect.
[Footnote L: Everybody remembers how Scaliger illustrated it in the case
of the Gascons,—Felices, quibus vivere est bibere.]
Mr. White speaks of the vowels as having had their "pure sound" in the
Elizabethan age. We are not sure if we understand him rightly; but have
they lost it? We English have the same vowel-sounds with other nations,
but indicate them by different signs. Slight changes in orthoëpy we
cannot account for, except by pleading the general issue of custom. Why
should foot and boot be sounded differently? Why food and good?
Why should the Yankee mark the distinction between the two former words,
and blur it in the case of the latter, thereby incurring the awful
displeasure of the "Autocrat," who trusses him, falcon-like, before his
million readers and adorers? Why should the Frenchman call his wooden
shoe a sabot and his old shoe a savate, both from the same root?
Alas, we must too often in philology take Rabelais's reason for Friar
John's nose! With regard to the pronunciation of the vowels in Queen
Bess's days, so much is probable,—that the a in words from the French
had more of the ah sound than now, if rhymes may be trusted. We find
placed rhyming with past; we find the participle saft formed
from save. One relic of this occurs to us as still surviving in
that slang which preserves for us so many glossologic
treasures,—chauffer,—to chafe, (in the sense of angering,)—to
chaff. The same is true of our Yankee ch[)a]mber, d[)a]nger, and
m[)a]nger, cited by Mr. White.
If we have apprehended the bearing of Mr. White's quotation from
Butler's English Grammar, we think he has misapprehended Butler. We wish
he had not broken the extract off so short, with an etc. What did
Butler mean by "oo short"? Mr. White draws the inference that Puck
was called Pook, and that, since it was made to rhyme with luck,
that word and "all of similar orthography" were pronounced with an oo.
Did our ancestors have no short u, answering somewhat to the sound of
that vowel in the French un? We have little doubt of it; and since Mr.
White repeats so often that we Yankees have retained the Elizabethan
words and sounds, may we not claim their pronunciation of put (like
but) and sut for soot, as relics of it? If they had it not, how
soon did it come into the language? Already we find Lord Herbert of
Cherbury using pundonnore, (point d'honneur,) which may supply Dr.
Richardson with the link he wants between pun and point, for the
next edition of his Dictionary. Alexander Gill, head-master of St.
Paul's School and Milton's teacher, published his "Logonomia Anglica" in
1621, a book which throws more light on the contemporary pronunciation
of English than any other we know of. He makes three forms of u:
the tenuis, as in use,—the crassa brevis, as in us,—and the
longa, as in ooze. The Saxons had, doubtless, two sounds of oo,
a long and a short; and the Normans brought them a third in the French
liquid u, if they had it not before. We say if, because their organs
have boggled so at the sound in certain combinations, ending in such
wine-thick success as piktcher, portraitcher.
"On earth's green cinkcher fell a heavy Jew!"
That the u had formerly, in many cases, the sound attributed to it by
Mr. White, we have no question; that it had that sound when Shakspeare
wrote "Midsummer Night's Dream," and in such words as luck, is not so
clear to us. We suspect that form of it was already retreating into the
provincial dialects, where it still survives.
Another of Mr. White's theories is that moon was pronounced mown.
Perhaps it was; but, if so, it is singular that this pronunciation
is not found in any dialect of our language where almost every other
archaism is caught skulking. And why was it spelt moon? When did
soon and spoon take their present form and sound? That oo was not
sounded like o long is certain from Webbe's saying, that, to make
poore and doore rhyme with more, they must be written pore and
dore. Mr. White says also that shrew was pronounced shrow, and
cites as parallel cases sew and shew. If New England authority be
worth anything, we have the old sound here in the pronunciation soo,
once universal, and according both with Saxon and Latin analogy.
Moreover, Bishop Hall rhymes shew with mew and sue; so that it
will not do to be positive.
We come now to the theory on which Mr. White lays the greatest stress,
and for being the first to broach which he even claims credit. That
credit we frankly concede him, and we shall discuss the point more fully
because there is definite and positive evidence about it, and because
we think we shall be able to convince even Mr. White himself that he is
wrong. This theory is, that the th was sounded like t in the
word nothing, and in various other words, at the beginning of the
seventeenth century. This certainly seems an unaccountable anomaly at
very first sight; for we know that two sounds of th existed before
that period, and exist now. What singular frost was it that froze the
sound in a few words for a few years and left it fluent in all others?
