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

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 lower, the more serious misprint of your change for the charge. I presume that the abbreviated form of the = y^e was taken for for y^r, and the r in charge mistaken for n; and in the former case of am for are, indistinctness in old writing, and especially in such a hand as, it appears from his autograph, our great poet wrote, would readily lead to such mistakes. That the correction was left to the printer of the first folio, I am fully persuaded; yet, in comparison