showed what necessity belonged to 't, and yet was de

nied.

Luc. How?

2 Stran. I tell you, denied, my lord.

Luc. What a strange case was that? now, before the gods, I am ashamed on 't. Denied that honourable man? there was very little honour show'd in 't. For my own part, I must needs confess, I have received some small kindnesses from him, as money, plate, jewels, and such like trifles, nothing comparing to his; yet, had he mistook him, and sent to me,1 I should ne'er have denied his occasion so many talents.2

So, Queen Elizabeth to one of her parliaments: "And for me, it shall be sufficient that a marble stone declare that a queen having reigned such a time, [i. e. the time that she should have reigned, whatever time that might happen to be,] lived and died a virgin."

So, Holinshed: "The bishop commanded his servant to bring him the book bound in white vellum, lying in his study, in such a place." We should now write in a certain place.

Again, in the Account-book, kept by Empson in the time of Henry the Seventh, and quoted by Bacon in his History of that king:

"Item, Received of such a one five marks, for a pardon to be procured, and if the pardon do not pass, the money to be repaid." "He sold so much of his estate, when he came of age," (meaning a certain portion of his estate) is yet the phraseology of Scot

land. Malone.

1

yet, had he mistook him, and sent to me,] We should read: mislook'd him, i. e. overlooked, neglected to send to him. Warburton

I rather read, yet had he not mistook him, and sent to me.

Johnson.

Mr. Edwards proposes to read—yet had he missed him. Lucius has just declared that he had had fewer presents from Timon, than Lucullus had received, who therefore ought to have been the first to assist him. Yet, says he, had Timon mistook him, or overlooked that circumstance, and sent to me, I should not have denied &c. Steevens.

That is, "had he (Timon) mistaken himself and sent to me, I would ne'er" &c. He means to insinuate that it would have been a kind of mistake in Timon to apply to a person who had received such trifling favours from him, in preference to Lucullus, who had received much greater; but if Timon had made that mistake, he should not have denied him so many talents. M. Mason.

Had he mistook him, means, had he by mistake thought him under less obligations than me, and sent to me accordingly.

Enter SERVILIUS.

Ser. See, by good hap, yonder 's my lord; I have sweat to see his honour.-My honoured lord,

[To Luc. Luc. Servilius? you are kindly met, sir. Fare thee well: Commend me to thy honourable-virtuous lord, my very exquisite friend.

Ser. May it please your honour, my lord hath sent

Luc. Ha! what has he sent? I am so much endeared to that lord; he's ever sending: How shall I thank him, thinkest thou? And what has he sent now?

Ser. He has only sent his present occasion now, my lord; requesting your lordship to supply his instant use with so many talents.3

Luc. I know, his Lordship is but merry with me; He cannot want fifty-five hundred talents.

Ser. But in the mean time he wants less, my lord.

If his occasion were not virtuous,*

I should not urge it half so faithfully.5

I think with Mr. Steevens that him relates to Timon, and that mistook him is a reflective participle. Malone.

2. denied his occasion so many talents.] i. e. a certain number of talents, such a number as he might happen to want. This passage, as well as a former, (see n. 9, p. 364,) shows that the text below is not corrupt. Malone.

3

with so many talents.] Such again is the reading with which the old copy supplies us. Probably the exact number of talents wanted was not expressly set down by Shakspeare. If this was the case, the player who represented the character, spoke of the first number that was uppermost in his mind; and the printer, who copied from the play-house books, put down an indefinite for the definite sum, which remained unspecified. The modern editors read again in this instance, fifty tulents. Perhaps the Servant brought a note with him which he tendered to Lucullus. Steevens.

There is, I am confident, no error. I have met with this kind of phraseology in many books of Shakspeare's age. In Julius Cæsar we have the phrase used here. Lucilius says to his adversary: "There is so much, that thou wilt kill me straight."

Malone.

4 If his occasion were not virtuous,] Virtuous for strong, forcible, pressing. Warburton.

The meaning may more naturally be-If he did not want it for a good use. Johnson.

Dr. Johnson's explication is certainly right.-We had before: "Some good necessity touches his friend." Malone.

5

- half so faithfully.] Faithfully for fervently. Therefore,

Luc. Dost thou speak seriously, Servilius?
Ser. Upon my soul, 'tis true, sir.

Luc. What a wicked beast was I, to disfurnish myself against such a good time, when I might have shown myself honourable? how unluckily it happened, that I should purchase the day before for a little part, and undo a great deal of honour?6-Servilius, now before the gods, I am not able to do 't; the more beast, I say :—I was sending to use lord Timon myself, these gentlemen can witness; but I would not, for the wealth of Athens, I had done it

without more ado, the Oxford editor alters the text to fervently. But he might have seen, that Shakspeare used faithfully for fervently, as in the former part of the sentence he had used virtuous for forcible. Warburton.

Zeal or fervour usually attending fidelity. Malone.

6 That I should purchase the day before for a little part, and undo a great deal of honour?] Though there is a seeming plausible antithesis in the terms, I am very well assured they are corrupt at the bottom. For a little part of what? Honour is the only substantive that follows in the sentence. How much is the antithesis improved by the sense which my emendation gives? "That I should purchase for a little dirt, and undo a great deal of honour!" Theobald.

