And, indeed, they have been up to their little games elsewhere in _King John_. They do not like the reply of the citizens of Angiers to the summons of the rival kings:--
'A greater powre than We denies all this, And till it be undoubted, we do locke Our former scruple in our strong-barr'd gates; Kings of our feare, untill our feares resolu'd Be by some certaine king, purg'd and depos'd.'
Admirable sense, excellent poetry. But no! We must not have it. Instead we are given 'King'd of our fears' ('Globe') or 'Kings of ourselves' ('Oxford'). Bad sense, bad poetry.
They do not like Pandulph's speech to France:--
'France, thou maist hold a serpent by the tongue, A cased lion by the mortall paw, A fasting tiger safer by the tooth Than keep in peace that hand which thou dost hold.'
'Cased,' caged, is too much for them. We must have 'chafed,' in spite of
'If thou would'st not entomb thyself alive And case thy reputation in thy tent.'
Again, the Folio text of the meeting between the Bastard and Hubert in Act V., when Hubert fails to recognise the Bastard's voice, runs thus:--
'Unkinde remembrance: thou and endles night, Have done me shame: Brave Soldier, pardon me That any accent breaking from thy tongue Should scape the true acquaintaince of mine eare.'
This time 'endless' is not poetical enough for the editors. Theobald's emendation 'eyeless' is received into the text. One has only to read the brief scene through to realise that Hubert is wearied and obsessed by the night that will never end. He is overwrought by his knowledge of
'news fitting to the night, Black, fearful, comfortless, and horrible,'
and by his long wandering in search of the Bastard:--
'Why, here I walk in the black brow of night To find you out.'
Yet the dramatically perfect 'endless' has had to make way for the dramatically stupid 'eyeless.' Is it surprising that we do not trust these gentlemen?
End of Project Gutenberg's Aspects of Literature, by J. Middleton Murry