This text is part of:
New Warres Deighton: That is, contrary to the agreement between us, and without asking my assent. 5. Made his will, etc.] According to Plutarch (see Appendix), it was Antony's Will which Cæsar removed from the custody of the Vestal nuns; after reading it himself and noting ‘certain places worthy of reproach,’ Cæsar ‘assembled all the Senate and read it before them all. Whereupon divers were marvellously offended.’ Of course there is some corruption in the text. Anthony could have no possible cause of complaint if Cæsar chose to make his own Will and read it in public. The corruption lies in the words ‘made his’ for which he who lists may easily substitute any words that will make the text conform to Plutarch.—Ed. will, . . . it, . . . of me, Thiselton (p. 17) calls attention to these commas as indications of the ‘impetuosity of Antony's utterance.’ It is possible that Thiselton is right, but at the same time we must remember that no great dependence is to be placed on the punctuation of the Folio, which is somewhat remote from any authoritative contact with Shakespeare's own hand.—Ed.
scantly That is, slightingly.
Honour: . . . vented then . . . measure: . . . look't The changes introduced by Rowe in this impossible punctuation, and the change by him of ‘vented then’ into ‘vented them,’ have been unanimously adopted by all succeeding editors. Tolerable sense can be made even in the present text, with its present punctuation, until we come to the colon after ‘measure,’ which leaves ‘lent me’ inexplicable, unless we suppose that it bears a meaning unknown elsewhere. Knight alone, among editors, retains the colon after ‘giuen him.’ In Booth's Reprint there is a semi-colon after ‘measure,’ not a colon, as in my copy of F1.—Ed.
he not look't Thirlby's emendation, ‘he not took't,’ which has been adopted by nearly all editors, is to be found, without comment, in Nichols (Illust. ii, 228). It means, of course, that Anthony did not take the ‘best hint,’ and receives some confirmation, albeit very slight, from the spelling in the Folio, where the apostrophe in ‘look't,’ as an abbreviation of looked, is somewhat unusual. Knight and Collier (ed. ii) are the only modern editors who adhere to the Folio. The former does not believe that the ‘best hint’ is here referred to, but ‘on the contrary’ he says, ‘although it was hinted to Cæsar when speaking that he should mention Antony with terms of honour, he lent him most narrow measure—cold and sickly. His demeanour is then more particularly described. He looked not upon the people as one who is addressing them with sincerity—he spoke from his teeth, and not with the full utterance of the heart.’ Collier (ed. ii) retained look't because, I suppose, it had not been changed by his MS corrector, who had, however, changed ‘not look't’ to ‘but look't,’—an emendation which Collier did not adopt, because he doubted ‘if there were any confusion here, for what Antony means to say is apparent enough as the text stands: Cæsar would not look to avoid taking the least hint, or if he did look, and took the hint, his praise was superficial and insincere.’ On this reading of Collier's MS Corrector, Dyce (Notes, p. 153) remarks that ‘it has not only great obscurity of expression, but is also unsuited to what immediately follows: “he but look'd, Or did it from his teeth.” I have little doubt,’ he adds, ‘that Thirlby's much simpler emendation (which alters only a single letter） restores the genuine reading.’ Later, in his edition, Dyce is more emphatic and pronounces the emendation of Collier's MS ‘little better than nonsense.’ Later still, in his Strictures (p. 205) he criticises not the emendation of Collier's MS, but Collier himself for following the Folio. ‘What,’ he asks, ‘could induce Mr Collier to adopt here, in his new edition, the ridiculous reading of the folio, which admits of nothing but a ridiculous explanation?’—Anon. (Blackwood, Oct. 1853, p. 467; supposed to be Lettsom): ‘We may be pretty sure that [Thirlby's emendation] is the right reading, as it is assuredly the only one which makes sense.’—[Thirlby's change is so trifling, while the gain is so marked, that I think it may be adopted without heinous disloyalty to the Folio.—Ed.]
