The verb Nares

form of the language, and then to have given rise to our modern ken, and can, and con, and cunning, with meanings not at all corresponding to those of the terms with which they severally stand in phonetic connection. Can is now used only as an auxiliary verb with the sense of to be able, though formerly it was sometimes employed with the same sense as a common verb. "In evil," says Bacon, in his 11th Essay (Of Great Place), "the best condition is not to will; the second, not to can." Ken is still in use both as a verb and as a substantive. interprets as meaning to see, the substantive as meaning sight; and he adds, "These words, though not current in common usage, have been so preserved in poetic language that they cannot properly be called obsolete. Instances are numerous in writers of very modern date. . . . In Scotland these words are still in full currency." But the meaning of to ken in the Scottish dialect is not to see, but to know. And formerly it had also in English the one meaning as well as the other, as may be seen both in Spenser and in Shakespeare. The case is similar to that of the Greek side (oida) and sidew. Cunning, again, instead of being the wisdom resulting from investigation and experience, or the skill acquired by practice, as in the earlier states of the language, has now come to be understood as involving always at least something concealed and mysterious, if not something of absolute deceit or falsehood.

As for con its common meaning seems to be, not to know, but to get by heart, that is, to acquire a knowledge of in the most complete manner possible. And to con by rote is to commit to memory by an operation of mind similar to the turning of a wheel

(rota), or by frequent repetition. Rote is the same word with routine.

It is more difficult to explain the expression to con thanks, which is of frequent occurrence in our old writers, and is several times used by Shakespeare. Nares explains it as meaning to study expressions of gratitude. But it really seems, in most instances at least, to signify no more than to give or return thanks. See a note on Gammer Gurton's Needle in Collier's edition of Dodsley's Old Plays, ii. 30. Con in the present passage may perhaps mean to utter or repeat; such a sense might come not unnaturally out of the common use of the word in the sense of to get by heart. It is remarkable that in German also they say Dank wissen (literally to know thanks) for to give thanks. [Con thanks is precisely like the Latin scire gratias and the French savoir gré. There is no difficulty in the case.]

Our common know is not from any of the Saxon verbs above enumerated, but is the modernized form of cnawan, which may or may not be related to all or to some of them.

Corresponding to cennan and connan, it may finally be added, we have the modern German kennen, to know, and können, to be able or to know. But, whatever may be the case with the German König (a king), it is impossible to admit that our English king, the representative of the Saxon cyng, cyncg, or cyning, can have anything to do with either cennan or connan. It is of quite another family, that of which the head is cyn, nation, offspring, whence our present kin, and kindred, and kind (both the substantive and the adjective).

559. Dearer than Plutus' mine.. Dear must here be understood, not in the derived sense of be

loved, but in its literal sense of precious or of value. See 348. It is "Pluto's mine" in all the Folios, and also in Rowe; nor does it appear that the mistake is corrected by Mr. Collier's MS. annotator, although it is, of course, in Mr. Collier's regulated text.

559. If that thou beest a Roman. Our modern substantive verb, as it is called, is made up of fragments of several verbs, of which, at the least, am, was, and be are distinguishable, even if we hold is, as well as are and art, to belong to the same root with am (upon this point see Latham's Eng. Lang. 5th edit. 612). In the Saxon we have eom (sometimes am), waes (with waere and waeron, and wesan, and gewesen), beo (with bist or býst, beódh, beón, etc.), eart (or eardh), is (or ys); and also sý, seó, sig, synd, and syndon (related to the Latin sum, sunt, sim, sis, etc.), of which forms there is no trace in our existing English. On the other hand, there is no representative in the written Saxon of our modern plural are. Beest, which we have here, is not to be confounded with the subjunctive be; it is bíst, býst, the 2d pers. sing. pres. indic. of beón, to be. It is now obsolete, but is also used by Milton in a famous passage: "If thou beest he; but oh how fallen! how changed," etc. P. L. i. 84. 560. Dishonor shall be humour. Any indignity you offer shall be regarded as a mere caprice of the moment. Humour here probably means nearly the same thing as in Cassius's "that rash humour which my mother gave me" in 567. The word had scarcely acquired in Shakespeare's age the sense in which it is now commonly used as a name for a certain mental faculty or quality; though its companion wit had already, as we have seen, come to be so employed. See 435. But what

See 205.

if the true reading should be "dishonor shall be honor?" [White "strongly suspects" that Shakespeare wrote "honor."]

560. O Cassius, you are yoked with a lamb. Pope prints, on conjecture, "with a man;" and "a lamb," at any rate, can hardly be right.

561. Blood ill-tempered. We have now lost the power of characterizing the blood as ill-tempered (except in imitation of the antique), although we might perhaps speak of it as ill-attempered. The epithet ill-tempered, now only applied to the sentient individual, and with reference rather to the actual habit of the mind or nature than to that of which it is supposed to be the result, was formerly employed, in accordance with its proper etymological import, to characterize anything the various ingredients of which were not so mixed as duly to qualify each other.

567. Have not you love enough to bear with me? This is the reading of all the old copies, and is that adopted by Mr. Knight. [So Dyce and White.] Both the Variorum text, which is generally followed, and also Mr. Collier in his regulated text, give us "Have you not."

568. Yes, Cassius; and from henceforth. - All the irregularity that we have in this line is the slight and common one of a superfluous short syllable (the ius of Cassius). Steevens, in his dislike to even this much of freedom of versification, and his precise grammatical spirit, would strike out the from, as redundant in respect both of the sense and of the

measure.

568. He'll think mother chides. your To chide is the Saxon cídan, to strive, to contend. It is now scarcely in use except as an active verb with the sense

of to reprove with sharpness; but it was formerly used also absolutely or intransitively, as here, for to employ chiding or angry expressions. Shakespeare has both to chide and to chide at.

Instead of the stage direction "Noise within," the original edition has "Enter a Poet."

569. Poet [within].— The within is inserted here and before the next two speeches by the modern editors. The present incident (as well as the hint of the preceding great scene) is taken from Plutarch's Life of Brutus. The intruder, however, is not a Poet in Plutarch, but one Marcus Favonius, who affected to be a follower of Cato, and to pass for a Cynic philosopher. [Plutarch adds (North's trans., 1579, p. 1071, as quoted by Collier), "Cassius fel a laughing at him; but Brutus thrust him out of the chamber, and called him dogge and counterfeate cynick. Howbeit, his comming in brake their strife at that time, and so they left eche other."] There was probably no other authority than the Prompter's book for designating him a Poet.

570. Lucil. [within]. You shall not come to them. - In the Variorum and the other modern editions, although they commonly make no distinction between the abbreviation for Lucilius and that for Lucius, this speech must be understood to be assigned to Lucius, whose presence alone is noted by them in the heading of the scene. But in the old text the speaker is distinctly marked Lucil. This is a conclusive confirmation, if any were wanting, of the restoration in 520. [White takes the same view of it.] How is it that the modern editors have one and all of them omitted to acknowledge the universal deviation here from the authority which they all profess to follow? Not even Jennens notices it.