thinking that MR. SINGER'S explanation, besides being somewhat too refined
and recondite, is less applicable to the general sense and drift of the
passage than that of Steevens, which Malone and Mr. Collier have adopted.

What I think wanting to Steevens' interpretation, is an increase, if I may
so express myself, of intensity. He takes the word, I conceive, in its
right bearing, but does not give it all the requisite force. I should
suggest that it means not merely "_recipient_, capable of receiving," but,
to coin a word, _captatious_, eager or greedy to receive, absorbing; as we
say _avidum mare_, or a _greedy gulf_. The Latin analogous to it in this
sense would be, not _capax_, or MR. SINGER'S _captiosus_, but _captax_, or
_captabundus_; neither of which words, however, occurs.

The sense of the word, like that of many others in the same author, must be
determined by the scope and object of the passage in which it is used. The
object of Helena, in declaring her love to the Countess, is to show the
all-absorbing nature of it; to prove that she is _tota in illo_; and that,
however she may strive to stop the cravings of it, her endeavours are of no
more use than the attempt to fill up a bottomless abyss.

The reader may, if he pleases, compare her case with that of other heroines
in like predicaments. Thus Medæa, in _Apollonius Rhodius_:

[Greek: "Pantê moi phrenes eisin amêchanoi, oude tis alkê Pêmatos."]

And the same lady in _Ovid_:

"---- Luctata diu, postquam ratione furorem,
Vincere non poterat. Frustra, Medea, repugnas.
----