Note return to page 1 1It deserves remark that all the defects in the body of the book are in the division of “Histories,” the plays forming which have been especially thumbed and maltreated.

Note return to page 2 2As it is not easy to put the explanation of this apparently trifling matter in a short compass, the reader is referred particularly to pp. 111, 117, 325, 399, and 507.

Note return to page 3 3The old corrector of the folio, 1632, has himself allowed some apparent mistakes to escape him: thus, in “All's Well that Ends Well,” Act III. Scene I., we might have expected that he would alter “the younger of our nature” into “the younger of our nation.” Again, in “Henry IV. Part II.,” Act IV. Scene II., it may seem that “success of mischief” ought to be “successive mischief;” but neither of these variations from the old text is absolutely necessary.

Note return to page 4 4I am by no means convinced that this copy of the folio, 1632, is an entire novelty in the book-world; but it is quite certain that its curiosity and importance were never till now understood, nor estimated. Sir Thomas Phillipps, Bart., of Middle Hill (the discoverer of the marriage-bond of Shakespeare, who has most readily aided me in my inquiries), recollects to have seen, many years ago, an annotated copy of the folio, 1632, which he has always regretted that he did not purchase; and since the general contents of my volume became known, several gentlemen appear to be in possession of folios with manuscript emendations. I more than suspect, however, that one of these is the edition of 1685, formerly the property of the poet Southerne, with his autograph upon the title-page: of the notes it contains I was able, by the kindness of the then proprietor, to avail myself, when formerly editing the Shakespeare to which the present work is a Supplement.

Note return to page 5 5I paid the money for them at the time. Mr. Wilkinson, of Wellington-street, one of Mr. Rodd's executors, has several times obligingly afforded me the opportunity of inspecting Mr. Rodd's account-books, in order, if possible, to trace from whence the package came, but without success. Mr. Rodd does not appear to have kept any stock-book, showing how and when volumes came into his hands, and the entries in his day-book and ledger are not regular nor particular: his latest memorandum, on 19th April, only a short time before his sudden death, records the sale of “three books,” without specifying their titles, or giving the name of the purchaser. His memory was very faithful, and to that, doubtless, he often trusted. I am confident that the parcel was from the country; but any inquiries, regarding sales there, could hardly be expected to be satisfactorily answered.

Note return to page 6 6It ought to be mentioned, in reference to the question of the authority of the emendations, that some of them are upon erasures, as if the corrector had either altered his mind as to particular changes, or had obliterated something that had been written before-possibly, by some person not so well informed as himself.

Note return to page 7 7“Antony and Cleopatra” is the only drama that is entirely exempt from this treatment: possibly, the old corrector never witnessed the performance of it. In all the other plays, more or less is “cut out,” generally, it should seem, in proportion to popularity.

Note return to page 8 8In a few cases these manuscript stage-directions are of the highest importance in illustrating the wonderful judgment and skill of Shakespeare in conducting the business of his scenes. This matter cannot well be explained in the compass of a note; but if the reader will turn to p. 5, it will be seen of what consequence the mere words, Put on robe again, are to understanding in what way the sudden somnolency of Miranda, which has always excited remark, had been produced, and was to be accounted for. It would be easy to point out other instances, but they will occur in the course of the volume.

Note return to page 9 9There is, I think, but one printed note of aside in the whole of the six-and-thirty plays; but in manuscript the utmost care is taken so to mark all speeches intended to be heard by the audience, but not by the characters engaged in the scene.

Note return to page 10 1Some expressions and lines of an irreligious or indelicate character are also struck out, evincing, perhaps, the advance of a better, or purer, taste about the period when the emendator went over the volume.

Note return to page 11 2Monk Mason, in a note upon “Troilus and Cressida,” Act III. Scene III.; which, however, was there singularly inapt.

Note return to page 12 3See Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, vii. p. 36; xi. p. 422; xii. pp. 268, 287, 313; xiv. p. 26; xix. p. 472, &c.

Note return to page 13 4Another reason, of course, was the apprehension lest rival companies, then under very lax control, might act the piece.

Note return to page 14 5Some of the most interesting, if not the most curious emendations, apply not only to the songs by Shakespeare, introduced into various plays, but to the scraps of ballads and popular rhymes put into the mouths of many of his characters. Nearly all these, especially the latter, are corrected, and in some places completed; for it is not difficult to imagine that, even if originally accurately quoted, corruptions in the course of time, by the licence of comic performers and other causes, crept into them. These manuscript restorations are so frequent, that it is out of the question to enumerate them, but they apply to nearly every play; and in addition it may be noticed, that whenever the poet borrows any thing, it is invariably underscored by the old corrector: thus several quotations, not hitherto suspected to be such, are clearly indicated; and, as a singular specimen, we may point to the conclusion of “Troilus and Cressida,” where Pandarus cites four lines, not hitherto suspected to have been written by any other author.

Note return to page 15 6We have not spoken of another circumstance which ought to be taken into account. About one-fifth of the plays in the folios are not divided into acts and scenes; but in this corrected folio, 1632, the omissions are supplied. In many instances the divisions there made do not accord with those in modern impressions: and in some the old printed divisions are struck out, and others substituted—perhaps, such as prevailed about the time when the second folio was published. This fact may tend farther to show, that the early possessor of the volume was in some way concerned in dramatic representations.

Note return to page 16 7As it comprises the notes of all editors and commentators, from Rowe to Malone, it may be as well to state that it is the impression used hereafter, when speaking of their remarks and suggestions. If, in any instance, I have not stated that a proposed emendation has been previously suggested, it has arisen from my ignorance of the fact, or from pure inadvertence. In many cases the older conjectures of Theobald, Warburton, Pope, Hanmer, &c., are remarkably confirmed.

Note return to page 17 8See Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, v. 479, xiii. 91, xxi. 272. The imperfections may be supplied by referring to the corresponding portions of the plays in the edition published by Messrs. Whittaker and Co. in 1844, 8 vols. 8vo.

Note return to page 18 9A few words, occurring in certain of the emendations, may be thought to be of rather a more modern stamp than the time of Shakespeare —such as “struggling,” “wheedling,” “generous,” “exhibit,” &c. It is not impossible, however, that they were in earlier use than our lexicographers represent; nor is it unlikely that in some cases the old corrector's merely conjectural emendations (supposing them to deserve that character) were coloured by the language of his own later day. Our tongue had then undergone some material changes.

Note return to page 19 1It also explains the mode in which the corrector proceeded, when the division of a new scene had been improperly introduced in the old copy; for the erasure of Actus Quintus, Scæna Prima, and the insertion of same in manuscript mean, that what follows is merely a continuation of a preceding scene. The word briefely, lower down in the margin, exactly illustrates the way in which, by the non-crossing of the letter f, it was frequently mistaken for the long s: of course in this case no such blunder could be made. Those who were present on any of the four occasions, last year, when this volume was exhibited before the Shakespeare Society and the Society of Antiquaries, had an opportunity of observing all these peculiarities on other pages. It has been separately shown to many who wished to see the character of the alterations.

Note return to page 20 10109001P. 9. The introductory stage-direction in the old folios, especially with the manuscript addition in that of 1632 (which we have marked in Italics), is striking and picturesque:— “A tempestuous noise of thunder and lightning heard: Enter a Shipmaster, and a Boatswain, as on shipboard, shaking off wet.” In Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, (vol. xv. p. 19), it stands only,—“A storm with thunder and lightning. Enter a Ship-master and Boatswain;” but, from the corrected folio, 1632, it appears that the two actors who began the play entered as if on deck, shaking the rain and spray from their garments as they spoke, and thus giving an additional appearance of reality to the scene. “Enter Mariners, wet,” occurs soon afterwards, and we are left to conclude that they showed the state of their dress in the same way, but we are not told so, either in print or in manuscript. Alonso, Sebastian, Antonio, Ferdinand, Gonzalo, and the rest, come up From the cabin, (a part of the direction also supplied in manuscript, in the folio, 1632,) meaning, no doubt, that they ascended from under the stage, and are consequently supposed not to be in the same dripping condition.

Note return to page 21 10109002P. 9. “Alon. Good boatswain, have care.” It may be just worth remark, that the colloquial expression is, “Have a care;” and a is inserted in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, to indicate, probably, that the poet so wrote it, or, at all events, that the actor so delivered it.

Note return to page 22 10109003P. 12. The reading of all editions has been this:— “The sky, it seems, would pour down stinking pitch, But that the sea, mounting to the welkin's cheek, Dashes the fire out.” The manuscript corrector of the folio, 1632, has substituted heat for “cheek,” which is not an unlikely corruption by a person writing only by the ear. The welkin's heat was occasioned by the flaming pitch, but the fire was dashed out by the fury of the waves. The firing of the “welkin's cheek” seems a forced image; but, nevertheless, we meet elsewhere with “heaven's face,” and even the “welkin's face.”11Q1172

Note return to page 23 10109004P. 12. Miranda exclaims:— “A brave vessel, Who had, no doubt, some noble creature in her, Dash'd all to pieces!” Creatures, for “creature,” was the reading of Theobald, and he was right, though it varies from all the old copies. The corrector of the folio, 1632, added the necessary letter in the margin. Miranda speaks also of “those she saw suffer,” and calls them “poor souls.”

Note return to page 24 10109005P. 13. The emendation in the subsequent lines, assigned to Prospero, is important. The reading, since the publication of the folio, 1623 (with one exception to be noticed immediately), has invariably been as follows:— “The direful spectacle of the wreck, which touch'd The very virtue of compassion in thee, I have with such provision in mine art So safely order'd, that there is no soul— No, not so much perdition as an hair Betid to any creature in the vessel.” The only exception to the above text was a corruption which found its way into the folio, 1632, where “compassion” of the second line was repeated in the third:— “I have with such compassion in mine art,” &c. the printer having caught the word from the preceding line. “I have with such provision in mine art,” the word in the folio, 1623, has always been followed; but that it was an error may be said to be proved by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, who altered “compassion” (as it stood there) not to “provision” (as it stood in the folio, 1623), but to prœvision, in reference to Prospero's power of foreseeing what would be the result of the tempest he had raised:— “I have with such prevision in mine art So safely order'd, that there is no soul,” &c. “Provision” would answer the purpose of giving a meaning, because Prospero might have provided that no soul should suffer; but prevision supplies a higher and finer sense, showing that the great magician had by his art foreseen that there should not be “so much perdition as an hair” among the whole crew. The alteration of a single letter makes the whole difference.11Q1173

Note return to page 25 10109006P. 14. There is certainly some misprint in the following conclusion of a speech by Prospero:— “And thy father Was Duke of Milan, and his only heir And princess no worse issued.” The sense is intelligible, but the expression obscure. Malone and Steevens read,— “And his only heir A princess, no worse issued;” but the corruption, according to the corrector of the folio, 1632, is in the preceding line; for he alters the passage thus:— “And thy father Was Duke of Milan, thou his only heir And princess, no worse issued.” which removes the difficulty. The compositor, perhaps, caught “and” from the line above.

Note return to page 26 10109007P. 15. A very trifling change, the transference of a preposition from one word to another, clears up one of the most celebrated passages in this drama. Prospero, speaking of his false brother, Antonio, who, having been entrusted with unlimited power, had turned it against the rightful Duke, observes:— “He being thus lorded, Not only with what my revenue yielded, But what my power might else exact,—like one Who having, unto truth, by telling of it, Made such a sinner of his memory To credit his own lie,—he did believe He was indeed the duke.” Various modes of improving this unquestionably corrupt sentence have been suggested by Warburton (who changed into of the folios to “unto”), Monk Mason, Steevens, Malone, and Boswell; but not one of them hit upon the right emendation, which is indicated by the corrector of the folio, 1632, in the shortest and simplest manner, by erasing the preposition in one place, and by adding it to the word immediately adjoining: he also substitutes loaded for “lorded” in the first line,—perhaps, a questionable change. He puts the whole in this form:— “He being thus loaded, Not only with what my revenue yielded, But what my power might else exact,—like one Who having, to untruth, by telling of it, Made such a sinner of his memory To credit his own lie,—he did believe He was indeed the duke.” There cannot be a doubt that this, as regards “untruth,” is the true language of Shakespeare; and, by an insignificant transposition, what has always been a stumbling-block to commentators is now satisfactorily removed.

Note return to page 27 10109008P. 16. The ordinary reading has been this:— “Whereon, A treacherous army levied, one midnight Fated to the purpose, did Antonio open The gates of Milan; and i' the dead of darkness, The ministers for the purpose hurried thence Me, and thy crying self.” Here we see the word “purpose” awkwardly and needlessly repeated with only an intervening line. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, supplants “purpose,” in the first instance, by practise: he was, most likely, supported by some good authority; and Shakespeare constantly uses the word practise to denote contrivance, artifice, or conspiracy, and therefore, we may presume, wrote,— “One midnight Fated to the practise, did Antonio open The gates of Milan,” &c.

Note return to page 28 10109009P. 17. In all the old copies the following reading has been preserved:— “Where they prepar'd A rotten carcass of a butt, not rigg'd, Nor tackle, sail, nor mast; the very rats Instinctively have quit it.” Rowe altered “butt” to boat, and “have quit it,” to had quit it: in both changes he is supported by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Modern editors, who were naturally anxious to adhere to the folios, as the best existing authority, finding that sense could be made out of the reading of the old copies, followed them, as above, in what appear to be two errors.

Note return to page 29 10109010P. 18. An important and curious point is settled by a manuscript stage-direction opposite the words used by Prospero in the commencement of his third speech on this page,— “Now I arise.” What is written in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, is, Put on robe again; and the full force of this addition may not at first be obvious. It refers back to an earlier part of the same scene (p. 12), where Prospero says to Miranda,— “Lend thy hand, And pluck my magic garment from me.—So: Lie there my art.” The words Lay it down are written against this passage, as Put on robe again are written against “Now I arise.” The fact is that Prospero, having put off his “magic garment,” never put it on again, according to all existing copies of the drama; and it was this singular omission that the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, supplied. The great propriety of Prospero's removal of his robe of power, during his narration to his daughter, is evident: he did not then require its aid; but just before he concluded, and just before he was to produce somnolency in Miranda by the exercise of preter-natural influence, he resumed it, a circumstance by which the judgment and skill of the poet are remarkably illustrated. Annotators have endeavoured to account for the sudden disposition of Miranda to sleep, in spite of her interest in her father's story, in various ways, but the effect upon her, by the resumption of his “magic garment” by Prospero, has escaped observation, because every editor, from the first to the last, seems to have forgotten that Prospero, having laid aside his outer dress near the beginning of the scene, ought to put it on again, at all events, before the end of it. When, therefore, he says, “Now I arise,” he does not mean, as Steevens absurdly supposed, “Now my story heightens,” because the very reverse is the fact; but that he rose from the seat he had taken, in order to invest himself again in his “magic garment,” having occasion to use it now in producing sudden drowsiness on Miranda. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has previously pointed out what nobody else ever noted, viz., the precise moment when, of old, the actor of the part of Prospero took his seat, by writing Sit down opposite the following lines (p. 13) with which the magician commences his narrative:— “The hour 's now come, The very minute bids thee ope thine ear; Obey, and be attentive.” [Sit down. Having here taken his seat, we may conclude that he continued to occupy it until he uttered “Now I arise.” Miranda, who had stood eagerly listening by his side, then sat down in her turn: her father, clothed again in his “magic garment,” enjoins her to “sit still;” and not long afterwards we come to the manuscript stage direction, She sleeps,— an effect wrought upon her senses, not by any physical weariness, but by the agency of Prospero, empowered by that robe with which he had only recently re-invested himself for the purpose. Thus we see the value of apparently trifling stage directions in explaining so singular an incident as the sudden and deep slumber of Miranda, at the moment when Prospero had concluded his surprising and exciting story.

Note return to page 30 10109011P. 20. Ariel, giving Prospero an account of the fate of the rest of the dispersed fleet, tells him,— “They all have met again, And are upon the Mediterranean flote, Bound sadly home for Naples.” In order to make the sentence grammatical, it has been necessary to consider “flote” a substantive, from the Fr. flot, a wave. The misprint of “are” for all near the beginning of the second line has led to this imaginary introduction of a foreign and affected word into our language, when it was never contemplated by Shakespeare. The reading, as given in manuscript in the corrected folio, 1632, is, “They all have met again, And all upon the Mediterranean float, Bound sadly back to Naples.” “Float,” in fact, is a verb, used by every body, and not a substantive, used by no other English writer.

Note return to page 31 10109012P. 23. In no printed copy of this drama is inserted any stage direction to show when Miranda awakes out of her slumber, although we are told when she goes to sleep. According to the manuscript-corrected folio, 1632, she wakes with the excuse to her father,— “The strangeness of your story put Heaviness in me.” [Waking. Johnson, not knowing that what Prospero calls “a good dullness” (because it was what he wished) in Miranda had been magically superinduced, maintains that “experience proves that any violent agitation of the mind easily subsides in slumber.” This explanation is altogether needless, for the audience had seen Prospero resume his art with his magic garment, and was aware that Miranda's “heaviness” was the effect of preternatural influence.

Note return to page 32 10109013P. 25. The speech beginning,— “Abhorred slave, Which any print of goodness will not take,” &c. was first assigned to Prospero, instead of Miranda (to whom it is given in all the folios), by Dryden and Davenant in their alteration of this drama. Theobald and others have followed this arrangement, and the fitness of it is confirmed by the corrected folio, 1632, where the prefix Mir. is changed to Pro. in the margin.

Note return to page 33 10109014P. 26. There is no dispute that in Ariel's song, “Come unto these yellow sands,” a line is misprinted in all the old copies, where it appears exactly thus:— “Foot it featly here and there, and sweet sprites bear the burthen.” It ought to run thus:— “Foot it featly here and there, And sweet sprites the burthen bear.” In this form it has been ordinarily printed, and so it stands in manuscript in the corrected folio, 1632. It seems manifest that the words, in a new line, “the burthen,”—were meant as the indication of the commencement of that burthen, and as a sort of heading or title to what immediately follows.

Note return to page 34 10109015P. 27. The manuscript stage direction in the corrected folio, 1632, Music above, in the middle of Ferdinand's speech, “The ditty does remember,” &c. proves, we may infer, that when the play was formerly acted, the air was continued while the performer was speaking.

Note return to page 35 10109016P. 28. The stage-direction, Kneels, in manuscript, opposite the speech of Ferdinand, “Most sure a goddess,” &c. shows that the performer of the part assumed a posture of wonder and adoration, which he kept till Miranda had finished her reply, when Rising is also inserted in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632. Aside is there noted when Prospero says, a few lines afterwards,— “The Duke of Milan,” &c. It is the earliest direction of the kind that occurs in the volume, and we need only mention that it is repeated several times afterwards in this scene.

Note return to page 36 10109017P. 32. The portion of the scene from “He receives comfort like cold porridge,” &c. down to “Aye and a subtle, as he most learnedly delivered,” is crossed out with a pen in the corrected folio, 1632, probably with the object of shortening the performance.

Note return to page 37 10109018P. 35. Modern editors have concurred with Malone in the following reading:— “And the fair soul herself Weigh'd, between lothness and obedience, at Which end o' the beam she'd bow.” It deviates from the old copies by converting should into “she'd,” which is unnecessary (and to the detriment of the sense) if we correct, as is done in manuscript in the folio, 1632, a single literal error, and read,— “And the fair soul herself Weigh'd between lothness and obedience, as Which end o' the beam should bow.”

Note return to page 38 10109019P. 36. From the speech of Sebastian, “Foul weather,” down to the entrance of Ariel, p. 38, is struck through with a pen, but several literal errors are nevertheless corrected in the folio, 1632. The erased portion includes the celebrated passage, copied almost verbatim from Florio's translation of “Montaigne's Essays,” fol. 1603, B. I. ch. 30. p. 102.

Note return to page 39 10109020P. 38. The old stage direction on the entrance of Ariel is,— Enter Ariel playing solemn music, to which the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has added, above, invisible. The spirit was therefore supposed to be in the air, listening to what passed below. In all modern editions, Exit Ariel, as soon as Alonso falls asleep; but from the words in the margin, Come down, added in manuscript to the printed direction, Enter Ariel, with music and song, on p. 42, we may, probably, be warranted in inferring that the spirit hovered in the air unseen all the time Sebastian and Antonio were plotting against the life of Alonso, and then descended to sing in Gonzalo's ear, and give him warning of the danger. Ariel remains present, but invisible, to the end of the scene; and that there was some contrivance for suspending performers in the air, we know from several authorities, and among them, from the last scene of Act III., where Prospero remains, as it is stated, on the top, invisible, until near its conclusion.

Note return to page 40 10109021P. 40. There is a comparatively trifling change in Antonio's speech,— “She that is queen of Tunis,” &c. The old folios all read, in the fifth line of it, “she that from whom;” but Rowe (who has been here followed by later editors) omitted “that,” and printed, “she from whom.” The true reading seems to be “she for whom,” or on account of whom; and this correction is made in the margin of the folio, 1632. In the third line of the next speech by Antonio, “Measure us back to Naples,” ought, on the same authority, to be, “Measure it back to Naples.” Nevertheless, the former seems preferable.11Q1174

Note return to page 41 10109022P. 42. When Alonso starts out of his sleep and finds Sebastian and Antonio with their swords drawn, about to slay him, he asks, according to all modern editions,— “Why are you drawn? Wherefore this ghastly looking?” “This” was misprinted for thus (a common error), and u for i was therefore inserted in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632,— “Wherefore thus ghastly looking?” The change is minute, and may be said to be not absolutely necessary. In the fifth line of Gonzalo's speech, on the next page (43), another literal error occurs, where the old courtier says, “That's verily,” instead of “That's verity.” The old corrector of the folio, 1632, did not allow the mistake to escape him.

Note return to page 42 10109023P. 45. Trinculo, sheltering himself under the gabardine of Caliban, says,— “I will here shroud, till the dregs of the storm be past;” but a manuscript correction in the folio, 1632, informs us that “dregs” is a misprint for drench; and certainly Trinculo was much more likely to be anxious to avoid the drench, or extreme violence of the storm, than the mere “dregs,” or conclusion of it.

Note return to page 43 10109024P. 49. Caliban's song has this line:— “Nor scrape trenchering, nor wash dish;” but the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has obliterated the last syllable of “trenchering,” so that the passage there stands more correctly, “Nor scrape trencher, nor wash dish.”

Note return to page 44 10109025P. 50. The hemistich, at the conclusion of Ferdinand's speech, has occasioned much doubt and controversy. It seems set at rest by the manuscript correction in the folio, 1632. The following is the usual reading of the whole passage:— “But these sweet thoughts do even refresh my labours: Most busy, least when I do it.” Such, in fact, are the words in the folio, 1632; but in the earlier folio, 1623, the last line stands thus:— “Most busy lest, when I do it.” The editor of the folio, 1632, not understanding, “lest,” in that connexion, altered it to least. It appears (as was not an uncommon occurrence), that a letter had dropped out in the press, and that the real language of the poet was as beautiful as it was brief. We are indebted for it to the manuscript of the corrector of the folio, 1632, who has merely inserted the missing letter. Earlier in his speech, Ferdinand, exclaiming against his laborious employment, adds that the thought of Miranda rendered delightful what would otherwise be intolerable:— “This my mean task Would be as heavy to me as odious; but The mistress which I serve quickens what's dead, And makes my labours pleasures;” and, at the close of what he says, he repeats the same sentiment, but in a shorter form:— “But these sweet thoughts do even refresh my labours: Most busy—blest, when I do it.” That is to say, he deems himself blest even by heavy toils, when they are made light by the thoughts of Miranda; he was “most busy,” but still blest, when so employed. The accidental dropping out of the letter b has been the cause of all the doubt that, for nearly two centuries and a half, has involved this passage. It is right to add that this emendation is, like a few others, upon an erasure, as if something had been written there before: perhaps the page had been blotted.

Note return to page 45 10109026P. 63. Prospero, commending his daughter to Ferdinand, remarks,— “For I Have given you a third of mine own life.” Such is the reading of all the folios, and there seems no especial reason why Prospero should divide his life into three, and call Miranda “a third” of it. The text has been much disputed, and for “third” of the old printed copy, the corrector of the folio, 1632, has written thrid (i. e. thread) in the margin. This fact may possibly be decisive of the question.

Note return to page 46 10109027P. 66. In the subsequent passage, from the speech of Iris, two manuscript corrections are made in the folio, 1632. We first give the lines, as ordinarily printed:— “Thy banks with pioned and twilled brims, Which spongy April at thy hest betrims, To make cold nymphs chaste crowns; and thy broom groves Whose shadow the dismissed bachelor loves, Being lass-lorn.” In the corrected folio, 1632, they stand thus:— “Thy banks with pioned and tilled brims, Which spongy April at thy hest betrims, To make cold nymphs chaste crowns; and thy brown groves Whose shadow the dismissed bachelor loves, Being lass-lorn.” Tilled of course refers to cultivation by “pioning,” or digging; but brown groves, in allusion to their deep shade, is a more important emendation. There seems no reason why a “dismissed bachelor” should love the covert of “broom groves,” especially recollecting that broom trees are seldom found in “groves.” It may be added that the word slowly is subjoined to the printed stage-direction, Juno descends,— to show, perhaps, that the goddess was gradually descending all the time Ceres and Iris delivered their speeches.

Note return to page 47 10109028P. 68. An important change is made in the song given to Juno (and not divided, in the corrected folio, 1632, between her and Ceres, as has been usual) in the couplet,— “Spring come to you, at the farthest, In the very end of harvest.” The first line is altered to,— “Rain come to you, at the farthest,” &c. It may be asked why Juno should wish spring to be so long deferred? On the other hand, rain before “the very end of harvest,” would be a misfortune, and the singer is deprecating such disasters.11Q1175

Note return to page 48 10109029P. 68. The following would seem to be mistakenly printed as a couplet:— “So rare a wond'red father and a wise Makes this place Paradise.” The unequal length of the lines, and the fact that the last is a hemistich, completed by the opening of Prospero's next speech, militates against this notion: Malone and others therefore printed wife for “wise,” supposing that the compositor had mistaken the long s for f. Under the circumstances, perhaps, the decision of the corrector of the folio, 1632, may be held final, and he adopts wife:— “So rare a wond'red father and a wife Makes this place Paradise.” In the next speech of Iris, “windring” has been treated as a misprint for winding, and “sedg'd crowns,” is altered in the margin to “sedge-crowns,” regarding the fitness of which we can hardly doubt.

Note return to page 49 10109030P. 71. To the old stage-direction, Enter Ariel, loaden with glistering apparel, the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has added the explanatory words, Hang it on the line; but whether we are to understand a line tree (as has been suggested by Mr. Hunter, in his learned Essay on the Tempest, 8vo. 1839), or a mere rope, is not stated. When Stephano and Trinculo discover it, Seeing the apparel is written opposite the speech of the latter, beginning, “O, king Stephano! O peer! O, worthy Stephano! look, what a wardrobe here is for thee!” p. 72.

Note return to page 50 10109031P. 75. Only one manuscript emendation is made in Prospero's great speech, abjuring his magic; but it is worth attention. The passage has invariably run:— “You demy puppets, that By moonshine do the green-sour ringlets make, Whereof the ewe not bites.” For “sour” the corrector substitutes sward—“the greensward ringlets,” or ringlets on the green-sward, which sheep avoid, and to which the unusual compound epithet “green-sour” may properly be applied. Here we may not see the necessity of this alteration, though it may have been warranted by some manuscript to which the corrector of the folio, 1632, was able to resort.

Note return to page 51 10109032P. 76. We meet with changes of the received text in two consecutive lines of the continuation of the speech of Prospero, after Alonso, Gonzalo, Sebastian, Antonio, &c., have become “spell-stopped” in the magic circle. The reading of all the editions has been,— “Holy Gonzalo, honourable man, Mine eyes, even sociable to the show of thine, Fall fellowly drops.” The epithet “holy” is inapplicable to Gonzalo, while noble (substituted by the corrector of the folio, 1632) is on all accounts appropriate. In the “Winter's Tale” (Act V. Scene I.) Leontes tells Florizel, “You have a holy father,” where the word seems equally out of place, and where the corrector has, as in “the Tempest,” erased it and written noble in its stead. In both these cases the copyist must have misheard; but the second error in the same passage, “show” for flow, most probably arose out of the common mistake between the long s and the f. The manuscript-corrector gives the whole in these terms:— “Noble Gonzalo, honourable man, Mine eyes, even sociable to the flow of thine, Fall fellowly drops.” The eyes of Gonzalo were flowing with tears, and those of Prospero wept in fellowship with them.

Note return to page 52 10109033P. 77. In the same speech Prospero again addresses Gonzalo as— “O, good Gonzalo, My true preserver, and a loyal sir To him thou follow'st.” This is an uncommon, though not unprecedented, use of the word “sir;” and the fact is (according to the corrector of the folio, 1632), that it was a misprint for servant. In the manuscript used by the printer the word servant was probably abbreviated, and thus the error produced, the true reading being,— “My true preserver and a loyal servant To him thou follow'st.”

Note return to page 53 10109034P. 78. Prospero, in the words of the manuscript stage-direction, being Attired as duke of Milan, presents himself before his astonished brother, after Gonzalo has prayed some heavenly power to guide them out of the “fearful country.” Antonio, in the first instance, believes that the whole is a diabolical delusion, and, according to all editions, exclaims, “Whe'r thou beest he, or no, Or some enchanted trifle to abuse me, As late I have been, I not know.” The word “trifle” seems a most strange one to be employed in such a situation, and it reads like a misprint: the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that it undoubtedly is so, and that the line in which it occurs ought to run, “Or some enchanted devil to abuse me.” Sebastian just afterwards declares of Prospero, that “the devil speaks in him.”

Note return to page 54 10109035P. 80. To the printed stage-direction, Here Prospero discovers Ferdinand and Miranda playing at chess, the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, adds a note, showing in what way, according to the simplicity of our early theatres, the lovers were disclosed to the audience: his words are, Draw curtain; so that Prospero drew a traverse at the back of the stage, and showed Ferdinand and Miranda at their game.

Note return to page 55 10109036P. 84. Prospero describing Sycorax, in the presence of Caliban, tells Antonio,— “His mother was a witch; and one so strong, That could control the moon, make flows and ebbs, And deal in her command, without her power.” The words “without her power” have naturally occasioned considerable discussion, in which Malone hinted that Sycorax might act by a sort of “power of attorney” from the moon, while Steevens strangely supposed that “without her power” meant “with less general power.” All difficulty, however, is at an end, when we find the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, marking “without” as a misprint, and telling us that it ought to have been with all;— “That could control the moon, make flows and ebbs, And deal in her command with all her power:” that is, Sycorax could “make flows and ebbs” matters in the command of the moon, with all the power exercised over the tides by the moon. The error of the press here is, we think, transparent.

Note return to page 56 10109037P. 92. The reading of the subsequent line has hitherto been,— “'Tis true; for you are over boots in love;” but the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has changed it to “'Tis true; but you are over boots in love;” which seems more consistent with the course of the dialogue; for Proteus, remarking that Leander had been “more than over shoes in love” with Hero, Valentine answers, that Proteus was even more deeply in love than Leander: Proteus observes of the fable of Hero and Leander,— “That's a deep story of a deeper love, For he was more than over shoes in love.” Valentine retorts:— “'Tis true; but you are over boots in love.” “For,” instead of but, was perhaps caught by the compositor from the preceding line. The following change, lower in the page, seems hardly necessary, but it is not the only instance in which the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has converted the active into the passive participle: he altered “Even so by love the young and tender wit Is turn'd to folly; blasting in the bud,” to “blasted in the bud;” for the bud does not blast, but is itself blasted: the “young and tender wit” is a “bud” blasted by love.

Note return to page 57 10109038P. 96. Steevens and Malone differed about Speed's observation to Proteus, as it stands in the folio, 1623:—“And being so hard to me that brought your mind, I fear she'll prove as hard to you in telling your mind.” Steevens adopted the words from the folio, 1632—“And being so hard to me that brought your mind, I fear she'll prove as hard to you in telling her mind.” Probably neither old reading is quite right, and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has made it intelligible by his emendation,— “And being so hard to me that brought to her your mind, I fear she'll prove as hard to you in telling you her mind.” The words to her and you are added in the margin. The fact is, that the whole speech was intended for irregular familiar verse, and the manuscript-corrector has added the word better at the end of the first line, which had apparently dropped out: the whole will therefore run as follows:— “Sir, I could perceive nothing at all from her better, No, not so much as a ducat for delivering your letter; And being so hard to me that brought to her your mind, I fear she'll prove as hard to you in telling you her mind.” As a slight confirmation of the opinion that rhyming verse was intended, it may be mentioned, that in the folios the lines begin with capital letters as they are above printed. Still the same circumstance belongs to other places, where it is clear that prose only was to be spoken.

Note return to page 58 10109039P. 97. Rhyme is also restored in the next scene between Julia and Lucetta, where they are discussing the merits and claims of various amorous gentlemen. An apparent misprint of another kind, “lovely” for loving, is also corrected in manuscript in the folio, 1632. Julia has asked her maid what she thinks of Proteus, and Lucetta's answer provokes the following, as we find it in all editions:— “Jul. How now! what means this passion at his name? Luc. Pardon, dear madam: 'tis a passing shame, That I, unworthy body as I am, Should censure thus on lovely gentlemen. Jul. Why not on Proteus, as of all the rest? Luc. Then thus,—of many good I think him best.” It seems clear that the two middle lines should rhyme as well as all the others; and the manuscript-corrector not only cures this defect, but gives Lucetta's answer a particular application to the very person of whom both she and her mistress are speaking. The emendation is this:— “That I, unworthy body, as I can, Should censure thus a loving gentleman.” Lucetta, knowing that Proteus is a “loving gentleman” to her mistress, wishes to be excused from giving her opinion, as well “as she can” form one, upon him, until Julia compels her to do so. The above is by no means the only part of the scene that is in rhyme, and in two subsequent places the corrector restores what we may presume to have been the original jingle, thus (p. 100):— “She makes it strange, but she would be pleas'd better To be so anger'd with another letter.” Here for “pleas'd better,” the ordinary reading has been “best pleas'd.” Again (p. 101):— “Ay, madam, you may see what sights you think; I see things too, although you judge I wink.” Hitherto the first of these lines has been, “Ay, madam, you may say what sights you see.” It is not improbable, that in this comedy, confessedly one of its author's earliest works, rhymes originally abounded more frequently than at the time it was printed in 1623, the fashion in the interval having so changed, that they were considered not only unnecessary, but possibly had become distasteful to audiences. When “The Two Gentlemen of Verona” was, according to our best conjectures, first produced, blank verse had only recently been adopted on the stage. We shall see this point more fully illustrated hereafter, when we come to speak of “Titus Andronicus,” in which several passages have been restored by the corrector of the folio, 1632, apparently to the form in which they were recited when the tragedy was acted quite in the beginning of Shakespeare's career.

Note return to page 59 10109040P. 106. There can be no doubt that the small word we have printed below in italics, and which was inserted by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, is necessary in the following ridicule by Speed of his master, for having been changed by his love for Silvia:— “You were wont, when you laughed, to crow like a cock; when you walked, to walk like one of the lions; when you fasted, it was presently after dinner; when you looked sadly, it was for want of money; and now you are so metamorphosed with a mistress, that, when I look on you, I can hardly think you my master.” Nevertheless, so has been always omitted.

Note return to page 60 10109041P. 116. The following passage, as it stands in all impressions, is unquestionably a piece of tautology. The Duke asks Valentine if he knows Don Antonio? “Val. Ay, my good lord; I know the gentleman To be of worth, and worthy estimation, And not without desert so well reputed.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, substitutes a word in the second line, easily misprinted, and which being restored, is certainly an improvement:— “To be of wealth and worthy estimation.” Wealth would be an additional recommendation to the Duke, and it entirely avoids the objectionable repetition: if Antonio were of “worth” and “worthy estimation,” he could not well be so reputed “without desert.”

Note return to page 61 10109042P. 119. The line “Disdain to root the summer-swelling flower,” has been disputed, the epithet “summer-smelling” having been preferred by some critics; but the old copies having “summer-swelling,” that reading has generally prevailed. The corrector of the folio, 1632, has however altered the compound, probably on good authority, with which we are not now acquainted, to “summer-smelling.”

Note return to page 62 10109043P. 124. Johnson tells us, that “O sweet suggesting love! if thou hast sinn'd, Teach me, thy tempted subject, to excuse it,” means, “Oh, tempting love! if thou hast influenced me to sin;” but, when Proteus is lamenting the breach of his vows to Julia, it seems much more natural for him to say, “if I have sinn'd,” and so it is given by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Further on, in the same soliloquy, he reads, “precious to itself” for “precious in itself,” which is quite consistent with the context,— “I to myself am dearer than a friend, For love is still most precious to itself.”

Note return to page 63 10109044P. 126. The epithet wide substituted by the corrector of the folio, 1632, seems more appropriate in the following lines, but it has been uniformly printed “wild:” Julia is speaking of a current that “with gentle murmur glides” between its banks,— “And so by many winding nooks he strays With willing sport to the wide ocean.” This is, of course, one of the cases in which either reading may be right: if we prefer wide, it is mainly because the old corrector had some ground for adopting it.

Note return to page 64 10109045P. 128. There is a misprint in the following line, as pointed out by the corrector of the folio, 1632;— “To furnish me upon my longing journey.” Julia is about to travel in male attire in search of the object of her devoted regard, Proteus, and desires her maid to provide her with all the apparel necessary, and to come with her to her chamber— “To take a note of what I stand in need of To furnish me upon my loving journey.” “Loving journey,” in reference to the purpose of it, seems to recommend itself.

Note return to page 65 10109046P. 131. There are several oversights as to the place of action in this comedy. For instance, in Act II. Scene V. (p. 122), Speed welcomes Launce to Padua instead of Milan; and here we find the Duke telling Valentine “There is a lady in Verona here,” when it ought also to be Milan. Again, in Act V. Scene IV. (p. 168), Valentine is made to speak of Verona, when he means Milan. In the two last places three syllables are necessary for the verse; and Pope and Theobald resorted to different contrivances to obviate the difficulty: in one case Pope interpolated “Sir,” and in the other Theobald read behold for “hold.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has shown how both these changes may be avoided, by only supposing that Shakespeare, instead of speaking of Milan, as it is called in our language, inserted Milano, the Italian name of the city. Milano suits the measure just as well as Verona, and it is more likely that the printer or copyist were in fault, than the poet.

Note return to page 66 10109047P. 141. On the same authority, “some” ought to be printed sure in the following line, where the Duke is about to employ Proteus most confidentially:— “For thou hast shown some sign of good desert.” Sure is written in the margin, and “some” struck out, because Proteus had already given undoubted proofs of fidelity to the Duke, and of treachery to Valentine. In the next page, “weed,” as it stands in the folios, and in subsequent editions, reads like an error of the press, and doubtless it was so, since “weed” was displaced by the corrector of the folio, 1632, and wean, a word much better adapted to the situation, inserted:— “But say, this wean her love from Valentine, It follows not that she will love Sir Thurio.” A third mistake of the same kind is pointed out on p. 146, in the first scene between Valentine and the Outlaws, where the whole body having chosen him captain, the third Outlaw exclaims,— “Come, go with us: we'll bring thee to our crews, And show thee all the treasure we have got.” For “crews” we ought to read cave, in which the treasure was deposited: cave is therefore written in the margin, and crews erased: the “crews” (so to call them) were present on the stage, and Valentine needed not to be brought to them.

Note return to page 67 10109048P. 148. In the song, “Who is Silvia?” &c., there is a repetition of “she” in the third line, as the rhyme to “she” in the first line; and although such a licence was by no means unprecedented, still it was usual for writers not to avail themselves of it. If the corrector of the folio, 1632, give the song as it was written by Shakespeare, the inelegance to which we refer was avoided by the adoption of an epithet which our great dramatist has elsewhere employed with reference to female simplicity and innocence (“Twelfth Night,” Act II. Scene IV.). The first stanza of the song, as corrected in the folio, 1632, is this:— “Who is Silvia? what is she,   That all our swains commend her? Holy, fair, and wise as free;   The heaven such grace did lend her, That she might admired be.”

Note return to page 68 10109049P. 153. We have here a very important emendation, supplying a whole line, evidently deficient, and yet never missed by any of the commentators. It is in one of the speeches of Sir Eglamour, wherein he consents to aid Silvia in her escape. Until now, it has run:— “Madam, I pity much your grievances; Which since I know they virtuously are plac'd, I give consent to go along with you.” Here there is no connexion between the first and the second lines, because Sir Eglamour could not mean that the “grievances,” but that the affections of Silvia were “virtuously placed.” Shakespeare must, therefore, have written what we find in an adjoining blank space of the folio, 1632, which makes the sense complete:— “Madam, I pity much your grievances, And the most true affections that you bear; Which since I know they virtuously are plac'd, I give consent to go along with you.” We shall hereafter see that other passages, more or less valuable, are supplied by the corrector of the folio, 1632. These were, probably, obtained from some better manuscript than that used by the old printer.11Q1176

Note return to page 69 10109050P. 155. Proteus having sent a little dog as a present to Silvia, meets Launce, and learns that the latter, having lost the little dog, had offered to the lady his own huge cur. Proteus asks him,— “What! didst thou offer her this cur from me?” The word cur being derived from the manuscript of the corrector, and necessary to the completion of the line. Besides this novelty, there is an emendation of Launce's reply, which explains a point never yet properly understood. The folio, 1623, reads:— “Ay, sir: the other squirrel was stolen from me by the hangman's boys in the market-place,” &c. The folio, 1632, gives the hangman only one boy,—“by the hangman's boy in the market-place;” but the true reading seems to be that of the corrected folio, 1632, where “a hangman boy” is used just in the same way that Shakespeare elsewhere speaks of a gallows boy,—“Ay, sir: the other squirrel was stolen from me by a hangman boy in the market-place;”—that is, by a rascally boy.

Note return to page 70 10109051P. 157. We give the following to show how Shakespeare's verse has probably been corrupted. Julia, presenting Silvia with a paper, says,— “Madam, please you peruse this letter:” a line which requires two additional syllables, naturally, and most likely truly, furnished by the corrector of the folio, 1632:— “Madam, so please you to peruse this letter.” Two little words, not absolutely necessary to the sense, but absolutely necessary to the measure, were omitted by the copyist, or by the old printer.

Note return to page 71 10109052P. 159. It is worth notice that Julia, descanting on Silvia's picture, says, in the first folio, that “her eyes are grey as glass,” which may be right; but which the second folio alters to “her eyes are grey as grass,” which must be wrong. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, converts “grey” into green—“her eyes are green as grass;” and such we have good reason to suppose was the true reading.

Note return to page 72 10109053P. 162. The sudden entrance of the Duke is not marked in the old copies, and is supplied in manuscript in the folio, 1632, Enter Duke, angerly; and his first speech is there thus corrected:— “How now, Sir Proteus! How now, Thurio! Which of you saw Sir Eglamour of late?” The folio, 1623, gives the last line,— “Which of you saw Eglamour of late?” And the folio, 1632, before it was corrected in manuscript,— “Which of you, say, saw Sir Eglamour of late?” There is no note when the Duke goes out, but Exit in haste, is written in the margin. The additional stage-directions in the corrected folio, 1632, are very numerous throughout this play; but they are, in general, merely explanatory of what may be gathered from the text, so that it is seldom necessary to remark upon them. They must have been intended to make what is technically termed the stage-business quite intelligible.

Note return to page 73 1010905411Q1177P. 164. Two passages in the speech of Valentine, as they appear in all the printed copies, and as they stand in the manuscript of the corrector of the folio, 1632, require notice, on account of valuable emendations. The usual opening is in these lines:— “How use doth breed a habit in a man! This shadowy desert, unfrequented woods, I better brook than flourishing peopled towns.” The manuscript-corrector renders the second line,— “These shadowy, desert, unfrequented woods,” &c. Lower down we are informed, in an unprinted stage-direction, that shouts are heard, and then follow these lines:— “These my rude mates, that make their wills their law, Have some unhappy passenger in chace;” which is certainly better than the common mode of printing the passage, which leaves the verb “have” without any antecedent:— “These are my mates, that make their wills their law, Have some unhappy passenger in chace.” The first speech of Proteus to Silvia, on entering, is also altered by reading “have” having, and by making the sentence continuous, as in the old copies, and not, as in modern editions, terminating it by a period at the end of the fourth line. The corrector of the folio, 1632, puts it in this amended form:— “Madam, this service having done for you, (Though you respect not aught your servant doth) To hazard life, and rescue you from him, That would have forc'd your honour and your love, Vouchsafe me, for my meed, but one fair look.” &c.

Note return to page 74 10109055P. 166. It is admitted by the commentators that the measure in the following extract is defective: they have tried to amend it in various ways, but they have not been so fortunate as to hit upon the right changes. We first quote the passage as Malone regulates it, and follow it by the alteration recommended by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Valentine says:— “The private wound is deepest: O time most accurst! 'Mongst all foes, that a friend should be the worst! Prot. My shame and guilt confounds me!” Malone, in justification, observes that Shakespeare sometimes employs lines of twelve syllables; but here, in three lines, we have three varieties: the first line is of twelve syllables, the second of ten, and the third of only seven. We are far from wishing to reduce the language of Shakespeare to a finger-counting standard, but the subsequent emendation shows, at all events, that an early date the passage was deemed corrupt, and that it ought to run as follows:— “The private wound is deep'st. O time accurst, 'Mongst all my foes, a friend should be the worst! Prot. My shame and desperate guilt at once confound me!” It seems more than likely that we have here recovered the language of Shakespeare; and it is to be remarked that the lines of the poet are regular, both before and after the preceding quotation.

Note return to page 75 10109056P. 170. The following manuscript emendation in the corrected folio, 1632, tends to establish that conclude was the right word, and that “include,” adopted by editors from the folios, was a misprint:— “Come; let us go: we will conclude all jars With triumphs, mirth, and rare solemnity.”11Q1179 The epithet “rare,” in the folio, 1623, is all in the folio, 1632; but restored to “rare” by the manuscript-corrector, perhaps from the prior edition, or possibly on some other authority. In all impressions the word stripling, in the next line but two, is omitted in the following speech by Valentine, introducing Julia to the Duke,— “What think you of this stripling page, my lord?” Stripling is written in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, as well as Valentine at the end of the next line but one, where it must have been accidentally left out:— “What mean you by that saying, Valentine?” The two lines which close the play are in rhyme, according to the same authority. In the folio, 1623, they do not rhyme, and there stand,— “That done, our day of marriage shall be yours; One feast, one house, one mutual happiness.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, tells us that the lines ought to run as follows:— “Our day of marriage shall be yours no less,— One feast, one house, one mutual happiness.” We have no doubt that this is an accurate representation of the fact: no fewer than twenty-nine of the thirty-six plays in the folio terminate with couplets; and considering, as already observed, that “The Two Gentlemen of Verona” was written at so early a date, when rhyme was popular, it would be strange if it, of all others, had been an exception.

Note return to page 76 10109057P. 177. All the characters who take part at any time during the scene are mentioned at the commencement of the scenes in this play, but the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has struck out all the names but those of Justice Shallow, Slender, and Sir Hugh Evans, who, in fact, begin the comedy. The entrances of the others are afterwards noted in the margin, precisely at the places where they come upon the stage. Thus, when Evans, on p. 179, knocks at Page's door, the master of the house does not enter at first, but looks out at a window (above, as the manuscript-corrector states) and asks, “Who's there?” but does not join the rest outside his house, until the end of Evans's answer, when Enter Page is marked. This old mode of commencing the comedy may seem to give the scene additional vivacity and reality. Falstaff, Bardolph, Nym, and Pistol, of course, enter, when Page says, “Here comes Sir John,” &c., p. 180.

Note return to page 77 10109058P. 184. Opposite Slender's ejaculation, “O heaven! this is Mistress Anne Page!” the corrector of the folio, 1632, has written this stage-direction, Following her; from which we may gather that Slender, struck by Anne's appearance, follows her a few steps towards the door of the house, when she quits the stage. Such, probably, was the practice of some old comedian who had the part of Slender, and it is a curious relic of stage-business.

Note return to page 78 10109059P. 185. It was not meant that Sir Hugh Evans should, like Slender, grossly misapply words: therefore, in the following observation, the corrector of the folio, 1632, has properly altered “command” to demand. “But can you affection the 'oman? Let us command to know that of your mouth, or of your lips;” &c.

Note return to page 79 10109060P. 186. According to the manuscript-correction of the folio, 1632, the commentators have been right in altering the old reading of the sentence, “I hope, upon familiarity will grow more content,” into “I hope, upon familiarity will grow more contempt;” for Slender could hardly misquote a proverb he found in his copy-book. Besides, the humour of the passage depends upon the use of the word “contempt.”

Note return to page 80 10109061P. 187. When Slender asks Anne Page, “Why do your dogs bark so?—Be there bears i' the town?” the insertion of a manuscript stage-direction in the folio, 1632, Dogs bark, affords evidence that there was formerly an imitation of the barking of dogs out of sight of the audience, in order to give greater verisimilitude.

Note return to page 81 10109062P. 189. A rigid adherence to the old copies has here misled editors, who have given Nym's speech as, “The good humour is to steal at a minute's rest,” instead of “a minim's rest,” which the sense seems to require, in allusion to what has just been said of “an unskilful singer” not keeping time. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has converted “minute's” into minim's.

Note return to page 82 10109063P. 190. A misprint in the old editions of “carves” for craves, has occasioned some difficulty in the passage where Falstaff, speaking of the expected result of his enterprise against Mrs. Ford, observes, as the words have been invariably given, “I spy entertainment in her; she discourses, she carves, she gives the leer of invitation.” A note in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, shows that we ought to read “she craves, she gives the leer of invitation.” There seems no sufficient reason for supposing that “carves” ought to be taken in the figurative sense of wooes; and although ladies might now and then “carve” to guests, in the literal meaning of the word (as in the passage quoted by Boswell from Webster's “Vittoria Corombona,” Shakesp. by Malone, VIII. 38), yet carving was undoubtedly an accomplishment peculiarly belonging to men. Falstaff evidently, from the context, intends to say that Mrs. Ford has a craving for him, and therefore gave “the leer of invitation.” The misprint was a very easy one, occasioned merely by the transposition of a letter, and any forced construction is needless.

Note return to page 83 10109064P. 190. The word “legend,” in the sentence, “He hath a legend of angels,” is altered to legion in the corrected folio, 1632; but still the passage does not conform to the old 4to, 1602, where it is said “she hath legions of angels.” That, however, is evidently an edition of no accuracy.

Note return to page 84 10109065P. 191. The reading of all the printed authorities, speaking of Mrs. Page, is, “She is a region in Guiana,—all gold and bounty,” which might be accepted, had we no warrant for improving the text to, “She is a region in Guiana,—all gold and beauty,” such being the manuscript emendation in the folio, 1632. Guiana was famous for its beauty, as well as for its gold, and thus the parallel between it and Mrs. Page was more exact. The 4to, 1602, lays particular emphasis on her beauty; and “bounty” and beauty were easily mistaken.

Note return to page 85 10109066P. 191. The corrector of the folio, 1632, like modern editors and the 4to, 1602, reads:— “Falstaff will learn the humour of this age,” and not “honour of this age,” as in all the folios.

Note return to page 86 10109067P. 192. Pistol's exclamation, “By welkin, and her star!” is, “By welkin, and her stars!” in the corrected folio, 1632, and as far as we can judge, rightly, since the welkin has not one, but innumerable stars.

Note return to page 87 10109068P. 197. Mrs. Quickly's speech, at the bottom of this page, begins, in the corrected folio, 1632, “Will I? I'faith, that I will!” and not “that we will,” as in the printed copies.

Note return to page 88 10109069P. 198. Dr. Farmer conjectured that “Though love use reason for his precisian” ought to be, “Though love use reason for his physician.” The word “precisian” is so altered in the margin of the manuscript-corrected folio, 1632; and of the fitness of it there can now be no doubt.

Note return to page 89 10109070P. 202. Dr. Johnson's conjecture that the words “Believe it, Page; he speaks sense,” belong to Nym, and are not a continuation of Pistol's speech, is fully confirmed by a correction in the folio, 1632, where Nym is written as the prefix in the margin opposite.

Note return to page 90 10109071P. 204. In all editions, where the entrance is marked at all, the Host and Shallow are made to come upon the stage together; but it is clear that they did not, for when the Host, having entered, calls out, “Cavaliero-justice, I say!” Shallow, coming after him, answers, “I follow, mine host, I follow.” Their entrances are separately noted in the corrected folio, 1632, and this fact shows that the emendator paid great attention to these little points.

Note return to page 91 10109072P. 205. It is necessary here to quote the whole of the Host's short speech, as it is ordinarily printed, for the sake of observations arising out of two parts of it:— “Host. My hand, bully: thou shalt have egress and regress; said I well? and thy name shall be Brook. It is a merry knight.—Will you go, An-heires?” With regard, first, to the name assumed by Ford: in the 4to, 1602, it is Brooke, and in all the folios, 1623, 1632, 1664, and 1685, it is Broome; but from the pun upon the name made by Falstaff, in a subsequent scene (p. 211), “Such Brooks are welcome to me, that o'erflow such liquor,” it has always been considered a misprint in the folios. That the name was misprinted there we cannot doubt, but we may doubt whether Broome was a misprint for “Brooke,” or for Bourne (the latter being decidedly the more probable), and whether, in fact, the name was not originally Bourne, which the manufacturer of the surreptitious 4to, 1602 (for there never was an authentic impression of “The Merry Wives” until the folio, 1623), altered to “Brooke,” not understanding, perhaps, how the joke about “o'erflowing such liquor” could, at all events, so well apply to Bourne. The truth is, that as Brooke and Bourne mean the same thing, viz., a small stream, the joke would apply to the one as to the other; and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, invariably strikes out Broome, and substitutes Bourne. Hence we may not unreasonably infer, that the true alias of Ford was not Brooke (which originated in the 4to, 1602), but Bourne; and that when the comedy was acted, in the time of the corrector, he always heard it pronounced Bourne, and not “Brooke.” In the manuscript used for the folio, 1623 (followed in all the other editions in that form), we have little hesitation in believing, that the name was written Bourne, which the compositor misprinted Broome. There is certainly another error of the press, which we may allow the corrector of the folio, 1632, to set right upon his better knowledge of the true reading. We allude to the last clause, “Will you go, An-heires?” out of which no sense can be made. Warburton suggested “heris, the old Scotch word for master;” Steevens, hearts; Malone, hear us; Boaden, cavaliers, &c. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, merely changes one letter, and omits two, and leaves the passage, “Will you go on, here?” The Host urging them forward, as he does again just afterwards, nearly in the same words, differently placed, “Here, boys, here, here!—shall we wag?” He is anxious that no time should be lost. How so ordinary an expression as “Will you go on, here?” came to be misprinted, “Will you go, An-heires?” we are at a loss to imagine: perhaps the writing before the printer was very illegible, and he could not believe that any thing so simple and intelligible could be intended. It is singular that nobody seems ever to have conjectured that on here might be concealed under “An-heires.”

Note return to page 92 10109073P. 205. Page observes, of the duellists, “I had rather hear them scold than fight.” This may have been an elliptical sentence, but it is more likely that two words were accidentally omitted, and that the true reading is that furnished by the corrector of the folio, 1632, “I had rather hear them scold, than see them fight.”

Note return to page 93 10109074P. 206. In Falstaff's reply to Pistol, the compound epithet, according to the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, is not, “Coach-fellow, Nym,” but “Couch-fellow, Nym,” as, indeed, it was printed by some of the earlier editors, as equivalent to “bed-fellow.” Nevertheless, “coach-fellow” may be, and has been, reconciled to sense.11Q1180

Note return to page 94 10109075P. 208. It seems improbable that Mrs. Quickly should have had “twenty angels” given to her “this morning” by a person who wished to be in the good graces of Mrs. Ford; and in the folio, 1632, the sentence is thus altered in manuscript, “I had myself twenty angels given of a morning.”

Note return to page 95 10109076P. 212. Ford, pressing his “bag of money” upon Falstaff, says, “If you will help to bear it, take all, or half, for easing me of the carriage.” It seems more likely that Ford would say, “take half, or all.” Falstaff would draw back at first, and Ford would then endeavour to induce him to take all, if half did not make the impression he expected. The manuscript-corrector has changed the places of “all” and “half,”—“Take half, or all, for easing me of the carriage.” The difference is not material either way. Throughout the whole of this scene Ford is called Bourne, and the old corrector has, therefore, erased Broome, in favour of the other name, in ten separate instances.

Note return to page 96 10109077P. 213. The propriety of the following emendation can hardly be questioned. Ford, adverting to the hopelessness of proceeding in his intended suit to Mrs. Ford, as the passage has always hitherto been given, speaks thus to Falstaff:—“She dwells so securely on the excellency of her honour, that the folly of my soul dares not present itself.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, reads suit for “soul”—“that the folly of my suit dares not present itself.”

Note return to page 97 10109078P. 216. In the beginning of the scene between Caius and Jack Rugby, the former wishes to practise his fencing on his man, and, offering to lunge at him with his rapier, Jack Rugby exclaims, “Alas, sir! I cannot fence.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, has added, as a descriptive marginal direction, the words, Afeard, runs back; which amusingly shows the manner in which the old actor of Jack Rugby received, or rather shunned, the advances of his master.

Note return to page 98 10109079P. 218. We meet here with a singular blunder by the printer, which has occasioned much puzzle and conjecture, but which is at once set right by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632. It occurs at the end of one of the Host's speeches to Dr. Caius:— “I will bring thee where Mistress Anne Page is, at a farm-house a feasting, and thou shalt woo her. Cried game, said I well?” The difficulty has been how to make any sense out of “Cried game;” and various suggestions, such as tried game, cry aim, &c., have been made; but the truth seems to be, that the Host, having said that Anne Page was feasting at a farm-house, in order still more to incite Dr. Caius to go there, mentioned the most ordinary objects of feasting at farm-houses at that time, viz. curds and cream: “curds and cream” in the hands of the old compositor became strangely metamorphosed into cried game—at least this is the marginal explanation in the corrected folio, 1632. The Host, therefore, ends his speech about Anne Page's feasting at the farm-house by the exclamation, “Curds and cream! said I well?”

Note return to page 99 10109080P. 219. The passage is not one of any great importance, but for “the pitty-ward, the park-ward, every way; Old Windsor way, and every way but the town way,” the corrected folio, 1632, has, certainly with the advantage of intelligibility, “the pit-way, the park-way, Old Windsor way, and every way but the town way,” the words or letters not wanted, and probably not understood, have been struck through with a pen.

Note return to page 100 10109081P. 222. The folios are evidently deficient in that part of the Host's speech, where he is endeavouring to make reconcilement between Evans and Caius. The folio, 1623, reads, “Give me thy hand (celestial), so. Boys of art, I have deceived you both.” Malone's text has been, “Give me thy hand, terrestrial; so:—Give me thy hand, celestial; so.— Boys of art, I have deceived you both.” The reading of the corrected folio, 1632, has “and terrestrial” added in manuscript, giving the following as the language of the poet, and still preserving the antithesis in about half the number of words:—“Give me thy hands, celestial and terrestrial: so. Boys of art, I have deceived you both.”

Note return to page 101 10109082P. 223. The pronoun your seems clearly necessary in the following answer by Ford to Mrs. Page, who asks, whether his wife is at home?—“Ay, and as idle as she may hang together for want of your company. I think, if your husbands were dead, you two would marry.” The word is in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632.

Note return to page 102 10109083P. 224. Where for “there” is doubtless the true mode of printing Ford's observation—“The clock gives me my cue, and my assurance bids me search; there I shall find Falstaff” —“and my assurance bids me search where I shall find Falstaff” is the corrected and more natural reading of the folio, 1632. The stage-direction, Clock strikes ten, is written in the margin: and Falstaff had already told Ford that he was to visit Mrs. Ford “between ten and eleven.”

Note return to page 103 10109084P. 230. We have a glimpse of the comic business of the scene in the manuscript stage-direction (there is no printed one in the folios), when Falstaff, in great alarm, hides himself among the foul linen in the buck-basket. The words are, Gets in the basket and falls over; meaning, probably, that in the eagerness of his haste he “fell over” on the other side of the basket, and occasioned still greater ludicrous confusion.

Note return to page 104 10109085P. 243. The change of a letter makes an improvement in the speech of Evans: “No; Master Slender is let the boys leave to play.” For “let” the corrector of the folio writes “get;” that is to say, “Master Slender is get (or has obtained) the boys leave to play.” “To let the boys leave to play” is not a phrase that even the Welsh parson would have used. On the next page the corrected reading is, “Hast thou no understandings for thy cases, and the numbers, and the genders,” instead of “of the genders,” but the difference is trifling.

Note return to page 105 10109086P. 249. There is no stage-direction in the old copies when Ford meets the servants with the buck-basket in the second instance, and, in the words of modern editions, Pulls the clothes out of the basket. The old manuscript stage-direction in the folio, 1632, affords a much more striking picture of Ford's anger and its consequences, when it informs us that he Throws about the clothes all over the stage, and adds, lower down, that they are All thrown out. Such is consistent with the modern practice, and Ford's suspicions would hardly let him leave a rag unexamined.

Note return to page 106 10109087P. 253. In the doubted passage, “I rather will suspect the sun with gold,” whether the last word should not be cold, the corrected folio, 1632, shows that Rowe was justified in adopting the latter: the g in “gold” is struck through, and doubtless, if the margin had not there been torn away, we should have seen c inserted in its stead. On the next page Evans is made by the old corrector to remark, “You see, he has been thrown into the rivers,” instead of “You say,” &c. The fact is, that the other persons engaged in the scene had said nothing of the kind, and Evans referred merely to the known sufferings of Falstaff, as a reason why he would not again be entrapped.

Note return to page 107 10109088P. 258. Modern editors have needlessly changed the prefixes of the folios in this part of the scene: the corrector of that of 1632 has altered two small words, and made the dialogue run quite consistently. Simple tells Falstaff and the Host that he had other things to have spoken on behalf of his master to “the wise woman of Brentford:” “Fal. What are they? let us know. Host. Ay, come; quick. Fal. You may not conceal them, sir. Host. Conceal them, and thou diest.” The common method has been to put “I may not conceal them, sir” into the mouth of Simple, followed by a mark of interrogation; and the Host's next speech has been invariably printed “Conceal them, or thou diest.” The Host was desirous that Simple should reveal, and would not, therefore, threaten death if he disclosed them. Dr. Farmer wished reveal to be substituted for “conceal,” but the only alteration here required is and for “or,”— “Conceal them and thou diest.” Such is the emendation of the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 108 10109089P. 258. Bardolph, rushing in, complains of cozenage, and the Host inquires what has become of his horses? Bardolph, in all editions, replies,— “Run away with the cozeners;” as if the horses had run away with the cozeners against their will. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, inserts by in the margin,— “Run away with by the cozeners,” and the rest of Bardolph's speech confirms this interpretation: as soon as they had thrown him off into the mire, the cozeners “set spurs and away” with the Host's horses.

Note return to page 109 10109090P. 265. The text of the folios, “Where is Nan now, and her troop of fairies? and the Welsh devil, Herne,” is certainly wrong. Theobald altered “Herne” to Hugh, and he was, of course, right as to the person intended; but the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, erases “Herne,” and inserts Evans, as the proper reading. Had “Hugh” been the word, it seems probable that Mrs. Ford might have paid him the respect of calling him Sir Hugh.

Note return to page 110 10109091P. 267. We have the evidence of the corrected folio, 1632, in favour of “bribe-buck,” instead of “brib'd-buck” of the early printed copies. This was Theobald's emendation.

Note return to page 111 10109092P. 267. In several preceding scenes we are informed that Anne Page was to represent the Fairy Queen in the attack upon Falstaff in Windsor Park. Nevertheless, Malone and others assigned all her speeches to Mrs. Quickly, the only excuse being that the first of the prefixes is “Qui.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, changed it to Que, and made it Que. (for Queen) in all other places; and after the printed stage-direction, “Enter Fairies,” he added, with the Queen, Anne. It does not, indeed, appear that Mrs. Quickly took any part at all in the scene, although she most likely in some way lent her assistance, in order that she might be on the stage at the conclusion of the performance.

Note return to page 112 10109093P. 268. The whole of what is delivered by the Queen and the rest of the Fairies is in verse, with the exception of two lines, which have constantly been misprinted thus:— “Cricket, to Windsor chimneys shalt thou leap: Where fires thou find'st unrak'd, and hearths unswept,” &c. There is no doubt that this was originally a couplet, until a corruption crept in, which no editor felt himself competent to set right. Tyrwhitt, indeed, does not seem to have been aware of the defect; but it struck the corrector of the folio, 1632, who, by manuscript changes in the margin, informs us that the lines ought to run as follows, by which the rhyme is preserved:— “Cricket, to Windsor chimneys when thou'st leap't, Where fires thou find'st unrak'd, and hearths unswept, There pinch the maids as blue as bilberry,” &c. This must have been the way in which the passage originally stood. Lower down in the same page, for “Raise up the organs of her fantasy,” the same authority reads, “Rouse up the organs,” &c. He removes the vulgarism, in the next line but one, by reading, “But those that sleep,” &c., instead of “But those as sleep,” &c., which, however, was sometimes in the language of the day.11Q1181

Note return to page 113 10109094P. 274. Fenton, vindicating his conduct in marrying Anne Page against the will of both her parents, says, in all impressions of the play,— “And this deceit loses the name of craft, Of disobedience, or unduteous title,” &c. “Title” sounds like a misprint, and so it appears to be; the true word, which entirely corresponds with the preceding line, having perhaps been misheard by the copyist. The corrector of the folio, 1632, inserts what he tells us is the proper reading in the margin:— “Of disobedience or unduteous guile.”

Note return to page 114 10109095Vol. II. p. 7. The Duke, in all editions of this play, observes to Escalus, after calling him to his side,— “Of government the properties to unfold, Would seem in me t' affect speech and discourse; Since I am put to know, that your own science Exceeds, in that, the lists of all advice My strength can give you: then, no more remains, But that, to your sufficiency, as your worth is able, And let them work.” This reading has been derived from the four folios; but, according to the corrected folio, 1632, it is erroneous in three particulars: the first is not of any great consequence, inasmuch as “Since I am put to know” is as intelligible and forcible as “Since I am apt to know;” but the great improvement is in the sixth line quoted above, in which “that” is a misprint for add, and into which the conjunction as, and the two words at the end have, accidentally perhaps, been foisted. The correct reading, with the aid of the manuscript in the margin of the folio, 1632, is as follows:— “Since I am apt to know, that your own science Exceeds, in that, the lists of all advice My strength can give you: then, no more remains, But add to your sufficiency your worth, And let them work.” These small changes remove what has always been a difficulty on the very threshold of this play.

Note return to page 115 10109096P. 9. It has been made a question between Johnson, Steevens, and Tyrwhitt, whether, when the Duke says,— “Hold, therefore, Angelo,” he offered to his intended deputy the commission which had been prepared for him. Now, the manuscript stage-directions in the folio, 1632, make it certain that at the words “Hold, therefore, Angelo,” the Duke Tendered the commission to Angelo, but did not actually place it in his hands until he finished his speech with “Take thy commission.” The point would scarcely be worth notice, if it had not been dwelt upon by the commentators.

Note return to page 116 10109097P. 12. Near the end of Mrs. Overdone's speech, “is” is required before the words “to be chopped off”—“and within three days his head is to be chopped off.” It is deficient in all printed copies, and is inserted in manuscript in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632. In the same way, the word “bawdy” is omitted in the Clown's speech (p. 13): “All bawdy houses in the suburbs of Vienna must be plucked down.” The proclamation was against “bawdy houses in the suburbs,” and not against other houses there. The word wanting is supplied in manuscript, which accords with Tyrwhitt's suggestion.

Note return to page 117 10109098P. 14. The division Scena tertia is struck through, and properly, because there is clearly no change of place, the Provost, Claudio, and Officers walking in, as the Clown, Bawd, &c. make their exit. Juliet is mentioned as one of the characters entering, but her name is erased by the corrector of the folio, 1632, for it does not appear that she took any part in the scene, and in fact is spoken of by Claudio as absent. Nevertheless, in all editions the scene is erroneously marked as a new one, and Juliet is stated to have come on the stage with Claudio, and to have listened patiently to the description of her offence. It was, therefore, not the practice of our stage, when the folio of 1632 was corrected, to place her in a situation so painful and indelicate, and Shakespeare could hardly have intended it.

Note return to page 118 10109099P. 15. Two rather important words are altered in the corrected folio, 1632, in Claudio's speech. The usual reading is,— “She is fast my wife, Save that we do the denunciation lack Of outward order: this we came not to, Only for propagation of a dower.” “Denunciation” is changed to pronunciation, and “propagation” to procuration, meaning, of course, the procuring of the dower.

Note return to page 119 10109100P. 18. In the following line, as it stands in all the folios,— “The needful bits and curbs to headstrong weeds,” Theobald rightly altered “weeds” to steeds, as it stands corrected in manuscript in the folio, 1632. Lower down, in the same speech, Pope added the word “becomes” in the passage,— “In time the rod Becomes more mock'd, than fear'd; so our decrees,” &c. But the true language of the poet, as far as the evidence of the corrected folio, 1632, enables us to judge of it, was this:— “In time the rod's More mock'd than fear'd; so our most just decrees, Dead to infliction,” &c. It is evident that two syllables were deficient in the second line; and it seems likely that the Duke would dwell emphatically upon the justice of the decrees neglected to be enforced, rather than use so tame an expression as “Becomes more mock'd than fear'd.”

Note return to page 120 10109101P. 19. It was proposed by Pope, Hanmer, Johnson, Steevens, &c., to alter the following passage in the folio, 1623, in various ways,— “And yet my nature never in the fight, To do in slander.” Without adverting to the discordant proposals of the commentators, we may quote the satisfactory words, and their context, as they are exhibited in the manuscript correction of the folio, 1632:— “I have on Angelo impos'd the office, Who may, in th' ambush of my name, strike home, And yet my nature never in the sight To draw on slander.” That is to say, “I have imposed the duty upon Angelo of punishing severely, while I draw no slander on myself, being out of sight.” The use of the long s will easily explain how the error of “fight” for sight arose; but it is not so easy to understand how drawe, as it is spelt in the manuscript note, came to be misprinted “doe,” as it is spelt in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 121 10109102P. 20. Malone took a great liberty with the text, when he printed “Sir, make me not your storie” of the first folio, “Sir, mock me not—your story.” The fact is that Sir W. Davenant gave the true word in his alteration of “Measure for Measure,”— “Sir, make me not your scorn.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has also scorn for “storie,” as might be expected.

Note return to page 122 10109103P. 27. In Froth's sentence, “I have so; because it is an open room, and good for winter,” some difficulty has arisen, because it could not well be understood how “an open room” could be “good for winter.” Froth, in truth, did not speak of “winter” at all, but rather of summer, since reading windows for “winter,” as is done by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, the matter is set right and an error of the press removed—“I have so; because it is an open room, and good for windows”—that is, good on account of the windows.11Q1182

Note return to page 123 10109104P. 30. The Clown, adverting to the ruin that would be brought on Vienna by enforcing the law against bawdy houses, is made to employ a word which is not easily understood in the place where it is found: he says, “If this law hold in Vienna ten year, I'll rent the fairest house in it after three pence a bay.” The commentators have explained it by reference to “bays of building,” “bay windows,” “bays of barns,” &c. It is a mere error of the press—“bay” for day; “after three pence a day” is the word in the corrected folio, 1632. Three pence a day would be only 4l. 11s. 3d. a year for the “fairest house in Vienna.”

Note return to page 124 10109105P. 35. We meet with a bold and striking emendation in one of Isabella's noble appeals to Angelo. The common text has been,— “How would you be, If he, which is the top of judgment, should But judge you as you are?” The amended folio, 1632, has it,— “How would you be, If he, which is the God of judgment, should But judge you as you are?” This is not to be considered at all in the light of a profane use of the name of the Creator, as in oaths and exclamations; and while top may easily have been misheard by the scribe for “God,” the latter word, though the meaning is of course the same, adds to the power and grandeur of the passage.11Q1183

Note return to page 125 10109106P. 35. Sir Thomas Hanmer's proposal to read “But ere they live to end” is fully supported by the corrected folio, 1632. The first folio has “But here they live to end,” which Malone, with remarkable infelicity, altered to “But where they live to end.”

Note return to page 126 10109107P. 37. Angelo starting at the offer of Isabella to bribe him, she interposes, in the words of all modern editions, that she will do it, “Not with fond shekels of the tested gold,” &c. It is spelt sickles in the old copies, but the true word may be circles; and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has altered “sickles” to sirkles, paying no other attention to the spelling of the word. Nevertheless “shekels” may be right, and it is used, exactly with the same spelling, by Lodge in his “Catharos,” 1591, sign. C, where we read, “Here in Athens the father hath suffred his sonne to bee hanged for forty sickles, and hee worth four hundred talents.”

Note return to page 127 10109108P. 40. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, makes an important change in a line of the Duke's speech which has been doubted, while he passes over some preceding lines, regarding which needless disputes have arisen. The amended line is,— “Showing, we would not serve heaven, as we love it.” The common reading is “spare heaven,” which some editors would print “seek heaven;” but “serve heaven,” which seems unquestionably right, did not occur to any of them. The whole passage will therefore stand thus:— “'Tis meet so, daughter: but least you do repent, As that the sin hath brought you to this shame; Which sorrow is always toward ourselves, not heaven, Showing, we would not serve heaven, as we love it, But as we stand in fear.” The old corrupt reading of “spare heaven” seems little better than nonsense—the emendation indisputable.

Note return to page 128 10109109P. 44. Tyrwhitt is authorized by the corrected folio, 1632, in reading in-shell'd, for “enshield” of the old copies, in the following passage:— “As these black masks Proclaim an enshield beauty ten times louder Than beauty could displayed.” Lower down on the same page Angelo says,— “As I subscribe not that, nor any other, But in the loss of question;” which occasioned discussion between Johnson, Steevens, and Malone as to the meaning of the phrase “in the loss of question.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, writes, in the margin, “but in the force of question”—that is to say in the compulsion of question, or for the sake of question, a sense the word will very well bear, the copyist having misheard force “loss.” Four lines lower we have in manuscript “the manacles of the all-binding law,” instead of “all-building law,” which was the mistaken epithet in the old copies. Dr. Johnson first substituted all-binding.

Note return to page 129 10109110P. 49. The sentence in the Duke's homily on death, ending,— “For all thy blessed youth Becomes as aged, and doth beg the alms Of palsied eld:” is altered in manuscript in the corrected folio, 1632, to “For all thy boasted youth,” &c. which, looking at the context, appears to be a decided improvement upon the old text.11Q1184

Note return to page 130 10109111P. 51. We are glad to obtain an authority, which we may consider to a certain extent decisive, upon a much doubted portion of the scene between Isabella and her brother. She tells him of Angelo's design upon her virtue, and he exclaims in astonishment, according to the first folio,— “The prenzie Angelo?” The second folio, not being able to find any sense in prenzie, gives it “princely:”— “The princely Angelo?” and the editors of Shakespeare have not at all known what to make of the epithet, which is repeated in Isabella's reply. Warburton proposed priestly, and that now appears to be the word of the poet, but another corruption found its way into the text, which nobody pointed out, and which is thus set right in manuscript in the corrected folio, 1632:— Claud. “The priestly Angelo? Isab. O, 'tis the cunning livery of hell, The damned'st body to invest and cover In priestly garb.” For “priestly garb” the first folio has “prenzie guards,” and the second “princely guards;” but priestly garb is unquestionably the true language of Shakespeare, which has reference to the sanctimonious appearance and carriage of Angelo. Warburton is to have the credit of “priestly,” but all the commentators have been under a mistake as to “guards.”

Note return to page 131 10109112P. 54. After Claudio has withdrawn, the Duke tells Isabella, “The hand that hath made you fair hath made you good;” and then follows what, in the ordinary text, is not easily understood—“the goodness that is cheap in beauty makes beauty brief in goodness.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, proposes to read, “the goodness that is chief in beauty makes beauty brief in goodness;” from which we may deduce this meaning—that when goodness consists chiefly in beauty, beauty is rendered brief in the possession of that goodness.

Note return to page 132 10109113P. 57. A play upon the double meaning of the word usances has been hitherto lost by printing it “usuries,” where the Clown, in allusion to the suppression of bawdy houses, and to the allowed interest of money observes, in the received text, “'Twas never merry world, since, of two usuries, the merriest was put down, and the worser allowed by order of law,” &c. The word usances is substituted for usuries in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, usance being to be taken as usage or custom, as well as interest of money.

Note return to page 133 10109114P. 58. In the line of the Duke's speech, “I drink, I eat, array myself, and live,” the old copies misprint “array” away; but the true word is restored by a correction in the folio, 1632. Theobald saw that the change was necessary.

Note return to page 134 10109115P. 59. The pronoun it was omitted in the old editions before “clutched” in Lucio's speech, but is inserted in the margin in the corrected folio, 1632. Near the end of the same speech occurs the question,—“What say'st thou, Trot?” and several notes have been written upon “Trot,” which turns out on the same authority to be a misprint for troth, one of the most common expletives—“What say'st thou, troth?”

Note return to page 135 10109116P. 65. Three small, but not unimportant, words—“the due of”—appear to have dropped out in the press, or to have been left out in the manuscript used by the compositor in the beginning of the speech of Escalus, which, according to the corrected folio, 1632, ought to run, “You have paid the heavens the due of your function, and the prisoner the very debt of your calling.” The invariable reading has been, “You have paid the heavens your function,” &c.

Note return to page 136 10109117P. 66. Two portions of the Duke's twenty-two short verses, concluding this Act, are amended in manuscript in the corrected folio, 1632. The first is,— “Grace to stand, virtue to go,” instead of “Grace to stand and virtue go:” which exactly accords with Coleridge's suggested emendation in his Lit. Rem. ii. 124. The other change marked in the folio, 1632, applies to those difficult lines,— “How may likeness, made in crimes, Making practice on the times, To draw with idle spiders' strings Most pond'rous and substantial things!” The proposed alteration does not clear away the whole difficulty, but, notwithstanding, it is valuable,— “How may likeness, made in crimes, Masking practice on the times, Draw with idle spiders' strings Most ponderous and substantial things!” Warburton boldly asserts “Shakespeare wrote it thus,” and then gives his own notion; while Steevens recommended another method, and Malone that generally received, viz. “Mocking, practise on the times.” By “masking practice on the times” is to be understood concealing methods of deception, and then the whole passage may mean—“How many persons, alike in criminality, conceal their deceptions so successfully as to draw ponderous and substantial advantages, even with spiders' webs!”

Note return to page 137 10109118P. 69. In the Duke's soliloquy on “place and greatness,” this passage occurs,— “Volumes of report Run with these false and most contrarious quests Upon thy doings.” But “these” can hardly be right, since no “false and contrarious quests” have been previously mentioned. The reading of the line appears from the corrected folio, 1632, to be,— “Run with base, false, and most contrarious quests.” In the next line, “dream” is converted into dreams, which seems fit, since “fancies,” in the next line, is also in the plural.

Note return to page 138 10109119P. 73. The line in the old folios,— “Wounds th' unsisting postern with these strokes,” has produced discussion, Blackstone contending that “unsisting” was to be taken as never resting; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, marks “unsisting” as an error of the press, and very naturally substitutes resisting: the postern resisted the entrance of the messenger, who, therefore, wounded it with strokes. When he enters, the Duke observes, “It is his lordship's man,” and not “his lord's man,” as it stands printed in the folios.11Q1185

Note return to page 139 10109120P. 80. After the Duke's interview with Barnardine, he is made to exclaim, in all editions, and nobody has found fault with the expression,— “Unfit to live or die. O, gravel heart!” The words “gravel heart” having been considered equivalent to stony heart; but the fact seems to be, that it is a misprint. And that the Duke's real exclamation is much more appropriate,— “Unfit to live or die. O, grovelling beast!” the character of Barnardine having been reduced by idleness and intoxication to that of a mere prone brute. Such is the manuscript correction in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 140 10109121P. 81. For the disputed epithet of the folios, Hanmer, Heath, and Monk Mason recommend well-balanced in the line,— “By cold gradation and weal-balanced form;” and that they were judicious in this opinion, the corrector of the folio, 1632, furnishes evidence in his margin.

Note return to page 141 10109122P. 82. The manuscript stage-direction in the folio, 1632, Catches her, shows that the performer of the part of Isabella fell into the Duke's arms at the unexpected tidings that Angelo, in spite of his promise, had taken the life of her brother. In her exclamation just afterwards,— “Injurious world! Most damned Angelo!” the epithet “injurious” reads tamely and out of place; and the word substituted by the corrector of the folio, 1632, is certainly more adapted to the occasion, though but rarely used,— “Perjurious world! Most damned Angelo!” Two syllables are wanting in the third line of the Duke's speech, lower down,— “Mark what I say, which you shall find,” &c. The omission was, doubtless, accidental, and the required words are found in the margin of the folio, 1632,— “Mark what I say to you, which you shall find,” &c. In the Duke's next speech, the usual text of the eighth line has been,— “I am combined by a sacred vow;” but “combined” for confined was an easy misprint, and the latter a more natural word, which has been supplied by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632.11Q1186

Note return to page 142 10109123P. 85. A passage, the subject of comment, is found in Angelo's soliloquy, which is not entirely explained, but still is rendered more comprehensible by a slight alteration of the received reading, proposed by the corrector of the folio, 1632. We will quote the whole, with his amended punctuation also:— “But that her tender shame Will not proclaim against her maiden loss, How might she tongue me! yet reason dares her; no; For my authority bears such a credent bulk, That no particular scandal once can touch, But it confounds the breather.” The folios have “of a credent bulk,” and Steevens suspected “of” to be a blunder, as it appears in fact to have been. Malone read “off a credent bulk,” which hardly affords sense, whereas “bears such a credent bulk” is, at least, intelligible. Still, though the poet's meaning may be collected from his language, it is obscure.11Q1187

Note return to page 143 10109124P. 87. Theobald's happy emendation of the last line of Isabella's first speech is borne out by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Before correction it stood thus:— “I am advis'd to do it, He says, to vail full purpose;” that is, as Theobald suggests, “t'availful purpose,” which Malone objected to, and, at the recommendation of Johnson, read, “to veil full purpose.” In the folio, 1632, as amended in manuscript, it stands precisely in this form:— “He says, to 'vail-full purpose;” that is, to a purpose that is availful or beneficial, and seems the true reading; for in the next line, Isabella, disliking duplicity, says the same thing by a figure,— “'tis a physic That's bitter to sweet end.”

Note return to page 144 10109125P. 89. To show how easily words, even of importance, sometimes drop out in the press, we may mention that in the line of the first folio,— “And she will speak most bitterly and strange,” the second folio has it imperfectly,— “And she will speak most bitterly.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, therefore added and strangely at the end of the line, and he slightly altered the next line, which commences the retort of Isabella, thus:— “Most strangely, yet most truly will I speak.” It is a decided improvement, and was most probably the form in which Shakespeare left the line, the old and less elegant reading being,— “Most strange, but yet most truly will I speak.”

Note return to page 145 10109126P. 90. We have here a misprint that can only have arisen from the carelessness of the copyist or the printer. The invariable text of Isabella's passionate appeal has been,— “O, gracious duke! Harp not on that; nor do not banish reason For inequality; but let your reason serve To make the truth appear.” “Inequality” could not be right: and what does the manuscript-corrector of the folio tell us is the real word that ought to be put in its place?— “O, gracious duke! Harp not on that; nor do not banish reason For incredulity;” i. e.do not refuse to give your reason fair play, on account of the incredulity with which you listen to my complaint.

Note return to page 146 10109127P. 93. Another word is more than plausibly substituted in the speech of the Friar, where he is giving a character of the Duke, who, he pretends, was a brother of his order. The way in which the passage is usually printed is this, and it does not seem liable to much objection; but nevertheless we may feel confident that there has been an error of the press in it:— “And, on my trust, a man that never yet Did, as he vouches, misreport your grace.” Now, “on my trust,” that is to say, on my belief or credit, is infinitely less forcible than what is placed in the margin as the poet's word,— “And, on my truth, a man that never yet,” &c. The Friar was of course anxious in the most emphatic way to bear testimony to the good conduct of the disguised Duke.

Note return to page 147 10109128P. 98. This is an instance of a similar kind; but not so strong as the preceding, because the word, which the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, would induce us to throw out of the text, is not very ill adapted to the place, though not so well adapted as that which he has written in the margin. The Duke, returning to the scene in his friar's disguise, declares that the suppliants, Isabella and Mariana, have been unfairly treated by the Duke, when he referred the decision on their case to the party who was himself accused:— “The Duke's unjust, Thus to retort your manifest appeal, And put your trial in the villain's mouth, Which here you come to accuse.” The manuscript-corrector informs us that “retort,” in the second line, is a misprint for reject, a mistake not unlikely to be made. Isabella had appealed to the Duke, and he had rejected that appeal, and left the trial to Angelo: therefore, the reading ought to be,— “The Duke's unjust, Thus to reject your manifest appeal,” &c.11Q1188

Note return to page 148 10109129P. 100. The manuscript stage-directions in this scene are minute and numerous, the more so as the printed ones are few and unsatisfactory—by no means sufficient to regulate the acting and business of the play. Thus, whenever Isabella or Mariana are to kneel, or rise, or unveil, it is duly noted in the margin; and, when the Duke is to be discovered, Lucio is told to seize on him and to pull off his disguise, at which, it is added in another place, all start and stand, gazing upon the Duke. It is remarkable that there is no Exeunt at the end of the play, but the words “Curtain drawn” are appended in manuscript, perhaps the first time they were ever applied in that way. They may be taken as proving that, in this instance, at least, the characters did not go out, but that a “curtain” was “drawn” before them, in order to separate them from the audience, in the same way that in more modern times a curtain (formerly of green baize) is let down from the top of the proscenium at the conclusion of the performance. It is possible that this mode of denoting that the drama was at an end was not very uncommon at the period when the folio, 1632, was corrected; but we are not aware of the existence of any other distinct proof of the prevalence of it on our stage anterior to the Restoration.

Note return to page 149 10109130P. 114. The life of Ægeon being forfeit to the laws of Ephesus, by his accidental arrival there in search of his son, he relates his story to the Duke (who has just passed sentence upon him), observing, as the passage has hitherto stood,— “Yet that the world may witness, that my end Was wrought by nature, not by vile offence, I'll utter what my sorrow gives me leave.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, states that “nature,” in the second line, ought to be fortune, since Ægeon was not about to lose his life in the course of “nature,” but by having been so unlucky as to arrive in a town by the laws of which it was sacrificed: his end, therefore,— “Was wrought by fortune, not by vile offence.” Possibly, by “nature” we might understand the natural course of events.

Note return to page 150 10109131P. 115. Ægeon, overtaken by a storm at sea, which threatened death to himself, his wife, and two children, says,— “Which though myself would gladly have embrac'd, Yet the incessant weeping of my wife,” &c. There seems no reason why Ægeon should “gladly have embraced” death, if he could have escaped it; and a marginal correction in the folio, 1632, shows that the word gently (i. e. patiently and submissively) was Shakespeare's word,— “Which though myself would gently have embrac'd.” Six lines lower, in the same speech, “And this it was” is altered to “And thus it was,” not necessarily, but certainly judiciously.

Note return to page 151 10109132P. 117. The expression “of all love,” indicating strength of impulse, is not unusual in Shakespeare and in other writers of his time. Ægeon consents that the twin-son and twin-servant, preserved with him, should go in search of their brothers; and in the following lines, as they appear in all copies of the play, there are on the authority of the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, two errors:— “Whom whilst I labour'd of a love to see, I hazarded the loss of whom I lov'd.” They ought to run,— “Whom whilst he labour'd of all love to see, I hazarded the loss of whom I lov'd.” It was the son who was to undertake the task of seeking his brother, although the father, having in this way “hazarded the loss of whom he loved,” afterwards went in quest of his “youngest boy.”

Note return to page 152 10109133P. 118. The line, near the end of the Duke's last speech, as it appears in the folios,— “To seek thy help by beneficial help,” has produced several conjectures for its emendation, and among them one by the editor of the present volume, who suggested that the true reading might be,— “To seek thy hope by beneficial help;” and such is precisely the change proposed by the corrector of the folio, 1632: Ægeon was to seek what he hoped to obtain (viz. money to purchase his life), by the “beneficial help” of some persons in Ephesus. Four lines lower, the verse is deficient of a syllable; and, to supply it, now is inserted in manuscript in the margin:— “Jailor, now take him to thy custody.”

Note return to page 153 10109134P. 121. Pope's emendation of “clock” for cook is supported by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, in the following passage:— “Methinks, your maw, like mine, should be your clock; And strike you home without a messenger:” nevertheless, obvious as the error seems, cook was, we believe, printed in all editions until Pope's time, and has even been restored in our own.

Note return to page 154 10109135P. 124. By the misprint of “doubtfully” for doubly in two places, as pointed out by the corrector of the folio, 1632, the humour of one of Dromio's replies has been entirely lost. He has been beaten by a person he took for his master, when sent to bring him home to dinner. Luciana asks, according to the usual text, “Spake he so doubtfully, thou couldst not feel his meaning?” Here “doubtfully” ought to be doubly, as well as in Dromio's reply, “Nay, he struck so plainly, I could too well feel his blows; and withal so doubtfully, that I could scarce understand them.” We ought here also to read, “and withal so doubly that I could scarce understand them;” i. e. the blows were so doubly powerful that Dromio could hardly stand under them.

Note return to page 155 10109136P. 126. It is worth while to mention that the line,— “I see, the jewel best enameled,” and the two next lines (the folio, 1632, omits two others in the folio, 1623) are struck out, perhaps, as unintelligible to the manuscript-corrector, he having no means of setting the corrupt passage right.