Schoolmaster Gill, in his "Logonomia," already referred to, gives an
interesting and curious reason for the loss from our alphabet of the
Anglo-Saxon signs for the grave and acute th. He attributes it to the
fact, that, when Henry VII. invited Wynken de Word over from Germany
to print for the first time in English, the foreign fount of types was
necessarily wanting in signs to express those Saxon sounds. Accordingly,
the form th was required to stand for both. For the Germans, he says,
call thing, Ding, and father, Vater.[M] In his alphabet he gives
though and thistle as expressing the two sounds, which is precisely
consonant with present usage. On page 152, speaking of the difficulties
of English pronunciation to a foreigner, he says, "Etenim si has quinque
voculas, What think the chosen judges? quid censent electi judices?
rectè protuleris, omnem loquendi difficultatem superâsti." Ben Jonson in
his Grammar gives similar examples, and speaks also of the loss of the
Saxon signs as having made a confusion. It is certain, then, at least,
that Shakspeare did not pronounce thing, ting,—or, if he did, that
others did not, as we shall presently show.
[Footnote M: Praefatio, p. 6. We abridge his statement.]
Most of Mr. White's arguments in support of his opinion are theoretic;
the examples by which he endeavors to sustain it tell, with one
exception, against him. That exception is his quoting from one of
Shakspeare's sonnets the rhyme doting and nothing. But this proves
nothing (noting?); for we have already shown that Shakspeare, like all
his contemporaries, was often content with assonance, where identity
could not be had, in rhyming. Generally, indeed, the argument from
rhymes is like that of the Irishman who insisted that full must be
pronounced like dull, because he found it rhyming with b[)u]ll. Mr.
White also brings forward the fact, that moth is spelt mote, and
argues therefrom that the name of the Page Moth has hitherto been
misconceived. But how many th sounds does he mean to rob us of? And
how was moth really pronounced? Ben Jonson rhymes it with sloth and
cloth; Herrick, with cloth. Alexander Gill tells us (p. 16) that it
was a Northern provincialism to pronounce cloth long (like both),
and accordingly we are safe in believing that moth was pronounced
precisely as it is now. Mr. White again endeavors to find support in the
fact that Armado and renegado are spelt Armatho and renegatho
in the Folio. Of course they were, (just as the Italian Petruccio and
Boraccio are spelt Petruchio and Borachio,) because, being
Spanish words, they were so pronounced. His argument from the frequent
substitution of had for hath is equally inconclusive, because we
may either suppose it a misprint, or, as is possible, a mistake of the
printer for the Anglo-Saxon sign for th, which, as many contractions
certainly did, may have survived in writing long after it was banished
from print, and which would be easily confounded with d. Can Mr.
White find an example of dod for doth, where the word could not be
doubtful to the compositor? The inability of foreigners to pronounce the
th was often made a source of fun on the stage. Puttenham speaks of
dousand for thousand as a vulgarism. Shakspeare himself makes Caius
say dat, and "by my trot"; and in Marston's "Dutch Courtezan," (Act
ii. Sc. 1,) we find Francischina, (a Dutch woman,) saying, "You have
brought mine love, mine honor, mine body, all to noting!"—to which
her interlocutrix answers, "To nothing!" It is plain that Marston did
not harden his _th_s into _t_s, nor suppose that his audience were in
the habit of doing so. How did Ben Jonson pronounce the word? He shall
answer for himself (Vision of Delight).—
"Some that are proper find signify o'thing,
And some another, and some that are nothing."
But perhaps he pronounced thing, ting? If he did, Herrick as surely
did not, for he has
"Maides should say, or virgins sing,
Herrick keeps, as holds, nothing,"
where the accent divides the word into its original elements, and where
it is out of the question that he should lay the emphasis on a bit of
broken English. As to the _h_s which Mr. White adduces in such names as
Anthony and such words as authority, they have no bearing on the
question, for those words are not English, and the h in them is
perhaps only a trace of that tendency in t to soften itself before
certain vowels and before r, as d also does, with a slight sound of
theta, especially on the thick tongues of foreigners. Shakspeare makes
Fluellen say athversary; and the Latin t was corrupted first to d
and then to dth in Spanish. The h here has not so much meaning as
the h which has crept into Bosporus, for that is only the common
change of p to f, corresponding to v for b. So when Mr. White
reads annotanize rather than anatomize, because the Folio has
annothanize, we might point him to Minsheu's "Spanish Dictionary,"
where, in the earlier editions, we find anathomia. In lanthorn,
another word adduced by Mr. White, the h is a vulgarism of spelling
introduced to give meaning to a foreign word, the termination being
supposed to be derived from the material (horn) of which lanterns were
formerly made,—like Bully Ruffian for Bellerophon in our time, and
Sir Piers Morgan for Primaguet three centuries ago. As for t'one
and t'other, they should be 'tone and 'tother, being elisions
for that one and that other, relics of the Anglo-Saxon declinable
definite article, still used in Frisic.