This emendation is received, like all others, by Sir Thomas Hanmer, but neglected by Dr. Warburton. I think Theobald right in suspecting a corruption; nor is his emendation injudicious, though perhaps we may better read, purchase the day before for a little park. Johnson.

I am satisfied with the old reading, which is sufficiently in our author's manner. By purchasing what brought me but little honour, I have lost the more honourable opportunity of supplying the wants of my friend. Dr. Farmer, however, suspects a quibble between honour in its common acceptation, and honour (i. e. the lordship of a place) in a legal sense. See Jacob's Dictionary.

Steevens.

I am neither satisfied with the amendments proposed, or with Steevens's explanation of the present reading; and have little doubt but we should read "purchase for a little port," instead of part, and the meaning will then be-"How unlucky was I to have purchased, but the day before, out of a little vanity, and by that means disabled myself from doing an honourable action." Port means show, or magnificence. M. Mason.

I believe Dr. Johnson's reading is the true one. I once suspected the phrase "purchase for," but a more attentive examination of our author's works and those of his contemporaries, has shown me the folly of suspecting corruptions in the text, merely because it exhibits a different phraseology from that used at this day. Malone.

now. Commend me bountifully to his good lordship; and I hope, his honour will conceive the fairest of me,. because I have no power to be kind :-And tell him this from me, I count it one of my greatest afflictions, say, that I cannot pleasure such an honourable gentleman. Good Servilius, will you befriend me so far, as to use mine own words to him?

Ser. Yes, sir, I shall.

Luc. I will look you out a good turn, Servilius.

True, as you said, Timon is shrunk, indeed;

[Exit SER.

And he, that's once denied, will hardly speed.[Exit Luc. 1 Stran. Do you observe this, Hostilius?7

2 Stran. Ay, too well.

1 Stran. Why this

Is the world's soul; and just of the same-piece
Is every flatterer's spirit. Who can call him

His friend, that dips in the same dish?9 for, in

Do you observe this, Hostilius?] I am willing to believe, for the sake of metre, that our author wrote:

Observe you this, Hostilius?

Ay, too well. Steevens.

-flatterer's spirit.] This is Dr. Warburton's emendation. The other [modern] editions read:

Why, this is the world's soul;

And just of the same piece is every flatterer's sport. Mr. Upton has not unluckily transposed the two final words, thus: Why, this is the world's sport;

Of the same piece is every flatterer's soul.

The passage is not so obscure as to provoke so much enquiry. This, says he, is the soul or spirit of the world: every flatterer plays the same game, makes sport with the confidence of his friend. Johnson.

Mr. M. Mason prefers the amendment of Dr. Warburton to the transposition of Mr. Upton. Steevens.

The emendation, spirit, belongs not to Dr. Warburton, but to Mr. Theobald. The word was frequently pronounced as one syllable, and sometimes, I think, written sprite. Hence the corruption was easy; whilst on the other hand it is highly improbable that two words so distant from each other as soul and sport [or spirit] should change places. Mr. Upton did not take the trouble to look into the old copy; but finding soul and sport the final words of two lines in Mr. Pope's and the subsequent editions, took it for granted they held the same situation in the original edition, which we see was not the case. I do not believe this speech was intended by the author for verse. Malone.

9

that dips in the same dish?] This phrase is scriptural:

My knowing, Timon has been this lord's father,
And kept his credit with his purse;

Supported his estate; nay, Timon's money
Has paid his men their wages: He ne'er drinks,
But Timon's silver treads upon his lip;
And yet, (O, see the monstrousness of man
When he looks out in an ungrateful shape!)
He does deny him in respect of his,1
What charitable men afford to beggars.
3 Stran. Religion groans at it.

1 Stran.

I never tasted Timon in my life,

For mine own part,

Nor came any of his bounties over me,
To mark me for his friend; yet, I protest,
For his right noble mind, illustrious virtue,
And honourable carriage,

Had his necessity made use of me,

I would have put my wealth into donation,
And the best half should have return'd to him,2

"He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish." St. Matthew, xxvi, 23. Steevens.

in respect of his,] i. e. considering Timon's claim for what he asks. Warburton.

In respect of his fortune: what Lucius denies to Timon is in proportion to what Lucius possesses, less than the usual alms given by good men to beggars. Johnson.

Does not his refer to the lip of Timon?-Though Lucius himself drink from a silver cup which was Timon's gift to him, he refuses to Timon, in return, drink from any cup. Henley.

2 I would have put my wealth into donation,

And the best half should have return'd to him,] Sir Thomas Hanmer reads:

I would have put my wealth into partition,

And the best half should have attorn'd to him,

Dr. Warburton receives attorn'd. The only difficulty is in the word return'd, which, since he had receiv'd nothing from him, cannot be used but in a very low and licentious meaning.

Johnson.

Had his necessity made use of me, I would have put my fortune into a condition to be alienated, and the best half of what I had gained myself, or received from others, should have found its way to him. Either such licentious exposition must be allowed, or the passage remain in obscurity, as some readers may not choose to receive Sir Thomas Hanmer's emendation.

The following lines, however, in Hamlet, Act II, sc. ii, per