Note return to page 156 10109137P. 130. It has been thought rather a happy conjectural emendation by Pope, when he converted “trying” of the old copies into tiring in the following sentence, yet he was certainly mistaken:—“The one to save the money that he spends in 'tiring; the other that at dinner they should not drop in his porridge.” Antipholus and Dromio of Syracuse are talking of hair, and on the advantages of baldness, and the word trimming was quite technical in reference to cutting and dressing the hair: it is misprinted trying in the old copies, and it is clear that the letter m had dropped out, tryming, or trimming, being the word intended—“to save the money that he spends in trimming,” not in “'tiring” or attiring, which has relation not to the hair merely, but to the whole apparel, whereas the hair only was under discussion. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has done no more than place the missing letter in the margin.

Note return to page 157 10109138P. 131. A doubt is removed by the corrector of the folio, 1632, regarding the last line of Adriana's speech,— “I live disstain'd, thou undishonoured.” The use of the word “disstained” in this way has no example, and Theobald recommended unstain'd, but did not insert it in his text. It is found in manuscript, and we cannot doubt that it was the word of the poet.

Note return to page 158 10109139P. 133. Antipholus of Syracuse, wonder-struck at the advances of Adriana, who invites him home, exclaims, according to the usual text,— “To me she speaks; she moves me for her theme!” “Moves” here is a misprint for means, and so it is marked by the corrector of the folio, 1632: “She means me for her theme.” Three lines lower we have another mistake of the same kind, where Antipholus asks,— “What error drives our eyes and ears amiss?” “Drives” ought incontestably to be draws, as we learn on the same authority; and we may perhaps accept the old corrector's emendation of the next line but one with as little hesitation,— “I'll entertain the proffered fallacy,” for “I'll entertain the free'd fallacy” of the old copies. The last has generally been printed “the offer'd fallacy,” without much objection. For “elvish sprites,” four lines below (the folio, 1623, has no word corresponding with “elvish”), the corrector reads “elves and sprites,” and he makes no change in “owls,” for which Theobald needlessly, though not without plausibility, substituted ouphes.

Note return to page 159 10109140P. 135. Two words, omitted in a line in a speech by Dromio of Ephesus, were supplied by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632: a word is also changed for the better in the preceding line. We give the couplet as it stands with the marginal emendation:— “If my skin were parchment, and the blows you gave were ink, Your own hand-writing would tell you for certain what I think.”

Note return to page 160 10109141P. 136. Another change for the better, both as regards the rhyme and the sense, is made in a speech by the same character, farther on in the scene. The common reading is,— “If thou hadst been Dromio to-day in my place, Thou wouldst have chang'd thy face for a name, or thy name for an ass.” “Or thy name for a face” are the words inserted by the corrector of the folio, 1632, which seem more accurately to preserve the antithesis and the rhyme.

Note return to page 161 10109142P. 140. The first four lines of this scene are thus given in the folios:— “And may it be that you have quite forgot A husband's office? shall, Antipholus, Even in the spring of love thy love-springs rot? Shall love in buildings grow so ruinate?” Malone, for the rhyme's sake, changed “ruinate” to ruinous; but it appears by the manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, that the lines ought to run as follows, and that Malone altered the wrong word:— “And may it be, that you have quite forgot A husband's office? Shall unkind debate, Even in the spring of love, thy love-spring rot? Shall love in building grow so ruinate?”11Q1189

Note return to page 162 10109143P. 142. The line,— “Far more, far more to you do I decline,” may be reconciled to sense; but the reading of the corrector of the folio, 1632, which makes a very trifling change, seems preferable:— “Far more, far more to you do I incline.”

Note return to page 163 10109144P. 144. All that intervenes between the question of Antipholus, “What complexion is she of?” and Dromio's observation, on the next page, “O! sir, I did not look so low,” is struck out in the corrected folio, 1632.

Note return to page 164 10109145P. 148. “Among my wife and their confederates” of the folio, 1632 (as well as that of 1623), is altered by the manuscript-corrector to “Among my wife and these confederates.” The common reading is “her confederates,” which may be right. In the next speech of Antipholus the corrector of the folio has added me in the second line, “I promis'd me your presence, and the chain.” In the second line of Angelo's reply raccat of the folio, 1632 (“charect,” folio, 1623), is properly corrected to “carrat.”

Note return to page 165 10109146P. 149. The change of “send by me some token” for “send me by some token” seems scarcely required; but it was necessary to insert more in Angelo's speech lower down, “You wrong me more, sir, in denying it,” the word having been omitted in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 166 10109147P. 150. Angelo demanding his money for the chain of Antipholus of Ephesus, is answered in the folio, 1623, “Consent to pay thee that I never had?” Thee having been omitted in the folio, 1632, the corrector caused the line to run thus:— “Consent to pay for that I never had?” which is certainly more to the purpose.

Note return to page 167 10109148P. 152. Dromio arrives in great haste to obtain from his mistress and her sister the purse to pay his master's supposed debt, and when he enters, out of breath, he exclaims, as the passage has always been printed,— “Here, go: the desk! the purse! sweet, now make haste.” But he would hardly address the ladies so familiarly as to call them sweet; and the corrector of the folio, 1632, tells us that he did not, “sweet” having been misprinted for swift: Dromio wishes them to use the utmost dispatch—“swift now, make haste.”

Note return to page 168 10109149P. 153. A line is evidently wanting in Dromio's speech, which, but for that omission, and a small word which has dropped out, is entirely in rhyme: the line ending with steel has no corresponding verse; but the deficiency, though apparent, has never been remarked upon. In all editions the passage has stood thus:— “No, he's in Tartar limbo, worse than hell: A devil in an everlasting garment hath him, One whose hard heart is button'd up with steel, A fiend, a fairy, pitiless and rough; A wolf, nay, worse, a fellow all in bluff.” It is thus given by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632:— “No, he's in Tartar limbo, worse than hell: A devil in an everlasting garment hath him, fell; One whose hard heart is button'd up with steel, Who has no touch of mercy, cannot feel; A fiend, a fury, pitiless, and rough; A wolfe, nay worse, a fellow all in buff,” &c. Theobald suggested fury for “fairy;” but he entertained no notion that a whole line had been lost, to say nothing of the word fell as the triplet-rhyme in the second line. It is not likely that any objection will be felt on account of irregularity in the measure, coming as it does from Dromio, a sort of ad libitum versifier.

Note return to page 169 10109150P. 157. Antipholus of Syracuse fancies himself surrounded by witches and sorcerers, and when the Courtezan asks him to go home with her, he exclaims, “Avoid then, fiend!” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has it, “Avoid, thou fiend!” which is probably accurate, but the change is trifling.

Note return to page 170 10109151P. 161. Two small variations are made, both in speeches by Dromio, one where, alluding to the beating he had received, he says his “bones bear witness,”— “That since have felt the vigour of his rage.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, here reads rigour for “vigour;” and lower down he makes Dromio exclaim,— “God and the rope-maker now bear me witness,” instead of merely “bear me witness,” which is not in the regular measure which Dromio just here employs.

Note return to page 171 10109152P. 167. For the line,— “In company I often glanced it,” the manuscript-corrector reads, with apparent fitness,— “In company I often glanc'd at it.” In the speech of the Abbess the epithet “moody” is applied to “melancholy” in the folio, 1623, which is altered to muddy in the folio, 1632. The manuscript-corrector most properly restored “moody.”

Note return to page 172 10109153P. 168. The line in the Merchant's speech, as it is given in the folios,— “The place of depth and sorry execution,” is amended in manuscript in the folio, 1632, to “The place of death and solemn execution;” both words, as we may suppose, having been misheard by the copyist.

Note return to page 173 10109154P. 169. Adriana, speaking of her husband, who had been seized as a madman, says,— “Anon, I wot not by what strong escape, He broke from those that had the guard of him.” “Strong” the corrector of the folio, 1632, converts into “strange,” perhaps because all were astonished at the escape.

Note return to page 174 10109155P. 172. Antipholus of Ephesus, describing the manner in which he had been seized, bound, and confined, observes,— “They fell upon me, bound me, bore me thence, And in a dark and dankish vault at home There left me,” &c. The corrector of the folio, 1632, alters it to “They left me,” which is clearly right.

Note return to page 175 10109156P. 174. Ægeon, astonished at not being recognized by Antipholus of Ephesus, exclaims, in the reading of the first and other folios,— “O, time's extremity! Hast thou so crack'd and splitted my poor tongue?” &c. but we learn from the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, that the last line ought to be, as seems natural,— “Hast thou so crack'd my voice, split my poor tongue?”

Note return to page 176 10109157P. 177. All copies agree in what appears to be a decided though a small error in reading,— “And thereupon these errors are arose.” “These errors all arose” has been suggested as the poet's words; and we find all in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, while “are” is erased in the text.

Note return to page 177 10109158P. 178. The following lines, as they are printed in the folio, 1623, have been the source of considerable cavil: “Thirty-three years have I but gone in travail Of you, my sons, and till this present hour My heavy burden are delivered.” That the above is corrupt there can be no question; and in the folio, 1632, the printer attempted thus to amend the passage:— “Thirty-three years have I been gone in travail Of you, my sons, and till this present hour My heavy burden are delivered.” Malone gave it thus:— “Twenty-five years have I but gone in travail Of you, my sons; until this present hour My heavy burden not delivered.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, makes the slightest possible change in the second line, and at once removes the whole difficulty: he puts it,— “Thirty-three years have I been gone in travail Of you, my sons, and at this present hour My heavy burdens are delivered.” The Abbess means, of course, that she was, as it were, delivered of the double burden of her twin sons at the hour of this discovery of them. With such an easy and clear solution of what has produced many conjectural emendations, it is needless to notice the various proposals of Theobald and others, which are all nearly equally wide of the mark.

Note return to page 178 10109159P. 188. In the stage-direction at the opening of the scene the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has expunged the words Innogen, his wife, as if the practice had not then been for her to appear before the audience in this or in any other portion of the comedy; and it is certain that no word ever escapes from her in the dialogue. It has been supposed by some that, though merely a mute, she was seen by the spectators, but in what way she was to be known to them to be the mother of Hero and the wife of Leonato is not stated. Another change in the same stage-direction merits notice: it is that the word “Messenger” is converted into Gentleman, and the manner in which he joins in the conversation shows, that he must have been a person superior in rank to what we now understand by a messenger. Consistently with this notion all the prefixes to what he says are altered from Mes. to Gent. In other dramas Shakespeare gives important parts to persons whom he only calls Messengers; and it requires no proof that in the reign of Elizabeth the Messengers who conveyed news to the Court from abroad were frequently officers whose services were in part rewarded by this distinction. It was in this capacity that Raleigh seems first to have attracted the favour of the Queen.

Note return to page 179 10109160P. 195. For “he that hits me,” the corrector of the folio, 1632, gives “he that first hits me,” which supports the notion that the successful marksman was to be called Adam, as the first man. The allusion can hardly be to Adam Bell, because it is William of Cloudesley who, in the ballad, is the principal archer, and who cleaves the apple on his son's head.

Note return to page 180 10109161P. 197. There is certainly a misprint in the second line of Don Pedro's speech, where he is advertising to Claudio's reason for loving Hero:— “What need the bridge much broader than the flood? The fairest grant is the necessity.” Here “grant” has little or no meaning, for Hero has not yet been even sounded upon the point, and the line ought to run in the manner in which the corrector of the folio, 1632, has left it, “The fairest ground is the necessity.” The fairest ground for Claudio's love was the necessity of the case, which rendered needless any “treatise.”

Note return to page 181 10109162P. 199. John the Bastard, telling Conrade of his melancholy, says “There is no measure in the occasion that breeds,” the pronoun it being wanting after the verb, which is found in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632. Lower, on the same page, Conrade remarks “You have of late stood out against your brother;” but they had been reconciled, and the expression ought to be, as we find it in the same authority, “You have till of late stood out against your brother.”

Note return to page 182 10109163P. 202. The speech of Beatrice requires father in the first clause as well as in the second, but all the folios are without it: it is thus added in manuscript in the folio, 1632, “Yes faith; it is my cousin's duty to make courtesy, and say, Father, as it please you,” &c.11Q1190

Note return to page 183 10109164P. 203. The drollery of Beatrice's description of the difference between “wooing, wedding, and repenting” is much injured by the omission of a pun just at the conclusion— “The first suit (she says) is hot and hasty, like a Scotch jig, and full as fantastical; the wedding, mannerly, modest, as a measure, full of state and ancientry; and then comes repentance, and with his bad legs falls into the cinque-pace faster and faster, 'till he sink a pace into his grave.” The words in Italics are left out in the printed copy, but are added in manuscript in the margin of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 184 10109165P. 204. It is just worth observation that the corrector of the folio, 1632, altered love of the folios to “Jove” of the quarto.

Note return to page 185 10109166P. 206. The last line of Claudio's soliloquy is redundant in measure, by the use of “therefore” instead of then: the corrected folio, 1632, has the line “Which I mistrusted not. Farewell, then, Hero.”

Note return to page 186 10109167P. 207. In the folio, 1632, there are two decided errors of the press in Benedick's soliloquy, where “fowl” is misprinted soul, and “yea” you: both are remedied in manuscript. They do not exist in the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 187 10109168P. 208. It was proposed by Johnson, in Benedick's long speech to the Prince against Beatrice, to read importable, for “impossible” (of all the printed editions) in the sense of unbearable, insupportable; and “impossible” is converted into importable by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Three lines lower her is properly inserted before “terminations;” but the change made in the next sentence of lent for “left” is of more consequence and quite as evidently right:—“I would not marry her (he exclaims) though she were endowed with all that Adam had lent him before he transgressed.” Adam was endowed with every thing “before he transgressed” and Benedick is referring to his state of perfection. The folio, 1623, has also the blunder of “left” for lent.

Note return to page 188 10109169P. 209. The folios give the latter part of the speech of Beatrice thus—“But civil, Count, civil as an orange, and something of a jealous complexion.” The 4to, 1600, has “of that jealous complexion;” but the corrector of the folio, 1632, reads “something of as jealous a complexion,” which affords exactly the same point, and seems to prove that he was not guided by the old 4to.

Note return to page 189 10109170P. 213. In Borachio's statement of the mode in which he would proceed in tainting the character of Hero, he tells John the Bastard, that if he will bring the Prince and Claudio at night, they shall hear Margaret, disguised as Hero, “term me Claudio,” which must be an error, as Claudio was to be one of the spectators. For “Claudio” Theobald wished to substitute Borachio, in order to remove the difficulty, and the abridgment of the name of Borachio is inserted in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, proving that Theobald was not mistaken.

Note return to page 190 10109171P. 214. The word “truths” of the folios ought to be proofs, where Borachio says, “There shall appear such seeming truths of Hero's disloyalty.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, has it, “There shall appear such seeming proofs of Hero's disloyalty,” which is unquestionably what is meant.

Note return to page 191 10109172P. 215. For “orthography” of the folios, modern editors have “orthographer,” and in this change they are supported by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632. Stage-directions in this scene, so necessary to the intelligibility of it, are omitted in the old printed copies. When Benedick enters, we are told in manuscript in the folio, 1632, that he has his Boy following; and when at the end of his speech, with the words “I will hide me in the arbour,” he withdraws, as Malone expresses it, the corrector of the folio, 1632, has added Retires behind the trees. The name of “Jack Wilson” (who did not sing the song when the folio, 1632, was corrected) is struck out, and Balthazar's entrance is marked in the proper place. When Benedick afterwards comes from his ambush, nothing is said in the printed folios to indicate the fact; but Forward, meaning that he advanced to the front of the stage, is written in the margin of the folio, 1632. Against his speeches to himself, while he is concealed, is written Behind; so that we here see exactly the mode in which the rather complicated business of the scene was anciently conducted.

Note return to page 192 10109173P. 217. The second verse of Balthazar's song is thus altered in manuscript in the folio, 1632. “Sing no more ditties, sing no mo,   Or dumps so dull and heavy; The frauds of men were ever so   Since summer first was leafy.” It seems right thus to distinguish between ditties and dumps, apparently two distinct species of composition; and the third line is evidently improved by putting “frauds,” like the verb it governs, in the plural: the usual mode of printing it has been, “The fraud of men was ever so.”

Note return to page 193 10109174P. 219. The difference is not very material, but the meaning is heightened by the addition of the word full at the close of the speech of Leonato, “there will she set in her smock, till she have writ a sheet of paper full.” The sentence ends at “paper,” excepting in the manuscript of the corrector of the folio, 1632. Lower down Claudio has been made to say, “Then, down upon her knees she falls, weeps, sobs, beats her heart, tears her hair, prays, curses;—O sweet Benedick! God give me patience.” For “curses” the corrector of the folio, 1632, substitutes cries; and we are hardly to suppose that Beatrice utters “curses” at all, but especially at the very moment when she exclaims, “O, sweet Benedick!” and when she “prays” that God would “give her patience.” For “It were an alms to hang him,” put into the mouth of Don Pedro, the corrected folio has, “It were an alms deed to hang him,” such being the usual expression.

Note return to page 194 10109175P. 222. The force of Beatrice's speech is considerably increased by the insertion of a negative. Benedick asks Beatrice whether she takes pleasure in the message to him? and she answers, as the passage has always been printed, “Yea, just so much as you may take upon a knife's point, and choke a daw withal.” The corrected folio, 1632, tells us that the pleasure to which Beatrice acknowledged was so little that it might be taken on a knife's point “and not choke a daw withal:” it was not enough even to choke a daw.

Note return to page 195 10109176P. 223. “Enter Beatrice stealing in behind” is the expressive stage-direction in the corrected folio, 1632, and the scene is conducted much in the same way as the preceding, in which the same trick is played upon Benedick. When Hero and Ursula are to talk loud in praise of Benedick, in order that Beatrice may overhear them, that word is inserted in the margin.

Note return to page 196 10109177P. 225. Ursula asks Hero, when she is to be married, and the unintelligible answer is, “Why, every day;—to-morrow:” the correction of the folio, 1632, has made it quite clear by setting right a misprint: there Hero replies, “Why, in a day, —to-morrow.”

Note return to page 197 10109178P. 226. There is a curious misrepresentation of the poet's language in Beatrice's soliloquy, on coming forward after lying concealed in the “woodbine coverture.” It begins, “What fire is in mine ears? Can this be true?   Stand I condemn'd for pride and scorn so much? Contempt, farewell! and, maiden pride, adieu!   No glory lives behind the back of such.” Nobody has explained what is meant by the words “behind the back of such,” nor need we inquire into it, since they are merely one of the perversions arising out of the mishearing of the scribe of the copy of the play used by the printer: the real words of the fourth line appear to be “No glory lives but in the lack of such;” that is to say, no maiden can expect to triumph or glory in any love enterprise, who is afflicted with pride, scorn, and contempt: let her want, or lack them, and she may attain the object of her wishes. The sound of “behind the back,” and of “but in the lack” is not so dissimilar, that we cannot account for the blunder, on the supposition that the copyist wrote from what was read, or possibly recited to him.

Note return to page 198 10109179P. 243. Pope altered Claudio's exclamation as it stands in the old copies, “Out on thee seeming!” to “Out on thy seeming!” The corrector of the folio, 1632, supports the change by converting “thee” into thy. For “That rage in savage sensuality,” he substitutes, “That range in savage sensuality;” which does not seem a necessary emendation, any more than his change of wild into “wide” in the next line.

Note return to page 199 10109180P. 246. Two important mistakes are made in Leonato's speech on the supposed detection of Hero: the father wishes her to die, rather than survive the imputation cast upon her, and tells her, according to the folio, 1623, “For did I think thou would'st not quickly die, Thought I thy spirits were stronger than thy shames, Myself would on the reward of reproaches Strike at thy life. Griev'd I, I had but one? Chid I for that at frugal nature's frame?” The folio, 1632, has rearward for “reward,” and makes no other change; but what appears to be the true reading? We have it among the manuscript-corrections of the second folio, “Myself would, on the hazard of reproaches, Strike at thy life;” or at the risk of the reproaches that would follow such a deed: and afterwards “Griev'd I, I had but one? Chid I for that at frugal nature's frown?” that is to say, Did I complain of the frown of frugal nature, which forbade my having more than one daughter? “Chid I for that a frugal nature's frame,” puzzled the commentators, and they endeavour to reconcile us to the word “frame” in various ways; but they never seem to have supposed, as now appears to be the case, that “frame” had been misprinted for frowne. There is a still more injurious representation of Shakespeare's language in the last line of the same speech:— “O! she is fallen Into a pit of ink, that the wide sea Hath drops too few to wash her clean again, And salt too little, which may season give To her foul tainted flesh!” This has been the universal reading, upon which Steevens remarks that “the same metaphor from the kitchen” occurs in “Twelfth Night.” This “metaphor from the kitchen” has entirely arisen out of the ordinary error of mistaking the f and the long s; for the correction in the margin of the folio, 1632, shows that Shakespeare had no notion of the kind, and instead of using such commonplace epithets as “foul” and “tainted,” that he employed one of his noblest compounds,—soul-tainted,— “And salt too little, which may season give To her soul-tainted flesh.” Hero's flesh was tainted to the soul by the accusation just made against her.

Note return to page 200 10109181P. 247. The old printer was peculiarly unfortunate in this great scene: in the third line of the Friar's speech “And given way unto this course of fortune,” ought to be, in allusion to the unexpected charge against Hero, which had altered Claudio's purpose, “And given way unto this cross of fortune.” But the last line is still worse, where the Friar, after maintaining from circumstances that Hero had been unjustly accused, says, “Trust not my age, My reverence, calling, nor divinity, If this sweet lady lie not guiltless here Under some biting error.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that this passage should certainly run thus:— “Trust not my age, My reverend calling, nor divinity, If this sweet lady lie not guiltless here Under some blighting error.” To show in what a brief, but still intelligible, way the corrector of the folio, 1632, made his alterations, we may notice that, blighting being mis-printed “biting” in the old copies, he did nothing more than add the letter l after the letter b, leaving the rest of the letters to be understood.

Note return to page 201 10109182P. 248. Further on we meet with two other blunders of the same kind, though perhaps not of so much importance—one of them in a line which has been quoted by Steevens to justify the use of “frame” in a former passage:— “Whose spirits toil in frame of villainies.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1732, changes “frame of” to fraud and— “Whose spirits toil in fraud of villainies.” which seems a much more easy and natural expression than “frame of villainies;” but in this way the commentators have sometimes vindicated one corruption by another. At the same time, it must be admitted that “in frame of villainies,” may mean in the fabrication of villainies. More doubt may be entertained as to the next, real or supposed, error of the press: it is in Leonato's indignant speech, where this couplet occurs: “But they shall find, awak'd in such a kind, Both strength of limb and policy of mind.” Now, independently of the consideration, which perhaps deserves little weight, that a grieved and infuriated father would not be disposed to rhyme under such circumstances, it will be observed that “find,” also rhyming to “kind” and “mind,” is met with in the first of the two lines: —neither is “kind” very well fitted to the place where it occurs. On the whole, we may feel willing to adopt the emendation of the corrector of the folio, 1632, when he reads, “But they shall find, awak'd in such a cause, Both strength of limb and policy of mind.” The “cause” in which his strength, and policy, were to be awaked, was, of course, that of his daughter, should it turn out that she had been traduced. The taste of the corrector may here have come in aid of such a change.

Note return to page 202 10109183P. 249. To show the minuteness of the criticism of the manuscript-corrector we may advert to a mere transposition (but still triflingly affecting the sense), which he makes in the Friar's speech, where he remarks, “That what we have we prize not to the worth Whiles we enjoy it, but being lack'd and lost, Why, then we rack the value.” Now, as a thing would probably not be “lacked” till after it had been “lost,” the corrector changed the position of the words and read “lost and lack'd,” which might be the order in which the words came from Shakespeare's pen.

Note return to page 203 10109184P. 252. In this comic scene, in the old copies, great confusion prevails in the prefixes of the various speeches. The names of the actors, such as Kemp, Cowley, and Andrew, are put instead of those of the characters they sustained, and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, perhaps did not think it necessary to set them right. Dispute has arisen as to the mode of dividing a part of the dialogue, obviously misprinted in other respects: in the folios it stands as follows:— “Const. Come, let them be opinioned. Sex. Let them be in the hands of Coxscomb. Kem. Gods my life, where's the Sexton?” &c. This has been distributed in different ways, into which it is not necessary to enter, but we will subjoin the manner in which it is corrected in manuscript in the folio, 1632:— “Const. Come, let them be opinioned. Sexton. Let them be bound. Borachio. Hands off, coxcomb.”

Note return to page 204 10109185P. 255. When Dogberry, to show his importance, says that he is “a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses,” it has naturally puzzled some persons to see how his losses could tend to establish that he was rich. Here, in truth, we have another misprint: leases was often spelt of old —leasses, and this is the origin of the blunder; for, according to the corrector of the folio, 1632, we ought to read, “a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had leases.” To have been the owner of leases might very well prove that Dogberry was “a rich fellow enough.”

Note return to page 205 10109186P. 256. The defective line, “And bid him speak of patience,” Ritson, who had no very good ear, but who was nevertheless right in this instance, recommends should be thus printed:— “And bid him speak to me of patience.” The addition is obvious enough, and it is made by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Few passages have produced more contention and doubt than this line, as it is given in the first and other folios, “And sorrow, wag! cry hem, when he should groan.” Leonato is telling his brother, that his grief is beyond all example, and that he can never be comforted, until he shall meet with a man, suffering under equal calamities, who can defy his misfortunes, “If such a one will smile, and stroke his beard; And sorrow, wag! cry hem, when he should groan,” &c. The corrector of the folio, 1632, shows that, “And sorrow wag,” was a misprint for “Call sorrow joy,” so that he reads,— “If such a one will smile, and stroke his beard; Call sorrow joy; cry hem, when he should groan; Patch grief with proverbs; make misfortune drunk With candle-wasters; bring him you to me, And I of him will gather patience.” This seems to be as good a solution as we are likely to obtain: the difficulty is to account for the misprint.

Note return to page 206 10109187P. 261. Boiled calf's head and capers was formerly not an unusual dish; and when Claudio tells Don Pedro, that Benedick hath “bid him to a calf's head and a capon,” the corrector of the folio, 1632, marks it as an error of the press, and alters it to “calf's head and capers.” Claudio means to joke upon the challenge that he had received.

Note return to page 207 10109188P. 262. For the scriptural allusion, in the words “God saw him, when he was hid in the garden,” the corrector puts it as a question, “Who saw him, when he was hid in the garden?” It seems likely that the speech was so amended, in consequence of the increased prevalence of puritanism soon after the date when the folio, 1632, was published. We shall have to notice other changes of the same kind and, perhaps, for the same reason hereafter.

Note return to page 208 10109189P. 265. According to the folio, 1623, Leonato says to Claudio,— “I cannot bid you bid my daughter live.” The folio, 1632, in its uncorrected state, gives it,— “I cannot bid you daughter live;” and the manuscript-corrector of that impression tells us that the line should be,— “I cannot bid you cause my daughter live.” It is impossible now to know from what source this euphonious emendation was derived.

Note return to page 209 10109190P. 271. The following is the “Song” as it is found corrected in the folio, 1632:—   “Pardon, goddess of the night,   Those that slew thy virgin bright,   For the which, with songs of woe,   Round about her tomb we go. Midnight, assist our moan; help us to sigh and groan     Heavily, heavily,   Graves yawn and yield your dead   Till death be uttered,     Heavily, heavily.” Thus we see virgin bright for “virgin knight;” we go for “they go;” and Heavily, heavily, in the last instance, for “Heavenly, heavenly.” There was a well-known tune of “Heavily, heavily,” and probably the above was sung to it. (See British Bibliographer, ii. 560.) It will be remarked that the rest of this scene is in rhyme, with the exception of these two lines:— “Thanks to you all, and leave us: fare you well. Good morrow, masters: each his several way.” Probably this couplet also rhymed as the play was originally written, and the corrector of the folio, 1632, shows how slight a change was necessary to restore the jingle,— “Good morrow, masters: each his way can tell.”

Note return to page 210 10109191P. 272. Leonato desires his daughter, his niece, and Ursula to withdraw, and to return to the scene “masked.” Such was, no doubt, the course when this comedy was originally produced, about the year 1599; but it should seem that in the time of the corrector of the folio, 1632, it was the practice for the ladies to enter veiled, when Claudio was expecting to be married to the niece, and not to the daughter of Leonato. Therefore, when Antonio enters with the ladies (p. 274), we are told, in a manuscript stage-direction, that they are veiled; and when Hero, and subsequently Beatrice, discover themselves, unveil is in both instances written in the margin. In the interval between the first acting of “Much Ado about Nothing,” and the reprinting of it in the folio, 1632, the fashion of wearing masks had perhaps declined among ladies, and for that reason veils may have been substituted for masks in the performance.

Note return to page 211 10109192P. 274. When Hero unveils, Claudio can hardly believe his eyes, but the lady re-assures him by saying, according to the folios,— “One Hero died, but I do live;” which is a defective verse, and the quarto, 1600, has the line thus:— “One Hero died defil'd, but I do live.” Now, it is most unlikely that Hero should herself tell Claudio that she had been “defiled,” and the word supplied by the corrector of the folio, 1632, seems on all accounts much preferable:— “One hero died belied, but I do live.” Here we see the lady naturally denying her guilt, and attributing her death to the slander thrown upon her. Shakespeare's word must have been belied, and the mishearing of it may have led to the insertion of “defiled” in the 4to, 1600. The editor of the folio, 1623, perhaps purposely omitted defiled on account of its unfitness.11Q1191

Note return to page 212 10109193P. 275. Sir Thomas Hanmer conjecturally added for in the subsequent line to the improvement of the metre,— “Have been deceived; for they swore you did.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, takes precisely the same course, and in the few succeeding lines makes changes clearly recommended by the greater accuracy of the verse and language. We transcribe them as they stand in manuscript, but it is not necessary to accompany them by the text as ordinarily represented, and we have printed the added or altered words in italics:— “Bene. Why then your uncle, and the prince, and Claudio Have been deceived; for they swore you did. Beat. Do not you love me? Bene. Troth, no more than reason. Beat. Why then, my cousin Margaret and Ursula Are much deceived, for they swore you did. Bene. They swore that you were almost sick for me. Beat. They swore that you were well-nigh dead for me. Bene. It is no matter.—Then, you do not love me. Beat. No truly, but in friendly recompence.” Here the halting measure of the lines, as contained in all the folios is set right, and the effect of the retorts much increased by the adoption by each party of precisely the same forms of expression.11Q1192

Note return to page 213 10109194P. 276. The old editions assign “Peace! I will stop your mouth” to Leonato; but most modern editors, following the example of Theobald, have transferred it to Benedick. So does the corrector of the folio, 1632. After the word “Dance,” at the very conclusion of the play, the manuscript-corrector has added of all the actors, to show that every person on the stage joined in it. Perhaps it might have been guessed from what is said, without this information.

Note return to page 214 10109195P. 285. Theobald judiciously proposed to alter the line,— “When I to fast expressly am forbid,” as follows:— “When I to feast expressly am forbid.” The same change was made in manuscript by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Lower down, that edition has,— “Light, seeking light, doth light beguile;” evidently defective in sense and measure, and the corrector, by inserting “of light” in the margin, makes the passage run as in the folio, 1623,— “Light, seeking light, doth light of light beguile;” which of course is the true reading.

Note return to page 215 10109196P. 287. The folio, 1623, presents us with this passage:— “So you to study now it is too late, That were to climb o'er the house to unlock the gate.” This text the folio, 1632, adopted, excepting that it has t'unlock for “to unlock.” The quarto, 1598, had previously printed the couplet thus:— “So you to study now it is too late, Climb o'er the house to unlock the little gate.” Finally, we present it as it appears in the folio, 1632, corrected in manuscript, which seems preferable to the other authorities:— “So you, by study now it is too late, Climb o'er the house-top to unlock the gate.” Five lines lower we meet in the folio, 1623, with,— “Yet, confident, I'll keep what I have sworne;” which is exactly copied from the quarto, 1598. The editor of the folio, 1632, seeing that a rhyme was intended, printed the line,— “Yet confident I'll keep what I have swore;” But the manuscript-corrector of that impression gives us what Shakespeare wrote, which preserves the rhyme, and at the same time avoids the vulgarism:— “Yet confident I'll keep to what I swore.” We come to a more important emendation lower down, where Biron reads the decree “that no woman shall come within a mile” of the court, “on pain of losing her tongue.” This Longaville declares, according to all editions, to be “A dangerous law against gentility;” the corrector of the folio, 1632, tells us to read,— “A dangerous law against garrulity.” The two words were easily confounded, but the latter certainly affords the clearer, the stronger, and the more humorous meaning.

Note return to page 216 10109197P. 288. All the folios have,— “If I break faith, this word shall break for me;” which must be wrong, and speak has usually been placed instead of “break” in the second instance; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that the true word is plead:— “If I break faith, this word shall plead for me.”

Note return to page 217 10109198P. 289. The King describes Armado as “A refined traveller of Spain, A man in all the world's new fashion planted.” The folio, 1632, has it thus:— “A man in all the world new fashion planted.” Planted yields but a poor sense, and the manuscript-corrector of that edition reads,— “A man in all the world-new fashions flaunted.” That is, a man flaunted, or decked out, in all the world-new fashions. Shakespeare elsewhere uses the substantive, “flaunts,” but not the verb.

Note return to page 218 10109199P. 290. Theobald congratulated himself on the change of “heaven” to having in this passage, “A high hope for a low heaven: God grant us patience!” He was most likely wrong. The subject of conversation is “a letter from the magnificent Armado” just brought in by Costard, upon which Biron observes, “How low soever the matter, I hope in God for high words.” Longaville's reply has reference to these “high words,” and the corrector of the folio, 1632, says that we ought to erase “heaven” for hearing:— “A high hope for a low hearing: God grant us patience!” What Biron adds seems consequent upon it, when he asks whether the patience prayed for is to be granted, “to hear, or to forbear hearing.” Four lines below, the manuscript-corrector has altered “clime in the merriness” of the old copies, to “chime in in the merriness,” in allusion to the laughable contents expected in Armado's letter, “in the merriness” of which the King and his companions hope to “chime in,” or participate.

Note return to page 219 10109200P. 291. The words of Armado's letter, “that shallow vassal,” appear always to have been misprinted, and the context, as well as the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, require us to alter it to “that shallow vessel.” The connecting words are “that unlettered small-knowing soul, that shallow vessel, which, as I remember, hight Costard,” &c.

Note return to page 220 10109201P. 293. “Sirrah, come on,” has uniformly been assigned to Biron; but it seems more properly to belong to the Constable, who had Costard in custody, and to him they are given by the corrector of the folio, 1632. He also, five lines below, inserts thee in the proverbial sentence, “Set thee down, sorrow,” as it stands in the quarto, 1598, and as it occurs again, Act IV. Scene III. p. 331, where Biron exclaims, “Well, set thee down, sorrow!” The same proverb was most likely quoted in the same words in both places.

Note return to page 221 10109202P. 296. When Moth apostrophises, “My father's wit, and my mother's tongue, assist me!” Armado, in foolish admiration, breaks out, “Sweet invocation of a child! most pretty and most pathetical!” Thus it is given in all editions; but the old corrector changes “pathetical” into poetical, in reference to the boy's poetical “invocation.” Yet he allows “pathetical” to remain in the text in Act IV. Scene I. (p. 324), where Costard terms Moth “a most pathetical nit.” The word occurs in “As you like it,” Act IV. Scene II. (p. 77), where Rosalind tells Orlando that if he “come one minute behind his hour” she will consider him a “most pathetical break-promise;” but there no reason existed for making any correction.

Note return to page 222 10109203P. 299. When Armado, relinquishing arms for love, exclaims, “Adieu, valour! rust, rapier! be still, drum! for your manager is in love,” nobody has made a note upon the uncouth word “manager” so applied. The corrector of the folio, 1632, shows it to have been an error of the printer, or of the scribe, for a much more appropriate and expressive term, which, perhaps, they did not understand, armiger—“Adieu, valour! rust, rapier! be still, drum, for your armiger is in love.” This emendation is followed by another, two lines lower, where the old copies have “Assist me some extemporal god of rhyme, for, I am sure, I shall turn sonnet.” For sonnet, which, so used, is little better than nonsense, the proposed reading is sonnet-maker, as ballad-maker, song-maker, &c., “for, I am sure, I shall turn sonnet-maker.” The usual word has been sonnetteer, which would answer the purpose, if it were in use at the time. The form of the word at that date and earlier would rather have been sonnetter, like enginer, mutiner, &c.

Note return to page 223 10109204P. 300. Steevens has appended a note to the line,— “Now, madam, summon up your dearest spirits,” in which he observes, that “Dear, in our author's language, has many shades of meaning: in the present instance and the next, it appears to signify, best, most powerful.” The fact is (if we may trust the corrector of the folio, 1632) that “dearest” was a misprint for clearest; and it is easy to see how cl might be mistaken for d. He gives the line:— “Now, madam, summon up your clearest spirits;” that is, her brightest and purest spirits, that the Princess might adequately discharge the important embassy entrusted to her by her father.

Note return to page 224 10109205P. 306. All the folios have a decided corruption in the line,— “Though so denied farther harbour in my house,” which has commonly been printed with fair for “farther.” This may be right, but the manuscript-corrector inserts perhaps a better word in his margin:— “Though so denied free harbour in my house:” alluding to the refusal to the Princess of the unrestrained rights of hospitality in the King's palace.

Note return to page 225 10109206P. 306. In the short snip-snap dialogue between Rosaline and Biron, the prefixes to the speeches of the latter are always wrong, as if Boyet had been engaged with the lady in the wit-contest. The corrector of the folio, 1632, puts them right, in consistency with the quarto, 1598.

Note return to page 226 10109207P. 309. In the folios this Act commences thus:— “Enter Braggart and Boy. Song. Brag. Warble, child: make passionate my sense of hearing. Boy. Concolinel. Brag. Sweet air! Go, tenderness of years,” &c. Hence we may gather that the scene opens while the Boy is singing, and that Armado (called Braggart), delighted with the music, requires more, upon which the boy commences an Italian song, the first words of which are Con Colinel. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, inserts the first words both of the English and of the Italian song, See my love, being the first, and Amato (which he spells armato) bene, the second. This circumstance may lead to the detection of them in some of our ancient collections of musical airs. Possibly, if not probably, Con Colinel was not the same as what in manuscript is called Amato bene, and it may, in the time of the corrector, have been substituted, the air of Con Colinel having gone out of fashion. Any scrap of information regarding the songs written or introduced by Shakespeare is highly interesting.

Note return to page 227 10109208P. 310. After the Page's dissertation on the mode of “betraying nice wenches,” Armado asks,— “How hast thou purchas'd this experience?” and the answer is, as it stands printed in the old copies,— “By my penne of observation.” Sir Thomas Hanmer altered “penne” to penny, and Farmer and Ritson say that it alludes to a tract called “The Penny-worth of Wit.” The manuscript-corrector entertained an entirely different notion: he tells us, as seems not at all unlikely, that paine (so spelt of old) was misprinted “penne;” and this is the more probable, because the letter y at the end of penny would hardly have been converted into e. The true answer would therefore be, when Armado inquires how the Boy had procured his knowledge?— “By my pain of observation,” or by the pains he had taken in observing the characters of men and women. What most militates against this alteration is the figurative use of the word “purchased,” for obtained, by Armado.

Note return to page 228 10109209P. 311. For “a message well sympathised” we ought unquestionably to substitute “a messenger well sympathised.” Costard was to be the messenger, not the message. “Message” is altered to “messenger” in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632.

Note return to page 229 10109210P. 312. There are two emendations in Armado's soliloquy, after his Page has gone out to fetch Costard, one of them denoting a strange corruption which has crept into the text from the earliest date, and in all impressions. The lines have been universally printed as follows:— “A most acute juvenal; voluble and free of grace! By thy favour, sweet welkin, I must sigh in thy face: Most rude melancholy, valour gives thee place.” In the corrected folio, 1632, they are made to run:— “A most acute juvenal; voluble and fair of grace! By thy favour, sweet welkin, I must sigh in thy face: Moist-eyed melancholy, valour gives thee place.” “Fair of grace” is good-looking, whereas “free of grace” means little more than had been already said by the epithet voluble. “Most rude melancholy” has no particular appropriateness, whereas “moist-eyed melancholy” is peculiarly accordant with the sighs Armado breathes, with due apology, in the face of the welkin. It may be enough to say with reference to Costard's speech, a few lines below, that the manuscript-corrector completely justifies Tyrwhitt's emendation “no salve in them all.”

Note return to page 230 10109211P. 313. The last line of the Page's Lenvoy is this in the manuscript-corrected folio, 1632:— “Staying the odds by making four,” instead of “adding four:” to add four would not have “stayed the odds.” The next line is thus divided between Armado and the Page in the corrected folio, whereas in all editions it is made to belong to the Page only:— “Arm. A good Lenvoy! Page. Ending in goose, would you desire more?” This change gives greater pungency to the dialogue, and makes Armado's position more ridiculous.

Note return to page 231 10109212P. 314. A point has been wholly lost by the omission of a word supplied by the manuscript-corrector. The ordinary, indeed the only, text has been this:— “Armado. Sirrah Costard, I will enfranchise thee. Costard. O! marry me to one Frances?” &c. This is unintelligible, for how could Costard imagine that Armado meant “to marry him to one Frances” or to any body else by merely saying to him, “I will enfranchise thee?” What Armado says is,— “Sirrah Costard, marry, I will enfranchise thee;” to which Costard's blundering answer applies naturally enough, “O! marry me to one Frances?” &c. Just afterwards, for the incomplete expression of Armado, “I will give thee thy liberty, set thee from durance,” the manuscript-corrector gives “set thee free from durance,” the omission by the printer having been caused, no doubt, by the words “thee” and “free” following each other immediately.

Note return to page 232 10109213P. 317. What has usually been printed,— “A whitely wanton with a velvet brow,” the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, converts into “a witty wanton,” the true word, in reference to Rosaline's talents, and certainly not to her complexion, which we are over and over again told is dark. The word is whitly in the old copies, and is a mere error of the press. We must therefore certainly read,— “A witty wanton with a velvet brow.”

Note return to page 233 10109214P. 319. The Princess good-humouredly rebukes the Forester for flattering her, and exclaims,— “O, heresy in fair, fit for these days! A giving hand, though foul, shall have fair praise.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, has it,— “O, heresy in faith, fit for these days!” which is probably right, although Shakespeare, like many other poets of his time, uses “fair” for fairness or beauty.

Note return to page 234 10109215P. 324. Costard speaks a soliloquy in rhyme at the close of this scene, one line in which is wanting, as is evident from the corresponding line, and from the insertion of the addition, though in a wrong place, by the corrector of the folio, 1632. He perhaps intended to write it in the blank space nearest to where it ought to come in, but he has written it in another blank space above it, and has drawn a mark with his pen to the spot where it is wanted. The whole passage is this, and the line in manuscript we have printed in italics:— “Armado o' the one side,—O, a most dainty man! To see him walk before a lady, and to bear her fan! To see him kiss his hand! and how most sweetly a' will swear! Looking babies in her eyes, his passion to declare; And his page o' t' other side, that handful of small wit! Ah heavens, it is a most pathetical nit!” Besides the entire line, which escaped the printer or the copyist of the drama, the word small was also left out.

Note return to page 235 10109216P. 324. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has made Act IV. commence with this scene; but improperly, because Holofernes, Sir Nathaniel, and Dull enter on the exit of Costard, so that there is, in fact, no change of place, which usually constitutes the division.

Note return to page 236 10109217P. 325. Part of Sir Nathaniel's speech is in rhyme, and part in prose, and there can be little doubt that the whole of it was originally in irregular jingling verse: the corrector of the folio, 1632, shows that some words, necessary to it, had been lost, though he evidently does not supply all that is wanting. Sir Nathaniel's first line rhymes to what Holofernes had said,— “O, thou monster ignorance, how deformed dost thou look!” Nath. Sir, he hath never fed of the dainties that are bred in a book. He hath not eat paper, as it were, he hath not drunk ink: His intellect is not replenished; he is only an animal, not to think; Only sensible in the duller parts, and such barren plants Are set before us that we thankful should be, Which we, having taste and feeling, are for those parts that do fructify in us more than he: For as it would ill become me to be vain, indiscreet, or a fool, So were a patch set on learning, to set him in a school,” &c. It is not possible to put the whole right, but the old corrector's contributions towards the original text are printed above in italics: how it happened that he could add so much, and not be able to furnish the rest, is a point we do not pretend to explain. The sense is a little obscure; and as far as jingle is concerned, the line ending with “plants” has nothing to rhyme with it.

Note return to page 237 10109218P. 329. The characters of Holofernes (usually called the Pedant in the old prefixes) and of Sir Nathaniel are much confused in this scene; it may be sufficient to state that the speech “Here are only numbers ratified,” &c., is given to Holofernes; but Theobald's apparently excellent emendation of imitari for “imitary” of the old copies is not countenanced by the corrector of the folio, 1632, who, instead of “imitary is nothing,” reads, “imitating is nothing,” meaning that there is no merit in mere imitation. For “tired horse” he reads “trained horse,” which affords a clearer and less dubitable meaning.

Note return to page 238 10109219P. 331. The manuscript stage-directions11Q1193 in this scene, inserted in manuscript in the folio, 1632, are extremely minute, and the King cannot enter with “Ay me!” but we are informed in the margin that he sighs. When, at this juncture, Biron conceals himself, the printed stage-direction is only He stands aside, but that is obliterated, and He gets him in a tree is put in its place in manuscript. When, too, Biron interposes some remark to himself, it is added that he is in the tree, and when he descends to detect his companions, Come down is inscribed in the margin. As each character retires or advances on the stage, information of it is duly given, so that the whole business and conduct of the scene are clearly explained.

Note return to page 239 10109220P. 332. Two transpositions, one of them of some moment, are pointed out by the manuscript-corrector: the first occurs in the fourth line, where “night of dew” (strangely justified by Steevens) is altered to dew of night: the second instance is only thou dost for “dost thou,” in the fifteenth line of the King's sonnet.

Note return to page 240 10109221P. 333. A question has been agitated, whether, when Biron says, aside, in the old copies,— “O, rhymes are guards on wanton Cupid's hose; Disfigure not his shop,” we ought to read shape or slop. Theobald was in favour of slop, and his conjecture is confirmed by the corrector of the folio, 1632, who erases the h in the text, and inserts l.

Note return to page 241 10109222P. 334. The old reading of quarto and folios,— “By earth, she is not corporal: there you lie,” has also created dispute. Malone and other modern editors have usually adopted Theobald's alteration, “By earth, she is but corporal.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, substitutes most for not, “By earth she is most corporal,” which affords a still stronger contradiction to Dumaine.

Note return to page 242 10109223P. 336. Steevens contended that the line in Dumaine's “Sonnet,”— “Thou for whom Jove would swear,” was defective, and wished to read, with Pope,— “Thou for whom ev'n Jove would swear;” while Malone absurdly insisted that “swear” was to be read as a dissyllable. The corrector of the folio, 1632, treats the line as if it wanted a syllable, and gives it,— “Thou for whom great Jove would swear,” the word great having dropped out in the press. After Dumaine has read his poem, he says, in all editions,— “This will I send, and something else more plain, That shall express my true love's fasting pain.” Here we see nearly the same error pointed out by the old corrector which we also find set right in “Hamlet” (Vol. vii. p. 222), “fasting” for lasting, although Johnson thought that “fasting” might here be taken as longing, hungry.

Note return to page 243 10109224P. 338. When Jaquenetta and the Clown enter with Biron's letter, the King, according to all copies of the play, asks them,— “What present hast thou there?” when he had no reason whatever to think that they had brought any “present.” The mistake has been the printing of “present” for peasant, “What, peasant, hast thou there?” Costard was a clown or peasant, and is so addressed by the King. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, points out the blunder.

Note return to page 244 10109225P. 341. Biron having pronounced a eulogium upon the dark complexion of Rosaline, is laughed at by the King and his other companions:— “O, paradox! Black is the badge of hell, The hue of dungeons and the school of night,” This, the reading of the old copies, is evidently nonsense, and the corrected folio, 1632, contains the last line in this form:— “The hue of dungeons and the shade of night,” which is possibly the true reading, and not “scowl of night,” which has been generally adopted.

Note return to page 245 10109226P. 342. Nobody has suspected a misprint where one certainly occurs: it is in the passage,— “For where is any author in the world Teaches such beauty as a woman's eye?” The misprint is in the word “beauty,” which incontestably should be learning, “Teaches such learning as a woman's eye?” and it stands thus corrected in the folio, 1632. The whole tenor of Biron's argument proves that the change is necessary, for he proceeds:— “Learning is but an adjunct to ourself, And where we are our learning likewise is: Then, when ourselves we see in ladies' eyes, Do we not likewise see our learning there?” The hemistich, “With ourselves,” which in the quarto, 1598, and in the folio, 1623, precedes the last line, is omitted in the folio, 1632, and is not restored in manuscript, so that we are better warranted in treating it as an accidental and unnecessary interpolation.

Note return to page 246 10109227P. 344. The line, as it has always stood,— “And plant in tyrants mild humility,” according to the evidence of the old corrector should be,— “And plant in tyrants mild humanity;” an evident improvement, since tyrants are void rather of humanity than of “humility,” and the preceding line shows that the correction must be right. The next five lines are crossed out in the folio, 1632, three of them being nearly a repetition of what Biron had said in a previous part of his harangue to prove that oath-breach was lawful.

Note return to page 247 10109228P. 346. Theobald's conjecture that “infamie” of the old copies, near the close of the speech of Holofernes, ought to be insanie, is warranted by the corrector of the folio, 1632, excepting that he gives it in Latin, insania; but he adds to it a farther emendation, which clears the passage still more: he gives it—“This is abhominable, which we would call abominable: it insinuateth one of insania.” Thus one is substituted for me, which Farmer wished to change to men; while the blunder of “infamie” for insania was the result of the common mistake of reading f for the long s.

Note return to page 248 10109229P. 348. Armado asks Holofernes, “Do you not educate youth at the charge-house on the top of the mountain?” Steevens tells us that he “supposes the ‘charge-house’ means the free-school;” but neither he nor any other person has adduced a single instance to show that “charge-house” and free-school were synonymous. It appears that it was only a misprint for “large house,” for so the corrector of the folio, 1632, treats it.

Note return to page 249 10109230P. 350. To the stage-direction, “Enter Princess and Ladies,” the corrector of the folio, 1632, has added, with presents, in order to show that the performers displayed to the audience the various gifts they had accepted from the King and his companions.

Note return to page 250 10109231P. 351. When Rosaline says that she also has received laudatory verses, she is laughed at, and Katharine taunts her with being “Fair as a text B in a copy-book;” but there seems no reason to choosing the letter B; and the corrector, in reference to the first letter in Rosaline's name, alters it to,— “Fair as a text R in a copy-book.” The next four lines are erased, probably because they were not intelligible, or were inapplicable.

Note return to page 251 10109232P. 352. The commentators have been puzzled by the following line in the folio, 1623, which is repeated in the other folios:— “So pertaunt like would I o'ersway his state.” They at length agreed that it should be read “portent-like,” excepting Douce, who, somewhat at random, suggests scoffingly. It turns out that the disputed word (obviously not understood by any old editor or printer) is purely an error of the press. Rosaline thus alludes to the absolute power she would exercise over Biron, were she sure that he was unalterably attached to her:— “How would I make him fawn, and beg, and seek, And wait the season, and observe the times, And spend his prodigal wits in bootless rhymes, And shape his service wholly to my behests, And make him proud to make me proud with jests! So potently would I o'ersway his state, That he should be my fool, and I his fate.” The use of potently here can require no explanation; and it seems scarcely possible to doubt that it was the word of the poet, and for this reason it is placed in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632.

Note return to page 252 10109233P. 353. Boyet brings word of the intended attack upon the Princess and her Ladies by the King and his Lords:— “Arm, wenches, arm! encounters mounted are.” But it is not “encounters,” but encounterers that are “mounted,” and so the old corrector notes. Again, six lines lower, the Princess, in all ordinary editions, is made to ask,— “What are they That charge their breath against us?” “To charge their breath” is nonsense, and the corrector alters it, most naturally, to,— “What are they That charge the breach against us?” The Princess carrying on the joke of supposing that she and her Ladies are in a state of siege.

Note return to page 253 10109234P. 354. We do not feel so confident respecting the next emendation, at the end of Boyet's long account of the project he had overheard, the concoction of which had given such delight to the King and his merry companions: in fact they had laughed at it until they cried;— “That in this spleen ridiculous appears, To check their folly, passion's solemn tears.” “Solemn tears” may possibly be right; but we do not think it is, because the corrector of the folio, 1632, erases the word, and substitutes another in the margin, which certainly better answers the purpose:— “To check their folly, passion's sudden tears.” That is to say, they laughed until they suddenly burst out crying, and thus checked their folly. We are to recollect that, as the old spelling of “sudden” was usually sodaine, the mistake would be easily made. Five lines lower we arrive at a change which cannot be doubted, and again rendered necessary by the blunder of f for long s. Boyet says that the King and his Lords will come to court the Ladies as Muscovites, and the invariable text has been,— “And every one his love-feat will advance Unto his several mistress.” “Love-feat” could hardly be Shakespeare's word, and as amended by the corrector of the folio, 1632, the line reads thus unobjectionably:— “And every one his love-suit will advance Unto his several mistress.” The fitness of the alteration seems self-evident.

Note return to page 254 10109235P. 360. The King and his Lords are so derided, jeered, and flouted by the Princess and her Ladies, that they are compelled to make a precipitate retreat, Biron having admitted that they had all been “dry-beaten with pure scoff.” As soon as they are gone, the triumphant party burst out in expressions of joy and ridicule, and, among others, the Princess exclaims, as the line has always been printed,— “O, poverty in wit, kingly poor flout!” Of which readers have been left to make what sense they could. The old corrector clearly saw no sense in it, and has furnished us with other words so well qualified for the place that we cannot hesitate to approve of them. The enemy had been utterly routed and destroyed, and the Princess, in the excess of her delight, breaks out,— “O, poverty in wit! kill'd by pure flout!” meaning, of course, in consistency with what Biron had said of “pure scoff,” that the King and his companions, disguised as Muscovites, had been driven from the field by the mere mockery of the Ladies.

Note return to page 255 10109236P. 375. In the old editions, Costard makes his exit after the speech of the King, “Stand aside, good Pompey,” and, according to the corrector of the folio, 1632, he enters again after Armado has delivered the words, “This Hector far surmounted Hannibal,” the manuscript stage-direction being, Enter Costard in haste and unarmed: he is suddenly to bring word to Armado respecting the pregnancy of Jaquenetta, and afterwards to engage in his shirt in a conflict with the Spaniard, who turns out to be shirtless. Such was, doubtless, the manner in which this portion of the comedy was originally conducted, notwithstanding modern editors have needlessly and clumsily inserted a stage-direction, Biron whispers Costard, as if the latter had never left the scene. He had quitted it to disarm from his part of Pompey, and to convey the alarming tidings regarding Jaquenetta.

Note return to page 256 10109237P. 377. The emendation proposed by Theobald,— “A heavy heart bears not a nimble tongue,” instead of “an humble tongue” of the old impressions, is warranted by good sense, and by the change introduced by the corrector of the folio, 1632; but three lines lower, we come to a passage hitherto passed over, but which evidently requires the emendation which it has received from the same authority. The lines are commonly printed,— “The extreme parts of time extremely form All causes to the purpose of his speed.” The passage is corrupt, and the manuscript alteration made in the folio, 1632, thus sets it right, and renders the sense distinct: the Princess is on the point of hastily quitting Navarre, on the news of the death of her father, and the King observes,— “The extreme parting time expressly forms All causes to the purpose of his speed.” Another error occurs in the answer of the Princess to the request of the King, that she would not forget his love-suit: the reading has been,— “I understand you not: my griefs are double.” She did not understand him, because her sorrows had deadened her faculties, and the line, as we find from the manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, ought to be,— “I understand you not: my griefs are dull,” the copyist mishearing “double” for dull. Biron then takes up the subject, and when, among other things, he says,— “As love is full of unbefitting strains, As wanton as a child,” we ought to read strangeness for “strains,” which is quite consistent with what he adds just afterwards when he tells us that love is “Full of strange shapes, of habits, and of forms;” instead of “straying shapes,” as it is misprinted in the folios. Both these words are altered by the old corrector.11Q1194

Note return to page 257 10109238P. 378. It seems clear that Biron meant to conclude his address in rhyme, but it closes thus in all editions of the play:— “We to ourselves prove false, By being once false for ever to be true To those that make us both,—fair ladies, you: And even that falsehood, in itself a sin, Thus purifies itself, and turns to grace.” Read, with the corrector of the folio, 1632, and the sense is precisely the same, while the rhyme is restored,— “And even that falsehood, in itself so base, Thus purifies itself, and turns to grace.”

Note return to page 258 10109239P. 379. The six lines in all the old copies, which read only like an abridgment of the penance imposed afterwards by Rosaline on Biron, are expunged by the corrector of the folio, 1632, as a needless and injurious reduplication.

Note return to page 259 10109240P. 380. Rosaline tells Biron that he is “Full of comparisons and wounding flouts, Which you on all estates will execute.” “Will exercise” is the plausible manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 260 10109241P. 381. There can, we apprehend, be no doubt that, instead of the following,— “Then, if sickly ears, Deaf'd with the clamours of their own dear groans, Will hear your idle scorns, continue then, And I will have you and that fault withal,” we ought, with the old corrector, to read,— “Then, if sickly ears, Deaf'd with the clamours of their own dire groans, Will hear your idle scorns, continue them, And I will have you and that fault withal; But if they will not, throw away that spirit,” &c. Dire for “dear” and them for “then” are slight changes, but editors have hitherto been unwilling to make them in the face of the old impressions.

Note return to page 261 10109242P. 391. Rowe was the first editor who changed the old reading,— “And then the moon, like to a silver bow, Now bent in heaven,” to “new bent in heaven;” but the corrector of the folio, 1632, was of the same opinion as Rowe, although it is in vain to inquire whence he derived his knowledge.

Note return to page 262 10109243P. 392. By a very trifling emendation he makes Theseus end his speech with a couplet, which seems so naturally led to, that it is a wonder the alteration should never before have suggested itself:— “But I will wed thee in another key, With pomp, with triumph, and with revelry,” the common reading being “with revelling.” The old corrector also renders it quite clear that “Stand forth, Demetrius,” and “Stand forth, Lysander,” lower down in the same page, are parts of the speech of Egeus, and not mere stage-directions, as they are printed in the ancient editions in quarto and folio. The corrector placed carets where the words ought to come in, and drew a line from the carets to the words, adding in the margin directions for the performers to step forward. Still lower, he reads “stubborn hardness” for “stubborn harshness,” which is more in accordance with the rest of the sentence.

Note return to page 263 10109244P. 394. Capel's emendation,— “But earthly happier is the rose distilled,” which has been generally adopted since his time, is supported by a similar correction in the folio, 1632. The old reading is, “But earthlier happy,” &c.

Note return to page 264 10109245P. 396. We here meet with a confirmation of Theobald's change of “love” to low, in— “O cross! too high to be enthrall'd to low.” The line in the old copies, three lines farther down,— “Or else it stood upon the choice of merit,” is evidently misprinted, and friends has ordinarily been substituted for “merit;” but men, inserted in the margin by the corrector of the folio, 1632, is more likely to have been the real word misheard by the copyist:— “Or else it stood upon the choice of men.”

Note return to page 265 10109246P. 398. The corrector of the folio, 1632, gives the subsequent line differently from any other early authority, viz.— “His fault, fair Helena, is none of mine.” Fisher's quarto has it,— “His folly, Helena, is no fault of mine;” and Roberts' quarto and the folios,— “His folly, Helena, is none of mine.”

Note return to page 266 10109247P. 399. Near the end of Helena's speech occurs this couplet, where she is stating her determination to inform Demetrius of the intended flight of Lysander and Hermia:— “and for this intelligence, If I have thanks, it is a dear expense;” which is only just intelligible, but the old corrector singularly improves the passage by the word he substitutes:— “and for this intelligence, If I have thanks, it is dear recompense.” It cannot be doubted that the original reading is thus restored, although here, as in many other places, it is difficult to understand how the corruption crept into the text.

Note return to page 267 10109248P. 400. In the first scene of the actors of the burlesque tragedy of Pyramus and Thisbe, a question has arisen out of the words of the old copies, at the end of Bottom's second speech, “and so grow on to a point.” The expression has not been well understood, and it appears that, when the corrections in the folio, 1632, were made, it was deemed a misprint, and that the words ought to be, “and so go on to appoint;” that is, to appoint the different actors to their parts, which, in fact, is done immediately afterwards.

Note return to page 268 10109249P. 401. Bottom's declaration that if he play Pyramus, “let the audience look to their eyes; I will move storms,” is amended in manuscript in the folio, 1632, to “I will move stones;” and when the word was written “stormes,” it was not an unlikely blunder for a printer or scribe to make: either word will do.

Note return to page 269 10109250P. 403. The words, “Take pains; be perfect; adieu,” are given to Quince by the old corrector, as well as “At the Duke's oak we meet,” and they seem to belong to him, as the manager of the play, rather than to Bottom.11Q1195

Note return to page 270 10109251P. 404. The Fairy, soon after meeting Puck, says, speaking of Titania,— “The cowslips tall her pensioners be; In their gold coats spots you see: Those be rubies, fairy favours, In those freckles live their savours.” There seem several objections to this passage as it has stood in all editions. First, cowslips are never “tall,” and, next, the crimson spots are not in their “coats,” or on the petals, but at the bottom of the calix, as Shakespeare has himself told us in “Cymbeline,” Act II. Scene II., “Like the crimson drops I' th' bottom of a cowslip.” The alteration authorised in manuscript in the folio, 1632, is, therefore, as follows:— “The cowslips all her pensioners be; In their gold cups spots you see: Those be rubies, fairy favours, In those freckles live their savours.” Rubies would be singular decorations for a “coat,” but were common ornaments to golden chalices.

Note return to page 271 10109252P. 405. Johnson and others saw that the line commenced by the Fairy's question,— “Are you not he?” was not completed by Puck's answer,— “Thou speak'st aright;” and it was proposed to fill up the vacancy by “I am; thou speak'st aright;” but the true word seems to be that given by the corrector of the folio, 1632,— “Fairy, thou speak'st aright.”

Note return to page 272 10109253P. 408. It is a mere trifle, but still, in relation to the integrity of Shakespeare's text, worth notice, that in the corrected folio, 1632, Titania tells Oberon,— “Thy fairy land buys not the child of me.” It is “The fairy land” in the old editions; but Titania afterwards repeats nearly the same words when she again refuses the boy to Oberon, “Not for thy fairy kingdom.” We may, therefore, conclude, that thy is the original. In a later part of the same speech the expression occurs, “her womb then rich with my young squire,” which is altered in manuscript in the folio, 1632, to “her womb then ripe with my young squire;” the word “rich” had perhaps been caught from a line just below.

Note return to page 273 10109254P. 410. There is a defect in the construction of the subsequent extract:— “The juice of it, on sleeping eye-lids laid, Will make a man or woman madly dote Upon the next live creature that it sees;” accordingly we find the old corrector altering the last line thus, which is probably what the poet wrote:— “Upon the next live creature that is seen.” Puck's answer to Oberon has constantly been printed,— “I'll put a girdle round about the earth In forty minutes;” but Oberon had not required any such task of him, but merely to fetch a plant of “Love in idleness.” What Puck means is to show his readiness to obey, even if he had been commanded to do much more, and therefore the manuscript-corrector has it,— “I'd put a girdle round about the earth In forty minutes.” The word “round,” which is also inserted by him as necessary to the measure, is only met with in the quarto published by Fisher.

Note return to page 274 10109255P. 412. The change recommended, from “flowers” (which is the old reading) to bowers, in the following passage, may admit of doubt: but bowers certainly appears best adapted to the place; and if best adapted, we may feel well assured that it was the word Shakespeare employed:— “Quite over-canopied with lush woodbine, With sweet musk-roses and with eglantine: There sleeps Titania, some time of the night, Lull'd in these bowers with dances and delight.” It is certain that the “lush woodbine,” musk-roses, and eglantine, which “quite over-canopied” the bank, converted it into bowers. Lush (also supplied by the manuscript- corrector of the folio, 1632) is a decided improvement upon “luscious,” which is too much for the verse. Theobald had proposed to read lush, and we have already met with it in “The Tempest,” Act II. Scene I.

Note return to page 275 10109256P. 415. Hermia and Lysander, wearied by wandering in the wood, are about to lie down, when Hermia, in maiden modesty, asks her lover to rest farther from her, but he urges her to repose her trust in him. The usual text has been:— “O, take the sense, sweet, of my innocence; Love takes the meaning in love's conference.” But the passage, as amended by the corrector of the folio, 1632, is clearly much more to the purpose:— “O, take the sense, sweet, of my innocence; Love takes the meaning in love's confidence.

Note return to page 276 10109257P. 421. In the rehearsal scene of the mock-play by the Athenian artisans, the corrector of the folio, 1632, gives Bottom's speech, as to the contrivance of a wall, thus: “And let him have some plaster, or some lime, or some roughcast about him, and let him hold his fingers thus,” &c. The ordinary reading is “loam” and “or”; but the sentence is clearly not in the alternative. Theseus afterwards speaks of the wall as made of “lime and hair.” In the play itself, the first line delivered by Pyramus ought to run,— “Thisby, the flowers have odious savours sweet,” and not “of odious savours sweet;” because the next line is,— “So hath thy breath, my dearest Thisby, dear.” Pope, to meet the difficulty, altered “hath” to doth; but the error was, as the corrector of the folio, 1632, shows, in the word “of” in the previous line; properly, therefore, the passage ought to be printed hereafter,— “Thisby, the flowers have odious savours sweet, So hath thy breath,” &c.

Note return to page 277 10109258P. 422. The manuscript stage-directions in this scene, and indeed in others, are as precise and full as can possibly be required, and supply all deficiencies of the kind in the printed copies. Thus, when the “hempen home-spuns” are in the utmost dismay and confusion, just previous to the return of Bottom after his transformation, we are told that Robin is among them, that the Clownes all exeunt in confusion, and that Snout afterwards Exit frighted, having seen the Weaver with the Ass head on his own. It may be here mentioned that when the eyes of Titania and the others are to be touched with the magic herbs, there is no information in the printed copies as to the exact moment; but in manuscript we have annoint her eyes and annoint his eyes in the precise place in the margin, in the hand-writing of the corrector. In the same way, though the printed copies state when the characters sleep, we are told only in manuscript when they wake, which is quite as material.

Note return to page 278 10109259P. 424. The five lines in Titania's speech, declaring her love for Bottom, are strangely confused in the folio editions, and in Roberts' quarto; but the corrector of that of 1632, by inserting a figure opposite each line, shows that they are to be read in the order in which they stand in Fisher's quarto, and such has properly been the modern arrangement.

Note return to page 279 10109260P. 428. Hermia, imagining that Demetrius has killed Lysander, vents her rage upon him in a speech of some length and great violence; upon which, as the passage has hitherto been given, Demetrius coolly remarks,— “You spend your passion on a mispris'd mood: I am not guilty of Lysander's blood;” but the corrector of the folio, 1632, says that we ought to read,— “You spend your passion in a mispris'd flood;” that is, in a mistaken torrent, which appears to give additional force and greater intelligibility.

Note return to page 280 10109261P. 431. The conjecture hazarded in note 6, that “princess of pure white” ought to be read “impress of pure white,” is confirmed by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, and the quotation ought in future to stand,— “O, let me kiss This impress of pure white, this seal of bliss.” In fact, the use of the word “impress” in the beginning of the line naturally led to the word “seal” at the end of it.

Note return to page 281 10109262P. 432. The old corrector, in accordance with Fisher's quarto, inserts Helen before “It is not so,” in Lysander's speech, in order to complete the verse.

Note return to page 282 10109263P. 433. In Helen's speech occurs the same misprint as that pointed out in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona,” Act I. Scene II. p. 18. “So we grew together Like to a double cherry, seeming parted, But yet an union in partition; Two lovely berries moulded on one stem.” It is not at all likely that Helena would call herself one of the “lovely berries,” whatever she might say of Hermia; but the fact is that the whole speech turns upon their mutual employment and mutual affection, and as the old corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us, we ought to displace “lovely” for loving:— “Two loving berries moulded on one stem.” The heraldic couplet which follows is struck out by the same hand, probably because, like most other readers, he did not understand it.

Note return to page 283 10109264P. 436. In Hermia's first speech, on this page, a ludicrous error of the press has been eternally repeated. She is wonder-struck and bewildered by Lysander's infidelity,— “What! can you do me greater harm than hate? Hate me! wherefore? O, me!” and then what follows? this strange question,— “What news, my love?” It is astonishing that the blunder did not long ago expose itself; but it is easily accounted for: “news” was formerly spelt newes, and so it stands in the folios, and the printer or copyist misread meanes “newes.” Hermia's question ought, indisputably, to be,— “What means my love?” which is a natural inquiry for an explanation why Lysander had abandoned her. The manuscript-corrector obliterates newes, and inserts meanes.

Note return to page 284 10109265P. 444. The expression of Titania,— “Fairies, be gone, and be all ways away,” has occasioned some controversy, the word being “always” in the old copies: Theobald made the suggestion of “all ways;” Upton, Steevens, and Malone stating their concurrence or dissent. It seems to be an error of the press, for Titania does not wish her attendants to be permanently, but only temporarily absent—not “always,” but a while— and such is the manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632. Titania could not mean to dismiss the Fairies entirely and for ever, and therefore says,— “Fairies, be gone, and be a while away.” The error arose from the compositor confounding the words a while and “away,” which come next each other.

Note return to page 285 10109266P. 450. A blunder from a somewhat similar cause has been committed in Lysander's speech, which in the folios and in one of the quartos is thus given:— “And he bid us follow to the temple,” instead of “And he did bid us follow to the temple.” The words “did” and “bid” being in juxta-position, the printer omitted the first of them (which is found in Fisher's quarto only), and thus ruined the verse. The manuscript-corrector places did in the margin.

Note return to page 286 10109267P. 450. Bottom concludes his speech in these terms in all the old copies: he is speaking of the ballad of “Bottom's Dream,”—“I will sing it in the latter end of a play, before the Duke: peradventure, to make it the more gracious, I shall sing it at her death.” Now, no particular play is here mentioned, and “at her death” seems to have no personal application. Nevertheless it is evident that the play of Pyramus and Thisbe was in the Clown's mind; and what he proposed to do was to sing “Bottom's Dream” at the death of Thisbe. Such is the statement of the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, who, to make the matter quite clear, has ended the speech thus: “And I will sing it at the latter end of the play before the Duke: peradventure, to make it the more gracious, I shall sing it at Thisbe's death.”11Q1196

Note return to page 287 10109268P. 451. In this scene Flute, the bellows-mender, is throughout introduced as a speaker by the name of the part he performs in the mock-tragedy; but the manuscript-corrector has been careful, in every instance, to alter the prefix from “Thisbe” to Flute.

Note return to page 288 10109269P. 453. There is a remarkable discrepancy between the old folio, and the old quarto editions in respect to an important passage, which we give as it appears in the latter, which have been almost universally followed:— “And, as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name.” The quartos, therefore, have “gives to airy nothing,” and the folios, without any point after aire, “gives to aire nothing.” With some editors it has been a question, which reading ought to be adopted; but, as the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, by placing the letter i in the margin, indicates that the word was airie, and as the line is incomplete without the additional syllable, we need not entertain much hesitation upon the point.

Note return to page 289 10109270P. 454. The doubling of the parts of Egeus and Philostrate, that is, one actor filling both, perhaps led to the confusion between the prefixes of those characters in this scene. Theseus, in the quarto editions, says, “Call Philostrate,” and in the folios, “Call Egeus.” The folio, 1623, adopted the quarto, by Roberts, as its foundation; but at some time subsequent to the publication of that quarto, the part of Philostrate, having been given, in the economy of our old stage, also to the actor of Egeus, the name of Egeus became substituted for that of Philostrate in the folio, 1623. This is probably the cause of the variation, which the corrector of the folio, 1632, only in part sets right; for while Egeus produces the “brief” of the “sports” that are “rife,” Lysander reads it, and then Philostrate takes up the dialogue, by giving a description of the play, the players, and the rehearsal. It seems likely that the poet meant the whole of this to have been said by one man, Philostrate, who in the very opening of the drama is sent out by Theseus to “stir up the Athenian youth to merriments,” and who acted as a sort of Master of the Revels on this occasion.

Note return to page 290 10109271P. 455. Theseus, referring to the ridiculous contradiction in “the tragical mirth” of the title of the play about to be represented before him, observes “That is, hot ice and wondrous strange snow.” Now, unless we read “wondrous” as a trisyllable the measure is defective: the sense too is much in the same predicament; for “wondrous strange snow,” does not necessarily imply opposition, like “hot ice.” The truth is that Shakespeare meant boiling snow, only the compositor, or copyist, mistook seething for “strange,” the true word having been supplied by the old corrector,— “That is, hot ice and wond'rous seething snow;” which is exactly what was intended to be expressed. Theseus, in the fourth line of the scene, has already used the word “seething,” which renders the misprint here less pardonable.

Note return to page 291 10109272P. 457. After the Prologue by a speaker who, as Theseus remarks, did not “stand upon his points,” we come to the introduction of the mock-actors, and the old stage-direction in the folios is “Tawyer with a trumpet before them.” It has been thought that “Tawyer” was the name of the trumpeter; but a manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, calls him Presenter, and it places Pres. as a prefix to the argument of the main incidents of the burlesque. In it, it was necessary to observe punctuation for the sake of intelligibility, and not to derange it, as in the case of the Prologue, for the sake of laughter. This argument was, therefore, not delivered by the Prologue speaker, as has been invariably stated, but by the Presenter, whose name was in all probability Tawyer.

Note return to page 292 10109273P. 460. On the exit of Wall, Theseus observes, in the quartos, “Now is the moon used between the neighbours.” The folios read, with even less intelligibility, “Now is the moral down between the neighbours.” Theobald altered “moral” to “mural,” but no instance has been adduced of the employment of mural as a substantive; and the manuscript-corrector erases “moral” and inserts wall, which, at least, is the word wanted. Lower down in the Lion's speech we ought, on the same authority, to read,— “Then know, that I, one Snug the joiner, am A lion's fell, nor else no lion's dam.” By “lion's fell” we are to understand lion's skin, and Snug was to assure the ladies, that he was no more than a man in a lion's hide. This correction was conjecturally proposed some years ago by the late Mr. Barron Field, who never imagined that he had been anticipated in the emendation by full two centuries.

Note return to page 293 10109274P. 462. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, converts “mouz'd” of the old copies into mouthed, in the exclamation of Theseus, “Well moused, lion.” Steevens was in favour of the same change; but, nevertheless, the old reading may perhaps stand, from museau, French, muzzle, and the Italian muso.

Note return to page 294 10109275P. 463. The lamentation of Pyramus on the supposed death of Thisbe produces an observation from Theseus, which has been always thus printed:—“This passion, and the death of a dear friend, would go near to make a man look sad;” but it has particular reference to the “passion” of Pyramus on the fate of Thisbe, and therefore the corrector of the folio, 1632, properly changes “and” to on, and reads, “This passion on the death of a dear friend,” &c. When Pyramus kills himself with the words,— “Thus die I, thus, thus, thus!” there is this singular manuscript stage-direction in the opposite margin, Stab himself as often; that is, as often as he exclaims, “thus, thus, thus!” Exit Moonshine is inserted just before Pyramus dies. These instructions to the players are not in any of the old impressions.

Note return to page 295 10109276P. 464. In part of Thisbe's dying rhapsody, as it appeared before Theobald's time, he saw that the rhymes did not correspond, as they ought:—   “These lily lips,   This cherry nose, These yellow cowslip cheeks,” &c. He therefore proposed brows instead of “lips;” but he missed the alteration of the right word: the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, gives it, and, no doubt, accurately,— “This lily lip, This cherry tip,” in allusion to the tip of the nose of Pyramus, to which, we may imagine, Thisbe pointed at the moment.

Note return to page 296 10109277P. 465. The early editions do not inform us where the “Bergomask Dance” was introduced; but the old corrector tells us, that it came in just before Theseus recommences his speech, with “The iron tongue of midnight,” &c. The words written in a blank space are Dance: then, the Duke speaks. It is a singular addition to the old stage-direction of “Enter Puck,” to be told that he came in with his broom on his shoulder, doubtless in the very way in which he is represented on the title-page of the old tract of “Robin Goodfellow, his Mad Pranks,” &c., in the library of Lord Ellesmere, and in the chap-book in verse upon his history: that Puck was so furnished we have his own evidence, when he tells the audience,— “I am sent with broom before, To sweep the dust behind the door.”

Note return to page 297 10109278P. 467. In “the Song,” just preceding Puck's last speech, there are two small, but not trifling emendations, made by the corrector of the folio, 1632. The one is by a change in the punctuation to carry on the sentence about “the blots of nature's hand” for another line, thus:— “And the blots of nature's hand Shall not in their issue stand: Never mole, hare-lip, nor scar, Nor mark prodigious, such as are Despised in nativity Shall upon their children be, With this field-dew consecrate.” That is, none of these disfigurements shall be seen on the children consecrated with the field-dew. Then begins a new sentence, which is judiciously altered in two words by the corrector, and reads as follows:— “Every fairy take this gait, And each several chamber bless, Through this palace, with sweet peace: Ever shall it safely rest And the owner of it blest. Trip away; make no stay; Meet me all by break of day.” The question is whether the fairies, or the issue of the different couples are to be “consecrate” with the “field-dew;” and there seems no reason why such delicate and immortal beings should require it, while children might need it, to secure them from “marks prodigious.” Reading the line, as in old as well as modern editions,— “Ever shall in safety rest,” there is a want of an antecedent; whereas, the manuscript emendation in the folio, 1632, renders the whole “song” consecutive, grammatical, and intelligible.

Note return to page 298 10109279P. 478. In the following quotation Rowe changed “when” of all the old copies, quarto and folio, into who,— “When, I am very sure, If they should speak, would almost damn those ears, Which, hearing them, would call their brothers fools.” Rowe was followed in this change by Pope, Theobald, Warburton, Malone, and others; but the emendation recommended on the authority of the corrector of the folio, 1632, is much slighter, simpler, and more effectual—merely “would” to 'twould:— “When, I am very sure, If they should speak, 'twould almost damn those ears, Which, hearing them, would call their brothers fools.”

Note return to page 299 10109280P. 479. Only one of the two quartos printed in 1600 gives this line as it ought to stand, viz.— “Farewell: I'll grow a talker for this gear.” The other quarto of the same date, and all the folios read, to the injury of the verse,— “Fare you well: I'll grow a talker for this gear.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, who seems to have had an accurate and a sensitive ear, properly strikes out you.

Note return to page 300 10109281P. 480. Bassanio tells Antonio, in all editions,— “I owe you much, and, like a wilful youth, That which I owe is lost.” The folio, 1632, as corrected, substitutes a more appropriate word in reference to Bassanio's extravagance,— “I owe you much, and, like a wasteful youth, That which I owe is lost.” It is not easy to account for some of these blunders, either by the copyist or by the compositor; and “wilful” may possibly have been the poet's word; but he does not elsewhere represent Bassanio as “wilful,” while Bassanio admits and deplores his own wastefulness.

Note return to page 301 10109282P. 482. The corrector of the folio, 1632, seems here to have inserted another alteration from one of the early quartos: in the folios Portia observes, “But this reason is not in the fashion,” &c.; but in the quartos “reason” is reasoning. In her next speech but one Portia observes of the Neapolitan Prince and his horse, that “he makes it a great appropriation to his own good parts that he can shoe him himself.” “Appropriation to” is altered by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, to approbation of, in the sense of proof—a great proof of his own good parts, &c. Approbation is not unfrequently used by Shakespeare in this way; whereas, if “appropriation” were his word, this is the only place where he has employed it.

Note return to page 302 10109283P. 483. In order not to offend James I., the word “Scottish” of the quartos, published more than two years before he came to the throne, was altered in the folio, 1623, to other, in Nerissa's question, “What think you of the Scottish lord, his neighbour?” In the folio, 1632, the word other is struck through with a pen, and Irish placed in the margin, as if it had not been considered objectionable, in the time of the corrector, so to stigmatise Irish lords.

Note return to page 303 10109284P. 486. There is here a transposition in all printed copies of this play, by which Shylock is made to call “land-thieves,” instead of “water-thieves,” pirates. He tells Bassanio, “There be land-rats and water-rats, water-thieves and land-thieves; I mean, pirates.” Shylock could not mean that land-thieves were pirates, and therefore the corrector of the folio, 1632, reverses the words, and makes them follow the order of “land-rats and water-rats,”—“there be land-thieves and water-thieves; I mean pirates.” The change is not very important, but as it shows that comparative trifles did not escape.

Note return to page 304 10109285P. 487. The corrector of the folio, 1632, again adopts the text of both the quarto editions in reading “well-won thrift,” for “well-worn thrift,” as the epithet stands in the folios.

Note return to page 305 10109286P. 488. The whole passage regarding Jacob and Laban down to Antonio's reflection,— “O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!” is erased; but nevertheless an emendation is made in Antonio's answer to Shylock, as hitherto printed,— “Was this inserted to make interest good?” which is changed by the corrector of the folio, 1632, to,— “Was this inferred to make interest good?” There is no doubt that Shakespeare frequently uses the verb to infer in the sense of to bring in; and Antonio inquires whether Shylock brought in the story of Laban to justify the taking of interest.

Note return to page 306 10109287P. 492. In the second line of the speech of the Prince of Morocco we meet with a change of epithet which deserves notice: the reading has been:— “The shadow'd livery of the burnish'd sun;” but the corrector has written,— “The shadow'd livery of the burning sun,” which seems much more proper, when the African Prince is speaking of his black complexion as the effect of the sun's rays. To speak of the sun as artificially “burnish'd” is very unworthy. Lower down the reading of the corrector is, “I would out-stare” of one of the quartos, instead of “o'erstare” of the other quarto, and of the folios.

Note return to page 307 10109288P. 493. The almost inevitable conjecture of Theobald,— “So is Alcides beaten by his page,” instead of “beaten by his rage” of all the early impressions, is borne out by the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 308 10109289P. 494. Launcelot in the old copies calls the devil “a courageous fiend,” a word certainly very ill applied, when he is advising the boy to run away; and in the margin of the folio, 1632, the word is made contagious, as appropriate as “courageous” is inappropriate, unless we suppose Launcelot, to speak ironically. At the end of what he says, he is about to make his escape with all speed, and this manuscript stage-direction is added, As he is going out in haste, when he is met by his father. As the dialogue between them proceeds, we are told when Launcelot kneels to receive his father's blessing, and when he rises, after the old man has compared his son's hair to Dobbin's tail.

Note return to page 309 10109290P. 504. The manuscript-corrector again introduces the reading of the quarto editions where Shylock is speaking of Launcelot: the folio, 1623, has it,— “Snail-slow in profit, but he sleeps by day More than the wild-cat.” The folio, 1632, omits “he;” but the quartos have, “and he sleeps by day,” &c. Both words are inserted in the margin of the folio, 1632. The proverb with which the speech ends is given differently both from quartos and folios; for instead of “Fast bind, fast find,” we have “Safe bind, safe find.” The lines from,— “O! ten times faster Venus' pigeons fly,” down to the entrance of Lorenzo, are crossed out; but the gross error of the folios “to steal love's bonds,” instead of “to seal love's bonds,” is duly corrected. The two quartos have “seal.”

Note return to page 310 10109D37P. 507. When the Prince of Morocco enters to his choice of the caskets, we are informed by a manuscript stage-direction in the folio, 1632, that a curtain is drawn or rather withdrawn in front of them, as, indeed, is the case afterwards when the Prince of Arragon and Bassanio go through the same ceremony. This fact is easily to be collected from what is said by the characters, but the object was to take care that the caskets should be exposed to the view of the audience at the proper moment. The inscription upon the golden casket, in the second line of the speech of the Prince of Morocco, is different in the folios from the subsequent repetitions of it, by the omission of the word “many,”— “Who chooseth me shall gain what men desire,” instead of “what many men desire.” In the quarto impressions “many” is found, and the corrector of the folio, 1632, has placed it in the margin: thus all three inscriptions were rendered of the same length, and are in the same measure.

Note return to page 311 10109291P. 512. There is a material emendation in the speech of the Prince of Arragon, when commenting on the caskets. The reading has always been,— “What many men desire: that many may be meant By the fool multitude, that choose by show, Not learning more than the fond eye doth teach; Which pries not to th' interior, but, like the martlet, Builds in the weather,” &c. This is certainly intelligible, but the verse is redundant in the first line by “many, which is erased, and the corrector of the folio, 1632, father informs us that the words of the poet, in the fourth line, were,— “Which prize not th' interior, but, like the martlet, Builds in the weather,” &c. That is to say, the fool multitude do not prize, or value the interior, but judge only by externals. It will be observed also, that this new reading restores in some degree the regularity of the verse.

Note return to page 312 10109292P. 516. Where Shylock calls Antonio “A beggar that used to come so smug upon the mart,” the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, reads “A beggar that was wont to come,” &c.; and as in the subsequent part of the same short speech Shylock repeats the expression, “he was wont to call me usurer,” and “he was wont to lend money,” it seems probable that in the different clauses of the same sentence the same words would be employed.

Note return to page 313 10109293P. 520. The expression “to peize the time” in Portia's introduction of Bassanio to the caskets has not been well understood: to “peize” is to weigh, to poise; but the sense wanted is to delay, and that sense we have in the corrector's manuscript, who writes pause for “peize” in the following extract:— “I speak too long: but 'tis to pause the time, To eke it, and to draw it out at length, To stay you from election.” Portia wished to postpone Bassanio's choice, lest he should select the wrong casket, and thus necessarily and suddenly terminate their intercourse.

Note return to page 314 10109294P. 522. Much controversy has been produced by these lines, where Bassanio is moralizing upon the deceitfulness of external appearance:— “Thus ornament is but the guiled shore To a most dangerous sea, the beauteous scarf Veiling an Indian beauty; in a word, The seeming truth which cunning times put on To entrap the wisest.” As to the first line, the folio, 1623, has “guiled shore,” as above, which the editor of the folio, 1632, not understanding, he altered it to guilded, i. e. gilded; so that when Steevens asserts that “all the ancient copies” have “guiled,” he was mistaken. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, not approving guilded, and seeing that the participle ought to be active and not passive, a point to which Shakespeare did not much attend (as indeed it was not the habit of his age), changed guilded to guiling. This however is not by any means the most important emendation in the passage, since a remarkable alteration for the better is wrought by the mere change of punctuation. No editor has been satisfied with “Veiling an Indian beauty,” because “beauty” was obviously the very converse of what the poet intended: Sir Thomas Hanmer therefore proposed “Indian dowdy;” but no other variation from the old text is necessary than to observe the stops which the corrector of the folio, 1632, introduced, and to read the lines as follows:— “Thus ornament is but the guiling shore To a most dangerous sea, the beauteous scarf Veiling an Indian: beauty, in a word, The seeming truth which cunning times put on To entrap the wisest.” Here every thing is clear and consistent; but it is most likely that had the introducer of this emendation written in the time of the author he illustrates, he would not have thought it necessary to change “guiled” to guiling. It was perhaps recited guiling on the stage in his day.

Note return to page 315 10109295P. 523. Bassanio, descanting on the portrait of Portia, thus expresses his admiration of the eyes:— “How could he see to do them? having made one, Methinks, it should have power to steal both his, And leave itself unfurnish'd.” The corrector has it, “And leave itself unfinish'd,” which reads extremely well, if we suppose that the word applies to the portrait, and not to the eye alone. “Unfurnish'd,” if it refer to the fellow eye, reads awkwardly, and Shakespeare would scarcely have left the expression of what he intended so imperfect. Steevens hesitated about unfinish'd.

Note return to page 316 10109296P. 524. Portia, stating the sources of her happiness after the successful choice by Bassanio, thus sums them up:— “Happiest of all is, that her gentle spirit Commits itself to yours to be directed.” The correction of in for “is” appears a trifle, but it makes a great difference in the grace of the expression:— “Happiest of all, in that her gentle spirit Commits itself to yours to be directed.” The use of in that for inasmuch as was common.

Note return to page 317 10109297P. 526. Gratiano, speaking of his eager courtship of Nerissa, observes:— “For wooing here, until I sweat again, And swearing till my very roof was dry,” &c. The manuscript-corrector of the folio tells us that “roof” ought to be tongue: the old spelling is “rough,” and as r was often misprinted for t, and u for n, tongue seems at least as probable an error, especially as “roof” was never, even of old, spelt rough:— “And swearing till my very tongue was dry” is more natural, though not necessary.

Note return to page 318 10109298P. 529. Bassanio tells Portia that Antonio is,— “The best condition'd and unwearied spirit In doing courtesies;” but the corrector has put “unwearied” also in the superlative, “unwearied'st spirit,” which is quite in the manner of Shakespeare, and quite consistent with Bassanio's opinion of his friend.

Note return to page 319 10109299P. 535. What passes between Lorenzo and Launcelot, regarding the negro with child by him, is erased in the corrected folio, 1632.