We have been minute in criticizing this part of Mr. White's notes,
because we think his investigations misdirected, the results at which he
arrives mistaken, and because we hope to persuade him to keep a tighter
rein on his philological zeal in future. Even could he show what the
pronunciation of Shakspeare's day was, it is idle to encumber his
edition with such disquisitions, for we shall not find Shakspeare
clearer for not reading him in his and our mother-tongue. The field of
philology is famous for its mare's-nests; and, if imaginary eggs are
worth little, is it worth while brooding on imaginary chalk ones,
nest-eggs of delusion?
Life is short and Shakspeare long. We believe the pronunciation of
Shakspeare's day to have been so qualified with perfectly understood
provincialisms as to have allowed puns and rhymes impossible now. It is
not eighty years since you could tell the county[N] of every country
member of Parliament by his speech. Speculations like Mr. White's would
be better placed in a monograph by themselves. We have subjected his
volumes to a laborious examination such as few books receive, because
the text of Shakspeare is a matter of common and great concern, and
they have borne the trial, except in these few impertinent particulars,
admirably. Mr. Dyce and Mr. Singer are only dry commonplace-books of
illustrative quotations; Mr. Collier has not wholly recovered from his
"Corr. fo."-madness; Mr. Knight (with many eminent advantages as an
editor) is too diffuse; and we repeat our honest persuasion, that Mr.
White has thus far given us the best extant text, while the fulness of
his notes gives his edition almost the value of a variorum. We shall
look with great interest for his succeeding volumes.
[Footnote N: Mr. White is mistaken in thinking that to say "my country"
for "my county" was a peculiarity of Shallow. It was common in the last
century in England. He is wrong also in thinking that he was restoring a
characteristic vulgarism in aleven. Gabriel Harvey uses it, and says
there is no difference in sound between that and a leaven.]
* * * * *
In the introductory part of this article, we said that it was doubtful
if Shakspeare had any conscious moral intention in his writings. We
meant only that he was purely and primarily poet. And while he was
an English poet in a sense that is true of no other, his method was
thoroughly Greek, yet with this remarkable difference,—that, while the
Greek dramatists took purely national themes and gave them a universal
interest by their mode of treatment, he took what may be called
cosmopolitan traditions, legends of human nature, and nationalized them,
by the infusion of his perfectly Anglican breadth of character and
solidity of understanding. Wonderful as his imagination and fancy are,
his perspicacity and artistic discretion are more so. This country
tradesman's son, coming up to London, could set high-bred wits, like
Beaumont, uncopiable lessons in drawing gentlemen such as are seen
nowhere else but on the canvas of Titian; he could take Ulysses away
from Homer and expand the shrewd and crafty islander into a statesman
whose words are the pith of history. But what makes him yet more
exceptional was his utterly unimpeachable judgment, and that poise of
character which enabled him to be at once the greatest of poets and so
unnoticeable a good citizen as to leave no incidents for biography. His
material was never far-sought; (it is still disputed whether the fullest
head of which we have record were cultivated beyond the range of
grammar-school precedent!) but he used it with a poetic instinct which
we cannot parallel, identified himself with it, yet remained always its
born and question-less master. He finds the Clown and Fool upon the
stage,—he makes them the tools of his pleasantry, his satire, and even
his pathos; he finds a fading rustic superstition, and shapes out of
it ideal Pucks, Titanias, and Ariels, in whose existence statesmen and
scholars believe forever. Always poet, he subjects all to the ends
of his art, and gives in Hamlet the churchyard-ghost, but with the
cothurnus on,—the messenger of God's revenge against murder; always
philosopher, he traces in Macbeth the metaphysics of apparitions,
painting the shadowy Banquo only on the o'erwrought brain of the
murderer, and staining the hand of his wife-accomplice (because she was
the more refined and higher nature) with the disgustful blood-spot that
is not there. We say he had no moral intention, for the reason, that,
as artist, it was not his to deal with the realities, but only with
the shows of things; yet, with a temperament so just, an insight so
inevitable as his, it was impossible that the moral reality, which
underlies the mirage of the poet's vision, should not always be
suggested. His humor and satire are never of the destructive kind; what
he does in that way is suggestive only,—not breaking bubbles with
Thor's hammer, but puffing them away with the breath of a Clown, or
shivering them with the light laugh of a genial cynic. Men go about to
prove the existence of a God! Was it a bit of phosphorus, that brain
whose creations are so real, that, mixing with them, we feel as if we
ourselves were but fleeting magic-lantern shadows?
But higher even than the genius, we rate the character of this unique
man, and the grand impersonality of what he wrote. What has he told
us of himself? In our self-exploiting nineteenth century, with its
melancholy liver-complaint, how serene and high he seems! If he had
sorrows, he has made them the woof of everlasting consolation to his
kind; and if, as poets are wont to whine, the outward world was cold
to him, its biting air did but trace itself in loveliest frost-work of
fancy on the many windows of that self-centred and cheerful soul.
