Notes and Queries, Number 190, June 18, 1853 | Page 5

the
corrector of MR. COLLIER'S folio, in this instance at least, is
undeniably in error. Here, as elsewhere (whether by anticipation or
imitation I shall not take upon me to decide), he has fallen into just the
same mistake as the rest of the commentators: indeed it is startling to
observe how regularly he suspects every passage that they have
suspected, and how invariably he treats them in the same spirit of
emendation (some places of course excepted, where his courage soars
far beyond theirs; such as the memorable "curds and cream," "on a
table of green frieze," &c.).
I say that the error of "the old corrector," in this instance, is undeniable,
because the misprint I am about to expose, like the egg-problem of
Columbus, when once shown, demonstrates itself: so that any attempt
to support it by argument would be absurd, because superfluous.
There are two verbs, one in every-day use, the other obsolete, which,
although of nearly opposite significations, and of very dissimilar sound,
nevertheless differ only in the mutual exchange of place in two letters:
these verbs are secure and recuse; the first implying assurance, the
second want of assurance, or refusal. Hence any sentence would
receive an opposite meaning from one of these verbs to what it would
from the other.
Let us now refer to the opening scene of the Fourth Act of King Lear,
where the old man offers his services to Gloster, who has been deprived
of his eyes:
"Old Man. You cannot see your way.
Gloster. I have no way, and therefore want no eyes; I stumbled when I
saw: full oft 'tis seen Our means secure us, and our mere defects Prove
our commodities."
Here one would suppose that the obvious opposition between means
and defects would have preserved these words from being tampered
with; and that, on the other hand, the absence of opposition between
secure and commodious would have directed attention to the real error.

But, no: all the worretting has been about means; and this unfortunate
word has been twisted in all manner of ways, until finally "the old
corrector" informs us that "the printer read wants 'means,' and hence the
blunder!"
Now, mark the perfect antithesis the passage receives from the change
of secure into recuse:
"Full oft 'tis seen Our means recuse us, and our mere defects Prove our
commodities."
I trust I may be left in the quiet possession of whatever merit is due to
this restoration. Some other of my humble auxilia have, before now,
been coolly appropriated, with the most innocent air possible, without
the slightest acknowledgment. One instance is afforded in MR.
KEIGHTLEY'S communication to "N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 136., where
that gentleman not only repeats the explanation I had previously given
of the same passage, but even does me the honour of requoting the
same line of Shakspeare with which I had supported it.
I did not think it worth noticing at the time, nor should I now, were it
not that MR. KEIGHTLEY'S {593} confidence in the negligence or
want of recollection in your readers seems not have been wholly
misplaced, if we may judge from MR. ARROWSMITH's admiring
foot-note in last Number of "N. & Q.," p. 568.
A. E. B.
Leeds.
* * * * *
SHAKESPEARE'S USE OF THE IDIOM "NO HAD" AND "NO
HATH NOT."
(Vol. vii., p. 520.)
We are under great obligations to the REV. MR. ARROWSMITH for

his very interesting illustration of several misunderstood archaisms; and
it may not be unacceptable to him if I call his attention to what seems
to me a farther illustration of the above singular idiom, from
Shakspeare himself.
In As You Like It, Act I. Sc. 3., where Rosalind has been banished by
the Duke her uncle, we have the following dialogue between Celia and
her cousin:
"Cel. O my poor Rosalind! whither wilt thou go? Wilt thou change
fathers? I will give thee mine. I charge thee, be not thou more grieved
than I am.
Ros. I have more cause.
Cel. Thou hast not, cousin: Pr'ythee be cheerful: know'st thou not, the
duke Hath banish'd me, his daughter?
Ros. That he hath not.
Cel. No hath not? Rosalind lacks, then, the love Which teacheth thee
that thou and I are one. Shall we be sunder'd," &c.
From wrong pointing, and ignorance of the idiomatic structure, the
passage has hitherto been misunderstood; and Warburton proposed to
read, "Which teacheth me," but was fortunately opposed by Johnson,
although he did not clearly understand the passage. I have ventured to
change am to are, for I cannot conceive that Shakspeare wrote, "that
thou and I am one!" It is with some hesitation that I make this trifling
innovation on the old text, although we have, a few lines