« ПредишнаНапред »
de César, which is written avowedly in imitation of the Julius Cæsar of Shakespeare.
The new readings in the play of Julius Cæsar which Mr. Collier appears to have obtained from his manuscript annotator are the following :
57. Under such hard conditions as this time.
187. Let's cravet him as a dish fit for the gods.
Act III. 285. That touches us ? Ourself shall be last served. 303. Cass. What is now amiss, etc. 305. These crouchings, and these lowly courtesies. m. Low-crouched courtesies, and base spaniel fawning. 346. Our arms in strength of welcome, and our hearts. 363. A curse shall light upon the loins of men. 461. And things unlikely charge my fantasy.
* But this is also Hanmer's emendation.
Of common good to all, made one of them.
I have not thought it necessary to distinguish the cases in which the verbal affix -ed is to be united in the pronunciation with the preceding syllable by the usual substitution of the apostrophe in place of the silent vowel. Why should the word loved, for example, so sounded be represented differently in verse from what it always is in prose ? It is true that the cases in which the -ed makes a separate syllable are more numerous in Shakespeare than in the poetry of the present day; but the reader who cannot detect such a case on the instant is disqualified by some natural deficiency for the reading of verse. If any distinction were necessary, the better plan would be to represent the one form by “loved,” the other by 56 lov-ed.”
* But this is also Capel's emendation.
SHAKESPEARE'S JULIUS CÆSAR.
Act I. Scene I., etc.—The heading here in the original text is :-“ Actus Primus. Scoena Prima. Enter Flavius, Murellus, and certaine Commoners over the Stage.” Murellus stands throughout not only in all the Folios, but also in the editions of both Rowe and Pope. The right name was first inserted by Theobald.
1. You ought not walk.—The history and explanation of this now disused construction may be best collected from a valuable paper by Mr. Guest “ On English Verbs, Substantive and Auxiliary,” read before the Philological Society, 13th March, 1846, and printed in their Proceedings, II. 223. “ Originally,” says Mr. Guest, “the to was prefixed to the gerund, but never to the present infinitive; as, however, the custom gradually prevailed of using the latter in place of the former, the to was more and more frequently prefixed to the infinitive, till it came to be considered
as an almost necessary appendage of it. Many idioms, however, had sunk too deeply into the language to admit of alteration; and other phrases, to which the popular ear had been familiarized, long resisted the intrusive particle.” The ancient syntax is still retained in all cases with the auxiliary verbs, as they are called, shall, will, can, may, do, and also with must and let, and oftener than not with bid, dare, hear, make, see, and perhaps some others. Cause is frequently so used; and so is help, sometimes, in dialectic English (provincial or metropolitan). Vid. 634.
But, even since the language may be said to have entered upon the stage of its existence in which it still is, several of the verbs just enumerated as not admitting the to are occasionally found following the common example and taking it; and others, again, which at the present day have completely conformed to the ordinary construction, formerly used now and then to dispense with it. One of Mr. Guest's quotations exemplifies both these archaisms; it is from the portion of The Mirror for Magistrates contributed by John Higgins in 1574 (King Albanact, 16) :
“And, though we owe the fall of Troy requite,
Yet let revenge thereof from gods to light, That is, “ Though we ought to requite, . . . yet let revenge light,” as we should now say. Here we have let with the to, and owe (of which ought or owed is the preterite), as in Shakespeare's expression before us, without it. Others of Mr. Guest's citations from the same writer exhibit the auxiliaries may, will, can with the to. And he also produces from Spenser (F. Q. iv. 7. 32) :
“Whom when on ground she grovelling saw to roll ;" and from Shakespeare (Othello, iv. 2);
“I durst, my Lord, to wager she is honest.” The verb to owe, it may further be observed, is etymologically the same with own. Shakespeare repeatedly has owe where own would be now employed ; as in Iago’s diabolical self-gratulation (in Othello, iii.
“Not poppy, nor mandragora, Nor all the drowsy syrops of the world, Shall ever medicine thee to that sweet sleep
Which thou owed’st yesterday.” The Anglo-Saxon word is ágan,—the ag, or radical part, of which is evidently the same with the ex of the Greek éxew, signifying to hold, to possess, to have for one's property, or what we call one's own. If we suppose the a to have been pronounced broad, as in our modern all, and the g to have come to be softened as g final usually is in modern German, ag and owe, unlike as they are to the eye, will be only different ways of spelling, or representing by letters, almost the same vocal utterance. The sound which the vowel originally had is more nearly preserved in the Scotch form of the word, awe. The n which we have in the form own is either merely the common annexation which the vowel sound is apt to seek as a support or rest for itself, or, possibly, in this case it may be the en of the Anglo-Saxon past participle (ágen) or the an of the infinitive (ágan). So we have both to awake and to awaken, to ope and to open. In so short a word as the one under consideration, and one in such active service, these affixes would be the more liable to get confounded with the root. It may sound odd to speak of a man as own