* * * * *
For the Quarter ending December 31, 1858.
Life in a Risen Saviour. By Robert S. Candlish, D.D. 12mo. 75 cts.
Philadelphia. Lindsay & Blakiston.
Life of Lord Timothy Dexter, etc. By Samuel L. Knapp: 16mo. 50 cts.
Boston. J.E. Tilton & Co.
Principles of Social Science. By H.C. Carey. Vol. 2. 8vo. $2.50.
Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott & Co.
The Motherless Children. Play and Study. By Mrs. Madeline Leslie. 12mo.
Each 75 cts. Boston. Shepard, Clark, & Brown.
Agnes; a Novel. By the Author of Ida May. 12mo. $1.25. Boston. Phillips,
Sampson, & Co.
Courtship and Matrimony, with other Sketches. By Robert Morris. 12mo.
&1.25. Philadelphia. T.B. Peterson & Brothers.
A History of East Boston, with Biographical Sketches of its Early
Proprietors. By Wm. H. Sumner, A.M. 8vo. $4.50. Boston. J.E. Tilton &
Co.
An Elementary Grammar of the Italian Language. Progressively arranged
for the Use of Schools and Colleges. By G.B. Fontana. 12mo. $1.00.
Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
A Journey Due North; being Notes of a Residence in Russia in the Summer
of 1856. By G.A. Sala. 16mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.
Brief Expositions of Rational Medicine; to which is prefixed, The
Paradise of Doctors, a Fable. By Jacob Bigelow, M.D. 18mo. cloth. 50
cts. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Lectures to Children. Second Series. By Rev. John Todd. 32mo. cloth. 60
cts. Springfield. Hopkins, Bridgman, & Co.
Man upon the Sea; or a History of Maritime Adventure, Exploration,
and Discovery. By Frank B. Goodrich. 8vo. $3.00. Philadelphia. J.B.
Lippincott & Co.
Mizpah. Prayer and Friendship. By Lafayette C. Loomis. 12mo. $1.25.
Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott & Co.
In and Around Stamboul. By Mrs. E. Hornby. 12mo. $1.25. Philadelphia.
Lindsay & Blakiston.
Davenport Dunn. By Charles Lever. Vol. 1. 50 cts. Philadelphia. T.B.
Peterson & Brothers.
A Grammar of the German Language. By Adolph Douai. 12mo. $1.25. Boston.
Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Sir Walter Raleigh and his Times, with other Papers. By Charles
Kingsley. 12mo. $1.25. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.
Plain Words to Young Men. By Aug. Woodbury. 12mo. 75 cts. Concord, N.H.
E.C. Eastman.
The Works of Charles Dickens. A New Edition. Pickwick Papers. 2 vols.
12mo. Nicholas Nickleby. 2 vols. 12mo. Martin Chuzzlewit. 2 vols. 12mo.
The Old Curiosity Shop. 2 vols. 12mo. $1.25 per vol. Boston. Ticknor &
Fields.
The Household Edition of the Waverley Novels. The Betrothed, 2 vols.
16mo. The Talisman. 2 vols. 16mo. Woodstock. 2 vols. 16mo. The Fair Maid
of Perth. 2 vols. 16mo. Anne of Geierstein, or the Maiden of the Mist. 2
vols. 16mo. 75 cts. per vol. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.
The Works of William Shakspeare. Edited by Richard Grant White. 12 vols.
12mo. Vols. 2 to 5. $1.50 per vol. Boston. Little, Brown, & Co.
The Courtship of Miles Standish, and other Poems. By Henry W.
Longfellow. 12mo. 75 cts. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.
Thoughts on the Life and Character of Jesus of Nazareth. By Rev. Wm. H.
Furness, D.D. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Dolce Far Niente. By John R. Tait. 12mo. 50 cts. Philadelphia. Parry &
McMillan.
Inquiries and Suggestions in Regard to the Foundation of Faith in the
Word of God. By Albert Barnes. 12mo. 60 cts. Philadelphia. Parry &
McMillan.
Piney Woods Tavern, or Sam Slick in Texas. 12mo. $1.25. Philadelphia,
T.B. Peterson & Brothers.
Milch Cows and Dairy Farming. By Charles L. Flint. 12mo. $1.25. Boston.
A. Williams & Co.
Selections from the Writings of Fenelon, with a Memoir of his Life. By
Mrs. Follen. A New Edition. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. J. Munroe & Co.
The Wolf-Boy of China, or Incidents and Adventures in the Life of
Lyn-Pays. By Wm. Dalton. 12mo. 75 cts. Boston. J. Munroe & Co.