Note return to page 320 10109300P. 539. We here meet with an emendation which must, in all probability, have been derived from some good authority; certainly better than any resorted to for all the printed editions, judging from the result. The commentators have been at fault respecting an epithet applied by Shylock to a bagpipe:— “As there is no firm reason to be render'd Why he cannot abide a gaping pig, Why he, a harmless necessary cat, Why he a woollen bagpipe,” &c. The question at issue was, why a bagpipe should be called “woollen,” and some have argued that it was because the bag was covered with cloth, while Johnson was for changing the word to wooden, and Hawkins and Steevens, more plausibly, to swollen. As to the meaning, they were right, though wrong as to the word. Shakespeare's word unquestionably was bollen, from the Anglo-Saxon, which means swollen. It was spelled in various ways, as boln, bolne, boll'n, and bollen, and it is used by several authors of Shakespeare's time, which it is needless to refer to, because he avails himself of it in his own “Lucrece,” vol. viii. p. 455:— “Here one, being throng'd, bears back, all boll'n and red.” It was therefore, a word with which he was well acquainted, and there can be no doubt that in future the passage above quoted from this drama ought to be printed as follows:— “As there is no firm reason to be render'd, Why he cannot abide a gaping pig, Why he, a harmless necessary cat, Why he, a bollen bagpipe,” &c.11Q1197

Note return to page 321 10109301P. 540. All appeals failing to move Shylock, Antonio entreats for judgment, observing, as the lines are printed in the folio, 1632,— “Or even as well use question with the wolf, The ewe bleat for the lamb: when you behold.” Such are the words, and such the punctuation; but the earlier folio, of 1623, gives the sentence even more imperfectly:— “Or even as well use question with the wolf, The ewe bleat for the lamb:” the rest of the line being wanting. How, then, is the defect remedied by the corrector of the folio, 1632? Simply by a transposition and the removal of a colon, which accomplishes all that is wanted by making the meaning indisputable: he reads,— “Or even as well use question with the wolf, When you behold the ewe bleat for the lamb.” This is nearly the text of the quarto published by Heyes, in the copy belonging to the Earl of Ellesmere.

Note return to page 322 10109302P. 542. Malone was disposed to preserve the misprint in the following:— “O, be thou damn'd, inexecrable dog:” at all events he thought it doubtful whether “inexecrable” were not the true word, in preference to inexorable, which it did not become in print till 1664. “Inexorable” is in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, and there can surely be no doubt that it is what Shakespeare really wrote.

Note return to page 323 10109303P. 546. When Portia asks,— “Are there balance here to weigh The flesh?” Shylock answers instantly,— “I have them ready;” but neither in ancient nor modern printed editions is there any stage-direction, showing that at this point it was the duty of the actor to display his scales to the audience. The deficiency is supplied in manuscript by the corrector of the folio, 1632, by the words, Produce them, in the margin. Afterwards (p. 547), when Shylock exclaims,— “Most learned judge! a sentence! come, prepare!” there is another note, which proves that the scales were again effectively paraded by the Jew as ready for use, Show scales again; while we are previously told that he whets his knife. These particulars are not necessarily to be inferred from what is said, and we may conclude that they represent the practice of our elder stage.

Note return to page 324 10109304P. 548. The change of a word in the subsequent passage, seems, if not required, probable:— “If thou tak'st more Or less than a just pound,—be it so much As makes it light or heavy in the balance,” &c. The usual reading has been “in the substance;” but the addition by the heroine,— “Nay, if the scale do turn But in the estimation of a hair,” renders it likely that balance was the right text, and “substance” is altered to balance in manuscript in the margin of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 325 10109305P. 555. There could hardly be a doubt on the point whether “Sweet soul,” at the commencement of Lorenzo's speech, belong to him, or to Launcelot, to whom the words are assigned in all the old copies. In the folio, 1632, the expression is “Sweet love,” which the manuscript-corrector has not thought it necessary to change to “Sweet soul” (the reading of the earlier folio and of the quartos), but he has transferred it to Lorenzo.

Note return to page 326 10109306P. 556. In the folio, 1632, there is a singular misprint upon which modern editors have not remarked, and which it is only necessary to notice here, in order to state that the manuscript-corrector of that impression detected and remedied the blunder. It stands, as printed,— “Therefore the poet Did feign that Orpheus drew tears, stones, floods,” &c. For tears, we should of course read “trees,” in accordance with the folio, 1623, and with the two early editions in quarto. The corrector's first emendation was to beasts, but he struck it out subsequently, and properly inserted “trees” in its stead. This may look like speculative emendation.

Note return to page 327 10109307P. 557. At the end of Portia's speech we have this passage, as it is found in all the old copies:— “Peace! how the moon sleeps with Endymion, And would not be awak'd.” Malone changed it to “Peace, hoa! the moon,” &c.; but the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, tells us that the error was not how for “hoa,” but how for “now:” this is the more likely, because when the folios came from the press it was not usual to spell the interjection “hoa,” but ho; and we know that it was a very common mistake to print “how” for now, and vice versâ; therefore we ought to read,— “Peace! now the moon sleeps with Endymion, And would not be awak'd.”11Q1198

Note return to page 328 10109308P. 558. The corrector of the folio, 1632, has taken pains to set right even the most minute errors. Thus, in the fifth line, he has erased “from,” and properly substituted for. Lower down, he has shown us how the versification of a defective line ought to be amended: it is where Gratiano says, that he had already had a quarrel with Nerissa “About a hoop of gold, a paltry ring, That she did give me; whose poesy was, For all the world, like cutlers' poetry.” Here we must read, for the sake of the measure, “That she did give to me,” &c. That “poesy” ought not to be read as three syllables we have evidence within three lines, where Nerissa uses it as two syllables only:— “What talk you of the poesy, or the value?” The carelessness of the printer, or of the transcriber, omitted “to,” and spoiled the harmony: the old corrector inserted it.

Note return to page 329 10109309P. 560. To the same cause we may probably attribute the employment of “contain,” in Portia's accusation of Bassanio, instead of retain, although the words, of old, were sometimes used nearly synonymously:— “Or your own honour to contain the ring.” Shakespeare often has to retain in the sense of to keep; but the change here made may show only the customary mode of delivering the line in the time of the corrector.

Note return to page 330 10109310P. 561. Antonio, pleading to Portia for Bassanio, says, in the folio impressions,— “I once did lend my body for thy wealth;” but it ought to be “for his wealth,” and so it stands in the quarto editions, and so it has been made to stand in the folio, 1632, by the corrector of it.

Note return to page 331 10109311P. 562. An adverb of place instead of an adverb of time has been misprinted in all the editions of this play, where Gratiano remarks,— “Why, this is like the mending of highways In summer, where the ways are fair enough.” We ought certainly to substitute when for “where” in this passage, because the question is not as to where the roads are to be repaired, but when; the speaker means to point out the absurdity of doing a particular act at the period when it is least wanted. The manuscript-corrector places when in the margin, and expunges “where.” It is a misprint of frequent occurrence.

Note return to page 332 10109312Vol. iii. P. 7. The corrector of the folio, 1632, has made an emendation at the very outset of this play, which is nearly in accordance with Malone's proposal, to insert a period after “fashion,” and to commence a new sentence with he, in reference to the bequest of Orlando's father. The corrector's reading is this:—“As I remember, Adam, it was upon this fashion: he bequeathed me by will but a poor thousand crowns,” &c. Orlando and Adam enter talking on the subject of the will of Sir Roland de Bois. When Oliver comes in shortly afterwards (p. 8), a manuscript stage-direction informs us that, while the two brothers are conversing, Adam goes apart, and comes forward again, when Orlando has taken Oliver by the throat, and, in the words written in the margin, shakes him.

Note return to page 333 10109313P. 10. To remove ambiguity regarding the “old” and the “new” Duke, both spoken of by Charles, the wrestler, the manuscript-corrector inserts the words old and new, where they are not found in the early copies, but where they seem required, and were, probably, originally found:— “Oliver. Can you tell if Rosalind, the old duke's daughter, he banished with her father? Charles. O! no; for the new duke's daughter, her cousin, so loves her,” &c. The meaning is more complete with the added words, though intelligible without them.

Note return to page 334 10109314P. 11. The two last portions of the two speeches of Charles and Oliver, after the word “withal” in the first, and after the word “living” in the second instance, are struck out in the corrected folio, 1632. The object seems to have been to shorten the colloquy.

Note return to page 335 10109315P. 16. A trifling change, the omission of a letter, shows that Shakespeare intended to make Le Beau talk in an affected manner. He enters to give Rosalind and Celia tidings regarding the wrestling, and the common reading has been,— “Le Beau. Fair princess, you have lost much good sport. Celia. Sport? Of what colour, Le Beau. What colour, madam? How shall I answer that?” The point, such as it is, is thus entirely lost: Celia ought to say,— “Spot? of what colour,” viz. of what colour is the spot, for Le Beau must have pronounced the word “sport,” as if it were spot, or Celia's question “Of what colour?” is as unintelligible to others as it was to Le Beau. The corrector of the folio, 1632, has put his pen through the letter r in “sport.”

Note return to page 336 10109316P. 18. Sir Thomas Hanmer was right in altering, “there is such odds in the man,” to “there is such odds in the men,” viz. the two men, Orlando and Charles, the wrestler. “Man” answers the purpose; but as the old corrector puts it in the plural, we may perhaps be satisfied that it ought to be so. Lower down the sentence is thus changed, and evidently for the better, “If you saw yourself with our eyes, or knew yourself with our judgment, the fear of your adventure would counsel you to a more equal enterprise:” the folios have your” in both places.

Note return to page 337 10109317P. 19. In the old copies there is no stage-direction that Charles is thrown by Orlando, and carried out; nor, on the next page (20) that Rosalind puts a chain round the neck of Orlando. These are supplied in manuscript by the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 338 10109318P. 21. The old copies represent Le Beau as telling Orlando that “the taller” is daughter to the Duke—an oversight in the author, or an error in the printer. Malone substituted “smaller,” but the manuscript-corrector informs us that the word was shorter, and he therefore displaced “taller.”

Note return to page 339 10109319P. 22. We are rejoiced to find Coleridge's delicate conjecture fortified, or rather entirely justified, by the folio, 1632, as amended in manuscript: Celia asks,— “But is all this for your father?” and Rosalind replies, as her answer has always been printed,— “No, some of it is for my child's father,” which turns out to be an unnecessary piece of coarseness. The passage, as it stands with the change in manuscript, is merely this:— “No, some of it is for my father's child,” Rosalind meaning herself as her father's child, and not Orlando as the father of a child to be born of her.

Note return to page 340 10109320P. 23. When the Duke suddenly banishes Rosalind from the Court, he tells her,— “Mistress, dispatch you with your safest haste;” but, if we may trust the old corrector, supported by obvious plausibility, we ought in future to give the line thus:— “Mistress, dispatch you with your fastest haste,” or with your greatest speed. In “The Merchant of Venice” (p. 115), we have seen safe misprinted “fast,” in two instances close together: here we have fastest misprinted “safest.”11Q1199

Note return to page 341 10109321P. 24. The line in Celia's speech,— “Still we went coupled and inseparable,” is altered in the folio, 1632, to,— “Still we went coupled and inseparate,” Shakespeare uses inseparate in “Troilus and Cressida,” Act V. Scene II., but he also has “inseparable” in “King John,” Act III. Scene IV. “Inseparate” is in the poet's manner, and the old corrector states that such was the word in “As you like it.” But for the sake of accuracy, it would hardly have seemed necessary for him to have pointed out the difference: one word was as good as the other, excepting as one must have been the text of Shakespeare.

Note return to page 342 10109322P. 26. The line in the folio, 1632,— “Maids as we are, to travel so far,” clearly wants a word which had dropped out, and is found in the folio, 1623,— “Maids as we are, to travel forth so far.” The corrector puts “forth” in the margin, and perhaps he derived it from the earlier edition. On the same page the line,— “I'll have no worse a name than Jove's own page,” is corrected to “I'll have no worser name than Jove's own page,” which is a form of the comparative of perpetual occurrence in Shakespeare and in authors of his time.

Note return to page 343 10109323P. 27. The banished Duke remarks,— “Here feel we not the penalty of Adam, The seasons' difference; as, the icy fang And churlish chiding of the winter's wind,” &c.; but the sentence is improved by a very small restoration by the corrector of the folio, 1632, who reads,— “The seasons' difference, or the icy fang,” &c. In the 1st Lord's speech also (p. 28), hath for “had” is decidedly for the better:— “Giving thy sum of more To that which hath too much.” It is clearly of the essence of the thing, that the stream should have too much at the moment when the “hairy fool” is weeping into it; otherwise the satire of Jaques is almost meaningless.

Note return to page 344 10109324P. 31. The folio, 1632, erroneously reads,— “O, unhappy youth, Come not with these doors: within this roof The enemy of all your graces lives.” The folio, 1623, has, properly enough, “within these doors;” but it has also “within this roof,” which can hardly be right, and the manuscript-corrector gives what is doubtless the true text, the printer having carelessly repeated “within:”— “Come not within these doors: beneath this roof The enemy of all your graces lives.”. A misprint is also pointed out in a line below the preceding, which runs, to say the least of it, rather uncouthly:— “Of a diverted blood and bloody brother.” The commentators dwell upon the meaning of “diverted,” which cannot well be doubted, but the word in fault is that which follows it, and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, puts it thus:— “Of a diverted, proud, and bloody brother.” When “blood,” as in this very line in the old copies, was spelt bloud, the error of the press which converted proud into bloud might easily be committed.

Note return to page 345 10109325P. 32. Orlando, addressing Adam, says,— “O, good old man! how well in thee appears The constant service of the antique world, When service sweat for duty, not for meed!” The word “service” thus occurring in two consecutive lines may nevertheless be right, but the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, changes the second line to “The constant favour of the antique world.” The “seventy years” of the old copies, occurring afterwards, is properly altered to “seventeen years,” though it, somewhat unaccountably, remained “seventy years” until the time of Rowe.

Note return to page 346 10109326P. 33. The old editions begin this scene with Rosalind's exclamation,— “O, Jupiter! how merry are my spirits!” a decided misprint for “how weary are my spirits,” to which it is changed in manuscript by the old corrector. Theobald has “weary,” and was the first to adopt it in print.

Note return to page 347 10109327P. 34. All known impressions represent Silvius as sitting in the presence of Rosalind, Celia, and Corin, by printing his speech thus:— “Or if thou hast not sat, as I do now, Wearying thy hearer in thy mistress praise,” &c. It is sate in the folios; but the language of the poet was undoubtedly, as the context shows, as well as the correction in the folio, 1632,— “Or if thou hast not spake, as I do now,” &c. The scribe, probably, misheard “sate” for spake.11Q1200

Note return to page 348 10109328P. 35. Rosalind's observation in short rhyme,— “Jove! Jove! this shepherd's passion Is much upon my fashion,” reads like a quotation from an old ballad, as well as Touchstone's reply; and not only does the old corrector underscore the lines, as if to mark the fact, but he slightly alters them, and makes an important addition of a line in what is said by the Clown: the whole, therefore, runs thus, according to his statement; and it is to be remarked that he does not represent Rosalind as calling upon “Jove! Jove!” but upon “Love! Love!” which, under such circumstances, was much more in keeping:— Ros. Love! Love! this shepherd's passion   Is too much on my fashion. Clo. And mine; but   It grows something stale with me,   And begins to fail with me.” The Italic type marks what is only found in the handwriting of the corrector. We take it that the addition by the Clown was a farther portion of the same popular production.

Note return to page 349 10109329P. 36. The whole of Scene V., with the song of Amiens and the parody by Jaques, is struck out; possibly, when this play was revived, at some date subsequent to the appearance of the folio, 1632, no performer who could sing well enough belonged to the company. The omissions may, however, have been made merely for the sake of compression.

Note return to page 350 10109330P. 38. Orlando tells old Adam to cheer up, and says to him, “For my sake be comfortable.” There seems no particular reason for any change, excepting that what is printed was perhaps not the true reading: there is a correction in the folio, 1632, which may restore it, in the words, “For my sake be comforted.” Shakespeare in many other places uses both “comfortable” and comforted.

Note return to page 351 10109331P. 41. There is an evident defect in every old copy in the following lines by Jaques:— “He, that a fool doth very wisely hit, Doth very foolishly, although he smart, Seem senseless of the bob: if not,” &c. Theobald inserted “Not to” before “seem senseless,” and he was nearly right, though not entirely so, for the better correction in the folio, 1632, is,— “Doth very foolishly, although he smart, But to seem senseless of the bob: if not The wise man's folly is anatomiz'd,” &c. Lower in the same page occurs another line, which has caused dispute. The printed words in the folio, 1623, are these:— “Till that the weary very means do ebb.” This is indisputably corrupt; and Pope, and nearly all editors after him, altered it as follows:— “Till that the very very means do ebb.” This repetition is poor and unlike Shakespeare, and the corrector gives us, we may believe, the poet's words,— “Till that the very means of wear do ebb:” “of wear” in some way got transposed, and the printer or transcriber, not knowing how to restore it to its right place, mutilated the meaning, which, however, is now quite intelligible: we are to take “the very means of wear” to be the money which buys the apparel.

Note return to page 352 10109332P. 45. Amiens' song is struck out, and the Duke ends by calling for music, which, we may presume, was played while he talked with Orlando regarding his parentage. There is a manuscript stage-direction, wanting in every printed copy, Duke confer with Orlando. The object must have been here, as elsewhere, to make the stage-business clear.

Note return to page 353 10109333P. 46. The Duke enters talking with Oliver about the absence of his brother, Oliver having previously told him that he has not seen him, “Not seen him, Sir?” exclaims the incredulous Duke, according to the corrector of the folio, 1632, and not, “Not see him, Sir?” as it has always been printed and reprinted.11Q1201

Note return to page 354 10109334P. 48. Orlando after hanging a paper on a tree, in the words of a manuscript stage-direction, makes his exit and Touchstone and Corin enter; but the latter half of what they say, after the words “mockable at court,” down to “I cannot see else how thou should'st 'scape,” is crossed out. Still, several literal errors are set right.

Note return to page 355 10109335P. 50. In Touchstone's verses the line,— “Wintred garments must be lin'd,” is corrected to “Winter garments must be lin'd,” which may be the true reading, although the folios all have wintred. The variation from the old copies by modern editors ought, at least, to have been noted.

Note return to page 356 10109336P. 51. The first line of Orlando's Poem has the indefinite article supplied by the corrector, in conformity with Pope's emendation,— “Why should this a desert be?” Tyrwhitt and Malone took a needless liberty with the text when they thrust silent into the line.

Note return to page 357 10109337P. 57. Rosalind offers to tell Orlando the different paces of time with different people, and afterwards “whom he stands still withal;” and when she comes to the last, Orlando, according to all editions, asks “Whom stays it still withal?” For “stays it” the manuscript-corrector inserts stands he which is consistent with what has gone before, and assuredly the language of the poet.

Note return to page 358 10109338P. 62. A misprint is met with in the middle of Touchstone's speech upon horns, which, we think, has hitherto not been suspected, but the correction of which makes an obscure passage quite clear. It is given in the four folios in these terms:— “Many a man has good horns and knows no end of them. Well, that is the dowry of his wife: 'tis none of his own getting; horns even so poor men alone: No, no, the noblest deer hath them as huge as the rascal.” Malone and others printed, “Horns? even so:—Poor men alone?” and what follows these words is an answer to the obscure question, which explains what was the import of that question. It appears that are had accidentally dropped out, and that for “even so” we ought to read given to, and then Touchstone's question will be perfectly intelligible: “Are horns given to poor men alone?” “No, no (replies Touchstone to his own interrogatory); the noblest deer hath them as huge as the rascal.” This emendation may have been obtained from some good authority.

Note return to page 359 10109339P. 63. All printed editions have missed the rhyme in the last line of the fragment of the ballad, “O, sweet Oliver.” Perhaps it was only the extemporal invention of Touchstone, but it is thus given by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632. “O sweet Oliver, O brave Oliver!   Leave me not behind thee: But wend away; begone I say,   I will not to wedding bind thee.” “I will not to wedding with thee,” has hitherto been the conclusion. “Wend away” was Johnson's suggestion.

Note return to page 360 10109340P. 66. Perhaps “dies,” in the following passage, is to be taken in the sense of causes to die; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, removes all doubt, if we may take his representation of the original text, by substituting kills. Silvius is asking Phebe whether she will be more cruel than the common executioner:— “Will you sterner be Than he that dies and lives by bloody drops?” If we may read kills for “dies,” the difficulty upon which Warburton, Johnson, Steevens, Tollet, and others have dwelt is at an end. Can dines have been the true word?

Note return to page 361 10109341P. 67. The commentators differ as to the precise meaning of “capable” in this passage:— “Lean but on a rush, The cicatrice and capable impressure Thy palm some moment keeps;” but “capable” appears not to have been the poet's word, and the manuscript-corrector has it “palpable impressure,”— an indentation that may be felt.

Note return to page 362 10109342P. 69. It is worth a note that Marlowe's celebrated line, quoted in this play,— “Who ever lov'd that lov'd not at first sight?” was underscored by the corrector because it was a quotation.

Note return to page 363 10109343P. 70. From “But what care I for words?” down to “For what had he to do to chide at me?” is crossed out in the folio, 1632, apparently for brevity's sake.

Note return to page 364 10109344P. 73. There is a remarkable misprint of Rosalind's speech, which has been every where repeated, because not till now made apparent. She and Orlando are talking of kissing, as a resource if a lover be “gravell'd for lack of matter.” The dialogue has always been this:— “Orl. How if the kiss be denied? Ros. Then she puts you to entreaty, and there begins new matter. Orl. Who could be out, being before his beloved mistress? Ros. Marry, that should you, if I were your mistress, or I should think my honesty ranker than my wit.” The blunder pointed out by the corrector of the folio, 1632, is in the last speech; and when the genuine text is given it will be seen in an instant how the errors, for there are more than one, occurred. Rosalind ought to say, in answer to Orlando's question, “Who could be out, being before his beloved mistress?” “Marry, that should you, if I were your mistress, or I should thank my honesty rather than my wit.” This is a singular restoration of Shakespeare's text, which could scarcely have arisen from any ingenious guess at the author's meaning.

Note return to page 365 10109345P. 74. The folio, 1632, is very ill-printed in this scene, and it makes Orlando say, I do, instead of “I die,” and lower down converts Coroners into Chroniclers. These mistakes are corrected in the margin.

Note return to page 366 10109346P. 76. Sir Thomas Hanmer made a tolerable guess, when he altered “occasion,” in the following sentence, to accusation, —“O, that woman that cannot make her fault her husband's occasion, let her never nurse her child herself, for she will breed it like a fool.” It is accusing in the corrected folio, 1632; no doubt, Shakespeare's word.

Note return to page 367 10109347P. 77. The manuscript-corrector adds a small word to the sentence with which Rosalind parts with Orlando in this scene, “Well, time is the old justice that examines all such offenders, and let time try you.” The sentence is incomplete without you, which is found in the margin.

Note return to page 368 10109348P. 78. This short scene is erased, perhaps on account of the song; but if nothing of the kind were given on the stage it would bring the two interviews of Rosalind and Orlando in juxta-position, and allow no interval. Although the song is struck out with the rest, that which is only a prose direction, but is printed as part of the song, “Then sing him home: the rest shall bear this burden,” is underlined by the corrector to indicate the mistake.

Note return to page 369 10109349P. 78. It has struck nobody that what Celia says in the commencement of this scene must be a quotation, and it is underscored as such by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Rosalind, impatient at Orlando's apparent want of punctuality, observes,— “How say you now? Is it not past two o'clock? And here much Orlando!” To which Celia answers jestingly by two lines taken, we may suppose, from some now unknown production,— “I warrant you, with pure love and troubled brain, He hath ta'en his bow and arrows, and gone forth— To sleep.” We hear nothing before, nor afterwards, about bows and arrows, and Celia terminates her quotation by two words of her own, jeering Rosalind upon the inattention of her lover. The two lines before “To sleep,” read like a quotation; and if they were not, there seems no reason why the corrector should have drawn his pen under them: he erases the redundant word is, “and is gone forth,” as injurious to the measure, and most likely not in the original from which Shakespeare took the lines.

Note return to page 370 10109350P. 83. Malone believed that a line had been lost after “As, how I came into that desert place;” but if there be any such deficiency, which we do not suspect, it must apply to what precedes, and not to what follows the above. The corrector of the folio, 1632, does not give the slightest hint that any thing is missing, which he has done in other places, and, if properly read, the sense is carried on, in spite of erroneous punctuation, through the whole passage. When Rosalind just afterwards swoons, and is raised by Oliver, the circumstance is noted in the margin, in the absence of printed stage-directions.

Note return to page 371 10109351P. 89. Silvius, describing love, says, among other things, that it is to be made of “All adoration, duty, and observance; All humbleness, all patience, and impatience; All purity, all trial, all observance.” Malone suggested that “observance” in the second instance ought to be obedience; but the fact is that the misprint is in the first “observance,” for the corrector of the folio, 1632, makes the line,— “All adoration, duty, and obedience,” obedience more properly following “duty” than “trial.”

Note return to page 372 10109352P. 91. Considering the difference among the commentators upon the point, it may be fit to mention that in the burden of the song, “It was a lover and his lass,” the line runs, in the corrected folio,— “In the spring time, the only pretty ring time,” and not “rang time,” as in the old copies, nor “rank time,” as Johnson recommended. Steevens was for “ring time,” and Pope for a repetition of “spring time.” Figures against the separate stanzas show that the order in which they are printed is wrong, and that the song ought to be as represented in the manuscript in the Advocates' Library, Edinburgh. Probably the company for which this comedy was prepared could manage this three-part song, and therefore it was not erased, like others for only one voice. The word, in Touchstone's comment upon the singing, is not “untuneable,” as in the folios, but untimeable, as corrected in that of 1632. This has been a disputed point.

Note return to page 373 10109353P. 92. A misprinted line in Orlando's first speech has produced much doubt, and many proposals for emendation. It stands as follows in all the old copies:— “As those that fear they hope, and know they fear.” It seems strange that nobody should yet have suggested the right change; for the mere substitution of to for “they,” in the first instance, gives a very intelligible and consistent meaning. The Duke asks if Orlando believes Rosalind can do what she has promised, and Orlando replies:— “I sometimes do believe, and sometimes do not, As those that fear to hope, and know they fear.” He was afraid to hope that she could be as good as her word, and knew that he was afraid. In the next line but one Rosalind observes,— “Patience once more, whiles our compact is urg'd.” “Urg'd” seems a word not well adapted to the place, and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that it is another error of the press, and that we ought to read,— “Patience once more, whiles our compact is heard;” and then she proceeds, orderly and audibly, to recapitulate to the party the several articles of the compact.

Note return to page 374 10109354P. 93. Rosalind makes her exit with an imperfect line, as it stands printed in all editions: she addresses Silvius,— “Keep your word, Silvius, that you'll marry her, If she refuse me:—and from hence I go, To make these doubts all even. [Exeunt Rosalind and Celia.” It appears that the dropping out of two small words after “To make these doubts all even,” rendered the line defective, and spoiled the intended rhyme, which gives point to the termination of the speech. According to the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, the couplet ran thus in its complete state:— “If she refuse me:—and from hence I go, To make these doubts all even—even so.” The words thus recovered are of little value, in themselves, but we can hardly doubt that they came from Shakespeare's pen.

Note return to page 375 10109355P. 96. A stage-direction (wanting in the old printed copies) informs us that when Rosalind returns, ushered by Hymen, she is apparelled as a woman; and from this part of the scene to the end of the play the old corrector has been very particular, by writing in the initials and otherwise, to “bar confusion” as to the various persons addressed, and to make every thing so clear that the actors could commit no mistake.

Note return to page 376 10109356P. 97. Hymen's address ends thus, as always printed:— “That reason wonder may diminish, How thus we met, and these things finish.” But it is put much more tersely in the manuscript of the corrector of the folio, 1632:— “That reason wonder may diminish, How thus we met, and thus we finish.” We can readily believe that such was the authentic conclusion of the speech.

Note return to page 377 10109357P. 98. The line in Hymen's song,— “To Hymen, god of every town,” is slightly altered by the old corrector, and with apparent fitness,— “To Hymen, god in every town.” He also introduces an emendation into the last line but two of the Second Brother's speech:— “His crown bequeathing to his banish'd brother, And all their lands restor'd to them again That were with him exil'd.” The old text is “him” for them, which may by ingenuity be reconciled to propriety; but them makes the passage more easily understood, which here, at least, in the winding up of the plot, must have been a main object with the poet.

Note return to page 378 10109358P. 107. The stage-direction at the commencement of this comedy in the old folios is confused and redundant: Enter Beggar and Hostess, Christophero Sly; but the “Beggar” and Christophero Sly are the same person: therefore, the corrector of the folio, 1632, has made the stage-direction run merely as follows: Enter Hostess and Christophero Sly. The prefixes to what Sly says are always printed Beg., for “Beggar,” but they are in every instance changed in manuscript to Sly. Sly's exclamation from “The Spanish Tragedy,” “Go by S. Jeronimy,” has given commentators some trouble, in consequence of the capital S. before “Jeronimy.” It seems to be merely a printer's blunder (who might fancy that St. Jerome was alluded to), and so the old corrector treated it, by unceremoniously putting his pen through it.

Note return to page 379 10109359P. 110. The folios have this line in the Lord's speech of instructions to his servants:— “And when he says he is, say that he dreams:” later editors have printed it thus:— “And when he says he is—, say, that he dreams:” leaving it to be supposed that the Lord left his sentence incomplete. Such does not appear to be the fact, for the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, makes the line run naturally enough,— “When he says what he is, say that he dreams.” In modern editions, by the separate printing of insignificant words, such as is it for “is't” and an it for “an't” of the old copies, syllables have been multiplied in preceding lines, so as to conceal an evident defect in one near the bottom of the page,— “That offer service to your lordship.” Here two syllables are wanting, and the corrector of the second folio credibly informs us that we should complete the measure thus:— “That offer humble service to your lordship.” Adopting this word, it will be necessary to put the Lord's question in this very usual form:— “How now! who is't? Serv. An't please your honour, Players, That offer humble service to your lordship.” The Players then enter, and after the words, Enter Players, “5 or 6” are added in parentheses, to show that there ought not to be fewer in the company offering their services.

Note return to page 380 10109360P. 113. The Lord (dressed like a servant), wishing to persuade Sly that he has been insane, begins his speech, as commonly printed, with this line:— “Heaven cease this idle humour in your honour!” and the manuscript-corrector strikes out “idle,” and inserts evil, which is probably right, as is proved by the context, where the Lord adds that Sly had been possessed by a “foul spirit.” “Idle humour” was, therefore, by no means so proper as “evil humour,” and was most likely an error of the press.

Note return to page 381 10109361P. 114. Shakespeare has mentioned his native county in a place where hitherto it has not been at all suspected. Sly, according to all editions, says,— “Ask Marian Hacket, the fat alewife of Wincot, if she know me not: if she say I am not fourteen pence on the score for sheer ale, score me up for the lyingest knave in Christendom.” Malone did not know what to make of “sheer ale,” but supposed that it meant shearing or reaping ale, for so reaping is called in Warwickshire. What does it mean? It is spelt sheere in the old copies, and that word begins one line, Warwick having undoubtedly dropped out at the end of the preceding line. The corrector of the folio, 1632, inserted the missing word in manuscript, and made the last part of the sentence run,— “If she say I am not fourteen pence on the score for Warwickshire ale, score me up for the lyingest knave in Christendom.” Wincot, where Marian Hacket lived, is some miles from Stratford-upon-Avon. It was formerly not at all unusual to spell “shire” sheere; and Sly's “sheer ale” thus turns out to have been Warwickshire ale, which Shakespeare celebrated, and of which he had doubtless often partaken at Mrs. Hacket's. We almost wonder that, in his local particularity, he did not mention the sign of her house. This emendation, like many others, must have been obtained from some better manuscript than that in the hands of the old printer.11Q1202

Note return to page 382 10109362P. 117. Sly thus addresses his supposed wife:— “Madam wife, they say that I have dream'd, And slept above some fifteen year, and more.” The sense tells us that we ought to read,— “And slept about some fifteen year, or more;” and “above” is altered to about by the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 383 10109363P. 118. A misprint of a different kind, and an awkward transposition, destroyed the rhyming couplet with which the Induction ought to end. It has been always printed as follows: Sly is speaking of the play about to be exhibited before him:— “Well, we'll see't. Come, madam wife, sit by my side, And let the world slip: we shall ne'er be younger.” We are to bear in mind that Sly's expression, used in the very opening, is “Let the world slide.” How, then, does the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, state that the above lines should run?— “Well, we'll see't. Come, madam wife, sit by my side; We shall ne'er be younger, and let the world slide.” The comedy then begins; and, according to the ancient arrangements of our theatres, the supposed spectators, viz. Sly, his Lady, the Lord, &c., occupy the balcony at the back of the stage, and facing the real audience: the manuscript stage-direction, therefore, in this place is, They sit above, and look on below; that is, look on at what is acted on the stage below them.

Note return to page 384 10109364P. 119. Recollecting how many learned hands our great dramatist's works have passed through, it is wonderful that such a blunder as that we are enabled now to point out, should not have been detected and mentioned in print at least a century ago. Lucentio, attended by Tranio, having arrived at Padua to study in the university there, the servant thus addresses his master, and our quotation is the same in all impressions, ancient and modern:— “Let's be no stoics nor no stocks, I pray; Or so devote to Aristotle's checks, As Ovid be an outcast quite abjur'd.” What are “Aristotle's checks?” Undoubtedly a misprint for Aristotle's Ethics, formerly spelt ethicks, and hence the absurd blunder. “Or so devote to Aristotle's ethics” is the line as it stands authoritatively corrected in the margin of the folio, 1632. In the last line of this page, Lucentio is represented as apostrophising his absent boy, Biondello,— “If, Biondello, thou wert come ashore,” &c. The real words being merely in the form of an observation,— “If, Biondello, now were come ashore,” &c. This is one of the mistakes that must have arisen from mishearing on the part of the copyist of the play. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, sets the matter right.

Note return to page 385 10109365P. 120. Two errors, one of omission and the other of commission, occur in a question by Katherine and an answer by Hortensio. The first is leaving out the word gracious, which is wanting for the completeness of the line, and the other the misprint of “mould” for mood; both are thus corrected in the margin of the folio, 1632:— “Kath. I pray you, sir, is it your gracious will To make a stale of me among these mates? Hort. Mates, maid! how mean you that? no mates for you, Unless you were of gentler, milder mood.”

Note return to page 386 10109366P. 123. Lucentio breaks out into a speech in rhyme in admiration of Bianca's beauty, but it is injured by the misprinting of so poor a word as “had” for race:— “O, yes, I saw sweet beauty in her face, Such as the daughter of Agenor's race, That made great Jove to humble him to her hand, When with his knees he kiss'd the Cretan strand.” The above is the greatly improved reading of the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 387 10109367P. 125. The old copies present us with this corrupt and imperfect line, where Tranio is urging his master to speed in exchanging clothes with him:— “In brief, sir, sith it your pleasure is,” which is thus altered by the old corrector:— “Be brief then, sir, sith it your pleasure is.” Malone, without any authority, had guessed at the insertion of then, but allowed “In brief” to remain. Lower down, for “wounded eye” the correction is “wond'ring eye,” which may or may not be right, but the presumption is much in its favour.

Note return to page 388 10109368P. 134. Gremio, referring to Petruchio's enterprise against Katherine, tells Hortensio,— “This gentleman is happily arriv'd, My mind presumes, for his own good, and yours;” but it was for Gremio's good, as well as for that of Hortensio, both being suitors to Bianca; and there is little doubt that the corrector of the folio, 1632, was justified in changing “yours” to ours.

Note return to page 389 10109369P. 137. In the line of Bianca's speech,— “That I disdain; but for these other goods,” Theobald read gauds for “goods,” but the manuscript-corrector tells us that gards or guards, in the sense of ornaments, was our great poet's word. It may be so.

Note return to page 390 10109370P. 139. Petruchio says, when ironically praising Katherine to her father,— “That, hearing of her beauty, and her wit, Her affability, and bashful modesty, Her wondrous qualities, and mild behaviour,” he had come to woo her. The word “wondrous” seems out of place, and in the corrected folio the line in which it occurs thus stands, with evident improvement,— “Her woman's qualities, and mild behaviour;” for the hero was dwelling upon the heroine's female recommendations and attributes.

Note return to page 391 10109371P. 144. The point of Katherine's retort to Petruchio has been lost by an error either of the copyist or of the printer. Petruchio tells her,— “Women are made to bear, and so are you;” to which she replies, as the line has been given since the publication of the second folio,— “No such jade, sir, as you, if me you mean;” thus calling Petruchio a jade; but the point of her reply is, that although a woman and made to bear, she was not such a jade as to bear Petruchio:— “No such jade to bear you, if me you mean.” The folio, 1623, gives the line even less perfectly than that of 1632, and it is evident that the corrector of the second folio has supplied words which had in some way escaped from the text. The coarse joke about the wasp's sting, near the bottom of the page, is struck out by him.

Note return to page 392 10109372P. 147. Petruchio, giving Baptista an account of his interview with Katherine, remarks,— “She is not froward, but modest as the dove;” She is not hot, but temperate as the morn;” to which ordinary text no objection would perhaps present itself, did not the corrector inform us, by a marginal note, that the last line ought to be,— “She is not hot, but temperate as the moon;” which, in reference to the chaste coldness of the moon, was doubtless the true word.

Note return to page 393 10109373P. 151. Steevens thought a couplet was intended at the close of this Act, and proposed to read doing for “cunning.” He wished to alter the wrong word, for the manuscript-corrector makes it appear that, for the purpose of the rhyme, “wooing” ought to be winning:— “but in this case of winning, A child shall get a sire, if I fail not of my cunning.”

Note return to page 394 10109374P. 151. Lucentio and Hortensio, disguised as a language-master and a musician, quarrel as to precedence in the instruction of Bianca. All editions represent Hortensio's speech as beginning thus defectively:— “But, wrangling pedant, this is The patroness of heavenly harmony.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, gives “But” as a misprint for the interjection Tut! (of frequent occurrence in this and other plays) and furnishes two missing words in the following manner:— “Tut! wrangling pedant, I avouch this is The patroness of heavenly harmony,” &c. which is somewhat better than the insignificant mode adopted by Ritson, who only wanted to fill up the line, “But, wrangling pedant, know this lady is,” &c. There must have existed some original for I avouch.

Note return to page 395 10109375P. 156. Biondello's exclamation, as it is given with obvious defectiveness in the early impressions, “Master, master! news, and such news as you never heard of,” has been amended in various ways; but the manuscript correction in the folio, 1632, differs from all others, and is doubtless what the poet intended, viz. “Master, master! news, and such old news as you never heard of.” That old is wanted appears from Baptista's question, “Is it old and new too?” which immediately follows. Old is often used as a superlative.

Note return to page 396 10109376P. 157. If the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, be accurate in one of his emendations, it appears to throw a new and singular light upon an incident in Shakespeare's life,—a difference with Michael Drayton, and why the latter, having praised our greatest dramatist and his “Lucrece” in “Matilda,” first published in 1594, withdrew the stanza in 1596, and never afterwards reprinted it. It is not easy to account for this change on any other ground than that some offence had been taken by Drayton at Shakespeare, and the point is adverted to in Vol. viii., p. 411. We have, perhaps, a clue to the origin of the difference in one of the manuscript changes made in the play under consideration, which would show that it arose out of a particular allusion by Shakespeare to one of Drayton's poems, and not out of any competition between them as dramatic authors. Biondello, bringing an account of the arrival of Petruchio and his man Grumio, and of their strange caparisons and appearance, says of the latter, that he wore “an old hat, and the humour of forty fancies prick'd in't for a feather.” This is precisely as the passage is given in all editions of all periods; and Warburton and Steevens speculated that “the humour of forty fancies” was a collection of short popular poems, which Grumio had stuck in his hat by way of ornament. The notion that such was the case is strengthened by the corrector of the folio, 1632; but he gives us more than a hint what was the publication in question, by altering the text as follows:— “An old hat, and the Amours, or Forty Fancies, prick'd in't for a feather.” The commentators could find no work at all corresponding in title to “the humour of forty fancies;” but here it is stated by the old corrector, that the title was erroneously quoted, or in other words that the compositor had printed “Humour” for Amours, and “of” for or. Now, there is a small production, by Drayton, consisting of love poems, the title of which, though not identical, approaches sufficiently nearly to what is found in the amended text, to warrant a suspicion that it might be the work alluded to by our great dramatist, and that Drayton had been so annoyed by the reference that he expunged from the later editions of his “Matilda,” the praise he had given to Shakespeare in the first impression in 1594. This notion may be a little supported by the fact, that the ridicule, if intended, was effectual, for Drayton never afterwards reprinted the poetical tract in question, although he inserted some of the sonnets it contains in others of his republications. The tract came out in 1594, under the subsequent brief title:— “Ideas Mirrour. Amours in Quatorzains.” The word “Amours” is in such large type, compared with “Ideas Mirrour,” that, popularly, it might be called Drayton's “Amours,” and although not in “forty,” it is in fifty “fancies,” or short love poems; but “forty fancies,” with the introductory word “Amours,” was probably enough for Shakespeare's purpose, and he might not wish to be more exact. It is, of course, merely conjecture that he meant to produce a harmless laugh against his contemporary by an allusion to this collection of his small poems; and, if well-founded, it would carry back the composition and first representation of “The Taming of the Shrew” to about the period assigned by Malone, viz. 1595 or 1596. It is to be observed that Shakespeare's “Lucrece,” Drayton's “Amours,” and “Matilda,” and the old “Taming of a Shrew,” were all published with the date of 1594. Upon the last, Shakespeare, as is well known, founded his comedy, and his attention might be directed to the subject by the appearance of “The Taming of a Shrew,” in 1594. We give the whole of this merely as a speculation; and it is nearly twenty years since we saw the sole existing copy of Drayton's “Amours in Quatorzains.”11Q1203

Note return to page 397 10109377P. 158. If any confirmation were needed that the scrap of a ballad repeated by Biondello, and printed as prose in all previous editions, was in verse, and a quotation, it is afforded by the corrector of the folio, 1632, who as usual underscores it on that account. When Petruchio and Grumio enter, instantly afterwards, a manuscript stage-direction is inserted to tell us that they are strangely clad, and something else seems to have been added, which was erased, and is therefore not legible. The first line spoken by Petruchio, alluding to his apparel, is deficient of a syllable,— “Were it better, I should rush in thus.” The word wanting is supplied by the corrector,— “Were it much better, I should rush in thus.”

Note return to page 398 10109378P. 159. Having inquired after Katherine, and talked for some time, Petruchio suddenly reproves himself,— “But what a fool am I to chat with you, When I should wish good-morrow to my bride, And seal the title with a lovely kiss?” “Lovely” is here misprinted, as in various other places, for loving, and that word is found, therefore, in the margin of the folio, 1632. Five lines lower in the folio, 1632,— “But, sir, love concerneth us to add,” is amended in manuscript to “But to our love concerneth us to add,” which while it preserves the verse, makes the meaning apparent. Theobald has “our” for to our, and Tyrwhitt recommended, “But, sir, to her,” which, however, renders the measure redundant.

Note return to page 399 10109379P. 168. The manuscript stage-directions in this part of the play are descriptive and particular: thus we are informed that when Petruchio and his wife enter, all the servants, frightened, run away—that he sings the two fragments of ballads—that the meat is served in—that both sit down to it, and that he throws it all about. Modern editions have only some of these instructions for the due performance of the piece, and the old folios none of them.

Note return to page 400 10109380P. 172. The evident misprint at the end of Hortensio's speech “them” for her, which the second folio caught from the first, is duly set right by the manuscript-corrector. Tranio, immediately afterwards, says,— “And here I take the like unfeigned oath Never to marry with her, though she would entreat.” The words “with” and “would” are both redundant, and are struck through by the old corrector, leaving the line, thus perfect;— “Never to marry her, though she entreat.” In the first line of Hortensio's reply the necessary pronoun her is omitted;— “Would all the world, but he, had quite forsworn her.” It is written in the margin, and had probably dropped out at the end of the line.

Note return to page 401 10109381P. 173. The word “Angel” in the following line,— “An ancient Angel coming down the hill,” has produced various conjectural emendations, the one usually adopted being that of Theobald, who proposed to read “ancient engle;” but we are to recollect that the person spoken of was on foot, and we have no doubt that the word wanting is ambler, which we meet with in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632. As to engle or ingle, which means a person of weak understanding, how was Biondello to know that “the Pedant” was so, by merely seeing him walk down the hill? he could see at once that he was an ambler. How ambler came to be misprinted “angel” is a difficulty of perpetual recurrence.

Note return to page 402 10109382P. 183. Baptista, conferring with the false Vincentio, consents to the marriage of Bianca on the passing of a sufficient dower: if so, he adds,— “The match is made, and all is done.” This is clearly a defective line, out of which the word happily has escaped, as we learn from the corrector of the folio, 1632,— “The match is made and all is happily done.” In the next line but one, we have “know” misprinted for hold, “Where, then, do you know best,” instead of “Where, then, do you hold best.”

Note return to page 403 10109383P. 185. Lucentio, receiving from Biondello instructions how he should proceed, the latter says in the folio, 1623, which has been commonly followed by modern editors, “The old priest at St. Luke's Church is at your command at all hours:” “Luc. And what of all this? Bion. I cannot tell; expect; they are busied about a counterfeit assurance, take you assurance of her,” &c. The folio, 1632, properly prints except for “expect,” but does not go quite far enough in the emendation, which is thus finished by the old corrector,— “Bion. I cannot tell; except, while they are busied about a counterfeit assurance, take you assurance of her,” &c. This addition of while cannot be wrong, for Lucentio was to make off with Bianca to St. Luke's during the time that the old folks were “busied” about the pretended deed for the lady's dower.

Note return to page 404 10109384P. 186. When Petruchio cannot make his wife say that the sun is the moon, he resolves, as a punishment to her, not to proceed on his journey to Baptista's, and tells one of his servants to fetch the horses back that he had sent forward: the invariable text has been,— “Go on, and fetch our horses back again.” But one was of old often spelt “on,” and such was the case here, for a marginal note informs us that we ought to read,— “Go one, and fetch our horses back again.” It is a mere trifle; and lower down, in the same page, Katherine admitting that the sun is the moon, says,— “And so it shall be so for Katherine.” The manuscript-corrector very properly makes the last “so” still:— “And so it shall be still for Katherine.”

Note return to page 405 10109385P. 192. The real father of Lucentio, having been roughly treated by the pretended father and Tranio, exclaims in old and modern editions,— “Thus strangers may be haled and abus'd,” which is hardly verse, but the addition of two omitted letters makes it indisputably so,— “Thus strangers may be handled and abus'd.” Handled, which was misprinted “haled,” is supplied in manuscript in the corrected folio, 1632.11Q1204

Note return to page 406 10109386P. 194. Petruchio remarks, in all the folios,— “And time it is, when raging war is come, To smile at 'scapes and perils overblown.” Rowe altered “come” to “done,” some emendation of the kind being necessary, but, according to the correction in the folio, 1632, the proper word was not “done” but gone, as conjectured in note 2, at the foot of this page.

Note return to page 407 10109387P. 196. The corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us, as we may readily believe, that the word several has strangely escaped from the subsequent line by Petruchio: “Let's each one send unto his wife,” instead of “Let's each one send unto his several wife,” which makes the sense and measure complete. Words would scarcely have been inserted in this way without some adequate warrant in the possession of the corrector.

Note return to page 408 10109388P. 198. Lucentio's wife, Bianca, not obeying his directions to come to him, he tells her that her refusal,— “Hath cost me five hundred crowns since supper time.” We need have no scruple in amending a line so manifestly corrupt both in substance and form, for the wager was not five hundred, but “one hundred crowns,” and the verse is also redundant, though easily reduced to its proper length without any loss, excepting of a useless word that, in some unexplained manner, found its way into it. In the corrected folio, 1632, the passage appears thus:— “The wisdom of your duty, fair Bianca, Cost me one hundred crowns since supper time.” Pope was the first to set right the numerical blunder in print; but until now, when we have this new authority before us, no editor has thought himself at liberty to reject the needless auxiliary.

Note return to page 409 10109389P. 208. The Countess, speaking of Gerard de Narbon, says, as the passage has been invariably printed, “Whose skill was almost as great as his honesty; had it stretched so far, would have made nature immortal,” &c. The auxiliary verb “was” is struck out in the corrected folio, 1632, and the sentence is made to run less elliptically, “Whose skill, almost as great as his honesty, had it stretched so far, would have made nature immortal,” &c.

Note return to page 410 10109390P. 210. In the passage of Helena's speech,— “My imagination Carries no favour in't but Bertram's,” the last line is clearly defective, the word only having been accidentally omitted: “Carries no favour in't but only Bertram's,” is doubtless the true reading from the corrected folio, 1632.

Note return to page 411 10109391P. 212. In the dissertation on virginity by Parolles, “ten” is altered to two, which has not been the usual mode of printing the sentence, “Within two years it will make itself two, which is a goodly increase.” This was Steevens' mode of curing the misprint, and, on the whole, it seems preferable to Sir Thomas Hanmer's change of “two,” in the second instance, to ten, “Within ten years it will make itself ten,” Parolles would hardly look forward to so distant a period. This speech, and indeed all the rest of the scene until the entrance of the Page, is crossed out in the folio, 1632. Nevertheless several emendations are made in the margin: thus Parolles at the end of his harangue asks Helena, “Will you do any thing with it,” which connects her reply, “Not with my virginity yet,” and the question: do and with are both added by the old corrector of the folio, 1632. The whole of this part of the scene is a very blundering specimen of typography.

Note return to page 412 10109392P. 214. A difficulty which has arisen respecting the couplet,— “The mightiest space in fortune nature brings To join like likes, and kiss like native things,” is in a great degree, if not entirely, removed by the transposition of the words “fortune” and “nature:” the manuscript-corrector instructs us to read thus:— “The mightiest space in nature fortune brings To join like likes, and kiss like native things.” The meaning is then evident, viz., that fortune occasions things that are like each other to join, notwithstanding the mightiest space in nature may intervene between them.

Note return to page 413 10109393P. 220. It has been stated that it was the practice of the corrector of the folio, 1632, to mark under every passage quoted, whether from a ballad or a book; and by amending the Clown's repetition of an old song he has supplied a deficiency, which Warburton perceived and would have set right, but not in the right way. We may feel satisfied that it ran thus, and the necessary words, Good sooth it was, are written in an adjoining blank space:— “Was this fair face, quoth she, the cause   Why Grecians sacked Troy? Fond done, done fond, good sooth it was;   Was this King Priam's joy?” The rest is the same as in the old folios. The Countess complains that the Clown “corrupts the song,” which he denies; and his answer contains another addition to the text of some importance, besides the correction of a printer's error, which has always been amended in a way to injure, instead of improving, the sense. The Clown says, in reply to the charge that he “corrupts the song” by allowing only one good woman in ten,— “One good woman in ten, madam, which is a purifying o' the song and mending o' the sex. Would God would serve the world so all the year! we'd find no fault with the tithe-woman, if I were the parson. One in ten, quotha! An we might have a good woman born—but one— every blazing star, or at an earthquake, 'twould mend the lottery well.” Thus, besides the restoration to the original text of the words “and mending o' the sex,” the meaning is strengthened by “but one” instead of “but ere,” or “but ore” as it stands in the old impressions. Steevens left it out because he did not know what to make of it, and Malone suggested “but or.” The emendation of “ore” to one adds point to the satire intended by the Clown.

Note return to page 414 10109394P. 221. The Clown's ridicule of the puritans and the Steward's remark about the “queen of virgins” are both erased—the last, probably, because it was unintelligible to the corrector.

Note return to page 415 10109395P. 222. The Countess has received information from her Steward of Helena's secret love for Bertram, and in a soliloquy (for according to the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, the heroine enters too early in all editions) makes excuses for the young lady's passion, ending with this couplet, as it has always been printed:— “By our remembrances of days foregone, Such were our faults; or then we thought them none.” Here there is a misprint, arising no doubt out of the mishearing of the scribe, the correction of which is of importance, because it makes the meaning of the Countess quite evident, whereas, in the ordinary state of the text, it is obscure. The lines ought to run, as we learn from the old corrector's manuscript,— “By our remembrances of days foregone Search we out faults—for then we thought them none.” i. e. let us measure faults in others by the recollection of our own, when we thought them none. Helena enters at the moment, and the suspicions of the Countess are confirmed by her appearance, “Her eye is sick on't,” &c.

Note return to page 416 10109396P. 225. In Helena's speech, describing her father's prescriptions, she says, in all copies of the play, that they are “such as his reading And manifest experience had collected.” For “manifest,” the corrector of the folio, 1632, places manifold in the margin, in allusion to the old physician's great practice. We may safely admit the emendation.

Note return to page 417 10109397P. 229. The corrector of the folio, 1632, not being able to make any thing out of the words, “there do muster true gate,” has struck them out, and left the sentence to run thus: “For they wear themselves in the cap of the time, eat, speak, and move under the influence of the most received star.” For move, the second folio has the misprint of more.

Note return to page 418 10109398P. 230. Some of the commentators fancied that a line had been lost at the close of Lafeu's speech, in praise of the wonderful prescription he had seen, which was able to do much more than cure the King, for it could raise Pepin from his grave, and enable Charlemaine to write a love letter to the owner of the medicine. The passage has hitherto been given as follows:— “whose simple touch Is powerful to araise King Pepin, nay, To give great Charlemaine a pen in's hand And write to her a love-line.” Of the word “araise,” we have no other example, and the old corrector writes it upraise, for which it was most likely misprinted—while to alter “and” to “to,” at the beginning of the next line but one, makes the whole meaning clear, without supposing any thing to have been lost:— “whose simple touch Is powerful to upraise King Pepin, nay, To give great Charlemaine a pen in's hand To write to her a love-line.”

Note return to page 419 10109399P. 233. The manuscript-corrector reads, “despair most fits,” for “shifts” in the last line of Helena's speech; and, supported as the change is by other authorities, there can be no dispute that it is the right word, in preference to “despair most sits” of Pope.

Note return to page 420 10109400P. 234. In the King's speech, accepting the services of Helena, occurs a line of only eight syllables, to which Warburton added the word “virtue” to complete the measure. It has been supposed by some that it might have been left by the author purposely defective; but, on the other hand, we now find that the corrector of the folio, 1632, introduced an emendation of it, and we cannot but conclude that he had some warrant for doing so, especially as the change he recommends is free from the objection to which the suggestion of Warburton was liable: he also proposes a slight change in the next line, which appears to be a decided improvement. The couplet stands thus in all the folios:— “Youth, beauty, wisdom, courage, all That happiness and prime can happy call.” As amended by the old corrector, it runs,— “Youth, beauty, wisdom, courage, honour, all That happiness in prime can happy call.” “Happiness in prime” is of course happiness in youth, the spring of life, as Johnson explains the word “prime.”

Note return to page 421 10109401P. 240. The King, after his cure, calls forth the young lords under his wardship, that Helena may make her choice from them, telling her that “they stand at his bestowing:”— “O'er whom both sovereign power and father's voice I have to use.” The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, puts “sovereign” as well as “father” in the genitive:— “O'er whom both sovereign's power and father's voice I am to use.” The King was to use his power as a sovereign, as well as his voice as a father, with his youthful nobility. In Lafeu's speech, just below, “And writ as little beard” is changed to “And with as little beard,” with obvious fitness in this place, although elsewhere Shakespeare may use “writ” and “write” with some peculiarity.

Note return to page 422 10109402P. 242. When Helena makes her choice of Bertram with the words, “This is the man,” a stage-direction is added in manuscript, He draws back, to show in what way the hero on the instant indicated his astonishment and reluctance. The notifications of the kind throughout this play are comparatively few and of little moment.

Note return to page 423 10109403P. 243. Regarding the sentence,— “My honour's at the stake, which to defeat I must produce my power,” the commentators differ, some being for defend and others for preserving “defeat.” There can be no doubt that defend is the word naturally required by the sense, and we find “defeat” altered to defend in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632. It seems a mere error of the press.

Note return to page 424 10109404P. 247. Another misprint occurs in Lafeu's attack upon Parolles, where he says, according to all old copies of the play, “You are more saucy with lords and honourable personages, than the commission of your birth and virtue gives you heraldry.” Malone altered the places of “commission” and “heraldry” without any improvement, and without being aware that “commission” was merely a blunder for condition: “than the condition of your birth and virtue gives you heraldry,” is the true reading, supplied by the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 425 10109405P. 248. Rowe was the first in print to change “detected” to detested in the following passage,— “War is no strife To the dark house, and the detested wife.” It is “detected” in the old editions; but in the folio, 1632, it is corrected in manuscript to detested—thus setting right an indisputable error.

Note return to page 426 10109406P. 250. In modern editions (in some without notice) two speeches by the Clown are made only one; and in the old folios he is represented as speaking twice running. The fact is (as conjectured in note 6), that an answer by Parolles to the Clown's first speech has been accidentally omitted in the printed copies, but is supplied in manuscript in the folio, 1632. The dialogue, therefore, ought to run,— “Par. Go to, thou art a witty fool: I have found thee. Clo. Did you find me in yourself, sir, or were you taught to find me? Par. Go to, I say: I have found thee: no more; I have found thee, a witty fool. Clo. The search, sir, was profitable,” &c. What we have printed in Italics is written in the lower margin of the folio, 1632, with a line drawn to the place in the page where it ought to come in. The omission was not of great value in itself; but we are, of course, glad to preserve any lost words (if such they be) of our great dramatist.

Note return to page 427 10109407P. 252. As might be expected, the mistake, in Bertram's speech, of, “And ere I do begin,” for “End ere I do begin,” did not escape the corrector of the folio, 1632, who marked the emendation in the margin. Another instance of misprinting “end” and, occurs in “Henry the Fifth.”

Note return to page 428 10109408P. 258. The commencement of the speech of the Countess to Helena, on the return of the latter to Rousillon, has always been given as follows:— “I pr'ythee, lady, have a better cheer; If thou engrossest all the griefs are thine, Thou robb'st me of a moiety.” The old corrector tells us, and we may readily believe him, that there is a small, but important, error in the second line,— “If thou engrossest all the griefs as thine, Thou robb'st me of a moiety.”

Note return to page 429 10109409P. 259. A decided corruption is pointed out in one of the French Envoy's remarks upon Parolles: the words, as commonly printed, are,— “Indeed, good lady, The fellow has a deal fo that too much, Which holds him much to have.” If two errors in the last line had not been committed, the commentators would have been spared much useless conjecture; for the passage ought, as we learn from a manuscript note in the folio, 1632, to stand as follows:— “Indeed, good lady, The fellow has a deal of that too much Which 'hoves him much to leave.” What was unintelligible, without the exercise of peculiar and misplaced ingenuity, is thus rendered clear and palpable.

Note return to page 430 10109410P. 260. In the same way, and upon the same evidence, we are able to set right a quotation which has given infinite trouble and occasioned many notes. It occurs in Helena's speech, where she is reflecting on the danger to which Bertram will be exposed in the wars: she says, according to the folio, 1623, “O! you leaden messengers, That ride upon the violent speed of fire, Fly with false aim; move the still-peering air, That sings with piercing, do not touch my lord!” &c. The folio, 1632, has “still-piercing air” and “that stings with piercing.” Malone printed “still-piecing air,” and so far was right; but the old corrector substitutes volant for “violent” and wound for “move,” and gives the whole passage thus distinctly:— “O! you leaden messengers, That ride upon the volant speed of fire, Fly with false aim; wound the still-piecing air, That sings with piercing, do not touch my lord!” &c. The mistake of “violent” for volant was almost to be expected; and the copyist, having misheard the word, wrote “move” instead of wound. This is an emendation that might possibly have been made without the assistance of a better manuscript than that used for the folio in which the error first appeared. Malone truly states that in the line,— “I met the ravin lion when he roar'd,” “ravin” means ravening: the old corrector states that “ravin” was a misprint for ravening.

Note return to page 431 10109411P. 263. In the passage, “Which of them both Is dearest to me, I have no skill in sense To make distinction,” “skill or sense” seems preferable, and “in” is altered to or by the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 432 10109412P. 269. For “let him fetch his drum,” the correction in the folio, 1632, is “let him fetch off his drum,” which is the very phrase used in the next speech. Theobald speculated that “lump of ours,” of the old copies, should be “lump of ore,” but “lump of ores” is proposed in the margin of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 433 10109413P. 278. We here meet with an easy misprint and a happy emendation of the text. Bertram, endeavouring to melt and mould the virtuous Diana to his wishes, tells her,— “If the quick fire of youth light not your mind, You are no maiden, but a monument: When you are dead, you should be such a one As you are now, for you are cold and stern.” Steevens seems to have had a notion that “stern” was not the right word, but he did not know what to put instead of it. Bertram complains that Diana is not a “maiden, but a monument,” and the old corrector explains how she was a monument,— For you are cold and stone.”

Note return to page 434 10109414P. 279. The seven lines in Diana's speech, which begin “What is not holy,” and end “That I will work against him,” are erased in the corrected folio, perhaps as difficult to be understood, and Johnson and others have admitted themselves to be “at a loss” for the meaning.

Note return to page 435 10109415P. 280. The following passage, as it is printed in all the old editions, has caused much vexation: Diana is speaking to Bertram, who is doing his utmost to make his suit acceptable to her,— “I see, that men make ropes in such a scarre, That we'll forsake ourselves.” The reading of Rowe, the earliest editor after the appearance of the last of the four folios in 1685, was,— “I see that men make hopes in such affairs, That we'll forsake ourselves.” Other emendations have been proposed; but it may be sufficient to state that Malone adopted hopes from Rowe, and substituted “in such a scene,” for “in such a scarre.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, appears to have detected the real misprint, and the correction of it makes it evident that Diana intends to say, that when men endeavour to seduce women from virtue, they indulge hopes that the weaker sex, thus assailed, will abandon themselves “in such a suit,” and submit to importunity:— “I see, that men make hopes in such a suit, That we'll forsake ourselves.” Thus we find that hopes (as Rowe supposed), had been misprinted “ropes,” and that suit (often spelt suite of old), had been misprinted “scarre.” With these two errors set right the meaning of the poet seems ascertained.

Note return to page 436 10109416P. 281. Diana, having assented to Helena's wish that she should be her substitute, exclaims, just before Bertram makes his exit,— “You have won A wife of me, although my hope be done.” The manuscript-corrector erases “done,” and inserts none: she had gained a wife for Bertram, although her hope in the transaction was nothing. We may take it for granted, perhaps, that the original word was none; but here, as in some former cases, it may be thought, on any other account, a matter almost of indifference.

Note return to page 437 10109417P. 282. Those who have desired to adhere closely to the folio, 1623, have sometimes been induced to refuse to correct even decided errors of the press; as in the following instance, where the French Gentleman is made to ask, “Is it not meant damnable in us, to be trumpeters of our unlawful intents?” “Is it not most damnable,” &c., is required by the sense, as well as warranted by the corrector of the folio, 1632. In the next speech of the same character we ought, on the same warranty, to change “company” into companion, although sense may certainly be made out of “company” of the old impressions.

Note return to page 438 10109418P. 283. There are three mistakes of the same description in another short speech by the French Gentleman on this page: we first quote it as printed in the folio, 1632:— “The stronger part of it by her own letters; which make her story true, even to the point of her death: her death is self, which could not be her office to say, is come, was faithfully confirmed by the rector of the place.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, and common sense, tell us for “stronger,” to read stranger; for “is self,” to read itself (as has of course been done by all modern editors); and for “was,” to read and.

Note return to page 439 10109419P. 286. After Parolles has offered to take the sacrament, in order to testify the truth of what he says, the following words, “All's one to him,” are absurdly made part of his own speech in the old copies. It has been usual, with Malone and others, to assign them to Bertram, but Ritson contended that they rather belonged to Dumain. A manuscript-correction shows that it was an observation made aside by the person who pretended to act as Interpreter, the prefix Int. having been inserted in the margin of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 440 10109420P. 293. The passage in Helena's speech, beginning, “But O, strange men,” and ending, “But more of this hereafter,” is struck through with a pen. We may here mention that such is the case with a part of the next scene, from Lafeu's question, “Whether dost thou profess thyself,” &c., down to the Clown's speech ending with the words, “the great fire.” The reason for the last omission we can readily understand.

Note return to page 441 10109421P. 294. When Helena is in haste to take her departure from Florence, with Diana and the Widow, she is represented in the folios as saying to them,— “We must away; Our waggon is prepar'd, and time revives us.” Nearly all the commentators agree that “revives” must be a misprint, and Johnson suggests invites as the proper word; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that “revives” is an error for reviles: the time found fault with Helena and her companions for delay. In the earlier part of the same speech he converts “word” into world:— “But with the world the time will bring on summer.” Helena wishes Diana to wait with patience the issue of events, which would produce as happy a result, as in the natural world, where the beauty of summer followed the dreariness of winter. This trifling change seems to render unnecessary any speculation.

Note return to page 442 10109422P. 295. For “salad-herbs” (which Rowe inserted, the word being only “herbs” in the folios), we ought, according to the old corrector, to read pot-herbs, the printer, or scribe, as in some other cases already pointed out, having blundered, because two words came together with nearly the same letters and sound:—“They are not pot-herbs, you knave; they are nose-herbs.” Lower down, we have properly name for “maine” of the old impressions.

Note return to page 443 10109423P. 296. The Countess, describing the Clown, says that “he has no pace, but runs where he will.” A letter has merely been omitted, as we learn from a manuscript-correction, and we ought to read place for “pace,” the Countess meaning that the Clown had no fixed duties, although allowed the run of the house. This slight change, which accords with Tyrwhitt's notion, renders it needless to suppose, with Johnson, that the Countess makes a far-fetched allusion to the pace of a horse.

Note return to page 444 10109424P. 298. Steevens originally fancied that “Astringer” was an error of the press for a stranger; but he afterwards introduced a long note to show that “a gentle Astringer” of the folio, 1623, was “a gentleman falconer.” In the folio, 1632, the word is printed A stranger, and the manuscript-corrector has altered the stage-direction to this form, Enter a gent. a stranger; that is, Enter a gentleman, a stranger,—a person not known to Helena and her companions. We may feel confident that it was a mistake, first made in the folio, 1623, and that this gentleman, a stranger, had no necessary connexion with falconry. In confirmation it may be added, that when he afterwards appears again before the King at Rousillon, he is only called in the old copies a gentleman, without any hint that he is what Steevens terms “an astringer;” and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, has altered the stage-direction in that place to Enter the gentleman stranger, in order to identify him with the Gent. a stranger, in the former scene.11Q1205

Note return to page 445 10109425P. 299. To the words, “Enter Clown and Parolles,” the old corrector has subjoined ill-favoured, to show that the apparel of Parolles was very different, in this scene, to the gay attire he had worn before his exposure and dismissal.

Note return to page 446 10109426P. 302. The alteration of blaze for “blade” in the line,— “Natural rebellion, done in the blade of youth,” of the old copies, is confirmed by a manuscript marginal note in the folio, 1632. Theobald was the first judiciously to substitute blaze.

Note return to page 447 10109428P. 304. In the King's speech, beginning “Well excus'd,” the epithet “sour,” before “offence,” is altered to sore with apparent fitness, while the two strange lines,— “Our own love, waking, cries to see what's done, While shameful hate sleeps out the afternoon,” are erased, giving some countenance to Johnson's “hope” that they were “an interpolation of a player,” though we believe it to be an inexplicable corruption. It has been the practice of all modern editors to assign the couplet,— “Which better than the first, O, dear heaven bless! Or, ere they meet, in me, O nature, cease,” to the Countess instead of the King, to whom they are certainly wrongly given in all the folios. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, places the prefix of Lafeu before them, making his speech begin there, and not at “Come on, my son,” &c. No material objection to this arrangement seems to present itself. The conclusion of the speech, as it stands in the old impressions,— “Such a ring as this, The last that ere I took her leave at court, I saw upon her finger,” runs much more intelligibly as follows:— “Such a ring as this, The last time ere she took her leave at court, I saw upon her finger.” Rowe proposed she; but the alteration of “that” to time seems equally necessary, and it is justified in the handwriting of the old corrector.

Note return to page 448 10109429P. 307. A good deal of contrariety of opinion has prevailed respecting Lafeu's speech, rejecting Bertram. In the folio, 1623, it is this, with the observance of the old punctuation, which is here material:— “I will buy me a son in law in a fair, and toll for this. I'll none of him.” The folio, 1632, furnishes the text thus varied:— “I will buy me a son in law in a fear and toll him for this. I'll none of him.” The old corrector of that edition merely alters the stops (setting right the mis-spelling of the word “fair”), and renders the sentence quite perspicuous:— “I will buy me a son in law in a fair, and toll him: for this, I'll none of him.” i. e. pay toll, as usual in fairs, on the transaction, but have nothing more to do with Bertram.

Note return to page 449 10109430P. 308. An improvement in the versification is produced by the addition of a single letter in one of the King's speeches, where he says,— “Come hither, count. Do you know these women?” The manuscript-correction is,— “Come hither, county. Do you know these women?” County, for “count,” is of constant occurrence.

Note return to page 450 10109431P. 309. The line in Bertram's explanation how Diana obtained the ring from him,— “Her insuit coming with her modern grace,” has been supposed to refer to her solicitation for the ring; but the words, “insuite comming,” as they are spelt in the folio, 1623 (the folio, 1632, omits the final e), are merely misprinted; and on the evidence of the manuscript-corrector, as well as common sense, we must print the passage hereafter,— “Her infinite cunning, with her modern grace, Subdued me to her rate.” This appears to be one of the instances in which a gross blunder was occasioned, in part by the mishearing of the old scribe, and in part by the carelessness of the old printer. The sagacity of the late Mr. Walker hit upon this excellent emendation. See Athenæum, 17 April, 1852.

Note return to page 451 10109432P. 310. The word “have” is struck out in the following line; and as it is injurious to the measure, as well as needless to the meaning, we may feel assured that it accidentally found its way into the text of the folios:— “You that have turn'd off a first so noble wife.” It must have originally stood,— “You that turn'd off a first so noble wife.” Malone felt the objection to “have” so strongly that he omitted it, but inexcusably without notice.

Note return to page 452 10109433P. 313. When Bertram, just after the entrance of Helena, exclaims, “Both, both! O, pardon!” he flung himself upon his knees, when this play was anciently acted, and Kneels is therefore inserted as a marginal stage-direction. We might gather from the first words of the “Epilogue” (not so called in the old copies, the six lines having no heading), that it was spoken by the King; but it is so stated in manuscript by the corrector of the folio, 1632, Epilogue by the King.

Note return to page 453 10109434P. 325. From the manuscript stage-direction in the corrected folio, 1632, inserted before the Duke speaks,—Music behind—we may infer that the comedy opened by the performance of some instrumental strains at the back of the stage. When the Duke exclaims “Enough! no more,” Cease is written in the margin; so that, perhaps, the musicians continued to play, in a subdued manner, while the Duke was delivering his first seven lines. An authority has been long wanted for the word south (in preference to “sound” of all editions until Pope's time), in the passage,— “O! it came o'er my ear like the sweet south, That breathes upon a bank of violets.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, supplies that authority, and has struck out the two last letters of “sound,” and replaced them by th, in his ordinary brief and business-like manner. We may thus, perhaps, consider “sound,” which has had but few advocates in modern times, as in future exploded from the text of Shakespeare.

Note return to page 454 10109435P. 332. The old copies, when Maria is going, make Sir Toby say, “An thou let part so, sir Andrew,” omitting a pronoun which seems necessary, and which is supplied by the manuscript-corrector, “An thou let her part so, sir Andrew.” Farther on in the same dialogue the folio, 1632, left out me in the sentence by sir Andrew, “Never in your life, I think; unless you see Canary put me down.” A note in the margin makes the passage correspond in this particular with the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 455 10109436P. 333. Theobald detected a singular printer's error, when, in all early editions, Sir Toby tells sir Andrew that his hair “will not cool my nature,” instead of “will not curl by nature.” The old corrector of the folio, 1632, alters “cool” to curl, and “my” to by, as might be expected.

Note return to page 456 10109437P. 335. Pope was wrong in his change respecting “flame-colour'd stock:” the old editions have it “dam'd colour'd stock,” which the manuscript-corrector informs us ought to be “dun-colour'd stock.” When sir Andrew, referring just before to his dancing, tells Sir Toby, that he has “the backtrick simply as strong as any man in Illyria,” a stage-direction is inserted in the margin, Dances fantastically, to show that the knight exhibited his proficiency to the audience. At the close of the scene, when Sir Toby observes to Sir Andrew, “Let me see thee caper,” the stage-direction is Dances again, we may presume as ridiculously as before. These notes, for the direction of the performer of the part, are not in any edition ancient or modern, and were very possibly derived in part from the practice of the old actor of the character of Sir Andrew.

Note return to page 457 10109438P. 337. The Duke having directed Viola to make love on his behalf to Olivia, the latter replies,— “I'll do my best To woo your lady,” and then adds, aside,— “Yet, a barful strife; Whoe'er I woo, myself would be his wife.” The force of the last passage is much augmented by making the first hemistich an exclamation,— “Yet, O barful strife!” which is the judicious reading afforded by the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 458 10109439P. 342. It is clear that the following ought to be in the alternative; Malvolio speaks: “He says, he'll stand at your door like a sheriff's post, and be the supporter of a bench, but he'll speak to you.” Viola could not suppose herself “a sheriff's post,” and “the supporter of a bench” at the same time; therefore the manuscript-correction is “or be the supporter of a bench.” Such emendations are minute, but they are generally important, as far as the sense of the poet is concerned; and, at all events, they show the attention the corrector paid even to what might be considered trifles, did they relate to any other author than Shakespeare.

Note return to page 459 10109440P. 345. The expression, “Such a one I was this present,” has excited much comment, editors not exactly knowing what to make of it. The manuscript-corrector says that we ought to read, “Such a one I am at this present,” which, bearing in mind that Olivia unveils at the instant, is reasonable; but, nevertheless, the old reading might stand.

Note return to page 460 10109441P. 349. It is not easy to determine with whom the responsibility rests of the strange, but decided, blunder here pointed out by the corrector of the folio, 1632. Sebastian is speaking of his reputed likeness to his sister:— “A lady, sir though it was said she much resembled me, was yet of many accounted beautiful: but, though I could not with such estimable wonder overfar believe that, yet thus far I will boldly publish her,” &c. It is not surprising that the commentators should have been at strife regarding the meaning of this passage; and Warburton was so gravelled by it, that he felt obliged to omit the words, “with such estimable wonder,” as “a player's interpolation.” This is a very ready way of overcoming any obstacle. It certainly is difficult to account for the gross misprints in the above short sentence; but they are most distinctly pointed out by the corrector of the folio, 1632, in his own clear and accurate manner; and when we read the words he has substituted for those of the received text, we see at once that he could not be mistaken. Sebastian modestly denies that he much resembled his beautiful lost sister, observing,— “A lady, sir, though it was said she much resembled me, was yet of many accounted beautiful; but, though I could not with self-estimation wander so far to believe that, yet thus far I will boldly publish her,” &c. May we conclude, that this new and self-evident improvement of the absurd old reading was derived from some original source, perhaps from some better manuscript than that employed by the old printer of the folio, 1623, which was exactly followed in the folio, 1632? Such an emendation could hardly be the result of mere guess-work.

Note return to page 461 10109442P. 351. The ambiguity, to say the least of it, belonging to Viola's words, “She took the ring of me,” is entirely avoided by reading, “She took no ring of me;” and this, no doubt, was the language of the poet. The corrector of the folio, 1632, strikes out “the” in the body of the text, and places no in the margin. This alteration renders what the heroine afterwards says quite consistent, “I left no ring with her,” and “Why, he sent her none.”

Note return to page 462 10109443P. 353. We meet here with a welcome addition to the text where it cannot be doubted that something is wanting. One of the speeches of Sir Andrew has hitherto only terminated with a hyphen, showing that even the conclusion of a word has been carelessly omitted in the old copies: in modern editions the hyphen has been elongated, as if the knight had been interrupted by the Clown, and not allowed to finish his sentence. In the first and other folios, this part of the dialogue stands exactly as follows:— “Sir To. Come on: there is sixpence for you; let's have a song. Sir An. There's a testril of me, too: if one knight give a- Clo. Would you have a love-song, or a song of good life?” The elongation of the hyphen in modern editions, has made Sir Andrew's speech of course appear thus, but it is a misrepresentation of the originals:— “Sir And. There's a testril of me too: if one knight give a &lblank;” Now, what ought to be the text, according to the addition made to it by interlineation in the corrected copy of the folio, 1632? It will be seen that the continuation of the sentence, thus cut short by a hyphen in the early impressions, completes the word, of which the two syllables had been separated: we give the speech, to the minutest particular, in the form in which it appears, partly in print, and partly in the hand-writing of the old corrector, marking the latter by Italic type:— “Sir An. There's a testrill of me too: if one knight give a- way sixe pence so will I give an other: go to, a song.” The first line ends with a-, and the next begins with way: unless, therefore, the corrector of the folio, 1632, invented this termination of an unfinished sentence, he must have obtained it from some accurate and authentic source. In this instance, we apprehend that the manuscript used by the old printer was not defective, but that a line, consisting of what is above inserted in Italics, was accidentally left out by the compositor of the folio, 1623, and the defect never discovered. In all the copies of the folios, 1623 and 1632, which we have had an opportunity of examining, the same deficiency is to be noted.11Q1206

Note return to page 463 10109444P. 354. An alteration is made in the Clown's song, which gives a different, if not an improved, meaning to the second line of it:— “O, mistress mine! where are you roaming? O! stay, for here your true love's coming,” &c. The ordinary words are “O! stay and hear,” &c. The stage-directions regarding the singing of the scraps of ballads, catches, &c., in this scene, are numerous and precise: but there is one manuscript note opposite the line of the ballad,— “O! the twelfth day of December,” which is not easily understood: it merely consists of “17 Nov.” Why the 12th December was especially mentioned in the ballad quoted, we know not; but the 17th November was the day on which Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne, and it was usual to compose and publish loyal songs to celebrate it. When this comedy was first produced, it seems probable that Elizabeth was still reigning, and a song on the 17th November may possibly have been originally introduced in her honour, which might be altered to some other, beginning, “O! the twelfth day of December,” after her demise. This curious fact may have been within the knowledge of the corrector of the folio, 1632, and he may have thus briefly recorded it.

Note return to page 464 10109445P. 363. Just before the exit of the Clown the Duke is made to say, in the old copies as well as in modern editions, “Give me now leave to leave thee,” which can hardly be right, seeing that it is the Clown who is going to leave the Duke, not the Duke the Clown: the old corrector therefore makes these necessary changes: “I give thee leave to leave me.” Thee and me got transposed, and I was omitted.

Note return to page 465 10109446P. 367. In Malvolio's speech beginning, “And then to have the humour of state,” we meet with the common misprint of “humour” for honour. There can be little doubt that the corrector of the folio, 1632, has furnished the true word, although the false one has been argued upon by various commentators, “And then to have the honour of state.” Malvolio is fancying himself married to the Countess, and assuming dignity in consequence among his menials. The suggestion in note 10, that “cars” has been misprinted, gives a hint at the explanation of a speech by Fabian, which we find in the hand-writing of the corrector. Fabian is enforcing silence in order that Malvolio, while they are watching him, may not discover them, and says in the folio, 1623, “Though our silence be drawn from us with cars, yet peace!” The folio, 1632, prints “cars” cares, and many proposals have been made to alter “cars” to cables, carts, &c.; but “with cars” turns out to be an error of the press for by th' ears, or by the ears, and the meaning is perfectly clear when we read, “Though our silence be drawn from us by th' ears, yet peace!” This scene is very carelessly printed in the old copies, and subsequently we have “stallion” for stannyel (the corrector of the folio, 1632, gives the word falcon, which means nearly the same thing), “become” for born, &c. The folio, 1632, renders the matter worse by additional errors, besides those in the earlier impression of 1623; but they are all set right in manuscript.

Note return to page 466 10109447P. 374. Viola, disserting upon the qualifications of a professed jester, remarks:— “He must observe their mood on whom he jests, The quality of persons, and the time, And, like the haggard, check at every feather That comes before his eye.” The haggard was a wild hawk that flew at all birds; and what Viola is therefore made to say is the contrary of what she must mean. The old corrector renders her speech consistent by reading,— “Not, like the haggard, check at every feather That comes before his eye.”

Note return to page 467 10109448P. 377. Olivia, in her apology to Viola for sending the ring after her, says, in all printed copies of this comedy,— “Under your hard construction must I sit, To force that on you, in a shameful cunning,” &c. The manuscript-corrector tells us to substitute shame-fac'd for “shameful,” as the poet's original language. The fitness of this emendation seems disputable.

Note return to page 468 10109449P. 382. The folio, 1632, omits two lines, contained in the folio, 1623, from which it was printed, and they are written in the margin by the corrector of the later of these impressions, but not in the defective terms in which they are found in the earlier: in 1623 they were thus given:— “And thanks: and ever oft good turns Are shuffled off with such incurrent pay.” Two syllables are clearly wanting in the first line, and editors have resorted to various expedients for supplying them; but certainly none so good as the following,— “And thanks, still thanks; and very oft good turns Are shuffled off with such incurrent pay,” which the old corrector inserts as the passage in his time. We have no doubt that he was right; but it is to be remarked that “still thanks” is interlined, in the same handwriting, but in different ink.

Note return to page 469 10109450P. 384. The manuscript stage-directions in this scene are remarkable for the minute manner in which they describe the conduct of Viola and Sir Andrew, when Sir Toby and Fabian are inciting them to a desperate encounter. When Sir Andrew enters we are told that he hangs back; and of Viola it is said that she is unwilling; while they afterwards, at the instance of Sir Toby and Fabian, both draw, but instead of advancing, go back. It would not be easy to act such a scene without these or other similar instructions, which are not in the old printed copies.

Note return to page 470 10109451P. 396. The moment the following misprint is pointed out it will probably be admitted. Antonio, seized by the officers, appeals to Viola, thinking her Sebastian, and to his grief and disappointment is repelled as a stranger. He then reproaches the supposed Sebastian with the services he had rendered to him, and with the affection he had borne him, adding these lines,— “And to his image, which, methought, did promise Most venerable worth, did I devotion.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, places the letters in the margin, which convert “venerable” (an epithet hardly applicable to persons like Viola or Sebastian) to veritable. He found the worth not veritable, because he fancied himself deceived in his friend when most he needed his aid. At the same time it must be allowed that “venerable,” in a certain sense, answers the author's purpose, though his own word must have been veritable.

Note return to page 471 10109452P. 398. For the Clown's declaration, “I am afraid this great lubber, the world, will prove a cockney,” the manuscript-corrector has “lubberly world.”

Note return to page 472 10109453P. 405. An alteration in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632, proves that Farmer and Steevens were right in supposing that for “Adieu, goodman devil,” in the last line of the Clown's introduced ballad, the reading ought to be,— “Adieu, goodman drivel.” In a preceding line,—“Like to the old Vice,”—the corrector erases “to;” and has “with a trice” for “in a trice,” the former being the older expression, and probably the true word of the ancient ballad cited.

Note return to page 473 10109454P. 408. For “The triplex, sir, is a good tripping measure,” said by the Clown when he wishes the Duke to give him a third piece of money, the manuscript-corrector gives “the triplet,” the allusion apparently being to the triplet, or triple mode of rhyming in poetry.

Note return to page 474 10109455P. 412. Olivia commands the Priest, on his entrance, to relate what had passed between herself and Sebastian, when he married them: he replies,— “A contract of eternal bond of love,” instead of “A contract and eternal bond of love,” which is most likely right, the printer having by mistake inserted “of” for and. The change is marked in the margin of the folio, 1632. Lower down, the second folio has “How little faith,” for “Hold little faith,” of the first folio; and the right word is restored by the same authority, thus making the second folio accord with the first.

Note return to page 475 10109456P. 414. On the entrance of Sebastian, the corrector of the folio, 1632, has added, as a stage-direction, All start, to indicate, no doubt, the surprise which ought to be expressed by the performers at the evident and remarkable similarity between him and Viola.

Note return to page 476 10109457P. 415. The resemblance in sound between true and “drew” may have misled the copyist of this play in the second of the following lines:— “So comes it, lady, you have been mistook; But nature to her bias drew in that.” The old corrector converts “drew” into true, by merely striking out d, and inserting t in the margin: nature was true to her bias, although Olivia had been mistaken in supposing herself contracted to Viola.11Q1207

Note return to page 477 10109458P. 416. The Duke, sending for Malvolio, checks himself,— “And yet, alas, now I remember me, They say, poor gentleman, he is distract. A most extracting frenzy of my own From my remembrance clearly banish'd his.” The printer of the folio, 1632, converted “extracting,” of the folio, 1623, which could hardly be right, into exacting, which is more wrong; for the corrector of that edition informs us that exacting ought to be distracting, inasmuch as the Duke is representing himself as in the same condition with Malvolio. Malone persuaded himself that “extracting” was Shakespeare's word, but here we have strong evidence to the contrary.

Note return to page 478 10109459P. 417. Olivia, speaking of the joint celebration of her own and of the Duke's nuptials, says,— “One day shall crown the alliance on't, so please you; Here at my house, and at my proper cost.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, puts it thus:— “One day shall crown the alliance, and, so please you, Here at my house,” &c.

Note return to page 479 10109460P. 418. When Malvolio is brought upon the scene by Fabian, we meet with a very particular stage-direction, obedience to which must have been intended to produce a ludicrous effect upon the audience: Enter Malvolio, as from prison, with straw about him; in order to show the nature of the confinement to which the poor conceited victim had been subjected.

Note return to page 480 10109461P. 418. In the speech of the Countess there appear to be two errors of the press in these lines, as they are contained in all editions:— “It was she First told me thou wast mad; then cam'st in smiling, And in such forms which here were presuppos'd Upon thee in the letter.” According to corrections in the margin of the folio, 1632, the passage should be printed thus:— “It was she First told me thou wast mad: thou cam'st in smiling, And in such forms, which here were preimpos'd Upon thee in the letter.” Both emendations seem required: thou was easily misprinted “then,” and “presuppos'd upon thee” is little better than nonsense.

Note return to page 481 10109462P. 419. Olivia adds insult to injury when she thus laments Malvolio's ill-treatment:— “Alas, poor fool, how have they baffled thee!” What Shakespeare made her say was merely compassionate, if we may believe the old corrector:— “Alas, poor soul, how have they baffled thee!” Soul being written with a long s was very likely to be confounded with “fool.” Lower in the page, the Clown is made to repeat Maria's letter correctly, “Some have greatness thrust upon them,” not “thrown upon them,” as it erroneously stands in all the folios.

Note return to page 482 10109463P. 420. The Clown sings his song at the end to pipe and tabor, the usual musical instruments of such personages; and in the first scene of Act III. he enters, playing on his pipe and tabor, two stage-directions only found in the manuscript additions to the folio, 1632. There can be no doubt that he was furnished on both occasions with these accessories. The fourth stanza of his “song” is thus altered by the manuscript-corrector:— “But when I came unto my bed,   With hey, ho, the wind and the rain, With toss-pots still I had drunken head,   For the rain it raineth every day.” Modern editors have rightly put “bed” and “head” in the singular, instead of the plural as in the old impressions; but the insertion of the pronoun in the third line is new, and necessary, unless we can suppose it to be understood. We may presume, perhaps, that it was not understood in the original manuscript.

Note return to page 483 10109464P. 430. The word so seems to have been accidentally omitted where Camillo is speaking of the friendly intercourse kept up between Leontes and Polixenes, while at a distance in their separate dominions: he says: “Their encounters, though not personal, have been so royally attorney'd, with interchange of gifts, letters, loving embassies, that they have seemed to be together, though absent,” &c. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, adds so in the margin, and puts gifts in the plural, which is in the singular in that edition.

Note return to page 484 10109465P. 431. The subsequent passage in the speech of Polixenes has given trouble to the commentators:— “That may blow No sneaping winds at home, to make us say, ‘This is put forth too truly.’” The allusion seems unquestionably to be to the putting forth of buds or blooms in spring, when they may be cut off by “sneaping,” or nipping winds; and the alteration of “truly” to early, as we find it in the corrected folio, 1632, seems to remove great part of the difficulty; there is also an emendation at the commencement, which renders the whole intelligible; we there read as follows:— “May there blow No sneaping winds at home, to make us say, ‘This is put forth too early.’” At all events, the above is not “nonsense,” which Warburton calls the original, as first printed in the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 485 10109466P. 432. We learn from a manuscript stage-direction, that Leontes walked apart, as if not paying particular attention, while Hermione was using arguments to prevail upon Polixenes to stay.

Note return to page 486 10109467P. 433. There is no doubt that we ought to amend the words of the old copies, “What lady she her lord,” to “What lady should her lord,” not merely because it so stands corrected in the folio in Lord Ellesmere's library, but because precisely the same alteration is made in the margin of the folio, 1632, in our hands. Two concurrent and independent authorities must be decisive.

Note return to page 487 10109468P. 435. The line given to Hermione,— “With spur we heat an acre. But to the goal,” is to be read, as in no edition it has been yet given; the context, as always printed, is,—, “You may ride's With one soft kiss a thousand furlongs, ere With spur we heat an acre. But to the goal:— My last good deed was to entreat his stay: What was my first?” The Queen first speaks of the facility with which women may be won by kindness to do anything; and from thence she proceeds to advert to the two “good deeds” which Leontes admitted she had done. The changes recommended by the corrector of the folio, 1632, are singularly to the purpose:— “With spur we clear an acre. But to the good:” that is, women may be made to go a thousand furlongs for a kiss, while by spurring they can hardly be made to clear an acre. In the first part of the line, clear was misprinted “heat;” and in the last, good was misprinted “goal.” Hermione is reverting to the good her husband had admitted she had twice done, and calls upon him to name her first good deed as well as her last. “But to the good,” is as much as to say, “But come to the good deeds which you admit I have done.”

