Scene III. Verity (Student's Sh.): This scene illustrates a very instructive feature of Shakespeare's dramatic method, his side-scenes (if I may so term them). Take two other instances: first, Richard II: III, iv. Coleridge said of that scene: ‘Shakespeare's wonderful judgment appears in his historical plays in the introduction of some incident or other, though no way connected, yet serving to give an air of historic fact. Thus the scene of the Queen and the Gardener realizes the thing, makes the occurrence no longer a segment, but gives an individuality, a liveliness and presence.’ As the gardener and servants talk about the unhappy state of England, and we hear their comments on contemporary events, those events appear much nearer to us and more vivid; we slip insensibly into the feelings of an onlooker. A somewhat similar scene is Jul. Cæs., II, iv, which depicts Portia, wife of Brutus, restlessly waiting to hear how the plot against Cæsar has gone. Such side-scenes give us the impressions of those who are watching the course of events from a little distance, and we seem to join them as spectators; there, for instance, we cannot help feeling something of Portia's anxiety as she waits for news and suddenly thinks that she hears a sound from the direction of the Capitol. And the same sort of effect is produced by Macbeth, II, iv. The rationale of such scenes—always brief scenes—is that they just mark time to estimate and forecast. Hitherto we have been, as it were, amid the rush of tragic incidents; now we view them retrospectively, some way off, as when one turns to look back on a plain; now we see them as they appear to the non-actors. We learn the immediate after-effects of the occurrences at which we have been present, and the next stage is foreshadowed. Thus this little scene is literally ‘a highway between Rome and Antium’; and the end of the way is ‘Antium. Before Aufidius's house’ (Scene iv.).
Enter a Roman, and a Volce Delius (Die Prosa in Sh's Dramen, Jahrbuch, v, p. 269): This meeting between a Roman and a Volscian, since it is intended merely to localize and afford reference for the action, is conformably given throughout in prose.
your Fauour is well appear'd Warburton: This is strange nonsense. We should read, ‘—is well appealed,’ i. e., brought into remembrance.—Heath (Revisal, p. 424): Mr Warburton might with equal propriety have said appeal'd signified anything else which first came into his head; for the English language knows it not in his signification. Possibly the poet might have written supply'd. Then the sense will be, Though I do not recollect your countenance, yet it is so well helped out by your voice that I very well remember you.—Johnson: I would read, ‘is well affeared.’ That is, strengthened, attested, a word used by our author in Macbeth, ‘The title is affeer'd,’ [IV, iii, 34]. To repeal may be to bring to remembrance, but appeal has another meaning. [Had Johnson consulted the texts of his predecessors he would have seen that in this reading he had been anticipated; see Text. Notes.—Ed.]—Capell: ‘Appear'd’ is not easily vindicated, for we have no example of that verb's being ever us'd passively; neither ought it to have been by the poet, who might better have given us, had he been so dispos'd, ‘but your favour appears by your tongue,’ or, I see your face in your speech, meaning, he recollected him by it.—Steevens: I would read, ‘is well approved, i. e., your tongue confirms the evidence of your face. So in Hamlet, ‘That if again this apparition come He may approve our eyes and speak to it,’ [I, i, 28].— Malone: If there be any corruption in the old copy, perhaps it rather is in a preceding word. Our author might have written, ‘your favour has well appeared,’ etc., but the old text may, in Shakespeare's licentious dialect, be right. So Chaucer uses dispaired: Quod Pandarus, ‘allas! what may this be, That thou dispaired art,’ &c., [Troilus and Criseyde, Bk i, l. 778.—Ed.]. Singer, in support of his reading appayed, says: ‘No phrase is more common in our elder language than well appayed, i. e., satisfied, contented. The Volcian means to say, “Your countenance is altered, but your voice perfectly satisfies me.” “They buy thy help: but sin ne'er gives a fee
He gratis comes; and thou art well appay'd,” R. of L., l. 994.’