The Harvest and the Reapers; Home Work for All, and How to do it. By
Rev. Harvey Newcomb. 12mo. 63 cts. Boston. Gould & Lincoln.
A Service-Book for Public Worship. Prepared especially for Use in the
Chapel of Harvard University. 12mo. $1.25. Cambridge. John Bartlett.
Annual Obituary Notices of Eminent Persons who have died in the United
States in the Year 1857. By Hon. Nathan Crosby. 8vo. $1.75. Boston.
Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Willard Memoir; or Life and Times of Major Simon Willard; with Notices
of Three Generations of his Descendants, and two Collateral Branches in
the United States, etc. By Joseph Willard. 8vo. $3.00. Boston. Phillips,
Sampson, & Co.
The Demi-Monde; a Satire on Society. Translated from the French of
A. Dumas Fils. By Mrs. E.G. Squier. 12mo. 75 cts. Philadelphia. J.B.
Lippincott & Co.
Violet; or the Times we Live in. 12mo. $1.00. Philadelphia. J.B.
Lippincott & Co.
Ought American Slavery to be Perpetuated; a Debate between Rev. W.G.
Brownlow and Rev. A. Pryne, held in Philadelphia in September. 12mo.
$1.00. Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott & Co.
Practical Dissections. By R.M. Hodges, M.D. 12mo. $1.00. Cambridge. John
Bartlett.
The Mathematical Monthly. Edited by J.D. Runkle. For October and
November. 2 Nos. 25 cts. each. Cambridge, John Bartlett.
Zenaida. By Florence Anderson. 12mo. $1.25. Philadelphia. J.B.
Lippincott & Co.
The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table. By O.W. Holmes. Illustrated by
Hoppin. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Poor and Proud; or the Fortunes of Katy Redburn. By Oliver Optic. 18mo.
63 cts. Karl Kiegler; or the Fortunes of a Foundling. 18mo. 50 cts.
Walter Seyton. A Story of Rural Life in Virginia. 18mo. 50 cts. Boston.
Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Rollo's Tour in Europe. Rome. By Jacob Abbott. 12mo. 50 cts. Boston.
Brown, Taggard, & Chase.
The Four Sisters. By Frederika Bremer. Translated by Mary Howitt. 12mo.
$1.25. Philadelphia. T.B. Peterson & Brothers. This is a reprint (under
another name) of Hertha.
Journal of Conversations with Lord Byron. By the Countess of
Blessington. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Wm. Veazie.
Biography of Self-Taught Men, with an Introductory Essay. By B.B.
Edwards. 18mo. 88 cts. Boston. J.E. Tilton & Co.
The New Priest in Conception Bay. 2 vols. 16mo. $1.75. Boston. Phillips,
Sampson, & Co.
Ernest Carroll, or Artist Life in Italy. 12mo. 75 cts. Boston. Ticknor &
Fields.
Thoughts of Favored Hours upon Bible Incidents and Characters, and other
Subjects. By Josiah Copley. 18mo. 50 cts. Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott
& Co.
Shadows. By C.H. Bennett. Thin 4to. plain, 50 cts. colored, 75 cts.
Philadelphia. C.J. Price & Co.
Jessie; or Trying to be Somebody. With Illustrations. By Walter Aimwell.
16mo. 63 cts. Boston. Gould & Lincoln.
Brandon; or a Hundred Years Ago. A Tale of the American Colonies. By
Osmond Tiffany. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Stanford & Delisser.
Irving's Life of Columbus. A New Revised Edition. 3 vols. 12mo. $4.00.
New York. G.P. Putnam.
Travels in Africa. By Bayard Taylor. A New Edition. 12mo. $1.50. New
York. G.P. Putnam.
The Microscope. By Jabez Hogg. 3d Edition. 12mo. $1.50. New York. Geo.
Routledge & Co.
The Poetical Works of George Crabbe. New Illustrated Edition. 16mo.
$1.25. New York. Geo. Routledge & Co.
The German Scholar's Hand-Book. By Theodore Von Rosenthal and D.W.
Turner. 18mo. 13 cts. New York. Geo. Routledge & Co.
True to the Last; or Alone on a Wide, Wide Sea. By A.S. Roe. 12mo.
$1.25. New York. Derby & Jackson.
Minna Raymond; a Tale that might have been True. 16mo. 63 cts. New York.
Geo. Routledge & Co.
Vestiges of the Spirit History of Man. By S.F. Dunlap. 8vo. $3.50. New
York. D. Appleton & Co.
From New York to Delhi. By Robert B. Minturn, Jr. 12mo. $1.25. New York.
D. Appleton & Co.
Electron; or The Pranks of the Modern Puck. By William C. Richards.
