Contemning Rome . . . of't Capell (i, 38): The punctuation of former editions, old and new, sets this line and the next in a light that is not true, the truth of it being as follows. Cæsar enters in converse with some to whom he has been giving various instances of Antony's ill behaviour, and goes on to another and greater that happen'd at Alexandria; and, in ent'ring upon it, puts into their hands the dispatch he receiv'd it by.—[Of Capell's punctuation of this passage no note appears to have ever been taken; possibly because, being a matter of Capell's individual preference, it is impossible to gainsay it. It is like Henderson's reading ‘many a time,— and oft on the Rialto.’ Capell thus reads: ‘Contemning Rome, he has done all this: And more; | In Alexandria,—here's the manner of it,— | I'the market-place,’ etc. (In Capell's version, which he made for Garrick, the lines read: ‘Contemning Rome, he did all this: And once, | In Alexandria,—here's the manner of it,’ etc.) Surely this punctuation has much to commend it.—Ed.] 3. In Alexandria, etc.] See Plutarch, Appendix. 6. at the feet This is ‘at their feet’ in Collier's Monovolume, 1853, which is supposed to contain all changes made by his MS. The change is trifling and possible.—Ed.
my Fathers Sonne Julius Cæsar was the great uncle of Octavius. That he is here called his ‘father’ is, possibly, due to a passage in Plutarch's Life of Brutus (p. 1063, ed. 1595; p. 123, ed. Skeat) where we find that Octavius Cæsar ‘was the sonne of lulius Cæsars Nece, whom he had adopted for his sonne, and made his heire, by his last will and testament. But when Iulius Cæsar his adopted father was slaine, he was,’ etc. At the first glance, it seems as though there were here two separate legal acts: an adoption as a son and the making of an heir; in reality there was but one. It was only by Cæsar's Will that Octavius became an adopted son, and this was evidently so unusual and doubtful a process that Octavius afterward had the adoption confirmed by the curiæ. ‘The phrase of “adoption by testament” (Cic. Brutus, 58) seems,’ says Prof. George Long (Smith's Dict. Greek and Roman Antiquities, s. v. Adoptio) ‘to be rather a misapplication of the term; for though a man or woman might by testament name a heres, and impose the condition of the heres taking the name of the testator or testatrix, this so-called adoption could not produce the effects of a proper adoption. It could give to the person so said to be adopted, the name or property of the testator or testatrix, but nothing more. Niebuhr (Lectures, vol. ii, p. 100) speaks of the testamentary adoption of C. Octavius by C. Julius Cæsar, as the first that he knew of; but the passage of Cicero in the Brutus and another passage (Ad Hirt. viii, 8) show that other instances had occurred before. A person on passing from one gens into another, and taking the name of his new familia, generally retained the name of his old gens also, with the addition to it of the termination -anus (Cic. ad Att. iii, 20, and the note of Victorius). Thus, C. Octavius, afterwards the Emperor Augustus, upon being adopted by the testament of his uncle, the dictator, assumed the name of Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus; but he caused the adoption to be confirmed by the curiæ. As to the testamentary adoption of C. Octavius, see Drumann, Geschichte Roms. i, 337, and the references there given.’ Were there any proof that Shakespeare had ever read Dion Cassius, I should not have referred to Plutarch as the possible source of this use of ‘father.’ Dion Cassius speaks over and over again of Julius Cæsar as the father of Octavius. —Ed.
Lydia Upton (p. 243) changed ‘Lydia’ to Lybia, on the authority of the original Greek of Plutarch. But Shakespeare merely followed North's Translation. M. Mason calls attention to line 76 of this scene where ‘Bochus’ is called ‘the King of Lybia,’ thereby proving that ‘the present reading [Lydia] is right.’
Sonnes hither proclaimed In ‘hither’ there is another mishearing.
In th'abiliments Murray (N. E. D.): Obsolete form of Habiliment, used in all the senses, but especially in those of warlike munitions and accoutrements, things which fitted out or made able for war.—Ibid. (s. v. Habiliment, 4 plural): The apparel, vestments or garments appropriate to any office or occasion. (In this sense initial h has always prevailed; the connection with able, ability, being less obvious, and that with modern French habit, habillement more so.)
he frets That Lepidus of the Triumpherate, should be depos'd See II, iii, 30, where Abbott and Franz are quoted, who would explain this ‘of’ as grammatically following ‘should be deposed.’ This use of ‘of’ after ‘depose’ is the accepted idiom; see the examples in the N. E. D. (s. v. depose, † 4, † b). At the same time it may be observed from the punctuation of the Ff (nowhere followed since Rowe, ed. ii), that the compositor did not recognize this idiom, but supposed the sense to be, as it is quite possible it may be, ‘he frets that Lepidus, he of the Triumvirate, should be deposed.’—Ed.