Or did it from his teeth Steevens: Whether this means, as we now say, in spite of his teeth, or that he spoke through his teeth, so as to be purposely indistinct, I am unable to determine.—[Knight's interpretation is to be found in the preceding note; Collier's, which is virtually the same, is that ‘what Cæsar said in praise of Antony came from no nearer his heart than his teeth.’ Singer appositely quotes from the Adagia nonnulla in Withals's Dictionarie . . . deuised for the capacity of Children, 1616, p. 562: ‘Linguâ amicus. A friend from the teeth outward.’]
Stomacke That is, resent; as in II, ii, 11.
Praying . . . presently It is ‘infinitely distressing’ (as Sydney Smith would say) to note the attempts which have been here made to amend what is deemed the defective metre of these two fragmentary lines. That the emotion of the speaker should have here any influence is not to be for a moment considered; in all circumstances Shakespeare should be made to know that lines must have five feet, and to attain this end his words are to be at will lengthened, or compressed, or even omitted altogether. Rowe and his followers read as one line, ‘Praying for both parts: the good Gods will mock me,’ and omit ‘presently.’ Steevens, in 1778, runs the two lines into an interminable one of fourteen syllables, and is followed in the union of the lines by Walker (Crit. iii, 301), who, however, reduces the number of syllables by omitting ‘good,’ and by reading (can it be conceived?) ‘praying’ as a monosyllable! (I had rather be a pagan, suckled in a prose outworn, than think heaven could be moved by pra'ng.） In 1793, Steevens reverts to the division of the Folio, but pieces out the second line with an and, ‘And the good Gods,’ etc. Dyce follows Steevens, but rejects his and, and substitutes instead, ‘Sure the good Gods,’ etc. Finally, Abbott (§ 484), retaining the division of the Folio, refuses both Steevens's and and Dyce's sure, and beautifully counteracts Walker's irreverent pra'ng by a pious prolongation of ‘good’: ‘The gó | od góds | will móck | me prés | entlý.’ The ‘vnhappie Lady's’ broken heart and broken speech are all forgotten. —Ed.
presently This word, which means, of course, immediately, Capell transfers to the end of the next line, reading, ‘When I shall pray, O, bless my husband! presently | Undo,’ etc. which is harmless enough, had he only explained the construction of ‘Undo,’—a difficulty which Rann, who followed him in transferring ‘presently,’ observed and obviated. See Text. Note 18.—Ed.
no midway . . . at all Steevens: Compare King John, III, i, 331-6, where the situation and sentiments of Blanche resemble those of Octavia.—Deighton refers to the similar case of Volumnia in Coriolanus, V, iii, 106-9.
Then your so Malone: This is one of the many mistakes that have arisen from the transcriber's ear deceiving him, your so and your so being scarcely distinguishable in pronunciation. See line 34, below.
Shall staine your Brother Theobald: But, sure, Antony, whose business here is to mollify Octavia, does it with a very ill grace: and 'tis a very odd way of satisfying her, to tell her the war, he raises, shall ‘stain,’ i. e. cast an odium upon her brother. I have no doubt, but we must read, with the addition only of a single letter —‘Shall strain your brother;’ i. e. shall lay him under constraints; shall put him to such shifts, that he shall neither be able to make a progress against, or to prejudice me. Plutarch says, that Octavius, understanding the sudden and wonderful preparations of Antony, was astonished at it; for he himself was in many wants, and the people were sorely oppressed with grievous exactions.—Johnson: I do not see but ‘stain’ may be allowed to remain unaltered, meaning no more than shame or disgrace.—Steevens: So, in some anonymous stanzas among the poems of Surrey and Wyatt: ‘here at hand approacheth one Whose face will stain you all.’ Again, in Shore's Wife, by Churchyard, 1593: ‘So Shore's wife's face made foule Browneta blush, As pearle staynes pitch, or gold surmounts a rush.’ Again, in Churchyard's Charitie, 1595: ‘Whose beautie staines the faire Helen of Greece.’—Malone: I believe a line betwixt these two has been lost, the purport of which probably was, ‘unless I am compelled in my own defence, I will do no act that shall stain,’ etc. After Antony has told Octavia that she shall be a mediatrix between him and his adversary, it is surely strange to add that he will do an act that shall disgrace her brother.