Note return to page 488 10109469P. 436. Malone was well warranted by the old corrector in supposing that in the following line we ought to substitute “bounty's fertile bosom” for “From heartiness, from bounty, fertile bosom;” from which, however, sense may be extracted.

Note return to page 489 10109470P. 437. An expression used by Leontes, usually printed, “As o'er-dyed blacks,” is shown on the same authority to be an error of the press: it occurs where the King is speaking of the falsehood of women, which he likens to the false show of mourning often put on at funerals, and then technically called “blacks:”— “But they were false As o'er-dyed blacks, as wind, as waters.” The commentators fancied that the allusion was to the want of permanence in over-dyed blacks, or blacks that were dyed too much; some of them properly took “blacks” to mean funeral mourning, but they stumbled at “o'er-dyed.” The corrector, by a slight change, shows the precise meaning of the poet:— “But they are false As our dead blacks, as winds, as waters.” “Our dead blacks,” were blacks worn at the deaths of persons whose loss was not at all lamented. This emendation may have been derived from a better manuscript, or, perhaps, from a better recitation; but, nevertheless, the obscure conclusion of this speech, from “Affection? thy intention,” &c., is crossed out in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 490 10109471P. 438. A stage-direction, Holding his forehead, proves that Hermione's observation,— “You look, As if you held a brow of much distraction,” is to be taken literally.

Note return to page 491 10109472P. 444. The dispute whether to read “her medal” or “his medal,” is set at rest by the assurance of the old corrector that neither is right, but that “a medal” was the poet's language.

Note return to page 492 10109473P. 448. It may be enough to mention that the punctuation of the passage, beginning, “As you are certainly a gentleman,” &c., is exactly that introduced by the corrector of the folio, 1632, and is opposed to the regulation of the passage in this respect adopted by Malone (Shaksp., by Boswell, xiv. p. 269). Lower down, the corrector represents Camillo as saying, “I am appointed him to murder you,” which agrees with the reading of the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 493 10109474P. 450. Much discussion has been produced by a passage near the end of this scene where Polixenes says,— Good expedition be my friend, and comfort The gracious queen, part of his theme, but nothing Of his ill-ta'en suspicion.” Warburton reasonably asks, how could “good expedition” comfort the queen? and Johnson, Steevens, and Malone have each disserted upon the question at large. If we may confide in the manuscript-correction we meet with in the folio, 1632, there are two errors of the press, the removal of which, at the same time removes all doubt: for one of them, “and” for heaven, we are not well able to account; the other, “theme” for dream, has clearly arisen from mishearing:— “Good expedition be my friend: heaven comfort The gracious queen, part of his dream, but nothing Of his ill-ta'en suspicion.” While Polixenes was befriended by expedition, he prayed heaven to comfort Hermione, part of the jealous dream of Leontes, but no part of his unfounded suspicion.

Note return to page 494 10109475P. 452. In the following, there appears to be a decided misprint:— “There may be in the cup A spider steep'd, and one may drink, depart, And yet partake no venom.” The emendation in the folio, 1632, is,— “and one may drink a part, And yet partake no venom;” i. e. drink a part of the contents of the cup, and yet take no portion of the venom supposed to be communicated by the spider.

Note return to page 495 10109476P. 456. The conjecture in note 7 respecting the word “stables,” in the ensuing observation by Antigonus, is in some degree confirmed by the manuscript-corrector:— “If it prove She's otherwise, I'll keep my stables where I lodge my wife.” We ought to read “stables” in the singular, and to substitute me for “my;” and the meaning then is, that Antigonus would keep himself stable where he lodged his wife, lest she should offend in the same way as Hermione:— “If it prove She's otherwise, I'll keep me stables where I lodge my wife.” He would never allow her to be out of his sight: he would keep his stabulum, or abode, always near her. In the next note, more than a doubt is expressed that “land-damn,” of the old copies, was not a misprint for lamback, a word of not unfrequent occurrence; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, erases “land-damn” in the text, and places lamback in the margin. At all events, this fact will put an end to the conjectures respecting lant, by Sir T. Hanmer, and laudanum, by Steevens. Johnson was well founded in thinking the word, for which “land-damn” was intended, “one of those which caprice brought into fashion.”

Note return to page 496 10109477P. 460. When Paulina, in the subsequent exclamation, speaks of the “dangerous unsafe lunes i' the king,” it is mere tautology, for what is “dangerous,” is evidently “unsafe.” By “lunes,” Shakespeare means fits of distraction, and when the old corrector directs us to read, instead of “unsafe,” unsane,— “These dangerous unsane lunes i' the King, beshrew them,”— we must at once admit the value of the emendation.

Note return to page 497 10109478P. 462. The manuscript stage-directions in this scene, clearly required for the government of the actors, are frequent and explanatory. Paulina first enters at the back of the stage, with the babe, and after a struggle with the attendants, lays it down before Leontes. When she is pushed out, she leaves the child behind her: when the Lords kneel, we are told so; and information is similarly given when the King draws his sword to swear Antigonus upon it, who takes up the infant, and departs with it. None of these needful instructions are found in the old printed copies, and they show the precise manner in which the business was conducted when, we may suppose, the corrector of the folio, 1632, saw the drama performed at one of our early theatres.

Note return to page 498 10109479P. 470. This whole scene is crossed out with a pen, as capable of being dispensed with; but it seems to have been inserted by the author for the purpose of giving more time for the preparation of the trial-scene of Hermione. If it were not acted, the interval between the second and third acts must have been proportionally extended.

Note return to page 499 10109480P. 471. To the old brief stage-direction, Silence. Enter, is added, in manuscript, Hermione attended to her trial, just before the indictment against her is read.

Note return to page 500 10109481P. 473. Few passages in this play have occasioned more notes than this, in Hermione's address:— “Since he came, With what encounter so uncurrent I Have strain'd, t' appear thus:” &c. She is alluding to the visit of Polixenes, out of which, by some “uncurrent encounter,” or unjustifiable meeting, the present accusation had grown. The difficulty has chiefly arisen out of the word “strain'd,” for which the corrector writes stray'd; and it seems to clear away much of the difficulty. Hermione was charged with having strayed from her duty by an “uncurrent encounter” with Polixenes, and she inquires where and how it had happened, in order to justify her appearance before the court:— “Since he came, With what encounter so uncurrent I Have stray'd t' appear thus:” &c. Perhaps the meaning would be still clearer, had the whole been put interrogatively, “Have I stray'd,” &c.

Note return to page 501 10109482P. 479. When Paulina brings word of the sudden death of the Queen, we are told, in manuscript, that Leontes falls back in his seat, and Paulina begins to repent the cruel recapitulation she has previously made of the consequences of the King's conduct to his dead wife, son, &c. As this part of the scene has always been printed, she thus expresses her regret:— “What's gone, and what's past help, Should be past grief: do not receive affliction At my petition, I beseech you; rather, Let me be punish'd, that have minded you Of what you should forget.” Now, what can here be the meaning of the words, “at my petition?” It is merely an error of the press, or of the copyist. Paulina has repeated in most bitter terms all the evils that have been occasioned by the jealousy and obstinacy of Leontes; and the corrector of the folio, 1632, striking out “my,” and inserting re before “petition,” makes the sentence stand thus:— “Do not receive affliction At repetition, I beseech you,”— in other words, “Do not allow my repetition of the fatal results of your jealousy to afflict you.” Nothing can surely be plainer, or more pertinent.

Note return to page 502 10109483P. 481. Antigonus, in the relation of his dream, in which he imagined he saw the weeping Hermione, says,— “I never saw a vessel of like sorrow, So fill'd, and so becoming.” “So becoming,” can scarcely be right; and we learn from the manuscript-corrector that there was a natural connexion between the words, “so fill'd,” and what follows them, which was entirely lost, as we must imagine, by the mishearing of the person who wrote the copy of the play used by the printer. The true reading appears to be:— “I never saw a vessel of like sorrow, So fill'd, and so o'er-running.” The sorrow with which Hermione was so filled, was o'er-running at her eyes. Lower down on the same page another error occurs in the dream, where Hermione directs Antigonus to proceed with the babe to Bohemia, and adds,— “There weep, and leave it crying,” instead of “There wend, and leave it crying.” “There wend” is, of course, thither proceed; and whether this blunder, constantly repeated by all editors, originated with the scribe, or was introduced by the printer, we are not in a condition to determine. That it was a blunder, appears almost indubitable.11Q1208

Note return to page 503 10109484P. 487. In ancient and modern editions, Camillo informs Polixenes that he has “missingly noted” the absence of his son Florizel from court; the corrector of the folio, 1632, marks “missingly,” as an error, and inserts musingly instead of it—a somewhat questionable change.

Note return to page 504 10109485P. 488. The manuscript-corrector notes, with great particularity, that the fragments of ballads, with which Autolicus commences this scene, were sung by him to three several tunes, putting “1 Tune,” “2 Tune,” and “3 Tune,” against each of them. The three stanzas beginning,— “When daffodils begin to peer,” were sung to the first tune, whatever it may have been; the one stanza, commencing,— “But shall I go mourn for that, my dear?” was sung to the second tune; and the last fragment,— “If tinkers may have leave to live,” to the third tune. This information is followed by the words in the margin, And more if need be, by which we are probably to understand, that it was left to the comic performer to decide whether he would not amuse the audience by other snatches, if he could furnish them. It may also be remarked that, for “pugging tooth,” of the old copies, the emendator substitutes “prigging tooth;” and “pugging” may have been a misprint for the more familiar cant term for stealing.

Note return to page 505 10109486P. 490. All the necessary (some, perhaps, more than are absolutely necessary) stage-directions are provided in the margin: for instance, we are told that Autolicus, pretending to have been robbed and beaten, rolls about on the ground, and that the Clown helps him on his legs, after which he has his purse cut by the party he had assisted.

Note return to page 506 10109487P. 492. According to the corrector of the folio, 1632, there has been a singular misconception in the last sentence given to Autolicus at the close of this scene. It is where, according to the invariable misrepresentation of Shakespeare's text, the Pedlar wishes that his name may “be unrolled,” and “put in the book of virtue;” the word should be enrolled, as is clear from what follows: he wishes his name to be enrolled, and placed in the book of virtue.

Note return to page 507 10109488P. 493. Two mistakes are pointed out in Perdita's speech, one of them in the first line: for “Sir, my gracious lord,” &c., the manuscript-corrector “Sure, my gracious lord, To chide at your extremes it not becomes me.” The change is at least plausible, but the difference is not important. The other error is near the close of the speech in which Perdita contrasts her own gay apparel with the “swain's wearing,” in which the Prince was clad: she remarks:— “But that our feasts In every mess have folly, and the feeders Digest it with a custom, I should blush To see you so attir'd, sworn, I think, To show myself a glass.” In what way was Florizel “sworn” to show Perdita a glass? Besides the line wants a syllable, which is supplied by the correction in the margin of the folio, 1632, while the sense is also improved:— “I should blush To see you so attir'd, so worn, I think, To show myself a glass.” The meaning, therefore, is that Florizel's plain attire was “so worn” to show Perdita, as in a glass, how simply she ought to have been dressed.

Note return to page 508 10109489P. 494. Ritson was right in recommending that, “Nor in a way so chaste,” should be printed, “Nor any way so chaste.” Such is the emendation in the corrected folio. Lower down, the unusual expression of Florizel, “Be merry, gentle,” is altered to “Be merry, girl,” a mistake not very unlikely when the word was spelt, as of old, with a final e, girle.

Note return to page 509 10109490P. 498. Another error of the press is pointed out in the speech of Polixenes, where he is praising Perdita:— Nothing she does, or seems, But smacks of something greater than herself.” The proposed alteration is by no means necessary, but it makes the observation more natural:— “Nothing she does, or says,” &c. Formerly says was often written saies, which may in some degree account for the misprint. Just afterwards, Camillo remarks to Polixenes, of Florizel,— “He tells her something That makes her blood look on't.” This is the old text of the folios, but Theobald, for “on't,” in spite of the apostrophe, printed out, and missed the correction of the true error, viz. “makes,” instead of wakes:— “He tells her something That wakes her blood—look on't.” Such is precisely the mode in which the passage stands corrected in the folio, 1632, “look on't” being addressed emphatically to Polixenes, to direct his attention to the blush of Perdita, thus poetically described as waking her blood.

Note return to page 510 10109491P. 499. The old word jape, a jest (generally used in an indelicate sense), according to the corrector of the folio, 1632, has been misprinted “gap” in the following part of the clown's speech regarding the licence of ballad-singers: “And where some stretch-mouthed rascal would, as it were, mean mischief, and break a foul gap into the matter, he makes the maid to answer, ‘Whoop, do me no harm, good man.’” For “gap,” we are to read jape. Some controversy has arisen respecting the words, “unbraided wares,” where the Clown, just below, asks whether Autolicus has any such to sell. Johnson, Steevens, Tollet, Malone, Monk Mason, and Boswell, have each endeavoured to explain what turns out to be a mere misprint for “embroided wares,” as embroidered commodities were then frequently spelt. This point has, therefore, been set at rest by the corrected folio.

Note return to page 511 10109492P. 501. For “whistle off those secrets,” the folio, 1632, as corrected, has, perhaps needlessly, “whisper off those secrets.” In the same speech and on the same authority, “Clamour your tongues,” ought indisputably to be “Charm your tongues,” as Grey originally suggested, and as Gifford (Ben Jonson, iv. 405) maintained. In fact, the expression, “Charm your tongue,” occurs in “The London Prodigal.” See Malone's Supplement, ii. 466, though he never thought of illustrating by it “clamour your tongues” in “The Winter's Tale.” The editors of Shakespeare have not hitherto felt themselves warranted in altering his text on the mere suspicion of a misprint, or “charm your tongues” would long ago have been adopted; and note 2, on this page, affords evidence that the error has been stated, though not always acknowledged, ever since the time of Grey.11Q1209

Note return to page 512 10109493P. 506. Florizel, making his protestation of love before his disguised father and Camillo, exclaims, as all editions establish,— “Were I the fairest youth That ever made eye swerve; had force and knowledge, More than was ever man's,” &c. For “force and knowledge,” the corrector of the folio, 1632, writes “sense and knowledge;” and the error of the press is again to be imputed to the compositor's confusion between the long s and f.

Note return to page 513 10109494P. 507. We can hardly doubt that another misprint is pointed out, on the same authority, in a subsequent speech by Polixenes, where he is endeavouring (still disguised) to persuade the young prince to consult his father, and asks, whether he refrains because his father is imbecile?— “Can he speak? hear? Know man from man? dispute his own estate? Lies he not bed-rid?” “Dispute his own estate,” may be reconciled to sense, but “dispose his own estate” seems a much more likely expression, and the manuscript-corrector informs us that it was employed in this place.

Note return to page 514 10109495P. 514. A very trifling omission in all the early folios, and in subsequent editions, has made Florizel leave off speaking with a broken sentence, when, in fact, the period is complete: he tells Camillo, who urges him to proceed as his father's ambassador to Leontes,— “How shall we do? We are not furnish'd as Bohemia's son, Nor shall appear in Sicily”— Such is the mode in which the quotation has been hitherto given; but the slightest possible change, urged by the corrector of the folio, 1632, is thus made with the best possible effect:— “We are not furnish'd as Bohemia's son, Nor shall appear't in Sicily.” i. e. nor shall appear as Bohemia's son in Sicily. There is an unquestionable error in the answer of Camillo, which is of more importance: he assures Florizel that he will take care to furnish him like Bohemia's son, and adds,— “It shall be so my care To have you royally appointed, as if The scene you play were mine.” To make the scene appear as if it were Camillo's could be of no service to the young prince, and the old corrector supplies what we may conclude was the true word of the poet, although we may not be able well to account for the blunder thus exposed:— “It shall be so my care To have you royally appointed, as if The scene you play were true:” as if he were really the ambassador from his father, which he pretented to be.

Note return to page 515 10109496P. 522. After the departure of the old Shepherd and his son, Autolicus is left to soliloquize, and, among other reflections, he observes, as the words have from the first been printed:— “I am courted now with a double occasion—gold and a means to do the prince my master good; which, who knows how that may turn back to my advancement?” What can be the meaning here of turning “back to his advancement?” What is “to turn back to his advancement?” The corrector of the folio, 1632, may be said to answer the question by pointing out its needlessness, if we only read what was actually written,—“which, who knows how that may turn luck to my advancement.” Autolicus hopes that the “double occasion” by which he was “courted,” would turn luck in his favour.

Note return to page 516 10109497P. 526. The old stage-direction is, Enter a Servant, but from what he says, and is said of him, we learn that he had written an elegy upon Hermione. Modern editors have, therefore, called him “a gentleman.” He was evidently a retainer in the Court of Leontes, and the manuscript-corrector has added poet to his description of servant, Enter a Servant-poet, in order, probably, to distinguish him from the ordinary hirelings of the palace. We may notice here the peculiar fulness and explicitness of the stage-directions towards the close of this play, although it has not been thought necessary to particularize them.

Note return to page 517 10109498P. 529. Polixenes tells Florizel,— “You have a holy father, A graceful gentleman,” &c. For “holy,” which seems quite out of place, the corrector of the folio, 1632, writes noble in the margin, the right word having been misheard by the scribe. Precisely the same mistake was made in “The Tempest” (see p. 14), and from the same cause.

Note return to page 518 10109499P. 531. Much of this scene is struck out for the purpose, as we may infer, of abridging the performance, because no part that is erased is absolutely necessary to the intelligibility of the plot. The corrections of the text are continued notwithstanding with the same patience and perspicuity. Thus, on p. 533, we have “weather-beaten conduit,” for “weather-bitten conduit.” Again, immediately afterwards, the third Gentleman observes, “I never heard of such another encounter, which lames report to follow it, and undoes description to do it,” instead of “undoes description to show it,” which must surely be right. This part of the drama is even worse printed than the rest; and on p. 534, the third Gentleman tells Autolicus and the rest, in reference to the death of Hermione, that Leontes “bravely confessed and lamented” it, instead of “heavily confessed and lamented” it. Minor errors, some of them merely typographical, it is not necessary to point out, as they are not transferred to modern editions, and do not materially affect the text. It may be stated, that when the Shepherd and Clown enter, towards the close of the scene, an addition is made to the stage-direction, to inform us that they are in new apparel.

Note return to page 519 10109500P. 539. One of those highly-important completions of the old, and imperfect, text of Shakespeare, consisting of a whole line, where the sense is left unfinished without it, here occurs. Warburton saw that something was wanting, but in note 3 it is suggested that Leontes in his ecstasy might have left his sentence unfinished: such does not appear to have been the case. The passage has hitherto been printed as follows:— “Let be, let be! Would I were dead, but that, methinks, already— What was he that did make it?” &c. “Let be, let be!” is addressed to Paulina, who offers to draw the curtain before the statue of Hermione, as we find from a manuscript stage-direction, and the writer of it, in a vacant space adjoining, thus supplies a missing line, which we have printed in Italic type:— “Let be, let be! Would I were dead, but that, methinks, already I am but dead, stone looking upon stone. What was he that did make it?” &c. But for this piece of evidence, that so important an omission had been made by the old printer, or by the copyist of the manuscript for the printer's use, it might have been urged, that, supposing our great dramatist to have written here no more elliptically than in many other places, his sense might be complete at “already:” “Would I were dead!” exclaims Leontes, “but that, methinks, I am already;” in other words, it was needless for him to wish himself dead, since, looking upon the image of his lost queen, he was, as it were, dead already. However, we see above, that a line was wanting, and we may be thankful that it has been furnished, since it adds much to the force and clearness of the speech of Leontes.

Note return to page 520 10109501P. 541. When Hermione descends from the pedestal, and advances towards her husband, a manuscript stage-direction informs us that she comes down slowly, and that hautboys and viols play. There is not a single printed instruction of the kind in any part of the scene, where they appear to be so requisite for the information of the performers; but that deficiency is abundantly supplied by the old corrector of the folio, 1632, who has taken great pains that nothing should go wrong during the representation. When Paulina first draws the curtain from before the supposed statue of the Queen, the hautboys are told to play: she several times offers to draw the curtain again, in order to conceal the figure, when the King becomes too much moved; and she stays him when he declares that he will kiss the statue: she had done the same, when Perdita had previously wished to kiss the hand of the supposed representation of her mother. We are also told, after Hermione has come down, that she and her husband embrace, and that the daughter kneels to receive her mother's blessing. Strictly speaking, these last were needless.

Note return to page 521 10109502P. 542. The last emendation, of any importance, is in the last speech of the play, where Leontes is choosing Camillo as a husband for Paulina. The prosaic line in which it occurs is this:— “And take her by the hand whose worth and honesty;” which is redundant by two syllables: these are erased by the corrector of the folio, 1632, without the slightest detriment to the sense, and with great improvement to the measure:— “Come, Camillo, And take her hand, whose worth and honesty Is richly noted and here justified.” We may feel well assured that the expletives, “by the,” obtained insertion without the participation of the pen of the author.

Note return to page 522 10109503We cannot but approve of a change made in an important epithet in the reply of King John, where he despatches Chatillon with all haste, and tells him that the English forces will be in France before the ambassador can even report their intention to come. The reading has always been:— “Be thou the trumpet of our wrath, And sullen presage of your own decay.” In the first place, the sound of a trumpet could not, with any fitness, be called a “sullen presage;” and, secondly, as Chatillon was instantly to proceed on his return, it is much more probable that Shakespeare wrote,— “Be thou the trumpet of our wrath, And sudden presage of your own decay.” The old corrector says that sudden was the word of our great dramatist, and a scribe or a printer might easily mistake sudden and “sullen.”

Note return to page 523 10109504P. 9. The folio, 1632, omits “Robert” before Faulconbridge, in the Bastard's first speech, but the corrector restored it in the margin. It is found in the folio, 1623, and must have accidentally dropped out of that of 1632.

Note return to page 524 10109505P. 14. Besides a misprint, there appears to be an error in punctuation in this part of the Bastard's soliloquy, as given in modern editions:— “For new-made honour doth forget men's names: 'Tis too respective, and too sociable, For your conversion. Now your traveller, He and his tooth-pick at my worship's mess,” &c. The corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that we should point and read as follows:— “For new-made honour doth forget men's names: 'Tis too respective, and too sociable. For your diversion, now, your traveller, He and his tooth-pick at my worship's mess,” &c. It was common to entertain “picked men of countries,” for the diversion of the company at the tables of the higher orders, and this is what the Bastard is referring to in the last two lines, while the sense of the first two is complete at “sociable.”11Q1210

Note return to page 525 10109506P. 16. In the first and second folios, these lines, thus printed, occur:— “Sir Robert could do well, marry to confess Could get me Sir Robert could not do it.” This is clearly wrong, and the question is how the passage can be amended. Modern editors have introduced “he” and a mark of interrogation in the second line,— “Could he get me?” On the other hand, the corrector of the second folio merely inserts a negative; and if, in the manuscript used by the printer, a mark of interrogation had been found in this place, it would hardly have been omitted: as amended, the couplet stands,— “Sir Robert could do well; marry, to confess, Could not get me; Sir Robert could not do it.”

Note return to page 526 10109507P. 18. A single letter makes an important improvement in the following, where young Arthur expresses his acknowledgments to Austria:— “I give you welcome with a powerless hand, But with a heart full of unstained love.” The love of such a child would, of course, be “unstained:” what he meant to say, according to a correction in the folio, 1632, was, that he bade Austria welcome with a heart full of love, which, without effort, spontaneously flowed from it:— “But with a heart full of unstrained love.”

Note return to page 527 10109508P. 19. We may presume that the change made in the subsequent passage conformed to some better manuscript than that used by the printer, or that the compositor committed an error:— “And then we shall repent each drop of blood, That hot rash haste so indirectly shed.” The manuscript-corrector says that we ought to read,— “That hot rash haste so indiscreetly shed.” Nevertheless, our great poet sometimes uses “indirectly” in a peculiar manner.

Note return to page 528 10109509P. 20. The old corrector does not read, with modern editors,— “An Até stirring him to blood and strife;” but instead of “An Ace,” of all the folios, he has,— “With him along is come the mother-queen, As Até, stirring him to blood and strife.”

Note return to page 529 10109510P. 23. In the following line there are, according to the ordinary rules of dramatic blank-verse, two redundant syllables, and the punctuation is wrong, according to a correction in the folio, 1632:— “Of this oppressed boy. This is thy eldest son's son,” &c. The proposed alteration, with the context, stands thus:— “Thou and thine usurp The dominations, royalties, and rights Of this oppressed boy, thy eld'st son's son, Infortunate in nothing but in thee.” The above may well be as the poet wrote the passage, “this is” being detrimental, as well as unnecessary.

Note return to page 530 10109511P. 25. In his speech to the citizens of Angiers, John says, as all the old copies represent it,— “All preparation for a bloody siege, And merciless proceeding by these French, Comfort your city's eyes.” It has been urged by those who wished to adhere to the text of the folios, as long as it was unimpugned by any old authority, that “comfort” was here used ironically: Rowe did not think so, when he printed confront; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, with less violence, has,— “Come 'fore your city's eyes,” &c.11Q1211

Note return to page 531 10109512P. 33. We here meet with the converse of the misprint in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona” (Act IV. Scene I.), niece, for “neere.” The Citizen, from the walls, recommends a marriage between the Dauphin and the lady Blanch, observing,— “That daughter there of Spain, the lady Blanch, Is near to England.” Such has been the universal reading, “near” being spelt neere in the folios; but she was niece to King John, as indeed she is afterwards called, and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, tells us, naturally enough, to read,— “That daughter there of Spain, the lady Blanch, Is niece to England.” This is unquestionably, right, and the mistake was readily made: we only wonder that it was not till now corrected, because, as Steevens states, Blanch was daughter to Alphonso IX., and niece to King John, by his sister Eleanor. Three lines lower, the folio, 1632, omits “should,” in— “If zealous love should go in search of virtue;” but the old corrector inserts it, thus making the line tally with the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 532 10109513P. 38. Monck Mason desired us to read aim for “aid,” in this line, as given in the folios,— “Hath drawn him from his own determin'd aid.” He was right, as appears by a correction in the folio, 1632, but the necessity for the change is not very evident. Lower down, “Not that I have the power to clutch my hand,” is amended to, “Not that I have no power,” &c., which comes very near one of the suggestions in note 3, at the foot of the page.

Note return to page 533 10109514P. 40. Constance says, that she could be content with her grievous disappointment, if Arthur had been “Full of unpleasing blots, and sightless stains.” For “and sightless,” the manuscript-corrector substitutes unsightly, which was most likely the author's word, the scribe having misheard what was read or recited to him.11Q1212

Note return to page 534 10109515P. 42. The same circumstance has produced the next blunder pointed out by the old corrector. All impressions have this line, “Is cold in amity, and painted peace.” Why should the epithet “painted” be applied to peace? What propriety is there in it, unless we can suppose it used to indicate hollowness and falsehood? The correction in the margin of the folio, 1632, shows that the ear of the scribe misled him: Constance is referring to the friendship just established between France and England, to the ruin of her hopes, and remarks:— “The grappling vigour, and rough frown of war, Is cold in amity, and faint in peace, And our oppression hath made up this league.”

Note return to page 535 10109516P. 44. The word “heaven” is repeated with great additional force in the subsequent passage, which we copy as it is given in the corrected folio, 1632. King John speaks:— “But as we under heaven are supreme head, So, under heaven, hat great supremacy, Where we do reign, we will alone uphold.” For heaven, the invariable reading has been “him.” Nevertheless, satisfactory as this emendation may appear, it is possible that the original reading (before the passing of the statute of James I., against the use of the name of the Creator on the stage) was God, for “heaven,” in the first instance, and then “him,” in the second instance, might be proper enough. When “heaven” was substituted for God, the repetition of “heaven,” in the next line, became necessary.

Note return to page 536 10109517P. 48. The error of “cased,” for caged, in the following,— “A cased lion by the mortal paw,” is so evident, as pointed out by the old corrector, that it is surprising the emendation was never conjecturally adopted; especially when Malone's quotation from Rowley's “When you see me you know me,” regarding “a lion in his cage,” so inevitably led to it.

Note return to page 537 10109518P. 51. Precisely the same remark grows out of a passage cited by Percy, in reference to the subsequent speech by the Bastard, when he rushes in with Austria's head, as it has been uniformly printed:— “Now, by my life, this day grows wondrous hot; Some airy devil hovers in the sky, And pours down mischief.” The word is spelt ayery in the folio, 1632, and the corrector of that edition has changed the word to fyery, which, we may feel confident, was that of the poet, and which is so consistent with the context:— “Now, by my life, this day grows wondrous hot; Some fiery devil hovers in the sky And pours down mischief.” Percy quotes Burton's “Anatomy of Melancholy,” where, among other things, it is said, “Fiery spirits or devils are such as commonly work by blazing stars,” &c.

Note return to page 538 10109519P. 52. In the subsequent passage their, which seems required both by meaning and metre, is inserted in the handwriting of the corrector of the folio, 1632:— “See thou shake the bags Of hoarding abbots; their imprison'd angels Set at liberty.” Malone, as it is stated in note 9, transposed “imprisoned angels;” and Hanmer read, “Set thou at liberty,” both without the slightest authority, and merely as matters of taste.

Note return to page 539 10109520P. 53. The old corrector supports Pope (if support were here needed), in “some better time,” instead of “some better tune,” as it had been commonly misprinted. In the last line but one of this page, the folio, 1632, as amended, has,— “Sound on into the drowsy ear of night,” instead of “race of night,” as it stands in the folios: when “ear” was spelt eare, as was most frequently the case, the mistake was easy, and we may now be pretty sure that “race” was a mistake.

Note return to page 540 10109521P. 54. Instead of representing the blood as running “tickling up and down the veins,” the manuscript-corrector tells us to read tingling; and a few lines lower, for,— “Then in despite of broaded watchful day,” he has “the broad watchful day,” as if Pope's broad-eyed were merely fanciful. We own a preference for broad-eyed.

Note return to page 541 10109522P. 55. The same editor was nearly right when he proposed “collected sail” for “convicted sail” in what follows:— “A whole armado of convicted sail Is scattered, and disjoin'd from fellowship.” The true word, given in the margin of the folio, 1632, has the same meaning as collected, but is nearer in form and letters to the misprint in the ordinary text, viz:— “A whole armado of convented sail,” &c. i. e., a fleet that had been convened at some port to bring aid to the Dauphin. There is no need, therefore, to strain after a meaning for “convicted,” if, as we are assured, it was not the word of the poet.

Note return to page 542 10109523P. 56. Upon the passage in the speech of Constance, where she is speaking of death, “Which cannot hear a lady's feeble voice, Which scorns a modern invocation,” Johnson remarks that “it is hard to say what Shakespeare means by modern.” Now, we know that our great dramatist often uses “modern,” for common, or ordinary; but “modern,” as used above, is one of the strange errors of the press which found their way into the text; and a marginal note in the corrected folio, 1632, proves that we ought to substitute for it a word exactly applicable to the condition of Constance:— “Which cannot hear a lady's feeble voice, Which scorns a widow's invocation.” When we bear in mind that m and w were often mistaken by the old compositors in this volume, the misprint will not be thought so extraordinary. Such an emendation could hardly have had its source in the fancy, or even in the ingenuity, of the old corrector. Four lines above, he reads,— “Then with what passion I would shake the world;” an obvious, though comparatively trifling, improvement of the old text, “Then with a passion,” &c. He gives the beginning of the next speech of Constance, “Thou are not holy,” a change made in the fourth folio, and never disputed. This part of the scene was badly printed in 1623, and not made better in 1632.

Note return to page 543 10109524P. 61. The manuscript stage-directions in this play are not so frequent as in some others, but they seem to have been added in all situations where they were necessary. The asides are also marked, particularly in this scene, where Hubert speaks not to be heard by Arthur. The exit and re-entrance of the Executioners are omitted in the printed copy, but are duly supplied by the old corrector, and when the heated iron is to be brought to Hubert the proper place is noted in the margin.

Note return to page 544 10109525P. 68. John has been assigning some reasons to Salisbury, Pembroke, &c., for the repetition of his coronation, principally founded upon apprehensions arising out of his defective title: at length he tells them, as the folio, 1623, represents his language:— “Some reasons for this double coronation I have possessed you with, and think them strong. And more, more strong, then lesser is my fear I shall indue you with.” A good deal of controversy has been excited by the hemistich, “then lesser is my fear,” which the folio, 1632, prints, “then less is my fear.” Theobald dropped a letter, and read, in parentheses (“the lesser is my fear”); and Steevens and Malone (“when lesser is my fear”), but they omitted to show why John should defer the statement of his stronger reasons till his fear was less, or why he should fancy that his fear would be less at any time than just after his second coronation, which was to confirm him on the throne. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, makes it clear that the King referred to his strong reasons as having diminished his own apprehensions, which reasons he was ready hereafter to communicate to his peers: he puts it thus:— “And more, more strong, thus lessening my fear, I shall indue you with.” The strength of his reasons had lessened his own fear, and he imagined that, when stated, they would produce a good effect upon others. The misprint was, “then, lesser is,” for thus lessening, not a very violent change, and rendering the meaning apparent. Lower in the same page, the words, “then” and “should” seem injuriously to have changed places: the old text is,— “Why then your fears, which, as they say, attend The steps of wrong, should move you to mew up Your tender kinsman?” instead of “Why should your fears, which, as they say, attend The steps of wrong, then move you to mew up Your tender kinsman?”

Note return to page 545 10109526P. 74. It may be sufficient to mention that the words “deeds ill,” in John's reproach of Hubert, are transposed by the corrector of the folio, 1632, so as to make the passage read more naturally, “Makes ill deeds done.”

Note return to page 546 10109527P. 75. In John's next speech of the same kind, he says, as the text has always stood,— “But thou didst understand me by my signs, And didst in signs again parley with sin.” The last word is spelt sinne in the old copies, and ought undoubtedly, as we are instructed in manuscript, to be sign, formerly spelt signe: “But thou didst understand me by my signs, And didst in signs again parley with sign.”

Note return to page 547 10109528P. 76. We here meet with an error of the press, which shows how the letters m and w were again mistaken by the old printer. Pembroke asks,— “Who brought that letter from the cardinal?” and Salisbury's answer relates to a private communication he had received at the same time. The words of the folios have here always been taken as the true text, viz.:— “The count Melun, a noble lord of France, Whose private with me of the Dauphin's love, Is much more general than these lines import.” The notes upon this passage have all referred to the word “private,” when the blunder lies in “with me:” “Whose private missive of the Dauphin's love,” is the way in which the corrector of the folio, 1632, says that line should have been printed: the Count Melun had, at the same time that he conveyed the Cardinal's letter, brought to Salisbury a “private missive,” or communication, containing assurances of the Dauphin's regard. This correction seems to imply resort to some original, such as that which the printer of the folio, 1623, had misread. Just afterwards, on the next page, the old corrector points out an egregious error, which ought not to have escaped detection, even without such aid: it occurs in Salisbury's reply to the Bastard:— “The King hath disposess'd himself of us: We will not line his thin bestained cloak.” The folios place a hyphen between “thin” and “bestained,” as if to lead us to the discovery of the error, which is thus set right in manuscript, and at once challenges admission into the genuine text of our author:— “We will not line his sin-bestained cloak:” a fine compound, the use of which is amply justified by the crimes of which the revolted lords consider John guilty.

Note return to page 548 10109529P. 78. Nobody suspected the above misprint, but the next we are to notice was more than hinted at by Farmer, viz. head for “hand” in the first of the ensuing lines, where Salisbury vows never to be “conversant with ease and idleness,” until he has revenged the death of Arthur,— “Till I have set a glory to this hand By giving it the worship of revenge.” A manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, shows, as Farmer supposed, and as Malone opposed, that the true language of Shakespeare was,— “Till I have set a glory to this head,” meaning the head of Arthur, whose dead body had just been discovered on the ground.

Note return to page 549 10109530P. 83. The preceding emendations may be thought to justify two others on this page, which occur close together, and which, though improvements of the usual reading, are not forced upon our adoption by any thing like necessity. The Bastard is endeavouring to cheer the spirits of the disheartened King; and we here give the passage as it has been handed down to us corrected:— “Let not the world see fear, and blank distrust, Govern the motion of a kingly eye: Be stirring as the time; meet fire with fire, Threaten the threatener,” &c. For blank, old and modern editions tamely read “sad,” and for meet, merely “be;” both words were, perhaps, misheard. At the end of this speech we have, in all editions,— “Forage, and run To meet displeasure further from the doors;” which ought, on the same credible authority, to be, “Courage! and run to meet displeasure,” &c. There is, then, no necessity for hunting after what Johnson calls, “the original sense” of “forage.” On the next page, for “Send fair-play order,” we ought, probably, to read, “Send fair-play offers,” the last word being written in the margin of the folio, 1632. This portion of the play is abundant in errors of the press of more or less importance.

Note return to page 550 10109531P. 85. Salisbury, in anguish at the compulsion he was under to draw his sword against his country, interposes this parenthesis:— I must withdraw, and weep Upon the spot of this enforced cause.” “Spot” reads like a misprint, and it appears to be so, although not hitherto suspected; the corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that “spot” was misheard for a word sounding something like it:— I must withdraw, and weep Upon the thought of this enforced cause.” That is, the reflection upon the cause, which compelled him to bear arms against his country, drew tears.

Note return to page 551 10109532P. 89. The manuscript-corrector gives no countenance to Theobald's proposal to read unhair'd for “unheard;” and that his attention was directed to the line, is evident from the fact that he makes an emendation, though not of much importance, in it; he reads:— “This unheard sauciness of boyish troops;” of instead of “and,” referring to the unparalleled insolence of the youthful invaders from France. Lower down, in the same page and speech, the Bastard ridicules the cowardice of the French when assailed in their own territories; and here we encounter a very remarkable mistake, either by the old compositor or copyist, most likely the latter, for which we cannot account on the ground of mishearing. The passage is where Faulconbridge is addressing the French, and charging them with having been made “To thrill, and shake, Even at the crying of your nation's crow.” What is the French nation's crow? Malone strangely thought that the allusion was to the “caw of the French crow;” but Douce's suspicion, that the crowing of the cock might be meant, is fully confirmed by the emendation which we find in manuscript in the folio, 1632, where the passage is thus given,— “To thrill, and shake, Even at the crowing of your nation's cock, Thinking this voice an armed Englishman.” There can, we apprehend, be no dispute that this must be the true text.

Note return to page 552 10109533P. 92. Discussion has arisen respecting a line in which the dying Melun advises Salisbury and Pembroke to return to their duty to their Sovereign, and to “Unthread the rude eye of rebellion,” as the line stands in the ancient, and in most modern, editions. Theobald was not far wrong when he changed “Unthread” to untread, and “eye” to way; but he missed the emendation of another word, which, with the others, is thus altered by the corrector of the folio, 1632:— “Untread the road-way of rebellion,” i. e. return by the road you took when you rebelled against King John. In confirmation, we may notice, that, very soon afterwards, Salisbury himself repeats nearly the same terms:— “We will untread the steps of damned flight.” To misprint untread the road-way, “unthread the rude eye,” seems an excess of carelessness, which we cannot in any way explain. The fault must, in this instance, lie with the compositor.

Note return to page 553 10109534P. 93. Salisbury tells the expiring Melun,— “For I do see the cruel pangs of death Right in thine eye;” and some commentators, would for “right” read fright, or pight, and others fight: bright appears, from the old corrector's insertion of the necessary letter in the margin, to be the word, in reference to the remarkable brilliancy of the eyes of many persons just before death:— “For I do see the cruel pangs of death Bright in thine eye.” Editors guessed at almost every word but the right one.

Note return to page 554 10109535P. 94. For the line, as it stands in the folios,— “And wound our tott'ring colours clearly up,” the old corrector has,— “And wound our tott'red colours closely up.” Tattered was then usually spelt “tottered,” and he preferred the passive to the active participle, though we may doubt if Shakespeare exercised any such discretion. Neither are we prepared to say that we like closely better than “clearly,” the latter, perhaps, indicating the winding up of the colours without obstruction from the enemy.

Note return to page 555 10109536P. 97. Much contention has arisen upon a question, which the amended folio, 1632, will set at rest, founded upon this passage, where Prince Henry refers to the King's fatal illness:— “Death, having prey'd upon the outward parts, Leaves them, invisible; and this siege is now Against the mind.” In the old copies, “mind” is misprinted wind; and besides setting right this obvious blunder, the old corrector remedies another defect of greater importance. It has been suggested by different annotators that “invisible,” ought to be insensible, invincible, &c. There is no doubt that “invisible” is wrong, and the corrector converts it into unvisited, which may, we think, be adopted without hesitation—death has abandoned the King's external form, and has laid siege to his understanding:— “Death, having prey'd upon the outward parts, Leaves them unvisited; and his siege is now Against the mind.”

Note return to page 556 10109537P. 98. It appears that the practice of the theatre in the time of the corrector of the folio, 1632, was to bring the dying King in, sitting in a chair, and the manuscript stage-direction is in those terms, which are added to the printed stage-direction, “John brought in.” We are not told, in any of the old copies, when he dies, but those words are written in the margin, just after the Bastard has concluded his statement of the loss of “the best part of his power” in the washes of Lincolnshire. This accords with the modern representation of the fact.

Note return to page 557 10109538P. 112. At the very beginning of Bolingbroke's first speech, a word has dropped out, the absence of which spoils the metre: it is found in a manuscript-correction of the folio, 1632, and we have printed it in Italic type:— “Full many years of happy days befal My gracious sovereign,” &c.

Note return to page 558 10109539P. 113. In Bolingbroke's next speech, an error of the press of some consequence is noticed: it is where he denies that he is actuated by any private malice against Mowbray:— “In the devotion of a subject's love, Tendering the precious safety of my prince, And free from other misbegotten hate, Come I appellant,” &c. What “other misbegotten hate” does he refer to? The corrector of the folio, 1632, tells us to read the third line,— “And free from wrath or misbegotten hate, Come I appellant,” &c. Bolingbroke appeals his antagonist, not out of anger or hatred, but out of loyal affection to his King. We may question the necessity for this change. Lower down, “reins and spurs” are in the singular, but this is a matter of less moment.

Note return to page 559 10109540P. 116. Mowbray answers the pecuniary part of the charge against him, by asserting that the King was in debt to him— “Upon remainder of a dear account, Since last I went to France.” For “dear account,” the old corrector has “clear account,” which has a distinct meaning—the account was clear—while the epithet “dear” seems ill applied to “account,” in any of the senses which that word bears in Shakespeare.

Note return to page 560 10109541P. 121. We may feel assured that the word “farewell” was repeated in the following line, and we find it in manuscript in the margin of the folio, 1632, though not in any extant printed copy of the play:— “Why then, I will. Farewell, farewell, old Gaunt.” The repetition of the word led to the accidental omission of it by the old scribe or compositor. In the preceding line, the first and second folios have “the widow's champion to defence,” instead of “and defence.”

Note return to page 561 10109542P. 122. The repetition of the word “desolate,” in the subsequent couplet, which ends the Duchess of Gloucester's speech, is unlike Shakespeare:— “Desolate, desolate, will I hence and die: The last leave of thee takes my weeping eye.” The carelessness of the printer, or of the copyist, occasioned the blunder, for in the corrected folio, 1632, the first line stands thus:— “Desolate, desperate, will I hence and die.” She was “desolate” because a helpless widow, and desperate because she could not move Gaunt to revenge the death of her husband.

Note return to page 562 1010954311Q1213P. 125. It deserves remark that, whereas in the line:— “And furbish new the name of John of Gaunt,” the folios have “furnish new;” the manuscript-corrector restores the older and better reading of the earlier quarto impressions. A few lines farther on, the second folio has captain for “captive,” which did not pass unnoticed.

Note return to page 563 10109544P. 135. The simplicity of our early stage seldom allowing changes of scene, various contrivances were resorted to in order to render them needless, but at the same time to preserve sufficient verisimilitude. Gaunt was here to be represented ill in bed, and the printed stage-direction is only, Enter Gaunt sick, with York, and modern editors have represented Gaunt as on a couch; but a manuscript note in the folio, 1632, shows precisely the way in which the matter was managed in the time of the old corrector, and no doubt earlier, the words being, Bed drawn forth, so that the dying Gaunt was pulled forward on the boards, in his bed. When it was necessary for him to make his exit (the only printed note in that place), the words, added in manuscript, are Drawn out in bed; and just afterwards, Northumberland arrives with the news of the death of the old Duke.

Note return to page 564 10109545P. 138. On the entrance of the King, Queen, &c., York says to Gaunt, as the passage has always stood:— “The King is come: deal mildly with his youth; For young hot colts, being rag'd, do rage the more;” which is nothing better than a truism, that young hot colts rage the more by being raged. This defect has arisen from a misprint, which seems very obvious as soon as it is pointed out by the corrector of the folio, 1632, who alters the second line as follows:— “For young hot colts, being urg'd, do rage the more.” This is beyond controversy an improvement.

Note return to page 565 10109546P. 144. Another easily explained error of the press occurs on this page. Northumberland complains that the King is basely led— “By flatterers; and what they will inform, Merely in hate, 'gainst any of us all, That will the King severely prosecute, 'Gainst us, our lives, our children, and our heirs.” Here “'Gainst us, our lives,” is tautologous; for, of course, what the King prosecuted against the “lives” of his nobility, must be against them. The correction in the folio, 1632, makes the passage so far unobjectionable:— “'Gainst us, our wives, our children, and our heirs.” The copyist, in this case, misheard wives, “lives.”

Note return to page 566 10109547P. 145. Northumberland, Ross, and Willoughby are plotting against the King, and Northumberland tells the two others that he fears to let them know how near good tidings are. Ross replies, in all editions:— “Be confident to speak, Northumberland: We three are but thyself; and, speaking so, Thy words are but as thoughts: therefore, be bold.” There was evidently no reason why Northumberland should be bold, merely because “his words were but as thoughts;” and a very slight change, proposed by the old corrector, brings out most clearly the meaning of the poet:— “We three are but thyself; and, speaking so, Thy words are but our thoughts: therefore, be bold.” His words only conveyed the thoughts of the other two conspirators, who were but himself; and he might, therefore, be bold to utter his tidings.11Q1214

Note return to page 567 10109548P. 148. More than one passage in the scene between the Queen, Bushy, and Bagot, in which she states that she feels that some unknown calamity is hanging over her, has occasioned difficulty. The first place in which the corrector of the folio, 1632, offers us any assistance, stands thus in the folios:— “So heavy sad, As though on thinking on no thought I think, Makes me with heavy nothing faint and shrink.” Here perplexity has been produced by misprinting the word unthinking as two words, “on thinking:” the Queen was so sad, that it made her faint and shrink with nothing, although she was so unthinking, as not to think. Malone and others have “in thinking,” which seems just the opposite of what was intended. Bushy assures her that her sadness was merely “conceit,” to which the Queen replies in five lines, which have still more puzzled commentators:— “'Tis nothing less: conceit is still deriv'd From some forefather grief; mine is not so, For nothing hath begot my something grief, Or something hath the nothing that I grieve: 'Tis in reversion that I do possess,” &c. The old corrector shows that the four last lines ought to be rhyming couplets, which the scribe seems to have written at random, and has thus made utterly unintelligible what, at the best, is difficult. In the corrected folio the lines are thus given, we may presume upon some authority:— “'Tis nothing less: conceit is still deriv'd From some forefather grief; mine is not so, For nothing hath begot my something woe; Or something hath the nothing that I guess: 'Tis in reversion that I do possess,” &c. i. e. the nothing that the Queen guessed, had some woe in it, and she possessed it in reversion, before it actually came upon her. The scribe blundered from not at all understanding what he was putting upon paper, and the compositor made it worse by knowing nothing of the meaning of what he was putting in print. The proposed changes, woe for “grief,” and guess for “grieve,” besides receiving support from the rhyme, at all events, supply a meaning to words which some commentators gave up in despair.

Note return to page 568 10109549P. 151. The Duke of York enters in dismay at the troubles that surround him, and a manuscript stage-direction states that he was only part armed, in his haste and confusion: the versification of his speeches was, perhaps, purposely irregular, but such could hardly be intended where he speaks of Bolingbroke, and says that, he “Is my kinsman, whom the King hath wrong'd:” a line that is especially uncouth from the want of a syllable, which the corrector of the folio thus furnishes:— “Is my near kinsman, whom the King hath wrong'd.”

Note return to page 569 10109550P. 156. The epithet used by the Duke of York, in his reproof of Bolingbroke, when he asks him,— “But then, more why, why have they dar'd to march So many miles upon her peaceful bosom, Frighting her pale-fac'd villages with war, And ostentation of despised arms?” “Despised arms” would not “fright” by their “ostentation;” and Warburton recommended disposed, not a very happy suggestion; and Sir T. Hanmer, despightful; while Monck Mason fancied that York meant that the arms were “despised” by himself. A misprint misled them; for, according to the corrector of the folio, 1632, we ought to read:— “With ostentation of despoiling arms:” villages might well be frighted by the “despoiling arms” of Bolingbroke. Three lines above, for the awkward phrase, “But then, more why,” the change made is, “But more than that,” exhibiting, if we may believe the old corrector, in four words, a transposition and a blunder, arising, probably, from the repetition of “why” immediately afterwards.11Q1215

Note return to page 570 10109551P. 159. This short scene between Salisbury and the Welsh Captain, is struck out, perhaps, as needlessly protracting the performance.

Note return to page 571 10109552P. 162. On arriving near Berkeley Castle, Richard asks if it be called so, and Aumerle answers by two lines, one with too few, and the other with too many syllables:— “Yea, my lord. How brooks your grace the air, After your late tossing on the breaking seas?” The manuscript-corrector amends both:— “Yea, my good lord. How brooks your grace the air, After late tossing on the breaking seas?” We need hardly doubt that this is as the passage ought to be printed, on the supposition that our great dramatist meant the lines to be regular.

Note return to page 572 10109553P. 165. The scribe, who wrote the copy used by the printer, must have misheard an epithet of some importance in the following extract:— “White-beards have arm'd their thin and hairless scalps Against thy majesty; and boys, with women's voices, Strive to speak big, and clap their female joints In stiff unwieldy arms against thy crown.” Besides the mistake in the epithet, there are two other errors of the press, to the injury of the passage, and the old corrector puts the four lines thus:— “White-beards have arm'd their thin and hairless scalps Against thy majesty; and boys, with women's voices, Strive to speak big, and clasp their feeble joints In stiff unwieldy armour 'gainst thy crown.” In the first place, the folios have “white-bears” for “white-beards:” this blunder was not derived from the quartos; but they have “clap” for clasp (which was Pope's conjectural emendation); and because the poet gave the boys “women's voices,” the scribe seems to have thought that they should also have “female joints;” and, lastly, we have “arms,” in all the old copies, for armour: “arms” more properly signifies weapons, than the “stiff unwieldy” casing, by which the bodies of soldiers were formerly protected.

Note return to page 573 10109554P. 172. The old corrector substitutes a very striking for a very poor word, in the fourth of the ensuing lines. York speaks of Richard:— “Yet looks he like a king: behold his eye, As bright as is the eagle's, lightens forth Controlling majesty. Alack, alack, for woe, That any harm should stain so fair a show!” The flat word “harm” presents itself at once as an error, and storm is written in the margin instead of it:— “Alack, alack, for woe, That any storm should stain so fair a show!” In the next line but one, the same authority tells us that “fearful” ought to be faithful; and though “fearful” may seem to answer its purpose sufficiently well, the context persuades us in favour of faithful; for the King is complaining of Bolingbroke's breach of fidelity.

Note return to page 574 10109555P. 179. Malone and other modern editors have altered the following passage, as the words are given in the folio, 1623, without due attention there to the regulation of the metre:— “They are, And Bolingbroke hath seiz'd the wasteful king. Oh, what pity is it, that he had not so trimm'd And dress'd his land, as we this garden, at time of year, And wound the bark the skin of our fruit-trees,” &c. Malone's regulation and changes are these:— “They are; and Bolingbroke Hath seiz'd the wasteful king. Oh! what pity is it That he had not so trimm'd and dress'd his land As we this garden! We at time of year Do wound the bark, the skin of our fruit-trees,” &c. The editor of the folio, 1632, seeing that the interjection in the second line overloaded the verse, omitted it, but made no other emendation. The old corrector of that impression shows that Malone inserted we in the wrong place, having omitted “and,” and thrust in do at the commencement of the next line, to supply the defect of the measure: as amended in the folio, 1632, the passage appears as follows:— “They are; and Bolingbroke Hath seiz'd the wasteful king. What pity is it, That he had not so trimm'd, and dress'd his land As we this garden! At the time of year We wound the bark, the skin of our fruit-trees,” &c. This will, perhaps, be allowed to be the most easy and natural mode of giving a passage, which, by the admission of all editors, requires some alteration.

Note return to page 575 10109556P. 182. In every edition it is made to appear, at the commencement of this scene, that Bagot entered with the other characters; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, says that such was not the case, and that he did not come in, in custody, until after Bolingbroke had issued the order, “Call forth Bagot.” The manuscript stage-direction follows this order, Enter Bagot, prisoner. Of course, there would be some pause between the giving and the execution of the order; and the formal introduction of the prisoner afterwards, would communicate additional effect to the opening of the Act. When the various “gages” are thrown down, as the scene proceeds, manuscript notice is duly inserted in the margin, but we are not told what Aumerle threw down after the line,— “Some honest Christian trust me with a gage,” when he had no gage of his own left. No passages, here wanting in the folios, are introduced by the old corrector from the earlier quartos.

Note return to page 576 10109557P. 186. Nevertheless, two emendations are made in Bolingbroke's speech, “Marry, God forbid,” &c., which serve to show that the corrector of the folio, 1632, either had recourse to the quarto editions of this play, or to some authority which accorded with them. For instance, for “nobleness,” in the line,— “Of noble Richard: then, true nobleness would,” &c., he adopts nobless of the quarto, 1597, which was unquestionably Shakespeare's word, since “nobleness” too much burdens the metre. Again, in the line in the folios,— “And he himself not present? O, forbid it, God,” he erases “himself,” which is unnecessary to the sense, and injurious to the rhythm, and writes forfend instead of “forbid.” All the quartos have forfend; but, on the other hand, they have “himself.” On the preceding page, the corrector has, “As surely as I live,” of the quarto, 1597, instead of, “As sure as I live,” which is the reading of the folios and of some of the quartos.

Note return to page 577 10109558P. 188. The folio, 1632, misprints the following line,— “Give sorrow leave a while to tutor me,” by absurdly putting return for “tutor.” This blunder is set right by the old corrector; but it seems as if he had previously substituted some other word, and had erased it. Such may have been the case in several other places, where he himself blundered.

Note return to page 578 10109559P. 192. To supply the want of printed stage-directions, they are, as usual, added in manuscript in the folio, 1632: thus, when Richard dashes the glass against the ground, we read in the margin, Throws down the glass; and when the crown and sceptre are previously brought to him, the proper moment for placing them in the King's hands is noted in the margin.

Note return to page 579 10109560P. 194. An emendation, giving additional force to an exclamation by the Queen, on hearing her husband's resolution to submit, and improving the defective metre, is met with in the corrected folio, 1632, in reference to these lines, as there copied from the folio, 1623:— “What! is my Richard both in shape and mind Transform'd and weaken'd? Hath Bolingbroke Depos'd thine intellect? hath he been in thy heart?” Modern editors, to eke out the measure of the second line, have read “weaken'd,” weakened; but the glaring redundancy of the third line they did not set right. The old corrector, however, instructs us in future to print thus:— “What! is my Richard both in shape and mind Transform'd and weaken'd? Hath this Bolingbroke Depos'd thine intellect? been in thy heart?” Much contempt is contained in the expression, “this Bolingbroke,” and the repetition of “hath he,” in the next line, rather lessens, than increases, the effect of the Queen's despairing interrogatory. The old corrector again either adopted a word from the quartos, or had recourse to some other authority, when, in the line, as we find it in the folios,— “Tell thou the lamentable fall of me,” he erased “fall,” and wrote tale in the margin. Malone fancied that “fall” for tale, was one of Shakespeare's own emendations; but it was much more probably a misprint in the folio, 1623, which, in most respects, slavishly follows the text of the latest quarto before its time, viz. that of 1615: the word there is tale, as it had been in the earlier editions in the same form, of 1597, 1598, and 1608. It may be more than doubted, whether our great dramatist ever made a single emendation, with his own hand, in any play with a view to its publication.

Note return to page 580 10109561P. 200. The word “day,” in what follows, may also have been derived from the quartos, for it is in no folio impression; but it is preceded by an improvement in the measure of a line, which has been given corruptly every where:— “Tis nothing but some bond that he has enter'd into For gay apparel against the triumph.” The manuscript-corrector alters both lines thus:— “'Tis nothing but some bond he's entered into For gay apparel 'gainst the triumph day.” Modern editors, of course, insert day, but there can be little doubt that Shakespeare also wrote the previous line as it above appears. In the same way we may be sure that the small word, then, fell out of the press, or escaped by some other accident, in the Duke of York's speech, a few lines higher on this page:— “Yea, look'st thou pale? let me then see the writing.” Then is not to be traced in any ancient or modern edition, but it is authorised by the corrector of the folio, 1632, and is necessary to the completeness of the measure. The word “by” shared the same fate as “then,” in the subsequent line on the next page:— “Now by my honour, by my life, my troth.” The second “by” is not in any of the folios, but is in the earlier quartos, though not in that of 1615, from which the first folio was printed: the line is imperfect without by, and the corrector of the second folio inserted it. The minute errors and variations in this part of the play are numerous.

Note return to page 581 10109562P. 203. When Aumerle arrives in great haste, the quarto editions say that he is amazed, but in the folios we have only, Enter Aumerle: the corrector of that of 1632, felt that something was wanted to indicate that the performer was to come upon the stage with an appearance of great perturbation, and he added to Enter Aumerle, the words rush in, to evince the eagerness and impetuosity he ought to display on the occasion. Other manuscript stage-directions apply to other characters. Aumerle locks the door, just before the Duke of York arrives and gives the alarm, and the King draws to defend himself. Then, the door is opened to admit York, and shut again that the Duchess, when she reaches the spot and exclaims against her husband, may be on the outside until her son goes to the door and opens it. To this follows Aumerle's confession and repentance, and we are duly informed when the different parties kneel to the King.

Note return to page 582 10109563P. 208. The folio, 1632, has the following:— “Good uncle, help to order several powers To Oxford, or where'er these traitors are: They shall not live within this world, I swear, But I will have them, once know where. Uncle farewell, and cousin adieu.” The corrector of that impression puts it thus:— “Good uncle, help to order several powers To Oxford, or where else the traitors be. They shall not live within this world, I swear, But I will have them, so I once know where. Uncle farewell, and, cousin mine, adieu.” In various particulars, as marked in Italics, this differs from other copies, quarto or folio. Theobald printed “and, cousin too, adieu,” but “and cousin mine, adieu,” reads better, and the whole may lead to the conclusion that the corrector was guided by some authority not now known.

Note return to page 583 10109564P. 209. In the first line of the King's long speech, we meet with a correction consistent with the earliest, but found in no other old edition of this play. All but the quarto, 1597, read defectively,— “I have been studying how to compare,” instead of “I have been studying how I may compare,” which is a perfect line, and which all modern editors have properly adopted. We may feel confident that the allusion just afterwards to Holy Writ, was softened by substituting “faith” for word (as it stands in all the quartos), in consequence of the state of religious opinion at the time the folio, 1623, was printed: the manuscript-corrector has left the text, in this respect, as he found it, excepting that he has put his pen through the quotations from the New Testament. On the next page, he struck out the whole of the passage in which the King resembles himself to a clock, which none of the commentators have been able to understand: the erasure begins at “For now hath time,” and ends at “Jack o' the clock.” It is to be regretted that the old corrector could throw no light upon this obscure question: it deserves remark, however, that he struck out the word “watches,” as if it were certainly wrong; but, as if he did not know what ought to be substituted for it, he has written no corresponding word in the margin.

Note return to page 584 10109565P. 214. The emendations by the corrector of the folio, 1632, in the last scene of this tragedy, only relate to corruptions in the versification. These corruptions begin in the very first line, for whereas Bolingbroke ought to say, as in the folio, 1623,— “Kind uncle York, the latest news we hear,” &c., the word kind is supplied in manuscript, because omitted by the printer of the folio, 1632, only. The next is an error of the same sort, on the same page, and applies to all editions, ancient and modern, two small words having apparently dropped out at the end of a line: we have printed them in Italics:— “Welcome, my lord. What is the news with you?” A third, and more noticeable instance occurs where Bolingbroke, on p. 215, passes sentence on the Bishop of Carlisle:— “Carlisle, this is your doom,” is the whole of the line in all copies; but the next line, which rhymes with it, proves that some words, perhaps unimportant excepting as they complete the measure, had been lost. The old corrector informs us what they were:— “Bishop of Carlisle, this shall be your doom:— Choose out some secret place, some reverend room,” &c. Several additional stage-directions are inserted, but they are of little consequence, saving for the regulation of the performance: thus, the King beats the Keeper, and kills one of his assailants, following it up by a blow which kills another. He dies as Exton pronounces his first line.11Q121611Q1217

Note return to page 585 10109566P. 225. The first line of this play presents an alteration, but a questionable improvement, by the corrector of the folio, 1632: for “So shaken as we are, so wan with care,” he has “worn with care,” which may be right, although, as far as the sense of the passage is concerned, it may not be necessary to do the violence of changing the received text. No new light is thrown upon the two lines which have produced so many conjectures,— “No more the thirsty entrance of this soil Shall daub her lips with her own children's blood;” but that the corrector's attention must have been directed to them, we ascertain from the fact that, as “daub” is misprinted dambe in the second folio, that blunder is set right.

Note return to page 586 10109567P. 227. The manuscript-corrector restores the word “for,” of the earlier quartos, instead of far, of the quarto, 1613, and the folios, in the following line:— “For more uneven and unwelcome news Came from the north.” We shall see hereafter, that on other occasions he preferred the older text.

Note return to page 587 10109568P. 228. For the imperfect line,— “Of Murray, Angus, and Menteith,” the old corrector writes,— “Of Murray, Angus, and the bold Menteith.” How far, and in what manner, he was warranted in this addition, may be a question; but he was doubtless right in transferring (in a shortened form) the words, “In faith, it is,” from the end of the King's speech, where they are not wanted, to the beginning of that of Westmoreland, where they are necessary to complete the measure, as well as an improvement to the sense:— “Faith, 'tis a conquest for a prince to boast of.” Such also was Pope's judicious mode of giving the speech.

Note return to page 588 10109569P. 229. If any doubt were entertained whether the words, “by Phœbus,—he, that wandering knight so fair,” were a quotation, it would probably be set at rest by the circumstance that they are underscored, as usual in such cases, by the old corrector.

Note return to page 589 10109570P. 231. Falstaff's remark, in answer to the Prince, “Yea, and so used it, that were it not here apparent, that thou art heir apparent,” has generally been printed with a line after it, as an unfinished sentence; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, represents it as finished by reading, “Yea, and so used it, that it is here apparent that thou art heir apparent.” The negative is omitted in the folios, and was not restored by the corrector from the quartos.

Note return to page 590 10109571P. 237. The words, “My Lord,” given to Northumberland, do not complete Worcester's hemistich, “Have holp to make so portly,” a syllable being wanted: the corrector of the folio, 1632, therefore, represents Northumberland as saying, “My good lord;” and we may feel pretty sure that he did so, not merely because it finishes the line, but because, when he resumes after the interruption, he uses the same expression, “Yea, my good lord.”

Note return to page 591 10109572P. 238. Here, again, the old corrector seems to have resorted to the quarto editions of this play, or to some authority that agreed with them, for he not only restores “name,” omitted in the folios,— “Those prisoners in your highness' name demanded,” but he sets right a remarkable blunder at the end of the same speech, not in the quartos, but which found its way into the folios: the latter have,— “Who either through envy or misprision Was guilty of this fault, and not my son;” instead of the true text of the quartos:— “Either envy, therefore, or misprision Is guilty of this fault, and not my son.”

Note return to page 592 10109573P. 240. All impressions, quarto and folio, ancient and modern, have, one after the other, repeated a flagrant error of the press in the earliest edition of this play in 1598: the mistake has given vast annoyance to each succeeding editor, and the emendation is one of those that must strike the moment it is pointed out. Nobody has been able to explain satisfactorily the use of the word “fears” in the subsequent lines, where the King indignantly asks,— “Shall our coffers, then, Be emptied to redeem a traitor home? Shall we buy treason, and indent with fears, When they have lost and forfeited themselves?” The corrector tells us to print “fears” foes; and if we do so, nothing can be plainer than the meaning of the poet:— “Shall we buy treason, and indent with foes, When they have lost and forfeited themselves?” To “indent,” is, of course, to enter into a compact or indenture, Johnson proposed peers for “fears:” Steevens contended that “fears” was to be taken as fearful people, &c.; but the question of the King was merely whether it was fit to enter into a bargain with traitors and enemies. It seems strange that, in the course of two hundred and fifty years, nobody should ever have even guessed at foes for “fears:” if it were merely a guess by the old corrector, it is a happy one; and some may be disposed to entertain the opinion that he had an opportunity of resorting to a better original than any of the printed copies.

Note return to page 593 10109574P. 243. The same authority here points out another misprint, not by any means of so much importance, but still, no doubt, an error, though the word usually received may be said to answer the purpose. It is in Hotspur's speech, where he is entering into the plot of his father and his uncle against Henry IV., when he breaks out thus:— “No! yet time serves, wherein you may redeem Your banish'd honours, and restore yourselves Into the good thoughts of the world again.” For “banish'd honours,” we are very reasonably instructed to put “tarnish'd honours;” for Hotspur would hardly say that the honours of his family were “banished,” although their brightness might for a time be tarnished.

Note return to page 594 10109575P. 247. The old corrector either saw the quarto, 1598, and corrected the following line by it, or he was indebted to his own sagacity. All ancient copies, but the earliest, read,— “I'll steal to Glendower, and to Mortimer,” or “I'll steal to Glendower, and loe Mortimer.” The line in the quarto, 1598, is,— “I'll steal to Glendower and Lo: Mortimer;” meaning Lord Mortimer, which abbreviation “Lo:” was subsequently strangely misunderstood. In the text of the folio, 1632, loe is erased, and Lord is written in the margin. There can be no dispute that this is the poet's word, and so, in fact, it stands in modern editions.11Q1218

Note return to page 595 10109576P. 250. Much speculation has been the result of the subsequent speech by Gadshill, where he is talking of the high rank of the parties with whom, as a highwayman, he was in league:— “I am joined with no foot land-rakers, no long-staff, sixpenny strikers: none of these mad, mustachio purple-hued maltworms; but with nobility and tranquillity: burgomasters, and great oneyers, such as can hold in; such as will strike sooner than speak,” &c. No question seems to have arisen regarding the word “tranquillity”—“nobility and tranquillity”—although it has no meaning in this place; but ingenuity has been exhausted upon “great oneyers,” which we have been desired to read moneyers, one-eers, mynheers, &c., when it is merely, as we learn from the corrector of the folio, 1632, a misprint, the word “tranquillity,” which precedes it, being in the same predicament. He sets the whole matter right thus: “I am joined with no foot land-rakers, &c., but with nobility and sanguinity; burgomasters, and great ones—yes, such as can hold in,” &c. “Tranquillity” was misheard by the scribe for sanguinity, in reference to the high blood of the companions of Gadshill; and “great oneyers” was a lapse for “great ones—yes,” the affirmative particle having been added to give more force to the assertion, when, perhaps, the Chamberlain, with whom Gadshill was speaking, intimated his incredulity. The first error seems to have arisen from mishearing, and the last from misprinting.

Note return to page 596 10109577P. 259. In the line,— “What sayst thou, Kate? what would'st thou have with me?” the folio, 1632, omits the second “what,” which the corrector supplies in manuscript. Five lines lower, he furnishes four words, wanting in all editions, where Hotspur asks his wife,— “Come; wilt thou see me ride?” The words here carelessly left out are quite consistent with what has passed before, when Hotspur ordered that his horse should be led “forth into the park:”— “Come to the park, Kate: wilt thou see me ride?” They are in themselves of little import, excepting as they serve to prove that our great dramatist did not leave the line needlessly imperfect.

Note return to page 597 10109578P. 263. The folios, in the following line, omit the negative; the old corrector inserts it, but whether from the quarto impressions where it is found, or from any independent authority, may be questioned:— “Away, you rogue! Dost thou not hear them call?”

Note return to page 598 10109579P. 264. The words, “pitiful-hearted Titan that melted at the sweet tale of the sun,” are struck out: probably, the old corrector did not understand the allusion. The words, in their corrupted form, appear to be no great loss.

Note return to page 599 10109580P. 274. Rowe seems to have been right (indeed the emendation hardly admits of doubt) in reading tristful for “trustful” in Falstaff's speech, as we learn from the alteration introduced in the folio, 1632; and the old corrector, not approving of the use of the name of the Creator, has substituted heaven for it in the line,— “For heaven's sake, lords, convey my tristful queen,” &c. In the folio, 1632, a previous speech by Falstaff is erroneously given to the Prince, but the corrector has remedied the defect; and in Falstaff's long mock-address, he has inserted own before “opinion,” which is not in any folio. In the same character's next speech, he has changed the common reading to “him keep with thee, the rest banish:” this emendation, is, however, disputable, and perhaps scarcely requires notice.

Note return to page 600 10109581P. 276. The Prince calls Falstaff, according to the old corrector of the folio, 1632, not “that trunk of humours,” but “that hulk of humours,” against all known authorities, but it may very likely be right.

Note return to page 601 10109582P. 279. The folios, and the quartos of 1608 and afterwards, read, “I know his death will be a match of twelve score;” but the older text of the quartos, 1598, 1599, and 1604, is “a march of twelve score,” which is evidently right; and the manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, is, therefore, from match to “march.” On the next page, all early editions, with the exception of the quarto, 1598, omit “huge” in the line,— “The frame and huge foundation of the earth:” “huge” is written in the margin of the folio, 1632. This scene is very ill printed in that impression, but the minutest literal error was not neglected.

Note return to page 602 10109583P. 284. The last line in Worcester's speech, adverting to the course of the Trent,— “And then he runs straight and even,” must have been misprinted in this and in all other editions: the manuscript-corrector gives it thus unobjectionably,— “And then he runs all straight and evenly.” Hotspur has just before said of the same river,— “In a new channel, fair, and evenly.”

Note return to page 603 10109584P. 285. For a similar reason the corrector of the folio, 1632, amends the subsequent lines,— “I'll haste the writer, and withal, Break with your wives of your departure hence;” by giving them thus:— “I'll haste the writer, and withal I'll break With your young wives of your departure hence.” Young was, perhaps, omitted by the old printer or scribe, from the similarity of the word your just before it. In Act V. (p. 239 of this vol.), we shall see that “your” was left out before “younger.”

Note return to page 604 10109585P. 286. We can readily believe that there must be a misprint in the following:— “In faith, my lord, you are too wilful-blame,” as it stands in the old copies, and has been repeated in all modern editions: the true reading may very well have been what the old corrector tells us it was,— “In faith, my wilful lord, you are to blame.” The epithet “wilful” in some way became misplaced, and “too” for to, and vice versâ, was a very common error.11Q1219

Note return to page 605 10109586P. 289. The four last lines in this scene ought to rhyme, and, no doubt, did so originally, until a misprint prevented it; the corrector of the folio, 1632, makes the passage run as follows:— “Glend. Come on, lord Mortimer; you are as slow, As hot lord Percy is on fire to go. By this our book is drawn: we'll seal and part To horse immediately. Mort. With all my heart.” The text of the two last lines has hitherto been this:— “By this our book is drawn: we'll seal and then To horse immediately Mort. With all my heart.”

Note return to page 606 10109587P. 291. The old printer took more pains than usual with the great scene between Henry IV. and the Prince, but still, if we may rely upon the corrector of the folio, 1632, introduced several important blunders. One of them applies to the last words on this page, “carded his state,” which Warburton, with great sagacity, proposed to read, “discarded state:” such is the emendation proposed in manuscript: next, the corrector struck out “do” unnecessarily thrust into a line on page 292:— “As cloudy men use to do their adversaries.” Thirdly, in the first line on p. 294,— “Thou that art like enough, through vassal fear,” the printer injuriously omitted “that,” which is written in the margin of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 607 10109588P. 295. The line, as it stands in the quartos,— “The which, if he pleas'd, I shall perform,” is given in the folio, 1623,— “The which, if I perform, and do survive,” and in the folio, 1632,— “The which if I promise, and do survive.” The corrector of the last impression erases promise, and inserts “perform,” making the passage correspond with the first folio, but not with the quarto editions. Lower down, Pope's emendation, “So is the business,” &c., is supported both by the old corrector, and by the sense of Blunt's reply.

Note return to page 608 10109589P. 296. In Falstaff's retort upon Bardolph, he says: “Thou art our admiral, thou bearest the lantern in the poop,—but 'tis in the nose of thee.” The correction in the folio, 1632, seems hardly required:— “Thou bearest the lantern, not in the poop, but 'tis in the nose of thee.” In the preceding line, the common blunder of thy for “my” is committed, and set right.

Note return to page 609 10109590P. 303. The corrector of the folio, 1632, restores the oath (if such it is to be considered), “Zounds,” from the quartos, in Hotspur's exclamation,— “Zounds! how has he the leisure to be sick?” The folios read, with ridiculous tameness, and most prosaically,— “How! has he the leisure to be sick now.” The printing of this Act in the folios, 1623 and 1632, is full of strange blunders and exhibitions of carelessness, one of which occurs in the last line of this page, where the Messenger is made to say,— “His letters bear his mind, not I, his mind,” instead of “not I, my lord;” but this error originated, in fact, with the earlier quartos, where “my mind” was printed for my lord. Capel introduced the right word, as we ascertain from a manuscript note in the margin of the folio, 1632. Again, on the next page, we meet this line, if we may so call it:— “We may boldly spend upon the hope;” whereas, it ought to run,— “We now may boldly spend upon the hope,” &c.

Note return to page 610 10109591P. 305. Worcester observes, in the folios,— “The quality and heire of our attempt Brooks no division.” In the quartos of 1598 and 1599, “heire” was haire, the old mode of spelling hair; and this, the old corrector assures us, was the true word, the meaning of the speaker being (as suggested in note 1), that the power he, and the other revolted lords could produce, was too small to allow of any division of it.

Note return to page 611 10109592P. 307. As might be expected, he restores from the quartos of 1598 and 1599,— “Harry to Harry shall, hot horse to horse;” which the later quartos and folios misprinted, “not horse to horse.”

Note return to page 612 10109593P. 309. For “old faced ancient,” in Falstaff's description of his troops, the corrector of the folio, 1632, substitutes, “old pieced ancient,” an ensign that, being old, had been patched in order to mend it. Lower down, for “there's not a shirt and a half in all my company,” he more naturally reads, “there's but a shirt and a half,” &c. “Not” and but were often confounded by the old printers.

Note return to page 613 10109594P.311. There is a surplusage of two syllables, which certainly weaken the effect of the passage, in a line of Sir Richard Vernon's answer to Douglas, who had charged him with cowardice. The invariable reading has been,— “I hold as little counsel with weak fear, As you, my lord, or any Scot that this day lives.” “This day” clearly overloads the line, and the manuscript-corrector credibly informs us that those words ought to be struck out as an interpolation:— “I hold as little counsel with weak fear, As you, my lord, or any Scot that lives.” On the next page, we are told that the line,— “My father, and my uncle, and myself,” ought to be “My father, with my uncle, and myself.” The folios omit both “and” and with, but the quartos have “and.” On the next page but one, the corrector of the folio, 1632, inserts a word, where a word is certainly wanting, but not the word in the earlier impressions: he gives the line,— “Who is, if every owner were due plac'd,” instead of “well plac'd” of the quartos: the folios read defectively, “if every owner were plac'd.”

Note return to page 614 10109595P. 317. When Worcester declares to the King that he had “not sought the day of this dislike,” the King observes with surprise,— “You have not sought it! how comes it, then?” This line is unquestionably deficient of a syllable, and the old corrector supplies it thus:— “You have not sought it! Say, how comes it, then?”

Note return to page 615 10109596P. 319. The last line of the King's speech is thus given in the folios:— “Sworn to us in younger enterprise.” It is altered by the corrector of the folio, 1632, to “Sworn to us in your younger enterpise,” which accords with the early quartos, “Your” and “younger,” following each other, perhaps caused the omission: see also p. 234 of this vol.

Note return to page 616 10109597P. 321. A question has arisen how the subsequent line, as it stands in all old editions, should be corrected:— “Supposition, all our lives, shall be stuck full of eyes.” Pope altered “supposition,” most properly, to suspicion, and the corrector of the folio, 1632, did the same; but he made no farther change: perhaps it was a line which was meant to be redundant, and, notwithstanding Farmer's proposal, we know not what words could be left out without diminishing its force. The obvious misprint of the folio, 1623, was repeated in the folio, 1632, “Look how he can,” for “Look how we can;” but it is set right in the margin in manuscript.

Note return to page 617 10109598P. 324. The last four lines of Percy's address are these, as always hitherto printed:— “Sound all the lofty instruments of war, And by that music let us all embrace; For, heaven to earth, some of us never shall A second time do such a courtesy.” Warburton was of opinion that the poet meant that the odds were so great, that heaven might be wagered against earth, that many present would never embrace again. This is a mistake, according to the manuscript-corrector: Hotspur calls heaven and earth to witness to the improbability that some of those present would ever have an opportunity of regreeting each other:— “'Fore heaven and earth, some of us never shall A second time do such a courtesy.”

Note return to page 618 10109599P. 326. Hotspur tells Douglas, who has slain Sir Walter Blunt, thinking him the King, because he wore the same armour and insignia,— “The King hath many marching in his coats.” This is intelligible, and does not positively require change; but the old corrector substitutes a word for “marching” (the forces, at this time, were fighting, not marching), which seems much better adapted to the place:— “The King hath many masking in his coats;” i. e. there are many in the field who have disguised themselves like the King, in order, like Sir Walter Blunt, to deceive his enemies.

Note return to page 619 10109600P. 331. There could be no question as to the corruption here introduced into the text, first by the quarto, 1608, and afterwards into the quarto, 1613, and all the folios,— “But that the earth and the cold hand of death.” All the earlier quartos have it as follows, and the old corrector of the second folio restores the reading,— “But that the earthy and cold hand of death.” It seems not unlikely that here, as in various other places, he resorted to the older impressions, but the sense might be a sufficient guide. Modern editors of course print earthy.

Note return to page 620 10109601P. 334. The old printed stage-direction, which has been repeated by all subsequent editors, informs us that Falstaff takes Hotspur on his back, and it seems, by the same editors, that he kept the body in that position, till (after a considerable interval) he went out, bearing off the body. Judging from a manuscript stage-direction in the folio, 1632, this was not the custom of the stage in the time of the old corrector, if not earlier, for opposite the words, “There is Percy,” he has written, Throw him down; and then the dialogue is continued until the close of Falstaff's soliloquy, ending, “and live cleanly as a nobleman should do.” During this interval, the corpse of Percy must have been lying on the ground, and we can hardly suppose that Falstaff would have been able to sustain the weight, if he had had it on his back all the time he was conversing with the two princes. When the scene, therefore, was at an end, and the body must be removed, Falstaff did not take it up again, but dragged it out, and such is the written stage-direction in the margin of the folio, 1632. He first, with great difficulty, must have got the body on his back; he then cast it down when he began to talk with the princes, and finally dragged it off the stage at the end of the scene. Such appears to have been the way in which the business of this part of the play was formerly conducted.

Note return to page 621 10109602P. 335. We meet with a considerable improvement in the last line of Worcester's last last speech; it has always stood thus:— “What I have done my safety urg'd me to, And I embrace this fortune patiently, Since not to be avoided it falls on me.” The alteration of the manuscript-corrector is trifling, but effectual, and its fitness can hardly be questioned:— “And I embrace this fortune patiently, Which not to be avoided falls on me.”

Note return to page 622 10109603P. 336. The folios omit the following reply by John of Lancaster to Prince Henry, when the latter relinquishes to him the office of setting the Douglas “ransomless and free;” that reply is found in the earlier, but not in the later quartos, in these terms:— “I thank your grace for this high courtesy, Which I will give away immediately.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, inserts two corresponding lines, but the last differs materially from that quoted above, and may be thought, in some respects, to read better:— “I thank your grace for this high courtesy, Which I shall put in act without delay.” This variation may induce the belief that the corrector had access to some authority independent of any of the printed copies of this play, whether in quarto or folio; although not a few of his emendations, as we have seen, correspond with the earliest and some other quartos, which had been abandoned by the folios.

Note return to page 623 10109604P. 341. The folios allave,— “Stuffing the ears of them with false reports;” a misprint, probably, from defective hearing, for the text unquestionably ought to be, as commonly given,— “Stuffing the ears of men with false reports.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, altered “them” to men. Lower down, he made “surmise,” of the same edition, surmises, as required by sense and metre. The first only of these blunders is committed in the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 624 10109605P. 342. We may doubt the fitness of changing “peasant-towns,” as printed with a hyphen in the folios, to “pleasant towns;” but it may be right, and it ought, therefore, to be mentioned. In the next line but one, “worm-eaten hole,” of all the ancient impressions, is made “worm-eaten hold.” Theobald was the first to substitute hold.

Note return to page 625 10109606P. 343. The old stage-direction at the opening of the first scene, is, Enter Lord Bardolph and the Porter, as if they made their appearance before the audience at the same moment: the modern stage-direction has been, The Porter before the gate; enter Lord Bardolph. It should appear from a stage-direction in manuscript, in the folio, 1632, that the old practice was for Lord Bardolph to enter first, and as soon as he asked, “Who keeps the gate here? ho!” for the Warder (so called) to show himself above the castle-gate, and from thence to answer Lord Bardolph. The Warder made his exit as soon as Northumberland entered.

Note return to page 626 10109607P. 345. There can be no question that the printer of the folio, 1623, in the first line of this page, mistakenly repeated “able,” as applied to heels, because he had placed the same epithet before “horse,” in the preceding line. In the last instance, the word ought to be armed instead of “able”:— “With that he gave his able horse the head, And bending forward, struck his armed heels Against the panting sides,” &c. It is “armed heels” in the quarto, 1600; and if the corrector of the folio, 1632, did not obtain that word from thence, he might have heard the passage accurately recited on the stage in his day, or possibly he used some independent, but concurrent authority.

Note return to page 627 10109608P. 348. Theobald's emendation of “ragged'st hour,” of the old copies, to “rugged'st hour,” which several more recent editors have not admitted, in the line,— “The ragged'st hour that time and spite dare bring,” is warranted by the old corrector, who merely converts a into u in the margin.

Note return to page 628 10109609P. 357. The following manuscript-correction accords with no copy of this play that has come down to us: it is part of Falstaff's speech to the Chief Justice, “Virtue is of so little regard in these costermonger days, that true valour is turned bear-herd.” It is “costermonger times” in the quarto, 1600, while in the folios the necessary word is altogether omitted. Lower down, the old corrector has added, with an asterisk at the proper place, the words, about three of the afternoon, which do not precisely agree with the quarto, which reads, “about three o'clock in the afternoon:” the folios have no trace of them. On the next page, he leaves out the whole of Falstaff's speech after “well, I cannot last ever,” which he makes “last for ever.” It is only found in the quarto, 1600.

Note return to page 629 10109610P. 359. Few things can be more evident than the necessity of an emendation in the following passage: “A man can no more separate age and covetousness, than he can part young limbs and lechery; but the gout galls the one, and the pox pinches the other, and so both the degrees prevent my curses.” What here are “the degrees?” The poet is referring to two diseases, not to two “degrees,” and the copyist must have misheard diseases, and written “degrees.” We must read with the old corrector, “and so both the diseases prevent my curses,” i. e. anticipate my curses.

Note return to page 630 10109611P. 361. The first twenty lines of Lord Bardolph's second speech, on this page, are only in the folio impressions, and the corrector of that of 1632 shows that they have been most corruptly printed, probably from defects in the manuscript in the hands of the compositor. Malone and others set right one error in the first line, by converting “if” to in, but the second line appears to be even more strangely blundered, for instead of “Indeed the instant action, a cause on foot,” &c., we ought to read the whole passage thus: it is in answer to Northumberland's question, whether it could do harm to hope?— “Yes, in this present quality of war: Indeed the instant act and cause on foot Lives so in hope, as in the early spring We see appearing buds,” &c. Thus the measure is amended, and the sense cleared. But, farther on, Lord Bardolph draws a parallel between the building of a house and the carrying on a war, which is obscured by the omission of a whole line, fortunately inserted in the margin by the old corrector. Our first extract is as it stands in the folios, and we will follow it by the same quotation as amended. The speaker is supposing that a man purposes at first to construct a dwelling, which he afterwards finds beyond his means:— “What do we then, but draw anew the model In fewer offices; or at least desist To build at all? Much more in this great work, (Which is almost to pluck a kingdom down And set another up) should we survey The plot of situation, and the model, Consent upon a sure foundation, Question surveyors, know our own estate How able such a work to undergo, To weigh against his opposite; or else We fortify in paper and in figures,” &c. As amended by the old corrector, the same passage runs as follows:— “What do we then, but draw anew the model In fewer offices; or at last desist To build at all? Much more in this great work, (Which is almost to pluck a kingdom down And set another up) should we survey The plot, the situation, and the model, Consult upon a sure foundation, Question surveyors, know our own estate, How able such a work to undergo. A careful leader sums what force he brings To weigh against his opposite; or else We fortify on paper, and in figures,” &c. That the furnishing of this new connecting line (to say nothing of verbal emendations, the first of which Steevens speculated upon) between Lord Bardolph's simile and its application, is an important improvement, although the question still returns upon us, from whence was it derived?

Note return to page 631 10109612P. 365. In the speech of the Hostess we find, “A hundred mark is a long one for a poor lone woman to bear,” altered to “A hundred mark is a long score for a poor lone woman to bear,” with indisputable fitness.

Note return to page 632 10109613P. 373, The Page, describing Bardolph peeping through the “red lattice” of an ale-house, observes: “At last I spied his eyes; and, methought he had made two holes in the ale-wives' new petticoat, and peeped through.” The word red is inserted in manuscript before “petticoat,” in order to make the resemblance more distinct, but it would scarcely be necessary, if ale-wives usually wore red petticoats at the time.

Note return to page 633 10109614P. 374. The prefixes are so arranged by the corrector of the folio, 1632, that the Prince, and not Poins, is made to read Falstaff's letter aloud, which, according to a manuscript stage-direction, he shows to Poins. Several literal and trifling verbal corrections are inserted in this part of the scene: the only one it is necessary to notice is the remark of the Prince, “That's but to make him eat twenty of his words:” but is wanting in all the old copies. Warburton proposed plenty for “twenty,” but without the slightest necessity, and the manuscript-corrector supports no such change.

Note return to page 634 10109615P. 381. Falstaff enters singing, according to a manuscript stage-direction, and it might be gathered from the fragment of the ballad printed. On the same authority, he sings, “Your broaches, pearls, and owches,” as the fragment of another ballad. In his preceding speech, he addresses the words, “Grant that, my poor virtue, grant that,” to Doll Tearsheet; but the old corrector alters “poor” to pure, used ironically, which was doubtless the poet's word. The folios, after Falstaff's speech ending, “to venture upon the charged chambers bravely,” omit what Doll says, according to the quarto, “Hang yourself, you muddy conger, hang yourself;” and, excepting the two last words, the manuscript-corrector has duly inserted them with the proper prefix. It is to be remarked, however, that when, on p. 384, Falstaff exclaims, “No more, Pistol,” &c., as it stands only in the quarto, that speech is not added by the corrector to the folio, 1632. In this respect his practice was by no means consistent; and, possibly, whatever authority he may have had was inconsistent also.

Note return to page 635 10109616P. 394. Two corrections, the second adopted by some commentators, the first not thought of by them, are introduced in the folio, 1632, in the King's soliloquy upon sleep. The first is in the line,— “Under the canopies of costly state;” which we are told to read,— “Under high canopies of costly state.” When “high” was spelt hie, as was not unfrequent of old, the misprint might easily have been made, and high adds considerably to the force of the line. The second correction occurs lower down, where “clouds” is erased with a pen, and shrowds written at the side. It has been a much debated point among editors, which was the authentic word, “clouds” or shrowds, and this emendation may serve to settle the question.11Q1220

Note return to page 636 10109617P. 395. The corrector of the folio, 1632, did not add, from the quarto, the four lines, within brackets, in the middle of King Henry's speech. A leaf, paged respectively 87 and 88, is deficient in the corrected folio of 1632.

Note return to page 637 10109618P. 409, The folio, 1632, in the line,— “Here doth he wish his person, with such powers,” &c., misprints “here” how; but the error (not committed in the folio, 1623) is set right by the old corrector. Lower down, at the end of Mowbray's speech, he points out a curious blunder, arising, in all likelihood, from mishearing on the part of the scribe, which has been the occasion of several notes. In old and modern impressions, the line has thus been printed:— “Let us sway on, and face them in the field.” Johnson truly says that he had never seen “sway” used in this sense, and Steevens takes the trouble to insert several quotations in which “sway” is found, but always in its ordinary meaning, so that they prove nothing. The plain truth is that the copyist ought to have written different words, that have exactly the same sound, viz.:— “Let's away on, and face them in the field.” We need have no hesitation in at once admitting this change of the received text.

