water. Methinks, to forget their faults, I will drink to you. Or it may be explained without any change. Mine eyes cannot hold out water, that is, cannot keep water from breaking in upon them. Jons. 'Mine eyes, &c.' Here is an entirely useless uote of Johnson : 'Mine eyes cannot hold water;' i. e. tears trickle down my cheeks. B. 2 Lord. Joy had the like conception in our eyes, And, at that instant, like a babe sprung up. Like a babe- -] That is a weeping babe. JoHN. I question if Shakspeare meant the propriety of allusion to be carried quite so far. To look for babies in the eyes of another, is no uncommon expression. So in Love's Mistress, by Heywood, 1636: "Joy'd in his looks, look'd babies in his eyes." Again, in The Christian turn'd Turk, 1612. "She makes him sing songs to her, looks fortunes in his fists, and babies in his eyes." STEEV. 'Like a babe.' The mark of the genitive case is necessary at "babe', in order to render the passage intelligible. Joy had the like conception in our eyes, and at that instant like a babe's sprung up.' i. e. Joy had a like effect on us: tears sprung up to our eyes as into those of a babe;' the infant, mewling and " puling in his nurse's arms." As to Mr. Steevens's baby in the eye,' it seems to partake of the vulgar notion of the man in the moon. I am persuaded that in the quotations from Love's Mistress, and the Christian turned Turk, babies' should be babries, i. e. gew-gaws, sparkling, glittering things. The word was formerly written baubries, and hence the bauble of the present day. The conceit in the passages cited from the two old plays, appears to be derived from the tears which (whether of joy or sorrow) are crystal-like, and stand glistening in the eye. I am sensible, indeed, that babies in the eyes, is no ' uncommon expression,' but this is nothing in regard to the propriety of it. Baby' has evidently taken its rise from the ball of the eye being likewise called the pupil; and this, it should be remarked, has originated in the yλŋín (pupilla oculi) of the Greeks. This word glene is formed of aryan (fulgor) and hence aglaia, i. e. splendor, and honestas with the Latins, and brightness and magnificence with us; and it may further be noted, that it is from the abovementioned acyλn that we derive the verb to gleen, (shine or glitter) though I do not find that it is by our etymologists so set down. Another thing to be considered is, that neither the english pupil, nor the latin pupilla, can be used for 'baby.' In the latter language, and for such a sense pupa should always be employed, and this will by no means do for pupil of the eye. Thus it is seen that the iuterpretation of the expression in the said old plays is forced, and even ridiculous: that we must understand by it glistening in the eye in fine, that it can have no other meaning whatever, and that babries' is the proper word. It is no way surprising, however, that Mr. Steevens should have fallen into this error, since that excellent SHAK, O II. Grecian, Mr. Dacier, has done the same in his comment on Plato. He translates a speech of Socrates, in the first Alcibiades, as follows: "You have observed then, that as often as you look into an eye, you see your own image as in a glass, in that part of it which is called by a name [kore] that means a baby, because it is the image of him that looks on it." The mistake of Mr. Dacier has arisen from Plato's use of the word kopn (baby) which is the same as yλŋın (baby) which words (kore and glene) likewise signify pupil of the eye, and glistening of the eye. The passage is faultily rendered in other particulars it should be, see your own image as in a mirror." Glass was unknown for such purpose, in the time of Plato; the mirror of the ancients being composed of some highly polished metal, and which they kept from tarnish with the nicest care. Besides, it should be remembered that it is not the representation of a baby that the mirror will necessarily give, unless, indeed, no other than a baby were to look on it. But this is by no means to be understood of the expression, for it is asked immediately before "Is there not some part of the eye which has the same effect as a looking glass?" Now if the part of the eye spoken of has the same effect as a mirror, it must surely be admitted that such effect can only proceed from a like quality, namely clearness, lustre. The whole should, therefore, run thus: "You have observed then, that as often as you look into an eye, you see your own image, as in a mirror, in that part of it known by a name which signifies bright, splendent, because it gives, or reflects the image of him who looks on it." Thus we see, that the Greek kopn (pupil) is not to be interpreted by baby, but by shining; spoken properly, it is true, of the vitreous humour of the eye, and of the iris; but as the pupil is surrounded by the said iris, the epithet may very well be used of either. B. Apem. I fear me, thou Wilt give away thyself in paper shortly; -I fear me, thou Wilt give away thyself in paper shortly:] i. e. be ruined by his securities entered into. But this sense is flat, and relishes very little of the salt in Apemantus's other reflections. We should read; -give away thyself in proper shortly. i, e. in person; thy proper self. This latter is an expression of our author's in the Tempest: "And ev❜n with such like valour men hang and drown "Their proper selves." WARB. Hanmer reads very plausibly; -Thou Wilt give away thyself in perpetuum. JOHN. I am satisfied with Dr. Warburton's explanation of the text, but cannot concur in his emendation. STEEу. -I fear me, thou Wilt give away thyself in paper shortly.' I do not believe that either' paper' or proper' will be the poet's word. We must point the passage differently and print pauper. -I fear me, thou Wilt give away thyself. E'en pauper shortly.' i, e. ، thou wilt be reduced to absolute want, thou wilt shortly be. come a beggar.' Or we may read ' in pauper',' (contract.) paupertas. In either case the sense will be the same. The ellipsis [thou wilt be] has obscured the meaning. But this mode of expression must be particularly attended to in reading Shakspeare. B. Sen. No porter at his gate; But rather one that smiles, and still invites All that pass by.. -No porter at his gate; But rather one that smiles, and still invites.] I imagine that a line is lost here, in which the behaviour of a surly porter was described. Jon. No porter at his gate; But rather one that smiles, and still invites.' 