16mo. 50 cts. New York. D. Appleton & Co.
Legends and Lyrics. A Book of Verses. By Adelaide Anne Proctor (Daughter
of Barry Cornwall). 12mo. 75 cts. New York. D. Appleton & Co.
The Laying of the Telegraphic Cable, with all its Incidents and
Anecdotes, etc. By John Mullaly. 12mo. 50 cts. New York. D. Appleton &
Co.
Rational Cosmology; or the Eternal Principles and the Necessary Laws
of the Universe. By Laurens P. Hickok, D.D. 8vo. $1.75. New York. D.
Appleton & Co.
American Eloquence; a Collection of Speeches and Addresses of the most
Eminent Orators of America. By Frank Moore. 2 vols. 8vo. $5.00. New
York. D. Appleton & Co.
Shamah in Pursuit of Freedom; or the Branded Hand. Translated from the
original Showrah, and edited by an American Citizen. 12mo. $1.25. New
York. Thacher & Hutchinson.
The Religious Aspects of the Age; being Addresses delivered at the
Anniversaries of the Young Men's Christian Union of New York in May,
1858. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Thacher & Hutchinson.
Sermons to the Churches. By Francis Wayland, D.D. 12mo. 85 cts. New
York. Sheldon, Blakeman, & Co.
Spurgeon's Gems; being Brilliant Passages from the Discourses of the
Rev. C.H. Spurgeon. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Sheldon, Blakeman, & Co.
Ernestin; or The Heart's Longings. By Aleth. 12mo. $1.25. New York.
Stanford & Delisser.
The Household Book of Poetry. Collected and edited by Charles A. Dana.
8vo. $3.50. New York. D. Appleton & Co.
The Poetical Works of Edgar A. Poe. Illustrated. 4to. cloth gilt, $6.00.
morocco, $8.00. New York. J.S. Redfield.
Memoirs of Rev. David T. Stoddard, Missionary to the Nestorians. By
Joseph P. Thompson, D.D. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Sheldon, Blakeman, & Co.
Selections from Favorite Prescriptions of Living American Practitioners.
By Horace Green, M.D., LL.D. 8vo. $2.00. New York. Wiley & Halsted.
History of the Rise and Progress of the Iron Trade of the United States,
from 1621 to 1857. By B.F. French. 8vo. $2.00. New York. Wiley &
Halsted.
The Decimal System. An Argument for American Consistency in the
Extension of the Decimal Scale to Weights and Measures, in Harmony with
the National Currency. By John H. Felton. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Wiley
& Halsted.
The Rifleman. By Captain Rafter. 18mo. 38 cts. New York. G. Routledge &
Co.
A Hand-Book of Swimming and Skating. By George Forest. 32mo. 13 cts. New
York. G. Routledge & Co.
Law and Lawyers. By Archer Polson. 32mo. 25 cts. New York. G. Routledge
& Co.
China; being The Times' Special Correspondence in the Years 1857 and
1858. Map and Portrait, 12mo. $1.25. New York. Geo. Routledge & Co.
Peasant Life in Germany. By Mrs. Anna C. Johnson. 12mo. $1.25. New York.
Charles Scribner.
K.N. Pepper and other Condiments. By Jacques Maurice. 12mo. $1.00. New
York. Rudd & Carleton.
The Boy's Book of Industrial Information. 12mo. $1.50. New York. D.
Appleton & Co.
Clarke's Microscope. A Popular Description of the most Beautiful Objects
to Observe. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. G. Routledge & Co.
Practical Sermons. By Nathaniel W. Taylor, D.D. 8vo. $1.50. New York.
Clark, Austin, & Smith.
My Lady Ludlow. By Mrs. Gaskell. 12 cts. New York. Harper & Brothers.
The Potiphar Papers. Prue and I. By Geo. Wm. Curtis. New Editions. $1.00
each. New York. Harper & Brothers.
Loomis's Philosophy. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Harper & Brothers.
Beauties of Ruskin. Selected from his Works, with a Notice of the
Author. By L.C. Tuthill. 12mo. $1.25. New York. Wiley & Halsted.
How to Lay out a Garden. By Edward Kemp. 12mo. $2.00. New York. Wiley &
Halsted.
Blonde and Brunette; or The Gothamite Arcade. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. D.
Appleton & Co.
Swedenborg, a Hermetic Philosopher. 12mo. $1.00. New York. D. Appleton &
Co.
Fitz Greene Halleck's Poems. A New Edition. 12mo. 75 cts. 8vo. $2.00.
New York. D. Appleton & Co.
Isabella Orsini. A Historical Novel. By F.D. Guerazzi. Translated by
Luigi Monti. 12mo. $1.25. New York. Rudd & Carleton.