—Rann ingeniously reads 'stain, and explains it as standing for sustain, that is, ‘in defence of him.’—Boswell: Perhaps we should read: ‘Shall stay your brother;’ shall check and make him pause in his hostile designs.—Singer: To ‘stain’ is not here used for to shame, or disgrace, as Johnson supposed; but for to eclipse, extinguish, throw into the shade, to put out; from the Old French esteindre. In this sense it is used in all the examples quoted by Steevens.—Staunton agrees with Singer as to the meaning of ‘stain,’ but adds that ‘stay, suggested by Boswell, is more accordant with the context, and may easily have been misprinted “stain.”’ —Dyce (ed. i): If ‘stain’ be right, it is equivalent to—throw into the shade; in which sense the word was formerly very common; e. g. ‘She stains the ripest virgins of the age.’—Beaumont and Fletcher's Cupid's Revenge, II, ii; ‘I saw sixe gallant nymphes, I saw but one, One stain'd them all . . . They borrowed beames from her star-staining eyes.’—Lord Sterling's Aurora, sig. C 4., ed. 1604.—Walker (Crit. iii, 301) quotes the Folio text, and asks, ‘What does this mean? Besides, would Antony speak thus to Octavia?’ Whereto, Lettsom, Walker's editor, replies in a footnote, ‘Two very natural questions! Is it too bold to read,—“I'll raise no preparation of war T' assail your brother”? The crept in from the line above, and expelled no. . . . Stain, strain, and stay are alike nonsense.’—Ingleby (Sh. Hermeneutics, p. 96): Certainly had ‘strain’ been in the old text we should have been well satisfied with it. But while regarding that as facile princeps among the proposed substitutes, we hold it to be quite inferior to the word of the folio. Compromise would be a dilution of ‘stain,’ in the sense we believe Shakespeare to have intended. —Deighton quotes ‘To dim his glory, and to stain the track Of his bright passage to the occident.’—Rich. II: III, iii, 66; ‘Clouds and eclipses stain both moon and sun.’—Sonn. xxxv, 3.—Br. Nicholson (N. & Qu. VIII, i, 182, 1892): No change seems to me to be required. Antony proudly says that his preparation will so show beside Cæsar's that it will overpoweringly eclipse it or stain it, as also that it will stain the colour of Cæsar's wishes to Antony's own. It will change or stain Cæsar's gules to the olive colour of peace. Antony's greater preparation will so stain and colour Cæsar and his purposes as to effect a total change in the latter; change them from thoughts of war to thoughts of the desirability and safety of peace. —[If we could but be perfectly sure that the effect on Cæsar of Anthony's staining would be to evoke thoughts of peace, and not of somewhat excusable anger, Dr Nicholson's interpretation would be faultless and carry conviction. Unfortunately, however, prognostication is here doubtful, and ‘stain’ cannot but convey a meaning which is, to say the least, uncomfortable. Hence the struggles of the critics to soften it. But is there any need of softening it? Be it as offensive as it will, it still remains the word of the text. Anthony's bearing towards Octavia is not deferential—hardly gentle. When he enters he is irritably dissenting from her, and we can see that he is providing for the speedy desertion of her, for which we were prepared, in the first hours after he was married, by his resolve to go to Egypt; where his pleasure lay.— II, iii, 43.—Ed.]
So your desires are yours That is, make the earliest haste, so that what you desire may become your own.
You reconciler Walker (Crit. ii, 191) quotes this ‘You’ in his list of instances where you and your have been confounded in the Folio, but Malone had already pointed out that the error arose from a confusion by the ear, due to the proximity of the two r's. See line 27, above. 34. Warres 'twixt you twaine would be, etc.] Heath (p. 458): The sense seems to be, As you are joint masters of the world, which in your union is united, so wars between you give an image of the cleaving of that world, and you both endeavouring to solder that cleft with the carcases of those who will be slain in the contest.—[Quoted with approval by Hudson.]—Johnson: The sense is, that war between Cæsar and Antony would engage the world between them, and that the slaughter would be great in so extensive a commotion.
William Shakespeare. Horace Howard Furness. A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare: The Tragedie of Anthonie, and Cleopatra. Philadelphia and London. J. B. Lippincott Company. 1907.
NSF, NEH: Digital Libraries Initiative, Phase 2 provided support for entering this text.