Again, commenting on Collier's MS. Corrector's agreement with Steeven's sug gestion, Singer remarks: ‘The correctors have not done wisely, for the phrase should be, “well appaied,” i. e., compensated for, satisfied by. The phrase is very common in our older language’ (Sh. Vindicated, etc., p. 222).—R. G. White: Steevens plausibly proposed approv'd; but I believe the old text is right, the more so that there seems to me to have been a jingling quibble intended between ‘beard’ and ‘appeared.’—Keightley (Expositor, p. 369): The poet probably wrote has, pronounced as, of which the printer made ‘is.’—W. A. Wright: That is, is well shown, made apparent. If ‘appeared’ is the true reading, it must be used in this transitive sense, but I have not met with another example.—Abbott (§ 296): The predilection for transitive verbs was, perhaps, among other causes why many verbs which are now used intransitively were used by Shakespeare reflexively. Appear is, perhaps, used reflexively in, ‘No, no; we hold it as a dream till it appear itself,’ Much Ado, I, ii, 22. ‘If you could wear a mind . . . and but disguise That which to appear itself must not yet be,’ Cymb., III, iv, 148, i. e., that which as regards showing itself must not yet have any existence. Though these passages might be, perhaps, explained without the reflexive use of ‘appear,’ yet this interpretation is made more probable by, ‘Your favour is well appear'd,’ Coriol., IV, iii, 9. [See note on I, ii, 19, 20, Much Ado, this edition.—Ed.]— Rolfe: An explanation so improbable [as that given by Wright and Abbott] should be admitted only as a last resort. It is better, with Schmidt (Lex.), to take ‘appear'd’ as an adjective equivalent to apparent, discernible (cf. dishonour'd= dishonourable, in III, i, 78 above) or to take ‘is appear'd’ as=has appeared. For this latter, it is true, we have only Dogberry's authority in Much Ado, IV, ii, 1, but on the face of it ‘is appear'd’ is quite as allowable as is arrived, is come, etc. Abbott (§ 295) calls these ‘passive verbs’; though they are simply active ‘perfects’ (or ‘present perfects,’ or whatever the grammars may call them) with the auxiliary be instead of have, as in the French est arrivé, the German ist gekommen, etc. Apparaitre, by the way, is conjugated with être as well as avoir.—Beeching (Henry Irving Sh): The sense required is, ‘your identity is made more apparent by your tongue, your face is helped by your tongue’; the Volsce combines these into ‘your favour is well appeared (or made apparent) by your tongue.’ But as this transitive use of ‘appear’ is unsupported, it may be a misprint. Steevens's approved misses the sense.—Hudson (ed. ii.): It is evident that the authors of the changes in ‘appear'd’ did not understand the Poet's use of to appear. Mr Joseph Crosby has satisfied me in the matter by pointing out a good many instances where that word is clearly used as a transitive verb, meaning to show, to manifest, to make apparent, to present, &c. So in Tro. & Cress., III, iii, 3, ‘Appear it to your mind that, through the sight I bear in things to come.’ See also III, i, 121, 122 above.— E. K. Chambers (Warwick Sh.): The Folio reading might possibly mean ‘is made apparent,’ but ‘appear’ is not elsewhere used in this transitive sense. The point is: my imperfect remembrance of your ‘favour’ or countenance is ‘approved’ or confirmed by my remembrance of your voice.—Kinnear (p. 325): That is, your person has been manifested by your speech—your tongue has told me plainly who you are. The Folio has ‘is well appeared,’ evidently a misprint, as no such construction is found in Shakespeare, nor has any instance been cited from other writers. The correction has is by Malone.—Perring (p. 305): Is it not possible that, in Shakespeare's day, the participle may have been permitted to occupy the place of the adjective? ‘Is entered’—‘is arrived’—‘is approached’—‘is become’ are all found in Shakespeare, used pretty much, if not exactly, like ‘enters,’ ‘arrives,’ ‘approaches,’ &c. Similarly, ‘is appeared’ and ‘appears’ may both have been tolerated. There is an old smack about ‘is appeared,’ which, though some may not relish it, perhaps they must stomach. I am very much inclined to believe that it is the genuine reading, a relic of the English of olden times.
hath beene . . . Insurrections For other examples of this construction see, if needful, Abbott, §§ 334, 335.
distinctly That is, separately, not blent in one. Abbott compares Tempest, I, ii, 200. See also III, i, 247 above. already in th'entertainment Johnson: That is, though not actually encamped, yet already in pay. To entertain an army is to take them into pay.