margin the Hebrew literally signifies. In the New Testament, where we have " in their own conceits," the Greek is simply παρ' ἑαυτοῖς (in or with themselves).

ACT II.

SCENE I.—The heading here in the Folios (in which there is no division into Scenes) is merely, "Enter Brutus in his Orchard." Assuming that Brutus was probably not possessed of what we now call distinctively an orchard (which may have been the case), the modern editors of the earlier part of the last century took upon them to change Orchard into Garden. But this is to carry the work of rectification (even if we should admit it to be such) beyond what is warrantable. To deprive Brutus in this way of his orchard was to mutilate or alter Shakespeare's conception. It is probable that the words Orchard and Garden were commonly understood in the early part of the seventeenth century in the senses which they now bear; but there is nothing in their etymology to support the manner in which they have come to be distinguished. In Much Ado About Nothing, ii. 3, although the scene is headed "Leonato's Garden," Benedick, sending the Boy for a book from his chamber-window, says, "Bring it hither to me in the orchard." A Garden (or yard, as it is still called in Scotland) means merely a piece of ground girded in or enclosed; and an Orchard (properly Ortyard) is, literally, such an enclosure for worts, or herbs. At one time Orchard used to be written Hortyard, under the mistaken notion that it was derived from hortus (which may, however, be of the same stock).

143. How near to day. - How near it

the day.

113. I would it were my fault. — Compare the use of fault here with its sense in 120.

143. When, Lucius? when? - This exclamation had not formerly the high tragic or heroic sound which it would now have. It was merely a customary way of calling impatiently to one who had not obeyed a previous summons. So in Richard II. (i. 2) John of Gaunt calls to his son, "When, Harry? when? Obedience bids, I should not bid again."

147. But for the general. The general was formerly a common expression for what we now call the community or the people. Thus Angelo in Measure for Measure, ii. 4:

The general, subject to a well-wished king,

Quit their own part, and in obsequious fondness
Crowd to his presence.

147. And that craves. It might be questioned whether that here be the demonstrative (as it is commonly considered) or the relative (to the antecedent "the bright day").

147. Crown him? That. Here the emphatic that appears to be used exactly as so often is. See 57. Either, or any equivalent term, thus used, might obviously serve very well for the sign of affirmation; in the present passage we might substitute yes for that with the same effect. It used to be held that the French oui, anciently oyl, was merely the ill of the classic ill-e, ill-a, ill-ud, and that the old Provençal oc was hoc. It appears, however, that oui or oyl is really voul (or je voul), the old present of vouloir. The common word for yes in Italian, again, si (not unknown in the same sense to the French

tongue), may be another form of so. The three languages used to be distinguished as the Langue d'Oyl (or Lingua Oytana), the Langue d'Oc (or Lingua Occitana), and the Lingua di Si. The pointing in the First Folio here is, "Crowne him that, And then," etc. [Littré (Hist. de la Langue Française, 1863, vol. i. p. 155) derives oui from hoc-illud. He says that there is no dispute in regard to the origin of the -il of the old form oil, but only in regard to the o-, which Reynouard and most others believe to be the Latin hoc. Burguy argues that it is the old Celtic preposition 6 ab, de, ex, which is sometimes used as a conjunction, ex quo, and sometimes as an adverb; but Littré proves very clearly, I think, that he is wrong. Chevallet (Origine et Formation de la Lang. Fr., vol. iii. p. 310 foll.) says that oil or oil is an elliptical expression for o (= hoc) est il c'est cela: oil became ouil and finally oui. Diez (Etymol. Wörterb.) also makes oui hocillud, and Scheler (Dict. d'Etymologie Française, 1862) says that this derivation, though it has been vehemently disputed, cannot be overthrown.]

=

147. Do danger. - [The history of the word danger is curious and instructive. Damnum in Medieval Latin signified a legal fine or "damages." It was thence applied to the limits within which a lord could exact such fines, and so to the enclosed field of a proprietor. In this sense the word was often rendered dommage, dommaige, or damage, in French. It next acquired the sense of trespass, as in the legal phrase damage feasant, whence the French damager, to seize cattle found in trespass. From this verb came the abstract domigerium, signifying the power of exacting a damnum or fine for trespass. From domigerium to danger the transi

tion was natural, and the latter was equally applied to the right of exacting a fine for breach of territorial rights, or to the fine, or to the rights themselves. To be in the danger of any one, estre en son danger, came to signify to be in his power, or liable to a penalty to be inflicted by him or at his suit, and hence the ordinary meaning of the word at the present day. We have, in the Merchant of Venice, iv. 1,—

You stand within his danger, do you not?

From the meaning of penalty or fine, danger came to signify the license obtained to secure exemption from such penalty, or the price paid for such license; and thence the difficulties about giving permission or complying with a request, or absolute refusal. For a fuller history of the word, and for passages illustrating its changes of meaning, see Wedgwood. The Bible Word-Book gives a few additional passages.]

147. The abuse of greatness is, etc. — The meaning apparently is, "The abuse to which greatness is most subject is when it deadens in its possessor the natural sense of humanity, or of that which binds us to our kind; and this I do not say that it has yet done in the case of Cæsar; I have never known that in him selfish affection, or mere passion, has carried it over reason." Remorse is generally used by Shakespeare in a wider sense than that to which it is now restricted.

147. But 'tis a common proof.- A thing commonly proved or experienced (what commonly, as we should say, proves to be the case).

A frequent word with Shakespeare for to prove is to approve. Thus, in the Two Gentlemen of Verona, v. 4, we have,

66

O, 'tis the curse in love, and still approved,

When women cannot love where they're beloved.

So, in Much Ado About Nothing, we have, in iv. I, an approved wanton," and afterwards "Is he not approved in the height a villain?" When Don Pedro in the same Play, ii. 1, describes Benedick as "of approved valour," the meaning is merely, that he had proved his valor by his conduct. So in Hamlet, i. 1, Marcellus says, speaking of Horatio and the Ghost,

I have entreated him along

With us to watch the minutes of this night,
That, if again this apparition come,

He may approve our eyes, and speak to it;

that is, prove our eyes true. And in Meas. for 3, Claudio says,

Meas. i.

This day my sister should the cloister enter,
And there receive her approbation

for what we now call probation. This sense of the word (which we still retain in the law-term an approver, in Latin probator) occurs repeatedly both in the Bible and in Milton, and in fact is the most common sense which it has in our earlier English. [Approve is used in the New Testament in two senses: 1. To prove, demonstrate; Acts ii. 22; 2 Cor. vi. 4, vii. 11. Compare "approve it with a text,” in Mer. of Venice, iii. 2. 2. To put to the proof, test, try; Rom. ii. 18; Phil. i. 10. So in 1st Henry IV. iv. 1,

I,

Nay, task me to the word, approve me, lord.] 147. Whereto the climber upward, etc. There is no hyphen in the original text connecting climber and upward, as there is in some modern editions; but any doubt as to whether the adverb should be