New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-12-24
THE DRAMA.
A BRIEF sHAKEsPEARIAN coMMENT.pv

Mention was recently made In this paper Of ,.,
ish and vulgar reading Of a limo in shakesns..',
beautiful comedy OF AS You Like It." and ~
correspondent asks for the citation of autbo,,,.'
bearing this subject The matter IS M, =.
especial Importance 10 the general public but -,
ably. a few local ShakesperIan students ara l.,
ferested In such questions, and 10 them o..
| references and comments may prove useful =. -
IA agreeable. The lire in question is spoken A., -.
Princess Rosaind. ard Is addressed TO the rrin 7
Celia.-the latter having asked the former 4,
spirit OF kindly banter. whether her silent sad,s,.
or troubled preoccupation. is for her ban,.,.
father To this Inquiry Rosand answers acco,,
ing to the FIRST Shakespeare Folio NO so,,o =.
is for my childes father" Toe rank rnpron,1..D
OF this speech Is obvious. and not only i;s Inn,
| prety but its vacuous Stiffness Rosallnd Z, sha,
be remembered. is young. unsophlstlca,od .,.,
and now for the first time her maiden fancy -.
been touched; she IS sntten by tho beauty and .,
victorious strength OF Orlando. whom she has a..
but once, but with whom she has fallen In 1--we :.
first sight: and this emotion. strange and nov -.
had its customary effect OF confusion and n..
plexity Nothing could be more completely lnb..
monious with the feelings and tho character =.
such girl than speech that IL vulgar and a.
pant, almost 10 ribaldry. Tho poe, laureate Mi
olas Rowe observed this and in his ,luio, =,
Shakespeare. wisely and rightly thinking n 4 MIN,
ers bunder. he reversed the words and res,o,.,
the true reading: NO. some Of il IS for my father,
child"
The early authorities n he cited Tor this reaa,,.
Rowe. 1909 Alexa nder Pope 49,. and D-
Johnson. l7s5;-and better authorities # would D.
hard 10 find.
Edward Dowden. the foremost writer NJ ovr
time, on Shakespeare speaks Of Rowe as follows
Rowe did something 70 purge the text - shak.
speare from its crosser errors He WAS himself q
dramatic poet. and moreover he was man o. good
sense. His corrections not those of 2 GOLIATH,
OF early editions or a student Of our elder literature
but such az would occur to any cultivated and ,u
| diclous reader"
Charles knight: 1898:
mo some OF Il f. for NY fathers child"
I'm the original (meanlng the first folio I'm
my chlldes father This IS interpreted by Theo
bald C133). for him whom 7 hope 70 marry' Who
will be the father Of my children We have vent,
ured TO alter the text. az Il altered by Row.
and other OF the early editors"
Here Knight quotes Coeridge. in confirmation n.
his views and then he adds: III the original T., 70
be followed. and Theobali's construction received
the thought appears TO us not only indicate bu,
most forced and unnatural
Samuel Taylor Coeridge
who can doubt that It uhe Folio reading isa
mistake for my fathers child meaning herse,'
AcCor7}0g 10 Yfeo52&Gs nate. z 6a0s, ta6edss,s
anticipation Is put into the mouth u HOgaDnl VIII
; out reason"
Il IS not. perhaps sxtraYagant 10 say that C0s
ridge vas the most acute and profound thinker az,
writer on Shakespeare that ever touched ne sub
ject.
II may be worth while 70 mention that Z the read
ing Of the First Folio of Shakespeare -rotorlously
! married with Typographical errors.-is 20 be con-
sidered sacred. and absolutely and finally author,a-
tive. there is more reason for accepting an
emendation by Theobald than there is for accept.
ing emendation by Rowe. Yet various editors
OF Shakespeare have eagerly accepted Theobahs
change OF the Folio tex, OF Mrs. Quickly's descrp.
ton OF the death OF Fas.aN-"For his nose vas
sharp pen. ana ba5bled OF green fields; ani
this Is pure lnyeniion,-good. no doubt. but CON-
ple,ely conjecturai. Surely Rowe's correction 0.
perfectly obvious printers bunder IL Just much
entitled to respect az a conjecture by Theobalh
Henry y. Hudson ls5-5s;
"'No OF II is FOR my fathers child.'-so
Rowe. Colerldge. and Golfers second folio. Ths
original was my chdes father which Singer Gs90
retained. noting that Rosalnd payfully means 10
more than my future husband Sti, think Cole
ridges objection IS good-that by the old reading =
most indicate anticipation IS put into the mouth
OF Rosalind. without reason"
J. Payne Collier 1852:
I'VE rejoiced to find Coleridge's delicate coz
lecture fortified. rather. entirely justified b.
the folio 1882, amended IN manuscript Celia
asks: But, is all this :or your father? and Rosa
lind replies. her answer has always been print
ed: NO some OF ii is for my ch!ldes father
which turns out to be an unnecessary piece 81
coarseness. The passage, It stands with the
change In manuscript. IS merely this: No. soma
Of It IS for my fathers child.'-ROsand meaning
herself as her fathers child, and not Orlando a.
the father OF a child 10 be born Of her."-Coilers
Notes and lamentations.
Whatever may be thought o. the authenticity OF
Golfers Folio there be no doubt OF Golfers
Shakespearian scholarship. OF his fine taste
and Judgment, and no doubt that he was compe-
tent authority
Alexander Dyce: 1857:
This admirable editor. ore OF the bes, scholars
that England has produced, also gives NO SONS
of il is FOR my fathers child"
Edward Dowden says: THE learning and sound
Judgment OF Dyce deserve special acknowlecg'
ment."
Richard Grant White: 1857: 1865:
The cases are numerous in which corruption
is so plain that all doubt and hesitation must Re
broken through, nd the hand Of restoration ana
regulation be boldly applied. When this IS 70 ne
done and how It is for the editor 10 decide-at MS
peril if his Judgment and his sympathy win us
author fail. Shakespeares text has come to Us
in a condition that demands. for It's regulaaoi
ouch n combination OF qualifications. Unborn ara
acquired that man with any fitness AZ all 'o'
the task will perform It. generally. with muca
doubt of himself. and yet. sometimes with bold
ness Rosand's answer to Celias question seems
TO me an occasion Of the latter sort
The Folio My chIldes father'-whIch can be DE-
Tended only by attrbutrs TO Rosa!nd thought
n, once unnatural and oversubte."
THE course Of error (of which myself have
seen scores OF modern examples). was, probably
this first, fathers child; next transposi,ion IN
type. 'chde fathers. finally. mistaken correc'
ton Of this to childs father
Thomas Keightley;
Rowe properly read fathers child. sense.
taste, and decacy alike commend this simple ana
natural transposition. The Shakespeare Expos
itor. 1867.
There is no wiser or thoughtful and care
full Shakespearian editor than Keghtley
Charles Edward Flower, I'm his Memorial i"'
a;re edition. called the Stra,ford Shakespeare
gives NO some of It is for my fathers chic
and this reading is also given in the Bedio''
Shakespeare, which Is one Of the Chandos Classes