FullReads

‘Numero Deus impare gaudet.’

Nobody ever heard of even numbers in any case of divination. A dog, for instance, howling under a sick person’s window, is traditionally ominous of evil–but not if he howls twice, or four times.

[‘I pull in resolution.’–Act V. Scene 5.

COR. had very probably not seen Dr Johnson’s edition of Shakspere, but in common with the Doctor, under the simple coercion of good sense, he proposes ‘I pall;’ a restitution which is so self-attested, that it ought fearlessly to be introduced into the text of all editions whatever, let them be as superstitiously scrupulous as in all reason they ought to be.

[HAMLET. Act II. Scene in the Speech of Polonius.

‘Good sir, or so, or friend, or gentleman,’

is altered by COR., and in this case with an effect of solemn humour which justifies itself, into

‘Good sir, or sir, or friend, or gentleman;’

meaning good sir, or sir simply without the epithet good, which implies something of familiarity. Polonius, in his superstitious respect for ranks and degrees, provides four forms of address applying to four separate cases: such is the ponderous casuistry which the solemn courtier brings to bear upon the most trivial of cases.

* * * * *

At this point, all at once, we find our sheaf of arrows exhausted: trivial as are the new resources offered for deciphering the hidden meanings of Shakspere, their quality is even less a ground of complaint than their limitation in quantity. In an able paper published by this journal, during the autumn of 1855, upon the new readings offered by Mr Collier’s work, I find the writer expressing generally a satisfaction with the condition of Shakspere’s text. I feel sorry that I cannot agree with him. To me the text, though improved, and gradually moving round to a higher and more hopeful state of promise, is yet far indeed from the settled state which is desirable. I wish, therefore, as bearing upon all such hopes and prospects, to mention a singular and interesting case of sudden conquest over a difficulty that once had seemed insuperable. For a period of three centuries there had existed an enigma, dark and insoluble as that of the Sphinx, in the text of Suetonius. Isaac Casaubon had vainly besieged it; then, in a mood of revolting arrogance, Joseph Scaliger; Ernesti; Gronovius; many others; and all without a gleam of success.

The passage in Suetonius which so excruciatingly (but so unprofitably) has tormented the wits of such scholars as have sat in judgment upon it through a period of three hundred and fifty years, arises in the tenth section of his Domitian. That prince, it seems, had displayed in his outset considerable promise of moral excellence: in particular, neither rapacity nor cruelty was apparently any feature in his character. Both qualities, however, found a pretty early development in his advancing career, but cruelty the earliest. By way of illustration, Suetonius rehearses a list of distinguished men, clothed with senatorian or even consular rank, whom he had put to death upon allegations the most frivolous: amongst them Aelius Lamia, a nobleman whose wife he had torn from him by open and insulting violence. It may be as well to cite the exact words of Suetonius: ‘Aelium Lamiam (interemit) ob suspiciosos quidem, verum et veteres et innoxios jocos; quod post abductam uxorem laudanti vocem suam–dixerat, Heu taceo; quodque Tito hortanti se ad alterum matrimonium, responderat [Greek: me kai su gamesai theleis];’–that is, Aelius Lamia he put to death on account of certain jests; jests liable to some jealousy, but, on the other hand, of old standing, and that had in fact proved harmless as regarded practical consequences–namely, that to one who praised his voice as a singer he had replied, Heu taceo; and that on another occasion, in reply to the Emperor Titus, when urging him to a second marriage, he had said, ‘What now, I suppose you are looking out for a wife?’