Note return to page 638 10109619P. 410. This part of the play is extremely ill printed in every old copy, blunders having been continued from one to the other, some of which have never been detected, excepting by the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632. Westmoreland says to Scroop:— “If that rebellion Came like itself in base and abject routs, Led on by bloody youth, guarded with rage, And countenanc'd by boys and beggary,” &c. For “guarded with rage,” we must read “guarded (i. e. ornamented, used ironically) with rags,” which is quite consistent with the rest of the passage. Again, nearer the end of the same speech, glaves or glaives is misprinted “graves;” and the last line of what Westmoreland says, is thus given in the folio, 1623:— “To a loud trumpet and a point of war.” Here “point of war” can have no meaning; but the close of the passage, in which the noble envoy from the King reproaches the Archbishop for abandoning his profession and raising the standard of rebellion, ought to be thus printed in future:— “Turning your books to glaives, your ink to blood, Your pens to lances, and your tongue divine, To a loud trumpet and report of war.” The folio, 1632, makes the matter worse by putting low for “loud” of the folio, 1623. In “Richard III.,” Act IV. Scene IV., we have the expression, “the clamorous report of war.”

Note return to page 639 10109620P. 412. It may be fit to state that the corrector of the folio, 1632, does not notice the lines from the quarto, which are marked as omitted, nor does he clear up the difficulty regarding the Archbishop's speech, in reply to Westmoreland's question, why he in particular had joined the rebellion.

Note return to page 640 10109621P. 415. There is an undeniable error in the subsequent lines, at the end of Scroop's speech:— “So that this land, like an offensive wife That hath enrag'd him on to offer strokes, As he is striking, holds his infant up, And hangs resolv'd correction in the arm That was uprear'd to execution.” To whom does “him” refer? Indisputably to the husband; and the line in which it occurs ought to run as follows, as we learn from the manuscript-corrector:— “That hath enrag'd her man to offer strokes,” &c. Her man, in some way, either by mishearing or misprint, became “him on.”

Note return to page 641 10109622P. 417. The conclusion of Prince John's reproof to the Archbishop has generally stood thus:— “You have taken up Under the counterfeited zeal of heaven The subjects of heaven's substitute,” &c. The quarto, published before the act of James I., has God for “heaven,” but the error lies in “zeal” for seal:— “Under the counterfeited seal of heaven” must be the true reading, and “zeal” is converted into seal by the corrector of the folio, 1632. The “seal divine,” which Scroop was charged with misapplying, has been before mentioned by Westmoreland on p. 411.

Note return to page 642 10109623P. 421. Falstaff's joke, such as it is, upon Sir John Colevile of the Dale, has been lost by a strange misprint of “place” for dale, twice in the ensuing quotation: “Colevile shall be your name, a traitor your degree, and the dungeon your place—a place deep enough; so shall you be still Colevile of the Dale.” “Place,” in both instances, ought to have been dale, “and the dungeon your dale—a dale deep enough,” &c. The manuscript-corrector has substituted dale for both “places.”

Note return to page 643 10109624P. 429. The manuscript stage-direction after the line,— “O me! come near me, now I am much ill,” is not swoons, as in modern editions, but falls back, we may suppose, into the arms of the Dukes of Gloucester and Clarence: the old printed copies are without any note of the kind; and, just before, when Westmoreland and Harcourt bring news, and deliver written accounts of it to the King, it is left to be inferred that they did so; but, lest any mistake should be made by the performers, the old corrector, in both cases, writes in the margin, Gives a paper. Afterwards, when the King desires his nobles to bear him into some other chamber, the audience was left to imagine a change of apartment, for the simple stage-direction is, Put the King a-bed; and soon afterwards Prince Henry comes in, and takes away the crown.

Note return to page 644 10109625P. 431. In note 8 it is conjectured that “rigol” might be a misprint for ringol, both here and in “Lucrece,” where Shakespeare also uses it. However this may be, it is certain that the corrector of the folio, 1632, here converts “rigol” into ringol, by putting n in the margin, and such was, perhaps, the original mode of spelling the word. Steevens was not aware “that it was used by any other author than Shakespeare,” but Middleton, his contemporary, applies the compound “rigol-eyed” to the round eyes of young women, in his “Black Book,” 1604, which has been strangely misunderstood wriggle-eyed, a word that has no meaning.

Note return to page 645 10109626P. 436. For “win,” in the subsequent line,— “That thou might'st win the more thy father's love,” the folios have joyne, for which misprint it is easy to account, when we recollect that “win” was of old often spelt wynne. The old corrector strikes out joyne in favour of “win,” or, as he writes it, winne.11Q1221

Note return to page 646 10109627P. 437. The expression, “for what in me was purchas'd,” the manuscript-corrector changes to “for what in me was purchase,” i. e. booty, a meaning constantly given to the word by our poet and his contemporaries; the verb, to purchase, was, we believe, never used in this sense. Lower down, doubts have arisen whether, in the following line, the first “thy” ought not to be my:— “And all thy friends, which thou must make thy friends,” because afterwards the King observes,— “Which to avoid I cut them off.” The old corrector tells us to read, “And all my friends,” and “I cut some off;” which seems right, inasmuch as Henry adds, that it had been his intention, if his health had permitted, to lead others to the Holy Land, “Lest rest and lying still might make them look Too near unto my state.”

Note return to page 647 10109628P. 441. The folios all have, “and he shall laugh with intervallums,” instead of “without intervallums,” which is the text of the quarto, and to which the passage is restored by a manuscript-correction.

Note return to page 648 10109629P. 452. It was probably intended that Pistol, in his joy at the accession of Henry V., should end this scene with a couplet, but it closes as follows:— “‘Where is the life that late I led,’ say they; Why here it is: welcome these pleasant days.” The change required is only, “welcome this pleasant day,” to which the old corrector alters the line: he also underscores it as a quotation, and we may feel assured that it was part of the same popular ballad mentioned by Petruchio in “The Taming of the Shrew,” Act IV. Scene I. vol. iii. p. 168.

Note return to page 649 10109630P. 458. In the second paragraph of the “Epilogue” by one that can dance (as we are informed in a manuscript parenthesis), the word “forgiven,” of the folio, 1623, is forgotten in that of 1632, but corrected in manuscript; and after the speaker had knelt down “to pray for the Queen,” it is clear that he rose again in order to treat the audience with a dance, for the old corrector adds these words, quite at the close and in a new line, End with a dance. The conjecture, therefore, hazarded in note 2, is, so far, not supported.

Note return to page 650 10109631P. 465. In the folios, the thirty-four introductory lines are headed, “Enter Prologue,” but the corrector of the folio, 1632, has altered the title thus, “Enter Chorus as Prologue.” In the body of the play, the speaker of the interlocutory descriptions is called “Chorus;” and the same at the end, where we have “Chorus” above what was clearly meant as the Epilogue: the corrector, has, therefore, thus amended the heading in the last instance, “Enter Chorus as Epilogue.” In the eighteenth line, “imaginary” has the last syllable altered, but a water-stain in the margin of the folio, 1632, prevents our being able to distinguish what was intended: imaginative could hardly be Shakespeare's word.

Note return to page 651 10109632P. 471. In the long speech of the Archbishop, in defence of Henry's title to France, those parts which relate especially to the succession of the Kings of France, in connexion with the salique law, and which were almost verbatim derived from Holinshed, are struck out with a pen, as if they would not have been well relished by a popular audience, and might be (and perhaps were) dispensed with in the performance of the play. Nevertheless, the corrections are carried throughout, and near the bottom of p. 472,— “To find his title with some shows of truth,” is not altered to “to fine his title,” as in Malone, &c., but to “to found his title,” which, on some accounts, may be considered the better reading of the three.

Note return to page 652 10109633P. 475. The King, speaking of Scotland, says,— “Who hath been still a giddy neighbour to us.” The old corrector inserts greedy for “giddy:” either word will suit the place, whether we suppose Henry to mean that Scotland has been an unsteady neighbour, or a rapacious one, anxious to seize all opportunities of pillaging England. Greedy seems rather better adapted to the context, but the printed copies are uniformly in favour of “giddy.” Lower down, we need have less doubt regarding the alteration of an important word:— “The King of Scots, whom she did send to France To fill King Edward's fame with prisoner kings.” The manuscript-correction here is train for “fame.”

Note return to page 653 10109634P. 476. In the subsequent passage,— “Playing the mouse in absence of the cat, To tear and havoc more than she can eat,” the folios have tame, and the quartos spoil, for “tear.” “Tear,” which was conjecturally placed in the text, is supported by an emendation in the folio, 1632, where teare for “tame” is written in the margin. In the next line but one, the old corrector seems to have taken “crush'd” in the sense of compelled; while for “but,” of the old copies, he has substituted not, a misprint of the most frequent occurrence:— “Yet that is not a crush'd necessity,” &c. In the last line but one of this page, for “sorts,” the plausible alteration is state:— “They have a king and officers of state.”

Note return to page 654 10109635P. 477. The line, as it has always been printed,— “Come to one mark; as many ways meet in one town,” is obviously overloaded, and the corrector of the folio, 1632, gives it, with the context, thus:— “As many arrows, loosed several ways, Come to one mark; as many ways unite; As many fresh streams meet in one salt sea,” &c. Thus the repetition of the word “meet,” in two succeeding lines, is avoided; but it may still be a question, whether Shakespeare might not wish here to vary the regularity of his lines by interposing one of twelve syllables. Two lines lower, “And in one purpose,” is amended to “End in one purpose,” precisely the same literal error that was committed in “All's Well that Ends Well,” vol. ii. p. 252. See also Vol. p. 161.11Q1222

Note return to page 655 10109636P. 479. From two stage-directions it appears that the tun of tennis balls, sent by the Dauphin, was exhibited and opened by Exeter on the stage, in sight of the audience: Show it, and Open it, are written in the margin of the folio, 1632. A striking change is made in some lines where Henry refers to his intended visit to his kingdom of France, which he affects to prefer to that of England:— “I will keep my state, Be like a king, and show my sail of greatness, When I do rouse me in my throne of France.” The word “sail” here has little meaning, and will certainly seem to have less when we mention the word proposed in the place of it:— “I will keep my state, Be like a king, and show my soul of greatness, When I do rouse me in my throne of France.” We cannot believe that this emendation will be disputed: it is that of the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 656 10109637P. 480. In the following, as in many other instances, the substitution of a single letter, makes a great improvement. The King is urging the utmost expedition of preparation for the invasion of France, and, as the passage has invariably been printed, he says,— “Therefore, let our proportions for these wars Be soon collected, and all things thought upon That may with reasonable swiftness add More feathers to our wings. Now “reasonable swiftness” was not at all what he wished, but instant dispatch; and we ought indubitably to read,— “That may with seasonable swiftness add More feathers to our wings.” The greater the speed, the more seasonable for the purpose of the speaker.

Note return to page 657 10109638P. 480. In the third line of the Chorus, we are told to read, not “Now thrive the armourers,” &c., but “Now strive the armourers,” &c., in reference to the vast exertions they were making in preparations for the army about to embark at Southampton. This, we feel convinced, was the poet's word, who was not at all contemplating the profit the armourers would reap from the expedition:— “Now strive the armourers, and honour's thought Reigns solely in the breast of every man.”

Note return to page 658 10109639P. 481. Pope completed a defective line in the Chorus as follows:— “Th' abuse of distance, while we force a play.” “While we” is in no ancient copy; and the old corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that the words wanting were not those, for he puts it,— “Th' abuse of distance, and so force a play.”

Note return to page 659 10109640P. 482. In Nym's speech, the words, “there shall be smiles,” are altered to, “there shall be smites,” i.e. blows, which exactly accords with Farmer's suggestion, and smites, he adds, is used in this way in the midland counties of England. In Nym's next speech, at the top of the next page, the old corrector has “tired jade,” instead of “tired name” of the folios. The quartos read “tired mare,” which is unquestionably to be preferred to name, and, probably, to jade.

Note return to page 660 10109641P. 488. By too earnest an anxiety to follow the old copies, an evident misprint, which could nevertheless be reconciled to fitness by ingenuity, has been preserved. It is in one of the King's speeches at Southampton, ordering the enlargement of a drunkard who had railed on him, and the passage has always been thus printed:— “It was excess of wine that set him on, And on his more advice, we pardon him.” Our is substituted for “his,” in the folio, 1632; it was on the King's “more advice,” and not on that of the prisoner, that he was to be set at liberty. On the same page, the King inquires, as it has always stood,— “Who are the late commissioners?” which has been strained by Monk Mason to mean, who are the “lately appointed commissioners?” but the old corrector shows that “late commissioners” was a misprint, or a mishearing, for “state commissioners”—the commissioners who were to be in charge of the state during the absence of the King in France.

Note return to page 661 10109642P. 493. We are sorry to be obliged to part with Theobald's fanciful emendation in Mrs. Quickly's description of the death of Falstaff, “for his nose was as sharp as a pen, and a' babbled of green fields,” founded upon the following words in the old copies, never understood, and containing two misprints, which we shall point out presently on the authority of the corrector of the folio, 1632—“for his nose was as sharp as a pen and a table of green fields.” The mention of “a pen” and “a table,” might have led to the detection of the error: writing-tables were no doubt at that period often covered with green cloth; and it is to the sharpness of a pen, as seen in strong relief on a table so covered, that Mrs. Quickly likens the nose of the dying wit and philosopher—“for his nose was as sharp as a pen on a table of green frieze.” The emendation is merely on for “and,” and frieze for “fields;” and it is found in the margin of the folio, 1632. Pope's ridiculous suggestion respecting “a table of Greenfields,” whom he supposed (there is no extraneous syllable to countenance the notion) to have been the property man of the theatre, has long been exploded; and such, we apprehend, must now be the fate of other proposals in connexion with this obviously corrupt passage.

Note return to page 662 10109643P. 497. We cannot hesitate to believe that the line,— “Whiles that his mountain sire, on mountain standing,” is corrupt; and a manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, shows that it ought to be read, in accordance with a previous line, descriptive of the same persons and scene, on p. 474,— “Whiles that his mighty sire, on mountain standing,” &c. The copyist or the printer blundered, and put “mountain” twice over in the same line.

Note return to page 663 10109644P. 500. In the Chorus, describing the embarkation and sailing of Henry V. from Southampton, we read,— “Behold the threaden sails, Borne with th' invisible and creeping wind, Draw the huge bottoms through the furrow'd sea.” It is true that, in a certain sense, the sails of a ship may be said to be “borne” by the wind; but the old corrector supplies us with a word which, as it is more picturesque, as well as appropriate, we may confidently attribute to the poet:— “Behold the threaden sails, Blown with th' invisible and creeping wind, Draw the huge bottoms through the furrow'd sea.”

Note return to page 664 10109645P. 503. It is evident, from mere perusal, that the fragments of ballads quoted by Pistol and the Boy, in the beginning of this scene, are imperfectly given. Without thinking it necessary here to quote the ordinary text, we will subjoin the manner in which the dialogue, containing the extracts, ought to be conducted, according to the old corrector of the folio, 1632:— “Pistol. The plain song is most just, for humours do abound:   Knocks go and come   To all and some, God's vassals feel the same,   And sword and shield   In bloody field Do win immortal fame. Boy. Would I were in an alehouse in London! I would give all my fame for a pot of ale and safety. Pistol. And I   If wishes would prevail with me,   My purpose should not fail with me, But thither would I now. Boy.   And as duly,   But not as truly, As bird doth sing on bough.” It will be easy to compare the above with the words as usually printed, and there can be little doubt that the old corrector had access to some means of information which we do not now possess. We give the words he supplies in Italics, but the whole appears as prose in the folios, and there is no trace of it in the quarto editions.

Note return to page 665 10109646P. 507. The second folio absurdly has,— “Array'd in games like to the prince of friends,” instead of “array'd in flames” of the first folio; but the old corrector makes them agree. On the next page he corrects “Desire the locks,” as it stands in both folios, to “Defile the locks,” which was Pope's manifest improvement.

Note return to page 666 10109647P. 509. This entire French scene, between Katharine and her female attendant, is struck out by the corrector of the folio, 1632, who did not venture to offer any changes in the many misprints.

Note return to page 667 10109648P. 516. Gower is speaking of counterfeit and begging soldiers, who pretend to have seen great service, and observes of them, that they study perfectly military phrases, “which they trick up with new-tuned oaths.” For “new-tuned oaths,” the old corrector assures us, with every appearance of truth, that we should read “new-coined oaths.”

Note return to page 668 10109649P. 519. The Dauphin, vehement in praise of his horse, exclaims, “He bounds from the earth as if his entrails were hairs,” which Warburton explains by an allusion to tennis-balls, which were stuffed with hair; but the misprint in the folios was occasioned by the wrong use of the aspirate, for a marginal note in the folio, 1632, most plausibly substitutes air for “hairs,” and therefore reads, “He bounds from the earth, as if his entrails were air.”

Note return to page 669 10109650P. 528. A question has arisen whether Fluellen's injunction to Gower ought to be to “speak fewer,” as it stands in the old copies, or to “speak lower,” according to the ordinary phrase. The manuscript-corrector alters “fewer” to lower.

Note return to page 670 10109651P. 533. A line in the King's soliloquy,— “What is thy soul of adoration?” has hitherto presented insurmountable difficulties to the commentators. Henry is descanting upon the vanity of regal accompaniments, maintaining that ceremony is all that distinguishes a monarch from a subject, and, apostrophising ceremony, he asks,— “What are thy rents? what are thy comings in? O ceremony! show me but thy worth! What is thy soul of adoration?” The old corrector points out this last line as having been misprinted; and reading it as follows, the whole dispute between Johnson, Steevens, and Malone, seems at an end:— “O ceremony! show me but thy worth: What is thy soul but adulation?” which is strongly supported by the whole context, and especially by two lines that follow almost immediately:— “Think'st thou the fiery fever will go out With titles blown from adulation?” Therefore, the answer, when Henry asks what is the worth of ceremony, is what he himself supplies, that the soul of ceremony is nothing but adulation.

Note return to page 671 10109652P. 534. We may probably accept the next emendation in the same soliloquy. The King is comparing the happiness and sound slumbers of a slave with the restless nights of a king; the former, according to the universally received text,— “Gets him to rest, cramm'd with distressful bread;” but if the bread he ate were “distressful,” if it were earned with misery and suffering, the simile would not hold; so that we may infer that “distressful” was not Shakespeare's word. According to a manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, the epithet was misprinted, and we ought to read,— “Gets him to rest, cramm'd with distasteful bread;” that is to say, bread which was abundant, and well relished by the humble, but which, from its coarseness, would be distasteful to kings and princes.

Note return to page 672 10109653P. 542. A passage in which the King supposes that the dead bodies of the English, left in France, will putrify and infect the air, and thus pursue their enmity to the inhabitants, has never been properly understood, because never properly worded; it has been thus given in ancient as well as modern editions:— “Mark, then, abounding valour in our English; That, being dead, like to the bullet's grazing, Break out into a second course of mischief, Killing in relapse of mortality.” The simile of the bullet's grazing from one object, which it destroys, to another, which it also wounds, shows that we ought not to read “abounding,” but “rebounding valour” of the English; and that, instead of “relapse,” which ill suits the rhythm of the line, we ought to read reflex, in allusion to the power of the bullet to injure, when reflected backward from the object first struck. The four lines, therefore, ought to be printed in this manner:— “Mark, then, rebounding valour in our English, That, being dead, like to the bullet's grazing, Break out into a second course of mischief, Killing in reflex of mortality.” Theobald printed “a bounding valour,” and saw the meaning of the poet, as far as that word is concerned, though he did not give the right emendation; but Malone poorly imagined that “abounding” was only to be taken as abundant; and neither of them had any notion that “relapse” was a misprint for reflex. Both these changes are made by the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 673 10109654P. 548. Exeter giving a description of the deaths of York and Suffolk, speaking of the former, says, as the text has been always repeated,— “In which array, brave soldier, doth he lie, Larding the plain.” Steevens illustrates the word “larding” by a passage in Henry IV. Part I. Act II. Scene 2, where it is humorously said of Falstaff that he “lards the lean earth as he walks along.” No quotation could well be less apposite: Falstaff larded the lean earth by the perspiration which fell from his huge carcase; but it is no where said that the Duke of York was obese, nor have we any reason to suppose that it might be appropriately said of him after death that he “larded the plain;” the true word is thus given in manuscript:— “In which array, brave soldier, doth he lie Loading the plain.”

Note return to page 674 10109655P. 551. Montjoy, the herald, after the battle comes to ask leave on behalf of the French to select and bury their dead; but hitherto the line has been given as if he asked leave to “book” the dead, and as if the French had been in a condition to take and note down a particular account of them. The fact is, that look, in the sense of search for, or select, has been misprinted “book:”— “I come to thee for charitable licence, That we may wander o'er this bloody field, To look our dead, and then to bury them.” The manuscript-corrector merely altered the first letter of “book;” and the use of look, as above, is frequent in all our old writers. It was an English herald who made out a statement of the killed, wounded, and prisoners on both sides, and afterwards presented it to the King.

Note return to page 675 10109656P. 559. In the Chorus which opens this Act, the first words are altered from “Vouchsafe to those,” to “Vouchsafe all those;” and in the next line, instead of “and of such as have,” we are told to read, “and for such as have.” A more material change was made when the celebrated lines, which relate to the return of the Earl of Essex from Ireland, were struck out. We may easily believe that they would be distasteful at any time after that nobleman's execution, but we may presume that they were not recited in the time of the corrector of the folio, 1632, if only because they could then have no application. They form, however, one of the least disputable, as well as one of the most important notes of time, to be found in any of the plays of our great dramatist.

Note return to page 676 10109657P. 565. The Duke of Burgundy, in the course of his long harangue, asks why peace should not, as formerly, in France,— “put up her lovely visage?” An awkward phrase arising, no doubt, from the misprint of one short word for another, and the manuscript-corrector therefore has,— “Should not in this best garden of the world, Our fertile France, lift up her lovely visage?” This change may, nevertheless, have been proposed as a mere matter of taste.

Note return to page 677 10109658P. 567. A trifling error of the press has been committed in the last line of the speech of the French King, in reply to Henry's request that he would answer, whether he refused or accepted the articles of peace proposed. As always printed, the passage has stood,— “We will suddenly Pass our accept, and peremptory answer.” “Pass our accept” seems to have been taken for “pass our acceptance,” but what the French King intends to say is, that, after further consideration, he will either pass by articles to which he may object, or accept others which seem admissible: he says,— “Pleaseth your grace To appoint some of your council presently To sit with us once more, with better heed To re-survey them, we will suddenly Pass, or accept, and peremptory answer.” The blunder here was merely “our” for or, and this use of the word “pass” was common. A few lines lower, we may feel assured that the line,— “Shall see advantageable for our dignity,” was written by the poet,— “Shall see advantage for our dignity;” and, accordingly, able is erased by the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 678 10109659P. 571. The corner of the leaf, containing the interview between Henry V. and Katharine, has been torn away, and there is here only one emendation that demands notice: it occurs not far from the end of the scene, where the King observes, “I dare not swear thou lovest me; yet my blood begins to flatter me thou dost, notwithstanding the poor and untempering effect of my visage.” Warburton's note is “Certainly untempting;” and he was right, for a marginal correction directs us to read untempting for “untempering.”

Note return to page 679 10109660P. 573. All the folios have, “girdled with maiden walls, that war hath entered,” a negative having been accidentally omitted; modern editors have invariably inserted “never;” but, although the difference is not material, the true word was probably not, “that war hath not entered,” because the old corrector places it in the margin.

Note return to page 680 10109661Vol. v. p. 9. The subsequent imperfect couplet closes Bedford's speech just before the entrance of the Messenger:— “A far more glorious star thy soul will make, Than Julius Cæsar on bright &lblank;.” Johnson proposed to fill the blank with Berenice, which, in any point of view, could hardly be right. Malone was of opinion that the blank had been left, because the copyist could not read the name; it is improbable that the copyist could not read the name, and still more improbable, that, even if he could not read it, he would have hesitated in putting down something, whether right or wrong. The corrector of the folio, 1632, wrote Cassiopé in the margin, which, as far as regards the measure, answers the purpose; but from whence he derived the information, it is impossible to conjecture: he therefore reads,— “Than Julius Cæsar on bright Cassiopé.”11Q1223

Note return to page 681 10109662P. 10. In the following line, the folio, 1632, omits an important word,— “Reignier, duke of Anjou, doth take his part.” The old corrector inserted “take,” which, perhaps, he found in the folio, 1623; at all events, it was not necessary for him to go to any other authority for it, if even to that.

Note return to page 682 10109663P. 12. The line has always created a difficulty, where it is said of Sir John Fastolfe,— “He being in the vaward, plac'd behind,” &c., which is a contradiction in terms, unless we suppose, with Monk Mason, that the English army being attacked from behind, the rear became the van. A manuscript-correction makes it evident that “vaward” was a misprint for rearward:— “He being in the rearward, plac'd behind With purpose to relieve and follow them.”

Note return to page 683 10109664P. 13. The ensuing emendation is one of those which may have been introduced as a mere matter of taste, although it seems more likely that cause should have been the poet's word, considering how ill “make” sounds in the place where it occurs:— “Ten thousand soldiers with me I will take, Whose bloody deeds shall make all Europe quake.” The old corrector erases “make,” and substitutes cause. It was Monk Mason's excellent proposal, that the Bishop of Winchester should say, at the end of this scene,— “The King from Eltham I intend to steal,” And sit at chiefest stern of public weal.” The old copies have invariably,— “The King from Eltham I intend to send;” but there is little doubt that a rhyme was meant, and that the copyist or compositor caught the termination of “send” from the preceding verb. The corrector of the second folio wrote steal in the margin, and struck out “send;” and we shall see hereafter that in several other places he restores rhymes, which had either been obscured by corruption, or, possibly, changed, because audiences in his time did not so well relish the recurrence of same-sounding words.

Note return to page 684 10109665P. 14. When the Dauphin observes, in reference to the disastrous state of English affairs in France,— “At pleasure here we lie near Orleans, Otherwhiles, the famish'd English, like pale ghosts, Faintly besiege us one hour in a month;” we may be satisfied that the second line, for the sake of measure and meaning, ought to run,— “The whiles the famish'd English, like pale ghosts,” &c. The correction in the folio, 1632, is precisely this; and it is surprising that so small, so obvious, and so easy a corruption as “otherwhiles” should have remained till now in the text of this drama. Lower down in the page occurs another decided blunder, which has never been noticed, nor set right. The French generals have been ridiculing the forbearance of the English in not daring to press the siege, and at last the Dauphin declares his determination to attack the enemy, and compel them to raise it:— “Sound, sound alarum! we will rush on them. Now for the honour of the forlorn French.” Why should he call the French “forlorn” at the very moment of their triumph? It is an indisputable error:— “Now for the honour of the forborne French,” must be the true word, and it is furnished in manuscript. The French had been forborne by the English, because the latter were not in a condition to press the siege. The word is printed “forlorne” in the folios, and the old corrector had nothing more to do than to alter the letter l to b. In the last line he puts flee for “fly,” making it rhyme with “me” in the preceding line.

Note return to page 685 10109666P. 16. There seems no ground for preserving an evident transposition in “Heaven and our Lady gracious hath it pleas'd,” instead of “our gracious Lady,” as it is marked by the corrector of the folio, 1632, unless “gracious” be to be taken as graciously.

Note return to page 686 10109667P. 17. The following seems to have been written originally as a rhyming couplet; it occurs at the end of the speech where the Dauphin challenges Joan of Arc to the combat:— “And, if thou vanquishest, thy words are true, Otherwise I renounce all confidence.” The last line is almost ridiculously prosaic, and the change recommended by a note in the folio, 1632, is small, but a decided improvement:— “And, if thou vanquishest, thy words are true, Or I renounce all confidence in you.”11Q1224

Note return to page 687 10109668P. 19. At the heads of some of the scenes in this play, we are, rather unusually, informed of the place of action. The corrector of the folio, 1632, tells us that this angry interview between the Duke of Gloucester and Beaufort takes place at the Tower; but it would have been more correct to have said, near the Tower: London is also added, to show that the scene had been removed from France. The next scene is supposed to be in France again, and that word is therefore placed in the margin. The second scene of Act III. is at Rouen, or Roane, as it was spelt of old; and at the head of the third scene we are told that the stage still represents Roane. This circumstance may, perhaps, be taken as indicating that peculiar pains were bestowed upon this play, and the alterations of different kinds are sometimes even more minute than elsewhere.

Note return to page 688 10109669P. 25. It has been most strangely made a question by Steevens, whether when “vile-esteem'd” is misprinted in the folios, “pil'd esteemed” (“vile” being frequently spelt vild in the time of Shakespeare), the poet did not mean that Talbot complained that he had been philistined. There is not the slightest ground for any such notion: Shakespeare, as Malone remarked, uses the very word “vile-esteemed” in his sonnets, and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, states that he also used it in the subsequent, which is the disputed line,— “Rather than I would be so vile-esteem'd.”

Note return to page 689 10109670P. 26. The eight lines following— “In thirteen battles Salisbury o'ercame,” are struck out, most likely for the purpose of shortening Talbot's harangue. A leaf is wanting in the corrected copy of the second folio, between p. 100 and p. 103.

Note return to page 690 10109671P. 38. Talbot's imperfect line,— “That will I show you presently,” is completed by the corrector by the insertion of the word lady, which, no doubt, in some way escaped from the text:— “That will I show you, lady, presently;” and then, winding his horn, his soldiers appear.

Note return to page 691 10109672P. 41. It is enough to state that the misprint of fashion for “faction,” which Warburton pertinaciously refused to correct, is set right in manuscript in the margin of the second folio.

Note return to page 692 10109673P. 42. The line, as constantly printed,— “He bears him on the place's privilege,” referring to the Temple, also appears to contain an error of the press. Plantagenet is speaking of Somerset, and of the insults he had offered to Suffolk; and, according to the corrected folio, 1632, we ought to read,— “He braves him on the place's privilege.” Consistently with this emendation, Plantagenet, on the next page, exclaims,— “How am I brav'd, and must perforce endure it!” Lower down on the same page, instead of “A thousand souls to death and deadly night,” the old corrector has “Ten thousand souls,” &c.; and “a thousand souls” seems a very insignificant number to be prophesied on such an occasion, as likely to fall in the Wars of the Roses.

Note return to page 693 10109674P. 47. Theobald made, and most modern editors have adopted, a needless change in the text of the old copies, at the conclusion of Plantagenet's soliloquy after the death of old Mortimer:— “And therefore haste I to the Parliament, Either to be restored to my blood, Or make my will th' advantage of my good.” The word Theobald altered was “will,” which he converted to ill; but the mistake is in a different word, “advantage,” which the corrector states ought to be advancer; he leaves “will” as it stands in all old copies, and gives the last line of the quotation thus:— “Or make my will th' advancer of my good:” i. e. if he be unable to procure from Parliament the reversal of the attainder of his blood, he resolves to make his own will the advancer of his own interests. The proposed emendation of ill for “will,” by Theobald, was merely arbitrary and fanciful.

Note return to page 694 10109675P. 49. Whether such were the case with the ensuing emendation by the old corrector, we can only speculate from probabilities: there are two points in its favour, viz. that both the context and the measure of the line call for the alteration. It occurs in Winchester's answer to Gloucester's accusation of covetousness, ambition, and pride:— “If I were covetous, ambitious, proud, As he will have me, how am I so poor?” The common reading is, “or perverse,” for proud; but, in the first place, Gloucester has not charged the prelate so much with perverseness, as with pride,— “As very infants prattle of thy pride;” and, in the next place, proud exactly fits the measure, while “or perverse” overloads it by two syllables. We may, therefore, perhaps conclude that the emendation in the folio, 1632, was in some way authorized.

Note return to page 695 10109676P. 51. The same may, we think, be said of the next emendation in the King's appeal to Winchester, which, as ordinarily printed, ends with these lines:— “Who should be pitiful, if you are not? Or who should study to prefer a peace, If holy churchmen take delight in broils?” For “prefer a peace,” the corrector of the folio, 1632, has “preserve a peace,” peace having been broken by the affray between the adherents of Gloucester and Winchester. “Prefer” is spelt preferre in the old copies, and may easily have been mistaken for preserve, when written with the long s. At the same time, it must be allowed that “prefer a peace” is perfectly intelligible, and well warranted. When Gloucester, just afterwards, offers Winchester his hand, a manuscript stage-direction informs us that he scorns it at first, but subsequently takes it.

Note return to page 696 10109677P. 53. We need not doubt that the word so awkwardly recurring in the two subsequent lines, was a misprint: it is in Plantagenet's speech, thanking the King for restoring him to his blood:— “Thy humble servant vows obedience And humble service, till the point of death.” The corrector writes honour'd in the margin, instead of the first “humble:” and, bearing in mind that Plantagenet had just been raised again to honour by the act of grace of the King, we may willingly accept this representation of the text of our author, and read in future,— “Thy honour'd servant vows obedience And humble service, till the point of death.” Exeter's soliloquy, at the end of the scene, is struck out, as if not wanted.

Note return to page 697 10109678P. 57. Talbot, enraged at Joan's success in capturing Rouen, calls her,— “Foul fiend of France, and hag of all despite!” “Hag of all despite,” at least, sounds tamely, and a marginal note in the folio, 1632, warrants us in giving the line much increase of energy:— “Foul fiend of France, and hag of hell's despite!”

Note return to page 698 10109679P. 59. Burgundy thus addresses Talbot:— “Warlike and martial Talbot, Burgundy Enshrines thee in his heart.” To say that Talbot is “warlike and martial,” is mere tautology, an offence of which Shakespeare is rarely guilty; and, as the old corrector assures us that “martial” has been misprinted, we may gladly welcome his striking improvement of the text:— “Warlike and matchless Talbot, Burgundy Enshrines thee in his heart.”

Note return to page 699 10109680P. 62. We give the ensuing lines as they are corrected in the folio, 1632; it is the opening of Joan's speech to seduce Burgundy:— “Look on thy country, look on fertile France, And see her cities and her towns defac'd By wasting ruin of the cruel foe. As looks the mother on her lovely babe, When death doth close his tender dying eyes, See, see, the pining malady of France.” The common reading is “the” for her in both places, and “lowly” for lovely: the last was Warburton's reasonable proposal, which ought, we see, to have been adopted, though opposed by Johnson, who treated lovely as a needless innovation.

Note return to page 700 10109681P. 64. The King, addressing Talbot, observes,— “I do remember how my father said, A stouter champion never handled sword. Long since we were resolved of your truth,” &c. It is clear, as the old corrector instructs us, that the last line ought to be,— “Long since we were resolved of that truth,” not merely because Henry is referring to an assertion by his father, which must be universally admitted, but because he follows it up by a statement of the fidelity and merits of Talbot:— “Long since we were resolved of your truth, Your faithful service and your toil in war.” To have first applauded Talbot's “truth,” and then his “faithful service,” would have been repetition, very unlike Shakespeare.

Note return to page 701 10109682P. 67. After Talbot has torn the Garter (in the words of the manuscript stage-direction) from the leg of Fastolfe, he proceeds to add, that the order had been instituted to reward the deserts of courageous warriors:— “Not fearing death, nor shrinking from distress, But always resolute in most extremes.” Such has been the invariable text; but we must feel, when once it is pointed out, that there is an injurious error of the printer in the second line:— “But always resolute in worst extremes,” is the word substituted in the margin of the second folio. Lower down, we should hardly hesitate, on the same authority, to change “pretend” to portend, when Gloucester asks,— “Or doth this churlish superscription Pretend some alteration of good will?” “Pretend” answers the purpose; but portend most likely was our great dramatist's word, which he often uses elsewhere.

Note return to page 702 10109683P. 68. The epithet “envious” in the following line,— “This fellow, here, with envious carping tongue,” is not in the folio, 1632, having, perhaps, accidentally dropped out: the old corrector inserts it; but whether he obtained it from the folio, 1623, or from some other source, must remain a question. The same remark applies to a line on the next page,— “Quiet yourselves, I pray, and be at peace,” excepting that the corrector of the folio, 1632, inserts “I pray” at the end, instead of in the middle, of the line: perhaps it was so formed in the authority he may have consulted. For “Such factious emulations shall arise,” two lines above, he has “still arise,” which certainly accords better with the context.

Note return to page 703 10109684P. 78. Old Talbot and his son John are contending for the honour of keeping the field, one, by so doing, being certain of destruction, and each is persuading the other to fly. A marginal note in the folio, 1632, instructs us to read fly for “bow” in the ensuing lines; and we can hardly doubt that “bow” is a misprint, though we may not be able to account for it: John Talbot speaks:— “Flight cannot stain the honour you have won, But mine it will, that no exploit have done: You fled for vantage, every one will swear, But if I bow, they'll say it was for fear. There is no hope that ever I will stay, If the first hour I shrink, and run away.” There seems no assignable reason why the poet should not have used the word fly; and the old corrector informs us that he did use it. When old Talbot returns mortally wounded to the scene (p. 82), it is said, in all modern editions, that he is “supported by a servant;” the addition to the stage-direction in the folio, 1632, has much greater propriety, for he there is described as entering, led by a soldier from the field of battle.

Note return to page 704 10109685P. 83. The folio, 1632, omits a line in Joan's speech upon this page, viz.:— “So, rushing in the bowels of the French.” It is supplied by the corrector, perhaps from the folio, 1623; but three lines lower he alters,— “Of the most bloody nurser of his harms,” by erasing “most bloody,” and writing still bleeding. For the evidently imperfect line on the next page,— “But tell me whom thou seek'st?” he gives the following:— “But tell me briefly, whom thou seekest now?” Just above, he erases “obtain'd,” as surplusage, as regards the verse and sense; but in both the last instances it is by no means clear that Shakespeare intended his verse to be regular. The list of Talbot's titles is struck out. Less important variations are frequently noted in this part of the play; and in one place we have a rhyme restored, which, perhaps, had been lost: it is where Sir W. Lucy demands the bodies of the Talbots, the usual reading being,— “Give me their bodies, that I may bear them hence, And give them burial, as beseems their worth.” The couplet is thus amended:— “Give me their bodies, that I bear them forth, And give them burial, as beseems their worth.” This change occurs near the close of the Act, where the rhymes are numerous.

Note return to page 705 10109686P. 86. For “our Christian blood,” in Gloster's speech, the corrector of the folio, 1632, has “much Christian blood;” and, lower down, where the Protector recommends the marriage of Henry to the daughter of the Earl of Armagnac, it is said in all the old copies, that that nobleman is “near knit to Charles,” instead of “near kin to Charles,” as we find it in the margin, quite consistently with what Gloster says afterwards, that Armagnac is “near kinsman unto Charles.”

Note return to page 706 10109687P. 90. The introduction to this scene is erroneous in the early impressions, for they represent Burgundy as fighting with La Pucelle, whereas York ought to contend with her. A correction in the folio, 1632, sets this matter right, and adds, what is wanting in modern, as well as ancient, editions, that York overcomes Joan. Capel was justified in transposing three lines near the bottom of this page, where Suffolk lays his hands “gently on the tender side” of Margaret, and afterwards kisses her fingers. The old corrector always indicates an error of this kind by figures, and 1, 2, 3 in the margin instructs us to read Suffolk's speech thus:— “For I will touch thee but with reverent hands, And lay them gently on thy tender side. I kiss these fingers for eternal peace, &c. [kissing.”

Note return to page 707 10109688P. 91. Much of Suffolk's speech is in rhyme; and when he exclaims, as Margaret is about to depart,— “O, stay!—I have no power to let her pass; My hand would free her, but my heart says—no,” we might be tolerably certain, even without the correction in the margin of the folio, 1632, that the lines ought to be thus printed:— “O, stay!—I have no power to let her go; My hand would free her, but my heart says—no.” The two last lines of this speech have given trouble to the commentators, which would have been avoided had they been able to detect the blunder of the printer or of the copyist, which the corrector distinctly points out. The text in the old editions, is this:— “Aye; beauty's princely majesty is such, Confounds the tongue and makes the senses rough.” Sir Thomas Hanmer printed crouch for “rough;” and Malone was obliged to pass over the passage by saying that the meaning of “rough” is not “very obvious.” Read with the aid of the marginal notes in the folio, 1632, and the obscurity is at an end:— “Aye; beauty's princely majesty is such, Confounds the tongue, and mocks the sense of touch.” Here, again, who is to determine whether the preceding emendation were derived from some good authority, or whether it was only a lucky guess on the part of the individual through whose hands this copy of the folio, 1632, passed? Certain it is, that not one of the many editors of Shakespeare were ever so fortunate as to stumble on the meaning, which is thus rendered obvious, while, at the same time, the intended rhyme is preserved: the princely majesty of beauty confounded the power of speech, and mocked all who would attempt to touch it. The printer, not understanding the copy he was composing, seems to have put down words at random, and to have made nonsense of a beautiful and delicate expression.

Note return to page 708 10109689P. 92. By the same authority we are assured that another portion of this scene between Suffolk and Margaret is especially corrupt. We will first give the text as represented in all editions, and follow it by the text as recommended in manuscript-corrections:— “Marg. Tush! women have been captivate ere now. Suff. Lady, wherefore talk you so? Marg. I cry you mercy, 'tis but quid pro quo. Suff. Say, gentle princess, would you not suppose Your bondage happy, to be made a queen? Marg. To be a queen in bondage is more vile Than is a slave in base servility, For princes should be free. Suff. And so shall you, If happy England's royal king be free.” All this appears to have been mangled, both as regards meaning, metre, and rhyme. We now give this part of the dialogue as it stands in a corrected state in the folio, 1632, where the fitness of every thing seems restored:— “Marg. Tush! women have been captivate ere now. Suff. Lady, pray tell me, wherefore talk you so? Marg. I cry you mercy, 'tis but quid pro quo. Suff. Say, gentle princess, would you not then ween Your bondage happy, to be made a queen? Marg. A queen in bondage is more vile to me Than is a slave in base servility, For princes should be free. Suff. And so shall you, If happy England's royal king be true.” We have, as usual, marked by Italic type the words written in the margin, which we are willing to think were those of our great poet, his original language having been disfigured by performers, printers, and copyists. Other portions of the same scene are marked by the old corrector as more or less defective.

Note return to page 709 10109690P. 95. The suggestion thrown out in note 6, that “mad” is to be read mid in the following passage,— “Bethink thee on the virtues that surmount, Mad natural graces that extinguish art,” is fully borne out by a correction in the folio, 1632, the meaning being, that the virtues of Margaret (with whom Suffolk is secretly in love) are pre-eminent 'mid the natural graces by which she is adorned.

Note return to page 710 10109691P. 100. The old corrector, by the insertion of r for o, changed “poison'd” to prison'd, in the following passage:— “Speak, Winchester; for boiling choler chokes The hollow passage of my poison'd voice.” Pope printed prison'd, and appears thus to have arrived at the author's meaning, though some more modern editors have adhered to “poison'd.”

Note return to page 711 10109692P. 101. We have here another of the many emendations rendered necessary by the mistake of the person who wrote by his ear the manuscript used by the printer. It is the last of any consequence in this play, and it occurs at the very close of the scene between the English and French commanders, when a peace is negotiated. All parties are agreed upon a league of amity, and York, addressing the Dauphin, says,— “Hang up your ensigns, let your drums be still, For here we entertain a solemn peace,” the corrector of the folio, 1632, reads the last line thus:— “For here we interchange a solemn peace.” The agreement for a peace being mutual: it cannot be said, however, that the change is imperatively called for, though recommended on strong presumptive evidence.

Note return to page 712 10109693P. 112. A question has arisen whether to read,— “And was his highness in his infancy Crowned in Paris, in despite of foes?” or as follows:— “And hath his highness in his infancy Been crown'd in Paris, in despite of foes?” Some editors have given the couplet in one way, and some in another; but the old corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that the last is the true reading, been having probably dropped out at the commencement of the second line.

Note return to page 713 10109694P. 116. York introduces a simile of pirates sharing pillage in the presence of the owner of it,— “While as the silly owner of the goods Weeps over them, and wrings his hapless hands.” A correction in the folio, 1632, instructs us to erase “hapless” in favour of helpless, which certainly seems the fitter epithet; but it is impossible to maintain that “hapless” does not fit the place, and might not be the poet's word. The allusion to Althea's brand, in four lines just below, is for some reason struck out.

Note return to page 714 10109695P. 121. Johnson, Steevens, Tollet, and Hawkins have all wasted time and space upon a mere error of the printer, or of the copyist. The first Petitioner says, as has been universally represented,— “My masters, let's stand close: my lord protector will come this way by and by, and then we may deliver our supplications in the quill.” The puzzle has been as to the meaning of “in the quill,” and each of the commentators had a different notion upon the point. The several Petitioners were to deliver their supplications to Suffolk in succession, one after another, and “the quill” ought, indisputably, to be sequel, used ignorantly for sequence,— “My lord protector will come this way by and by, and then we may deliver our supplications in sequel.” On the next page, the beginning of Peter's second speech is altered to “That my master was,” instead of mistress, as it stood, absurdly enough, till Tyrwhitt proposed the change, which is fully warranted by a note in the margin of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 715 10109696P. 124. According to the old corrector, Suffolk's speech to the Queen, before the entrance of the King, &c., ought to end in a rhyme:— “So, one by one, we will weed all the realm, And you yourself shall steer the happy helm.” This reads easily and naturally enough; but the folios make the first line end with “at last,” very lamely and tamely.

Note return to page 716 10109697P. 127. Pope was quite right in printing fast, for “far” of the old copies, in the following line, where Buckingham is speaking of Eleanor:— “She'll gallop far enough to her destruction.” We find fast in the margin, and “far” struck out. The adherence to “far” was, of course, occasioned by the desire, in all possible cases, to abide by the early editions. It may be mentioned, that in the corrected folio, 1632, the Acts and Scenes are noted in manuscript (no such divisions being made in print), and as a new scene (4) is made to commence with the entrance of the King, York, Somerset, &c., on p. 124, another scene, numbered 5, contains the incantations, &c., of Margery Jourdain, Southwell, Bolingbroke, &c., before Eleanor. In all modern editions this is more properly represented as

Note return to page 717 10109698P. 130. For “the silent of the night,” the corrector has “the silence of the night,” which is the very word used in the old drama from which this play was mainly taken. For “break up their graves,” he reads, “break ope their graves,” which was also, most likely, right. Among the manuscript stage-directions is one which shows that while Bolingbroke questions the Spirit, raised by the Witch, Southwell writes the answers. When the former dismisses the Spirit, called up to ascertain and declare the truth, he exclaims, “False fiend, avoid,” the impropriety of which is evident, and the manuscript-correction is, “Foul fiend, avoid.”

Note return to page 718 10109699P. 133. Gloster, addressing the Cardinal, says,— “Churchmen so hot? good uncle, hide such malice; With such holiness can you do it.” The second line, as it stands in all the early copies, is imperfect and prosaic; the corrector of the folio, 1632, states that two small words have been omitted, and his emendation is better than either of those offered by Warburton and Johnson: he gives the two lines thus:— “Churchmen so hot? good uncle, hide such malice; And with such holiness you well can do it.”

Note return to page 719 10109700P. 144. The whole of what passes just before Gloster, who has been required to give up his staff of office, quits the scene, is in rhyme; but there is one line which has nothing to answer to it, and we meet with the corresponding line, as an important addition, in the margin. There are also two emendations deserving notice in the preceding speech by Queen Margaret, and the whole of this part of the play runs as follows in the folio, 1632, the new portions being printed, as usual, in Italic type:— “Q. Mar. I see no reason why a king of years Should be protected, like a child, by peers. God and King Henry govern England's helm, Give up your staff, Sir, and the King his realm. Glo. My staff?—here, noble Henry, is my staff: To think I fain would keep it makes me laugh. As willingly I do the same resign, As e'er thy father Henry made it mine,” &c. There appears no sufficient reason for disbelieving that these changes and additions might be made on some independent authority. Lower down, a striking misprint occurs, and is set right by the old corrector to the great improvement of the passage: the couplet has always thus been given:— “Thus droops this lofty pine, and hangs its sprays; Thus Eleanor's pride dies in her youngest days.” Now, as Monk Mason observes, “Eleanor was certainly not a young woman;” and in order to overcome the difficulty, he compelled “her” to refer to “pride,” and not to Eleanor; but the printer was in fault for mistaking the poet's word:— “Thus Eleanor's pride dies in her proudest days,” is a form of expression peculiarly like Shakespeare, and perfectly consistent with the situation and character of the Duchess of Gloster.

Note return to page 720 10109701P. 155. Malone, who was generally reluctant to vary from the ancient editions, could not refuse to adopt an emendation proposed by Steevens in the following passage, as it stands in the folios:— “My lord of Gloster, 'tis my special hope, That you will clear yourself from all suspense.” Steevens printed suspects for “suspense,” and the corrector of the second folio writes suspect (not suspects) in the margin. Nevertheless, “suspense” may be strained to a meaning, certainly not adverse to the poet's intention, though we may feel morally sure that suspect must have come from his pen.

Note return to page 721 10109702P. 162. Regarding the next emendation, recommended in manuscript in the folio, 1632, we need not doubt, seeing that both sense and metre call for the alteration. It occurs in York's soliloquy, where he congratulates himself that his enemies are playing his game by dispatching him to Ireland to conduct a large force against the rebels: he says, as the passage has been amended,— “Whiles I in Ireland march a mighty band, I will stir up in England some black storm,” &c. The ordinary reading has been, “nourish a mighty band,” which we may conclude was an error of the press,—“nourish” for march. If the former could be accepted, as affording, to a certain extent, the meaning required, it must be rejected on the score that it mars the versification, unless we consent to hurry over “nourish” in the time of a monosyllable.

Note return to page 722 10109703P. 166. The whole of Margaret's speech, after “Be poisonous too, and kill thy forlorn queen,” is crossed out; but various emendations are made in it notwithstanding, besides the necessary correction of “Eleanor” to Margaret in three different places. The change in the line, where she is speaking of the violent winds which drove her back from England, must not be passed over, inasmuch as “gentle gusts,” of the old copies, seems properly altered in manuscript to ungentle gusts:— “What did I then, but curs'd th' ungentle gusts, And he that loos'd them from their brazen caves.” It was because they were ungentle that the winds had been confined in “brazen caves,” and had been set at liberty in order to drive back the ship that conveyed Margaret to England. The whole context warrants the alteration. It ought to be added, that Theobald's substitution near the end, of witch for “watch,” however plausible, is not authorised by the old corrector.

Note return to page 723 10109704P. 169. Malone observed upon the harsh expression, “to drain” an “ocean of salt tears” on dead Humphrey's face, and Steevens advocated rain for “drain.” The letter d is struck out in the folio, 1632, showing that Steevens was correct in his suspicion of a misprint. On the next page occurs another error of the press, which only applies to the second folio, where “But both of you were vow'd Duke Humphrey's death,” should, of course, be “Duke Humphrey's foes:” death is erased, and “foes” placed in the margin. On p. 171, the same edition omits “send” in the sentence, “and send thy soul to hell,” but it was inserted by the pen of the old corrector.

Note return to page 724 10109705P. 175. He points out a misprint here which we may accept, although, as the word always printed in the old copies may be said to serve the turn, we may, perhaps, pause before we admit the change into the text. It is where Suffolk is cursing his enemies, “Poison be their drink,” &c.:— “Their chiefest prospect murdering basilisks, Their softest touch, as smart as lizards' stings.” Here we are told to read sharp for smart,” and, independently of greater propriety, it is unquestionable that a careless copyist might easily miswrite or mishear the word. At the close of the same character's speech to the Queen, on the next page, a trifling error has been committed, introducing a gross inelegance of expression, which Shakespeare would most likely have avoided. The text has always been,— “Live thou to joy thy life, Myself no joy in nought, but that thou liv'st;” but as amended it runs,— “Live thou to joy thy life, Myself to joy in nought, but that thou liv'st.” The duplication of negatives was, of course, not at all unusual in the time of Shakespeare, but here it seems as injurious as it is needless.

Note return to page 725 10109706P. 180. Discussion has been produced by the subsequent lines, as they stand in the early impressions:— “The lives of those which we have lost in fight Be counterpois'd with such a petty sum.” Malone read, “Cannot be counterpois'd,” &c., and Steevens, perceiving at once that the last line had thus more than the regular number of syllables, proposed to leave out two small words, but without the slightest warrant, printed or manuscript. Note 1 gives a hint of the proper emendation, such, indeed, as we meet with it, in the shortest possible form, in the margin of the folio, 1632: there the lines are put thus interrogatively,— “Can lives of those which we have lost in fight Be counterpois'd with such a petty sum?” Surely this slight change is unobjectionable, where some change is absolutely necessary.

Note return to page 726 10109707P. 181. Suffolk's speech to the Captain, beginning, “Obscure and lowly swain” (“lowly” is altered from lowsy, as misprinted in the folios), in which he heaps upon him the bitterest reproaches, contains several errors of the press, but they are not important: in Whitmore's inquiry (p. 182), consequent upon Suffolk's abuse,— “Speak, captain, shall I stab the forlorn swain?” there is, according to the old corrector, a gross blunder; and certainly the epithet “forlorn,” seems strangely applied: it is much more likely that Whitmore should ask,— “Speak, captain, shall I stab the foul-tongued slave?” and such is actually his question, as represented in a manuscript note in the folio, 1632. We cannot believe that the writer of that note was merely indulging his taste, or exercising his fancy. It is to be remarked that the correction of “forlorn” to foul-tongued, is in a different ink to that which was used for the correction of “swain” to slave. The whole of the Captain's reply to Suffolk, excepting the first five lines, is crossed out.

Note return to page 727 10109708P. 184. The prefixes in this scene are confused in the folios, especially as regards Suffolk. The line,— “Thy words move rage and not remorse in me,” is, for some reason, erased; and Suffolk's last speech is made to begin,— “Come, soldiers, show what cruelty ye can,” undoubtedly the right distribution of the dialogue.

Note return to page 728 10109709P. 186. When Jack Cade enters, the old printed stage-direction states that he is followed by infinite numbers, to which the manuscript-corrector adds, the more the better, and uproar; meaning, of course, that the rabble was to be represented on the stage as numerously and as riotously as the means of the old theatre would allow. When Cade subsequently knights himself (p. 189), we are told that he kneels and rises, and when the Staffords are killed, that he puts on the armour of one of them.

Note return to page 729 10109710P. 195. In all printed copies this scene terminates very flatly with a speech by Lord Scales:— “Fight for your king, your country, and your lives! And so farewell, for I must hence again.” It is given as follows by the corrector of the folio, 1632:— “Fight for your king, your country, and your lives! And so farewell: rebellion never thrives.” This rhyme may, possibly, have been a subsequent introduction, for the sake of giving more spirit to the exit of Lord Scales, and of enforcing a loyal maxim.

Note return to page 730 10109711P. 202. Two blunders of some consequence are detected by marginal notes in the folio, 1632, in the address of Old Clifford to the “rabblement” under Cade: he appeals to them, in all editions, ancient and modern, in these terms:— “What say ye, countrymen? will ye relent, And yield to mercy, whilst 'tis offer'd you, Or let a rabble lead you to your deaths?” The speaker was addressing the “rabble,” and would hardly ask whether they would allow themselves to lead themselves to their own deaths: the second misprint is, therefore, “rabble” for rebel, meaning Cade, who was leading the rabble: the first misprint is less positively wrong, but still the sense (as well as the old corrector) tells us to read, “relent” repent: the three lines, properly printed, will, therefore, stand thus:— “What say ye, countrymen? will ye repent, And yield to mercy, whilst 'tis offer'd you, Or let a rebel lead you to your deaths?” Writers of the time now and then used “relent” for repent; but “rabble” for rebel must be wrong.

Note return to page 731 10109712P. 205. The Duke of York having suddenly returned from Ireland, a messenger informs the King that he is on his way to the court,— “And with a puissant, and a mighty power Of Gallowglasses and stout Kernes, Is marching hitherward in proud array.” The first line is tautological, since a “mighty” power would necessarily be a “puissant” power: the second line is imperfect, owing to the absence of two syllables; but both these defects are remedied by the corrector of the folio, 1632:— “And with a puissant, and united power Of Gallowglasses and stout Irish Kernes, Is marching hitherward in proud array.” Most likely “a mighty” was written for united, in consequence of misapprehension by the ear of the scribe: York's power consisted of Gallowglasses and Kernes in union; and as the Kernes were Irish, we may be confident that that word had, in some unexplained way, escaped from the text.

Note return to page 732 10109713P. 214. York, accused of treason, calls for his sons to bail him, and afterwards for Salisbury and Warwick, whom he terms his “two brave bears:”— “That with the very shaking of their chains They may astonish these fell-lurking curs.” Steevens thought that “fell-lurking” was, in all probability, a misprint; and Heath proposed fell-lurching, and others fell-barking as the fit compound. York has previously spoken of the looks of Clifford and other friends of Henry, and there is every reason to think that this correction in the folio, 1632, is well founded:— “That, with the very shaking of their chains They may astonish these fell-looking curs.” The misprint was easy, but, we believe, no editor ever guessed at the right emendation. Just below occurs another slight, but decided error, of the same kind, in Richard's simile of “an over-weening cur:”— “Who, being suffer'd with the bear's fell paw, Hath clapp'd his tail between his legs and cried.” Here one auxiliary was used for another, for we ought clearly to read having for “being:”— “Who, having suffer'd from the bear's fell paw,” &c. It seems strange that Malone should ingeniously strive to vindicate “being,” without perceiving that having would at once put an end to the difficulty.

Note return to page 733 10109714P. 220. We may be pretty sure, if only on account of the disagreeable jingle of “hearts” and “parts” in the same line, that Shakespeare did not write the following, as it has always been handed down to us. Young Clifford is speaking of the total rout of King Henry's troops:— “Uncurable discomfit Reigns in the hearts of all our present parts.” Some corruption found its way into the text, and the corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us what it is, but he does not tell us how the word he substitutes became mistaken for that he expunges:— “Uncurable discomfit Reigns in the hearts of all our present friends.” If the transcriber of this play for the press had written as plain a hand as the corrector, such a blunder would not have been committed, and we do not see how any want of clearness could well pervert friends into “parts.” That the one fills the place better than the other, will, probably, not be denied: neither will it be denied, by those who have examined it, that the latter portion of this play is very incorrectly printed. As a farther proof, we may adduce the first five lines of York's speech, at the opening of the next scene on this page:— “Of Salisbury, who can report of him? That winter lion, who in rage forgets Aged contusions and all brush of time, And, like a gallant in the brow of youth, Repairs him with occasion.” There appear to be at least three errors in this short passage, two of which have been guessed at with success by Warburton and Johnson, though Steevens would not allow of either. The first, but not the most important, has never been hinted at, but is distinctly shown by a manuscript-emendation in the folio, 1632, where the extract appears in this form:— “Old Salisbury, who can report of him? That winter lion, who in rage forgets Aged contusions and all bruise of time, And, like a gallant in the bloom of youth, Repairs him with occasion.” As to “Old Salisbury,” instead of “Of Salisbury,” it is to be observed that not only is the change fully borne out by the context, but that in the corresponding place of the drama upon which this play was founded, York inquires, “But did you see old Salisbury?” Bruise, for “brush,” was Warburton's conjecture; and Johnson proposed blow for “brow;” but it turns out, as far as the old corrector may be trusted, that the poet's word was bloom; blow is certainly nearer the letters, and, in the same sense as bloom, might answer the purpose equally well.

Note return to page 734 10109715P. 229. Edward, speaking of the Duke of Buckingham, says that he “Is either slain or wounded dangerous.” There are two pieces of evidence to show that we ought to read, “wounded dangerously:” the one is the play from which this drama was in great part taken, and the other a manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632. Either ought, in such a case, to be conclusive. The old printed copies are without many necessary stage-directions, and when Richard throws down the head of Somerset, head, and throw it, are written in the margin, as a sufficient instruction to the performer. At the line,— “Thus do I hope to shake King Henry's head,” shake it is placed opposite. York afterwards takes the throne; that is to say, places himself in the seat in the Parliament House appropriated to the King. This he is represented in the folio, 1632, as doing earlier than in modern editions, and at the same time that his soldiers retire, or go up, as it is expressed in print. This course does not seem to be quite correct according to the dialogue.

Note return to page 735 10109716P. 235. The folio, 1632, thus blunderingly gives the passage, where Henry consents to reign only during life:— “My lord of Warwick, hear but one word. Let me for this time reign as king.” Manuscript-corrections change the lines thus:— “My lord of Warwick, hear me but one word. Let me for this my life time reign as king.” Me, necessary at least to the measure, is found in no known edition of this play; but my life, in the second line, makes the passage agree with the folio, 1623: the insertion of me, in the first line, may induce a doubt whether the corrector of the folio, 1632, did not resort to some independent source. This notion is strengthened by an emendation, a few lines above, where, according to all authorities, York exclaims,— “Henry of Lancaster, resign thy crown;” but York, from the commencement, had demanded the crown as his; and, in consistency with this assertion of right, and perhaps warranted by some then extant authority, the old corrector makes York say,— “Henry of Lancaster, resign my crown.” At all events, such would seem to be the true reading. A leaf is unfortunately wanting in the folio, 1632, after this part of the scene.

Note return to page 736 10109717P. 246. During the speech of Margaret, several stage-directions are inserted, of which there is no trace in any printed copies, ancient or modern. Thus, when she shows York the napkin stained with Rutland's blood, the fit time for producing it is duly marked, and she afterwards, in mockery, throws it to him, that he may wipe his eyes upon it. Again, when she and Clifford insultingly place the paper crown on York's head, those words are inserted in the margin. Before Clifford and the Queen stab him, York casts the napkin to her again.

Note return to page 737 10109718P. 249. The folio, 1623, has this exclamation by York, in allusion to the death of young Rutland:— “That face of his the hungry cannibals Would not have touch'd, would not have stain'd with blood;” and why the passage should have been altered to the following form in the folio, 1632, it is not very easy to understand, unless, when properly given, it corresponded with some better original than that from which the folio, 1623, was printed:— “That face of his The hungry cannibals would not have touch'd, Would not have stain'd the roses just with blood.” Theobald, to keep, we suppose, as near the letters of the second folio as possible, proposed, somewhat absurdly, to print “juic'd with blood;” but the printer was in fault, by converting hues into “just;” and hues is substituted for “just” by the old corrector. “Would not have stain'd the rose's hues with blood,” is intelligible enough, and on some accounts superior to the language of the earlier folio, which was derived from the old play Shakespeare altered. We know of no original for the insertion of “the rose's hues” in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 738 10109719P. 259. Queen Margaret, endeavouring to animate Henry, thus addresses him, in all editions:— “My lord, cheer up your spirits: our foes are nigh, And this soft courage makes your followers faint.” What is “soft courage,” but a contradiction in terms? Yet the words have always been treated as the genuine text of Shakespeare, when we ought certainly to read, with the old corrector,— “And this soft carriage makes your followers faint.” The allusion unquestionably is to the mild deportment of the King. The same lapse was committed by the printer in “Coriolanus,” Act III. Scene III.; and what makes it still more evident that, in the instance before us, “soft courage” ought to be “soft carriage,” is that the corresponding line in the older play (of which Shakespeare availed himself) is this:— “This harmful pity makes your followers faint.”11Q1225

Note return to page 739 10109720P. 263. When the Yorkists defy the party of the King and Queen to battle, this poor couplet is put into Edward's mouth:— “Sound trumpets! let our bloody colours wave, And either victory, or else a grave.” The last line is vastly improved in expression and energy by a manuscript alteration in the folio, 1632:— “Sound trumpets! let our bloody colours wave, And either victory, or a welcome grave.” It seems hardly possible that a copyist should mishear welcome, and write “or else” for it; but whether welcome were or were not the word of the poet, we may be quite sure that he never wrote “or else;” and the great probability seems to be that he wrote welcome.

Note return to page 740 10109721P. 270. The folios all have this passage:— “And so obsequious will thy father be, Men for the loss of thee, having no more,” &c. The word “men” has occasioned discussion among the commentators: Rowe substituted sad, and Steevens recommended man, which has been sometimes adopted. It is merely the printer's mistake, who carelessly began the line with M instead of E:— “And so obsequious will thy father be, E'en for the loss of thee, having no more, As Priam was for all his valiant sons.” “Obsequious” means mournful, as at funeral obsequies: the father would be as mournful even for the loss of this one son, as Priam had been for the loss of all his sons. There can be little objection to receive this trifling, but effectual, emendation at the hands of the old corrector.

Note return to page 741 10109722P. 274. We meet with a singular manuscript stage-direction in the folio, 1632, where Edward, Clarence, Richard, and Warwick are exulting over the dead body of Clifford; for we are informed in the margin that they pull him to and fro, as each of them in turn insults the corpse by the delivery of a malignant line. We can hardly believe that such an exhibition of brutality would have been generally tolerated even by spectators of that day; but the old corrector, nevertheless, must refer to a practice he had either himself witnessed on the stage, or had heard of as the practice of the theatre before his time.

Note return to page 742 10109723P. 276. In the introduction to this scene, instead of the names Sinklo and Humphrey, “two Keepers” are substituted; but the prefixes to their several speeches are still abbreviations of the appellations of the performers, Sin. and Hum. They stand back when the King, disguised as a churchman (so stated in manuscript), enters; and they come forward to carry him away with them.

Note return to page 743 10109724P. 286. This scene is numbered 2 in manuscript (for none of the divisions of Acts and Scenes, after the first, are printed in this drama); but it is, in fact, Scene 3, a mistake having been introduced in this respect.

Note return to page 744 10109725P. 289. A correction, of comparatively little moment, is made in a line of Queen Margaret's speech, which, at least, serves to show the minute accuracy of the person through whose hands this volume once passed:— “Look, therefore, Lewis, that by this league and marriage Thou draw not on thee danger and dishonour.” The above is ordinarily printed “thy danger and dishonour,” which is only to be questioned, because we here learn that it was not the authentic mode of giving the passage.

Note return to page 745 10109726P. 294. The regulation of the verse in this part of the dialogue is certainly erroneous as it stands, and the irregularity has arisen from the omission of an important word, which is supplied in the margin of the folio, 1632, and which proves that the lines ought to run thus:— “But, Warwick, thou, And Oxford, with five thousand warlike men, Shall cross the seas and bid false Edward battle.” The line, without warlike, is clearly defective, and we can hardly suppose that it was inserted in manuscript at random. In the same way, in the last line of the last of King Edward's speeches, on p. 299, the word “have” was carelessly left out in the folio, 1632, and was inserted by the old corrector: warlike, however, is not found in any of the old copies.

Note return to page 746 10109727P. 301. To the Introduction to this Act, “Enter Warwick and Oxford in England with French soldiers,” the words, and English, are added, with a caret, after “French;” for it is not to be supposed that these two noblemen, coming to maintain the right of Henry VI. to the throne, were supported by no English followers. After they have surprised Edward in his tent, and the greatest alarm and dismay prevail, Shouts, noise, and confusion is added to the printed stage-direction.11Q1226

Note return to page 747 10109728P. 312. This scene is wrongly numbered 6 by the corrector; and it is not unlikely that, for the sake of convenience in performance, two scenes, separated in modern editions, were combined. The introduction in the early impressions is, “Enter Edward, Richard, Hastings, and soldiers;” but foreign is placed in manuscript before “soldiers,” to show, perhaps, that their forces were chiefly derived from continental aid.

Note return to page 748 10109729P. 313. We can very readily believe that the small word we have printed in Italics escaped from the following line by Gloster, in ridicule of the complying Mayor of York:— “A stout wise captain, he, and soon persuaded.” It is not met with in any old copy, but it is added in the margin of the folio, 1632. The corresponding passage in “The true Tragedy of Richard Duke of York,” is,— “By my faith, a wise stout captain, and soon persuaded.”

Note return to page 749 10109730P. 317. The old corrector informs us that mind has been misprinted “meed,” where King Henry says,— “That's not my fear; my meed hath got me fame;” and the context tends to convince us that the alteration was proper, and that the poet did not intend to use “meed” in the sense of merit. The mild and pious King refers not so much to his own acts, as to the gentle character of his disposition; and, in conformity with this view, he remarks, just afterwards, as the passage has been uniformly printed,— “My mildness hath allay'd their swelling griefs, My mercy dried their water-flowing tears.” “Water-flowing” seems a poor and tautologous epithet for “tears;” and bitter-flowing is substituted in the corrected folio, 1632. “Water-standing eyes” is used afterwards, but under very different circumstances.

Note return to page 750 10109731P. 331. The young Prince having been stabbed by Edward, Clarence, and Gloster, Margaret exclaims,— “O traitors! murderers! They that stabb'd Cæsar shed no blood at all, Did not offend, nor were not worthy blame, If this foul deed were by to equal it.” This passage cannot have reached us as Shakespeare wrote it, because one foul deed being present, and only equal to another, also present, would not show either of them off as more heinous. An evident and easy mistake, either by the copyist or by the printer, has represented our great poet as writing what is little better than illogical nonsense; and the corrector of the folio, 1632, by placing a single letter in the margin, has shown us what, we think, must have come from Shakespeare's pen:— “O traitors! murderers! They that stabb'd Cæsar shed no blood at all, Did not offend, nor were not worthy blame, If this foul deed were by to sequel it.” That is, if this foul deed had been by, to follow up the stabbing of Cæsar, the latter act would have appeared no crime in comparison.11Q1227

Note return to page 751 10109732P. 332. According to all the folios, Richard must have talked with, and subsequently killed Henry VI. on the walls of the Tower, for the printed introduction to this scene is, “Enter Henry the Sixth, and Richard, with the Lieutenant, on the walls.” This could scarcely have been the case, when the play was originally represented, because in the older drama, upon which it is founded, it is said, at the opening of the corresponding scene, “Enter Gloster to King Henry in the Tower.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, enables us to state that, in his time at least, the place of action in this scene was the interior of the Tower, for he erases “on the walls,” and writes in the Tower instead of them. He also informs us that Henry is reading, when Gloster unceremoniously breaks in upon him.

Note return to page 752 10109733P. 334. Henry, referring to the birth of Richard, tells him,— “The owl shriek'd at thy birth, an evil sign; The night-crow cried, aboding luckless time.” For “aboding,” as one word, the corrector writes a boding, as two words; and for “time,” he writes tune,— “The night-crow cried, a boding luckless tune.” This appears to be the right reading, for in the older play, which is here followed more exactly than usual, the words are the same; but it is, nevertheless, to be admitted that in “Henry VIII.” Shakespeare uses “aboded” for foreboded, and that “time” was often misprinted tune. There is the same double reason for altering “indigested” to indigest, just below; it stands so in the older play, and it is changed so in the margin of the folio, 1632; the line, too, consists only of the regular number of syllables in the old play, the additions being, in all probability, corruptions. This circumstance is, therefore, adverse to the opinion expressed in note 3 on this page.11Q1228

Note return to page 753 10109734P. 336. The folios, where King Edward adverts to the losses sustained during the civil war, have two lines thus printed:— “Three dukes of Somerset, threefold renown, For hardy and undoubted champions.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, instructs us to read,— “Three dukes of Somerset, threefold renown'd For hardy and redoubted champions.” Modern editors have “renown'd,” and it is the word in the older play; but, like the folios, it has “undoubted” for redoubted. The introduction to this scene in the folios speaks of a “Nurse” being present (with a child, adds the manuscript-correction), who is altogether omitted in modern editions. The King and his brothers kiss the infant, and the proper places for doing so are noted in the margin of the folio, 1632. It deserves remark that, although Gloster's name is introduced in the printed play, as coming in with the King, Queen, Clarence, Hastings, Nurse, &c., at the opening of the scene, according to the old corrector it was the practice for him not to enter until afterwards, while Edward IV. was speaking, and Enter Richard behind is there found in the margin. This course appears to be in keeping with Richard's character; and the whole of his first speech is noted as muttered to himself, after which he comes forward and joins in the general congratulations. Still he several times delivers passages aside, and these are carefully so marked. Some of the manuscript notes, intended for the government of the performance, are in a different ink, as if additions had been made to them when it was found that those previously written were not sufficient.

Note return to page 754 10109735P. 348. We notice the following, not so much as an emendation, but as a change of the received text, which the old corrector would, perhaps, not have thought it necessary to make, had it not accorded with some other than the usual authorities. All copies of this play, of our own or of former times, give this line,— “I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion;” whereas, by a marginal note in the folio, 1632, we are told to read,— “I, that am curtail'd thus of fair proportion;” as if the performer of the part of Richard had referred not so much to what he had already said, regarding his personal appearance, as to what the audience must see of it. In the last line but one of this page, the second folio has grandfathers for “godfathers,” but it is, of course, set right.

Note return to page 755 10109736P. 349. There is a considerable increase of contempt, as well as an improvement in the verse, in the following line, where same is added in manuscript, not being found in any printed copy:— “Was it not she, and that good man of worship, Anthony Woodeville, her same brother there, That made him send lord Hastings to the Tower?” &c. If Woodeville could be read as a trisyllable, there is no absolute need of the addition.

Note return to page 756 10109737P. 352. Richard observes of Edward IV.,— “He cannot live, I hope; and must not die Till George be pack'd with posthorse up to heaven.” For “posthorse,” the old corrector has posthaste; but the alteration does not seem to require more than to be pointed out, as possibly right.

Note return to page 757 10109738P. 360. The folios very imperfectly represent the text in this part of the scene, for Anne is made to give Richard a ring, and the words, “To take is not to give,” which, according to the quartos, she interposes, are omitted. The old corrector makes the folio, 1632, correspond with the quartos in this particular, as well as in reading suppliant for “servant,” in the line,— “And if thy poor devoted servant may,” &c. At all events, therefore, we may feel assured that the word suppliant, in the older copies, was that of the poet.

Note return to page 758 10109739P. 364. We meet with a very characteristic stage-direction, when Richard enters to complain of the imprisonment of Clarence: it is, Enter Richard, stamping angerly, which, no doubt, shows the manner of some early actor of the part, perhaps of Burbage himself, the original Richard; for, supposing the corrector of the folio, 1632, never to have seen him (he died in March, 1619) his peculiarities in the performance would, most probably, be traditionally handed down to his successors. The manuscript-instructions of the same kind are hardly as numerous in this as in some other plays; but still, on all occasions, they are sufficient for the due conduct of the representation: when, for instance, “old Queen Margaret,” as she is called, arrives, on p. 367, she stands back, and a note of behind is made against every sentence she utters, until she comes forth with the words,— “I can no longer hold me patient.” Start all is then added in the margin, to indicate the surprise, if not alarm, her sudden appearance created.

Note return to page 759 10109740P. 370. One of the most striking and satisfactory emendations in the corrected folio, 1632, occurs in Queen Margaret's denunciation of Richard, where she addresses him, in all editions, in the following terms:— “Thou elvish-mark'd, abortive, rooting hog, Thou that wast seal'd in thy nativity The slave of nature, and the son of hell,” &c. Here “slave of nature,” but especially “son of hell,” sound so flatly and tamely near the conclusion of the curse, that an impression rises at once in the mind, that Shakespeare must have written something more fierce and vigorous. How, then, does the old corrector inform us that the last line ought to run? not as the words are spelt in the folio, 1623, and followed in that of 1632,— “The slaue of Nature, and the sonne of Hell,” but with two remarkable changes,— “The stain of nature, and the scorn of hell.” Stain and scorn must surely have been the language of our great dramatist; and when we bear in mind that “stain” was of old spelt staine, and “scorn” scorne, it is not difficult to discover how the blunders arose.

Note return to page 760 10109741P. 371. It may be worth a note, that Queen Margaret, according to a marginal note in the folio, 1632, does not here, and afterwards, call Richard a “bottled spider,” but a “bottle-spider.” A considerable portion of the protracted abuse in this scene, viz. from the line,— “False-boding woman, end thy frantic curse,” down to the line, “And say, poor Margaret was a prophetess,” is struck out, so that she only adds two more lines before she makes her exit, although by a misprint in the folios (corrected in that of 1632) another speech is attributed to her after she has retired.

Note return to page 761 10109742P. 375. In the quartos, Brakenbury, Lieutenant of the Tower, is represented as hearing Clarence narrate his dream; but in the folios, the dream is told to a “Keeper,” who goes out as Brakenbury enters. Perhaps, when this play was first performed, the company could only afford one actor for both parts, and Brakenbury was, therefore, made to officiate as Lieutenant and as Keeper; but afterwards, when the company became more numerous, it was thought better to divide the characters. In all editions the two Murderers deliver their warrant to Brakenbury.

Note return to page 762 10109743P. 380. The second Murderer, who was for saving the life of Clarence, says, in the quartos, “I hope my holy humour will change;” in the folios, “I hope this passionate humour of mine will change;” and in the corrected folio, 1632, “I hope this compassionate humour of mine will change.”

Note return to page 763 10109744P. 385. One of the speeches of Clarence to the two assassins is left imperfect, though not so printed, and is completed by the addition of three words inserted in the margin of the folio, 1632. He asks,— “Which of you, If two such murderers as yourselves came to you, Would not entreat for life? As you would beg, Were you in my distress, so pity me.” The lines are only in the folios, and have been treated in various ways by different editors, in consequence of the apparent incompleteness of the sense; but the three small words in Italics render the whole of this portion of the dialogue clear and consistent. The punctuation also is that of the corrector.

Note return to page 764 10109745P. 391. The old corrector has made the text of the folio, 1632, conform to that of the quartos by the insertion of an important word, where Richard asks,— “Mark'd you not, How that the guilty kindred of the queen Look'd pale?” Just above, an unimportant word is added to complete a defective line, which is not found in any known impression of the play,— “Come, Hastings, prithee, help me to my closet.” Modern editors have generally finished this line by adding to it, “Ah! poor Clarence!” a hemistich spoken by the King just before he goes out, which renders the line as redundant as it was before deficient.

Note return to page 765 10109746P. 393. The quartos, speaking of the death of Edward IV., represent him as having gone “To his new kingdom of perpetual rest,” while the folios have it,— “To his new kingdom of ne'er changing night.” In the corrected folio, 1632, “night” is made light. How it happens that the quartos in some places differ so materially from the folios, has never been explained: the blunder in the folios, twice committed at the end of this scene, in having London for “Ludlow,” is set right in both instances, in manuscript.

Note return to page 766 10109747P. 397. This scene between the three Citizens is struck out,but the emendations are, nevertheless, continued: for “Which, in his nonage,” we have, “With, in his nonage,” substituted, perhaps rightly, but the quartos read, “That, in his nonage.”

Note return to page 767 10109748P. 404. Two emendations, for which we have reason to be thankful, are made in the opening of Buckingham's speech, where he is arguing that the Duke of York cannot be entitled to sanctuary on account of his youth and innocence. Cardinal Bourchier maintains that sanctuary ought in no case to be violated:— “God in heaven forbid We should infringe the holy privilege Of blessed sanctuary! not for all this land, Would I be guilty of so great a sin.” The words, “in heaven,” are not in the folios, but were inserted by the corrector of the folio, 1632, and they accord with the text of the quartos; but in Buckingham's reply we encounter two changes, which we can hardly hesitate in admitting, since they so importantly contribute to enforce and explain the meaning of the poet. The first line of what Buckingham addresses to the Cardinal (as always hitherto printed), is needlessly offensive and coarse in its terms; and the third line contains two misprints which have been the source of much speculation between Warburton, Johnson, Malone, &c. The passage, as invariably given, is this:— “You are too senseless-obstinate, my lord, Too ceremonious and traditional: Weigh it but with the grossness of this age, You break not sanctuary in seizing him.” For “senseless-obstinate,” a strange and unmannerly compound, the corrector of the folio, 1632, states that we must substitute words quite consistent with the good breeding of Buckingham, and at the same time quite consistent with the argument he is employing, viz. that the Cardinal is too rigid and scrupulous in his unwillingness to violate sanctuary, in a case for which it was never intended:— “You are too strict and abstinent, my lord, Too ceremonious and traditional: Weigh it but with the goodness of his age, You break not sanctuary in seizing him.” The point for which Buckingham contends is, that age and purity, such as belong to little York, did not require “the holy privilege,” and could not claim it; “the goodness of his age,” refers to the youth and innocence of the prince, and those words have been (in all cases but in one of the quartos, where greatness is found) misprinted “the grossness of this age.” Warburton suggested greenness as the true reading; but the errors were “grossness” for goodness, and “this” for his. These mistakes are remedied in the folio, 1632; and nothing but an excess of carelessness could have been guilty of them.

Note return to page 768 10109749P. 408. Little York has been taunting his uncle Richard, upon which Buckingham remarks,— “With what a sharp provided wit he reasons.” The manuscript-corrector assures us that, although the intention of the dramatist is evident, a decided misprint has crept into the line: he reads,— “With what a sharply pointed wit he reasons.” Lower down, instead of the language of the quarto, 1597 (all other editions omit “needs”),— “My lord protector needs will have it so,” a correction in the margin makes the young Prince reply,— “My lord protector will e'en have it so.” The difference scarcely merits notice on any other account, than because it shows a preference for a word not in any of the extant authorities.

Note return to page 769 10109750P. 410. In the next emendation, the reading of the folios in Richard's answer to Buckingham,— “Chop off his head: something we will determine,” is made in the folio, 1632, to conform precisely to the words of the quarto impressions, viz.:— “Chop off his head, man: somewhat we will do.” We may, perhaps, conclude that the actor of the part of Richard so recited the line in the time of the old corrector, and not as it stands more tamely in the folios.

Note return to page 770 10109751P. 414. What passes between Hastings, the Pursuivant, the Priest, and Buckingham, is erased in the folio, 1632, perhaps as needless to the very protracted performance of this play. When Hastings alludes to it in Scene IV., on his way to execution, the five lines are also struck through with a pen, as well as the Scrivener's observations, in Scene VI. (p. 427), on the indictment of Hastings.

Note return to page 771 10109752P. 422. It is not very easy to understand how this scene was acted of old: modern editors say that it took place on “the Tower walls;” but to the old stage-direction (besides altering “rotten” to rusty) the corrector has added these words, all in haste, in the Tower, as if Richard and Buckingham were in some confusion, not on the Tower walls, but in some part of the edifice near the drawbridge, which Richard mentions. When Lovell and Ratcliff enter, just afterwards, with the head of Hastings, we are informed in manuscript that it was exhibited on a spear.

Note return to page 772 10109753P. 428. Buckingham giving an account to Richard how he had proceeded and succeeded among the Citizens at Guildhall, tells him that he had thus adverted to the bastardy of Edward IV.:— “As being got, your father then in France; And his resemblance, being not like the duke.” This last line is only in the folios; but Buckingham was to enforce, not Edward's likeness, but his want of likeness to his father, not “his resemblance,” but dis-resemblance; and precisely in this form the corrector of the folio, 1632, has put it:— “As being got, your father then in France; And dis-resemblance, being not like the duke.” However unusual the word, it exactly suits the poet's meaning, and dis may easily have been read “his.” At a later date, “dissemblance” seems to have been employed to express want of similarity.

Note return to page 773 10109754P. 430. A very slight change in another line, spoken by the Duke of Buckingham to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, makes a considerable difference:— “Happy were England, would this virtuous prince Take on his grace the sovereignty thereof; But, sure, I fear, we shall not win him to it.” “Sure” is here a mere expletive; but the old corrector instructs us how to raise it into importance, by reading the line as nobody has hitherto thought of reading it,— “But, sore I fear, we shall not win him to it.” Buckingham pretended to be much afraid that Richard would not be brought to consent. This is one of the smaller emendations that may be thought to need no advocacy.

Note return to page 774 10109755P. 435. The quartos and folios differ materially in one point, in the scene where Buckingham and the Citizens are pressing the Crown upon Richard. In the folios, Buckingham affects to be weary of solicitation, and retires with,— “Come, citizens, we will entreat no more.” In the quartos the line has more emphasis:— “Come, citizens: zounds! I'll entreat no more;” upon which, Richard, who has a prayer-book in his hand, and who has just left the two bishops, affects to be shocked at the impiety of Buckingham in using even so mild an oath as “zounds!” He, therefore, says solemnly to him,— “O! do not swear, my lord of Buckingham.” All this was probably expunged by the Master of the Revels before the folio, 1623, was printed; and on this account we meet with no trace of it there. The corrector of the folio, 1632, seems to have thought it too striking and characteristic to be omitted; but he most likely resorted to some other authority than the quartos to supply the deficiency, as the words he inserts in a vacant space are not precisely the same as are there found: possibly, he had the addition from recitation on the stage, at some date when the injunction of the Master of the Revels was not attended to. He gives Buckingham's line thus:— “Zounds! citizens, we will entreat no more;” and Richard's rebuke in these words:— “O! do not swear, my cousin Buckingham.” Instead of making the Citizens retire with Buckingham, Buckingham alone goes out, an arrangement of apparent propriety, because it is quite clear that the four lines put into the mouth of Richard, while Buckingham was out of the apartment, were intended to be heard by the Lord Mayor, &c. In accordance with this view, “them” is changed to him in the folio, 1632:— “Call him again; I am not made of stone, But penetrable to your kind entreaties,” &c. To whose “kind entreaties” could Richard refer, if not to those of the Citizens, who had remained behind after Buckingham had flung away in a pretended passion at Richard's refusal?

Note return to page 775 10109756P. 446. The portion of this scene, near its close, which is only in the quarto copies, is passed over in silence by the corrector of the folio, 1632, and we may feel assured that it was not usually acted. After the line,— “Thou troublest me: I am not in the vein,” Exit is the brief printed stage-direction; but to it the word angrily, or, as it is spelt, angerly, is subjoined in manuscript.

Note return to page 776 10109757P. 447. Tyrrell, who had suborned the two ruffians, Dighton and Forrest, to murder the young princes, says of them, and of the part they had acted, according to all editions,— “Albeit they were flesh'd villains, bloody dogs, Melted with tenderness and mild compassion, Wept like to children in their death's sad story.” The passage is surely much improved by the trifling alterations in the folio, 1632:— “Albeit they were flesh'd villains, blooded dogs, Melted with tenderness and mild compassion, Wept like two children in their death's sad story.” The two villains had been fleshed, and were like dogs that had been allowed the taste of human blood; yet they wept, like two children, while narrating the particulars of the murder of the princes.

Note return to page 777 10109758P. 449. The beginning of this long scene between Queen Margaret, Queen Elizabeth, and the Duchess of York, contains no emendation of any importance, excepting where, on p. 454, the old corrector, inccordance with the quartos, tells us to read,— “Airy succeeders of intestate joys,” instead of “Airy succeeders of intestine joys.”

Note return to page 778 10109760P. 456. Two emendations are proposed in speeches of the Duchess of York: first,— “Then patiently bear my impatience,” is put for “hear my impatience” of the folios; and “Art thou so hasty? I once stay'd for thee,” for “I have stay'd for thee,” of the same impressions. Both these minor changes seem recommended to adoption by their fitness.

Note return to page 779 10109761P. 462. Richard tells Queen Elizabeth that Dorset, her son,— “Leads discontented steps in foreign soil,” which may be right, but the old corrector furnishes what seems a more natural word,— “Treads discontented steps in foreign soil.”

Note return to page 780 10109762P. 466. The following lines, in reference to the intercession of Queen Elizabeth with her daughter in favour of Richard's pretensions, conclude the King's speech in the folios:— “Urge the necessity and state of times, And be not peevish found in great designs.” The quartos have “peevish fond,” and the old corrector amends the couplet as follows:— “Urge the necessity of state and times, And be not peevish fond in great designs.” That is to say, she was to enforce the necessity of state and of the times for the marriage. It may still be a question whether “peevish found,” of the folios, be not preferable, as avoiding all appearance of tautology; on which account it is advocated in note 10 on this page: nevertheless, “peevish fond” has, we see, two pieces of evidence in its favour.

Note return to page 781 10109763P. 472. Stanley inquires of Sir Christopher Urswick,— “What men of name resort to him?” meaning Richmond. The line is evidently defective, while in the rest of the scene the verse is regular; and the corrector of the folio, 1632, restores two words that seem to have dropped out:— “What men of name and mark resort to him.” This short scene is struck out with a pen.

Note return to page 782 10109764P. 474. Richmond speaking of Richard, calls him, as the words have always stood in print,— “The wretched, bloody, and usurping boar:” “Wretched” is an epithet that has little comparative appropriateness, while the word recommended in manuscript to supply the place of it, is especially adapted to the character of Richard, and we may readily believe it to have been that of the poet:— “The reckless, bloody, and usurping boar.” Reckless was of old frequently spelt wreckless, and hence, perhaps, the misprint.

Note return to page 783 10109765P. 477. If the following line had been printed in other old copies as it stands in that of 1632 only, we should have hesitated to disturb the text, on the ground that the sense was quite intelligible: it is where Richmond requests Blunt, if possible, to communicate with Stanley; Blunt replies,— “Upon my self, my lord, I'll undertake it.” Every other ancient authority has “life” for self; and as there can be no doubt it is an error of the press, the old corrector made the necessary emendation. The printed stage-direction here is, They withdraw into the tent, that is, Richmond's tent; and according to the old theatrical arrangement of this scene, different sides of the same small stage contained the two hostile tents of the King and Richmond. As soon as Richmond and his friends withdraw into the tent on their side of the stage, the King and his adherents come forward and converse, as if the encampment of the enemy were far out of hearing. A manuscript stage-direction (for there is here no printed one beyond Exit Ratcliff) informs us that Richard lies down and sleeps as soon as he has said,— “And help to arm me.—Leave me, I say.” Richmond and Stanley then meet in the tent of the former, and the word couch is added to the printed stage-direction, in order that Richmond, after his conversation and prayer, may lie down and sleep also, as the King was already doing in sight of the audience. Thus, in the simplicity of our early theatres, the two leaders were seen reposing in their tents at the same time, and the Ghosts enter (whether by means of trap-doors, or otherwise, is not stated), and severally address them.