Vernon Grove; or Hearts as they are. 12mo. $1.25. New York. Rudd &
Carleton.
The Secret of a Life. By M.M. Bell. 18mo. 50 cts. New York. Geo.
Routledge & Co.
Illustrations to Irving's Life of Washington. Ninety Steel Plates, in a
Box. $5.00. New York. G.P. Putnam.
The Tenant-House; or Embers from Poverty's Hearthstone. 12mo. $1.25. New
York. Robert M. De Witt.
History of Frederick the Second, called Frederick the Great. By Thomas
Carlyle. 2 vols. 12mo. $2.50. New York. Harper & Brothers.
Self-Made Men. By Charles C.B. Seymour. 12mo. $1.25. New York. Harper &
Brothers.
Nature and the Supernatural, as together constituting the One System of
God. By Horace Bushnell. 8vo. $2.00. New York. C. Scribner.
Discourses on Common Topics of Christian Faith and Practice. By James W.
Alexander, D.D. 8vo. $2.00. New York. Charles Scribner.
The Theology of Christian Experience, designed as an Exposition of the
"Common Faith" of the Church of God. By George D. Armstrong, D.D. 12mo.
$1.00. New York. Charles Scribner.
The History of Prostitution; its Extent, Causes, and Effects, throughout
the World. From an Official Report to the Board of Almshouse Governors
of the City of New York. By William W. Sanger, M.D. 8vo. $3.00. New
York. Harper & Brothers.
Bitter-Sweet. A Poem. By J.G. Holland. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Charles
Scribner.
Joan of Arc; or The Maid of Orleans; from Michelet's History of France.
32mo. 50 cts. New York. Stanford & Delisser.
The Poems of William Wordsworth. Illustrated. 4to. cloth, $6.00.
morocco, $8.00. New York. Geo. Routledge & Co.
Bethlehem and the Bethlehem School. By C.B. Mortimer. 16mo. 63 cts. New
York. Stanford & Delisser.
The Ministry of Life. By Mrs. Maria L. Charlesworth. 12mo. $1.00. New
York. D. Appleton & Co.
Bertram Noel; a Story for Youth. By E.J. May. 16mo. 75 cts. New York. D.
Appleton & Co.
The Witches of New York, as encountered by Q.K. Philander Doesticks.
12mo. $1.00. New York. Rudd & Carleton.
Dust and Foam; or, Three Oceans and Two Continents. By T.R. Warren.
12mo. $1.25. New York. Charles Scribner.
History of the Christian Church. By Philip Schaff, D.D. 8vo. $2.50. New
York. Charles Scribner.
The Chronicles of the Bastile. Illustrated. 8vo. $2.00. New York.
Stanford & Delisser.
Oriental Tales of Fairy Land. 16mo. 63 cts, New York. Stanford &
Delisser.
Songs of the Woodland, the Garden, and the Sea. Elegantly illustrated.
4to. $2.00. New York. Anson D.F. Randolph.
Lyra Germanica; Second Series; The Christian Life. Translated from the
German, by Catherine Winkworth. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Anson D.F.
Randolph.
A Little Leaven, and what it Wrought at Mrs. Blake's School. 18mo. 60
cts. Our Little Girls. By the same Author. 18mo. 40 cts. New York. Anson
D.F. Randolph.
The Babes in the Basket, or Daph and her Charge. By the Author of Timid
Lucy. 18mo. 50 cts. New York. Anson D.F. Randolph.
Tabby's Travels; or The Holiday Adventures of a Kitten. By Lucy Ellen
Guernsey, Author of Irish Amy. 18mo. 50 cts. New York. Anson D.F.
Randolph.
Kenneth and Hugh; or Self-Mastery. By "Cousin Kate," Author of Horace
and May. 18mo. 75 cts. New York. Anson D.F. Randolph.
Sunshine; or, Kate Vinton. By Harriet B. M'Keever. 16mo. 75 cts.
Philadelphia. Lindsay & Blakiston.
Quaint Sayings and Doings concerning Luther. Collected and arranged by
John G. Morris, D.D. 16mo. 75 cts. Philadelphia. Lindsay & Blakiston.
A Yacht Voyage. Letters from High Latitudes. Being some Account of a
Voyage in the Schooner-Yacht "Foam" 850 m. to Iceland, Jan Mayens, and
Spitzbergen, in 1856. By Lord Dufferin. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor &
Fields.
The Life and Times of Sir Philip Sidney. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor &
Fields.
The Emancipation of Faith. By Henry Edward Schedel, M.D. 2 vols. 8vo.
$4.00. New York. P. Appleton & Co.
Meta Gray; or, What makes Home Happy. By M.J. M'Intosh. 12mo. 75 cts.
New York. D. Appleton & Co.
