CONCLUDING NOTES ON SEVERAL MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS

(Continued from Vol. vii., p. 568.)

Not being minded to broach any fresh matter in "N. & Q.," I shall now only crave room to clear off an old score, lest I should leave myself open to the imputation of having cast that in the teeth of a numerous body of men which might, for aught they would know to the contrary, be as truly laid in my own dish. In No. 189., p. 567., I affirmed that the handling of a passage in Cymbeline, there quoted, had betrayed an amount of obtuseness in the commentators which would be discreditable in a third-form schoolboy. To substantiate that assertion, and rescue the disputed word "Britaine" henceforth for ever from the rash tampering of the meddlesome sciolist, I beg to advertise the ingenuous reader that the clause,—

"For being now a favourer to the Britaine,"

is in apposition with Death, not with Posthumus Leonatus. In a note appended to this censure, referring to another passage from L. L. L., I averred that Mr. Collier had corrupted it by chancing the singular verb dies into the plural die (this too done, under plea of editorial licence, without warning to the reader), and that such corruption had abstracted the true key to the right construction. To make good this last position, two things I must do first, cite the whole passage, without change of letter or tittle, as it stands in the Folios '23 and '32; next, show the trivial and vulgar use of "contents" as a singular noun. In Folio '23, thus:

 
"Qu. Nay my good Lord, let me ore-rule you now;
That sport best pleases that doth least know how.
Where Zeale striues to content, and the contents
Dies in the Zeale of that which it presents:
Their forme confounded, makes most forme in mirth
When great things labouring perish in their birth."
 

Act IV. p. 141.

With this the Folio '32 exactly corresponds, save that the speaker is Prin., not Qu.; ore-rules is written as two words without the hyphen, and strives for striues. I have been thus precise, because criticism is to me not "a game," nor admissive of cogging and falsification.

I must now show the hackneyed use of contents as a singular noun. An anonymous correspondent of "N. & Q." has already pointed out one in Measure for Measure, Act IV. Sc. 2.:

"Duke. The contents of this is the returne of the Duke."

Another:

"This is the contents thereof."—Calvin's 82nd Sermon upon Job, p. 419., Golding's translation.

Another:

"After this were articles of peace propounded, y^e contents wherof was, that he should departe out of Asia."—The 31st Booke of Justine, fol. 139., Golding's translation of Justin's Trogus Pompeius.

Another:

"Plinie writeth hereof an excellent letter, the contents whereof is, that this ladie, mistrusting her husband, was condemned to die," &c.—Historicall Meditations, lib. iii. chap. xi. p. 178. Written in Latin by P. Camerarius, and done into English by John Molle, Esq.: London, 1621.

Another:

"The contents whereof is this."—Id., lib. v. chap. vi. p. 342.

Another:

"Therefore George, being led with an heroicall disdaine, and nevertheless giuing the bridle beyond moderation to his anger, vnderstanding that Albert was come to Newstad, resolued with himselfe (without acquainting any bodie) to write a letter vnto him, the contents whereof was," &c.—Id., lib. v. chap. xii. p. 366.

If the reader wants more examples, let him give himself the trouble to open the first book that comes to hand, and I dare say the perusal of a dozen pages will supply some; yet have we two editors of Shakspeare, Johnson and Collier, so unacquainted with the usage of their own tongue, and the universal logic of thought, as not to know that a word like contents, according as it is understood collectively or distributively, may be, and, as we have just seen, in fact is, treated as a singular or plural; that, I say, contents taken severally, every content, or in gross, the whole mass, is respectively plural or singular. It was therefore optional with Shakspeare to employ the word either as a singular or plural, but not in the same sentence to do both: here, however, he was tied to the singular, for, wanting a rhyme to contents, the nominative to presents must be singular, and that nominative was the pronoun of contents. Since, therefore, the plural die and the singular it could not both be referable to the same noun contents, by silently substituting die for dies, Mr. Collier has blinded his reader and wronged his author. The purport of the passage amounts to this: the contents, or structure (to wit, of the show to be exhibited), breaks down in the performer's zeal to the subject which it presents. Johnson very properly adduces a much happier expression of the same thought from A Midsummer Night's Dreame:

 
"Hip. I love not to see wretchedness o'ercharged;
And duty in his service perishing."
 