Note return to page 784 10109766P. 480. This complicated scene is ill-printed in all impressions, quarto and folio, especially in the latter, and most especially in the folio, 1632: several important emendations are, therefore, made in manuscript. One of the earliest of these in the insertion of the word “deadly” in the line,— “By thee was punched full of deadly holes.” The old corrector may have been obtained it from the quartos, but it is not in any folio. On the other hand, however, he may have been indebted to some independent authority; and some of his changes give a text which varies materially from any extant original. Thus the second line of the next page,— “Doth comfort thee in sleep: live and flourish,” evidently wants a syllable, and the quartos have it,— “Doth comfort thee in thy sleep: live and flourish;” which may be right, but it does not accord with the line as it stands amended in the folio, 1632, where we read,— “Doth comfort thee in sleep: live thou and flourish.” When, on page 481, the Ghost of Vaughan says to Richard,— “Let fall thy lance. Despair and die,” the line wants two syllables, not found in any impression; but in the corrected folio, 1632, we have it,— “Let fall thy pointless lance. Despair and die.” When we find him inserted in manuscript in the line, just subsequent,— “Will conquer him. Awake, and win the day,” the emendation might be derived from the quartos; but such was not the case with an important change in what the Ghost of Anne addresses to Richard: in all editions it stands,— “And fall thy edgeless sword. Despair and die.” This is merely the repetition of a previous line given to the Ghost of Clarence, and the poet could hardly have intended two of the spirits to use the very same words. The corrector of the folio, 1632, induces us to believe that this was one of the corruptions accidentally introduced, and he makes the Ghost of Anne vary the line thus:— “And fall thy powerless arm. Despair and die.” There can here be no impropriety: the emendation may have been obtained from some better authority, on or off the stage; and it avoids the strong objection to making the Ghosts of Clarence and Anne use precisely the same form of imprecation when threatening Richard with his fate in the approaching battle.

Note return to page 785 10109767P. 483. The corrector of the folio, 1632, made the text conform to that of the earliest quarto in the line,— “The lights burn blue.—It is now dead midnight,” every old impression but that of 1597, reading, “It is not dead midnight.” It may be urged that the corrector need not have resorted to the earliest quarto, since this blunder corrects itself: the wonder is, that this play should have gone through, at least, four editions in quarto, and as many in folio, before not was expunged for “now.” Eleven lines of Richard's soliloquy, from “What do I fear? myself?” down to “Fool, do not flatter,” are struck through, and were, probably, not recited by the actor about the period when the erasure was made.

Note return to page 786 10109768P. 484. There is a material difference between the quartos and folios, where Richard exclaims,— “Perjury, perjury, in the high'st degree:” such is the text as given in the quartos; but the folios omit the second “perjury,” and the corrector of that of 1632 supplies the word and something more:— “Perjury, foul perjury, in the high'st degree.” If “perjury” be pronounced as two syllables, foul is requisite for the metre; if “perjury” be pronounced as three syllables, the line, even without foul, is redundant. The question rather is, from whence foul was obtained, than whether it is necessary. Lower down on this page occurs an instance in which it may seem that the corrector was giving, not the words of any known impression, but the manner in which the play was acted when he wrote. Two short speeches by the King and Ratcliff, found in the quartos, are left out in the folios, where the King says merely, “O, Ratcliff! I fear, I fear,” without adding why he feared, so that Ratcliff's reply,— “Nay, good my lord, be not afraid of shadows,” wants application in the folios. This is clearly a defect, and the corrector remedies it by making the speech assigned to the King run thus:— “O, Ratcliff, I have dream'd a fearful dream;” to which Ratcliff's answer applies naturally enough. The words, I have dream'd a fearful dream, are in the quartos, but not exactly in the place which they are made to occupy in the folio, 1632. This, therefore, looks like one of the emendations made from recitation.

Note return to page 787 10109769P. 487. The same may be said of a line in the King's directions for ordering his battle. The quarto, 1597, only, has it as follows:— “My foreward shall be drawn out all in length;” while in every subsequent old impression we have it,— “My foreward shall be drawn in length.” How does the old corrector tell us to read it? thus:— “My forward ranks shall be drawn out in length;” which, as far as euphony is concerned, seems the best line of the three, though the first corresponds more with the words of Holinshed.

Note return to page 788 10109770P. 488. In the King's address to his army, Steevens proposed to read ventures for “adventures,” and Warburton distrain for restrain: both these changes are warranted by manuscript emendations in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 789 10109771P. 491. There can be little doubt that a passage of some moment in Richmond's last speech has been misrepresented by blundering punctuation, which is thus set right in the corrected folio, 1632:— “All this divided York and Lancaster, Divided in their dire division, O, now let Richmond and Elizabeth, The true succeeders of each royal house, By God's fair ordinance conjoin together.” The sense clearly runs on, and is complete at “together;” but it has been the mistaken custom to place a full stop, followed by a line, after division,— “Divided in their dire division.—” This is an error, which the old corrector amends; and Johnson's opinion is entirely confirmed that “division” ought to be followed by only a comma.

Note return to page 790 10109772P. 492. A blunder has prevailed, from the earliest to the latest times, in this line:— “Abate the edge of traitors, gracious Lord!” Steevens says, as indeed everybody must know, that to “abate,” is to lower, depress, or subdue; but what has that sense to do with “the edge,” which immediately follows? To lower, depress, or subdue an edge, is scarcely sense; and undoubtedly we ought to substitute a word, inserted in the margin of the folio, 1632, which means to blunt, and which is used exactly in that way by Shakespeare himself:— “Rebate the edge of traitors, gracious Lord!” i. e. blunt the edge of traitors; and in “Measure for Measure,” Act I. Scene V. (vol. ii. p. 21), we read,— “But doth rebate and blunt the natural edge,” &c., where our great dramatist explains the meaning of rebate, if it could be doubted, by the word which follows it. It is hardly necessary to notice the stage-directions towards the close of this play: in the printed copies they are comparatively few and general; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, felt the importance of supplying this deficiency, with a view, perhaps, to the representation of this drama, in a portion of it that is especially confused and complicated.

Note return to page 791 10109773P. 502. There is in this place an obvious mistake in the distribution of the dialogue between Norfolk and Buckingham in all the folios. It was divided differently by Theobald, who has since been followed: he made Buckingham's speech begin with, “Who did guide,” &c., at the top of p. 503; but the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that the observation,— “The office did Distinctly his full function,” also belongs to Buckingham, who might very properly give this opinion after Norfolk's description of the scene.

Note return to page 792 10109774P. 504. The last part of Buckingham's speech, from the words, “and his own letter,” is struck out in the corrected folio, 1632. Just below, in “What did this vanity, But minister communication of A most poor issue?” the old corrector alters “communication” to the consummation: the meaning is nearly the same according to Johnson's interpretation, but “What did this vanity But minister the consummation of A most poor issue,” seems much more distinctly intelligible, and the two words were probably mistaken by the compositor.

Note return to page 793 10109775P. 506. The remark of Buckingham,— “A beggar's book Outworths a noble's blood,” has required several notes to show that the allusion was to Wolsey's learning, which, it is admitted, was not very considerable: the change made in the margin of the folio, 1632, shows that no note would have been necessary, if the true text had been given; the antithesis is also stronger:— “A beggar's brood Outworths a noble's blood.”

Note return to page 794 10109776P. 511. According to the corrector of the folio, 1632, there are several misprints in this scene which need correction. The first is in the Queen's speech, where she is remonstrating against the exacting commissions sent out by the Cardinal, which had led to the use against the King of “language unmannerly,”— “Yea, such which breaks The sides of loyalty,” &c. We are here instructed to read “ties of loyalty.” The Cardinal answers (p. 512) that he has done no more, and knows no more than others; to which the Queen replies:— “You know no more than others; but you frame Things, that are known alike, which are not wholesome,” &c. For “alike,” the correction is belike:— “Things that are known, belike, which are not wholesome.” Again, at the end of the Queen's next speech, the expression, “There is no primer baseness,” of all the folios, is altered (in accordance with Southern's suggestion mentioned in note 6) to “There is no primer business;” and such we may hereafter treat as the original word. Farther on (p. 514), the King, struck at the amount of the exactions under Wolsey's commissions, exclaims,— “Sixth part of each? A trembling contribution!” The old corrector here put his pen through the m in “trembling,” making the word trebling, as if the King meant to say that the sum was treble what it ought to have been. When the Duke of Buckingham's Surveyor enters to give evidence against his lord, the Queen says to the King,— “I am sorry that the Duke of Buckingham Is run in your displeasure;” which may be quite right, but it ought to be noticed that a marginal emendation makes the last line,— “Is one in your displeasure.” This last change, like some of the others, may be deemed no necessary emendation.

Note return to page 795 10109777P. 516. There can be no dispute that “under the commission's seal,” of all the old copies, ought to be “under the confession's seal,” as Theobald altered the word on the authority of Holinshed: it so stands also in the hand-writing of the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 796 10109778P. 518. This scene in all printed copies concludes with a very lame rhyming couplet, put into the mouth of the King:— “Let him not seek't of us. By day and night He's traitor to the height.” Some words were omitted which cured the defectiveness of the last line, and the old corrector tells us that they were these:— “He is a daring traitor to the height.” To say the least of it, we may be disposed to admit this emendation, without opposing evidence.

Note return to page 797 10109779P. 520. The manuscript-corrector leads us to believe that there are two errors of the press in the following, where Lord Sands is speaking of Wolsey:— “Men of his way should be most liberal; They are set here for examples.” We can readily accord in the first, if not in the second emendation:— “Men of his sway should be most liberal; They are sent here for examples.”11Q1229

Note return to page 798 10109780P. 524. The pronoun me may have been left out in the folios at the end of the verse, because there was no room for it without turning the line, or because it accidentally escaped in the press:— “Because they speak no English, thus they pray'd me To tell your grace.” The sense is hardly complete without it, and as the old corrector inserted it, we need have little hesitation in adopting an improvement so doubly recommended.

Note return to page 799 10109781P. 528. The folio, 1632, gives this imperfect line to Buckingham, on his way to execution:— “You that thus have come to pity me.” The folio, 1632, has it:— “You that thus far have come to pity me.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, may have obtained far from the earlier impression, and he places it in the margin. Notwithstanding this omission, this portion of the play is well printed in both folios. Just before Buckingham makes his exit (p. 531), a change is made in the folio, 1632, in an adverb, which is supported by the sense; Henry's victim is speaking of false friends:— “When they once perceive The least rub in your fortunes, fall away Like water from ye, never found again But when they mean to sink ye.” The ordinary reading is, “But where they mean,” &c. The change is not material.

Note return to page 800 10109782P. 534. It is evident from the old stage-direction, “the King draws the curtain, and sits reading pensively,” that in the early simplicity and poverty of our stage, Henry himself drew a traverse at the back of the stage, and discovered himself to Norfolk and Suffolk, “reading pensively.” It would appear that in the time of the corrector of the folio, 1632, the practice in this respect had been somewhat improved; for the words stating that “the King draws the curtain,” are struck out, and “Curtain drawn” is inserted in the margin in parenthesis, showing that Henry was discovered to his nobles “reading pensively,” by some contrivance which rendered it needless for him to rise from his seat, and then to resume it after he had drawn the curtain. This is a curious indication of a slight advance made in the scenical arrangements of our old theatres. When Henry subsequently asks,— “Is this an hour for temporal affairs?” we are told, in a manuscript stage-direction, that he holds up a book (probably of prayer) to the two noblemen who had intruded upon his “private meditations.”

Note return to page 801 10109783P. 538. Anne Bullen, reflecting on the fall of Queen Katharine, observes of power,— “Though it be temporal, Yet, if that quarrel, fortune, do divorce It from the bearer, 'tis a sufferance panging As soul and body's severing.” Warburton, Hanmer, Johnson, and Steevens have all written notes upon the words, “that quarrel, fortune,” some taking “quarrel” as an arrow, others in the sense of quarreller, &c.; but, if we may believe the old corrector, it is only a misprint, for he gives the second line thus:— “Yet, if that cruel fortune do divorce,” &c., which certainly removes the difficulty, and applies to “fortune” an epithet, to which its commonness seems the main objection. When cruel was spelt crewell, as was sometimes the case, the mistake was not difficult.

Note return to page 802 10109784P. 541. The Lord Chamberlain, on retiring, tells Anne Bullen, who has just been made Marchioness of Pembroke,— “I shall not fail to approve the fair conceit The king hath of you.” “To improve the fair conceit,” &c., seems the more natural word, although “approve” may be said, upon Johnson's construction, sufficiently well to fill the place in the text. The correction of improve for “approve,” is made in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 803 10109785P. 542. At the end of the scene, Anne Bullen declares that her advancement gives her no satisfaction:— “Would I had no being, If this salute my blood a jot.” Whatever meaning may be attached to the expression, “salute my blood,” the sense of the poet is rendered much more distinct, if we substitute a different word, easily misread or misprinted:— “Would I had no being, If this elate my blood a jot.” Elate, as an adjective, is in very old use in our language; and it is doing no great violence to Shakespeare to suppose that here he converted an adjective into a verb. This has been the practice ever since, and we have the authority of the corrector of the folio, 1632, in favour of elate.

Note return to page 804 10109786P. 544. The trial scene of the Queen seems to have been taken more than usual pains with, both by copyist and compositor; but two exceptions to its general accuracy are pointed out in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632: both are misprints; the first less obvious, though more important than the last. Katharine desires that if any charge of infidelity can be made out against her,— “In God's name Turn me away; and let the foul'st contempt Shut door upon me, and so give me up To the sharp'st kind of justice.” We can have no hesitation here in substituting another in the place of the very tame word “kind,” in the last hemistich, when the substitution adds much to the force of the passage, and impresses us at once as the language of the poet:— “And let the foul'st contempt Shut door upon me, and so give me up To the sharp'st knife of justice.” We can hardly suppose this striking improvement merely speculative and conjectural. When, afterwards, Wolsey says,— “It shall be therefore bootless, That longer you desire the court;” though “desire” be in the old editions (excepting the folio of 1685), and though the intended meaning may be gathered from it, yet we cannot refuse, instead of it, to adopt defer, which suits the place so much better, and which is warranted by the same authority which, in the preceding instance, has given us so expressive a word as knife, to the exclusion of so vague a term as “kind.”

Note return to page 805 10109787P. 559. When Suffolk informs Surrey that the King has already married Anne Bullen, the latter exclaims, as it has always been printed,— “Now all my joy Trace the conjunction!” but Surrey did not wish his joy in particular, but all joy to follow the marriage, and we ought certainly to read with the annotator of the folio, 1632,— “Now may all joy Trace the conjunction!” And, in consistency with this wish, Suffolk and Norfolk cry “Amen” to it. Several stage-directions are added in manuscript in this scene. When Wolsey and Cromwell enter, the peers stand back to observe him; and when Wolsey has dismissed his Secretary, he speaks to himself, and finally stands back musing. When the King enters reading a schedule, Wolsey does not at first see him, but wakes amazedly from his reverie as soon as Lovell touches him. Henry afterwards gives the schedule to Wolsey, who, when the King is gone, opens and reads it trembling. After he has glanced at his own letter to the Pope, he sinks in a chair, from which he rises when the Dukes of Norfolk, Suffolk, &c., enter, and in the King's name demand the Great Seal from him. Such, we may conclude, was the manner of the old actor of the part of Wolsey, and the way in which the business of the scene was formerly conducted.

Note return to page 806 10109788P. 562. The King, addressing the Cardinal, says,— “You have scarce time To steal from spiritual leisure a brief span, To keep your earthly audit.” If Wolsey enjoyed so much “spiritual leisure,” it would seem as if he might have time also for his earthly audit, and the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, inserts labour for “leisure” in the text with decided propriety:— “To steal from spiritual labour a brief span,” &c. This is another of the many cases in which it is very apparent how the two words were confounded by the ear of the scribe.

Note return to page 807 10109789P. 573. The corrected copy of the folio, 1632, is deficient of a leaf containing pp. 223 and 224, which was principally occupied by a description of the coronation of Anne Bullen.

Note return to page 808 10109790P. 580. In the folio, 1623, Katharine says of Wolsey,— “So may he rest: his faults lie gently on him.” In the folio, 1632, the line stands thus imperfectly:— “So may he rest: his faults lie on him.” The corrector of this last edition, instead of taking the word “gently” from the earlier folio, inserts lightly in the margin:— “So may he rest: his faults lie lightly on him.” Possibly, this was the form in which he had heard the passage delivered; but Shakespeare's word was doubtless that of the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 809 10109791P. 581. Although it has been followed in various modern editions, nothing can be more absurd than the old punctuation of the opening of the speech of Griffith, where he gives a character of the deceased Cardinal:— “This cardinal, Though from an humble stock, undoubtedly Was fashion'd to much honour. From his cradle He was a scholar, and a ripe and good one.” The old corrector, in accordance with the obvious sense of the passage, omits the period before “From his cradle,” and inserts it after it:— “Was fashioned to much honour from his cradle. He was a scholar,” &c. It is astonishing that so decided a blunder, as to represent that the Cardinal was a ripe and good scholar “from his cradle,” should have been repeated over and over again from the year 1623 to our own day. Lower down occurs a line that has occasioned discussion, relating to Wolsey's foundations at Ipswich and Oxford:— “One of which fell with him, Unwilling to outlive the good that did it.” “The good that did it” has been construed “the virtue that raised the edifice;” but a note in the folio, 1632, has the passage in a form which clears away all difficulty, and is in all probability the true reading:— “Unwilling to outlive the good man did it;” i. e. the good man (for such Griffith represented Wolsey) who laid the foundation.

Note return to page 810 10109792P. 583. All the early editions print thus, when Griffith speaks of Katharine very soon after the vision,— “How pale she looks, And of an earthy cold? Mark her eyes.” Steevens, at a venture, inserted you to complete the measure, “Mark you her eyes;” but the error lies earlier, and before the note of interrogation, for the old corrector gives the last line as follows:— “And of an earthy coldness? Mark her eyes.” Such we may confidently believe was the original reading: to say that a dying person looks “of an earthy cold,” is at least a peculiar expression, though “cold” is very often used as a substantive.11Q1230

Note return to page 811 10109793P. 590. Instead of “you a brother of us,” the corrected folio has “to a brother of us,” which hardly seems required; and at the bottom of the page, for “The good I stand on is my truth and honesty,” which is certainly sense, the folio, 1632, has,— “The ground I stand on is my truth and honesty;” which reads better, and ground might be carelessly mistaken for “good.”

Note return to page 812 10109794P. 595. The Lord Chancellor tells Cranmer,— “But we all are men, In our own natures frail, and capable Of our flesh.” Malone, for “and capable,” put incapable, without any warrant, and without extricating the passage from the difficulty involving it. Monk Mason saw what was necessary, and suggested the word which is found written in the folio, 1632, as the correction of a mere error of the press:— “In our own natures frail, and culpable Of our flesh.”

Note return to page 813 10109795P. 596. Another misprint is pointed out in Cranmer's speech in answer to the charges against him. The passage has always stood as follows:— “Nor is there living (I speak it with a single heart, my lords) A man that more detests, more stirs against, Both in his private conscience and his place, Defacers of a public peace, than I do.” Now, in the old copies, “stirs” is printed stirres; and strives, the word supplied by the old corrector, appears to have been misread stirres: we ought, therefore, in future, to give the line thus:— “A man that more detests, more strives against, Defacers of a public peace,” &c.

Note return to page 814 10109796P. 603. In the two subsequent lines there appear to be as many unaccountable misprints, which are nevertheless set right by the corrector of the second folio:— “Let me ne'er hope to see a chine again, And that I would not for a cow, God save her.” God save whom? the cow? Certainly not. To do justice to this singular emendation, we must quote more of the speech of the Man who is keeping back the people, in the palace yard at Greenwich, pressing forward to see the procession of the christening: the Porter is finding fault with his Man for not repelling the crowd, and the Man replies:— “I am not Samson, nor sir Guy, nor Colbrand, To mow em down before me; but if I spared any That had a head to hit, either young or old, He or she, cuckold or cuckold-maker, Let me ne'er hope to see a chine again, And that I would not for a cow, God save her.” Why should he just at such a moment think of “a chine” or “a cow?” He was about to witness the royal procession to the christening of the princess Elizabeth; and the old corrector informs us that both “chine” and “cow” are blunders of the copyist, of the compositor, or of both: he reads,— “Let me ne'er hope to see a queen again, And that I would not for a crown, God save her.” That is, God save the queen, the sight of whom again the Porter's Man would not miss for a crown. Queen (printed formerly with a final e) became “chine,” and crown “cow.” This emendation does not look like mere guess-work, but it is out of the question to speculate upon what authority the corrector of the folio, 1632, may have proceeded. It is needless to quote the very particular stage-directions written in the margin towards the termination of this drama. It will be sufficient to say, that nothing seems omitted that could conduce to the exact and successful performance of it by the actors concerned in the representation.

Note return to page 815 10109797P. 11. The Prologue of thirty-one lines fills a whole page in the folios, and is not found in the quarto editions: it is merely headed “Prologue;” but the corrector of the folio, 1632, has subjoined the words in armour in parenthesis, showing, as indeed we learn from a passage in it, that the speaker was “a Prologue armed.” He alters the mis-spelt name of Antenonidus to Antenorides; and, what is more important, he reads, “sparre up the sons of Troy,” for “stirre up the sons of Troy,” about which there can be no dispute, although, until the time of Theobald, the four folios, Rowe, and Pope had it “stir up the sons of Troy.” The proper orthography seems to be “sperr up the sons of Troy,” which has precisely the same meaning as “sparre up the sons of Troy,” the word of the old corrector. We may add that in “The Cobbler of Canterbury,” first printed in 1590, and again in 1608, the very year before Shakespeare's “Troilus and Cressida” came out, we meet with the following couplet, which occurs just after the mention of Troilus:— “Grey and sparkling, like the stars When the day her light up spars.” Possibly, therefore, our great dramatist was put in mind of the word by seeing it, in connexion with his hero, in the tract above quoted, just before he sat down to write: Shakespeare's use of it, however, is infinitely more proper, since to “sperr up a gate” is a natural expression, but to “sperr up light,” a violent metaphor.

Note return to page 816 10109798P. 14. Rowe and Pope made two excellent emendations in the line,— “So, traitor!—when she comes! when is she thence?” The manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, only applies to “when” instead of then of the old copies, while it leaves unchanged “when she is thence,” although the transposition, “when is she thence?” is equally wanted. Thus, in this instance, the corrector did only half what seems necessary to render the poet's meaning intelligible. Six lines lower, he properly altered scorn to “storm,” which was also Rowe's emendation, but sufficiently obvious.

Note return to page 817 10109799P. 17. The Acts and Scenes are not distinguished in any of the old printed editions, but the corrector has introduced them in manuscript, with more or less accuracy, in the folio which went through his hands.

Note return to page 818 10109800P. 23. Pandarus tells Cressida that Antenor is “a proper man of person,” which it may seem needless to change; but a manuscript note in the margin of the folio, 1632, tells us to read, “a proper man of his person.” On the next page, the necessary word “see” is inserted where it is omitted in the folios,—“you shall see Troilus anon.”

Note return to page 819 10109801P. 27. For the evidently misprinted line,— “Achievement is command; ungain'd beseech,” we are informed that we ought to read,— “Achiev'd men still command; ungain'd beseech.” That achiev'd men should have been converted by the old compositor into “achievement,” seems not unlikely; but how still became “is” in his hands, it is not easy to imagine; and we may feel some surprise that the emendation of the line proposed in note 8,— “Achiev'd men us command; ungain'd beseech,” is not supported by the authority of the corrector of the folio, 1632: us for “is,” was a most probable mistake.

Note return to page 820 10109802P. 28. Agamemnon, referring to the disasters that have hitherto attended the siege of Troy by the Greeks, and observing that disappointment constantly accompanies human undertakings, inquires,— “Why then, you princes, Do you with cheeks abash'd behold our works, And call them shames?” This is as the passage has been invariably printed; but the old annotator points out an easy misprint, the correction of which is in exact accordance with the rest of Agamemnon's speech, where he advises the Greeks not to be disheartened by their previous misfortunes:— “Why then, you princes, Do you with cheeks abash'd behold our wrecks, And call them shames?” The word wreck is frequently used by Shakespeare, and by writers of his day, to signify any kind of disaster or ruin, and such is its meaning in this place.

Note return to page 821 10109803P. 29. The folio, 1632, is very carelessly printed in this part of the play; and for “place and sway,” of the earlier impressions, it has “place and may.” The old corrector does not pass over this blunder, nor others: thus, a few lines above, he has “replies to chiding fortune,” for “retires to chiding fortune;” and in the beginning of Nestor's speech, “godlike seat” for “godly seat.” Pope has “returns,” and Hanmer “replies,” for retires; and all more modern editors, “godlike” for godly: the last was an error of the folios only.

Note return to page 822 10109804P. 33. Such was not the case with a mistake in the second great speech of Ulysses, where he is referring to the mimicry, by Patroclus, of the chiefs of the Grecian army:— “And in this fashion, All our abilities, gifts, natures, shapes, Severals and generals of grace exact, Achievements, plots,” &c. fell under the ridicule of Achilles: here the words, “of grace exact,” seem wrong, although always so printed, because the complaint was, that they were not “of grace exact,” but grossly caricatured. Therefore the corrector of the folio, 1632, thus altered the expression to a form much more in accordance with the context:— “Severals and generals, all grace extract;” i. e. deprived of all the grace which really belonged to the persons Patroclus imitated. This appears to be an important improvement of the received text; but it is certainly one which did not require resort to any independent authority, inasmuch as close attention to what must have been the meaning of the author, may have led to the detection of the error.

Note return to page 823 10109805P. 35. In a celebrated speech by Æneas, a fine compound epithet appears to have escaped in the hands of the old printer:— “The worthiness of praise distains his worth, If that the prais'd himself bring the praise forth; But what the repining enemy commends, That breath fame blows; that praise, sole pure, transcends.” The second folio omits But at the commencement of the third line, as injurious to the metre; and a small manuscript-correction in the margin, converts a poor expression in the fourth line into one of great force and beauty:— “What the repining enemy commends, That breath fame blows; that praise, soul-pure, transcends.” The scribe wrote, or the compositor wrought, only by the sound, and that sound has hitherto satisfied. To show how readily misprints are even now made, we may mention that both Malone and Steevens give the last line, most ruinously to the measure, thus:— “That breath fame follows; that praise, sole pure, transcends.”11Q1231

Note return to page 824 10109806P. 37. All the folio editions have this line:— “I'll pawn this truth with my three drops of blood:” the quartos, more intelligibly,— “I'll prove this truth with my three drops of blood.” The old corrector of the folio, 1632, erases pawn, and places “prove” in the margin; but, supposing that he obtained the latter word from the quartos, he made no alteration in the next line, which in the folios varies from the quartos in two not unimportant particulars: the folios read,— “Now heavens forbid such scarcity of youth;” while the quartos give it,— “Now heavens forefend such scarcity of men.” If, therefore, “prove” were derived by the old corrector from the quartos, it is clear that, for some reason, he preferred the next line as it stands in the folios.

Note return to page 825 10109807P. 41. Considering the difference between the quartos and the folios, the first reading unsalted, and the second “whinid'st,” we may notice that the old corrector preferred the last, but altered the spelling of the word to whinewd'st, meaning vinewd'st, or most mouldy. Vinny, or vinnewy, for mouldy, is still a word in use in the provinces.

Note return to page 826 10109808P. 46. There can be no doubt that the line,— “And fly like chidden Mercury from Jove,” is misplaced in the folios, and rightly placed in the quartos: the corrector of the folio, 1632, appears first to have tried to remedy the blunder in his usual method, by figures in his margin, but not finding that effectual, he struck out the line, and inserted it in manuscript in the situation to which it unquestionably belongs. He subsequently set right two misprints in the same speech, hard for “hare,” and lovers for “livers:” the first belongs also to the folio, 1623, and the last only to the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 827 10109809P. 50. We may, perhaps, receive with thankfulness a change in what Paris says regarding the dangers which had attended his enterprise in securing and retaining Helen,— “Yet, I protest, Were I alone to pass the difficulties, And had as ample power as I have will, Paris should ne'er retract what he hath done, Nor faint in the pursuit.” Here for “pass the difficulties” (spelt passe in the old copies), the old corrector tells us to substitute “poise the difficulties,” or weigh them, which we may believe, if only from the context, to have been Shakespeare's word.11Q1232

Note return to page 828 10109810P. 55. The emendation of “We sent our messengers,” instead of “He sent our messengers,” of the folios, and “He sate our messengers,” of the quartos, is warranted by an emendation of W for H in the margin. Theobald read, “He shent our messengers;” but this change is not required, nor is it supported by the fact, since, as is stated in note 3, Achilles had not shent, or rebuked, any messengers from Agamemnon.

Note return to page 829 10109811P. 56. The emendation of “lunes” for lines, in “His pettish lines, his ebbs, his flows, as if,” &c., as it stands in the folios (the quartos have an entirely different text), is made in a correction in the folio, 1632; and “lunes” is certainly the word intended.

Note return to page 830 10109812P. 64. Much discussion has been occasioned by the words of Paris, in all the early impressions, where he calls Cressida his “disposer,” saying that Troilus is going to sup “with my disposer Cressida.” The difficulty has been to discover why Paris should call Cressida his “disposer;” and some commentators have recommended deposer, others despiser, instead of “disposer,” while Steevens wished to deprive Paris of the speech altogether, and to transfer it to Helen. It is surprising that no editor should have guessed at the right word, when speculating that “disposer” was an error of the press: a manuscript note in the folio, 1632, informs us that for “disposer,” we should substitute dispraiser, Cressida being a person who did not allow the merits of Paris. Pandarus, just after Paris has called Cressida his dispraiser, observes that there had been some difference between them— “She'll none of him; they two are twain”—and though he does not state on what point they had disagreed, it is enough to warrant us in believing that Paris calls Cressida, not his “disposer,” but his dispraiser. The word recurs twice in this part of the dialogue, and in each instance the old corrector has converted “disposer” into dispraiser. It is to be remarked also, that he makes no change in the prefixes, but allows “You must not know where he sups” to remain in Helen's speech, in contradiction to the practice of modern editors, which, it must be allowed, seems founded upon a correct notion of the course of the dialogue. Possibly the mistake in the prefix in this place, did not attract the attention of the writer of the marginal emendations; but it can make no difference in the apparent fitness of changing “disposer” to dispraiser.

Note return to page 831 10109813P. 67. It is a very noticeable circumstance that the expression of Troilus, as found in some copies of the quarto of 1609, as stated in note 2,— “Love's thrice repured nectar,” instead of “Love's thrice reputed nectar” of the folios and other quartos, is transferred by the corrector of the folio, 1632, to that impression. This fact may show, if no independent authority were resorted to, how the passage was recited before and after the second folio made its appearance, and confirms it, if confirmation were wanted, as the true reading. We often find t and r misprinted for each other; and all that it was necessary to do was to put the pen through the first, and to insert the last in the margin. Although this important emendation was made, another emendation of considerable value, near the end of the play, aims for “arms” (p. 141, note 5), also found in some copies of the quarto of 1609, was not adopted. This looks as if the corrector had not there been guided by the same authority.

Note return to page 832 10109814P. 72. In the amorous dialogue between Troilus and Cressida, the latter, affecting coyness, distinguishes between her two selfs, in all the ordinary copies of this play, as follows:— “I have a kind of self resides with you, But an unkind self, that itself will leave, To be another's fool.” The antithesis, undoubtedly intended by the poet, is thus, according to a note in the folio, 1632, sacrificed to an error of the press, and we are instructed, therefore, to read the passage thus:— “I have a kind self, that resides with you, But an unkind self, that itself will leave, To be another's fool.” Cressida represents her kind self as wishing to remain with Troilus, and her “unkind self” as wishing to separate itself from his company.

Note return to page 833 10109815P. 74. All the old editions have the subsequent passage near the commencement of the speech of Calchas, and several pages of notes have been written upon it:— “Appear it to your mind, That through the sight I bear in things to love I have abandon'd Troy.” Some modern editors have given the second line,— “That through the sight I bear in things to come,” an amendment that unquestionably clears the sense of the author, and which Monk Mason considered so happy as to require no authority in its favour. Nevertheless, the most usual course has been to print differently, viz.:— “That through the sight I bear in things, to Jove I have abandon'd Troy.” Here it has been reasonably asked, why should Calchas desert and abandon his native city to Jove, who was its protector? Theobald, Warburton, Johnson, Steevens, and Malone, all wasted their time and ingenuity on a mere misprint, which is set right in a moment, and which proves that the old compositor misread above “to love:” there is an error also, but of minor importance, in the preceding line, where “appear” is put for appeal, in the sense of recall or bring back, and the whole should, therefore, stand thus:— “Appeal it to your mind, That, through the sight I bear in things above, I have abandon'd Troy;” i. e. recall to mind that I abandoned Troy by reason of the sight I enjoy in things above—foreseeing what would be the issue of the struggle. If Monk Mason thought “things to come” an emendation not requiring authority, à fortiori, “things above” is an emendation even less requiring it, because nearer the misprinted letters in the quartos and folios, while we have the testimony of the old corrector of the folio, 1632, and common sense in its behalf.

Note return to page 834 10109816P. 78. There is an indisputable, though hitherto undiscovered misprint, in what follows:— “For speculation turns not to itself, Till it hath travell'd, and is married there Where it may see itself.” This is part of the reply of Achilles to Ulysses, who has adverted to the manner in which an individual sees his virtues reflected in another, and thus becomes sensible of them: Achilles answers that this effect is not at all strange, and explains it by reference to the knowledge obtained of personal beauty by sight of it in a looking-glass, adding,— “For speculation turns not to itself, Till it hath travell'd, and is mirror'd there Where it may see itself.” To read “married there where it may see itself,” seems sheer nonsense, in comparison with the fine and distinctly expressed meaning of the poet, when, with the aid of a marginal emendation in the folio, 1632, we read mirror'd for “married.”

Note return to page 835 10109817P. 79. The quartos and folios differ in an important epithet: the first have the hemistich, “And great Troy shrieking,” and the last, “And great Troy shrinking.” There can be no dispute which is right, though Steevens raised the question; and the old corrector put his pen through the letter n, and left the word shriking, which was all he thought necessary.

Note return to page 836 10109818P. 80. Here again the folios misrepresent the author's words, if not his meaning: that of 1623 has,— “Since things in motion begin to catch the eye:” the printer of the folio, 1632, seeing that the line was redundant, altered “begin” to 'gin; but the quartos read,— “Since things in motion sooner catch the eye,” which we may, perhaps, admit as the true text; but, nevertheless, the manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, alters “'gin to” to quicklier, which may have been the word of the poet, and which he employs elsewhere:— “Since things in motion quicklier catch the eye.” Here, therefore, the writer of the emendation did not follow the quartos, but he may have guessed at the word he inserted in his margin, or obtained it from some authority. In the next line he alters “out” to once, which agrees with the quartos and with the sense. It merits observation that the two changes, quicklier and once, were most probably, not made at the same time, since the ink used is different.

Note return to page 837 10109819P. 81. The following is a couplet, in which there appear to be two lapses by the printer:— “Keeps place with thought, and almost, like the gods, Does thoughts unveil in their dumb cradles.” Hanmer read, “Keeps pace with thought,” and so did the old corrector: Warburton vindicated “place,” though in the next line, properly represented (which it has never yet been), Shakespeare follows up the idea, and tells us that the providence of a watchful state, like the gods, almost anticipates thoughts—not only keeps pace with them, but goes beyond them,— “Does thoughts unveil in their dumb crudities;” i. e. unveils them before they even become thoughts. This must have been the poet's language, and we find crudities for “cradles” in the margin of the folio, 1632. Hanmer, Malone, Steevens, &c., saw that “cradles” was not, in point of measure, enough for the line, but they never dreamed that the word was a misprint. The whole passage is, therefore, thus cleared:— “The providence that's in a watchful state Knows almost every grain of Plutus' gold, Finds bottom in th' uncomprehensive deeps, Keeps pace with thought, and almost, like the gods, Does thoughts unveil in their dumb crudities.” Here meaning and metre are both accomplished; but in what way the emendation was arrived at, we have no knowledge: it seems something better than a merely speculative suggestion.

Note return to page 838 10109820P. 82. For “sweet, rouse yourself,” addressed by Patroclus to Achilles, when he is endeavouring to excite him to renewed action, we are instructed in manuscript to read, “Swift, rouse yourself.” We have before had swift misprinted “sweet” (p. 62). Three lines lower, the old corrector does not strike out airy in the passage, “Be shook to airy air,” as it stands in the folios; but he makes it, “Be shook to very air,” which is much more emphatic than merely “Be shook to air.” Nevertheless, if the poet intended his measure to be regular, very is not required.

Note return to page 839 10109821P. 85. Diomed tells Æneas, that when the truce is at an end, he will “play the hunter for his life,”— “With all my force, pursuit, and policy:” the line seems to run more properly as it is amended in the folio, 1632,— “By Jove, I'll play the hunter for thy life, With all my fierce pursuit, and policy.” However, the change is by no means unavoidable.

Note return to page 840 10109822P. 90. When Troilus tells Æneas to keep his counsel, the latter replies, in the folios,— “Good, good, my lord; the secrets of nature Have not more gift in taciturnity.” Now, unless we read “secrets” as a trisyllable, the measure is faulty: Theobald proposed “the secret things of nature;” and here resort to the quartos affords no aid, for they absurdly have “the secrets of neighbour Pandar.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, inserts a word which, most likely, had dropped out in the press, and which we may, perhaps, accept upon his evidence, because it is the very word required, in reference to the hidden operations of nature:— “Good, good, my lord, the secret laws of nature Have not more gift in taciturnity.”

Note return to page 841 10109823P. 93. We have already seen that various scraps of ballads, introduced into the dialogue, have been erroneously given, when neither copyist nor printer was perhaps in fault; for the author himself may have quoted from memory. Here we have another instance of the same kind, where Pandarus cites some well-known popular production: it is thus given in the early authorities:— “O heart! O heart! heavy heart!   Why sigh'st thou without breaking? Because thou canst not ease thy smart   By friendship, nor by speaking.” Pope inserted an interjection before “heavy heart,” for metre's sake; but it seems probable, from mere perusal, that the last line has been mis-remembered, mis-written, or misprinted, since there is no antithesis between “friendship” and “speaking.” The folio, 1632, has sittest for “sigh'st,” an error which the old corrector remedies, and represents that the quatrain should stand as follows:— “O heart! O heart! O heavy heart!   Why sigh'st thou without breaking? Because thou can'st not ease thy smart   By silence nor by speaking.” It is underlined as a quotation, though printed as prose in all the old copies.

Note return to page 842 10109824P. 96. Troilus, alluding to the danger of too much reliance on our own supposed constancy, observes,— “And sometimes we are devils to ourselves, When we will tempt the frailty of our powers, Presuming on their changeful potency.” “Changeful potency” seems the very contrary of what was intended: if the verse would allow it, we ought rather to read,— “Presuming on their unchangeful potency:” or the potency with which they would resist change; and a manuscript alteration in the folio, 1632, leads us to believe that the scribe misheard the word,— “Presuming on their chainful potency,” the potency with which they chain, and fetter us to the particular object of our affections.

Note return to page 843 10109825P. 99. There is a remarkable discrepancy between the quartos and folios, when Cressida is introduced by Diomed to the Grecian commanders, and when such as like kiss her in succession. When Menelaus advances for the purpose, Patroclus interposes and kisses for him: Menelaus says,— “I had good argument for kissing once,” alluding, of course, to the time when he was living with Helen; and Patroclus answers,— “But that's no argument for kissing now; For thus popp'd Paris in his hardiment, And parted thus you and your argument.” The last line is only in the quartos, and the corrector of the folio, 1632, seeing its importance, writes it in a blank space, but differing in one word,— “And parted you, and your same argument;” adding this explanatory stage-direction, Puts back Menelaus, who thus allowed himself to be defeated in his design upon the lips of Cressida. Patroclus, having kissed for Menelaus, afterwards kisses on his own behalf, and then a note of kisses again is placed in the margin. If the corrector had derived the additional line from the quartos, it seems probable that he would have followed the precise wording of those editions.

Note return to page 844 10109826P. 100. Few lines in this play have produced more comment than the second of the following, where Ulysses is censuring the wanton spirit of Cressida:— “O! these encounterers, so glib of tongue, That give a coasting welcome ere it comes,” &c. What is “a coasting welcome?” has been the question; and we learn from the old corrector that the word, miswritten, we may suppose, in the manuscript used by the printer, was most appropriate to the place,— “O! these encounterers, so glib of tongue, That give occasion welcome ere it comes, And wide unclasp the tables of their thoughts, To every tickling reader, set them down As sluttish spoils of opportunity, And daughters of the game.” They became the “spoils of opportunity” by giving welcome to occasion even before it arrived.

Note return to page 845 10109827P. 102. Shakespeare employs the word “utterance” as the extreme result of a personal encounter in “Macbeth,” Act III. Scene I., and in “Cymbeline,” Act III. Scene I. The manuscript-corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that he used it also in the following passage, which refers to the conflict between Hector and Ajax, instead of the much less appropriate term “uttermost:” Agamemnon speaks to Diomed,— “As you and lord Æneas Consent upon the order of their fight, So be it; either to the utterance, Or else a breach.” i. e. at your discretion either let them pursue the conflict to extremity, or else break off before it comes to that: breach is a printed emendation in the folios, instead of “breath,” of the earlier editions in quarto, which can only be understood as a breathing time.

Note return to page 846 10109828P. 110. Nobody has attempted to explain why Thersites, when he calls Patroclus the “male varlet” and “masculine whore” of Achilles, ends by wishing a list of loathsome diseases (part of which only are mentioned in the folios) to afflict “such preposterous discoveries.” What can be the meaning of “discoveries” so applied? The old corrector has it “such preposterous discolourers;” and perhaps rightly, the allusion being to the painting and discolouring of nature by Patroclus, like a female prostitute.

Note return to page 847 10109829P. 113. The quartos and folios vary materially in one of the speeches of Thersites. According to the first, he says of Cressida, “And any man may sing her, if he can take her cliff; she's noted:” on the other hand, the folios, with evident corruption, give the passage thus: “And any man may find her, if he can but take her life; she's noted.” The allusion is, probably, indelicate; and the old corrector inserts one word in the folio, 1632, that had been omitted, and alters another that had been misprinted—“And any man may find her key, if he can take her clefft; she's noted.” The figure is, of course, borrowed from singing at sight, and this last reading seems preferable to that of the quartos.

Note return to page 848 10109830P. 115. In the speech of Cressida,— “In faith, I will, la: never trust me else,” we have something like a repetition of the blunder committed in “Henry IV.,” Part II. Act I. Scene III., where “lo.” for lord, of the quartos, was subsequently misprinted lo! as if it were an interjection, and then to as if it were a preposition. In the instance before us, the corruption seems to have originated with the quartos: la, there, became lo! in the folio, 1623, and goe in the folio, 1632. The old corrector of that edition thought, or knew, that the word ought to be lord, and he so amended the line:— “In faith I will, lord: never trust me else.” Still, the earliest impressions may be right, and Cressida may merely have used “la” as a feminine expletive, though we have the above evidence to the contrary. It is not a point of importance.

Note return to page 849 10109831P. 121. Andromache's speech to Hector only consists of these words in the amended folio, 1632:— “O! be persuaded: do not count it holy To hurt by being just.” The rest is struck through with a pen, as if the person who introduced the manuscript-emendations could make nothing of the passage either by guess or guide. This, therefore, is one of the places in which we are still left in the dark, not, indeed, as to the meaning of the poet, since that is pretty obvious, but as to the precise form in which he expressed that meaning.

Note return to page 850 10109832P. 126. Cressida, having given to Diomed the sleeve she had received from Troilus, the latter hunts the former through the field to recover it. Thersites watches the pursuit, and, when they enter, observes, as all printed copies have it,— “Soft! here comes sleeve and th' other.” A point (not indeed of much value) has certainly been lost; for, upon the authority of an emendation in the folio, 1632, Thersites ought to say,— “Soft! here comes sleeve and sleeveless.” Troilus being, as it were, upon “a sleeveless errand,” in search of the sleeve he had given Cressida, which was still in the possession of his rival: “Here comes sleeve and th' other” reads so poorly, that we may feel sure Shakespeare never wrote it. In the same way, when Troilus and Diomed fight, while Thersites stands behind, he exclaims, as if alternately encouraging each,— “Hold thy whore, Grecian! Now for thy whore, Trojan! Now the sleeve! Now the sleeveless.” In all editions we find only, “Now the sleeve! Now the sleeve!”

Note return to page 851 10109833P. 133. For the line, as it stands in the quartos,— “So, Ilion, fall thou next! now Troy, sink down,” the folio, 1632, as corrected, has,— “So, Ilion, fall thou! Now, great Troy, sink down!” which shows that the writer of the marginal notes did not here follow the earlier impressions. He saw that the line required a syllable, but whether he added great upon conjecture, or upon authority, we know not. The folios, 1623 and 1632, omitting “next” of the quartos, left the line imperfect.

Note return to page 852 10109834P. 135. There can be no doubt that for “broker, lackey,” in Troilus' dismissal of Pandarus, we ought to substitute brothel-lackey, i. e. the servant of a brothel, not merely from the occupation Pandarus had taken upon himself, but from the peculiarities of the old copies: the quartos read, “broker lackey;” the folio, 1623, in one place (where the lines were mistakenly inserted) has “brother lackey,” and afterwards, “broker, lackey;” the folio, 1632, has, in one place, “brother lachy,” and in the other, “brother lackey.” “Brothel-lackey” was one of the few changes for the better in the folio, 1664; but it must have been preceded by the manuscript-emendation in the folio, 1632, where the passage is made to run as follows:— “Hence, brothel-lackey, ignomy and shame Pursue thy life.” Two circumstances are to be noted in reference to the conclusion of this play, as it appears in the corrected folio, 1632. The first is, that the following words are written in a blank space opposite the speech of Pandarus, after all the other characters have made their exit—Left alone, let him say this by way of Epilogue. The other circumstance is that the four lines after Pandarus asks, “What verse for it? what instance for it?—Let me see,” are underlined as a quotation; and we may infer that they were extracted from some popular, but now unknown, production of the day, and applied by the poet to his own purpose. We have repeatedly seen that the old corrector scored with his pen under every scrap by any other author, to whom Shakespeare appears to have been in this manner indebted.

Note return to page 853 10109835P. 141. The earliest manuscript-emendation cannot be called a necessary one; but still it seems, taking the context into account, a considerable improvement, and may, perhaps, be admitted on the evidence of the corrector of the folio, 1632. It occurs in the speech of 1 Citizen, where he is referring to the wants of the poor, and to the superfluities of the rich:— “But they think we are too dear: the leanness that afflicts us, the abjectness of our misery, is as an inventory to particularize their abundance; our suffering is a gain to them.” For abjectness, the common reading has been “object”—“the object of our misery;” that is to say, the sight of our misery; but the speaker has talked of the “leanness” of the poor citizens of Rome, and he follows it up by the mention of the abjectness of their misery. This substitution could hardly have proceeded from the mere taste or discretion of the old corrector, but still it is hardly wanted.

Note return to page 854 10109836P. 145. We encounter an important change in one part of Menenius' apologue, where the belly admits that it is the general receiver of food, adding, as the passage has always been given,— “But, if you do remember, I send it through the rivers of your blood, Even to the Court, the heart, to the seat o' the brain, And through the cranks and offices of man.” It is evident that the last line but one is not measure; and we are instructed to read it, and the next, in a way that not only cures this defect, but much improves the sense, by following up the figure of “the court, the heart,” and completing the resemblance of the human body to the various parts of a commonwealth:— “Even to the Court, the heart, the Senate, brain; And through the ranks and offices of man.” Tyrwhitt thought “the seat o' the brain” a very “languid expression;” and Malone agreed with him in taking “seat” to mean royal seat. When “seat” was written seate, the mistake for senate was easy; and the change (which never occurred to any commentator) is supported both by what precedes, and by what follows it, going through the various degrees in a state—the court, the senate, persons of different ranks, the holders of offices, &c.

Note return to page 855 10109837P. 148. Menenius, speaking of the crowd, says,— “Nay, these are almost thoroughly persuaded,” &c.; whereas, according to the old corrector, the line, as properly read, is much more emphatic,— “Nay, these are all most thoroughly persuaded,” &c. Lower down, at the end of the next speech of Marcius,— “Shooting their emulation,” of the old copies, is altered to “shouting their exultation.” Modern editors have adopted shouting; and “emulation,” in the sense in which Shakespeare uses it, does not seem to require change: exultation, however, better expresses what is intended; and “shooting,” for shouting, shows that the compositor was careless. In the next line, we have tributes for “tribunes,” and just afterwards, unroost for “unroof'd.”

Note return to page 856 10109838P. 154. The reading of the second folio has almost invariably been accepted, where Volumnia says that “The breasts of Hecuba, When she did suckle Hector, look'd not lovelier Than Hector's forehead, when it spit forth blood At Grecian swords contending.” This, at least, is sense, but the first folio had absurdly printed “contending” Contenning, putting it in Italic type, as if it were a name, exactly thus:— “At Grecian sword. Contenning, tell Valeria We are fit to bid her welcome.” In note 6 of this page a suggestion is offered that contemning was, perhaps, Shakespeare's word; and the probability is confirmed by the fact, that the corrector of the folio, 1632, informs us that we ought to print as follows:— “Look'd not lovelier Than Hector's forehead, when it spit forth blood, At Grecian swords contemning:” i. e. contemning at Grecian swords, despising them. “Tell Valeria,” &c., of course begins a new sentence.

Note return to page 857 10109839P. 158. When the Romans are beaten back to their trenches, Marcius enters, “cursing” his flying followers; and we here arrive at a line which has been fertile of discussion. Malone and most modern editors have concurred in supposing that Marcius, in his rage and vexation, commences a sentence which he does not finish, and have represented the passage thus:— “All the contagion of the south light on you, You shames of Rome! you herd of—Boils and plagues Plaster you o'er; that you may be abhorr'd Further than seen, and one infect another Against the wind a mile!” In the folios, the words, spelling, and punctuation, are— “You shames of Rome: you Heard of Byles and Plagues Plaister you o're,” &c. This mode of spelling heard leads us to the corruption, which was detected (possibly by mere conjecture, but more probably with the aid of some extraneous authority) by the manuscript-annotator of the folio, 1632; and when pointed out, it must, we apprehend, be admitted without an instant's controversy:— “All the contagion of the south light on you, You shames of Rome! Unheard of boils and plagues Plaster you o'er,” &c. The whole difficulty seems to have been produced by a strange lapse on the part of the old printer. The old stage-directions are confused in this part of the drama, for we are told that Marcius is shut in before he enters the gates of Corioli. This blunder is set right in manuscript, and when all the Roman soldiers, seeing the gates close, exclaim, “To the pot I warrant him,” an expression that nobody has attempted to elucidate, it is explained at once by the corrector of the folio, 1632:— “Sold. See, they have shut him in. “All. To the port, I warrant him.” They finish the sentence the soldier has begun, “See, they have shut him in—to the port, I warrant him.” The enemy had shut Marcius into the port or gate; and very shortly afterwards Lartius directs, “Let the ports be guarded.” All editions, ancient and modern, have “pot” for port.

Note return to page 858 10109840P. 159. It is worth noting that, “Even to Calues wish,” of the first folio, and “Even to Calves wish,” of the second folio, is properly altered to “Even to Cato's wish,” in the margin of the latter impression. Such a blunder seems to expose itself; but, nevertheless, it was continued until the time of Theobald, passing not only through the four folios, but through the editions of Rowe and Pope.

Note return to page 859 10109841P. 164. Marcius, by permission of Cominius, and after an animating speech, wishes to select a certain number of soldiers to accompany him in an attack upon Aufidius and his Antiates: he, therefore, tells the troops,— “Please you to march; And four shall quickly draw out my command, Which men are best inclin'd.” Here a difficulty has arisen, why “four” were to draw out his command, and many notes have been written upon the question. We print the passage, as we find it amended, which shows that the scribe or the compositor (most likely the former in this instance) was to blame:— “Please you march before, And I shall quickly draw out my command, Which men are best inclin'd.” Whoever made the copy for the printer, must have understood before as by four, and put it in the wrong place, curing the defect in the metre of the first line by arbitrarily inserting to. Nothing could be more natural than for Marcius to direct the soldiers to march in front of him, that he might himself make the selection of such as he was to lead.

Note return to page 860 10109842P. 165. When Marcius and Aufidius meet, the latter addresses the former, as the text has always been given,— “Not Afric owns a serpent I abhor More than thy fame and envy.” This cannot be right, inasmuch as, taking “envy” even in the sense of hate, Aufidius could hardly mean that he abhorred the fame and the hate of Marcius: the printer made a slight error by mistaking the pronoun I for the contraction of the conjunction; therefore the old corrector reads,— “Not Afric owns a serpent I abhor More than thy fame I envy.”

Note return to page 861 10109843P. 168. Tyrwhitt's emendation of coverture for “overture,” in the subsequent lines, is precisely that found in the margin of the folio, 1632; but “them” is also there altered to it, with obvious fitness:— “When steel grows soft as the parasite's silk Let it be made a coverture for the wars.” If coverture were not introduced into the text, it was from the hope that sufficient meaning might be made out of the old printed language of the folios; but the authority of a manuscript-correction here comes in aid of a speculative emendation, and it appears to us that we need not hesitate upon the point hereafter.

Note return to page 862 10109844P. 173. Few scenes are worse printed in the early copies than this between Menenius and the two Tribunes: it is full of literal errors, and of some which are important to the author's sense, and are set right in manuscript in the second folio. Thus Menenius says of himself,— “I am known to be a humorous patrician, and one that loves a cup of hot wine, with not a drop of allaying Tyber in't: said to be something imperfect in favouring the first complaint.” What is “the first complaint” in connexion with Menenius's love for “a cup of hot wine?” It is merely an error from mishearing on the part of the copyist; for, undoubtedly, we ought to alter “first” to thirst,—“the thirst complaint:”— “One that loves a cup of hot wine, without a drop of allaying Tyber in't: said to be something imperfect in favouring the thirst complaint.” The humour is entirely lost in the old misprinted text, “first complaint;” and although no objection need be raised to “with not,” instead of without, nothing could be easier than the misprint of one word for the other: seeing that “thirst complaint” must be right, we can readily believe in the less-important change. Lower down in the same speech, a negative and a pronoun are omitted, and “bisson” is misprinted beesome; while, still lower, we have “rejourn” for adjourn, though “rejourn” may answer the purpose. Near the top of the next page, “controversy bleeding” is put for “controversy pleading,” or controversy that was in a course of discussion before the Tribunes.

Note return to page 863 10109845P. 175. The word in the old editions, “emperickqutique,” has, naturally enough, occasioned a pause among the annotators, who at last concurred with Ritson in thinking it “an adjective evidently formed from empirick.” Such is not the case: the sentence in which it occurs is part of a speech by Menenius, who is so rejoiced at having a letter from the hero, that he declares that it will lengthen his life seven years—“the most sovereign prescription in Galen is but emperickqutique, and to this preservative of no better report than a horse-drench.” “Emperickqutique” was not, if we are to believe the old corrector, formed from “empirick,” but was a blunder of the printer for two words, which he absurdly combined in one, namely, “empirick” and “physique,” as physic was then often spelt: we ought, therefore, to read, “the most sovereign prescription in Galen is but empiric physic, and to this preservative of no better report than a horse-drench.” “Empiric physic” is, of course, only quack-medicine.11Q1233

Note return to page 864 10109846P. 178. The first part of the subsequent quotation hardly requires a note; while the awkward expression in the last part of it has attracted no observation:— “Your prattling nurse Into a rapture lets her baby cry, While she chats him.” Brutus is here referring to the triumphant return of Coriolanus (now so called) to Rome; and “chats him” is certainly intelligible in the sense of talks about him, though “chats of him” would be more proper: but a note in the folio, 1632, induces us to believe that Shakespeare did not use the term “chats”at all, and that the word has been misprinted, the compositor taking double ee for a, and t (the commonest blunder) for r:— “Your prattling nurse Into a rapture lets her baby cry, While she cheers him.” This change is quite consistent with the context.

Note return to page 865 10109847P. 180. In the following, Theobald read “teach,” reach, on the supposition that, here also, t had been inserted by the compositor, instead of r:— “This, as you say, suggested At some time when his soaring insolence Shall teach the people,” &c. The right word was neither “teach” nor reach, but a word much better adapted to the situation than either:— “This, as you say, suggested At some time when his soaring insolence Shall touch the people,” &c. i. e. shall gall or irritate them. This use of touch is common in Shakespeare and other writers.

Note return to page 866 10109848P. 183. When the Senators and Tribunes have assembled “to thank and to remember” the services of Coriolanus, Sicinius remarks,— “We are convented Upon a pleasing treaty.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, directs us to substitute treatise for “treaty,” a change supported by “theme,” which immediately follows; but he recommends a more necessary emendation in the speech of Brutus, just afterwards, where the Tribune adverts to the fitness of honouring and advancing the hero for his services: he says,— “Which the rather We shall be blest to do, if he remember A kinder value of the people.” The scribe clearly misheard the word, and wrote “blest” for prest, i. e. ready—of perpetual occurrence in all writers of the time:— “Which the rather We shall be prest to do,” &c. Even the grudging Tribunes might declare themselves ready “to honour and advance the theme of their assembly,” but there seems no reason why they should state that they should be “blest” in doing so.

Note return to page 867 10109849P. 185. This scene is ill-printed in the folio, 1623, but much worse in the folio, 1632, where errors of all kinds are so numerous that the margin is filled with corrections in manuscript. It may be sufficient to mention that in the speech of Cominius, recounting the deeds of Coriolanus, the old corrector alters “trim'd with dying cries,” of the folio, 1632 (it is “tim'd with dying cries” in the folio, 1623) to “tun'd with dying cries,” which may be right; and “shunless defamy to “shunless destiny,” which was very likely derived from the earlier impression.

Note return to page 868 10109850P. 190. Many notes have been written upon the question of Coriolanus, thus represented in the folio, 1623:— “Why in this woolvish tongue should I stand here?” In the folio, 1632, “tongue” is altered to gown; but the poet's word was doubtless “togue,” for toga, mistaken by the compositor, and printed “tongue.” The difficulty has not arisen out of this substantive, but out of the epithet which precedes it, woolvish; and Johnson, Steevens, Ritson, Malone, &c., have all tried in vain to explain its meaning in the place where it occurs. It is nothing but a lapse by the printer, who, earlier in the play (p. 179) did not know what to make of “napless,” and called it Naples,—“the Naples vesture of humility:” here, again, he did not understand what he was putting in type, and therefore committed a singular, and hitherto inexplicable blunder. A manuscript note in the folio, 1632, sets all right, and offers a most acceptable emendation:— “Why in this woolless togue should I stand here, To beg of Hob and Dick?” &c. As the toga was “napless,” so it was woolless, an alteration for the better, that carries conviction on the very face of it. Are we to impute it merely to the sagacity of the early possessor of the folio, 1632, when nobody since his time has had any notion of the sort? or are we to suppose that he had in this instance, and in some others, a guide by which his speculations were assisted?

Note return to page 869 10109851P. 195. Pope's line respecting Censorinus, as one of the ancestors of Coriolanus, was not wanted, inasmuch as this portion of the speech of Brutus was struck out by the old corrector, possibly, because he saw the defect, and was not in a condition to remedy it. Nevertheless, something was at one time written in the margin, but it is so erased as not now to be legible.

Note return to page 870 10109852P. 201. Modern editors, since the time of Theobald, have properly corrected the first line of the speech of Coriolanus,— “O, good, but most unwise patricians!” which stands in the old copies, “O God! but most unwise,” &c.; but there are very important blunders in subsequent lines, which they have allowed to pass without remark. We will first, as usual, insert the text as it stands universally printed, and follow it by the excellent emendations contained in the folio, 1632:— “O, good, but most unwise patricians! why, You grave but reckless senators, have you thus Given Hydra here to choose an officer, That with his peremptory ‘shall,’ being but The horn and noise o' the monsters, wants not spirit To say, he'll turn your current in a ditch, And make your channel his? If he have power, Then vail your ignorance: if none, awake Your dangerous lenity.” In the above, besides the first,—God for “good,”—there are no fewer than five striking errors of the press, or perhaps of the scribe, for some of them are hardly to be imputed to the compositor. Trusting to the corrector of the folio, 1632, we ought hereafter to give the passage as follows:— “O, good, but most unwise patricians! why, You grave but reckless senators, have you thus Given Hydra leave to choose an officer, That with his peremptory ‘shall’ (being but The horn and noise of the monster) wants not spirit To say, he'll turn your current in a ditch, And make your channel his? If he have power, Then vail your impotence: if none, revoke Your dangerous bounty.” The meaning of the last portion of the quotation is, that if the Tribune have power, let the impotence (not “ignorance,” which is not the proper antithesis of power) of the senate submit to it; but if he have none, let the senate revoke the bounty by which such a perilous privilege had been conceded to the populace. The “lenity” of the patricians was not to be “awakened:” Coriolanus calls upon them to revoke the bounty which had caused them to relinquish a power properly belonging only to themselves. What the hero says afterwards is in entire consistency with this view of the passage:— “At once pluck out The multitudinous tongue: let them not lick The sweet which is their poison.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, therefore, informs us that the whole passage ought, hereafter, to be printed as above; and the faults of the received text are glaring enough, without supposing, with Johnson, that, farther on in the same speech, we ought to read “most palates” must palate, which the corrector does not require, and which he would, no doubt, have required, had it been necessary.

Note return to page 871 10109853P. 202. The grossness of the blunders just pointed out, will, in some degree, prepare us for others in the next speech by the same character, where he inveighs against those who had yielded to clamour in distributing corn gratis to the populace. The language of Shakespeare has been hitherto stated to be this:— “Th' accusation Which they have often made against the senate, All cause unborn, could never be the native Of our so frank donation. Well, what then? How shall this bosom multiplied digest The senate's courtesy?” Corrections in the folio, 1632, call upon us to read thus:— “Th' accusation Which they have often made against the senate, All cause unborn, could never be the motive Of our so frank donation. Well, what then? How shall this bisson multitude digest The senate's courtesy?” Monk Mason proposed motive for “native;” but “bosom multiplied,” a misprint most evident now it is pointed out, has always been retained in the text. It can never be reprinted; and is it too much to infer that the old corrector had somewhere seen or heard the above passage, and others, represented with undoubted improvement? On p. 173, we have had “bisson” printed besome, and here it is printed bosome: it is very clear that the compositor did not understand the meaning of the word, which, perhaps, was then becoming somewhat obsolete: this consideration can, however, afford him no excuse for converting “multitude” into multiplied.11Q1234

Note return to page 872 10109854P. 208. It ought to be remarked that in the subsequent extract,— “That our renowned Rome, whose gratitude Towards her deserved children is enroll'd,” &c., the passive participle is changed to the active,—“Towards her deserving children.” It may have been so recited at the time the corrections were made in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 873 10109855P. 211. A rather noticeable change is made by the old annotator in the entrance of Volumnia: in print, she is made to come in just before the Patrician's speech, “You do the nobler,” standing by and saying nothing, while Coriolanus speaks of her in the third person. A manuscript-emendation fixes her arrival on the scene, more naturally perhaps, at the words of Coriolanus, addressed expressly to her, “I talk of you,” &c. We may suppose that this arrangement represents the practice of our old stage in this respect. Her first speech begins, not “O, sir, sir, sir,” but “O, son, son, son,” which seems more proper.

Note return to page 874 10109856P. 212. On the same evidence, we here recover a line, which is certainly wanting in the old copies, since they leave the sense incomplete without it. It is in Volumnia's entreaty to her son,— “Pray be counsell'd. I have a heart as little apt as yours, But yet a brain, that leads my use of anger To better vantage.” To what was Volumnia's heart “as little apt” as that of Coriolanus? The insertion of a missing line (the absence of which has not hitherto been suspected) enables us to give the answer:— “I have a heart as little apt as yours To brook control without the use of anger, But yet a brain, that leads my use of anger To better vantage.” The line in Italics is written in a blank space, and a mark made to where it ought to come in. The compositor was, doubtless, misled by the recurrence of the same words at the ends of the two lines, and carelessly omitted the first. From whence, if not from some independent authority, whether heard or read, was this addition to the text derived? Nevertheless, a previous line in the folio, 1632, unquestionably misprinted, things being used for “thwartings” (a word excellently guessed by Theobald), is left imperfect in its meaning, as if it had escaped attention, a most unusual circumstance with the manuscript-corrector.

Note return to page 875 10109857P. 217. The following must be allowed to be a valuable emendation of a passage, which is thus given in every edition, ancient or recent:— “He hath been us'd Ever to conquer, and to have his worth Of contradiction.” Malone gravely says, that “to have his worth of contradiction,” means to have his pennyworth of it; but the whole figure here is taken from horsemanship. When a restive animal obtains his own way, he is said to have his mouth given to him: to give a horse his mouth, is to free him from restraint; therefore Brutus, speaking of Coriolanus and of his irritable spirit, remarks,— “He hath been us'd Ever to conquer, and to have his mouth Of contradiction: being once chaf'd, he cannot Be rein'd again to temperance.” The old printer again confounded m and w, and read mouth “worth.” The necessary letters are written in the margin of the folio, 1632, and struck through in the text.

Note return to page 876 10109858P. 219. There is certainly no play in the whole volume so badly printed as that before us; and passing over several strange blunders, such as through for “throng,” actions for “accents” (both corrected by Theobald), we arrive at one which may not be quite as glaring, but still must be pronounced an error of the press: it is where Coriolanus declares his contempt of death, rather than consent to purchase life by submission to the people:— “I would not buy Their mercy at the price of one fair word, Nor check my courage for what they can give, To have't with saying, good morrow.” It is most inconsistent with the noble character of the hero to represent him in this way applauding and vaunting his own “courage:” the old corrector writes carriage for “courage,” an easy mistake, the setting right of which is an evident improvement:— “Nor check my carriage for what they can give,” &c. The very same misprint has been pointed out, and remedied in the same way, in Henry VI., Part III., p. 292 of this volume.

Note return to page 877 10109859P. 222. The commentators have clearly not understood part of Coriolanus' address to his mother:— “Nay, mother, Where is your ancient courage? you were us'd To say, extremity was the trier of spirits; That common chances common men could bear; That, when the sea was calm, all boats alike Show'd mastership in floating; fortune's blows, When most struck home, being gentle wounded, craves A noble cunning.” Some editors have inserted warded for “wounded;” Johnson, on the other hand, insisted upon the text of the folios; but a slight change, which presupposes that the printer again mistook m and w, is vastly for the better. Coriolanus is distinguishing between the modes in which common men, and those of nobler faculties bear misfortunes; and, when his language is truly given, observes,— “Fortune's blows When most struck home, being gentle-minded craves A noble cunning.” That is, it requires a noble cunning for a man to be gentleminded, when fortune's blows are most struck home.

Note return to page 878 10109860P. 226. The suggestion of Steevens that, in the speech of the Volsce, “appeared” should be approved, is supported by the testimony of the old corrector, who also warrants the change, by the same commentator, on p. 229, of “my birth-place have I” to “my birth-place hate I.” In a previous line of the same speech,— “Whose hours, whose bed, whose meal, and exercise,” the old corrector has, “Whose house, whose bed,” &c., with some apparent fitness. The literal errors are here super-abundant in both folios, but they are multiplied in that of 1632.

Note return to page 879 10109861P. 236. Perhaps the following may be considered as belonging to that class: it is where the third Servant is speaking of the friends of Coriolanus, who do not dare to show themselves so “whilst he's in directitude.” The first Servant naturally asks, what is the meaning of “directitude?” and receives no answer, excepting by implication, derived from the supposition that Coriolanus will soon be again in prosperity, and surrounded by his supporters. “Directitude” is clearly a misprint for dejectitude,—a rather fine word, used by the third Servant to denote the disastrous condition of the affairs of Coriolanus, which might be just as unintelligible to the first Servant as “directitude.” The blunder must have been produced by the scribe having written deiectitude, with an i instead of a j. It has remained, however, “directitude,” from the earliest times to the present.

Note return to page 880 10109862P. 237. The first Servant, stating his preference of war to peace, says that war is “sprightly, waking (walking in the folios), audible, and full of vent.” Johnson tells us that “full of vent” means “full of rumour, full of materials for discourse.” “Full of vaunt,” says the old corrector, with much greater plausibility, full of deeds deserving to be vaunted.

Note return to page 881 10109863P. 240. On p. 201 we have seen god misprinted for “good;” and, in what follows, a marginal correction in the folio, 1632, shows that “good” has been misprinted for god. Brutus could hardly intend to call Marcius “good,” when adverting to his reported return; but he applies the word “god” to him in derision, as if Coriolanus were in a manner worshipped by a certain class of his admirers: Brutus asserts that the rumour of his return has been “Rais'd only, that the weaker sort may wish God Marcius home again.” Such is the emendation, which adds vastly to the force of the passage, and is most accordant with the character of the speaker; “good Marcius” is comparatively tame and unmeaning. Cominius soon afterwards, talking of Coriolanus, says, “He is their god,” &c.

Note return to page 882 10109864P. 242. The point of another passage appears, on the authority of the old corrector, to have been sacrificed to an error, where Menenius says to the Tribunes,— “You have made fair hands, You and your crafts; you have crafted fair.” We ought unquestionably to read handycrafts for “crafts,” and to print the lines as follows, both on account of the meaning and the metre;— “You have made fair hands; You and your handycrafts have crafted fair.” This change completes the defective line, and shows that Menenius uses the introductory expression, “You have made fair hands,” in order that he may follow it up by the contemptuous mention of handycrafts.

Note return to page 883 1010986511Q1235P. 245. The conclusion of the speech of Aufidius, where he is adverting to the manner in which high merits may be obscured, and even extinguished by the character and conduct of the possessor, has excited much comment. We print it first as the passage appears in the folio, 1623:— “So our virtue Lie in th' interpretation of the time, And power, unto itself most commendable, Hath not a tomb so evident as a chair T' extol what it hath done. One fire drives out one fire; one nail, one nail; Rights by rights fouler, strengths by strengths do fail.” The only difference between the folio, 1623, and that of 1632, is, that the latter corrects a grammatical blunder by printing “virtue” in the plural; but, besides this trifle, there appear to be several other mistakes, of more consequence, and we subjoin the text as amended in manuscript:— “So our virtues Live in the interpretation of the time, And power, in itself most commendable, Hath not a tomb so evident as a cheer T' extol what it hath done. One fire drives out one fire, one nail, one nail; Rights by rights suffer, strengths by strengths do fail.” Most editors have seen that “Rights by rights fouler” must be wrong, and have proposed various changes, though none so acceptable as that above given. However, the main difficulty has arisen out of the word “chair,” which the old corrector informs us should be cheer, in reference to the popular applause which usually follows great actions; and, by extolling what has been done, confounds the doer. The change of “lie” to live, in a preceding line, is countenanced by the word “tomb,” afterwards used; and the whole passage means, that virtues depend upon the construction put upon them by contemporaries, and that power, though praise-worthy, may be buried by the very applause that is heaped upon it, &c. The last couplet requires no elucidation, when suffer is substituted for “fouler,” an error that may, in part, have been occasioned by the letter f having been employed instead of the long s. It is difficult to say how far some independent authority may, or may not, have been used in this emendation.

Note return to page 884 10109866P. 250. In order to induce the guard to admit him to an interview with Coriolanus, Menenius says, as the lines have always been given,— “For I have ever verified my friends (Of whom he's chief) with all the size that verity Would without lapsing suffer.” This surely is little better than nonsense, the compositor having printed “verified” in the first line from his eye having caught “verity” in the second. We are, therefore, told to read thus:— “For I have ever magnified my friends,” &c.; and Menenius goes on to say, that he had magnified them to the utmost “size” that truth would allow.

Note return to page 885 10109867P. 254. Another instance in which the annotator of the folio, 1632, preferred the active to the passive participle occurs here, and where the one seems, to our ears, to answer the purpose quite as well as the other: it is in Volumnia's speech to her son,— “I kneel before thee, and unproperly Show duty, as mistaken all this while Between the child and parent;” mistaking is written in the margin for “mistaken” the word in all impressions, and requiring no alteration.

Note return to page 886 10109868P. 256. Shakespeare has always been hitherto represented as guilty of a grammatical blunder, little less than ridiculous:— “Making the mother, wife, and child to see The son, the husband, and the father tearing His country's bowels out. And to poor we, Thine enmity's most capital.” Here the punctuation of the old copies leads to the detection of two typographical errors, “to” for so, and “enmities” for enemies:— “And the father tearing His country's bowels out; and so poor we Thine enemies most capital.” i. e. and so poor we are thy most capital enemies. These small and natural changes at once remove the solecism.

Note return to page 887 10109869P. 258. The additions to the stage-directions in this play are not many, nor of much consequence; but we here encounter one that requires notice, because it serves to show the manner of the old actor of the part of Coriolanus at this point of the noblest scene, perhaps, in the whole range of dramatic literature. After Volumnia's grand and touching appeal, beginning, “Nay, go not from us thus,” we are informed in the ancient editions that Coriolanus holds her by the hand silent; and the following descriptive addition is made in manuscript, long, and self-struggling. After this protracted strife, which shook the whole fabric of the hero, he yields, with the exclamation,— “O mother, mother! What have you done?” &c.

Note return to page 888 10109870P. 263. An alteration which can hardly be subject to doubt or dispute, occurs where Aufidius is descanting on the manner in which he had “served the designments” of Coriolanus to his own injury: the passage in all editions has stood as follows:— “Serv'd his designments In mine own person; holp to reap the fame Which he did end all his.” Rowe printed make for “end,” and he was followed by several editors, who did not see how sense could be extracted from “end.” Shakespeare is here only using a metaphor which he has often employed before, and it is obvious from the context that for “end” we ought to read ear, which means, in its derivation as well as in its use, to plough: therefore, when Aufidius says that he had “Holp to reap the fame Which he did ear all his;” he means that Coriolanus had ploughed the ground, intending to reap a crop of fame, which Aufidius had assisted him to harvest. The use of the word “reap” proves what was in the mind of the poet. It is needless to enumerate the places where Shakespeare employs the verb, to ear, in the sense of to plough.

Note return to page 889 10109871P. 266. It is a mistake, in note 7 on this page, to state that Malone (Shakespeare, by Boswell, xiv. p. 225) reads voices: he prints it Volces, which is strictly right, although all the old copies have Volscians. The folio, 1632, like that of 1623, has, “flattered your Volscians in Coriolus;” but the corrector of the former has altered “flatter'd” to flutter'd, by striking out the a, and placing u in the margin. Flutter'd is the word in the folio, 1664, and so it has continued ever since: “Volcians” is altered to Volces in no old copy. Lower down, where All People is the prefix to various exclamations by different citizens against Coriolanus, the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, are placed in manuscript in the margin to show that the speeches, “He killed my son—my daughter—he killed my cousin Marcus—he killed my father,” were uttered by different people, whose families Coriolanus was charged with having thinned.

Note return to page 890 10109872P. 267. In the old impressions, when the Conspirators assail Coriolanus and kill him, the stage-direction is, “Draw both the Conspirators, and kill Martius; but we have already seen Aufidius instructing three Conspirators. Perhaps, in the economy of our old stage, only two were so employed at the time the hero was actually struck, and that the actor, who had played the third Conspirator on p. 264, had other duties to perform in the busy last scene of the drama. We have before said that the stage-directions are little added to or altered in this play; but, at the very close, some words are subjoined which require notice: the old printed stage-direction is, Exeunt bearing the body of Martius. A dead march sounded; to which the following words are appended in manuscript—whiles they leave the stage, marching round: the dead march was, therefore, continued to be played, until the whole procession had passed round the stage, in order, doubtless, to render the ceremonial more distinct and impressive. This, we believe, is a traditional practice, which has ever since been continued.

Note return to page 891 10109873P. 275. There can be no difficulty in admitting the subsequent emendation of an evident misprint near the opening of this play, where Bassianus says,— “Keep then this passage to the Capitol, And suffer not dishonour to approach Th' imperial seat, to virtue consecrate, To justice, continence, and nobility.” There is no reason why the Capitol should be said to be consecrate to “continence,” especially when, in the preceding line, it is stated to be consecrate to “virtue:” the corrector of the folio, 1632, therefore, alters the last line thus:— “To justice, conscience, and nobility.” Besides, “continence,” read as a tri-syllable, is too much for the verse.

Note return to page 892 10109874P. 279. Rhymes, whether lost by a change in the practice of the stage, by carelessness of recitation, copying, printing, or otherwise, are restored in various parts of this tragedy: the earliest instance of the kind occurs at the end of one of the speeches of Titus, where he tells Tamora that her son must be slain as a sacrifice for his dead sons; the rhyme seems so inevitable, that we can hardly suppose it relinguished excepting by design:— “To this your son is mark'd; and die he must To appease their groaning shadows that are dust.” The printed copies poorly read “gone” for dust.

Note return to page 893 10109875P. 282. When the people wish to elect Titus for their Emperor, he declines on account of age and infirmity:— “What! should I don this robe, and trouble you? Be chosen with proclamations to-day, To-morrow yield up rule, resign my life, And set abroad new business for you all.” “Proclamations” may be right, but acclamations is the word written in the margin instead of it; and for “set abroad,” the more natural reading is set abroach, which is also supplied in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 894 10109876P. 288. We have here a proof that the old corrector may have resorted to the quarto copies of this play, where only, and not in the folios, in the following line,— “That slew himself, and wise Laertes' son,” the epithet “wise” is found. It is possible, however, that the necessary word was obtained from recitation, or even from some independent authority, written or printed. Some of the changes in this play could scarcely have been made without some such aid.

Note return to page 895 10109877P. 297. When Aaron is prompting Chiron and Demetrius to ravish Lavinia, he tells them that they may safely do it in the forest:— “The woods are ruthless, dreadful, deaf, and dull.” To say that the woods are “dreadful,” seems the very opposite of what is meant: they were pitiless, and discovery or opposition were not to be dreaded; we are, therefore, told to read,— “The woods are ruthless, dreadless, deaf, and dull.”

Note return to page 896 10109878P. 297. In the opening of this scene, we meet with one of those passages to which the rhymes have been elaborately restored, where, from the nature of the description, they seem natural, and to which we may feel confident they at one time belonged. The use of the phrase, “the hunt is up,” in the outset, would almost appear to call for them, especially in a drama of the age to which “Titus Andronicus” must be assigned. It is needless to quote the lines as given in all editions, but we subjoin them with the manuscript-emendations, as they occur in the folio, 1632:— “The hunt is up, the morn is bright and gay,   The fields are fragrant and the woods are wide, Uncouple here, and let us make a bay,   And wake the emperor and his lovely bride, And rouse the prince and sing a hunter's round, That all the court may echo with the sound. Sons, let it be your charge, and so will I, To attend the emperor's person carefully: I have been troubled in my sleep this night, But dawning day brought comfort and delight.” Nothing can well read more easily, naturally, or harmoniously. The first six lines form a stanza, and such were not uncommonly introduced by Shakespeare in his earlier plays, instances being found in “Love's Labour's Lost,” &c. To say that “the morn is bright and grey,” as in the old copies, reads a little contradictorily, and the word gay is, we see, substituted as that of the poet. How far any of these changes were supported by authority, must remain a question; at least we are not in a condition to answer it. An addition to the old stage-direction, wind horns, informs us that The hunt is up was here sung by the performers.

Note return to page 897 10109879P. 300. A mere misprint, pointed out by the old corrector, has been the occasion of notes by Heath, Steevens, Malone, and Boswell, upon the lines,— “Thy temples should be planted presently, With horns, as were Actæons; and the hounds Should drive upon thy new transformed limbs.” Heath proposed thrive for “drive,” and Steevens was for preserving the old word, which, nevertheless, all admitted could scarcely be right. Now, as everybody knows that Actæon was devoured by his own dogs, it is singular that the blunder was never yet guessed at by any commentator: it is,— “Should dine upon thy new transformed limbs.”

Note return to page 898 10109880P. 303. Lavinia tells Chiron and Tamora,— “The lion, mov'd with pity, did endure To have his princely paws par'd all away.” It was not his “paws,” but his claws, that he endured to be pared away:— “To have his princely claws par'd all away.” It is not likely that pity would have allowed the beast to remain quiet, while his “paws” were “pared all away.”

Note return to page 899 10109881P. 310. There can hardly be a doubt, unless we suppose Shakespeare to have left the line purposely incomplete, that the ensuing addition to an imperfect hemistich was justified by some authority with which the corrector of the folio, 1632, was acquainted, though now lost. Marcus is referring to the music Lavinia sang to the lute before her tongue was cut out:— “Or had he heard the heavenly harmony, Which that sweet tongue hath made in minstrelsy, He would have dropp'd his knife,” &c.

Note return to page 900 10109882P. 321. When Titus Andronicus sends his son to Lucius to raise an army among the Goths, he ends his speech with a couplet rhyming with the same word:— “And, if you love me, as I think you do, Let's kiss and part, for we have much to do.” This was probably a corruption, for the old corrector shows how easy it was to avoid the awkwardness:— “And, if you love me, as I think 'tis true, Let's kiss and part, for we have much to do.” It does not require any very strong faith to believe that this must have been the original reading.

Note return to page 901 10109883P. 323. That part of the scene which relates to the killing of the fly is erased; and the blunder at the end, where seven lines are given to Marcus, is set right by assigning the five last to Andronicus. Copies of the folio, 1623, differ in this respect; in the folio, 1632, the prefix And, for Andronicus, is printed only as if it were the conjunction.

Note return to page 902 10109884P. 331. When the Nurse brings to Aaron the black child of the empress, she says,— “Here is the babe, as loathsome as a toad Among the fairest breeders of our clime.” The child was not a “breeder,” but a burden, and so it stands amended in the folio, 1632:— “Among the fairest burdens of our clime.”

Note return to page 903 10109885P. 334. For the line as we find it in all the old copies,— “Not far, one Muliteus my countryman,” the correction is,— “Not far hence Muli lives, my countryman.” Steevens conjectured that “Muli lives” had been corrupted to Muliteus, and he was right; but hence appears also to have been misprinted one: the latter change is, however, by any means required.11Q1236 Lower down, for the awkward expression,— “This done, see that you take no longer days,” the old corrector tells us to substitute,— “This, done, see that you make no long delays.” This, too, cannot be said to be a necessary change, but it is clearly an advantageous one, and most likely what the author wrote.

Note return to page 904 10109886P. 336. This scene is made part of the preceding by the manuscript-corrector; and very possibly it was so, when the play was acted of old, in order to avoid too frequent changes of the kind. It is also much shortened by the erasure of the two long passages, in which Andronicus shows his distraction, and Publius humours it.

Note return to page 905 10109887P. 339. Rowe amended the following line by the awkward insertion of “as do” in the middle of it:— “My lords, you know, as do the mightful gods;” but the emendation in the folio, 1632, shows that words had not dropped out in the middle of the line, which was not so likely, but at the end of it, and they were, of course, not what Rowe conjectured:— “My lords, you know, the mightful gods no less.”

Note return to page 906 10109888P. 345. There can be no doubt, on the evidence of the old corrector of the folio, 1632, that the words, “Get me a ladder,” belong to Lucius and not to Aaron, whose speech begins with, “Lucius, save the child.” A manuscript stage-direction proves that a ladder was brought, and that the Moor made all his subsequent speeches standing upon it. Before he ascends it, he tells the Goths that he will disclose “Complots of mischief, treason, villainies, Ruthful to hear, yet piteously perform'd:” “Piteously perform'd” must be the very reverse of what he means, and there can be no hesitation in printing the last line in future, as we are instructed by an emendation,— “Ruthful to hear, despiteously perform'd.”

Note return to page 907 10109889P. 349. The old introduction to this scene is, Enter Tamora and her two Sons disguised; and in manuscript we are informed that the characters they assumed were those of Revenge, Rape, and Murder. Andronicus, when they call him, opens his study door above, i. e. in the balcony over the back of the stage, from whence he comes down, and joins them below, to converse about vengeance for the sufferings of himself and the rest of the Andronici. Such appears to have been the mode in which the scene was managed in the time of the corrector, and, perhaps, from the first production of the tragedy.

Note return to page 908 10109890P. 355. When Andronicus cuts the throats of Demetrius and Chiron, Lavinia catcheth the blood in a basin she had procured: there seems little occasion for this addition to the usual stage-direction, as we are previously told the part she is to play in the transaction; but the writer of the manuscript notes was anxious to be most explicit.

Note return to page 909 10109891P. 358. There is a remarkable discordance between the quartos and folios regarding the speech beginning,— “Lest Rome herself be bane unto herself:” the quartos strangely assign it to a Roman Lord; and the folios, most absurdly, to a Goth. It seems evident from what precedes, where Marcus says,— “O! let me teach you how to knit again,” &c., that the whole belongs to him; and the corrector of the folio, 1632, has, therefore, put his pen through the prefix Goth, and makes the next twenty-three lines run on as the continuation of what Marcus delivers.

Note return to page 910 10109892P. 362. According to the old emendator, rhymes were numerous towards the close of this play. Lucius, speaking of his father, says to his young son,— “Shed yet some small drops from thy tender spring, Because kind nature doth require it so: Friends should associate friends in grief and woe. Bid him farewell; commit him to the grave; Do him that kindness, and take leave of him.” “And take leave of him,” besides marring the rhyming couplet, sounds very tamely and weakly, and is, in another form, a mere repetition of “Bid him farewell,” of the preceding line. We may, therefore, on all accounts, be prepared to acquiesce in the subsequent manuscript-emendation:— “Bid him farewell; commit him to the grave; Do him that kindness—all that he can have.” It will excite surprise how rhymes like these escaped: they must have been more impressed upon the memory of the actor; and, even if we suppose them to have been abandoned, on account of the advance made by blank-verse on the stage, that advance had hardly occurred when “Titus Andronicus” was first printed. Moreover, in the instance before us, and in others, the original lines (supposing them to have been such) were so much better adapted to the occasion, and to the person who pronounced them.11Q1237

Note return to page 911 10109893P. 375. A manuscript-emendation in the folio, 1632, makes it certain that “civil,” in the following portion of Sampson's speech, is a misprint:—“When I have fought with the men, I will be civil with the maids; I will cut off their heads.” “Civil” is struck out, and cruel inserted instead of it. Malone rightly preferred cruel.

Note return to page 912 10109894P. 378. The corrected folio, 1632, gives one line differently from any other authority: it is a reading which may be right, but which ought not, perhaps, to have weight enough to induce us to alter the received and very intelligible text. It is met with in the Prince's reproof of Montague and Capulet for allowing the quarrels of their followers to disturb the public peace; the universal reading has been,— “Three civil brawls, bred of an airy word,” &c. For “ayery word” (so spelt in the folios) the substitution is “angry word.”

Note return to page 913 10109895P. 382. Romeo, describing love, remarks,— “Love is a smoke, made with the fume of sighs; Being purg'd, a fire sparkling in lovers' eyes.” Johnson, Steevens, Reed, and others, have contended that “purg'd” cannot have been the poet's language; and they suggest urg'd, in the sense of excited. This emendation might answer the purpose, if no better were offered, but in the margin of the folio, 1632, we are told to substitute a word that exactly belongs to the place, and that might be easily misread “purg'd” by the printer:— “Being puff'd, a fire sparkling in lovers' eyes.” Every body is aware how a fire sometimes sparkles in the eyes of those who blow it with their breath: the smoke is first “made” by the gentle “fume of sighs,” and then caused to sparkle by being violently puffed by the lover's breath. If this emendation be capable of dispute, that in a line at the top of the next page cannot be doubted, since it accords, almost exactly, with the old copies, and obviously gives the sense of the author. Romeo is speaking of Rosaline,— “She hath Dian's wit, And in strong proof of chastity well arm'd, From love's weak childish bow she lives unharm'd.” Such has always been the reading since the time of Rowe; but the quarto, 1597, and the folios have,— “From loves weak childish bow she lives uncharm'd.” “Unharm'd” may here again be said to answer the purpose, by giving a clear meaning; but the alteration required by the corrector of the folio, 1632, is only of a single letter, and a much more poetical turn is given to the thought:— “She hath Dian's wit, And in strong proof of chastity well arm'd, From love's weak childish bow she lives encharm'd.” That is to say, she was magically encharmed from love's bow by chastity. Nobody will deny that “unharm'd” is comparatively flat, poor, and insignificant.

Note return to page 914 10109896P. 384. The line, which in the folios is printed,— “And too soon marr'd are those so early made,” had been given in the quartos,— “And too soon marr'd are those so early married;” and that should seem to be the true proverbial word, for the old corrector adopts it, and expunges “made.”

Note return to page 915 10109897P. 395. He makes three emendations in Mercutio's description of Queen Mab, all deserving notice, if not adoption: the first is the most singular, where, of the Fairy's wagoner, it is said, in the folio, 1623, that he is not half so big as a worm,— “Prick'd from the lazy finger of a man;” and in the folio, 1632,— “Prick'd from the lazy finger of a woman;” while in the quarto, 1597, only, it stands,— “Pick'd from the lazy finger of a maid.” The modern reading has been compounded of both:— “Prick'd from the lazy finger of a maid.” From whence the writer of the manuscript note in the folio, 1632, derived his information we know not, but he presents us with a fifth variety:— “Pick'd from the lazy finger of a milk-maid.” As might be expected, seven lines lower, he alters countries knees, of the same edition, to “courtiers' knees,” and cursies to “courtesies;” but his emendation of the last line of the page,— “Sometime she gallops o'er a courtier's nose,” merits most attention. It has been properly objected that this is the second time the poet has introduced “courtiers” into the description. To avoid this, Pope read “lawyer's nose,” adopting in part the “lawyers lap” of the quarto, 1597: but while shunning one defect, he introduced another; for though the double mention of “courtiers” is thus remedied, it occasions a double mention of “lawyers.” In what way, then, does the old corrector take upon himself to decide the question? He treats the second “courtiers” as a misprint for a word which, when carelessly written, is not very dissimilar:— “Sometime she gallops o'er a counsellor's nose,” And then he dreams of smelling out a suit.” That counsellors, and their interest in suits at court, should thus be ridiculed, cannot be thought unnatural. The third emendation is in the line,— “And bakes the elf-locks in foul sluttish hairs,” which is changed, more questionably and unpoetically, to “And makes the elf-locks,” &c.