And being that, we detaine The Text. Notes reveal the various punctuations to which these words have been subjected, without, it must be acknowledged, greatly affecting the sense. The most idiomatic appears to be that of Theobald, adopted by the majority of editors. Abbott's remark (§ 404, quoted at II, ii, 42) then applies, which explains ‘being’ as equivalent to it being so.
Messenger Walker (Vers. 200) scans this word as a ‘quasi-disyllable.’ Does there not lie in this ‘quasi’ a confession of weakness, nay, timidity? What honest man who loves the music of his English tongue would openly assert that we must adopt, in poetry (of all loves!), such words as messgers, passgers? Abbott (§ 468) follows Walker and observes that ‘any unaccented syllable of a polysyllable may be sometimes softened and almost ignored,’ and would fain have us imagine that the tripping dactyl ‘messenger’ is softened when uttered as a grim spondee, messger.—Ed.
with her Traine Capell omitted these words because, I presume, he noted that Cæsar says to Octavia ‘you are come A market-maid to Rome;’ in this omission he was followed by every editor down to Collier, who revives the present stage-direction and remarks, ‘there can be no possible reason for following the example of modern editors by omitting these words. It must have been a small train; she had not “an army for an usher,” as appears by what follows, but she was not wholly unattended, according to the practice of the stage when the Folio was printed.’
Haile Cæsar, and my L. Deighton: Her salutation is to him not only as Cæsar, ruler of Rome, but as one to whom as the head of her family she owes allegiance. 47. The wife of Anthony, etc.] Corson (p. 296): The extravagance of Cæsar's language is evidently designed to exhibit his insincerity.
The ostentation Theobald: I dare say the poet wrote: ‘The ostent,’ i. e. the shewing, token, demonstration of our love; and he uses it both in these acceptations, and likewise to signify ostentation. The Alexandrine therefore is wholly unnecessary. [Theobald here gives examples of ostent from the Mer. of Ven. and Hen. V. Steevens appropriated this emendation of Theobald, even to the illustrations from the Mer. of Ven. and Hen. V.; these, he calmly remarks, ‘sufficiently authorize [ostent] the slight change I have made.’ Not unnaturally, Walker was thus misled when (Crit. iii, 302) he made the following note]: ‘Steevens, perceiving the defect in the verse, reads,—ostent; which word, however, is always pronounced by Shakespeare ostént; neither am I sure that he would have used it in this sense. I suspect that the true reading is ostention (properly ostension). This is nearer to the common text. Shakespeare is continually coining words from the Latin.’
Is often left vnlou'd Collier (ed. ii): ‘Is often held unlov'd,’ says the MS; but with doubtful fitness.—Singer (Sh. Vind. p. 293): The word felt, by a common accident at press, may have been jumbled into ‘left,’ consisting of the same letters.—Anon. (Blackwood, Oct. 1853, p. 467): If either of these emendations were adopted, we should require to read, ‘is often felt unloving,’ and this the measure will not permit. We therefore stand by the old text, the meaning of which we conceive to be—love which is left unshown is often left unreturned.—Staunton: With more likelihood we should read, ‘Is often left unpriz'd.’ ‘Unlov'd’ is a very problematical expression here, and appears to have been partly formed by the compositor from the word ‘love’ in the preceding line.—Hudson [adopting Singer's felt]: The passage is commonly so pointed as to make ‘which,’ referring to ‘love,’ the subject of is felt; whereas it should be the clause itself,—‘which being left unshown,’ or ‘the leaving of which unshown.’—Corson (p. 297): ‘Is often left unloved’ means, deprived of its character as love.—Schmidt (Lex. s. v. Unloved): That is, not felt; to love a love being a similar phrase, as, for instance, to think a thought; compare ‘what ruins are in me . . . by him not ruined?’ Com. Err. II, i, 96. ‘the want that you have wanted.’ Lear, I, i, 282.—[The meaning of ‘left unloved’ may be, as Schmidt says, ‘not felt,’ but the learned German is, I think, far astray when he holds the present phrase to be an instance of the common construction of a verb with its cognate accusative; nor are either of the examples which he quotes parallels to the present phrase. He was misled, I think, by the jingle of the words. Adriana asks, ‘what ruins are there in me which cannot be found to have been made ruins by him?’ So, too, Cordelia deserves to experience the want of that affection in which she had herself been wanting. In what respect are these two examples parallel in construction to ‘the ostentation of love which when left unshown is not felt’? Of course, in the three paraphrases just given, cognate accusatives cannot be found, and for the simple reason that they do not exist in the original sentences; herein lay Dr Schmidt's error. In the interpretation of the present phrase it seems to me that there has been a misapprehension of the person by whom the love is felt. The generally accepted meaning seems to be that if there is no expression of love, love will soon cease to exist. This, however, implies the possibility that Cæsar's love for his ‘dearest sister’ might grow cold, which is hardly an expression of deep fraternal feeling. It amounts almost to a threat. Whereas, Cæsar is pleading tenderly for himself, with gentle reproaches because Octavia has given him no chance to show his love for her, and urges that if there is no demonstration of his love she will soon cease to care whether he loves her or not, his love will be no longer prized; it becomes unvalued, ‘unloved.’ —Ed.]
