pat parallelism, placing the point beyond all doubt; but we believe that he has made the most of his case, and that if he has not produced any such evidence, it is because there is none to produce. We agree with Mr Halliwell's conclusion, in so far as it rejects the MS. correction; but we advocate the retention of the original reading, simply because it is the text, and because we know for certain that the old corrector had no authority for his emendation except his own brains, generally addled, and not enjoying, in even this instance, a short interval of comparative lucidity.
The passage is this: Imogen, supposing that her husband Posthumus has been led astray by some Italian courtesan, exclaims indignantly and sarcastically—
"Some jay of Italy,
Whose mother was her painting, hath betray'd him;
Poor I am stale, a garment out of fashion."
We take it that "mother" here means Italy, and that "painting" means model; so that the gloss on the passage should run thus: Some jay of Italy, to whom Italy (i.e. Italian manners) was the model according to which she shaped her morals and her conduct, hath betrayed him. That this, or something like it, is the meaning, is confirmed by what follows—"Poor I am stale, a garment out of fashion;" that is, the new fashions, the new-fangled ways, are to be found only in Italy, and doubtless that daughter of Italy—that jay or imitative creature by whom Posthumus is now enslaved—is a considerable proficient in those fashionable and novel methods of conquest. This, we conceive, is nearer the meaning than the ordinary interpretation given by Dr Johnson, which represents this "jay" as "the creature not of nature but of painting." At any rate, if we adopt Johnson's meaning, we must change was into is, and read—"whose mother is her painting."
Again, perhaps the meaning is this: Some jay of Italy,—whose mother, i.e. whose birthplace (the renowned, the fashionable Italy) was her painting—i.e. was the adornment, the attraction, which allured my husband to her arms,—bath betrayed him. This, on second thoughts, we consider the best interpretation. But we allow the other to stand, as a specimen of groping towards the truth.
The MS. corrector's version is—"who smothers her with painting;" but if this had stood in the printer's manuscript, it is exceedingly unlikely that he would have blundered it into the text as we now have it. Moreover, there is a prosaic vulgarity about the expression which smacks much more of the old corrector, and of his notions of what would suit a popular assembly, than of the genius of Shakespeare. We may be certain that there is no allusion to rouge in the passage; and therefore we contend for the retention of the original text, as neither irreconcilable with good sense, nor alien, but rather the reverse, from Shakespeare's occasional modes of expression.
When Imogen says that Posthumus had made her
"Put into contempt the suits
Of princely fellows,"
she means, of princely equals. This is undoubted. Posthumus was beneath her in rank; yet, for his sake, she had declined the proposals of suitors as highborn as herself. "Fellows" is modernised into followers. The change of "pretty, and full of view," into privy, yet full of view, is a sensible emendation, yet we hesitate to recommend it for the text. Pisanio tells Imogen that when she disguises herself as a youth she must "change fear and niceness into a waggish courage." The word "fear" here seems to prove that "courage" is the right reading. The MS. correction is "waggish carriage."
Scene 6.—Imogen, disguised, says,
"I see a man's life is a tedious one,
I have tired myself; and for two nights together
Have made the ground my bed."
"Tired" should be 'tired—i.e. altered myself like a boy. But this is not a new reading. The word is the same, whether printed tired or 'tired.
Act IV. Scene 1.—Cloten speaking of Imogen, says, "Yet this imperseverant thing (i.e., Imogen) loves him (i.e., Posthumus) in my despight." "Imperseverant" is explained by Messrs Dyce and Arrowsmith to mean undiscerning. The latter, says Mr