The reader cannot fail to have observed the faultless punctuation of the Folios in the forecited passage, and I think concur with me, that like many, ay, most others, all it craves at the hands of editors and commentators is, to be left alone. The last two lines ask for no explanation even to the blankest mind. Words like contents are by no means rare in English. We have tidings and news, both singular and plural. Mr. Collier himself rebukes Malone for his ignorance of such usage of the latter word. If it be said that these two examples have no singular form, whereas contents has, there is means, at any rate precisely analogous. On the other hand, so capricious is language, in defiance of the logic of thought, we have, if I may so term it, a merely auricular plural, in the word corpse referred to a single carcase.

I should here close my account with "N. & Q." were it not that I have an act of justice to perform. When I first lighted upon the two examples of chaumbre in Udall, I thought, as we say in this country, it was a good "fundlas," and regarded it as my own property. It now appears to be but a waif or stray; therefore, suum cuique, I cheerfully resign the credit of it to Mr. Singer, the rightful proprietary. Proffering them for the inspection of learned and unlearned, I of course foresaw that speedy sentence would be pronounced by that division, whose judgment, lying ebb and close to the surface, must needs first reach the light. I know no more appropriate mode of requiting the handsome manner in which Mr. Singer has been pleased to speak of my trifling contributions to "N. & Q.," than by asking him, with all the modesty of which I am master, to reconsider the passage in Romeo and Juliet; for though his substitution (rumourers vice runawayes) may, I think, clearly take the wall of any of its rivals, yet, believing that Juliet invokes a darkness to shroud her lover, under cover of which even the fugitive from justice might snatch a wink of sleep, I must for my own part, as usual, still adhere to the authentic text.

W. R. Arrowsmith.

P. S.—In answer to a Bloomsbury Querist (Vol. viii., p. 44.), I crave leave to say that I never have met with the verb perceyuer except in Hawes, loc. cit.; and I gave the latest use that I could call to mind of the noun in my paper on that word. Unhappily I never make notes, but rely entirely on a somewhat retentive memory; therefore the instances that occur on the spur of the moment are not always the most apposite that might be selected for the purpose of illustration. If, however, he will take the trouble to refer to a little book, consisting of no more than 448 pages, published in 1576, and entitled A Panoplie of Epistles, or a Looking-glasse for the Unlearned, by Abraham Flemming, he will find no fewer than nine examples, namely, at pp. 25. 144. 178. 253. 277. 285. (twice in the same page) 333. 382. It excites surprise that the word never, as far as I am aware, occurs in any of the voluminous works of Sir Thomas More, nor in any of the theological productions of the Reformers.

With respect to speare, the orthography varies, as spere, sperr, sparr, unspar; but in the Prologue to Troilus and Cressida, sperre is Theobald's correction of stirre, in Folios '23 and '32. Let me add, what I had forgotten at the time, that another instance of budde intransitive, to bend, occurs at p. 105. of The Life of Faith in Death, by Samuel Ward, preacher of Ipswich, London, 1622. Also another, and a very significant one, of the phrase to have on the hip, in Fuller's Historie of the Holy Warre, Cambridge, 1647:

"Arnulphus was as quiet as a lambe, and durst never challenge his interest in Jerusalem from Godfrey's donation; as fearing to wrestle with the king, who had him on the hip, and could out him at pleasure for his bad manners."—Book ii. chap. viii. p. 55.

In my note on the word trash, I said (somewhat too peremptorily) that overtop was not even a hunting term (Vol. vii., p. 567.). At the moment I had forgotten the following passage:

"Therefore I would perswade all lovers of hunting to get two or three couple of tryed hounds, and once or twice a week to follow after them a train-scent; and when he is able to top them on all sorts of earth, and to endure heats and colds stoutly, then he may the better relie on his speed and toughness."—The Hunting-horse, chap. vii. p. 71., Oxford, 1685.

SNEEZING AN OMEN AND A DEITY

In the Odyssey, xvii. 541-7., we have, imitating the hexameters, the following passage:

 
"Thus Penelope spake. Then quickly Telemachus sneez'd loud,
Sounding around all the building: his mother, with smiles at her son, said,
Swiftly addressing her rapid and high-toned words to Eumæus,
'Go then directly, Eumæus, and call to my presence the strange guest.
See'st thou not that my son, ev'ry word I have spoken hath sneez'd at?⁵
Thus portentous, betok'ning the fate of my hateful suitors,
All whom death and destruction await by a doom irreversive.'"
 