pardon Schmidt (Lex.): Sometimes almost equivalent to leave, permission.
an abstract Theobald: If Mr Pope or any other of the editors understand this [‘abstract’], I'll willingly submit to be taught the meaning; but till then, I must believe, the Poet wrote, ‘an obstruct,’ i. e. his wife being an obstruction, a bar, to the prosecution of his pleasures with Cleopatra. And I am the rather convinced that this is the true reading, because Mr Warburton started the emendation too, unknowing that I had meddled with the passage.—[Warburton in his edition made no allusion to Theobald, but set forth the emendation as wholly his own, while repeating Theobald's very words in defining obstruct.]—Steevens: I am by no means certain that this change [obstruct] was necessary. Henley pronounces it to be ‘needless, and that it ought to be rejected, as perverting the sense.’ One of the meanings of abstracted is—separated, disjoined; and therefore our poet, with his usual licence, might have used it for a disjunctive. I believe there is no such substantive as obstruct: besides, we say, an obstruction to a thing, but not between one thing and another. As Mr Malone, however, is contented with Dr Warburton's reading, I have left it in our text.—Knight: Although ‘abstract’ may be used with sufficient licence, it gives us the meaning which the poet would express, that Octavia was something separating Anthony from the gratification of his desires. It is better to hold to the original, seeing that Shakespeare sometimes employs words with a meaning peculiar to himself. His boldness may not be justified by example,—but his meaning has always reference to the original sense of the word.—Singer: An abstract between is surely nonsense.—Collier (ed. ii): ‘Abstract’—a mere misprint, which is set right in the MS. [i. e. by obstruct.]—Delius: ‘Abstract’ is equivalent to abbreviation, abridgement, shortening, and refers to the ‘pardon for return.’ Anthony gladly granted Octavia's return to Rome, because therein lay an abridgement or curtailing of the hindrances between his lust and him; that is, between the lovers now separated by Octavia's presence. The majority of editors refer ‘abstract’ to Octavia, instead of properly to ‘which.’—Schmidt (Lex. s. v. Abstract): That is, the shortest way for him and his desires, the readiest opportunity to encompass his wishes.—[To me, Delius's definition of ‘abstract,’ with its reference to ‘which,’ carries conviction; it is justly drawn from the strict meaning of the word. Schmidt's paraphrase is weak and inferior to that of Delius, from which it is, not improbably, derived. I cannot find ‘abstract,’ as here used, in the N. E. D.; of obstruct, Dr Murray says, ‘not otherwise known’ than here in Theobald's emendation. In a choice between a word coined by Shakespeare and one coined by Theobald, I prefer the former, even were it as dark as ignorance.—Ed.]
wher is he now? My Lord, in Athens Inasmuch as this is printed as one line since the days of Rowe, albeit lacking a syllable, Walker (Crit. ii, 145) conjectured that at the end of the line Cæsar exclaims No (in addition to the ‘No’ beginning line 72). Walker adds, ‘The omission of a word or words at the end of a line, not altogether unfrequent in the Folio, appears to have happened oftener than usual in the latter part of this play.’
who now are leuying . . . He hath Capell (i, 38): The lines should be read thus, ‘who now is levying . . . She hath.’—Malone: That is, which two persons now are levying, etc. 76-82. In comparing this list with Plutarch (see Appendix) Upton (p. 238) detected certain discrepancies which he obviated by omitting ‘King of Pont,’ in line 79 (Polemen, in line 81, is the King of Pont); and by reading lines 81, 82 ‘Amintas of Lycaonia; and the king of Mede.’ Whereby the two lists harmonise. Capell attained the same result more simply, perhaps, by reading ‘King of Medes’ (Mede, Heath conj.) in line 79, and in line 82, ‘The Kings of Pont and Lycaonia,’—a conjecture of Heath. Johnson remarked, however, that ‘it is probable that the author did not much wish to be accurate.’ Dyce justly observes that the old text is doubtless what the author wrote.