Note return to page 916 10109898P. 397. The quarto, 1597, when the wind is spoken of, alone has,— “Turning his face to the dew-dropping south:” it is altered in all other old impressions to “Turning his side to the dew-dropping south;” and by the old corrector, more than plausibly, to “Turning his tide to the dew-dropping south.” The modern reading has been, “Turning his face,” &c.; but as the quarto, 1597, has a decided mistake in the preceding line, we may receive “Turning his tide” as Shakespeare's language, though tide may more fitly and strictly belong to water than to wind.

Note return to page 917 10109899P. 404. The Acts and Scenes (excepting the first) are not marked in any of the old impressions; and by a manuscript note in the folio, 1632, Act II. is made to begin before, and not after the Chorus. Such was, perhaps, the ancient arrangement, but the point, though requiring notice, is one of comparatively little consequence. The words in this page, “Nay, I'll conjure too,” assigned in all the quartos and folios to Benvolio, clearly belong to Mercutio, and the prefix is, therefore, altered in manuscript in the edition of 1632. The blunder has, we think, never been repeated in modern times.

Note return to page 918 10109900P. 406. Romeo, speaking of the moon, and apostrophising Juliet, tells her,— “Be not her maid, since she is envious; Her vestal livery is but sick and green, And none but fools do wear it.” Here we meet in the folio, 1632, with an emendation that calls for explanation:— “Her vestal livery is but white and green, And none but fools do wear it.” The compositor perhaps caught “sick” from a line above, where Romeo describes the moon as “sick and pale;” “white and green” must be the true reading, as is proved by what follows, where it is said that it was worn by “none but fools.” “White and green” had been the royal livery in the reign of Henry VIII., but Elizabeth changed it to scarlet and black; and although motley was the ordinary dress of fools and jesters, it is capable of proof that, earlier than the time of Shakespeare, the fools and jesters of the court (and perhaps some others) were still dressed in “white and green:” thus it became proverbially the livery of fools. Will Summer (who lived until 1560, and was buried at Shoreditch on the 15th June in that year) wore “white and green,” and the circumstance is thus mentioned in “Certain Edicts of Parliament,” at the end of the edition of Sir Thomas Overbury's “Wife,” in 1614:—“Item, no fellow shall begin to argue with a woman, &c., unless he wear white for William, and green for Summer”—that is, unless he be a fool, like Will Summer. Again, in Fox's “Acts and Monuments,” iii. 114, a story is told of a person, who, noticing the colours in which St. John had been painted by the Papists in St. Paul's, said, “I hope ye be but a Summer's bird, in that ye be dressed in white and green.”. It appears also that Skelton (Works by Dyce, I. xii. and 128), who boasts of “the habit the king gave” him, wore “white and green,” because he was the royal jester, though he also assumed the rank of laureat. In the time of Shakespeare it may have been discontinued as the dress even of court-fools, but it seems to have been traditionally so considered; and on this account it is stated by him that “none but fools do wear it.”

Note return to page 919 10109901P. 407. For “lazy-pacing clouds,” the old corrector (in conformity with the suggestion in note 8) converts lazy-puffing of the folios into lazy-passing; and gives the line,— “Thou art thyself though not a Montague,” in the following manner, though, perhaps, properly punctuated, the change is not necessary:— “Thou art thyself, although a Montague.” He erases “belonging to a man,” not being aware, possibly, of the omission of the preceding words, “Nor any other part,” which are found in the quarto, 1597. This circumstance looks as if he had not referred to that edition.

Note return to page 920 10109902P. 410. On the other hand, we here find him inserting one word from all the quartos, and substituting another, met with only in the quarto, 1597: the folios have,— “Lady, by yonder moon I vow;” obviously incomplete from the omission of “blessed” before “moon,” which is in every quarto; but the quarto, 1597, alone gives the whole line as follows:— “Lady, by yonder blessed moon I swear;” “Swear” is in no other impression, yet the old corrector not merely inserts “blessed,” but erases “vow,” and puts swear in the place of it: swear is clearly right, as we learn from Juliet's reply. In these cases it appears most probable, that the writer of the manuscript-emendations was guided by the manner in which he heard the text repeated on the stage.

Note return to page 921 10109903P. 414. The last lines of Romeo's last speech in this scene as given in the folio, 1632, are erased. Four of them, in fact, belong to Friar Laurence, in the opening of Scene III., but as the sense is complete without them, they might not be recited, and the old corrector, therefore, takes no farther notice of them: he makes the speech of the Friar begin with,— “Now, ere the sun advance his burning eye.”

Note return to page 922 10109904P. 415. A single letter makes an important difference in the following:— “But where unbruised youth, with unstuff'd brain, Doth couch his limbs, there golden sleep doth reign.” Friar Laurence is drawing a contrast between the wakefulness of careful age, and the calm sleep of untroubled youth: the epithet “unbruised” has, therefore, little propriety, and we are instructed to amend the line thus:— “But where unbusied youth, with unstuff'd brain,” &c. This comes, we apprehend, within the class of extremely plausible emendations.11Q1238

Note return to page 923 10109905P. 424. The Nurse says to Romeo, regarding Juliet, as the text has always stood:—“And, therefore, if you should deal double with her, truly, it were an ill thing to be offered to any gentlewoman, and very weak dealing.” We can easily believe that “weak” is here not the proper epithet, and a manuscript marginal note warrants in altering it to “and very wicked dealing.” The copyist, probably, misheard; and in a case like this we certainly might venture to alter the defective text.11Q1239

Note return to page 924 10109906P. 428. The Nurse brings tidings that Romeo is waiting for Juliet, in order to be married at the cell of Friar Laurence, and says,— “Now comes the wanton blood up in your cheeks, They'll be in scarlet straight at any news. Hie you to church,” &c. It was not “at any news” that Juliet's cheeks would be in scarlet, but at the particular and joyful tidings brought by the Nurse, who, according to an emendation in the folio, 1632, tells her,— “Now comes the wanton blood up in your cheeks, They'll be in scarlet straightway at my news.”

Note return to page 925 10109907P. 435. It may be sufficient to state that a correction in the folio, 1632, converts “fire and fury,” of the later quartos and folios, into “fire-eyed fury,” of the quarto, 1597. On a previous page (432), the same course has been taken with the words, “Romeo, the hate I bear thee,” instead of “the love I bear thee.” Did the corrector derive these emendations from the quarto, 1597, or from more accurate recitation of the text than as it appears in the folios?

Note return to page 926 10109908P. 437. We may conjecture that such was the case, from an addition to the text which we here meet with, and which is necessary for the completion of a line, but is not contained in any known copy, quarto or folio. It is in Benvolio's narrative of the fatal encounter between Mercutio and Tybalt: of the former, he says,— “And with a martial scorn, with one hand beats Cold death aside, and with the other sends It back to Tybalt, whose dexterity Retorts it. Romeo he cries aloud ‘Hold friends! friends part!’” &c. Here it is certain that the line,— “Retorts it. Romeo he cries aloud,” is abridged of a syllable, which is supplied in manuscript:— “Retorts it home. Romeo he cries aloud,” &c. On the next page we have “hate's proceeding,” instead of “heart's proceeding, although the quarto, 1597, is the only copy of the play which reads “hate's proceeding.”

Note return to page 927 10109909P. 439. The line of Juliet's speech, as usually printed,— “That run-away's eyes may wink,” &c., has always been a stumbling-block, and perhaps no emendation can be declared perfectly satisfactory. The change proposed by the corrector of the folio, 1632, at all events makes very clear sense out of the passage, although it may still remain a question, whether that sense be the sense of the poet? another subsidiary question will be, how so elaborate a misprint could have been made out of so simple and common a word? He gives the whole passage thus:— “Spread thy close curtain, love-performing night, That enemies' eyes may wink, and Romeo Leap to these arms untalk'd of and unseen.” In the margin of the folio, 1632, enemies is spelt enimyes; but the letters are, perhaps, too few to have been mistaken for run-awaies. At the same time it seems extremely natural that Juliet should wish the eyes of enemies to be closed, in order that they might not see Romeo leap to her arms, and talk of it afterwards. The Capulets were, of course, the enemies to whom she must particularly refer.11Q1240

Note return to page 928 10109910P. 453. We here encounter a comparatively insignificant error, which is injurious to a very beautiful passage; it is in the parting scene of Romeo and Juliet:— “I'll say, yon grey is not the morning's eye, 'Tis but the pale reflex of Cynthia's brow.” Cynthia's “brow” would not occasion a “pale reflex,” and by the omission of one letter the light is at once cleared:— “'Tis but the pale reflex of Cynthia's bow.”

Note return to page 929 10109911P. 457. The old corrector informs us that the words, “These are news indeed!” do not belong to Juliet, but to her Mother, as seems highly probable: it is where Juliet has directly refused to marry Paris, and Lady Capulet exclaims,— “These are news indeed! Here comes your father; tell him so yourself,” &c. This judicious arrangement is not in accordance with any known authority; and just above, “I swear” is erased, perhaps, as not adding to the force of Juliet's expression, hardly consistent with the delicacy of her character, and certainly destructive to the measure.

Note return to page 930 10109912P. 462. In Henry VIII. (p. 319) we have seen way printed for “sway;” and here we have “sway” printed for way. Paris remarks,— “Now, sir, her father counts it dangerous, That she doth give her sorrow so much sway.” “So much way” is the correction in the margin of the folio, 1632; but the text may, perhaps, stand without change, although the corruption is a very easy one.

Note return to page 931 10109913P. 468. When Juliet says, speaking of Paris, that she had met him,— “And gave him what becomed love I might,” the corrector of the folio, 1632, alters “becomed,” the passive, to becoming, the active participle: he has, as the reader is aware, pursued the same course in other places.

Note return to page 932 10109914P. 479. It is to be noted, that, contrary to his usual practice, the old corrector adds nothing to Peter's quotation from the poem by Edwards, although it is certainly defective, and is shown to be so by the quarto, 1597, where it is more completely given. He, however, underscores it with a pen, as he always does when Shakespeare employs any thing derived from another author. The whole of this part of the scene is struck out, perhaps as needless to the performance; and it was most likely inserted by Shakespeare to give more importance to the character of Peter, and to afford William Kemp, who played it, an opportunity of exciting the laughter of the audience. When Kemp was gone, it was, perhaps, no longer wanted.11Q1241

Note return to page 933 10109915P. 480. The first line of this act has hitherto presented a serious difficulty. Romeo says,— “If I may trust the flattering truth of sleep, My dreams presage some joyful news at hand.” Nobody has been able at all satisfactorily to explain the expression, “flattering truth,” since “truth” cannot flatter; and Malone, not liking Johnson's interpretation, preferred what is to the full as unintelligible, the text of the quarto, 1597—“the flattering eye of sleep.” The real truth (not the “flattering truth”) seems to be, that the old compositor was confounded between “trust,” in the first part of the line, and death near the end of it, and printed a word which he compounded of the beginning of the one word, and of the end of the other. Sleep is often resembled to death, and death to sleep; and when Romeo observes, as the correction in the folio, 1632, warrants us in giving the passage,— “If I may trust the flattering death of sleep;” he calls it “the flattering death of sleep” on account of the dream of joyful news from which he had awaked: during this “flattering death of sleep,” he had dreamed of Juliet, and of her revival of him by the warmth of her kisses. Two lines lower, the folio, 1623, has a remarkable corruption,— “And all thisan day an vccustom'd spirit,” which the folio, 1632, prints, in order to remedy the defect,— “And all this winged unaccustom'd spirit.” Whence it obtained winged does not appear, but the true reading has been the common text,— “And, all this day, an unaccustom'd spirit:” to which the folio, 1632, is amended in manuscript. On the next page, “Then, I deny you, stars,” is also properly altered to “Then, I defy you, stars.”

Note return to page 934 10109916P. 485. The corrector makes a change, not authorised by any extant authority, in the speech of the Page attending Paris, whom his master has told to lie all along on the ground under some yew-trees: the line, as always printed, is,— “I am almost afraid to stand alone;” but Paris has expressly ordered him to lie down, with his ear close to the ground, that he might listen: therefore, the following alteration seems most proper, and is, doubtless, what the poet wrote:— “I am almost afraid to stay alone Here in the churchyard; yet I will adventure.”

Note return to page 935 10109917P. 486. Numerous stage-directions are written in the margins of the folio, 1632. In this scene, Romeo's Man (“Peter” is erased) enters with a torch; and we are previously informed that the Monument of the Capulets, or some stage-property to represent it, is seen by the audience, and that Paris brings with him a basket of flowers. When he and Romeo fight, Paris falls, and Romeo puts him in the monument. Printed stage-directions are entirely wanting, and no note is even made when Romeo drinks the poison, or dies. These, and others in subsequent parts of the tragedy, are supplied.

Note return to page 936 10109918P. 489. The words “Shall I believe,” which are mere surplusage, are struck out, as well as the whole passage, obviously foisted in by some strange mistake, beginning, “Come, lie thou in my arms,” and ending, “Depart again.”

Note return to page 937 10109919P. 494. The Prince of Verona, in the midst of the confusion and dismay, tells the people,— “Seal up the mouth of outrage for a while, Till we can clear these ambiguities.” Perhaps “outrage” is to be taken in the general sense of disturbance; but the manuscript-corrector gives the word differently,— “Seal up the mouth of outcry for a while.” The necessity for this change is not very apparent; but, nevertheless, Lady Capulet has exclaimed on entering,— “O! the people in the street cry Romeo, Some Juliet, and some Paris; and all run With open outcry toward our monument.”

Note return to page 938 10109920P. 497. The last emendation in this play certainly looks as much like the exercise of taste on the part of the old corrector as any alteration hitherto noticed: it is where old Montague declares his intention to raise a statue of Juliet “in pure gold:”— “There shall no figure at such rate be set, As that of true and faithful Juliet.” The words “true and faithful” are indisputably tautologous, and it is not unlikely that Shakespeare left the last line as we read it with the change introduced in the margin of the folio, 1632:— “As that of fair and faithful Juliet.” We can suppose “true and faithful,” a corruption introduced on the frequent repetition of this popular performance, although the alliteration of “fair and faithful” may seem more impressive upon the memory. We are previously told, in manuscript, that the heads of the two hostile houses shake hands over the dead bodies of their children.

Note return to page 939 10109921P. 506. After giving the obviously corrupt passage,— “Our poesy is as a gown, which uses From whence 'tis nourished,” in this manner, as indeed Pope recommended, “Our poesy is as a gum, which issues From where 'tis nourished,” the old corrector of the folio, 1632, puts his pen through the rest of the Poet's speech, excepting the final question, “What have you there?” This is certainly an easy method of getting over a difficulty; but, perhaps, the writer of the emendation here had no other. Johnson suggested oozes for “uses,” which is, perhaps, hardly as good as “issues,” with reference to the process of poetical composition; and Shakespeare no where else employs ooze as a verb, and whenever it occurs as a substantive it is spelt, in the old copies, ooze, and never use.

Note return to page 940 10109922P. 507. It seems improbable that Shakespeare, who, like other dramatists of his day, cared little about representing correctly the customs of the time or country in which he laid his scene, should make the Poet speak thus of the new work he was about to present to Timon:— “My free drift Halts not particularly, but moves itself In a wide sea of wax.” Why “in a wide sea of wax?” Admitting that not only the ancients, but that the English, at a very early date, wrote upon waxen tablets (and such is the forced explanation of Hanmer, Steevens, and Malone), it would scarcely be understood by popular audiences before whom this drama was originally acted. “Wax,” of old, was commonly spelt waxe (although it is “wax” in the folios), and confiding, as we are disposed to do, in a representation in the margin of the folio, 1632, the compositor must have read “waxe” for a word not very dissimilar in form, but much more appropriate and intelligible:— “My free drift Halts not particularly, but moves itself In a wide sea of verse.” The Poet's work was, of course, in verse, and there is no apparent reason why Shakespeare should not have employed that word instead of “wax,” which looks something like a sort of pedantry, of which he would certainly be the last to be guilty.

Note return to page 941 10109923P. 513. The following answer by Apemantus has produced much dispute:— “That I had no angry wit to be a lord.” It is introduced as follows: Apemantus exclaims,— “Heavens, that I were a lord! Tim. What would'st do then, Apemantus? Apem. Even as Apemantus does now; hate a lord with my heart. Tim. What, thyself? Apem. Ay. Tim. Wherefore? Apem. That I had no angry wit to be a lord.” Though a meaning, as Johnson says, may be extracted from these last words, yet nearly all editors have agreed that some corruption has crept into the text. Warburton proposed, “That I had so hungry a wit to be a lord;” and Monk Mason, “That I had an angry wish to be a lord.” The restoration offered in the folio, 1632, is the same as parts of both these suggestions, and at once renders the sense evident—“That I had so hungry a wish to be a lord.” Apemantus would hate himself for having entertained so strong a desire to be a lord. It thus seems that Warburton and Monk Mason were both right, and yet both wrong.

Note return to page 942 10109924P. 518. There appears to be a remarkable lapse by the printer in the four lines which precede Apemantus' grace, where, during the feast, he takes a cup of water in his hand, and says,— “Here's that, which is too weak to be a sinner, Honest water, which ne'er left man i' the mire: This and my food are equals, there's no odds; Feasts are too proud to give thanks to the gods.” These lines are introduced by prose, and it can hardly be doubted, on reading them, that they were intended for two rhyming couplets. Apemantus is adverting to the intoxication which follows drinking strong wines and ardent spirits, and contrasting “honest water” with them; and we may feel assured that the two first lines ought to be printed hereafter as they are made to run by the old corrector:— “Here's that, which is too weak to be a fire, Honest water, which ne'er left man i' the mire.” Water was too weak to possess the fiery and intoxicating property of wine, which often “left man in the mire.” How fire came to be misprinted “sinner,” cannot be easily explained; but perhaps the long s and the f had something to do with the blunder.

Note return to page 943 10109925P. 527. Flavius, Timon's Steward, lamenting over his master's lavish and thoughtless expenditure, as the text has always stood, says of him that he “Takes no account How things go from him, nor resumes no care Of what is to continue. Never mind Was to be so unwise, to be so kind.” This can hardly be right: “nor resume no care,” as it stands in the folios, is a very uncouth, even if an allowable phrase, and the last line reads still more objectionably. Two valuable manuscript changes are made which remove all ground of complaint:— “Takes no account How things go from him; no reserve; no care Of what is to continue. Never mind Was surely so unwise, to be so kind.” Perhaps the occurrence of “to be” in the last part of the line, led to the mis-insertion of it in the first part; and we can see at once how no reserve might become “nor resume.”

Note return to page 944 10109926P. 538. The vagueness of the sum, “so many talents,” mentioned by Servilius to Lucius, when the former comes to borrow of the latter, on behalf of Timon, has occasioned remark, and Steevens conjectured that no precise amount was stated by Shakespeare, but that it was left to the player. This does not seem probable, and in a note in the folio, 1632, the sum is given as 500 talents, both here and afterwards, where Lucius speaks of “fifty-five hundred talents.” We may presume, therefore, that it was the practice of the theatre, in the time of the corrector, to consider that Timon sent to borrow 500 talents, and that that was the amount required by Servilius, and repeated by Lucius. The point is, however, of little importance, because it does not in any way affect the spirit and purport of the scene.

Note return to page 945 10109927P. 548. When Alcibiades is pleading before the Senate of behalf of his friend, who had killed an adversary, he observes,— “He did behave his anger, ere 'twas spent, As if he had but prov'd an argument.” Here the printer was in error; in the old copies the lines are thus printed:— “He did behoove his anger, ere 'twas spent, As if he had but prov'd an argument.” Modern editors have consented to suppose behoove intended for “behave,” and they have taken great pains to justify the expression, “he did behave his anger;” but the old corrector of the folio, 1632, shows that their labour has been thrown away, since the author did not use the phrase, but wrote as follows:— “He did reprove his anger, ere 'twas spent, As if he had but mov'd an argument.” If these small, but more than plausible, emendations be admitted, no explanation is wanted.

Note return to page 946 10109928P. 549. In the line, as printed by Malone and others,— “If there were no foes, that were enough alone,” Sir Thomas Hanmer received praise from Steevens for adding the word alone, “to complete the measure.” In fact, it more than completes it; it renders it redundant; and as it is hardly to be disputed that the passage is wrong, as it stands baldly in the folios,— “If there were no foes, that were enough To overcome him,” we may be disposed to place confidence in the change recommended in the folio, 1632,— “Were there no foes, that were itself enough To overcome him.” Here, with little violence, the measure is restored, and the sense of the speaker strengthened.

Note return to page 947 10109929P. 557. Old and modern impressions furnish us with this text:— “Who would be so mock'd with glory, or to live But in a dream of friendship? To have his pomp, and all what state compounds, But only painted, like his varnish'd friends.” Much of the speech is in rhyme, and a couplet precedes the above, which, after the interval of a line, is succeeded by four other rhymes. We learn from manuscript-emendations, that what we have just quoted most imperfectly represents the passage; that the hemistich ought to be completed by two words carelessly omitted, and that an important verb ought to be altered: the whole passage will then remain as follows:— “Who'd be so mock'd with glory, as to live But in a dream of friendship, and revive To have his pomp, and all state comprehends, But only painted, like his varnish'd friends?”

Note return to page 948 10109930P. 558. Timon's speech, when he enters “in the woods,” is very carelessly printed in the folio, 1623; and the errors are multiplied in the second folio, but they are there corrected in manuscript: thus for “Raise me this beggar, and deny't that lord,” the reading is, “decline that lord,” i. e. reduce him in his rank and condition, using the word in the same way as in “Antony and Cleopatra,” Act III. Scene II. Again, for “brother's sides” we have “rother's sides” properly substituted; farther on, Timon, digging for roots, discovers gold, and asks,— “What is here? Gold? yellow, glittering, precious gold? No, gods, I am no idle votarist. Roots, you clear heavens!” The word has always been printed “idle;” but it ought as certainly to be idol,— “I am no idol-votarist,” no worshipper of gold, which many make their idol, but a searcher for roots; for which he again exclaims—“Roots, you clear heavens!” until, glancing at the treasure once more, he is led to moralise upon it.

Note return to page 949 10109931P. 563. There are few instances where mishearing on the part of the scribe has been the origin of a corruption of the text more striking, than the blunder we are now about to point out, and set right, on the authority of the annotator of the folio, 1632. It is where Phrynia and Timandra entreat Timon to give them some of his gold, and ask if he has more: he replies,— “Enough to make a whore forswear her trade, And to make whores, a bawd.” Johnson strives hard to extract sense from this last clause, for of course the meaning of the first is very evident: it is in the hemistich that the error lies, for we ought beyond dispute to read,— “Enough to make a whore forswear her trade, And to make whores abhorr'd.” Whoever read, or recited, to the copyist dropped the aspirate, and induced him, merely writing mechanically and without attending to the sense, to put “a bawd” for abhorr'd.

Note return to page 950 10109932P. 565. In the same way ingenuity has been exercised by the same commentator to reconcile us to the word “marrows,” where Timon is imprecating the earth in future to bring forth nothing but monsters, and to put an end to the race of “ingrateful man:”— “Dry up thy marrows, vines, and plough-torn leas.” What connexion is there between “marrows, vines, and plough-torn leas?” We ought surely to read with the corrector of the folio, 1632,— “Dry up thy meadows, vines, and plough-torn leas.” Parch them up, that they may produce no “liquorish draughts” or “morsels unctuous” for the gratification and sustenance of man.

Note return to page 951 10109933P. 567. Timon reproaches Apemantus with his base origin, and tells him that he had never known luxury, adding,— “Hadst thou, like us, from thy first swath, proceeded The sweet degrees that this brief world affords To such as may the passive drugs of it Freely command, thou wouldst have plung'd thyself In general riot.” “The passive drugs” of the world surely cannot be right. Timon is supposing the rich and luxurious to be, as it were, sucking freely at the “passive dugs” of the world; and an emendation in manuscript, which merely strikes out the superfluous letter, supports this view of the passage, and renders needless Monk Mason's somewhat wild conjecture in favour of drudges.

Note return to page 952 10109934P. 572. The accidental omission of him has induced editors to convert a participle and preposition into a sort of substantive, by a hyphen. One of the Banditti says of Timon, as the words have been ordinarily printed, “the falling-from of his friends drove him into this melancholy.” May we not feel satisfied, upon the assurance of the old corrector, that the sentence ran thus?—“The mere want of gold, and the falling from him of his friends, drove him into this melancholy.”

Note return to page 953 10109935P. 577. The mercenary Poet and Painter visit Timon at his cave to ascertain the truth of the report, that he has still abundance of gold. In all editions the latter says to the former, “It will show honestly in us, and is very likely to load our purposes with what they travel for.” This is very like nonsense, although no correction of it has ever been recommended: the annotator of the folio, 1632, thus proves what must have been in the author's mind:— “It will show honestly in us; and is very likely to load our purses with what we travel for:” referring, of course, to Timon's wealth. This may be said to be one of the emendations that requires no authority: it carries conviction on the face of it.11Q1242

Note return to page 954 10109936P. 586. The old introduction to this scene is, Enter a Soldier in the woods, seeking Timon, to which is added, in manuscript, the necessary information, finding his grave. Modern editors say, and a Tomb-stone seen, but we meet with nothing of the kind in the early copies: that there must, however, have been some rude erection, or pile of earth, visible to the audience, is clear from the soldier's words,— “Some beast rear'd this; there does not live a man.” The folios have it, “Some beast read this;” but it is undoubtedly an error, and the old corrector converts read into “rear'd.” Such has always been the word since Warburton's time.

Note return to page 955 10109937P. 588. The last emendation requiring notice, although it may deserve to be so termed, is certainly not one of the changes that must be adopted, since the ordinary text, although somewhat uncouth, will serve: it occurs where the Senators of Athens are pleading to Alcibiades for the lives of the citizens:— “All have not offended; For those that were, it is not square to take On those that are, revenge.” The correction in the folio, 1632, puts it as an interrogative appeal, and substitutes another word for the unusual expression, “it is not square:”— “All have not offended; For those that were, is't not severe to take On those who are, revenge?” Steevens altered “revenge” to revenges, for the sake of the metre, and very justifiably, since the word occurs just above in the plural, but the old corrector leaves it in the singular. Prol. and Epilogue is written at the end in a blank space, and perhaps it was meant only as a note that they were deficient; but such has been the case with the tragedy immediately preceding, and with others, to which no such words are appended. The stage-directions, added in manuscript, are not always as complete and precise as would seem to be convenient; and the division into Acts and Scenes does not, in some instances, accord with modern editions: the old copies are destitute of any such distinctions: Act IV. is made unusually long, while Act III. and Act V. are too short: Act IV. begins, rather injudiciously, with Timon's banquet of hot water, and in the next scene he is outside the walls of Athens, cursing the city.

Note return to page 956 10109938Vol. vii. p. 7. The Acts, but not the Scenes, are distinguished in the old copies of this tragedy: the latter are supplied in manuscript in the folio, 1632, but they do not by any means tally with the same divisions as contained in modern editions. The economy of our early stage, and the deficiency of mechanical and other contrivances to denote changes of place, frequently rendered it necessary to continue the same, or nearly the same objects before the eyes of the audience, although by the characters and dialogue it appeared that the scene was altered. As an illustration, it may be mentioned that the fifth Act of “Julius Cæsar” is divided by Malone and others into five Scenes, by representing that what occurs passes on as many different parts of the plains of Philippi; whereas the old annotator of the folio, 1632, makes the Act consist of only two Scenes, the first where the forces under Octavius and Antony march in, and the second where Brutus endeavours, after the battle, to persuade one of his friends to kill him, in order that he may not survive the freedom of his country. According to this arrangment, Cassius dies on the same ground that had been occupied by his enemies.

Note return to page 957 10109939P. 14. The two following lines have always been printed thus:— “When could they say, till now, that talk'd of Rome, That her wide walks encompass'd but one man?” This reading has never, we believe, been doubted, and, strictly speaking, a change is not necessary; but who will say that the last line does not run better with the emendation proposed in the folio, 1632?— “That her wide walls encompass'd but one man?” Cassius is speaking of the walled city of Rome, and not of the Roman empire, although walks reads awkwardly in either case: neither does he refer to Cæsar's “walks and private arbours,” mentioned on p. 61. Possibly the occurrence of the verb “talk” in the preceding line, led to the intrusion of “walk” in the second line.

Note return to page 958 10109940P. 15. The manuscript-corrector requires us to make another change, which seems even less necessary, but at the same time is judicious:— “Brutus had rather be a villager, Than to repute himself a son of Rome Under these hard conditions, as this time Is like to lay upon us.” “Under such hard conditions” sounds better, followed as it is by “as this time;” but this is, perhaps, a matter of discretion, and we have no means of knowing whether the writer of the notes might not here be indulging his taste.

Note return to page 959 10109941P. 20. A note in the margin of the folio, 1632, will, probably, settle a dispute carried on at considerable length, and with some pertinacity, between Johnson, Steevens, and Malone, regarding a word in a couplet thus printed in the folio, 1623:— “Against the Capitol I met a lion Who glaz'd upon me, and went surly by.” Pope was the first to read glar'd for “glaz'd,” and Johnson poorly substituted gaz'd: in the folio, 1632, the second line stands,— “Who glaz'd upon me, and went surely by;” there can be no doubt about the last error, and that, as well as the first, is set right by striking out the e in surely, and by converting “glaz'd” into glar'd.

Note return to page 960 10109942P. 24. A question has arisen respecting another passage in this scene:— “And the complexion of the element In favour's like the work we have in hand.” The old copies have, “Is favours like the work,” &c., and Reed would have it, “Is fev'rous like the work,” &c.; but only change Is to “In,” and nothing more can be required. This is done by the old corrector, and such has been the usual course in modern times.

Note return to page 961 10109943P. 31. It is proper to notice a small, but not immaterial change, where Brutus says,— “And let our hearts, as subtle masters do, Stir up their servants to an act of rage, And after seem to chide 'em. This shall mark Our purpose necessary, and not envious.” The usual reading, as authorised by the early copies, has been “This shall make,” instead of “This shall mark,” or denote our purpose as necessary, and not as proceeding from malice or hatred.

Note return to page 962 10109944P. 32. The observation of Metellus, in the folio, 1623,— “Caius Ligarius doth bear Cæsar hard,” was converted in print in the folio, 1632, to “Caius Ligarius doth bear Cæsar hatred.” The phrase occurs in two other places in this play; and the manuscript-corrector makes the folio, 1632, here conform to that of 1623.

Note return to page 963 10109945P. 33. When Lucius falls asleep, Brutus says, as the passage has always been given,— “Fast asleep? It is no matter; Enjoy the honey-heavy dew of slumber.” The compound unquestionably is not “honey-heavy,” but “honey-dew,” a well-known glutinous deposit upon the leaves of trees, &c.: the compositor was guilty of a transposition, and ought to have printed the line in this form:— “Enjoy the heavy honey-dew of slumber.” Such is the manuscript emendation.

Note return to page 964 10109946P. 44. Artemidorus, pressing forward to deliver his warning to Cæsar, observes,— “Mine's a suit That touches Cæsar nearer.” To which Cæsar replies, as his answer has constantly been represented,— “What touches us ourself shall be last serv'd.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, puts it interrogatively, more pointedly, and more naturally, making Cæsar repeat the very words of Artemidorus:— “That touches us? Ourself shall be last serv'd.” It was Cæsar who was to be “last served,” not what touched him nearly.

Note return to page 965 10109947P. 45. There is a mistake in the distribution of the dialogue shortly before Cæsar is stabbed: “Are we all ready?” certainly belongs to one of the conspirators, and some commentators would assign the words to Cinna, making them the conclusion of his speech. Casca, however, was to strike the first blow; and, according to a note in the margin, he reasonably first inquires, “Are we all ready?” The course of the dialogue will, therefore, properly be this:—Brutus, speaking of Metellus Cimber and of his petition, says,— “He is address'd: press near and second him. Cin. Casca, you are the first that rears your hand. Casc. Are we all ready? Cæs. What is now amiss, That Cæsar and his Senate must redress?” Metellus Cimber then kneels, and offers his petition on behalf of his brother. In Cæsar's rejection of it, three misprints are indicated, viz. “couchings” for crouchings, “the lane of children” for “the law of children” (so corrected conjecturally by Johnson), and “low crooked courtesies” for “low crouched courtesies.” No change is proposed in the passage, “Know, Cæsar doth not wrong,” &c., so that the speculation upon it, founded upon Ben Jonson's “Discoveries,” is so far not supported.

Note return to page 966 10109948P. 49. A manuscript stage-direction (the printed copy is destitute of notes of the kind) requires Antony, on his entrance with the line,— “O mighty Cæsar! does thou lie so low?” to kneel over the body, and to rise, when he says,— “I know not, gentlemen, what you intend,” &c. On the next page, after “I doubt not of your wisdom,” he takes one after other of the conspirators by the hand, and turns to the body, and bends over it while he says,— “That I did love thee, Cæsar, O! 'tis true,” &c.

Note return to page 967 10109949P. 62. When Cinna, the poet, enters, he observes,— “I dream'd to-night that I did feast with Cæsar, And things unluckily charge my fantasy.” Why should he consider it unlucky to dream of feasting with Cæsar? His fancy was charged with things improbable, not unlucky, and the marginal correction in the folio, 1632, is,— “And things unlikely charge my fantasy.” The word unlikely also suits the measure better.

Note return to page 968 10109950P. 69. In the folio, 1623, when Brutus observes,— “I had rather be a dog, and bay the moon, Than such a Roman,” Cassius replies, in the folio, 1623, as if he had misheard,— “Brutus, bait not me.” The fitness of this diversity, “bay” in one place, and “bait” in the other, has been maintained by Malone, and disputed by Steevens. If the change from “bait” to bay, made in manuscript in the folio, 1632, can be considered at all conclusive, the difference is at an end: it is there printed “bait” in both instances, and in both instances bay is substituted.

Note return to page 969 10109951P. 69. An emendation of some interest is made in a celebrated passage in the quarrel-scene between Brutus and Cassius. The latter has said,— “I am a soldier, I, Older in practice, abler than yourself To make conditions.” Brutus afterwards makes this calm remark:— “You say, you are a better soldier: Let it appear so; make your vaunting true, And it shall please me well. For mine own part, I shall be glad to learn of noble men.” Cassius had said nothing about “noble men,” and his reply to the above has reference to what he did actually utter:— “You wrong me every way; you wrong me, Brutus; I said an elder soldier, not a better.” His word had been “abler,” not noble, nor nobler; and in order to make the retort of Brutus apply to what Cassius had asserted, Brutus unquestionably ought to say,— “For mine own part, I shall be glad to learn of abler men.” “Noble” is struck through by the old corrector, and abler inserted in the place of it; whether upon any other authority than apparent fitness must remain doubtful.

Note return to page 970 10109952P. 75. A question arising in council, whether the forces of Brutus and Cassius should march towards the enemy, or wait for him, Brutus urges the former course, and Cassius the latter. Brutus contends that if they delay, the enemy will be strengthened and refreshed as he advances:— “The enemy, marching along by them, By them shall make a fuller number up, Come on refresh'd, new-added, and encourag'd.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, implies by his proposed change, that “new-added” is merely a repetition of what is said in the preceding line—“by them shall make a fuller number up”—and he inserts a word instead of “added,” which is not only more forcible, but more appropriate, and which we may very fairly suppose had been misheard by the scribe:— “By them shall make a fuller number up, Come on refresh'd, new-hearted, and encourag'd.” This error might be occasioned by the then broad pronunciation of “added” having been mistaken for hearted.

Note return to page 971 10109953P. 77. The printer of the folio, 1632, blunderingly transposed two lines, spoken by Brutus to the drowsy Lucius. The error has not been noticed, that we are aware of, and we only mention it, to state that it is corrected in manuscript: nothing of the kind seems to have escaped attention. When Lucius, after singing, falls asleep, and when Brutus takes his book, the circumstances are duly noted in the margin.

Note return to page 972 10109954P. 81. Octavius, in his interview with Brutus and Cassius, declares that he will never sheathe his sword,— “till Cæsar's three and thirty wounds Be well aveng'd; or till another Cæsar Have added slaughter to the sword of traitors.” Steevens subjoined what he considered a parallel passage from “King John,” Act II. Scene II.:— “Or add a royal number to the dead, With slaughter coupled to the name of kings.” There is certainly some resemblance, but it is stronger when the quotation from “Julius Cæsar” is printed as the old corrector advises:— “Or till another Cæsar Have added slaughter to the word of traitor.” Octavius terms Brutus a traitor, and challenges him to add slaughter to the word, in the same way that slaughter, in “King John,” was to be coupled “to the name of kings.” This emendation seems plausible, though we may not be disposed to insist upon it.

Note return to page 973 10109955P. 82. So with the next emendation, where Cassius informs Messala,— “Coming from Sardis, on our former ensign Two mighty eagles fell.” For “former ensign,” we are told to read “forward ensign,” which is probably right, although “former” need not necessarily be displaced, and may be understood as foremost. The ensign being described as in front, at the head of the army, the copyist may have misheard, and therefore miswritten “former” for forward. Near the bottom of this page we are told to read term for “time,” and those for “some:” it is where Brutus declares against suicide,— “But I do find it cowardly and vile, For fear of what might fall, so to prevent The term of life,—arming myself with patience, To stay the providence of those high powers, That govern us below.” The above unquestionably reads better than as the text has been ordinarily given: to “prevent the term of life” means, as Malone states, to anticipate the end of life; but still he strangely persevered in printing “time” for term.

Note return to page 974 10109956P. 89. The folio, 1632, omits “word” in the following:— “And see whe'r Brutus be alive or dead, And bring us word unto Octavius' tent.” The line stands correctly in the folio, 1623, and perhaps from thence the emendator derived “word;” but the vacancy seems almost to supply itself. The second folio is carelessly printed here; and not long afterwards (p. 90) “in” was omitted, or allowed to drop out. Brutus, just before he runs on his own sword, and after he has shaken hands severally (these stage-directions, like others, are only in manuscript) with his countrymen, observes,— “My heart doth joy that yet, in all my life, I found no man but he was true to me.” The folio, 1632, has “that yet all my life:” “in” is necessary to the metre, though, as far as the absolute meaning is concerned, it might possibly be spared. It is written in the margin.

Note return to page 975 10109957P. 91. In Antony's brief character of Brutus, at the close of the tragedy, we meet with two material variations pointed out by the old corrector, which merit notice, and perhaps adoption: the passage has hitherto appeared as follows:— “All the conspirators, save only he, Did that they did in envy of great Cæsar; He, only, in a general honest thought And common good to all, made one of them.” It must, we think, be admitted that the last two lines are improved if we read them as we are told they ought to be amended:— “He only, in a generous honest thought Of common good to all, made one of them.” “A general honest thought and common good to all,” is at least tautology; and to say that Brutus was actuated by “a generous thought of common good to all” (i. e. a thought worthy of his rank and blood) is consistent with the disinterested nobility of his character, and an admission that might be expected from his great adversary. It is hardly requiring too much, in such a case, to suppose that the scribe misheard generous, and wrote general; but the propriety of introducing the change into the text is a matter of discretion.

Note return to page 976 10109958P. 101. Although, as is stated in note 5, “quarry” (so printed in the old copies) affords an obvious meaning, we find the old corrector substituting for it a word sounding very like it, for which it might be mistaken, and which, in fact, Johnson proposed. The line is as follows, and it relates to the rebellion of Macdonwald, who, having supplied himself with kerns and gallowglasses from the Western Isles, for a time had been successful:— “And fortune on his damned quarry smiling.” While they continued triumphant the rebels could hardly be called a “quarry,” unless by anticipation; and the corrector of the folio, 1632, introduces this alteration:— “And fortune on his damned quarrel smiling.” Malone, who was well disposed to adopt the language of the early editions, here deserted them (mainly on the ground that at the end of this play, “quarrel” is used in the same way for the cause of quarrel), and this without any confirmatory authority, such as we now possess.

Note return to page 977 10109959P. 102. When Ross enters suddenly, with tidings of the victory by Macbeth and Banquo over the Norwegians, Lenox observes,— “What a haste looks through his eyes! So should he look, that seems to speak things strange.” Various commentators have here seen the difficulty of making Ross “seem to speak things strange” before he had spoken at all: it was, therefore, suggested that teems was the word instead of “seems;” but if the objection be not hypercritical, it is entirely removed by the old annotator, who assures us that “seems” (spelt seemes in the folios) had been misprinted:— “So should he look, that comes to speak things strange.” Ross certainly came “to speak things strange,” and on his entrance looked, no doubt, as if he did.

Note return to page 978 10109960P. 104. After the second and third Witches have bestowed winds upon the first, she says,— “I myself have all the other; And the very ports they blow, All the quarters that they know I' the shipman's card. I will drain him dry as hay,” &c. All is in rhyme, excepting that “I' the shipman's card” has no corresponding line, and is evidently short of the necessary syllables. These are furnished by an emendation in the folio, 1632, which we can scarcely doubt gives the words of the poet, by some carelessness omitted:— “All the quarters that they know I' the shipman's card to show.” Lower down, we meet with a proof that the ordinary confusion between the f and the long s extended even to capitals: Banquo, in the folios, asks, “How far is't called to Soris? instead of “Fores.” In the manuscript used by the printer, “Fores” was most likely not written with a capital letter, and he read it soris; but, supposing it the name of a place, he printed it, as he fancied properly, Soris. The error is, of course, set right in the margin of the corrected folio, 1632.

Note return to page 979 10109961P. 106. The old impressions have,— “As thick as tale Can post with post.” Rowe wished to read hail for “tale,” but without warrant; but Can was unquestionably misprinted for “Came.” Near the bottom of the next page, “That trusted home,” of the folios, is changed to “That thrusted home.” In modern times the word has been variously treated.

Note return to page 980 10109962P. 110. Duncan thus speaks of the merits of Macbeth in the folio, 1623:— “Thou art so far before, That swiftest wing of recompence is slow To overtake thee.” The folio, 1632, misprints the second line,— “That swiftest wine of recompence is slow;” and the corrector of that edition amends the decided defect, not by converting wine into “wing,” but into winde, or wind,— “That swiftest wind of recompence is slow.” This may, or may not, have been the line as it came from the poet's pen: at all events, and for some unexplained reason, a person writing soon after 1632, seems to have preferred wind to “wing,” when either would answer the purpose. Another emendation, in the passage which immediately succeeds the above quotation, seems warranted by the sense:— “Would thou hadst less deserv'd, That the proportion both of thanks and payment Might have been mine,” say the folios; “might have been more,” says the annotator on the edition of 1632: Duncan wishes that his thanks and payment could have been more in proportion to the deserts of Macbeth. This change is doubtful.

Note return to page 981 10109963P. 113. A very acceptable alteration is made, on the same evidence, in Lady Macbeth's speech invoking night, just before the entrance of her husband: it is in a word which has occasioned much speculation:— “Come, thick night, And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell, That my keen knife see not the wound it makes, Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark, To cry, ‘Hold, hold!’” Steevens, with reference to “blanket,” quotes rug and rugs from Drayton; and Malone seriously supposes that the word was suggested to Shakespeare by the “coarse woollen curtain of the theatre,” when, in fact, it is not at all known whether the curtain, separating the audience from the actors, was woollen or linen. What solution of the difficulty does the old corrector offer? As it seems to us, the substitution he recommends cannot be doubted:— “Nor heaven peep through the blankness of the dark To cry, ‘Hold, hold!’” The scribe misheard the termination of blankness, and absurdly wrote “blanket.”

Note return to page 982 10109964P. 116. The folio, 1632, omits some important words, consisting of nearly a whole line, where Macbeth is soliloquizing on the “bloody instructions” which “return to plague the inventor.” They are added in manuscript in the margin, perhaps from the folio, 1623; but instead of “this even-handed justice,” the old corrector writes, “thus even-handed justice,” the propriety of which change was urged by Monk Mason.

Note return to page 983 10109965P. 118. It is not easy to imagine a case in which the alteration of a single letter would make so important a difference as in the ensuing portion of the interview between Macbeth and his Lady, where he is irresolute, and she reproaches him with want of courage to execute the murder he once vaunted he was ready to undertake: we give the text as it has appeared in every edition, from the earliest in 1623 to our own day:— “Macb. Pr'ythee peace. I dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none. Lady M. What beast was't, then, That made you break this enterprize to me? When you durst do it, then you were a man,” &c. Surely it reads like a gross vulgarism for Lady Macbeth thus to ask, “What beast made him divulge the enterprize to her?” but she means nothing of the kind: she alludes to Macbeth's former vaunt that he was eager for the deed, and yet could not now “screw his courage” to the point, when time and place had, as it were, “made themselves” for its execution: this she calls a mere boast on his part:— “What boast was't, then, That made you break this enterprise to me?” she charges him with being a vain braggart, first to profess to be ready to murder Duncan, and afterwards, from fear, to relinquish it. That this emendation might be guessed by a person who carefully read the text, without attention to the conventional mode of giving and understanding these words, we have this proof,—that it was communicated to the editor of the present volume, six months ago, by an extremely intelligent gentleman, whose name we have no authority to give, but who dated from Aberdeen, and who had not the slightest knowledge that boast, for “beast,” was the manuscript reading in the folio, 1632. It is very possible, therefore, that the old corrector of the folio, 1632, arrived at his conclusion upon the point by the same process: on the other hand, it is impossible to deny that he may have had some authority, printed, written, or oral, for the proposed change; and it is quite certain that people have been in the habit of reading “Macbeth” for the last 200 years, some of them for the express purpose of detecting blunders in the text, and yet, as far as can be ascertained, have never once hit upon this improvement, so trifling as regards typography, but so valuable as respects the meaning of Shakespeare.

Note return to page 984 10109966P. 122. Steevens suggested “curtain'd sleeper” for “curtain'd sleep,” and that correction is found in the folio, 1632; as well as “sure” for sowre, and “which way they walk” for “which they may walk” of the folios; but no change is made in “Tarquin's ravishing sides,” as if that expression were not objectionable.

Note return to page 985 10109967P. 123. A new scene (numbered 3) has been usually made to begin, on the entrance of Lady Macbeth, with,— “That which hath made them drunk hath made me bold;” but the individual who took such singular pains with the folio, 1632, strikes out the printed words, Scæna secunda, and writes Same against them, indicating that it was not a new scene. Macbeth goes out after the dagger-soliloquy, and then Lady Macbeth enters to await his return from the murder. His re-entrance is marked too early in the old copies at the words, “Who's there? what, ho!” for he makes this exclamation without, before he comes in and says, “I have done the deed,” &c. Opposite “This is a sorry sight,” bloody hands is added in manuscript, as an explanatory stage-direction.

Note return to page 986 10109968P. 126. All that the Porter says respecting the supposed knocking of different persons at hell-gate, down to the words, “the everlasting bonfire,” is struck out, perhaps, as offensive to the Puritans; but the dialogue between the same character and Macduff is abridged, most likely to shorten the performance. When Macbeth arrives, we are told that he comes in in his night-gown, and Banquo subsequently enters unready. Opposite Macduff's injunction (p. 131), “Look to the Lady,” who is affecting to be overcome by the dreadful tidings, Lady sw. (perhaps for Lady swoons) is blotted in the margin, and just afterwards, we read, in the same situation, Exit Lady, borne out. The earlier part of Scene IV., with the Old Man's account of the falcon killed by an owl, and Ross's description of Duncan's horses, is erased with a pen, but in so careless a manner that it hardly seems to have been done by the same hand which has elsewhere marked particular portions for omission. Emendations, when necessary, are continued in spite of the erasures, as in former instances.

Note return to page 987 10109969P. 134. Too rigid an adherence to the early copies has led to the perpetuation of an expression which Shakespeare could hardly have used, which Sir W. Davenant did not introduce into his alteration of this play. It occurs where Macbeth requests Banquo's presence at supper, and the latter replies,— “Let your highness Command upon me.” The old corrector of the folio, 1632, like Davenant (who was followed by Rowe), puts it much more easily and naturally,— “Lay your highness' Command upon me.”11Q1243

Note return to page 988 10109970P. 142. The folio, 1623, makes the 1 Murderer say,— “Now spurs the lated traveller apace To gain the timely inn; end neere approaches The subject of our watch.” Of course end is an error for “and;” and the folio, 1632, has latest for “lated:” the old corrector restores “lated,” and for “neere” puts “here” in his margin: either may be right; but as the compositor of the first folio printed “and” end, he may, very likely (as we are told he did) have blundered with the next word “here.”

Note return to page 989 10109971P. 145. The manuscript stage-directions show particularly how Lady Macbeth conducted herself of old during the banquet. Opposite the words, “Are you a man,” Coming to M. aside to him is inserted in the margin. When, on the next page, she reminds her husband, “My worthy lord, your noble friends do lack you,” the direction is, Go back to her state. Thus we see that she came forward upon the stage to reprove Macbeth for cowardice and distraction, and retired to her position upon the dais, when she made an effort publicly to direct his attention to his neglected duties as host. There are several instructions of the same kind for the government of the actor of the part of the Ghost of Banquo, but they are to be collected sufficiently from the dialogue.

Note return to page 990 10109972P. 147. The conclusion of this great scene is not well printed in the folio, 1623, and worse in the folio, 1632, where “sights” is made signs, “stept” spent, &c. These errors the corrector carefully amends, and then offers a solution of a passage that has hitherto baffled satisfactory explanation. It is where Macbeth dares the Ghost of Banquo to the desert, and adds, as the folios give it,— “If trembling I inhabit, then protest me The baby of a girl.” Malone was for converting “inhabit then” to inhibit thee; but we do not quite approve of the manuscript change in the folio, 1632, not because it is not very intelligible, allowing for a transposition, but because it is too prosaic:— “If trembling I exhibit, then protest me,” &c. i. e. if you perceive me tremble. We have been so used to attach some indefinite meaning to “if trembling I inhabit,” of the old impressions, that the reader is hardly prepared for so simple an explanation as “if trembling I exhibit.” Yet, after all, it may be right.

Note return to page 991 10109973P. 154. In his interview with the Witches, Macbeth calls upon them to answer him, as the lines have been always printed,— “Though bladed corn be lodg'd, and trees blown down; Though castles topple on their warders' heads; Though palaces and pyramids do slope Their heads to their foundations,” &c. No particular objection is obvious in the wording of this quotation; but still the writer of the emendations states that three words in it are wrong, and he alters them thus:— “Though bleaded corn be lodg'd, and trees blown down; Though castles topple o'er their warders' heads; Though palaces and pyramids do stoop Their heads to their foundations,” &c. As to the word bleaded, we are to recollect that “bladed corn” is never “lodged” or layed; but corn which is heavy in the ear is often borne down and flattened by wind and rain. Shakespeare must have been aware that green corn, or corn in the blade, is not liable to be affected by violent weather. Hence we may safely infer that he wrote “bleaded corn,” which means, in some of the provinces, and perhaps in Warwickshire, ripe corn, corn ready for the sickle. Blead is a general name for fruit; and the bleading of corn means the yielding of it, the quantity of grain obtained from the blead, or ear. As to the second word, it seems almost indifferent whether we adopt o'er, or leave “on” as it stands. The expression, “stoop their heads to their foundations,” reads more appropriately and naturally than “slope their heads to their foundations;” and we may feel strongly disposed to believe that it was an error of the press, since not only was the mistake so easy, but the poet uses the word stoop exactly in the same way in “Hamlet,” Act II. Scene II., and in “Cymbeline,” Act IV. Scene II. Whether it be, or be not, necessary to alter “on” and “slope,” there can be no doubt that for “bladed” we ought in future to substitute bleaded in the text of our author.11Q1244

Note return to page 992 10109974P. 156. Theobald saw the necessity of altering “Rebellious dead, rise never, till the wood Of Birnam rise,” by substituting “head” for dead; but the old corrector does more: he alters “rebellious” to rebellion's, as it were, personifying insurrection: he was surely right:— “Rebellion's head, rise never, till the wood Of Birnam rise.”

Note return to page 993 10109975P. 158. When Macbeth is about to leave the cave of the Witches, Lenox enters and informs him that Macduff has escaped to England. “Fled to England?” exclaims Macbeth in astonishment; and he goes on to declare his resolution in future to execute instantly whatever he determines, and first of all to surprise Macduff's castle:— “No boasting like a fool; This deed I'll do, before this purpose cool: But no more sights.” Some commentators have supposed that “no more sights” refers to the visions he had just seen conjured up by the Witches; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, gives the words an entirely new aspect, completely borne out by the context, which relates to the unexpected escape of Macduff:— “This deed I'll do, before this purpose cool: But no more flights.” That is, he will take care, by the rapidity with which performance shall follow decision, that nobody shall again have an opportunity of taking flight. The compositor mistook the f for a long s, and omitted to notice the l which followed it.

Note return to page 994 10109976P. 160. Much of what passes between Lady Macduff and her young son, viz. from “As birds do, mother,” down to “and hang up them,” is crossed out with a pen. Several comparatively small changes are made in the scene: thus Ross says, “And do not know't ourselves” for “And do not know ourselves;” and a few lines lower, “'T shall not be long” for “Shall not be long.” They are hardly necessary, but still improvements.

Note return to page 995 10109977P. 164. Malcolm, speaking of himself, observes,— “In whom I know All the particulars of vice so grafted, That, when they shall be open'd, black Macbeth Will seem as pure as snow.” Here, as has been said on many former occasions, “open'd“ affords sense, but so inferior to that given by the correction in the folio, 1632, that we need not hesitate in concluding that Shakespeare, carrying on the figure suggested by the word “grafted,” as applied to fruit, must have written,— “In whom I know All the particulars of vice so grafted, That, when they shall be ripen'd, black Macbeth Will seem as pure as snow.”11Q1245 Lower down, we are instructed to alter the word “convey” to enjoy, where Macduff tells Malcolm,— “You may Convey your pleasures in a spacious plenty, And yet seem cold.” When enjoy was written enioy, as it usually was of old, the printer's lapse may at once be explained. All that subsequently passes between Malcolm, Macduff, and a Doctor, respecting the cure of the evil, is struck out. It has been supposed that it was inserted, in part, to gratify King James, and after his death it was perhaps omitted. At the conclusion of the scene (p. 170), the old reading of the folios, “This time goes manly,” is changed to “This tune goes manly,” of which, however, there never has been any doubt since the days of Rowe. It is another of the instances in which we have already seen “tune” and “time” confounded.

Note return to page 996 10109978P. 174. Another word, very liable to the same perversion, occurs in the next emendation. The Scottish insurgent Lords are talking of the unsettled condition of Macbeth's mind, “Some say he's mad,” &c., and Cathness adds,— “But, for certain, He cannot buckle his distemper'd cause Within the belt of rule.” The old corrector substitutes, and with apparent reason, course for “cause:” it was not Macbeth's “cause,” but his course of action that was distempered.

Note return to page 997 10109979P. 176. In Coriolanus (p. 361) we have met with “cheer” misprinted chair; and here, if we may trust the emendation, we have chair misprinted “cheer.” Macbeth, distracted between his guilt, his fear, and his confidence in preternatural promises, when besieged in Dunsinane Castle, exclaims,— “This push Will cheer me ever, or disseat me now. I have liv'd long enough: my way of life Is fall'n into the sear,” &c. These lines we are advised to correct in the following manner; and with regard to the first word amended, as we are to take “disseat” in the sense of unseat (the folio, 1632, misprints it disease), there can be little objection to understanding chair, as having reference to the royal seat or throne, which Macbeth occupies, and from which he dreads removal:— “This push Will chair me ever, or disseat me now. I have liv'd long enough: my May of life Is fall'n into the sear,” &c. Chair was Bishop Percy's suggestion, and “May of life” was proposed by Johnson: both, we see, are confirmed by a much anterior authority.

Note return to page 998 10109980P. 177. In note 9 it is urged that in the line,— “Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous stuff,” the error was more likely to be in the repetition, than in the first use of the word “stuff'd.” Such turns out to be the case; and we may presume that the old printer inserted “stuff” at the end of the line, owing to his having it in his mind from the earlier part of the line. From the writer of the manuscript notes in the folio, 1632, we learn that grief ought to have been inserted instead of “stuff;” and it is not impossible that the recurrence of the letter f had something to do with the blunder: he, therefore, puts the whole passage thus:— “Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow, Raze out the written troubles of the brain, And with some sweet oblivious antidote Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of the perilous grief, Which weighs upon the heart.”

Note return to page 999 10109981P. 178. Malcolm says of Macbeth's power and followers,— “For where there is advantage to be given, Both more and less have given him the revolt.” Advantage was hardly so much to be “given,” as to be procured by revolt; and as it also seems unlikely that the same verb should have been used in the very next line, we may feel confident that when the old corrector puts it,— “For when there is advantage to be gotten,” he was warranted in making the change. In the next scene Macbeth complains that the ranks of his enemies were filled by those who ought to have been his friends:— “Were they not farc'd with those that should be ours, We might have met them dareful, beard to beard.” Farc'd is misrepresented “forc'd” in the old copies, and in all modern editions; but, as we gather from the substitution of the letter a in the margin of the folio, 1632, the meaning is that the ranks of the besiegers were stuffed or filled out by soldiers who had revolted from Macbeth. Just afterwards, we encounter another alteration of more moment, when Macbeth asks the meaning of the “cry of women” that he has heard within: he says,— “The time has been, my senses would have cool'd To hear a night-shriek.” The manuscript-correction here is quailed for “cooled,” a much more forcible word; but this is one of the places where it is possible, that the person recommending the change may have exercised his taste, rather than stated his knowledge. It scarcely seems likely that one word should have been mistaken for the other, but this observation will, of course, apply to many of the extraordinary errors that have been from time to time pointed out. How little old compositors attended to the sense is proved on the next page by the fact that “dusty death,” which occurs only a few lines subsequently, and which is rightly printed in the folio, 1623, is converted into “study death” in the folio, 1632. Study is deleted, and “dusty” placed in the margin by the old corrector. Nevertheless, “study death” has met with its perverse vindicator in comparatively modern times. An addition is made to the printed stage-direction (p. 186), Enter Macduff with Macbeth's head, in these words, which show the somewhat remarkable manner in which the spectacle was presented to the audience, on a pike—stick it in the ground. This action precisely accords with what Macduff says on the occasion:— “Hail, king! for so thou art. Behold, where stands The usurper's cursed head”

Note return to page 1000 10109982P. 195. When Bernardo comes to relieve Francisco on his guard, the latter observes,— “You come most carefully upon your hour;” to which Bernardo answers, as the text stands in the old copies, “'Tis now struck twelve.” Steevens suspected that Bernardo ought to say. “'Tis new struck twelve;” and in the folio, 1632, as corrected in manuscript, such is the reading: Bernardo means that he deserves Francisco's praise for his punctuality in coming just as the clock has struck.

Note return to page 1001 10109983P. 197. The printed stage-directions in this tragedy are more numerous than in many others, so that fewer remain to be supplied in manuscript. Sometimes, where they are not new, additions are made to them: thus, when we have Enter the Ghost, the word armed is written in parenthesis, to show what was his appearance in this scene; afterwards, we shall find that when the Ghost makes his visit to Hamlet and his mother in the closet scene (p. 289), he is described in manuscript as unarmed, though we are not told, as in the quarto, 1603, that he is “in his night gown.” Perhaps, in consistency with what Hamlet says, he was there supposed to be “in his habit as he lived;” and when the drama was represented before the old corrector it may have been the custom of the theatre that the Ghost should come before the audience, not “in his night gown,” but in his ordinary apparel. We may presume also that in this first scene a cock was heard to crow, in order to give the Ghost notice of the fit time for his departure, Cock crows being placed in the margin opposite the words “Stop it, Marcellus.”

Note return to page 1002 10109984P. 199. Whether the old corrector did or did not resort to any of the quartos for assistance, they all have “Shark'd up a list of lawless resolutes,” for “landless resolutes” (to which it was changed in the folios), and “lawless” is imported into the folio, 1632. The cock (p. 201) is called there in manuscript “the trumpet of the morn,” and not of the day, “morn” being the reading of the quartos, and day of the folios.

Note return to page 1003 10109985P. 202. More passages than usual are crossed out in this play, owing to its extreme length; and wherever the person who abridged it thought that even two or three lines could be dispensed with, they are erased. Thus in Horatio's speech, near the top of this page, the second and third lines, as well as the eighth and ninth, are struck out; and in the King's speech, opening Scene II., the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth lines are marked for omission. Several other parts of the scene are treated in the same way; but if any corrections were required in them, they, as in other places, are made notwithstanding.

Note return to page 1004 10109986P. 205. When the Queen reproaches her son for continuing to wear his mourning, as the line is represented in the quartos, she says,— “Good Hamlet, cast thy nighted colour off:” the folios have nightly for “nighted,” which the corrector of the folio, 1632, alters to nightlike, which is certainly better than nightly, but is not countenanced by any known edition. Perhaps such was the word he had heard upon the stage, and therefore inserted it.

Note return to page 1005 10109987P. 210. Horatio, describing the effect of the appearance of the Ghost upon Bernardo and Marcellus, tells Hamlet, as the text of the quartos has it,— “Whilst they, distill'd Almost to jelly with the act of fear, Stand dumb, and speak not to him.” The folios, on the other hand, read,— “Whilst they bestill'd Almost to jelly with the act of fear,” &c. Neither word, “distill'd” or bestill'd, can be perfectly satisfactory; but it is apparent that bestill'd was a misprint in the folio, 1623 (and from thence copied into the folio, 1632), for a word, very like it in letters, but affording a very clear and sensible meaning:— “Whilst they, bechill'd Almost to jelly with the act of fear, Stand dumb, and speak not to him.”. Bernardo and Marcellus were almost chilled to jelly by their apprehensions, “the cold fit of fear” having come powerfully upon them. This must be deemed a text superior to that of any old or modern edition.

Note return to page 1006 10109988P. 213. The address of Laertes to his sister, instructing her how to receive and return Hamlet's love, is full of verbal and literal errors in the folio, 1632; and, besides corrections of these in three places, the text is made to tally with that of the quartos: thus “safety” is substituted for sanctity, “act and place” for sect and force, and “keep you in the rear” for “keep within the rear.” These three mistakes were transplanted from the earlier folio, and the setting of them right may look as if the authority of the quartos had been appealed to.

Note return to page 1007 10109989P. 215. Polonius, advising his son on the subject of apparel, thus speaks, as the lines have always stood,— “And they in France, of the best rank and station, Are of a most select and generous chief in that.” Malone would explain “chief” heraldically; but it is simply an error of the press: “chief” was of old spelt “chiefe,” and the compositor misreading the long s for f, printed “chiefe” for choise or choice:— “Are of a most select and generous choice in that.” The folios print it cheff, but Steevens was disposed to think choice the word wanted, and he was not mistaken, for that alteration is made in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 1008 10109990P. 217. Theobald guessed rightly that “sanctified and pious bonds” ought to be “sanctified and pious bawds;” but three lines lower occurs an emendation in the folio, 1632, which nobody has speculated upon, but which is at least equally plausible. Polonius says to Ophelia,— “I would not, in plain terms, from this time forth, Have you to slander any moment leisure, As to give words or talk with the lord Hamlet.” For “slander” read squander, and for “moment” moment's: she was not to waste a moment's leisure upon him. The scribe seems to have misheard both bawd and squander. At the end of the speech this imperfect line occurs:— “Look to't, I charge you; come your ways.” The old correction is,— “Look to't, I charge you; so now, come your ways.” So now may have dropped out, or may possibly have been added merely to complete the measure.

Note return to page 1009 10109991P. 220. When the Ghost enters, a manuscript note states that he is armed as before. There is a singular marginal instruction to the player of the part of Hamlet, that after he has exclaimed,— “Angels and ministers of grace defend us!” he is to pause before he continues. This seems natural, and therefore judicious; and we may, perhaps, infer that such was the mode in which Richard Burbage (the original representative of the character) delivered the address. From him it may have been handed down to the time of the old corrector through Joseph Taylor, who followed Burbage in this and some other principal parts. During this pause we may suppose that the actor was gasping for breath, with his eyes fixed upon the apparition, and unable for some moments to proceed.

Note return to page 1010 10109992P. 222. This, according to the ancient stage-arrangements, and according to the representations of the old editions, was, probably, not a new scene; for after Hamlet and the Ghost have gone out, as it were to “a more removed ground,” Horatio and Marcellus say a few words and retire: Hamlet and the Ghost then return to the scene, and it seems to have been left to the audience to imagine that the ground on which they stood was not, in fact, the same they had before occupied. It is to be observed that the Acts and Scenes are not divided in the quartos; and in the folios, though Actus Primus and Actus Secundus are marked (with the distinction of some of the scenes), we are without any printed notes of the kind during the rest of the tragedy. The emendator of the folio, 1632, was, therefore, the first to supply the deficiency: he appears to have done so accurately (with one or two exceptions) according to the practice in his age, but by no means precisely the same as in modern editions. In the last line of this page we are desired by the old corrector to read “confin'd to lasting fires,” instead of “confin'd to fast in fires,” a change recommended by Heath in his “Revisal.” Steevens, Farmer, and Monk Mason contend that no alteration is required.

Note return to page 1011 10109993P. 225. Regarding the subsequent lines, as invariably printed, an advantageous proposal is made in the corrected folio, 1632:— “Thus was I, sleeping, by a brother's hand, Of life, of crown, of queen, at once dispatch'd.” “Dispatch'd” cannot be right, and why should Shakespeare employ a wrong word when another, that is unobjectionable, at once presented itself, viz.— “Of life, of crown, of queen, at once despoil'd?” Misreading was, most likely, the cause of this blunder; the earliest quarto, 1603, has depriv'd for “dispatch'd,” of the other quartos and folios; but we may feel confident that the poet's misprinted word was despoil'd. It is written upon an erasure, and possibly the old corrector first inserted depriv'd, and afterwards saw reason to change it to despoil'd, as the true language of the poet.

Note return to page 1012 10109994P. 236. We have here one more of the many proofs how one word was put for another, because the word misprinted occurred in a different part of the same line: the quartos assign to Polonius,— “My news shall be the fruit to that great feast.” In the folio, 1623, it became,— “My news shall be the news to that great feast;” which was more absurdly repeated in the folio, 1632; but “fruit” is restored (perhaps from one of the quartos) in the margin of the second folio.

Note return to page 1013 10109995P. 242. Exactly the same lapse occurs here: the quartos make Polonius ask Hamlet,— “I mean the matter that you read, my lord?” In the folios it stands,— “I mean the matter that you mean, my lord?” A corresponding correction erases mean, and inserts “read” in its place.

Note return to page 1014 10109996P. 246. To show how minute and particular the owner of the folio, 1632, who introduced the manuscript notes, was in the stage-directions, it may be stated that before Hamlet says, “Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither,” &c., Rosencrantz is directed to smile, in order that the actor might not forget to do so. What afterwards passes between Hamlet and Rosencrantz respecting the popularity of companies of young performers, under the titles of Children of the Revels, Children of Paul's, &c., is crossed out with a pen, because, among other reasons, at the time when the play was shortened this portion was inapplicable.

Note return to page 1015 10109997P. 251. Pope's emendation, in opposition to all the ancient authorities, of salt for “sallets,” is supported by a correction in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 1016 10109998P. 254. We must attribute to mishearing a corruption, though not of much importance, in the last line of the Player's probationary speech, referring to the clamorous grief of Hecuba, when she saw Priam's limbs “minced” by the sword of Pyrrhus:— “Would have made milch the burning eyes of heaven, And passion in the gods.” “And passionate (i. e. compassionate) the gods” is the way in which we learn we ought to read the last hemistich: to say that it made “passion in the gods” is certainly sense, but the emendation proposed should probably be the text.

Note return to page 1017 10109999P. 256. The same may be remarked of the next change that occurs in the folio, 1632: it is in Hamlet's soliloquy, where he adverts to his own irresoluteness:— “For it cannot be, But I am pigeon-liver'd, and lack gall To make oppression bitter.” It was not “oppression,” but crime, that was to be punished by him; and to read “To make transgression bitter” is so far an improvement: the similarity in the sound of the terminations of both words may have misled the copyist. “Oppression” is, however, quite intelligible.

Note return to page 1018 10109000P. 260. The manuscript-annotator adopts two changes in the quartos in Hamlet's great soliloquy: these are “the proud man's contumely” instead of “the poor man's contumely,” as it is given in all the folios; and “the pangs of despis'd love” instead of “the pangs of dispriz'd love,” as also there misprinted.

Note return to page 1019 10109A01P. 263. Hamlet, in old and modern editions, tells Ophelia, “I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious; with more offences at my beck, than I have thoughts to put them in.” Steevens says that “more offences at my beck” means “always ready to come about me:” this may be so, but a manuscript-correction supplies a much more natural word and easy interpretation, viz. that Hamlet is loaded with offences— “with more offences at my back, than I have thoughts to put them in.”

Note return to page 1020 10109A02P. 266. The several misprints in the folio, 1623, in Hamlet's directions to the players, are copied, and multiplied in the folio, 1632, but not one of them escapes correction: among them we may mention that “or Norman” is altered to “nor man” by striking out the conjunction, and dividing the word. This emendation entirely discountenances Farmer's notion that Mussulman was intended. To the printed introduction of the scene, Enter Hamlet and two or three of the Players, is added unready; that is to say, not yet dressed for the parts they were to fill in the play within a play.

Note return to page 1021 10109A03P. 270. It may be considered a somewhat singular feature in the manuscript-corrections, of this drama in particular, that all passages of an indecent character are carefully erased. Such are portions of the dialogue between Hamlet and Ophelia, prior to and during the representation before the King and Queen, which Steevens seemed to think “were peculiar to the young and fashionable of the age of Shakespeare.” It appears, however, that not very long after “the age of Shakespeare,” they were struck out, either on account of their needless indelicacy, or for the sake of abbreviating the performance; perhaps both.

Note return to page 1022 10109A04P. 275. Johnson, Steevens, Farmer, and Tollet differed whether, when Ophelia remarks, “Still better and worse,” Hamlet ought to say, “So you mistake your husbands,” as it is given in the quarto, 1604, and in the folios, or “So you must take your husbands,” viz. for better for worse. When these annotators wrote, it was not known that a still earlier quarto (1603) has it, “So you must take your husband;” and, in addition, it now appears that the old corrector of the folio, 1632, altered the reading there found to “So you must take your husbands.” In the same way, it has been doubted when Hamlet on a subsequent page (277) speaks of “two Provincial roses on my rac'd shoes” (we spell it as in the folios; the quartos print it raz'd), he means rayed shoes, razed shoes, or raised, that is, elevated shoes. The old corrector spells it “raised shoes,” and we may presume that that is what was intended; namely, shoes which gave the actor artificial height. This is the more probable, because Richard Burbage, the original Hamlet, was a man, probably, of rather short stature.

Note return to page 1023 10109A05P. 277. The two lines delivered by Hamlet after the sudden breaking off of the play,— “For if the King like not the comedy, Why then, belike, he likes it not perdy,” are underscored as a quotation; and such we may reasonably suppose them to be.

Note return to page 1024 10109A06P. 283. When the King, in his soliloquy, says,— “Offence's gilded hand may shove by justice, And oft 'tis seen, the wicked prize itself Buys out the law,” we need no great persuasion to make us believe that we ought to read, as a manuscript note tells us,— “And oft 'tis seen, the wicked purse itself Buys out the law.” When Hamlet enters behind, another stage-direction (printed in no copy) states that he has his sword drawn ready to kill the King, if his resolution had held. The old mode of acting the scene appears to have been, that, when Hamlet came in at the back, the King knelt in front of the stage, and did not retire and kneel, as stated in modern editions.11Q1247

Note return to page 1025 10109A07P. 285. Before Hamlet comes to his mother, in the closet-scene, Polonius hides himself behind the arras, and says, as it has been invariably printed,— “I'll silence me e'en here.” That this is a misprint we might guess without any hint from the corrected folio, 1632, which thus gives the words,— “I'll 'sconce me even here.” Johnson felt obliged to explain that “I'll silence me e'en here” meant “I'll use no more words.” In “The Merry Wives,” Falstaff says, “I will ensconce me behind the arras,” which is exactly what Polonius does. 'Sconce and ensconce are constantly used figuratively for hide.

Note return to page 1026 10109A08P. 288. When Hamlet is comparing the representations of his father and his uncle, the first folio has “wholesome breath” instead of “wholesome brother” of the quartos, and the second folio adds to it various verbal and literal errors; but all editions, modern as well as ancient, contain a reading, the change of which in the folio, 1632, must be admitted to be a considerable improvement: the misprint, with a careless compositor, must have been an easy one: it occurs where the hero says to his mother,— “For, at your age The hey-day in the blood is tame, it's humble, And waits upon the judgment; and what judgment Would step from this to this?” i. e. from his father to his uncle: Hamlet is exalting the first, and debasing the last; and the expression, “Would step from this to this,” is feeble and inexpressive, while a slight alteration in one word makes a vast difference:— “And what judgment Would stoop from this to this?”

Note return to page 1027 10109A09P. 290. After the entrance of the Ghost unarmed, as has been already mentioned, Hamlet thus addresses it in all copies,— “Do you not come your tardy son to chide, That, laps'd in time and passion, lets go by The important acting of your dread command?” The amended reading offered in the folio, 1632, is,— “That laps'd in fume and passion,” &c.; but “laps'd in time and passion” may, nevertheless, be right, supposing Hamlet to intend that he has let slip the proper opportunity.

Note return to page 1028 10109A10P. 298. The emendation next to be noticed is well worthy of consideration, and perhaps of adoption. The King asks Hamlet where Polonius is at supper, and the answer is this in the quartos:— “Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet,” &c. The folios omit “politic,” probably unintentionally, but possibly because it was not clearly understood why the worms should be called “politic.” The old corrector of the folio, 1632, leads us to suppose that “politic” was misprinted, or miswritten, for an epithet, certainly more applicable in the place where it occurs, in reference to the taste of the worms for the rich repast they were enjoying:— “A certain convocation of palated worms are e'en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots.” It is easy to suppose that “politic,” a word with which the scribe was familiar, was misheard by him for the unusual word palated. Shakespeare employs to palate as a verb in “Coriolanus,” Act III. Scene I., and in “Antony and Cleopatra,” Act V. Scene II.; and it is doing no great violence to imagine that he here uses the participle of the same verb. If the text had always stood “palated worms,” and it had been proposed to change it to “politic worms,” few readers would for an instant have consented to relinquish an expression so peculiarly Shakespearian.

Note return to page 1029 10109A11P. 304. It is worth a brief note, that the second of Ophelia's fragments of ballads,— “And at his head a grass-green turf,” is written in the folio, 1632,— “And at his head a green grass turf.” Again, on the next page, the folio, 1632, for the line, as it stands in the folio, 1623,— “Let in the maid, that out a maid,” misprints “Let in” twice, instead of “that out” in the second instance. This blunder is set right in the margin. When Ophelia re-enters, “Fare you well, my dove” (p. 310), is given in all the folios as part of her ballad; but it is marked by the old corrector as spoken, and not sung. Again, the same authority tells us that the lines on p. 311,— “No, no, he is dead; Go to thy death-bed,” ought to run, as we may very well believe,— “No, no, he is dead, Gone to his death-bed, He never will come again.” It has always hitherto been printed, “Go to thy death-bed,” and we can scarcely think the proposed change merely arbitrary. For “His beard was as white as snow,” the correction in manuscript is,— “His beard was white as snow.” In the folios it is, “His beard as white as snow,” and the variation may be deemed immaterial. When Ophelia makes her exit, it is stated that she goes out dancing distracted, although she had sung such a melancholy ditty just before, and had taken such a sad farewell. It is the last we see of her.

Note return to page 1030 10109A12P. 321. A very absurd misprint found its way into the folio, 1623, where the Queen describes the death of Ophelia: the quartos properly read,— “Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious lay;” which in the folio, 1623, stands,— “Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious buy;” and in the folio, 1632,— “Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious by.” Perhaps “lay,” substituted in the margin of the folio, 1632, was obtained from the quartos; but it is not impossible, if the emendation were not guessed at, that it was introduced from accurate recitation of the passage on the stage: nobody could imagine buy or by right.

Note return to page 1031 10109A13P. 322. Two small portions of the Grave-diggers' Scene are struck through with a pen: the first relates to Adam being a gentleman: and the second to the length of time the First Grave-digger had filled his office, and the motive for sending Hamlet into England. If William Kemp played the part of the First Grave-digger, as has been conjectured (Chalmers's “Apology,” p. 457), we need not be surprised at any expedient to keep such a favourite before the audience; but when he was gone, some reduction of the dialogue may have been held desirable, on account of the great length of the play. However, it is more than doubtful whether Kemp belonged to the same company as Shakespeare when Hamlet was produced. (See “Memoirs of the Actors in Shakespeare's Plays,” pp. 105. 115.)

Note return to page 1032 10109A14P. 329. The four lines in rhyme which follow Hamlet's prose introduction,— “Imperial Cæsar, dead, and turn'd to clay,” &c., are distinguished in the folio, 1632, as a quotation in the usual way: and they seem to have occurred to the speaker, as extremely apposite to what he had himself just said respecting the “dust of Alexander.” We have no notion from whence the passage was taken.

Note return to page 1033 10109A15P. 332. When Hamlet tells Laertes, as the line is printed every where,— “I'll do't.—Dost thou come here to whine?” the line clearly wants two syllables; and the corrector of the folio, 1632, makes Hamlet emphatically repeat, “I'll do't,” which perfects the measure:— “I'll do't: I'll do't.—Dost thou come here to whine?” This repetition was probably omitted by the printer accidentally. The whole speech, beginning, “This is mere madness,” is given to the King in the folios; but it is evident that at least part of it could not have been uttered by him: a new prefix, in the margin of the second folio, assigns the three last lines to the Queen, while the two first are continued as before. In the quartos the Queen delivers all five lines; but it seems more likely that the King should interpose to tell the spectators of the funeral,— “This is mere madness; And thus a while the fit will work on him.” In consistency with this view, the King, just afterwards, desires Horatio to follow Hamlet, who had rushed out.

Note return to page 1034 10109A16P. 336. The compositor of the folio, 1623, was guilty of a careless blunder when he printed “Sweet lord, if your friendship were at leisure,” instead of “if your lordship were at leisure:” it was, notwithstanding, copied into the folio, 1632, where it is set right in the margin. We need not say that from all modern editions the corruption has been excluded. Precisely the same course was pursued with a lapse on p. 340, where, in all the folios, tongue is misprinted for “turn,” and “hurt my mother” for “hurt my brother.” This part of the tragedy is extremely ill-represented in both the earliest folio impressions; but the most minute inaccuracy did not elude the attention of the old amender of the second folio.

Note return to page 1035 10109A17P. 343. The printed stage-directions are extremely frequent in this last scene; but, nevertheless, the additions to them in manuscript in the folio, 1632, are many. Thus, no printed note being given when the Queen drinks the poison, the proper place is duly marked, as well as when she dies. When Horatio snatches the cup in order to poison himself, and when Hamlet strives and gets it from him, the necessary information is furnished in the margin. It should seem that the directions were not all added at the same time, but, perhaps, as the writer became aware of their importance, for the ink is not always alike.

Note return to page 1036 10109A18P. 344. During the fencing-match, the Queen interposes that Hamlet may take breath: in the quartos, her words are,— “He's fat and scant of breath.— Here, Hamlet, take my napkin, rub thy brows.” In the folios, the passage is merely this:— “He's fat and scant of breath.— Here's a napkin, rub thy brows.” The second line is obviously defective, and the corrector of the folio, 1632, does not, in this instance, cure it by adopting the text of the quartos, but that of some independent authority: perhaps his emendation here, as in some other places, represents the passage as it was delivered by the player of the part of the Queen:— “He's fat and scant of breath.— Here is a napkin, rub thy brows, my son.”

Note return to page 1037 10109A19P. 347. The drama, abridged, as far as we can judge, for, or from, representation some time after the appearance of the folio, 1632, concludes with the two lines spoken by Horatio over the dead body of Hamlet: all the rest, including “Why does the drum come hither,” is crossed out, so that nothing is seen of Fortinbras, or of the English ambassadors. The lines put into the mouth of Horatio are these, as they stand in every edition, Hamlet having just expired:— “Now cracks a noble heart.—Good night, sweet prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.” However, it seems to have been thought, about the time the abbreviations were made, that the tragedy ought to end with a rhyming couplet, and we may infer that the alteration we meet with in the folio, 1632, was made for the purpose:— “Now cracks a noble heart.—Good night, be blest, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.” This couplet is followed by the word Finis, in manuscript, to show that it was the conclusion of the piece.11Q1248 Nevertheless, the necessary changes of the text, as we find it in the second folio, are continued, as if what follows the entrance of Fortinbras, &c., had not been erased. The first is merely “This” for His, when Fortinbras says,— “This quarry cries on havock,” &c. It is “His quarry,” &c., in the folios, and certainly wrong.

Note return to page 1038 10109A20P. 348. Fortinbras, seeing that the throne of Denmark is vacant, puts in his claim to it:— “I have some rights of memory in this kingdom, Which now to claim my vantage doth invite me.” These are the terms in the quartos; the folios, 1623 and 1632, nonsensically have “Which are to claim,” &c. When Horatio replies, according to the correct text,— “Of that I shall have also cause to speak,” the folio, 1623, gives the line thus inaccurately:— “Of that I shall have always cause to speak;” which the folio, 1632, makes still worse:— “Of that I shall always cause to speak.” These careless errors are corrected in manuscript in the later folio, where we also find in the margin an emendation which appears to be of considerable value. Horatio, in reference to the funeral of Hamlet, observes, as the line has invariably been printed,— “But let this same be presently perform'd.” Same sounds poorly and awkwardly, and the old corrector states that it was not the poet's word, but one that might easily be mistaken for it: he puts it,— “But let this scene be presently perform'd,” viz. the scene of the funeral, at which, while Hamlet's body was placed “high on a stage,” Horatio was to explain the cause of his death: the mention of “stage,” both before and afterwards, and the use of the word “performed,” afford confirmation, if needed, that Shakespeare's language was scene, and not “same.” This may have been only a guessed at misprint, but nobody else has ever guessed it.

Note return to page 1039 10109A21P. 357. The first correction in this tragedy in the folio, 1632, is the erasure of “Sir” at the beginning of Goneril's speech, and the addition of a letter to convert word into “words.” The line is there exactly reprinted from the folio, 1623, where it stands,— “Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter.” Here “Sir” is clearly redundant and needless, and Regan, soon afterwards, commences her speech without it; word also should evidently be “words,” even without the authority of the quartos for the change.

Note return to page 1040 10109A22P. 358. The folios also contain the following in Regan's answer to her father,— “I profess Myself an enemy to all other joys That the most precious square of sense professes.” The compositor caught professes, instead of “possesses,” from the line almost immediately above, and there cannot be a moment's hesitation in following the quartos, which are uniform. The question that has arisen has been as to the uncouth expression, “the most precious square of sense.” Edwards contended that it is to be taken as “the full complement of all the senses;” in other words, the whole circle of the senses; and the old corrector furnishes a word, misprinted “square,” that exactly conveys this meaning,— “That the most precious sphere of sense possesses.” She loved her father, according to her own assertion, beyond all other joys in the round or sphere of sense.

Note return to page 1041 10109A23P. 359. The quarto editions read thus at the close of Cordelia's self-vindicatory speech:— “Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters, To love my father all.” The words in Italics are strangely left out in all the folios, and are added in manuscript in that of 1632. The incompleteness of the sentence makes us wonder how the defective text of the folio, 1623, could have been reprinted.

Note return to page 1042 10109A24P. 360. It is to be noted that in the following,— “As my great patron thought on in my prayers,” the folio, 1632, omits “great,” which word is not supplied in manuscript, but the line is thus amended:— “Lov'd as my father, as my master follow'd, And as my patron thought on in my prayers.” Hence we may see that the old corrector was not constantly guided by older editions, which are all in favour of “great.”

Note return to page 1043 10109A25P. 362. The folio, 1632, is made, in manuscript, to differ from all earlier copies where Lear banishes Kent:— “Five days we do allot thee for provision To shield thee from diseases of the world, And on the sixth to turn thy hated back Upon our kingdom: if on the seventh day following Thy banish'd trunk be found in our dominions,” &c. The quartos, as stated in note 10, have “four days,” and “on the fifth;” and it may seem unlikely that Kent should be allowed till “the tenth day following” (as in the folios) to quit the kingdom. This, however, is a point of little importance, excepting as it may show, either that the passage was usually recited “the seventh day following,” as amended in the folio, 1632, or that the person who altered the text had some other authority for it. It is not probable that he would arbitrarily make the change.

Note return to page 1044 10109A26P. 364. We come to a more important variation from every old copy, where Cordelia entreats her father to “make known It is no vicious blot, murder, or foulness, No unchaste action, or dishonour'd step, That hath depriv'd me of your grace and favour.” “Murder” (spelt murther in the folios) seems here entirely out of place: Cordelia could never contemplate that any body would suspect her of “murder,” as the ground of her father's displeasure: she is referring to “vicious blots,” and “foulness” in respect to virtue, and there cannot, we apprehend, be a doubt that the old corrector has given us the real language of Shakespeare when he puts the passage thus:— “make known It is no vicious blot, nor other foulness, No unchaste action,” &c. The copyist or the compositor miswrote or misread nor other “murther,” and thus occasioned a corruption, which has eternally been repeated. But there appears, on the same authority, to be another error in the latter portion of what we have just above quoted:— “No unchaste action, or dishonour'd stoop, That hath depriv'd me of your grace and favour.” In Hamlet, (p. 427) we have seen stoop misprinted “step,” as here, and Cordelia alludes to some grossly derogatory act, some base condescension on her part, and not merely to some dishonourable “step” which she had taken: “step,” for stoop, here reads most insignificantly, and could hardly have been the poet's language.

Note return to page 1045 10109A27P. 381. What the Fool sings,— “Fools had ne'er less grace in a year,” &c., is marked as a quotation in the folio, 1632, perhaps from some satirical ballad of the time; and the third line is amended, so that, like the first, it rhymes in the middle:— “And well may fear their wits to wear,” &c. The scrap that succeeds almost immediately is also underscored; but it is evident that the Fool alters this fragment to suit his purpose. The couplet on the next page has the same stage-direction, Sing, opposite to it, and it is likewise underscored.

Note return to page 1046 10109A28P. 393. After hearing of the flight of Edgar, when he is supposed to have wounded Edmund for not entering into the conspiracy to murder their father, Gloster says, as the passage stands printed and punctuated in the folios,— “Let him fly far: Not in this land shall he remain uncaught And found; dispatch, the noble duke my master, My worthy arch and patron comes to night,” &c. Here misprinting and mispointing have obscured the poet's meaning, and the old corrector of the folio, 1632, amends as follows:— “Let him fly far: Not in this land shall he remain uncaught, And found, dispatch'd. The noble duke, my master, My worthy arch and patron comes to night,” &c. That is to say, “Let him fly far; for if caught and found in this land he shall be dispatched.” What succeeds in the dialogue entirely supports this view; for Gloster declares that by the authority of the Duke, who was expected, “the murderous coward” should be proclaimed and brought “to the stake,” adding,— “All ports I'll bar; the villain shall not 'scape.”11Q1249

Note return to page 1047 10109A29P. 394. Both the folios are here very carelessly printed; but, as might be supposed, that of 1632 gives the more imperfect notion of Shakespeare's text. Thus, for “strange news,” of the quartos, the folios have strangeness; but all the copies, quarto and folio, are wrong in the line,— “He whom my father nam'd? your Edgar?” for it obviously halts for want of two syllables: and the correction of the old annotator shows what they are:— “He whom my father nam'd? your heir, your Edgar?” It was natural that Regan should speak of him as Gloster's heir in the presence of Edmund, as hinting at the motive for Edgar's design on his father's life. Just below, there is a line with a syllable too many:— “Was he not companion with the riotous knights.” The negative is erased in the folio, 1632, by which the measure is restored, and the sense not injured; for Edmund immediately afterwards replies,— “Yes, madam, yes; he was of that consort;” giving additional emphasis by the repetition of the affirmative yes, which is not in any ancient copy: the compositor, having inserted “yes” once, left it out the second time, and thus rendered the line defective. The folio, 1632, omits “his” before “revenues,” but it is inserted in the margin.

Note return to page 1048 10109A30P. 396. When Kent tells Oswald, “If I had thee in Lipsbury pinfold, I would make thee care for me,” the commentators have been puzzled to know where “Lipsbury pinfold” was situated, and Farmer and Steevens supposed it “a cant phrase.” In the folio, 1632, it is altered to “Finsbury pinfold;” and a misprint was, doubtless, the cause of the difficulty. There was, probably, an old pinfold standing in Finsbury in the time of Shakespeare, in connexion with Moorfields, and well known to his audiences; and to this, without caring for the anachronism, he alluded.11Q1250

Note return to page 1049 10109A31P. 406. In the corrected folio, 1632, we encounter a very material alteration in the Fool's satirical rhymes, showing that the conclusion, always hitherto printed as prose, was also in verse: the last part stands thus in type in the folio, 1632:— “But for all this, thou shalt have as many dolours for thy dear daughters, as thou canst tell in a year.” The manuscript-corrector makes the whole run thus:— “Fathers that wear rags,   Do make their children blind; But fathers, that bear bags,   Shall see their children kind. Fortune, that arrant whore, Ne'er turns the key to the poor. But, for all this, it follows, Thou shalt have as many dolours For thy daughters dear As thou canst tell in a year.” The folio, 1632, alone contains the word “dear,” but there it was transposed, since it forms the rhyme to “year.” In the Fool's rhymes on the next page, there is a perversion in the two last lines, which have been always thus erroneously printed:— “The knave turns fool that runs away, The fool no knave perdy.” This is exactly the contrary of what is meant: in the first six lines the Fool says, that a mercenary knave quits his master in a storm, but that a fool remains with him; and he follows it up by observing that the fool turns knave when he abandons his master, although the knave can be considered no fool for doing so, and taking care of himself:— “The fool turns knave that runs away, The knave no fool, perdy.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, transposes the words, in order to make them run as above.