Dionysius Halicarnassus, on Homer's poetry (s. 24.), says, sneezing was considered by that poet as a good sign (σύμβολον ἀγαθόν); and from the Anthology (lib. ii.) the words οὐδὲ λέγει, Ζεῦ σῶσον, ἐὰν πταρῇ, show that it was proper to exclaim "God bless you!" when any one sneezed.

Aristotle, in the Problems (xxxiii. 7.), inquires why sneezing is reckoned a God (διὰ τί τὸν μὲν πταρμὸν, θεὸν ἡγούμεθα εἴναι); to which he suggests, that it may be because it comes from the head, the most divine part about us (θειοτάτου τῶν περὶ ἡμᾶς). Persons having the inclination, but not the power to sneeze, should look at the sun, for reasons he assigns in Problems (xxxiii. 4.).

Plutarch, on the Dæmon of Socrates (s. 11.), states the opinion which some persons had formed, that Socrates' dæmon was nothing else than the sneezing either of himself or others. Thus, if any one sneezed at his right hand, either before or behind him, he pursued any step he had begun; but sneezing at his left hand caused him to desist from his formed purpose. He adds something as to different kinds of sneezing. To sneeze twice was usual in Aristotle's time; but once, or more than twice, was uncommon (Prob. xxxiii. 3.).

Petronius (Satyr. c. 98.) notices the "blessing" in the following passage:

"Giton collectione spiritus plenus, ter continuo ita sternutavit, ut grabatum concuteret. Ad quem motum Eumolpus conversus, salvere Gitona jubet."

T. J. Buckton.

Birmingham.

ABUSES OF HACKNEY COACHES

[The following proclamation on this subject is of interest at the present moment.]

By the King

A Proclamation to restrain the Abuses of Hackney Coaches in the Cities of London and Westminster, and the Suburbs thereof.

Charles R.

Whereas the excessive number of Hackney Coaches, and Coach Horses, in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, and the Suburbs thereof, are found to be a common nuisance to the Publique Damage of Our People by reason of their rude and disorderly standing and passing to and fro, in and about our said Cities and Suburbs, the Streets and Highways being thereby pestred and made impassable, the Pavements broken up, and the Common Passages obstructed and become dangerous, Our Peace violated, and sundry other mischiefs and evils occasioned:

We, taking into Our Princely consideration these apparent Inconveniences, and resolving that a speedy remedy be applied to meet with, and redress them for the future, do, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, publish Our Royal Will and Pleasure to be, and we do by this Our Proclamation expressly charge and command, That no Person or Persons, of what Estate, Degree, or Quality whatsoever, keeping or using any Hackney Coaches, or Coach Horses, do, from and after the Sixth day of November next, permit or suffer the said Coaches and Horses, or any of them, to stand or remain in any the Streets or Passages in or about Our said Cities either of London or Westminster, or the Suburbs belonging to either of them, to be there hired; but that they and every of them keep their said Coaches and Horses within their respective Coach-houses, Stables, and Yards (whither such Persons as desire to hire the same may resort for that purpose), upon pain of Our high displeasure, and such Forfeitures, Pains, and Penalties as may be inflicted for the Contempt of Our Royal Commands in the Premises, whereof we shall expect a strict Accompt.

And for the due execution of Our Pleasure herein, We do further charge and command the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of Our City of London, That they in their several Wards, and Our Justices of Peace within Our said Cities of London and Westminster, and the Liberties and Suburbs thereof, and all other Our Officers and Ministers of Justice, to whom it appertaineth, do take especial care in their respective Limits that this Our Command be duly observed, and that they from time to time return the names of all those who shall wilfully offend in the Premises, to Our Privy Council, and to the end they may be proceeded against by Indictments and Presentments for the Nuisance, and otherwise according to the severity of the Law and Demerits of the Offenders.

Given at Our Court at Whitehall the 18th day of October in the 12th year of Our Reign.

God save the King

London: Printed by John Bell and Christopher Barker, Printers to the King's most Excellent Majesty, 1660.

Pepys, in his Diary, vol. i. p. 152., under date 8th November, 1660, says:

"To Mr. Fox, who was very civil to me. Notwithstanding this was the first day of the King's proclamation against hackney coaches coming into the streets to stand to be hired, yet I got one to carry me home."

