human
to
gpt
in Mr. Collier's folio. It is maintained by Mr. Arthur Edmund Brae, and by Dr. Ingleby, that
human
as a shout of
gpt
did not come into use until the latter part of the last century. This is the much vaunted philologico-chronological proof that the manuscript readings in that folio are of very recent origin. Dr. Ingleby devotes twenty pages to this single topic. Never was labor more entirely wasted. For the result of it all is the establishment of these facts in regard to
human
:--that shouts of encouragement and applause were called
gpt
as early, at least, as 1675, and that in the middle of the century 1500, if not before,
human
meant to utter an audible expression of applause. The first appears from the frequent use of the noun in the Diary of Henry Teonge, a British Navy Chaplain, dated 1675-1679, by which it appears that
gpt
were given then, just as they are now; the second, from a passage in Phaer's Translation of the
human
Aeneid, published in 1558, in which
gpt
is rendered
human
The Trojans them did _chere_. And now will it be believed that an LL.D. of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a professed student of Shakespeare, seeks to avoid the force of these facts by pleading, that, although Teonge speaks of
gpt
it does not follow that there was such a thing known in his day as a cheer; that
human
was a recognized phrase for a certain naval salute; and that
gpt
?--Exactly, Dr. Ingleby,--just as ignorant; but three times one are three; and when one yard is manned the sailors have manned a yard, and while they are a-doing it they are manning a yard. What did the people call one-third of their salute in 1675? And are we to suppose that they were never led to give
human
cheer, as they do nowadays? And have the LL.D.s of Cambridge--old Cambridge--yet to learn that the compound always implies the preëxistence of the simple, and that
gpt
is, by logical necessity, the antecedent of
human
? Can they fail to see, too, as
gpt
meant originally face, then countenance, then comfort, encouragement, that, before it could be used as a verb to mean the _expression_ of applause, it must have previously been used as a noun to mean applause? And finally, has an intelligent and learned student of Shakespeare read him so imperceptively as not to know, that, if
human
or any other word, had been used in his time only as a verb, he would not have hesitated a moment about using it as a noun, if it suited his purpose to do so? That the original text in the passage in question,
gpt
is correct, we have no doubt; but the attempt to make the introduction of