King of Pont Keightley reads ‘the King of Pont’ and suggests (Exp. 316) the probability that ‘a proper name has been lost.’
more larger For double comparatives, see Abbott, § 11.
negligent danger Capell (i, 39): That is, in danger from negligence.— Delius: Shakespeare frequently uses adjectives combining both an active and a passive sense; compare ‘ignorant present.’—Macb. I, v. 58, and ‘ignorant concealment,’ Wint. Tale, I, ii, 397. 92, 93. determin'd things to destinie Hold, etc.] Deighton: Let things that are fated go on their way to destiny without your mourning them. It is possible, however, that the construction may be ‘things determined to destiny,’ i. e., on which destiny has resolved.—[The latter construction is, I think, to be preferred.—Ed.]
the high Gods . . . makes his Ministers Theobald: Why must Shakespeare be guilty of such an obvious false concord? He has not writ thus in a parallel passage,—‘Macbeth Is ripe for shaking, and the Pow'rs above Put on their Instruments.’—IV, iii, 237.—Knight: Here is a false concord; and to correct it we ought to read make their. But the modern editors read make them, which is a deviation from the principle upon which a correction can be authorised.—[Which I do not quite understand. Is the ‘principle’ well founded which holds make their a legitimate correction, and make them an illegitimate?—Ed.]—Collier (ed. i): ‘His’ refers to ‘justice’ and not to the ‘gods.’ The sense, therefore, is, that the gods, in order to right Octavia, make ministers of justice of Cæsar and of those that love Octavia.—Singer: It is impossible to conceive with [Collier] that the reference is to justice, which is not here personified, and, had it been, his would have been inapplicable.—Collier (ed. ii): We were disposed formerly to retain his upon the supposition that it might agree with justice. We now think that Singer is warranted in the blame he imputes to us for so doing, and we amend the text, although not exactly in his way. It seems not impossible that originally ‘gods’ was in the singular, and in that case makes and his would be correct.—[Capell's emendation, them (an ethical dative), seems to me more Shakespearian than any other emendation that has been proposed. Possibly it is to this that Knight objected.—Ed.]
Best of comfort, Malone: Thus the original copy. The connecting particle, and, seems to favour the old reading. According to the modern innovation, ‘Be of comfort,’ it stands very awkwardly. ‘Best of comfort’ may mean—‘Thou best of comforters!’ Compare The Tempest: ‘A solemn air, and the best comforter To an unsettled fancy's cure!’—V, i, 58. Cæsar, however, may mean, that what he had just mentioned is the best kind of comfort that Octavia can receive.—Steevens: This elliptical phrase, I believe, only signifies—‘May the best of comfort be yours!’ —Deighton: These words seem to me to go rather with the following words and to mean, ‘My best comforter,’ ‘my greatest comfort.’—[If the punctuation of the Folio had only been followed, and the comma retained after ‘comfort,’ I think there would have been scarcely any interpretation of the phrase other than Deighton's. Malone had an inkling of this when he said that ‘“and” stands very awkwardly,’ and gave ‘Thou best of comforters’ as a paraphrase. The fatal twist was given by Capell's unfortunate semi-colon, which has been followed by every editor except Rolfe, who, however, adopts Steevens's signification, made under the malign influence of the semi-colon.—Ed.]
abhominations Ellis (p. 220): This was a common orthography in the xvi th century, and the h seems to have been occasionally pronounced or not pronounced. There was no h in the Latin, although in the Latin of that time h was used, as we see from the Promptorium, 1450, ‘Abhominable, abhominabilis, abhominacyon, abhominacio’ and Levins, 1570, ‘abhominate, abhominari,’ as if the words referred to ab-homine instead of ab-omine.—[See Love's Lab. Lost, V, i, 26, of this edition, where this note is also given.]
potent Regiment to a Trull Johnson: ‘Regiment,’ is government, authority; he puts his power and his empire into the hands of a false woman. It may be observed, that ‘trull’ was not, in our author's time, a term of mere infamy, but a word of slight contempt, as wench is now.—Malone: ‘Trull’ is used in 1 Henry VI: II, ii, 28 as synonymous to harlot. There can therefore be no doubt of the sense in which it is used here.
That noyses it Steevens: Milton has adopted this uncommon verb in his Paradise Regained; ‘though noising loud And threat'ning nigh,’ iv, 488.—[It is not the verb itself which is so ‘uncommon’ (it occurs elsewhere in Shakespeare, and several times in the New Testament), but it is its present sense which is so unusual, conveying, as it does, the idea of loud-voiced and turbulent opposition. I think that Steevens might have cast, not unprofitably, a side-glance on the verb, more than ‘uncommon,’ which Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Hanmer, and Warburton accepted as the true one in this passage (see Text. Notes), imparting, as it does, a novel and coquettish charm to the infinite variety already ascribed to Cleopatra.—Ed.]
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.