T. D.

SHAKSPEARE CORRESPONDENCE

Passage in "The Tempest," Act I. Sc. 2.—

 
"The sky, it seems, would pour down stinking pitch,
But that the sea, mounting to the welkin's cheek,
Dashes the fire out."
 

"The manuscript corrector of the folio 1632," Mr. Collier informs us, "has substituted heat for 'cheek,' which is not an unlikely corruption, a person writing only by the ear."

I should say very unlikely: but if heat had been actually printed in the folios, without speculating as to the probability that the press-copy was written from dictation, I should have had no hesitation in altering it to cheek. To this I should have been directed by a parallel passage in Richard II., Act III. Sc. 3., which has been overlooked by Mr. Collier:

 
"Methinks, King Richard and myself should meet
With no less terror than the elements
Of fire and water, when their thundering shock
At meeting tears the cloudy cheeks of heaven."
 

Commentary here is almost useless. Every one who has any capacity for Shakspearian criticism must feel assured that Shakspeare wrote cheek, and not heat.

The passage I have cited from Richard II. strongly reminds me of an old lady whom I met last autumn on a tour through the Lakes of Cumberland, &c.; and who, during a severe thunderstorm, expressed to me her surprise at the pertinacity of the lightning, adding, "I should think, Sir, that so much water in the heavens would have put all the fire out."

C. Mansfield Ingleby.

Birmingham.

The Case referred to by Shakspeare in Hamlet (Vol. vii., p. 550.).—

 
"If the water come to the man."—Shakspeare.
 

The argument Shakspeare referred to was that contained in Plowden's Report of the case of Hales v. Petit, heard in the Court of Common Pleas in the fifth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It was held that though the wife of Sir James Hale, whose husband was felo-de-se, became by survivorship the holder of a joint term for years, yet, on office found, it should be forfeited on account of the act of the deceased husband. The learned serjeants who were counsel for the defendant, alleged that the forfeiture should have relation to the act done in the party's lifetime, which was the cause of his death. "And upon this," they said, "the parts of the act are to be considered." And Serjeant Walsh said:

"The act consists of three parts. The first is the imagination, which is a reflection or meditation of the mind, whether or no it is convenient for him to destroy himself, and what way it can be done. The second is the resolution, which is the determination of the mind to destroy himself, and to do it in this or that particular way. The third is the perfection, which is the execution of what the mind has resolved to do. And this perfection consists of two parts, viz. the beginning and the end. The beginning is the doing of the act which causes the death; and the end is the death, which is only the sequel to the act. And of all the parts, the doing of the act is the greatest in the judgment of our law, and it is, in effect, the whole and the only part the law looks upon to be material. For the imagination of the mind to do wrong, without an act done, is not punishable in our law; neither is the resolution to do that wrong which he does not, punishable; but the doing of the act is the only point the law regards, for until the act is done it cannot be an offence to the world, and when the act is done it is punishable. Then, here, the act done by Sir James Hale, which is evil and the cause of his death, is the throwing of himself into the water, and death is but a sequel thereof, and this evil act ought some way to be punished. And if the forfeiture shall not have relation to the doing of the act, then the act shall not be punished at all, for inasmuch as the person who did the act is dead, his person cannot be punished, and therefore there is no way else to punish him but by the forfeiture of those things which were his own at the time of the act done; and the act was done in his lifetime, and therefore the forfeiture shall have relation to his lifetime, namely, to that time of his life in which he did the act which took away his life."

And the judges, viz. Weston, Anthony Brown, and Lord Dyer, said:

"That the forfeiture shall have relation to the time of the original offence committed, which was the cause of the death, and that was, the throwing himself into the water, which was done in his lifetime, and this act was felony."–"So that the felony is attributed to the act, which act is always done by a living man and in his lifetime," as Brown said; for he said, "Sir James Hale was dead, and how came he to his death? It may be answered, By drowning. And who drowned him? Sir James Hale. And when did he drown him? In his lifetime. So that Sir James Hale being alive, caused Sir James Hale to die; and the act of the living man was the death of the dead man. And then for this offence it is reasonable to punish the living man who committed the offence, and not the dead man. But how can he be said to be punished alive when the punishment comes after his death? Sir, this can be done no other way but by devesting out of him, from the time of the act done in his life, which was the cause of his death, the title and property of those things which he had in his lifetime."