,,As he commaundes, the lewde doo rigor feele, etc. etc. etc. Pro.,,Both swoorde and keies, unto my princes use, ,,I do receyve and gladlie take my chardge. ,,To treate of which, a whyle we wyll depart. Al. speake.,,To worke your wyll, we yeelde a willing hart. Exeunt." The reader will find the argument of G. Whet stone's Promos and Cassandra, at the end of this play. It is too bulky to be inserted here. See Likewise the piece itself among Six old Plays on which Shakspeare founded, etc. published by S. Leacroft, Charing-cross. STEEVENS. Measure for Measure was, I believe, written in 1603. See An Attempt to ascertain the Order of Shakspeare's Plays, Vol. I. MALONE. Page 37, line 11. Varrius, a gentleman, servant to the Duke.] Varrius might be omitted, for he is only once spoken to, and says nothing. JOHNSON. P. 88, 1. 8. Since I am put to know, -] This may mean, I am compelled to acknowledge. P. 88, 1. 10 - 12. Then no more remains, But that to your sufficiency, as your worth is able, And let them work. -] To the integri ty of this reading Mr. Theobald objects, and says, VOL. II. 18 What was Escalus to put to his sufficiency? why, his science: But his science and sufficiency were but one and the same thing. On what then does the relative them depend? He will have it, therefore, that a line has been accidentally dropp'd, which he attempts to restore thus: But that to your sufficiency you add Due diligence, as your worth is able, etc. Nodum in scirpo quaerit. And all for want of knowing, that by sufficiency is meant authority, the power delegated by the Duke of Escalus. The plain meaning of the word being this: Put your skill in governing (says the Duke) to the power which I give you to exercise it, and let them work together. WARBurton, Sir Thomas Hanmer having caught from Mr. Theobald a hint that a line was lost, endeavours to supply it thus: Then no more remains, But that to your sufficiency you join A will to serve us, as your worth is able. He has, by this bold conjecture, undoubtedly obtained a meaning, but, perhaps, not even in his own opinion, the meaning of Shakspeare. am That the passage is more or less corrupt, I believe every reader will agree with the editors. I not convinced that a line is lost, as Mr. Theobald conjectures, nor that the change of but to put, which Dr. Warburton has admitted after some other editor [Rowe], will amend the fault. There was probably some original obscurity in the expression, which gave occasion to mistake in repetition or transcription. I therefore suspect that the author wrote thus: Then no more remains, But that to your sufficiencies your worth is abled, And let them work. Then nothing remains more than to tell you, that your virtue is now invested with power equal to your knowledge and wisdom. Let the now refore your knowledge and your virtue work together. It may easily be conceived how sufficiencies was, by an inarticulate speaker, or inattentive hearer, confounded with sufficiency as, and how abled, a word very unusual, was changed into able. For abled, however, an Lear uses it in the authority is not wanting. same sense, or nearly the same with the Duke. As for sufficiencies, D. Hamilton in his dying speceli, prays that Charles II. may exceed both the virtues and sufficiencies of his father. JOHNSON. The uncommon redundancy, as well as obscu rity, of this verse may be considered as evidence of its corruption. Take away the two first words, and the sense joins well enough with what went before. Then (says the Duke) no more remains 10 say: Your sufficiency as your worth is able, i. e. Your skill in government is, in ability to The versification requires that either something should be added, or something retrenched. The latter is the easier, as well as the safer task. I join in the belief, however, that a line is lost; and whoever is acquainted with the inaccuracy of the folio, (for of this play there is no other old edition,) will find my opinion justified. STEEVENS. Some words seem to be lost here, the sense of which, perhaps, may be thus supplied: -- then no more remains, But that to your sufficiency you put TYRWHITT. I agree with Warburton in thinking that by sufficiency the Duke means authority, or power; and, if that be admitted, a very slight alteration indeed will restore this passage the changing the word is into be. It will then run thus, and be clearly intelligible: Then no more remains, - But that your sufficiency, as your worth, be able, And let them work. That is, you are, thoroughly acquainted with your duty, so that nothing more is necessary to be done, but to invest you with power equal to your abilities. M. MASON, Sufficiency is skill in government; ability to execute his office. And let them work, a figurative expression; Let them ferment. MALONE. P. 88, 1. 14. Terms mean the technical language of the courts. An old book called Les Termes de la Ley, (written in Henry the Eighth's time) was in Shakspeare's days, and is now, the acci dence of young students in the law. P. 88, 1. 14. 15. BLACKSTONE. and the terms For common justice, you are as preg. nant in,] The later editions all give it, without authority, and Dr. Warburton makes terms signify bounds ör limits. I rather think the Duke meant to say, that Escalus was pregnant, that is ready and knowing in all the forms of the law, and, among other things, in the terms or times set apart for its administration. JOHNSON. P. 88, 1. 23. 24. By the soul elected him, I believe, words with special the poet means no more than that he was the immediate choice of his heart. STEEVENS. Steevens has hit upon the true explanation of the passage; and might have found a further confirmation of it in Troilus and Cressida, where, speaking of himself, Troilus says, - ne'er did young man fancy ,,With so eternal, and so fix'd a soul." To do a thing with all one's soul, is a common expression. M. MASON. P. 89, 1. 9. 10. There is a kind of character in thy life, That, to the observer, doth thy history Fully unfold: -] Either this introanction has more solemnity than meaning, or it has a meaning which I cannot discover. What is there peculiar in this, that a man's life informs the observer of his history? Might it be supposed that Shakspeare wrote this? There is a kind of character in thy look. History may be taken in a more diffuse and licentious meaning, for future occurrences, or the part of life yet to come. If this sense be recei ved, the passage is clear and proper. JOHNSON. Shakspeare must, I believe, be answerable for the unnecessary pomp of this introduction. He ༞ * ༈ དྷ"Õ |