'Rather' should be rathen, the old word for soon, quickly, readily. But one that rathen smiles, and still invites i. e. "No porter is to be seen at his gate, except one who is ever ready with his smiles," &c. The sense is perfect: there is no line lost, B. Flav. O my good lord, the world is but a word; Were it all yours, to give it in a breath, How quickly were it gone? O my good lord, the world is but a world.] The folio reads: -but a word; And this is the right. The meaning is, as the world itself may be comprised in a word, you might give it away in a breath. WARE. I think the reading the world is but a world,' meaning that the goods of this world are in our possession, and that we may dispose of them as we think proper, the more forcible of the two. If, however, we must admit the change of world to word, it would be better to read, 'O my good lord, the world's but as a word.' In the Merchant of Venice, Anthonio says, 'I hold the world but as the world.' B. Flav. Ah! when the means are gone, that buy this praise, Feast-won, fast-lost." I do not understand this; I think we should read, 'Fast wop, fast lost.' i. e. Your friends are such as may be easily acquired, and who are easily lost. B. Tim. If I would broach the vessels of my love, And try the arguments.] Arguments for natures. WARB. How arguments should stand for natures I do not see. But the licen tiousness of our author forces us often upon far-fetched expositions. Arguments may mean contents, as the arguments of a book; or for evidences and proofs. JoHN. And try the argument, &c.' No one, I presume, will contend for argument' being the proper word, when another can be produced which nearly resembles it in sound and appearance, and which at the same time completes the sense. Chaucer uses agre, (pronounced like the french aigre) for kind, good, benevolent. I therefore propose to read aigrement, i. e. goodness, benevolence. Thus all will be easy, and perfectly clear. B. Lucul. Flaminius, honest Flaminius; you'are very respectively welcome, sir. Very respectively welcome,' i. e. respectfully. STEEV. 'Respectively welcome' is particularly welcome. Beside it is not to be supposed, that any noble person would think of behaving respectfully towards a servant, whatever he might do in the case of his lord. B. Lucul. Here's three solidares for thee; good boy, wink at me, and say, thou saw'st me not. 'Three solidares.' I believe this coin is from the mint of the poet. STEEV. 1 This is a very serious charge. It is certain, however, that money is rarely produced from the poet's mint. The whole of the matter is, that solidare' is printed in mistake for solidas, an ancient coin. B. Unto his honour, has my lord's meat in him: Unto his honour.] Thus the old copy. What Flaminius seems to mean is, this slave, (to the honor of his character) has, &c. The modern editors read, unto this hour, which may be right. STEEV. How can the conduct and behaviour of Lucullus be said, in any way, to redound to his honor? We should surely point thus: This slave Unto his honor.' i. e. This slave, who is continually talking of honorable actions; who has always piqued himself on his honor. B. Luc. I must needs confess, I have receiv'd some small kindnesses from him, as money, plate, jewels, and such like trifles, nothing comparing to his, yet, had he mistook him, and sent to me, I should ne'er have deny'd his occasion so many talents. Yet had he mistook him, and sent to me.] We should read, -mislook'd him. i. e. overlooked, neglected to send to him. WARB. Јони. I rather read, yet had he not mistook him, and sent to me. Mr. Edwards proposes to read, yet had he missed him. Lucius has just declared that he had had fewer presents from Timon, than Lucullus had received, who therefore ought to have been the first to assist him. Yet, says he, had Timon mistook him, or overlooked that circumstance, and sent to me, I should not have denied, &c. STEEV, Yet had he mistook him, and sent to me.' All is sufficiently clear. But the editors have been puzzled by supposing that mistook him' is spoken of Lucullus, whereas it belongs to Timon. Lucius is of opinion that Lucullus having received the greater presents at the hands of Timon, should be ready to relieve him in his distresses. This, however, he finds is not the case, and accordingly observes yet had he mistook him, and sent to me,' &c. (had Timon mistakenly sent to me). He insinuates that it would be a mistake in Timon to send to him (Lucius) as his obligations to the noble Athenian were comparatively few. B. Luc. How unluckily it happen'd, that I should pur chase the day before for a little part, and undo a great deal of honor? That I should purchase the day before for a little part, and undo a great deal of honor?] Though there is a seeming plausible antithesis in the terms, I am very well assured they are corrupt at the bottom. For a little part of what? honor is the only substantive that follows in the sentence, How much is the antithesis improved by the sense which my emendation gives! That I should purchase for a little dirt, and undo a great deal of honor! THEOв. This emendation is received, like all others, by Sir T. Hanmer, but neglected by Dr. Warburton. I think Theobald right in suspecting a corruption; nor is his emendation injudicious, though perhaps we may better read, purchase the day before for a little park. Jous. That I should purchase the day before for a little part, and undo a great deal of honor?' Part' is evidently an abbreviation of the french partage, something devolved to, or become the right of, another, either by inheritance or purchase. The only necessary correction is to place the con |