The Text of Shakespeare [pp. 761-764]

SOUTHERN LITERARY MESSENGER.
In 1773 came out the famous edition of Johnson and
Steevens combined, by Isaac Reed, and this is perhaps
the most accurate, taken as a whole, of all the amended
editions. It is, in fact, the text book, which all subsequent publishers have adopted as their guide.
In 1790, Malone's notes were published, in twenty
octavo volumes, by his literary executor, James Boswell, the son of the celebrated biographer of Johnson.
Industrious, studious, assiduous, patient, ardent, sincere,
bold, persevering and indefatigable, this critic entered
the arena against the field. His shield emblazoned
with a Quarto volume, and his sword two-edged against
the old Folios and all their followers, he began his devoir, and did it gallantly. But truth compels the honest and impartial reader to confess that all this gallantry
was worthy of a better cause. Wrong at the outset, he
was wrong throughout, and on he went like the wheels
of a watch witlh a broken mainspring, with a great
whizz, it is true, but to little or no useful purpose. Yet
he had, and still has, his followers,-and the stage as
well as the library, to this day retains many of his
most pernicious and erroneous interpolations and alterations. More recent investigations, however, have tended to concentrate the public confidence upon the edition
of Johnson, Steevens and Reed, and Malone is every
day losing that ascendancy, which the boldness and
novelty of his innovations have, for a while, obtained
for him; and among these investigators there is no
one more able tlhan the editor, to whom allusion has
just been made, as furnishing the model for the edition
of Hilliard, Gray, and Co.
Having thus disposed of the annotators of Shakspeare, and shown their relative claims to the confidence
of the reader, return we to the more immediate object
and purpose of this paper. In the celebrated preface of
Dr. Johnson, prefixed to his first edition of the great
poet, the remarks of those old and quaint editors of
"The Frst Folio," Henminge and Condell, as to the difliculties of correctly editing the works of their author,
and which have already been quoted, are thus strikingly
corroborated.
"It does not appear," says the learned commentator,
"that Shakspeare ever thought his works worthy of
posterity"-" they were obviously written with no
other object than present popularity and present profit."
"The greater part of them were not published until
about seven years after his death,-and the few which
appeared in his life are apparently thrust into the
world, without the care of the author, and, therefore,
probably without his knowledge." "The style of
Shakspeare is, in itself, ungrammatical, perplexed, and
obscure: his works were transcribed for the players,
by those who may be supposed to have seldom understood them: they were transmitted by copiers equally
unskilful, who still multiplied errors;-they were sometimes mutilated by the actors, for the sake of shortening
the speeches, eord were at last [the quartos, id est,]
printed without the correction of the press."
With such a view of the mode by which the text of
Shakspeare has become clouded and obscured by so
much of the mist and windy vapor of criticism, accumulating for more than two centuries, it is not w onderful that there should now be room for some uncertainty,
much conjecture, and a good deal of doubt, as to the
various readings of those immortal works.
The "conjectural reading" in the August number
of the Messenger, although noticed by no one of the
numerous editors of Shakspeare, is to our mind conclusive. It is plausible in its conception, and fully
borne out by analogy. We shall always read the passage as suggested by the Charleston critic,-the more
confidently, for that, years ago, we heard Mr. Macready
read the passage precisely thus.
The "conjectural reading" in the October number,
of a passage in Hamlet, has also our most unqualified
approbation. It makes sense: the passage is mere nonsense, as it stands in the "first folio," and in all its successors. Analogy, here, too, is the strong argument,
and admirably has the critic of the Messenger managed it. The word "begun" is from this moment
erased from our edition, and "beguiled" inserted instead. We have as firm a conviction that William
Shlakspeare intended the King of Denmark to suggest
to Laertes, that "love is beguiled by time," as we have
that the rascal murdered his brother, "sleeping in his
orchard." That this is so, is but a familiar and natural
illustration of the argument, which runs through our
paper,-and is one of the instances of that criminal
procedure towards the great poet, on the part of the
"folio" as well as the "quarto" people, to which we
have been referring.
Having made square work with the clever critic of
the Messenger, so far as the two Hamlet and Macbeth
readings are implicated, let us now follow his example,
and criticise a little on " our own hook." The article,
on the 600th page of the October number, sanctions a
reading, in the very passage criticised, which is also as
open to criticism as the word "begun." That reading
is in the "folio" and "quarto," and in every edition,
moreover, which we have met with, down to that in
our possession; in which, however, we are happy to
say, it is corrected.
For goodness, growing to a pleurisy,
Dies in his own too much,
Hamlet, /ct. IV. Sec. 7.
Now this passage is uniformly written "pleurisy," as
quoted by the critic of the October number, in all the
editions. A few years ago, we were struck with the
conviction that this reading was corrupt, and marked
the margin of our old Steevens, thus: "quere: Plurisy,-fi'om ples, pluris?" When the passage was
quoted by our critic, we were induced to look up the
authorities on that word,-and opening the new Boston
edition, found our own opinion corroborated by the
text of that beautiful book. It is there printed "plurisy," and a note is appended (see page 364, note 3,) in
these words: "Plurisy is superabundance."' Upon consulting the old authorities, we found a note of Warburton, following Tollet, making a similar suggestion.
Our reading is forever henceforth "plurisy." There is
no meaning to "pleurisy" in this connexion,-while it
is perfectly in accordance with the usual manner of
Shakspeare, in the formation of English words by an
easy transition from the Latin, to write it "plurisy."
We now expect our critic of the Messenger to reciprocate our cordial acquiescence in his new readings,and shall add yet another similar demand upon his
justice. Before we do this, however, we would only
suggest, that the words "too much" in the above pas
763