William Shakespeare, Critical Commentary of The Tragedie of Anthonie, and Cleopatra
Horace Howard Furness, Ed.

must restore, ‘must charge his horns,’ that is, must be an honourable cuckold, must have his horns hung with garlands. Charge and ‘change’ frequently usurp each other's place in our Author's old editions. [Theobald hereupon adds, with his characteristic scrupulous honesty,—an honesty Warburton knew not,—‘I ought to take notice, that Mr Warburton likewise started this emendation.’ In Warburton's own edition, no such scruples harassed him. He gave the emendation as wholly his own.] Upton (p. 304) quotes this passage as an instance where Shakespeare uses ‘change’ in its secondary sense of new dress and adorn. Capell (i, 27, adopting charge): That is, dress them up ‘with garlands,’ set them forth gayly; a wanton thought, that suits perfectly the person it comes from, and is expressed in words equally wanton. [Theobald's] very slight change is necessary. Johnson: I am in doubt whether to ‘change’ is not merely to dress, or to dress with changes of garlands. Malone: I think the reading, originally introduced by Theobald [charge], is the true one, because it affords a clear sense; whilst, on the other hand, the reading of the old copy affords none: for supposing change with to mean exchange for, what idea is conveyed by this passage? and what other sense can these words bear? The substantive change being formerly used to signify variety (as change of clothes, of honours, etc.) proves nothing: change of clothes or linen necessarily imports more than one; but the thing sought for is the meaning of the verb to ‘change,’ and no proof is produced to show that it signified to dress; or that it had any other meaning than to exchange. Charmian is talking of her future husband, who certainly could not change his horns, at present, for garlands, or any thing else, having not yet obtained them; nor could she mean, that when he did get them, he should ‘change’ or part with them, for garlands: but he might charge his horns, when he should marry Charmian, with garlands: for having once got them, she intended, we may suppose, that he should wear them contentedly for life. The same mistake happened in Cor. V, iii, 152, where the same correction was made by Warburton, and adopted by all subsequent editors: ‘And yet to charge thy sulphur with a bolt.’ Steevens: ‘To change his horns with (i. e. for) garlands’ signifies, to be a triumphant cuckold; a cuckold who will consider his state as an honourable one. We are not to look for serious argument in such a ‘skipping dialogue’ as that before us. Knight stands loyally by the First Folio, and interprets ‘change’ by ‘vary—give a different appearance to.’ Staunton follows Knight, and suggests that ‘change’ ‘may mean to vary or garnish. Charge is certainly very plausible.’ W. W[illiams] (Parthenon, 17 May, 1862): It seems to me that when Warburton offered an explanation of Shakespeare's meaning, he also well-nigh restored, unconsciously, the very words of the dramatist. He says the horns of Charmian's husband must be ‘hung about’ with garlands. Now hang was anciently spelt hange, and, although this orthography was dying out at the date of this tragedy, the omission or insertion of the final e depended pretty much on the caprice of the compositor. It can scarcely then be deemed unreasonable to conclude that the play-house copy from which this tragedy was probably printed would have shown Shakespeare's words to have been ‘must hange his Horns with Garlands.’ . . . The insertion of a superfluous initial letter was equally likely as a source of error . . . We find in the old copies of this play, ‘'tis well,’ where Shakespeare must have written ‘is well,’ and ‘stow me after’ for ‘tow me after.’ Staunton (Athenæum, 12 April, 1873): ‘Change’ is unquestionably a misprint for chain—of old spelt chayne. The allusion is to the sacrificial ox, whose horns were wreathed with flowers. [It is to be regretted that Staunton did not know

that he was herein anticipated by Zachary Jackson; else, rather than be seen in such company, he would have withheld his hand. Inasmuch as two editors, as eminently respectable as Knight and Staunton, have decided that ‘change’ is intelligible, the obscurity cannot be so desperate as to demand the substitution of another word, nor is there a sufficient reason to disregard the wholesome rule that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. We must remember that the thought, whatever may be the words, is not that of Charmian, but of Alexas, who has evidently taunted the giddy girls with indulging in frivolity to its extremest limit,—even to the unparalleled limit of indifferently changing the symbols of disgrace with the chaplets of marriage. I cannot see any reason for adopting Theobald's emendation, which, moreover, seems to make the husband an active agent in loading his horns with flowers,—a task which is not generally supposed to fall to his share.—Ed.]

15. Enob. Bring in the Banket, etc.] Wilhelm Koenig (Sh. Jhrb. x, 381) calls attention to the fact that no one pays any heed either to the entrance or to the command of Enobarbus, and that we hear nothing further from him for more than thirty lines,—until he says that it will be his fortune to go drunk to bed. Koenig suggests, therefore, that the entrance of Enobarbus be transposed to follow Charmian's exclamation, ‘Wrinkles forbid,’ line 23, and that Alexas's command, ‘Vex not his prescience,’ etc. is addressed to him.