"The Julia." By the Author of Vara. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Robert Carter
& Brother.
Struggles of the Early Christians, from the Days of our Saviour to the
Reign of Constantine. With an Introduction by Rev. F.D. Huntington, D.D.
18mo. 50 cts. Boston. J.P. Jewett & Co.
The Persian Flower. A Memoir of Judith Grant Perkins, of Oroomiah,
Persia. 18mo. 50 cts. Boston. J.P. Jewett & Co.
The Age of Chivalry. Part I., King Arthur and his Knights. Part II.,
The Mabinogeon, or Welch Popular Tales. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Crosby,
Nichols, & Co.
Arabian Days' Entertainments. Translated from the German. By Herbert
Pelham Curtis. 12mo. $1.25. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Hymns of the Ages, Being Selections from Lyra Catholica, Germanica,
Apostolica, and other Sources. With an Introduction by F.D. Huntington,
D.D. 4to. cloth, gilt, $3.00. morocco, $5.00. A cheap edition, $1.00.
Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Life Thoughts. Gathered from the Extemporaneous Discourses of Henry Ward
Beecher. By one of his Congregation. A fine edition, on large paper.
cloth, gilt, $2.00. morocco, $4.50. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Thorndale; or Conflict of Opinions. By William Smith. 12mo. $1.25.
Boston. Ticknor & Fields.
Christmas Hours. By the Author of The Homeward Path. 16mo. 50 cts.
Boston. Ticknor & Fields.
The Life of James Sullivan, with a Selection from his Writings. By
Thomas C. Amory. 2 vols. 8vo. $4.50. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
Dora Deane; or East India Uncle and Maggie Miller, or Old Hagar's
Secret. By Mrs. M.J. Holmes, Author of "Tempest and Sunshine." 12mo.
$1.00. New York. C. Saxton.
The Power of Prayer Illustrated in the Wonderful Display of Divine
Grace. By S.I. Prime. 12mo. $1.00. New York. C. Scribner.
The Banks of New York, their Dealers, the Clearing-House, and the
Panic of 1857, with a Financial Chart. By J.S. Gibbons. With Thirty
Illustrations. 12mo. $1.50. New York. D. Appleton & Co.
Future Life, or Scenes in Another World. By George Wood, Author of
"Modern Pilgrims." 12mo. $1.25. New York. Derby & Jackson.
While it was Morning. By Virginia F. Townsend. 12mo. $1.25. New York.
Derby & Jackson.
The Sociable; One Thousand and One Home Amusements. By the Author of the
Magician's Own Book. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Dick & Fitzgerald.
Wild Flowers, Drawn and Colored from Nature. By Mrs. C.M. Badger. With
an Introduction by Mrs. L.H. Sigourney. 4to. morocco. $12.50. New York.
C. Scribner.
The Daily Counsellor. By Mrs. L.H. Sigourney. Small 8vo. $1.50.
Hartford. Brown & Gross.
Palestine, Past and Present, with Biblical, Literary, and Scientific
Notices. By Henry S. Osborn, A.M. With Illustrations. 8vo. $3.50.
Philadelphia. James Challen & Sons.
The Mustee; or Love and Liberty. By B.F. Presbury. 12mo. $1.25. Boston.
Shepard, Clark, & Brown.
The Queen's Domain, and other Poems. By William Winter. 16mo. 63 cts.
Boston. E.O. Libby & Co.
Life Memories, and other Poems. By Edward Sprague Rand, Jr. 16mo. 63
cts. Boston. J. Munroe & Co.
Poems. By Frances Anne Kemble. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.
Lectures and Addresses on Literary and Social Topics. By the late
Frederick W. Robertson of Brighton. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor &
Fields.
History of the Reign of Philip Second, King of Spain. By William H.
Prescott. Vol. 3. 8vo. $2.25. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.
The Modern Cook; A Practical Guide to the Culinary Art in all its
Branches, etc. etc. By Charles Elmè Francatelli, Pupil to the Celebrated
Carême. From the Ninth London Edition. With Sixty-two Illustrations.
8vo. $3.00. Philadelphia. T.B. Peterson & Brothers.
Annals of the American Episcopal Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of
Distinguished Clergymen of the Episcopal Church in the United States.
From the Early Settlements of the Country to the Close of 1855, with an
Historical Introduction. By Wm. B. Sprague, D.D. Being the Fifth Volume
of the Annals of the American Pulpit. 8vo. $2.50. New York. Robert
Carter & Brothers.
The New Testament. Translated from the Original Greek, with
Chronological Arrangement of the Sacred Books, and Improved Divisions of
Chapters and Verses. By Leicester Ambrose Sawyer. 12mo. $1.25. Boston.
John P. Jewett & Co.