Note return to page 1050 10109A32P. 410. We have here an instance of mishearing on the part of the scribe, which has occasioned an indisputable blunder. Regan tells Lear to admit to Goneril that he has wronged her, and he breaks out in reply,— “Ask her forgiveness? Do you but mark how this becomes the house: ‘Dear daughter, I confess that I am old,’” &c. What has “the house” to do with it? They are talking outside Gloster's castle, and not in, nor referring to, any habitation. What Lear should say is what the old corrector makes him say:— “Ask her forgiveness? Do you but mark how this becomes the mouth: ‘Dear daughter, I confess that I am old,’” &c. Between the copyist and the compositor, mouth became “house.” After kneeling, while he says the above, Lear never gets up again in modern editions; but a note in the folio, 1632, directs the actor to rise at the beginning of his next passionate speech, “Never, Regan,” &c. The conjecture, in note 9 on the next page, that the epithet “tender-hafted” ought to be tender-hearted, is supported by a marginal emendation in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 1051 10109A33P. 412. Regan again advises Lear to submit, and to return to Goneril: he exclaims, as the passage stands in modern editions,— “Return to her? and fifty men dismiss'd? No, rather I abjure all roofs, and choose To wage against the enmity of the air; To be a comrade with the wolf and owl.— Necessity's sharp pinch!” From the folio, 1632, and its corrections, we learn that the omission of the aspirate has occasioned a serious error here: “Necessity's sharp pinch!” has always been printed as an exclamation by itself, without connexion; but it seems that Shakespeare made the verb howl transitive, and that in future the lines ought to be printed as follows:— “To be a comrade with the wolf, and howl Necessity's sharp pinch.” i. e. howl like the wolf when he feels the sharp pinch of necessity. The punctuation of the folios, if that can be any guide, warrants this construction of the text.

Note return to page 1052 10109A34P. 417. Kent tells the Gentleman, whom he meets, of some disagreement between the Dukes, information of which has been communicated to France by their “servants, who seem no less, Which are to France the spies and speculations Intelligent of our state.” “Speculations,” of all the old copies, must be wrong both as regards meaning and measure; and the old corrector instructs us to read spectators instead of it, although the accentuation may be unusual:— “Which are to France the spies and spectators Intelligent of our state.”11Q1251 A few lines lower he puts flourishings for “furnishings,” with apparent fitness, though Steevens would justify “furnishings” by a quotation from the preface to one of Greene's tracts, no doubt itself a corruption, where he talks of “lending the world a furnish of wit;” “a flourish of wit” must have been Greene's expression. Here, again, one corruption is attempted to be supported by another.

Note return to page 1053 10109A35P. 425. In two several speeches by Edgar, on this page, the quarto editions are followed and deserted by the old corrector: thus in “through the sharp hawthorn blow the cold winds,” cold, which he inserts, is found in the quartos only; while, in the next speech of the same character, for “through sword and whirl-pool” he puts “through swamp and whirl-pool:” it is “ford and whirl-pool” in the quartos. The first of these is marked as a quotation (both here and on p. 427, where it again occurs), in the usual manner; and it most likely was derived from some then known ballad.

Note return to page 1054 10109A36P. 443. We meet with two comparatively small, but valuable amendments in the first line of Edgar's speech, which opens this Act, one of which was speculated upon by Johnson. The common reading has been:— “Yet better thus, and known to be contemn'd, Than still contemn'd and flatter'd.” Johnson's suggestion was to read “and known” unknown; and this is what the corrector states is the true text. Edgar says, that it is better to be contemn'd because unknown, as he is in his disguise, than to be contemn'd and flattered when known. There is, however, a further change which deserves notice, viz. Yes for “Yet.” Edgar enters, moralising with himself, and giving his assent to some proposition that he had stated before he comes upon the stage: the passage ought, therefore, to stand as follows:— “Yes, better thus unknown to be contemn'd, Than still contemn'd and flatter'd.”11Q1252 At the bottom of this page we have another example of the manner in which the frequent mistake of w for m has in part led to the introduction of a corruption. Blind Gloster says, in answer to the Old Man,— “I have no way, and therefore want no eyes: I stumbled when I saw. Full oft 'tis seen Our means secure us; and our mere defects Prove our commodities.” In what way do “our means secure us?” The point is not that our means secure us, but that having no means is advantageous: “our mere defects,” or deficiencies, “prove our commodities.” The printer read wants “means,” and hence the blunder. Gloster is speaking of the advantage even of want of sight:— “Full oft 'tis seen Our wants secure us, and our mere defects Prove our commodities.” Pope would read mean for “means,” but it does not support Gloster's argument; and it, besides, requires that the verb should be in the singular instead of the plural, as it is printed in all the old copies. “Means” is struck out, and wants substituted in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 1055 10109A37P. 445. Gloster, giving his purse to Edgar, whom he still supposes a lunatic beggar, says,— “Heavens, deal so still! Let the superfluous, and lust-dieted man, That slaves your ordinance, that will not see,” &c. Discussion has been produced by the expression, “that slaves your ordinance:” Johnson understood it to mean, that slights or ridicules it, and Steevens, that makes a slave of it; while Malone, because he could suggest nothing, was in favour of adhering to the quartos—“that stands your ordinance.” The setting right of a trifling typographical error clears the sense of the whole:— “Heavens, deal so still! Let the superfluous, and lust-dieted man, That braves your ordinance, that will not see, Because he doth not feel, feel your power quickly.” He braves the ordinance of heaven by his luxury, selfishness, and want of charity. This emendation can want no support.

Note return to page 1056 10109A38P. 454. Whether the old corrector did or did not resort to the quartos, he makes the reading of the folios tally with them, where Cordelia entreats all the “unpublish'd virtues of the earth” to “be aidant and remediate In the good man's distress.” The word is desires, for “distress,” in the folio, 1623, and the error was copied into the second folio.11Q1253

Note return to page 1057 10109A39P. 460. Lear having entered dressed with straws and flowers, according to the manuscript stage-direction (for no printed note of the kind is found, even where it is most wanted), inveighs against lust and hypocrisy:— “Behold yond' simpering dame, Whose face between her forks presageth snow; Who minces virtue, and does shake the head To hear of pleasure's name.” Malone says that “who minces virtue” means “whose virtue consists in appearance;” but that is the meaning of the poet, rather than of the words imputed to him; for it does not follow that “a lady who walks mincingly along,” as Malone has it, means thereby to affect virtue. “Minces,” in truth, is a lapse by the printer for mimics—“a dame that mimics virtue;” that is, who puts on the externals of modesty:— “Who mimics virtue, and does shake the head To hear of pleasure's name.” Unless it can be shown that “minces” means the same as mimics, this emendation must surely hereafter form part of the text of Shakespeare.

Note return to page 1058 10109A40P. 463. Lear thus incoherently preaches to blind Gloster, in every known copy of the play,— “When we are born, we cry that we are come To this great stage of fools.—This a good block? It were a delicate stratagem, to shoe A troop of horse with felt.” The commentators have been puzzled to explain why Lear starts away with the words, “This a good block;” and Ritson asks if we ought not to read “'Tis a good block.” They suppose that Lear pulls off his hat when he begins to preach, and speaks of it, but how does it appear that he has any hat on his head, when he comes in “fantastically dressed up with flowers.” He does not advert to his hat as “a good block” at all, but to the excellent stratagem he has in his mind, of shoeing a troop of horse with felt. The emendator of the folio, 1632, gives the text most satisfactorily, and shows that the word of the poet had been misheard:— “'Tis a good plot: It were a delicate stratagem, to shoe A troop of horse with felt.” This was the “good plot” uppermost in Lear's thoughts. Lower down, the corrector adds, “And laying Autumn's dust,” perhaps from the quartos (where, however, it stands, “Ay, and for laying Autumn's dust”), in order to complete the sense, which is left defective in the folios.

Note return to page 1059 10109A41P. 466. After reading Goneril's letter to Edmund, Edgar exclaims, as the words have always been printed after the folios,— “O, undistinguish'd space of woman's will! A plot upon her virtuous husband's life; And the exchange my brother!” Editors have speculated differently as to the meaning of the first line; but they reasoned upon false premises, since it does not by any means represent the poet's language, if we may put faith in the alteration introduced in the folio, 1632, or if we may trust to common sense. Edgar is struck by the uncontrollable licentiousness of the desires of woman:— “O, unextinguish'd blaze of woman's will!” “Blaze” is to be taken for fire, and “will” for disposition; and the scribe misheard, or miswrote, unextinguish'd blaze as “undistinguish'd space,” making nonsense of a passage which, properly printed, is as striking as intelligible. Malone's explanation was particularly unfortunate, viz. that there was no distinguishable space between the likings and loathings of women: the meaning clearly is, “Oh, the blaze of woman's licentiousness, which can never be extinguished!”

Note return to page 1060 10109A42P. 467. Cordelia urges Kent to put off his humble disguise, but he answers,— “Pardon me, dear madam; Yet to be known shortens my made intent.” For “made intent,” Warburton would substitute “laid intent;” but Johnson contends that “made intent” is only another word for formed intent. Both were wrong: “main intent” was miswritten “made intent,” and hence the doubt. Kent refers to the chief purpose for which he had disguised himself, which would be anticipated and defeated, if he were too soon known:— “Yet to be known shortens my main intent.”

Note return to page 1061 10109A43P. 480. The quartos and folios differ when Albany accuses Edmund of treason, and throws down his gauntlet, saying,— “I'll prove it on thy heart Ere I taste bread, thou art in nothing less Than I have here proclaimed thee.” This is the reading of the quartos; the folios more imperfectly have,— “I'll make it on thy heart,” &c. The corrector of the folio, 1632, instead of taking “prove” from the quartos, and striking out “make,” which was all that was necessary, keeps “make,” and puts good, instead of “it,” after it:— “I'll make good on thy heart,” &c. This is another instance where the text of the quartos is deserted, although it would have been quite as easy here, as elsewhere, to follow it. Was the word good inserted only as a matter of judgment, to cure the evident defect of the folios, or was it derived from any authority?

Note return to page 1062 10109A44P. 481. When Edgar challenges Edmund, he declares,— “Maugre thy strength, youth, place, and eminence,” &c., “thou art a traitor.” The folio, 1632 (like that of 1623) transposes “place” and “youth,” and in manuscript “place” is superseded by skill:— “Maugre thy strength, skill, youth, and eminence.” Skill has evidently been written in the margin, but part of it having been accidentally torn away, only the three first letters of the word remain. It seems not unlikely that the mention of skill would follow “strength;” and “place” is certainly not wanted, with “eminence” in the same line.

Note return to page 1063 10109A45P. 487. When Lear enters, bearing the dead Cordelia, he asks for a looking-glass:— “Lend me a looking-glass; If that her breath will mist or stain the stone, Why, then she lives.” The looking-glass was not “stone,” and a manuscript-correction substitutes shine, as having been misprinted “stone:”— “If that her breath will mist or stain the shine;” i. e. the polish of the looking-glass. “Stain” and “stone” read awkwardly in juxta-position, and the error might easily be committed. Of old mirrors were made of steel, and Gascoigne wrote a well-known satire called by the contradictory title of “The Steel-glass:” hence it would not have surprised us if the poet's word had been steel for “stone.”

Note return to page 1064 10109A46P. 488. After Kent has spoken, Lear looks at him doubtingly, and observes, in all impressions,— “This is a dull sight.—Are you not Kent?” The words, “This is a dull sight,” are not in the quartos; and Steevens parallels them by “This is a sorry sight,” from Macbeth; while Blakeway contends that Lear only means that his eye-sight is bedimmed. Lear has previously stated that his eyes “are none of the best,” and here he means to complain of the badness, not of his “sight,” but of the light:— “This is a dull light” is the word in the folio, 1632, as amended. Lear would hardly call the sad spectacle before him “a dull sight;” but his eyes being dim, and the light dull, he could not be sure whether the man before him was Kent. It was a mere misprint of “sight” for light.

Note return to page 1065 10109A47P. 490. The folio, 1632, generally deficient in stage-directions, went out of its course to insert the word Dies after Kent's two lines,— “I have a journey, sir, shortly to go: My master calls me; I must not say, no.” Hence some editors have imagined that the Speaker died instantly on the stage, before all the characters exeunt with a dead march. No other ancient authority supports this notion, which Malone and Steevens disputed; and that they were well warranted in doing so, is proved by the fact that the old corrector of the folio, 1632, put his pen decisively through the word Dies. We may, therefore, certainly conclude that Kent, in what he says, only contemplates the probability of the near approach of the termination of his career, and that the editor or printer of the folio, 1632, had an entirely mistaken notion upon the subject. Dies is found in no quarto impression, nor was it derived from the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 1066 10109A48P. 499. The first striking emendation in this tragedy is one which admits of much doubt: it occurs in the passage of Iago's speech:— “Others there are, Who, trimm'd in forms and visages of duty, Keep yet their hearts attending on themselves.” For this the corrector of the folio, 1632, substitutes,— “Who learn'd in forms and usages of duty,” &c. It is certain that usages was formerly spelt usages, and the compositor may have committed an error by printing “visages” for usages; but, on the other hand, “hearts,” in the next line, would seem intended as an antithesis to “visages,” or outward appearances; and, in the second place, if the author had meant to employ the words “forms and usages,” he would, perhaps, have said, not “learn'd in forms and usages,” but “train'd in forms and usages.” On the whole, therefore, it may be deemed unsafe to alter the received text in this instance, although in “Troilus and Cressida,” Act IV. Scene II., we have the word visage misprinted for “usage,” exactly as in the case before us. It is to be remarked that the proposed emendation applies to a part of Iago's speech which is erased with a pen, viz. from “We cannot all be masters,” down to “I would not be Iago.”

Note return to page 1067 10109A49P. 500. We should feel no hesitation in altering “timorous” to clamorous in the following, where Iago tells Roderigo to awake and alarm Brabantio:— “Do; with like timorous accent, and dire yell, As when by night and negligence, the fire Is spied in populous cities.” Here “timorous,” even taking it as frightened, seems quite out of place, when coupled with “dire yell;” and we may, therefore, fairly conclude that the poet wrote, as the old corrector states,— “Do; with like clamorous accent, and dire yell,” &c.

Note return to page 1068 10109A50P. 502. Roderigo informs Brabantio that his daughter had “made a gross revolt,”— “Tying her duty, beauty, wit, and fortunes In an extravagant and wheeling stranger.” Here the commentators have notes upon “extravagant,” but pass over “wheeling” without explanation, although very unintelligible where it stands: a manuscript-correction in the folio, 1632, shows that it is a misprint for a most applicable epithet; and other emendations are proposed, such as Laying for “Tying,” and on for “in,” which render the meaning much more obvious than in the ordinary reading:— “Laying her duty, beauty, wit, and fortunes On an extravagant and wheedling stranger.” Pope, adopting “Tying,” follows it in the next line by the preposition to instead of “in;” neither Laying nor on are by any means absolutely necessary, but wheedling for “wheeling” is an important improvement of the text, and shows that the word was of older employment in our language than some lexicographers have supposed. Nothing can be more natural than that Roderigo should call Othello a “wheedling stranger,” who had insinuated himself into the good graces of both father and daughter.11Q1254

Note return to page 1069 10109A51P. 503. Nobody has remarked upon a curious variation between the folios, 1623 and 1632, in Iago's line,— “Though I do hate him as I do hell pains.” This is the reading of the quartos; but in the folio, 1623, the letters of the last word are misplaced,— “Though I do hate him as I do hell apines.” The printer of the folio, 1632, not being able to understand apines, omitted the word altogether, making the line end imperfectly at “hell.” The old corrector either saw what was meant in the folio, 1623, or, perhaps, was assisted by the quartos, for he places paines (as the word was then commonly spelt) in his margin, with a caret in the text after “hell.”

Note return to page 1070 10109A52P. 509. The 2 Senator, referring to the contents of his letters, as different in the particulars, although alike in the main circumstances, observes,— “As in these cases, where they aim reports, 'Tis oft with difference.” The expression, “where they aim reports” (or “where the aim reports,” as Malone gives it from the folios), has occasioned discussion, although Johnson's interpretation has been usually followed. According to a correction in the folio, 1632, the words were misheard and misprinted, and the line is there given in a manner that clears away all obscurity:— “As in these cases, with the same reports, 'Tis oft with difference.” That is, where the “reports” were substantially the same, there were frequent minor discrepancies. Such, we may readily believe, was Shakespeare's meaning, and Shakespeare's language.

Note return to page 1071 10109A53P. 513. A manuscript change in the text in the folio, 1632, differs from all known editions. The quartos make the Duke say,— “To vouch this is no proof: Without more certain and more over test, Than these thin habits, and poor likelihoods,” &c. The folio, 1623, gives the second line thus:— “Without more wider and more over test;” and in the folio, 1632, as corrected, it stands:— “Without more evidence and overt test.” Modern editors have “overt test;” but from whence evidence was derived by the old corrector, we cannot guess, unless he so heard the passage recited: the corruption, originating in the first folio, seems to afford some slight clue to the altered reading in the second folio.

Note return to page 1072 10109A54P. 516. It ought to be noted that when, in the folios, Othello tells the Senate,— “She gave me for my pains a world of kisses,” the last word of the line is deleted in the folio, 1632, and “sighs” substituted in the margin, in accordance with the quarto impressions; perhaps “sighs” was obtained from them, or from an actor's mouth.

Note return to page 1073 10109A55P. 520. Some material changes are made in Othello's speech, after Desdemona has besought the Senate that she may accompany her husband to Cyprus. The text in the folio, 1623, is the following:— “I therefore beg it not, To please the palate of my appetite, Nor to comply with heat the young affects In my defunct, and proper satisfaction, But to be free and bounteous to her mind: And heaven defend your good souls, that you think I will your serious and great business scant When she is with me. No; when light-wing'd toys Of feather'd Cupid seal with wanton dulness My speculative and offic'd instrument,” &c. The only difference between the folios, 1623 and 1632, is that, in the latter, “affects” is printed effects; but various emendations have been proposed by modern editors (into which it is not necessary here to enter) in order to explain or remove the obscurities belonging to nearly the whole passage. We subjoin the representation of the text as made by the corrector of the folio, 1632:— “I therefore beg it not, To please the palate of my appetite, Nor to comply wi' the young effects of heat (In me defunct) and proper satisfaction, But to be free and bounteous to her mind: And heaven defend your counsels, that you think I will your serious and great business scant, When she is with me. No; when light-wing'd toys Of feather'd Cupid foil with wanton dulness My speculative and offic'd instruments,” &c. In the third line it seems that “heat” got transposed, while of was omitted; in the fourth line, me was misprinted “my;” and in the sixth line, counsels became “good souls,” terms Othello would hardly apply to the Duke and Senators of Venice. Foil, in the ninth line, agrees with the quartos, where instruments is also in the plural. These changes appear to be so effectual, as far as regards the plain sense of the passage, that all that some commentators have said in favour of disjunct, instead of “defunct” (the word in every old edition), is thrown away: Othello did not ask for the company of his wife for his own proper satisfaction, or to comply with the young effects of heat, in him defunct at the age at which he had arrived; and he therefore undertook that no amorous trifling should induce him to neglect the great duties entrusted to him.

Note return to page 1074 10109A56P. 524. We meet with the change of an important epithet where Iago is encouraging Roderigo to hope that distaste will soon grow up between Othello and Desdemona: it is where he says, as it is commonly printed,— “If sanctimony and a frail vow, betwixt an erring barbarian and a super-subtle Venetian be not too hard for my wits, and all the tribe of hell, thou shalt enjoy her.” How had Desdemona given proof that she was “super- subtle?” if she were so, she might be too cunning for the artifices of Iago. What he wished was to persuade Roderigo that her love for Othello was not firmly rooted, that “she must have change,” and that ere long she would be found, as her countrywomen proverbially were, complying and yielding to her own desires: therefore, for “super-subtle,” the correction in the folio, 1632, is super-supple: because she was “a super-supple Venetian,” Roderigo was to hope that she would submit to his importunity. “A frail vow” had passed between “an erring barbarian and a super-supple Venetian,” which Iago was soon to break.

Note return to page 1075 10109A57P. 533. After Iago has delivered his satirical verses against the female sex, Desdemona asks, “How say you Cassio? is he not a most profane and liberal counsellor?” By “counsellor,” Johnson was here obliged to understand “one that discourses fearlessly and volubly;” but if we may believe the author of the emendations in the folio, 1632, “counsellor” was not the poet's word, but censurer, used in the same way as in “Henry VIII.,” Act I. Scene II., where Wolsey speaks of “malicious censurers:” so Desdemona appeals to Cassio whether Iago, in the character he had given of women, was not “a most profane and liberal censurer?”

Note return to page 1076 10109A58P. 538. The subsequent quotation, as it appears in the folios, has occasioned discussion: Iago speaks:— “Which thing to do, If this poor trash of Venice, whom I trace For his quick hunting, stand the putting on,” &c. The quartos have crush for “trace,” which must be wrong, and Warburton read brach, meaning a dog, for “trash.” He was right in his guess, according to a correction in the folio, 1632, where the passage is thus given:— “Which thing to do, If this poor brach of Venice, whom I trash For his quick hunting, stand the putting on,” &c. To trash a dog was to chastise it; and Iago in this sense chastised Roderigo for his too eager pursuit of Desdemona. The compositor blundered between brach and trash, and printed trash where he ought to have put “brach,” and trace where he ought to have put “trash:” these emendations remove the whole difficulty.

Note return to page 1077 10109A59P. 541. There is a remarkable discrepancy between the quarto and folios, which deserves the more notice, because the correction of an error in the folio, 1632, leads to an entirely new reading of an important word: Iago says, in the quarto,— “Three lads of Cyprus, noble swelling spirits;” in the folios it is,— “Three else of Cyprus, noble swelling spirits,” an undoubted blunder; and the question is how “lads,” in the quartos, became else in the folios? Simply from mishearing on the part of the scribe: the poet's word was probably not “lads,” but, as Iago jocularly calls them,— “Three elfs of Cyprus, noble swelling spirits;” and the manuscript-corrector alters “else” to elfes. Whether the true text be “lads” or elfs, the variation is curious; and it seems probable, as Iago terms them “spirits” in the last part of the line, that he should call them elfs in the first part of it. Our conviction is that Shakespeare wrote elfes, which, not being immediately understood, was printed “lads” in the quarto, 1622.

Note return to page 1078 10109A60P. 547. We have several times seen words which begin with q printed with c: thus in Henry VIII. we have had chine for “queen” (p. 327), and in Macbeth cooled for “quailed” (p. 417). Here we meet with a repetition of the same strange mistake, in regard to a word that has been the source of considerable discussion in the line,— “And passion, having my best judgment collied.” The quarto has cooled for “collied;” and various explanations of “collied” have been given, but we are not required to state them, in as much as “collied” was, probably, not the poet's word:— “And passion, having my best judgment quelled,” is the substitution in the folio, 1632; and Malone says that some “modern editor,” whom he does not otherwise distinguish, had proposed quelled: Othello's judgment was quelled, or subdued, by his passion. There can hardly be a doubt that this is the proper restoration.

Note return to page 1079 10109A61P. 552. It may be enough to say that the old corrector does not accept the contraction of “probal,” as it stands in all editions, but alters it to probable, which, pronounced in the time of two syllables, may suit the verse sufficiently well.

Note return to page 1080 10109A62P. 554. The dialogue between Cassio, the Clown, and the Musicians is struck out, probably because it was necessary to abridge the performance: several verbal and literal errors are, nevertheless, set right; thus, “speak through the nose” is amended to “squeak through the nose;” me is erased as injurious surplusage where Cassio says, “Dost thou hear me, mine honest friend?” for “the gentlewoman that attends the general,” we have “the gentlewoman that attends the general's wife;” and for “I shall seem to notify unto her,” we are told to read, “I shall seem so to notify unto her.” All these emendations seem more or less required.

Note return to page 1081 10109A63P. 559. In the parenthesis in Desdemona's appeal to Othello on behalf of Cassio,— “(Save that, they say, the wars must make examples Out of her best),” the word “her” is altered naturally, but by no means necessarily, to “Out of our best.” All this part of the play is so well printed in the folios, that few corrections, excepting of punctuation, are introduced in the margin. It ought not to escape notice, however, that mock, of all the early impressions, is converted into “make” in the disputed line (p. 564),— “It is the green-ey'd monster, which doth make The meat it feeds on;” while the conclusion of the same speech is thus given:— “Who dotes, yet doubts; suspects, yet fondly loves.” It is “strongly loves” in the quartos, and “soundly loves” in the folios; but the old corrector changed soundly to “fondly,” and we are disposed to conclude that such was the received text in his time.

Note return to page 1082 10109A64P. 566. The next emendation seems questionable, because the intention of the poet is expressed with sufficient distinctness as the text has hitherto stood: it is where Iago says,— “But pardon me; I do not in position Distinctly speak of her.” He may refer merely to the position Desdemona occupies; but still, what follows the above appears to countenance the recommended alteration:— “But, pardon me, I do not in suspicion Distinctly speak of her, though I may fear, Her will, recoiling to her better judgment, May fall to match you with her country forms, And happily repent.”

Note return to page 1083 10109A65P. 568. The imperfect and corrupt line in the folios,— “If she be false, Heaven mock'd itself,” appears thus in the quartos:— “If she be false, O! then heaven mocks itself.” The emendator of the folio, 1632, furnishes a reading different from any old copy:— “If she be false, O! heaven doth mock itself.— I'll not believe it.” Such may have been his mode of completing the line, or it may have been the way in which he had seen it written or heard it recited, though the difference is not very material. The unprinted stage-directions are not many, but the ancient impressions have very few, even where most required. When Desdemona produces her handkerchief, in order to bind it round Othello's temples, Offers to bind is written in the margin; and when he rejects it, Throws it away is inserted in the same manner. Iago subsequently snatcheth it from Emilia.

Note return to page 1084 10109A66P. 571. Othello's passionate exclamation in the quarto,— “What sense had I of her stolen hours of lust?” is the same in the folio, 1623, excepting that “of” is made in: in the folio, 1632, it is printed,— “What sent had I in her stolen hours of lust?” The old corrector here restores the language of the quarto; and two lines lower he erases “fed well,” which found its way into the folios, and is not only utterly needless, but most prejudicial.

Note return to page 1085 10109A67P. 574. The grossest portions of Iago's description of what Othello might wish to see for the sake of conviction, and of Cassio's supposed dream, are struck through with a pen, but errors are still carefully amended: “to bring to that prospect” the corrector makes “to bring it” (not “them,” as in the folio, 1623) “to that prospect;” he supplies “and” before “then kiss me hard,” and converts “sigh,” “kiss,” and “cry,” of the folios, to the past tense, as in each case in the quarto.

Note return to page 1086 10109A68P. 576. A printer's error has occasioned difficulty in the line, where Othello draws a simile from “the Pontick sea,” which, as the folios have it,— “Ne'er keeps retiring ebb, but keeps due on,” &c. “Keeps” must be wrong in the first instance, and Pope altered it to “feels,” which was, perhaps, derived by him from the quarto, 1630; but the manuscript-emendation in the folio, 1632, is,— “Ne'er knows retiring ebb, but keeps due on,” &c. This seems the superior reading, and may have been that of the poet: to say that a sea “ne'er feels retiring ebb,” is hardly the language of Shakespeare.

Note return to page 1087 10109A69P. 579. Othello, wishing to see the handkerchief, says to Desdemona, in the quarto,— “I have a salt and sullen rheum offends me,” which may be the correct text; but the folios read,— “I have a salt and sorry rheum offends me.” The manuscript-emendator alters “sorry” to sudden, as if Othello meant that the rheum had unexpectedly come upon him, and therefore that he needed his wife's handkerchief:— “I have a salt and sudden rheum offends me.” This seems natural, and in “King John,” Act I. Scene I. (p. 199), we have already seen sudden misprinted sullen.

Note return to page 1088 10109A70P. 582. Cassio entreats Desdemona, if she cannot remove Othello's displeasure, to let him know the result, in order that he may at once adopt some other method of life:— “So shall I clothe me in a forc'd content, And shut myself up in some other course To fortune's alms.” This is as the passage has always appeared, but we are directed in the margin of the folio, 1632, to correct the two following lapses by the printer:-— “So shall I clothe me in a forc'd content, And shift myself upon some other course To fortune's alms.” Cassio was not to “shut himself up in,” but to “shift himself upon some other course” to obtain the favours of fortune, perhaps, by changing his profession.

Note return to page 1089 10109A71P. 587. Just before Othello falls in a trance, as the old copies describe it, he exclaims, “I tremble at it. Nature would not invest herself in such shadowing passion, without some instruction. It is not words that shake me thus.” He means, of course, that his own conviction of the fact of Desdemona's guilt, not Iago's promptings, produced such a trembling and shaking effect upon him. Warburton has a note in favour of reading induction for “instruction;” and Johnson calls a speculation respecting the induction of the moon before the sun, so as to overshadow it, “a noble conjecture.” It appears, however, that “shadowing” (often of old spelt shaddowing) is a misprint for shuddering, which is entirely consistent with what precedes, as well as with what follows about trembling and shaking; the old corrector alters the passage in the following manner:— “I tremble at it. Nature would not invest herself in such shuddering passion, without some instruction. It is not words that shake me thus,” &c. “Shadowing passion” seems to have no meaning, but that fancifully suggested by Warburton, where he supposes Othello, in the height of his grief and fury, to illustrate his own condition by reference to an eclipse. It was the mistake of an epithet, very naturally applied to “passion,” that forced the commentator upon this speculation. The person who abridged the tragedy (probably for representation at some period soon after 1632) struck out the words from “nature” down to “instruction,” as well as a few previous expressions, for a different, but obvious reason.

Note return to page 1090 10109A72P. 589. The folios introduce a strange corruption where they convert “And his unbookish jealousy must construe” into “And his unbookish jealousy must conserve:” a correction of it is found in manuscript in the folio, 1632; but in the last line of this page an emendation of a singular kind is met with. Othello overhearing Cassio laugh, when Iago alludes to Bianca, imagines that Cassio is exulting over him in consequence of his success with Desdemona:— “Do you triumph, Roman? do you triumph?” are the words put into Othello's mouth, “Roman,” in the old copies, being spelt Romaine. Why should Othello call Cassio Roman? Johnson says, because the word “triumph” brought Roman into his thoughts. This may unquestionably be so; but the manuscript-corrector says that the word Roman (perhaps written without a capital letter in the copy used by the printer) has been entirely mistaken, and that we ought to read,— “Do you triumph o'er me? do you triumph?” It is not easy to imagine how romaine became o'er me, either by mishearing or misprinting; but certainly the allusion to a Roman triumph seems very forced in the mouth of a Moor, and the question, “Do you triumph o'er me?” most fit and natural. Without confirmation, however, it might require considerable courage to insert in the text of our great poet so peculiar an emendation.

Note return to page 1091 10109A73P. 598. The subsequent passage has produced discussion, arising mainly out of discordance of texts in the quarto and folios. In the quarto it is,— “But, alas! to make me A fixed figure for the time of scorn To point his slow unmoving finger at.” The folios have “The fixed figure,” and “slow and moving,” but both quarto and folios “time of scorn,” which Rowe properly changed to “hand of scorn,” as appears by a correction in the folio, 1632. Another emendation in the next line, converts “slow and moving,” not into “slow unmoving,” of the quarto, but into “slowly moving,” the text of no old copy, so that the whole is there thus represented, with manifest improvement:— “But, alas! to make me A fixed figure for the hand of scorn To point his slowly moving finger at.”

Note return to page 1092 10109A74P. 600. Here we have another variation in the folio, 1632 (as corrected), from any known copy. The quarto reads,— “How have I been behav'd, that he might stick The small'st opinion on my great'st abuse?” The folios have “my least misuse” for “great'st abuse;” both cannot be right, and the old corrector informs us that neither is so, but that we should print,— “The small'st opinion on my least misdeed;” i. e. “how can he have formed the smallest ill opinion of me from the least misdeed that I have committed?”

Note return to page 1093 10109A75P. 607. Desdemona's willow-ballad begins in the folios,— “The poor soul sat singing by a sycamore tree.” But the original (Percy's Rel. I. 212) has sighing for “singing,” and such is the written correction; but it goes farther by making it commence with the indefinite article:— “A poor soul sat sighing by a sycamore tree.” There is no other change in, or addition to it. That part of the dialogue between Desdemona and Emilia, which relates to the infidelity of wives to their husbands, is marked for omission.

Note return to page 1094 10109A76P. 609. There is not a single printed stage-direction in this busy and difficult scene, where so many seem necessary; but they are furnished in the margin, or in vacant spaces of the folio, 1632. When Roderigo draws his sword, to wait for Cassio, he is told to stand back; Iago wounds Cassio and exit; and subsequently enters unready, with a torch and sword drawn. The entrance of Emilia is not at all marked in the folios, but the corrector duly notes the place, and the whole business of the scene is elsewhere accurately pointed out. This Act, with a few exceptions, is comparatively well printed in the folios.

Note return to page 1095 10109A77P. 616. One of these exceptions is found in Othello's first speech, where the folios print “I'll smell thee on the tree” instead of “I'll smell it on the tree.” Before he commences he is instructed to lock the door. Another exception occurs on p. 619, where “Did yawn at alteration” ought to be “Should yawn at alteration.” These changes are introduced in the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 1096 10109A78P. 621. The folios give the following imperfectly,— “Ay, with Cassio. Nay, had she been true,” by omitting “nay;” but the old corrector states that the line ought to be,— “Ay, with Cassio. Had she been but true,” &c. The difference is small, and, as a mere matter of taste, we prefer the reading of the quarto.

Note return to page 1097 10109A79P. 624. It is difficult to decide, in the subsequent instance, which text ought to be adopted, that of the quarto, 1622, that of the folio, 1623, and quarto, 1630, or that of the corrected folio, 1632, for they all differ:— “No, I will speak as liberal as the north.” So it stands in the folio, 1623, and in the quarto, 1630; but the quarto, 1622, has it, “as liberal as the air,” and the folio, 1632, as amended,— “No, I will speak as liberal as the wind.” Why, we may ask, should the old corrector make the change, in as much as no reasonable objection can be urged against the use of “north,” which he deletes, not in favour of “air,” of the quarto, 1622, but in favour of wind? We may presume, perhaps, that he altered the word because he had heard the line repeated in that manner on the stage. Montano's speech, near the top of the next page, affords another proof to the same effect:— “Which I have here recover'd from the Moor.” The folios omit “here,” clearly necessary to the measure; but instead of inserting it from the quarto, the old corrector placed now in the margin.

Note return to page 1098 10109A80P. 628. The same authority is indisputably right when he supplied another omission in the folios where Lodovico, after telling Othello that he must “go with us,” turns to Iago, and threatens him with torture: the line there is,— “To the Venetian state.—Come; bring away.” The quarto has, “Come; bring him away;” but both Othello and Iago were to accompany the officers of justice, and therefore the old corrector properly puts it, “Come; bring them away.” He again varies triflingly from every old edition in the concluding words of Othello:— “And say, besides, that in Aleppo once, Where a malignant and a turban'd Turk Beat a Venetian, and traduc'd the state,” &c. He alters “where” to when: the “where” had been already stated, viz. in Aleppo, and when has reference to the time and cause of Othello's anger, not to the place in which he gave vent to it. We are not informed in the folios, as printed, that Othello stabs himself at the words, “And smote him thus,” but merely, four lines afterwards, that he “dies”—on the bed, adds the corrector. Emilia expires, without any note in the folios, after she has been wounded by her husband, also without note. According to the old mode of performing the part, it seems that Othello threw himself, in an agony, upon the ground just before Emilia said, “Nay, lay thee down and roar,” but started up again, exclaiming, “O! she was foul,” &c. In modern editions it is stated that at these points he fell upon the bed, and rose from it again. In the time of the corrector he did not fall upon the bed until the moment before his death. Some descriptive additions are made in manuscript, for the first time in the volume, to the list of “the Actor's names” appended to the play: thus we are told that Iago is Ancient to the Moor, Gratiano Uncle to Desdemona, &c. One of these, and only one, is of importance, and that with reference to the question agitated by Tyrwhitt, Henley, Malone, Steevens, &c., whether Bianca were a courtezan of Cyprus or of Venice? The Venetian courtezans were famous in the time of Shakespeare, and he here exhibited one of them on the stage; for to “Bianca, a courtezan,” in the enumeration of the characters, is added of Venice in the hand-writing of the annotator on the folio, 1632. There is no doubt, therefore, that she is supposed in the tragedy to have followed Cassio from Venice to Cyprus, and, to a certain extent, aided in bringing about the catastrophe. It may be deemed more than probable, that she was dressed, at least in the time of the old corrector, in the costume so strikingly represented as that of Venetian Courtezans in Coryat's “Crudities,” 4to. 1611.11Q1255

Note return to page 1099 10109A81Vol. viii. p. 6. The heroine taunts Antony with supposed subjection to Cæsar:— “Who knows If the scarce-bearded Cæsar have not sent His powerful mandate to you, ‘Do this, or this; Take in that kingdom, and enfranchise that; Perform't, or else we damn thee.’” Such has been the universal reading, and there may be no sufficient reason to alter it; but the word “damn” sounds ill in Cleopatra's mouth, reads like a vulgarism in the place where it occurs, and may easily have been misprinted: “Perform't, or else we doom thee” is the emendation of the corrector of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 1100 10109A82P. 7. An adverb, a decided misprint, as it seems to us, has hitherto escaped correction, where Antony tells Cleopatra that every mood becomes her:— “Whose every passion fully strives To make itself in thee fair and admir'd.” “Fully strives” is a clumsy expression, and a manuscript note points out a word, so much more acceptable and appropriate, that we may be satisfied in future to reject the blunder: the whole passage is,— “Fie, wrangling queen! Whom every thing becomes, to chide, to laugh, To weep; whose every passion fitly strives To make itself, in thee, fair and admir'd.” A compositor might carelessly commit such a blunder: the wonder seems to be that it has never been detected.

Note return to page 1101 10109A83P. 9. It only requires a brief note to state that Warburton's emendation of “fertile,” for foretell of the folios, is not confirmed by the corrector of the folio, 1632: the word in the margin of that impression is fruitful; fertile may come nearer the letters, but fruitful is certainly better adapted to the sense:— “If every of your wishes had a womb, And fruitful every wish, a million.”

Note return to page 1102 10109A84P. 12. The subsequent quotation may be (as indeed it has been) construed into a meaning; but when we state the errors of the press it contains, we can scarcely doubt regarding corruption:— “The present pleasure, By revolution lowering, does become The opposite of itself.” Such has always been the text, and Johnson, after admitting it to be obscure, confesses himself “unable to add any thing” to Warburton's explanation, which relates to the “revolutions of the sun in his diurnal course.” Tollett and Steevens each made an attempt with about the same success; but can any thing be better than the changes offered by the old annotator?— “The present pleasure, By repetition souring, does become The opposite of itself.” This needs neither illustration nor enforcement: sour and souring were of old spelt sower and sowering. Two lines farther on, the printer of the folio, 1632, left out the epithet “enchanting” before “queen,” but the old corrector inserted it, perhaps from the folio, 1623.

Note return to page 1103 10109A85P. 15. Few things can be clearer than that the punctuation of the line where Cleopatra tells Charmian,— “Thou teachest like a fool: the way to lose him,” is wrong; yet it has been almost invariably followed. Malone, and others after him, have given it in that manner, but the sense unquestionably runs on:— “Thou teachest, like a fool, the way to lose him.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, erases the colon.

Note return to page 1104 10109A86P. 18. Cleopatra pretends to doubt the affection of Antony, who observes, in all editions,— “My precious queen, forbear; And give true evidence to his love, which stands An honourable trial.” “Evidence” is one syllable too long for the verse, unless it be read ev'dence; but that, if any, is the smallest objection to it, as will be seen when we quote the passage as corrected, and as it must be given in future:— “And give true credence to his love, which stands An honourable trial.”

Note return to page 1105 10109A87P. 19. For “one great competitor” we must hereafter read “our great competitor,” as Johnson conjectured: the old corrector substitutes our for “one.” In the first line of the next page, the negative at the end dropped out in the second folio; and if it were not obtained from the first folio, the sense would necessarily supply it. Lower down, it appears equally proper to read “Fall on him for't,” and the C is struck through, and F placed in the margin: Johnson's forced construction of “Visit him” for “Call on him,” will not bear examination; surfeits and dryness of his bones were to fall (not to “call”) on Antony for his unrestrained voluptuousness.

Note return to page 1106 10109A88P. 20. A messenger brings intelligence that “Pompey is strong at sea,” and he adds,— “To the ports The discontents repair, and men's reports Give him much wrong'd.” The emendator of the folio, 1632, substitutes, with much plausibility, fleets for “ports;” and it seems likely that the compositor blundered in consequence of the word “report” being found two lines above, and “reports” just below. It is improbable that Shakespeare would have been guilty of the cacophony: nevertheless, it is not to be disputed that, as far as the sense is concerned, “ports” answers the purpose quite as well as fleets.

Note return to page 1107 10109A89P. 24. Alexas arrives, not “from Cæsar,” as stated in the old copies, but from Antony, as an emendation in the folio, 1632, informs us; and at the end of his third speech he describes the manner of the hero as he delivered his message for Cleopatra, and then mounted his steed. The words have been usually printed in this manner:— “So he nodded, And soberly did mount an arm-gaunt steed, Who neigh'd so high, that what I would have spoke Was beastly dumb'd by him.” The first difficulty has arisen out of the epithet “armgaunt,” and, without noticing other proposed emendations, we may state that Sir Thomas Hanmer's “arm-girt” is precisely that of the old corrector, who also makes a very important change in the last hemistich, which, in the folios, stands,— “Was beastly dumbe by him.” The commentators have properly taken “dumbe” as a misprint for dumb'd, and have referred to “Pericles,” where dumbs is used as a verb. It seems that “beastly” was not Shakespeare's word, which we can well suppose: in “Macbeth” we have seen “boast” misprinted beast, and in Henry V. (Chorus to Act IV.) we meet with the line,— “Steed threatens steed in high and boastful neighs.” In the passage before us, Alexas says that the “arm-girt steed” neighed so “high” that he could not address Antony: in what way, then, does the corrector of the folio, 1632, give the whole passage?— “So he nodded, And soberly did mount an arm-girt steed, Who neigh'd so high, that what I would have spoke Was boastfully dumb'd by him.” One slight objection to this change is that boastfully must be read as a dissyllable, and such is the case with various words, one of them being “evidence,” in a preceding quotation, if we could refrain from admitting credence instead of it. Boastfully might be, and probably was, misprinted “beastly;” and the arm-girt steed, neighing proudly as Antony mounted him, “boastfully dumbed” what Alexas would have spoken to his master.11Q1256

Note return to page 1108 10109A90P. 27. We own that we do not like the first change in the following, where Pompey expresses his hope that the beauty and blandishments of Cleopatra will detain Antony in Egypt:— “Salt Cleopatra, soften thy wand lip. Let witchcraft join with beauty, lust with both: Tie up the libertine in a field of feasts, Keep his brain fuming,” &c. For “wand lip” the old corrector, prosaically as it seems to us, has “warm lip;” but it is very possible that warm was misheard “wand.” However, he goes on to make a double alteration in the next line but one, where he puts Lay for “Tie,” and flood for “field.” It reads very unlike Shakespeare to talk of tying up a libertine in a field of feasts. The proposed emendations, then, are these:— “Salt Cleopatra, soften thy warm lip. Let witchcraft join with beauty, lust with both: Lay up the libertine in a flood of feasts; Keep his brain fuming,” &c. To us the above appears one of the least satisfactory emendations made in this play in the folio, 1632: it sounds too much like conjecture; yet on p. 449 we have seen tying misprinted for “laying.”

Note return to page 1109 10109A91P. 29. When Antony says to Cæsar,— “Were we before our armies, and to fight, I should do thus,” we are no where told, in ancient or modern editions, what Antony did, whether he embraced or shook hands with his competitor. There is a manuscript note, Shake hands, in the folio, 1632, which may be said to settle the doubt, as far as regards the old practice of the stage; and Cæsar, taking the proffered hand of Antony, says, “Welcome to Rome.” This is nearly the first additional stage-direction that has occurred in the hand-writing of the corrector, and instructions of the kind are not so frequent as in some other dramas. Shake hands is repeated, when the engagement respecting Octavia is concluded between Antony and Cæsar.

Note return to page 1110 10109A92P. 33. When Agrippa first recommends this marriage, Cæsar slily and jocosely remarks, as the passage is given in all modern editions,— “Say not so, Agrippa: If Cleopatra heard you, your reproof Were well deserv'd of rashness.” This is intelligible, but hardly as the poet must have left his text; and the sentence is thus most blunderingly printed in the folios:— “Say not, say Agrippa, if Cleopater heard you, Your proof were well deserved of rashness.” The old corrector shows that proof is to be taken as “reproof,” which was Warburton's supposition, not as “approof,” which Theobald inserted; and the folio, 1632, gives the lines in this way:— “Say it not, Agrippa: If Cleopatra heard you, your reproof Were well deserv'd for rashness.” This is most comprehensible; and it is easy to see how part of the blunders found their way into the old impressions: the proposal of a marriage between Antony and Octavia might well deserve reproof for its rashness, if Cleopatra had been by to hear it.11Q1257

Note return to page 1111 10109A93P. 35. There seems to be a slight error in the description of Cleopatra's pavilion upon the Cydnus:— “She did lie In her pavilion (cloth of gold of tissue), O'er-picturing that Venus,” &c. A manuscript note informs us, as we may reasonably imagine, that cloth of gold was not “of tissue,” but that we ought to read,— “In her pavilion (cloth of gold and tissue),” &c. It was composed of cloth of gold and tissue: perhaps the cloth of gold was lined with tissue. Lower in the same page, “To gloue the delicate cheeks,” of the folio, 1623, and “To glove the delicate cheeks,” of the folio, 1632, are altered to “To glow the delicate cheeks,” as in modern impressions. On the next page (36) it has been invariable to print as follows:— “The silken tackle Swell with the touches of those flower-soft hands, That yarely frame the office.” Why, or how, was the silken tackle to “swell with the touches of flower-soft hands?” The printer again mistook m for w: the poet is alluding to the perfume derived by the silken cordage from the flower-soft hands through which it passed, and adds,— “From the barge A strange invisible perfume hits the sense Of the adjacent wharfs.” Therefore, we ought undoubtedly, with the old corrector, to amend the text to “Smell with the touches of those flower-soft hands,” &c.

Note return to page 1112 10109A94P. 38. Whether it be or be not “more poetical,” it is certain that the old corrector tells us to read,— “But near him thy angel Becomes afear'd,” and not “Becomes a fear.” This emendation is at least consistent with North's Plutarch—“for thy Demon is afraid of his”—as well as with Shakespeare himself, who makes the Soothsayer repeat,— “I say again, thy spirit Is all afraid to govern thee near him.” The poet may, however, have here intended to vary the expression.

Note return to page 1113 10109A95P. 40. The Messenger who brings intelligence to Cleopatra of Antony's marriage with Octavia, and who appears again in a subsequent scene (p. 60), is called Elis in a marginal note in both places in the folio, 1632. Whether Elis, or Ellis, were the name of the part, or of the performer may be doubted, but we have no knowledge of any actor of the time so called.

Note return to page 1114 10109A96P. 54. When Antony, during the debauch, says to Cæsar, “Be a child o' the time,” Cæsar replies, rather unintelligibly,— “Possess it, I'll make answer; but I had rather fast From all four days, than drink so much in one.” What does he mean by telling Antony to “possess it?” Profess it is the emendation in the folio, 1632: that is, profess to be a child of the time; but Cæsar follows it up by stating his dislike of drinking to excess. In the first scene of “King Lear” (p. 434) we have had the converse of this misprint—professes for “possesses.” A question has arisen whether to preserve beat, of the old copies, or to print “bear,” where Enobarbus says, in reference to the boy's song,— “The holding every man shall beat,” &c. Theobald was in favour of “bear,” and he is proved to have been right, not merely because that change is made in the folio, 1632, but because the old annotator has placed the two last lines of the song in a mark of inclusion, and has designated them as the burthen, or “holding,” which the jovial company was to bear “as loud as their strong sides could volley.” Johnson's notion that “drumming on the sides” was intended, is out of the question. No printer's error was more common than t for r, and vice versâ.

Note return to page 1115 10109A97P. 56. Although at the opening of this drama in the folios, we have Actus primus, Scena prima, no such divisions are elsewhere noted from beginning to end. Malone and other modern editors have marked Act III. as commencing with the entrance of Ventidius in triumph in Syria; but the corrector of the folio, 1632, makes Act III. begin after this scene, where the place of action is Rome, and where we read in the old editions, Enter Agrippa at one door, Enobarbus at another. This should seem to have been the division in the time of the corrector; and it is certainly more proper and convenient than that adopted since the days of Rowe, because it tends somewhat to diminish the extreme length of Act III., which, even according to the representation in the amended folio, 1632, comprises eight scenes. In more than one instance the place was supposed to be changed, although no actual alteration had occurred.

Note return to page 1116 10109A98P. 63. The usual reading of the following has been,— “When the best hint was given him, he not took't, Or did it from his teeth.” The folio, 1623, has “he not look'd,” and the folio, 1632, “he had look'd.” There appears no sufficient ground for doing more than amend the frequent error of “not” for but; it avoids an awkwardness when Antony complains of Cæsar, that,— “When the best hint was given him, he but look'd, Or did it from his teeth.” Such is the emendation in the folio, 1632, the meaning being, that Cæsar only looked when the best hint was given him, or merely applauded Antony from his teeth, and not from his heart. The opinion of Steevens that “from his teeth” is to be understood “in spite of his teeth,” of course, cannot be sustained for an instant.

Note return to page 1117 10109A99P. 67. Cæsar finds fault with Antony for sending back Octavia without due ceremony and attendance:— “But you are come A market-maid to Rome, and have prevented The ostentation of our love, which, left unshown, Is often left unlov'd.” “Left unlov'd” is the reading of all editions; but, nevertheless, it seems to be wrong, and in the folio, 1632, as corrected, we are told to print the last part of the quotation thus:— “Which, left unshown, Is often held unlov'd;” the meaning being, that where the ostentation of love was omitted, it was often held, or considered, that love did not exist. Lower down, the alteration of two letters in the margin, properly converts abstract into “obstruct,” which Warburton first introduced.

Note return to page 1118 10109A00P. 68. We surely need not pause in making a change which only requires the omission of a letter, which must have accidentally become a part of the text, and which is palpably an “obstruct” to the author's sense. Cæsar is still addressing his sister:— “Your letters did withhold our breaking forth, Till we perceiv'd, both how you were wrong led, And we in negligent danger.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, puts wrongèd for “wrong led:” the objection was, not that Octavia had been “wrong led,” but wrongèd by Antony, who had abandoned her, and returned to Cleopatra. Cæsar, when he informs Octavia of this fact, calls her “my most wronged sister.”

Note return to page 1119 10109C01P. 74. After the loss of the battle, Scarus attributes it to the presence and flight of Cleopatra. Enobarbus asks, “How appears the fight?” and Scarus replies,— “On our side like the token'd pestilence, Where death is sure. Yond' ribald-rid nag of Egypt, Whom leprosy o'ertake, i' the midst o' the fight, When vantage, like a pair of twins, appear'd Both as the same, or rather ours the elder;— The brize upon her like a cow in June, Hoists sails, and flies.” Here the folio, 1632, omits take in “o'ertake,” and has “Both of the same” for “Both as the same,” of the folio, 1623; but the two folios read, “Yond ribaldred nag of Egypt,” an expression that has occasioned much doubt and comment. Tyrwhitt suggested hag for “nag,” but the prevailing text has been “nag” and “ribald-rid,” for ribaldred. It is to be remarked, however (a circumstance mentioned in note 7), that the line is overloaded by a syllable: this redundancy the old corrector remedies, but he also instructs us, in conformity with Tyrwhitt's notion, that hag has been misprinted “nag,” and that the line ought to run thus:— “Where death is sure. Yond' ribald hag of Egypt,” &c. Ribald hag is most appropriate to Cleopatra on account of her profligacy, as well as her witchcraft; and it is just possible that in the manuscript before the compositor the word was miswritten ribaldry, which in his hands became ribaldred, and has been the occasion of considerable difficulty. Besides, how was leprosy to afflict a nag?

Note return to page 1120 10109C02P. 80. We cannot approve of the commencement of Act IV., as marked in the corrected folio, 1632. It is made to begin with this scene between Cleopatra, Enobarbus, Charmian, and Iras, in Alexandria, instead of the scene where Cæsar enters (near Alexandria) reading a letter, and accompanied by Agrippa, Mecænas, and others. This arrangement still farther shortens Act III., but it lengthens Act IV., and is liable to several objections, into which it is not necessary here to enter. The conjecture in note 9, founded upon Johnson's hint, that “meered” might be a lapse by the printer for mooted, in the expression, “he being the meered question,” is supported by a manuscript change of the old corrector. In future we may safely print “mooted question.”

Note return to page 1121 10109C03P. 81. Enobarbus ridicules the challenge of Antony to Cæsar to engage with him in single combat, on the ground that Antony, after the defeat of his forces, and his disgraceful flight, has nothing to lose, while Cæsar has nothing to gain: he exclaims, in soliloquy, as the language of the poet has always been represented,— “That he should dream, Knowing all measures, the full Cæsar will Answer his emptiness!” Nobody has explained what is meant by “Knowing all measures.” It might mean that Antony knows how to measure between himself and Cæsar, were it not clear that Antony is quite ignorant upon the point; and a correction leads us to believe that the printer was again in fault, and composed “measures” for a word like it, which he hastily misread:— “That he should dream, Knowing all miseries, that the full Cæsar will Answer his emptiness!”11Q1258 Enobarbus refers to the miserable plight and prospects of Antony at the time he dared Cæsar to “lay his gay comparisons apart,” and meet him “sword against sword.” Just above, “quality” is changed to qualities, but this is a variation of little importance; nevertheless, it reads as if it were right.

Note return to page 1122 10109C04P. 82. Thyreus tells Cleopatra that Cæsar would be pleased to hear that she had left Antony, “And put yourself under his shroud, The universal landlord.” The first of these lines halts for want of two syllables; nevertheless, the text is such in the folio, 1623; but in the folio, 1632, the word “landlord” is strangely separated from what precedes, and put two lines lower. The old corrector sets this matter right, and adds what completes the measure of the first line, and was in all probability what Shakespeare wrote:— “And put yourself under his shroud, who is The universal landlord.” Three lines farther on the folios have,— “Say to great Cæsar this in disputation.” It is the introduction to a message of submission from Cleopatra to Cæsar; and Warburton, very judiciously, as now appears, put “deputation” for disputation, which last had Malone and others for adherents; but the correction in the folio, 1632, goes somewhat farther:— “Say to great Cæsar, that in deputation I kiss his conquering hand,” &c.

Note return to page 1123 10109C05P. 92. According to the regulation of such matters in the folio, 1632, this is the fifth scene of the fourth act; but, as we have already stated, we think the old corrector so far wrong in his division of the play. Antony enters calling for his armour:—“Mine armour, Eros!” and when the man brings it, Antony is made to say in the old copies, “Put thine iron on;” but surely it ought to be, as a manuscript note renders it, “Put mine iron on:” Eros then begins to arm the hero, while Cleopatra insists upon lending her aid; and in this place, in the early editions, three or four speeches are jumbled together, and all assigned to Cleopatra. The corrector separates them by marginal notes, but not precisely as has been done by Sir T. Hanmer and later editors. We give the mode of regulating the dialogue in the amended folio, 1632, and on comparison it will be seen that it varies:— “Cleo. “Nay, I'll help too, Antony, What's this for? Ant. Ah, let be, let be; thou art The armourer of my heart. False, false: this, this. Cleo. Sooth, la, I'll help. Ant. Thus must it be. Well, well: We shall thrive now.” The chief difference is that “Thus must it be” is given by the old corrector to Antony, and not to Cleopatra. Afterwards Antony observes,— “He that unbuckles this, till we do please To doff't for our repose, shall hear a storm.” “Shall bear a storm,” says a marginal note, with much more fitness, the compositor having taken a wrong letter. An enemy who should attempt to unbuckle Antony's armour was not likely to “hear a storm” of words, but “to bear a storm” of blows.

Note return to page 1124 10109C07P. 98. Antony, entering for a time victorious, tells his followers, as it has always been printed,— “We have beat him to his camp. Run one before And let the queen know of our guests.” Johnson adds a note, stating that by these words Antony means to say that he will bring his officers to sup which Cleopatra; but near the end of the scene, while Antony laments that the palace had not “capacity to camp this host,” he says not a word about feasting even the officers. The truth is that, from the first, the word has been mistaken, and because it was spelt guests in the old copies, it has always been supposed to mean what we call company. The amender of the folio, 1632, merely strikes out the letter u, leaving the word gests, and it requires no proof that a gest, from the Latin, formerly meant a deed, and was synonymous with it. When, therefore, Antony directs,— “Run one before, And let the queen know of our gests,” it is as much as to say, “let her know of our deeds,” and the manner in which we have beaten the Romans to their tents. Gest was unquestionably Shakespeare's word.

Note return to page 1125 10109C08P. 101. Enobarbus dying of grief and remorse on the stage, one of the soldiers present says that he sleeps, but another observes,— “Swoons rather; for so bad a prayer as his Was never yet for sleep.” Steevens arbitrarily changed “sleep” to sleeping; but instead of “for sleep” we ought to read “'fore sleep,” or before sleep, and the word is altered in manuscript accordingly: the sense is, that so bad a prayer, as Enobarbus had ended with, was never uttered before sleep.

Note return to page 1126 10109C09P. 103. Antony rushes in despair, with the words “All is lost!” and afterwards proceeds,— “Betray'd I am. O, this false soul of Egypt! this grave charm,— Whose eye beck'd forth my wars,” &c. Is it not evident, upon mere perusal, that “soul” must be wrong, that it could not be the word of the poet? Almost the same may be said of “grave,” in connexion with “charm;” and when Johnson states that “grave charm” means “majestic beauty,” he forgot that “charm” in Shakespeare's time, and indeed our own, was to be taken as enchantment. The manuscript-corrector alters both words thus:— “O, this false spell of Egypt! this great charm,” &c. Cleopatra, notwithstanding she was a “false spell,” was a grand piece of witchcraft. On her entrance, immediately afterwards, Antony receives her with the words, “Ah, thou spell! Avaunt!”

Note return to page 1127 10109C10P. 110. When Diomed, speaking of Cleopatra, tells Antony,— “You did suspect She had dispos'd with Cæsar,” Steevens subjoins a note stating that “dispose, in this instance, perhaps signifies to make terms, to settle matters;” but he adds no example of such being its signification any where else. A correction in the folio, 1632, treats it as a mere lapse by the printer: such we may confidently deem it, and that the poet's language was,— “She had compos'd with Cæsar;” i. e. had entered into a composition or treaty with him. The printer used the wrong preposition.

Note return to page 1128 10109C11P. 111. This scene, numbered the thirteenth in modern impressions, according to the old corrector, begins Act V.; and unless the last act be made unusually short, this should seem to be the proper division. Cleopatra, on the next page, declaring to Antony that she will never be led in triumph by Cæsar, adds, as the text has been constantly repeated,— “Your wife Octavia, with her modest eyes, And still conclusion, shall acquire no honour Demuring upon me.” What signification can we attach to “still conclusion?” Johnson replies, “sedate determination,” a very forced construction, while a manuscript emendation, proposing the substitution of three letters, seems to put the matter incontrovertibly at rest:— “Your wife, Octavia, with her modest eyes, And still condition, shall acquire no honour Demuring upon me.” The stillness of the condition of Octavia, her gentleness and tranquillity of deportment, have already been dwelt upon in various places.

Note return to page 1129 10109C12P. 112. A good deal of doubt has been occasioned by Cleopatra's “strange words,” as Johnson calls them (and justly, if they were such as they have always been represented), when she and her women are endeavouring with all their strength to raise the dying Antony into the monument:— “Here's sport, indeed!” Steevens calls it “affected levity,” and Boswell wishes to make it “a melancholy contrast with her former sports.” The corrector of the folio, 1632, strikes out the letter s in “sport,” and leaves the word merely port—“Here's port indeed!” Milton uses the participle ported, and here Shakespeare appears to have employed port as a substantive to indicate weight:— “Here's port indeed!—How heavy weighs my lord!” The French use port for burden, and navire de grand port is a ship of great burden. Cleopatra speaks of the weight of Antony by the same word; and though we may not be able to point out any other instance where port signifies in English a load or weight, we can hardly doubt that such is the fact in the case before us, and that, when the heroine exclaims, “Here's port, indeed!” she means, here's a load, weight, or burden, indeed. It is evident that the person who made the emendation in the folio, 1632, so understood it; the printer probably did not, and hence his blunder. The alteration is very trifling, and it overcomes a great difficulty.

Note return to page 1130 10109C13P. 115. The first lines of this act have created discussion: they stand thus in the old copies, where Cæsar speaks of Antony:— “Go to him, Dollabella, bid him yield. Being so frustrate, tell him, He mocks the pauses that he makes. Dol. Cæsar, I shall.” Malone could not comprehend what was meant by “He mocks the pauses that he makes,” and printed “He mocks us by the pauses that he makes.” This is not at all like the change introduced in manuscript in the folio, 1632, which may be considered all that is necessary both to complete the sense and the verse:— “Go to him, Dollabella; bid him yield. Being so frustrate, tell him that he mocks The pauses that he makes. Dol. Cæsar, I shall.” By “he mocks the pauses that he makes,” we must understand Cæsar to charge Antony with trifling with the pauses he made in finally submitting to his enemies. It is certain that the corrector considered it necessary to supply nothing but the word that, and with this addition (whencesoever he procured it) he imagined, no doubt, that he had left the poet's meaning clear.

Note return to page 1131 10109C14P. 116. Dercetas brings tidings of Antony's death in these terms, as commonly printed:— “But that self hand, Which writ his honour in the acts it did, Hath, with the courage which the heart did lend it, Splitted the heart. This is his sword; I robb'd his wound of it,” &c. Here, in spite of the word split being converted into two syllables, the line in which it occurs is left short of two others. In “the Comedy of Errors” (p. 64) we have seen “splitted,” of the folios, amended to split, and here the same course has been pursued, and two words added, in entire consistency with what has gone before, and at the same time completing the defective measure. We have “self hand” for self same hand in the first line, and in the fourth line, as amended, we have “self noble heart” for self same noble heart:— “But that self hand, Which writ his honour in the acts it did, Hath, with the courage which the heart did lend it, Split that self noble heart. This is his sword,” &c. Every old copy has the defective line in a situation where there seems no reason why a defective line should be found; and it is perfected in manuscript of the time by words which, in all probability, had accidentally escaped.

Note return to page 1132 10109C15P. 118. Cleopatra, contemplating suicide, says it is “To do that thing that ends all other deeds, Which shackles accidents and bolts up change; Which sleeps, and never palates more the dung, The beggar's nurse and Cæsar's.” We must here see the impropriety of talking of palating “dung,” and afterwards calling that “dung” “the beggar's nurse and Cæsar's.” By “dung” has been understood “gross terrene sustenance,” but the sense is much cleared when we ascertain from a note in the folio, 1632, that the scribe misheard “dung” for dug: the dug of sustenance may most fitly be called “the beggar's nurse and Cæsar's,” and it may reasonably be supposed to be palated by mankind: the corrector, therefore, has it,— “Which sleeps, and never palates more the dug, The beggar's nurse and Cæsar's.” This emendation may, or may not, have been conjectural, but we may be pretty sure it is right.

Note return to page 1133 10109C16P. 120. The following is pointed out most likely as a printer's error: Cleopatra is on the same theme, declaring that she will in some way destroy herself:— “Sir, I will eat no meat, I'll not drink, sir; If idle talk will once be necessary, I'll not sleep neither.” The poet's word was, no doubt, accessary: if idle talk would keep her awake, and thus be accessary to her death, she would indulge in it, and never sleep:— “If idle talk will once be accessary, I'll not sleep neither.”

Note return to page 1134 10109C17P. 122. In the subsequent speech by Dolabella, compassionating Cleopatra, the change of a single letter makes sense out of nonsense: the old copies have this text:— “But I do feel, By the rebound of yours, a grief that suites My very heart at root.” Malone and others read “shoots” for suits, but the poet's word (as speculatively suggested in note 5) was smites, and not shoots nor suits:— “A grief that smites My very heart at root.” The old corrector put his pen through the letter u in suites, and wrote m in the margin instead of it. Not long afterwards (p. 125), Cleopatra herself uses the word smites:— “Ye gods! it smites me Beneath the fall I have.” In all copies, ancient and modern, it stands, “The gods! it smites me,” &c.; but as the was often formerly written ye, the article was mistaken for it in this instance. The sentence has relation to the contradiction of Cleopatra by Seleucus, in the presence of Cæsar, as to the jewels, &c., she had reserved; and when she desires the Steward to quit her presence, we encounter a change of expression which is not of much moment, and which can hardly be said to be necessary; but as the folio, 1632, has a note upon it, it is perhaps fit to mention it: it is where Cleopatra says to Seleucus:— “Prythee, go hence; Or I shall show the cinders of my spirits Through th' ashes of my chance.” Such has been the common reading; but the old corrector tells us, what appears extremely plausible, that two mistakes are here to be set right:— “Prythee, go hence; Or I shall show the cinders of my spirit Through th' ashes of mischance.” “My chance” may here, perhaps, be understood in the same sense as mischance. There can be little dispute that just afterwards “are” should be and, where the heroine tells Cæsar,— “When we fall, We answer other's merits in our name, And therefore to be pitied.” Of course, “merits” here means deserts.

Note return to page 1135 10109C18P. 127. Iras declares that her nails shall tear out her eyes rather than see her queen led in triumph; and Cleopatra's observation is this:— “Why, that's the way To fool their preparation, and to conquer Their most absurd intents.” The old corrector gives it thus:— “Why, that's the way To foil their preparation, and to conquer Their most assur'd intents.” Theobald proposed assur'd for “absurd,” but the change has since his time been rejected; and although foil may read better on some accounts, still “fool” is stronger, and the alteration of the text so far not called for.

Note return to page 1136 10109C19P. 130. After the death of Iras, Cleopatra remarks,— “This proves me base: If she first meet the curled Antony, He'll make demand of her,” &c. The folio, 1632, is most carelessly printed in this part of the play, and instead of “first meet,” repeats proves, which the compositor's eye caught from the preceding line,— “If she proves the curled Antony,” &c. A marginal note restores the text as it appears in the folio, 1623; but even a more stupid blunder of a different kind is made on the last page of the play; for there the word “aspick,” occurring in two nearly consecutive lines, one of them is misprinted aspect, and the necessary verb is omitted: the passage there stands precisely thus:— “This an aspects traile And these fig-leaves have slime upon them, such As th' aspicke leaves upon the caves of Nile.” These errors are remedied by the old corrector, though he does not amend the regulation of the lines; but it may deserve remark, that he gives no countenance to the proposition (alluded to in note 3) to read “canes of Nile” instead of “caves of Nile.” If Shakespeare had intended to refer to the reeds that grow upon the banks of the Nile, he would hardly have called them canes.

Note return to page 1137 10109C20P. 139. The mode in which the person who made the emendations in the folio, 1632, points and corrects the three first lines in this play, is the following, showing Tyrwhitt's sagacity in omitting the s after “kings,” as it is printed in all the early editions:— “You do not meet a man but frowns. Our bloods No more obey the heavens, than our courtiers Still seem as does the king.” i. e. Our bloods do not more obey the heavens, than our courtiers imitate the king: as the king frowns, so all others look gloomy. There cannot be a doubt that this is the right reading.

Note return to page 1138 10109C21P. 140. The second folio is very ill printed in the opening of this scene: it has “wy so” for “why so,” “he like” for “his like,” and “which himself” for “within himself.” These blunders are set right; but on the same authority we find all the folios wrong in the parenthesis, not there so printed,— “(Then old and fond of issue,”) for we are told that it ought to be,— “Then old and fond of's issue;” or “fond of his issue:” the correction is of little importance, since it varies neither sense nor metre.

Note return to page 1139 10109C22P. 144. As the subsequent passage has been ordinarily printed, it ought to have been followed by a mark of interrogation:— “Thou took'st a beggar; would'st have made my throne A seat for baseness.” Such, however, has not been the punctuation in ancient or modern editions; and the fact appears to be, that it was not intended as a question, for a slight manuscript alteration in the folio, 1632, makes it run,— “Thou took'st a beggar would have made my throne A seat for baseness:” that is, “a beggar, who would have made my throne,” &c., by a very common ellipsis: Imogen's indignant counter-assertion, “No; I rather added a lustre to it,” seems to render it probable that a question was not intended.

Note return to page 1140 10109C23P. 150. We here encounter the first manuscript emendation that is of much value. Iachimo observes, that the marriage of Posthumus with his king's daughter, tends to enhance the opinion of his merits, adding,— “Ay, and the approbation of those, that weep this lamentable divorce under her colours, are wonderfully to extend him; be it but to fortify her judgment, which else an easy battery might lay flat, for taking a beggar without less quality.” What can be the meaning of the expression, “under her colours?” how was the “lamentable divorce” under the colours of Imogen? Johnson tells us that “under her colours” is to be understood as “by her influence.” Surely not: Posthumus was not banished by the influence of Imogen, but in direct opposition to her wishes. How does the annotator of the folio, 1632, explain the matter? By showing that here occurs another of the many gross mistakes of the scribe, or of the printer, which have been from time to time pointed out: “under her colours” ought to have been and her dolours, a word not unfrequently used by Shakespeare, and most applicable to the distresses of Imogen in her separation from her husband. But besides this error, there are several others in the sentence, together with the omission of the verb wont, carelessly excluded, because, perhaps, as the next word begins with won, the compositor missed what is almost essential to the intelligibility of the passage: then, near the close, we have “less” for more, although Malone, not aware of any of the preceding defects, strives hard to justify “less.” Read the whole, therefore, as the corrector says it was written, and nothing can well be plainer:— “Ay, and the approbations of those, that weep this lamentable divorce and her dolours, are wont wonderfully to extend him; be it but to fortify her judgment, which else an easy battery might lay flat, for taking a beggar without more quality.”

Note return to page 1141 10109C24P. 154. Another remarkable corruption has been perpetuated near the close of this scene. Iachimo has vaunted that he will overcome the chastity of Imogen, and Posthumus has accepted his wager: the latter observes, as the text has always stood,— “Let us have articles betwixt us.—Only, thus far you shall answer: if you make your voyage upon her, and give me directly to understand you have prevailed, I am no farther your enemy,” &c. Now, “if you make your voyage upon her” may be understood as referring to the voyage Iachimo was to make to Britain, in order to endeavour to carry his vaunt into effect; but still the expression is awkward, and one which a correction in the folio, 1632, informs us the poet did not use: the word “voyage” is a misprint, in part, perhaps, occasioned by the omission of an adjective which ought almost immediately to precede it: Posthumus observes, that if Iachimo make good his boast, then Imogen would not be worth anger: he therefore says,— “Only, thus far you shall answer: if you make good your vauntage upon her, and give me directly to understand you have prevailed, I am no farther your enemy.” In other words, “if you succeed and accomplish your boast, she does not merit debate.” It seems probable that good was left out in the manuscript, and that the compositor mistook vauntage, and printed “voyage,” knowing that Iachimo must necessarily cross the sea, in order to carry out his project. The sense of the poet appears to have been as different, as it was superior to the ordinary interpretation.11Q1259

Note return to page 1142 10109C25P. 159. Two emendations were proposed by Warburton and Theobald in the following: both are found in the margin of the folio, 1632, with a confirmatory addition of some importance. We here give the passage as amended, marking the changes in Italics as usual:— “What! are men mad? Hath nature given them eyes To see this vaulted arch, and the rich cope O'er sea and land, which can distinguish 'twixt The fiery orbs above, and the twinn'd stones Upon th' unnumber'd beach,” &c. For cope the ordinary text has been “crop,” for O'er “Of,” and for th' unnumber'd “the number'd.” We may in future safely adopt these emendations, which require no explanation. O'er is proposed for the first time.

Note return to page 1143 10109C26P. 162. There can be no doubt that the old corrector has, by the alteration of a single letter, rendered quite evident what has puzzled all commentators: it is where Iachimo pretends to describe to Imogen the infidelity of Posthumus while in Rome: the folios have what follows:— “Slaver with lips as common as the stairs That mount the Capitol; join gripes with hands Made hard with hourly falsehood (falsehood as With labour) then by peeping in an eye Base and illustrous as the smoky light That's fed with stinking tallow.” Some editors have adhered to this text, while others, Malone and Johnson for instance, have printed “by peeping in an eye” “lie peeping in an eye;” but all have been mistaken, and what was meant was merely an allusion to the game of bo-peep, which is mentioned by Shakespeare and other authors (among them Lodge, in his “Alarum against Usurers,” 1584), and is here again introduced:— “Then, bo-peeping in an eye Base and illustrous,” &c. Posthumus is represented by Iachimo as pressing the hard hands of the most hacknied prostitutes, and playing at bo-peep in their lack-lustre eyes. On such evidence we can readily believe in another amendment, proposed on the next page, which, however, is not so necessary, but, at the same time, by no means uncalled for: it is part of the same description of the dealings of Posthumus “With diseas'd ventures, That play with all infirmities for gold Which rottenness can lend nature.” The corrector states that they do not “play” with these infirmities for gold, but pay, or make a return for gold by the most loathsome diseases:— “That pay with all infirmities for gold.”11Q1260

Note return to page 1144 10109C27P. 163. When Imogen tells Iachimo,— “I do condemn mine ears, that have So long attended thee,” a marginal manuscript note directs us again to change a single letter, and much strengthen the old and ordinary reading:— “I do condemn mine ears, that have So long attended thee.” She despised her ears for having listened so long to the slanders of Iachimo. The reader will almost have anticipated this amendment, which, however, has never been made, though adding much to the force of the heroine's indignation. We may add that in Iachimo's last speech in this scene, the old corrector of the folio, 1632, substitutes out-stay'd for outstood, at least with plausibility.

Note return to page 1145 10109C28P. 166. It requires notice, in reference to the divisions of this drama, that when, probably, it was represented in the time of the annotator on the folio, 1632 (we know that it was revived and performed at Court, 1st January, 1633), the second Act began with what is made Scene VII. of Act I. in modern editions. In all the old printed copies also, Act II. commences with the entrance of Cloten and the two Lords; but the words Actus Secundus, Scæna Prima are struck through with a pen in the folio, 1632, and transferred to what is headed Scæna Septima of the preceding act. This change seems not unadvisable, if only for the sake of lengthening Act II. Therefore, above Enter Cloten and the two Lords, is written “Scene 2;” and we are informed, also in manuscript, that the three characters come on the stage as from the Bowling Alley.

Note return to page 1146 10109C29P. 168. The introduction to this scene in the old copies, is merely Enter Imogen in her bed, and a Lady, while nothing is said about the place and manner of Iachimo's concealment: to remedy this omission, A great trunk is added in manuscript in the folio, 1632, to show that this stage-property was exhibited to the audience. According to additional directions in the margin, Iachimo not merely takes off Imogen's bracelet, but previously kisses her, at the words,— “That I might touch! But kiss; one kiss!” It is very possible that such was part of the ancient business of the scene; but it was a perilous undertaking that, at all events in modern times, has not usually been risked. Still, if the Italian could remove the heroine's bracelet, and turn down the bed-clothes so as to be able to note the “mole cinquespotted” on her left breast (supposing it not to have been accidentally exposed) without waking her, he might, perhaps, hazard the kissing of her lips. Opposite the words, “I will write all down,” Take out tables, meaning his table-book, is placed in the margin, and Exit into the trunk again, at the end of the scene. These notes are altogether wanting in print in the folios.

Note return to page 1147 10109C30P. 170. It is not easy to make sense out of “Swift, swift, you dragons of the night, that dawning May bare the raven's eye.” Such was Theobald's emendation, and if the meaning be that light may make bare the raven's eye, the expression is uncouth for “may ope the raven's eye.” The old corrector converts beare, of the folios, into dare:— “That dawning May dare the raven's eye:” i. e. may dazzle the eye of the raven, in the same way that larks were dared by the glitter of a looking-glass. This may be the true explanation of the sentence, but still it is obscure; and at a guess, supposing the old corrector's change to be nothing more, we might fancy that beare was a misprint misprint for bleare, in the sense of to dim.

Note return to page 1148 10109C31P. 178. When Iachimo returns to Italy, Posthumus, in his confidence in Imogen, asks him, referring to their wager,— “Sparkles this stone as it was wont? or is't not Too dull for your good wearing?” To which Iachimo is always made to reply,— “If I have lost it, I should have lost the worth of it in gold,” &c. But it was Posthumus who had the chance of losing the ring, and Iachimo the value of it, therefore the old corrector makes him answer, with much more apparent propriety,— “If I had lost, I should have lost the worth of it in gold;” and from thence he proceeds to show that he had not lost, but, in fact, had won the wager.

Note return to page 1149 10109C32P. 179. All impressions represent Iachimo as not completing his sentence when describing the tapestry in Imogen's chamber:— “Which, I wonder'd, Could be so rarely and exactly wrought, Since the true life on't was”— Post. This is true,” &c. Here, besides the imperfectness of the sense, the measure is at fault, because “This is true” does not finish the line Iachimo had begun. Corrections in the folio, 1632, remedy both defects in a way that seems to carry conviction in their favour:— “Which, I wonder'd, Could be so rarely and exactly wrought, Since the true life on't 'twas. Post. This is most true,” &c. Iachimo wondered at the excellence of the tapestry “since 'twas the true life” of the scene it represented. The word most was carelessly left out in the answer of Posthumus, as 'twas in the preceding line was misprinted “was.” Near the bottom of the page, Iachimo thus describes part of the furniture:— “Her andirons (I had forgot them) were two winking Cupids Of silver.” The emendation here is wingèd for “winking” Cupids; and it certainly is not likely that Iachimo should have so nicely observed at night, as to perceive that they were “winking,” though he might have easily seen that they were winged. At the same time, this may be looked upon as one of the many cases where the fitness of altering the received text is doubtful, in as much as Shakespeare may have intended thus to show the elaborate exactness of the scrutiny of Iachimo.

Note return to page 1150 10109C33P. 182. In all modern editions, this soliloquy by Posthumus is converted into a new scene; but such was not the case of old, for Iachimo and Philario go out and leave the hero behind them to make his reflections upon what had passed, and to curse womankind. Here we meet with a word which has produced difficulty: Posthumus supposes Iachimo to have easily overcome the scruples of Imogen, and we first give the terms exactly as they appear in the two earliest folios:— “Perchance he spoke not, but Like a full Acorn'd Boare, a Iarmen on, Cry'de oh, and mounted.” Dispute has arisen as to the meaning of the unintelligible words “a Iarmen on;” and while Pope and Warburton read “a churning on,” which Malone calls a sophistication, he himself read “a German one,” surely a greater sophistication, as if Shakespeare could have had no boars in his thoughts but German ones. There is an evident misprint, and the emendator of the folio, 1632, points out what it was:— “Like a full acorn'd boar, a foaming one, Cried oh! and mounted.” The manuscript must have been imperfectly written, and the printer mistook the f, with which foaming begins, for a capital I, then frequently carried below the line, and did not attend to the g at the end of the word. One, as Malone truly states, was often miswritten and misprinted “on,” and there seems no doubt that the poet meant to express the furious and foaming eagerness of the full-acorn'd boar. Malone weakly supports his notion about a German boar, by stating that boars were never hunted in England: but Posthumus was speaking in Italy, and we are not to imagine that Shakespeare's notions regarding boar-hunting were derived solely from German representations, whether in “water-work” or in tapestry. We feel no hesitation in substituting so natural a word as foaming for such an utterly unintelligible word as Iarmen. The mechanical compositor never thought of the sense of what he was printing.

Note return to page 1151 10109C34P. 185. A line in Cymbeline's address to Lucius stands precisely thus in the folios:— “Ourselves to be, we do. Say then to Cæsar.” With the immediate context it has been printed as follows in modern editions: the king is speaking of the Roman yoke:— “Which to shake off Becomes a warlike people, whom we reckon Ourselves to be. We do say, then, to Cæsar, Our ancestor was that Mulmutius, which Ordain'd our laws,” &c. The clumsy contrivance of making Cymbeline use the expression, “We do say, then, to Cæsar,” has proceeded (as an emendation in the folio, 1632, shows) from a blunder on the part of the compositor or of the copyist, who made one of Cloten's impertinent interjections a portion of the speech of Cymbeline. This part of the dialogue is there divided as follows:—Cymbeline ends,— “Which to shake off Becomes a warlike people, whom we reckon Ourselves to be. Clot. We do. Cym. Say, then, to Cæsar, Our ancestor was that Mulmutius, which Ordain'd our laws,” &c. This interruption by Cloten is most consistent with his character and conduct, and we have no doubt that such was the mode in which the line we have first quoted was distributed, before the corruption had crept into the early editions.

Note return to page 1152 10109C35P. 189. Warburton justly calls the phrase, “the sands that run i' the clock's behalf,” fantastical; but it is only so because “behalf” was misprinted. Imogen is speaking of horses that run much faster than the sands in clocks, and she goes on, by a familiar expression, to state how much faster they run:— “I have heard of riding wagers, Where horses have been nimbler than the sands That run i' the clocks by half;” adding, “But this is foolery,” in reference, perhaps, to her own simile.

Note return to page 1153 10109C36P. 190. Belarius, contrasting the life he, Guiderius, and Arviragus lead in the woods and mountains with that at court, observes, in the ordinary text,— “O! this life Is nobler, than attending for a check; Richer, than doing nothing for a bribe; Prouder, than rustling in unpaid-for silk.” The old copies give the third line,— “Richer than doing nothing for a babe,” and Hanmer substituted “bribe,” though bribes are seldom given for doing nothing, while Warburton has bauble, and Malone adhered to babe. All three are unquestionably wrong: the second line supposes a courtier to dance attendance, and only to obtain “a check,” or reproof, for his pains; and the third line follows up the same notion, that he does nothing, yet is rewarded with a blow: Shakespeare repeatedly uses bob (the word in manuscript in the margin of the folio, 1632) in this way; and babe, then pronounced with the broad open a, was miswritten for it: therefore, the passage, properly printed, appears to be this:— “O! this life Is nobler, than attending for a check, Richer, than doing nothing for a bob,” &c.

Note return to page 1154 10109C37P. 193. The copyist made an evident mistake when he wrote the following, where Belarius is soliloquizing on his two boys, and describing the way in which they listen to his account of “warlike feats:” of the elder, he says,— “He sweats, Strains his young nerves, and puts himself in posture That acts my words. The younger brother, Cadwal, (Once Arviragus) in as like a figure Strikes life into my speech,” &c. Here vigour was misheard “figure” (which could only refer to the “posture” of Guiderius), and for this reason the old corrector alters the word in the margin of the folio, 1632:— “The younger brother, Cadwal, (Once Arviragus) in as like a vigour Strikes life into my speech.” That is, with the same energy with which Guiderius had “strained his young nerves.”

Note return to page 1155 10109C38P. 195. We here arrive at a most singular instance of mishearing, which we must impute wholly to the writer of the manuscript used by the compositor. It is in a speech by Imogen, where she supposes that Posthumus has been seduced by some Italian courtezan:— “Some jay of Italy, Whose mother was her painting, hath betray'd him: Poor I am stale, a garment out of fashion;” &c. Now, for “whose mother was her painting,” of all editions, we are told by the amender of the folio, 1632, to read,— “Some jay of Italy, Who smothers her with painting, hath betray'd him.” We fairly admit it to be possible that the old corrector, not understanding the expression, “Whose mother was her painting,” as it was recited before him, might mistake it for “Who smothers her with painting;” but it is much more likely that in this place, where Imogen was to give vent to her disgust and anger, she would not use a metaphor, especially so violent a one, as to call the daubing of the face actually the “mother” of a courtezan. She was describing a woman of abandoned character, who not merely tinged her cheeks, but absolutely smothered herself with painting, and who, though so made up and artificial, had, nevertheless, seduced Posthumus from the arms of a beautiful and innocent wife. Imogen would, therefore, be disposed to render the contrast as strong as words could make it, and would not be content to throw blame upon her debased and profligate rival, merely by a far-fetched figure of speech. Shakespeare, indeed, even in this very play (p. 215), employs such a figure, but under extremely different circumstances, viz. where Guiderius ridicules Cloten for asking if he did not know him by his fine clothes? The answer is,— “No, nor thy tailor, rascal, Who is thy grandfather: he made those clothes, Which, as it seems, make thee.” These lines occur in Act IV., and what Imogen says of the “jay of Italy,” is inserted in the immediately preceding act; and if one thing more than another could persuade us that “who smothers her with painting” is the true text, it is that, if we suppose differently, it makes Shakespeare employ the very same metaphor in two consecutive acts. Our great dramatist was neither so poverty-stricken as regards language, nor so injudicious as regards nature, to repeat himself in this way, and to make Imogen convey her scorn and detestation of the prostitute, who had betrayed her husband, in so mild a form as to term painting the “mother” of the seducer. Imogen would not study metaphors at such a moment, but, in the plainest and strongest language she could employ, such as charging the “jay of Italy” with smothering herself with painting, would express her abhorrence of the paint-plastered prostitute. It is an axiom that genuine passion avoids figures of speech, because passion does not reflect, and a figure of speech is the fruit of reflection: therefore, we feel assured that the scribe misheard, and wrote “whose mother was her painting” instead of “who smothers her with painting.” The coincidence of sound seems otherwise almost inexplicable.11Q1261

Note return to page 1156 10109C39P. 196. We can have little difficulty, on the authority of the old corrector, in treating the word “fellows” in these lines as a lapse by the old printer:— “And thou, Posthumus, that didst set up My disobedience 'gainst the king my father, And make me put into contempt the suits Of princely fellows, shalt hereafter find It is no act of common passage, but A strain of rareness.” For “princely fellows,” the emendation is “princely followers,” the noble suitors whom Imogen had rejected in favour of Posthumus. Near the top of the next page is an expression upon which Hanmer, Johnson, Steevens, and Malone have very unsatisfactory notes. Pisanio informs Imogen that he has not slept since he received command to destroy her:— “Imo. Do't, and to bed, then. Pis. I'll wake mine eye-balls first. Imo. Wherefore, then, Didst undertake it?” What does Pisanio mean by “I'll wake mine eye-balls first?” To extract some sense from the declaration, it has been usual to print “I'll wake mine eye-balls blind first;” but another printer's error has occasioned all the trouble. The corrector converts “wake” into cracke, and doubt vanishes: he also inserts a small word in Imogen's inquiry, and presents the whole thus perfect in measure and meaning:— “Imo. Do't, and to bed, then. Pis. I'll crack mine eye-balls first. Imo. And wherefore, then, Did'st undertake it?”

Note return to page 1157 10109C40P. 198. Malone considered it vain to seek for the two-syllable epithet, obviously wanting, in a line where Imogen speaks of Cloten,— “With that harsh, noble, simple nothing.” Steevens would complete the measure by Cloten at the end, forgetting, perhaps, that the name occurs at the very beginning of the next line; but the missing word is found written in the margin of the folio, 1632:— “With that harsh, noble, simple, empty nothing.” It had, doubtless, escaped by mere accident, and we may be thankful for the restoration. Lower down in the page occur the words “Pretty and full of view.” What can be the meaning of “pretty” in that place? It is an indisputable blunder, perhaps from defective hearing: Pisanio is showing Imogen how she may remain concealed, and yet have a full view of all that is passing around her: we print the passage here as it is corrected:— “Now, if you could wear a mind Dark as your fortune is, and but disguise That, which, t'appear itself, must not yet be But by self-danger, you should tread a course Privy, yet full of view: yea, haply, near The residence of Posthumus.” She was to remain private, and unknown, while she was able to mark all that was done by others. The alteration of “courage” to carriage, near the top of the next page, may be contested; and in as much as “courage” answers its purpose, perhaps it would be unwise to displace it, though more than once (see pp. 292, 358) the same easy error has been pointed out. Pisanio tells Imogen that when she has disguised herself as a youth, she must change “Command into obedience; fear, and niceness, (The handmaids of all women, or more truly, Woman it pretty self) into a waggish courage: Ready in gibes, quick-answer'd,” &c. Here “waggish carriage” seems more appropriate to a youth, though disputable.

Note return to page 1158 10109C41P. 206. The old introduction to this scene is merely, “Enter Imogen alone,” to which the following necessary words are added in manuscript in the folio, 1632, 'tir'd like a boy, i. e. attired like a boy. She commences her speech thus:— “I see, a man's life is a tedious one: I have tir'd myself, and for two nights together Have made the ground my bed.” It has always been supposed that “I have tir'd myself” is to be taken in the sense of “I have fatigued myself;” but the corrector places an apostrophe before tir'd—'tir'd—and clearly means that “tir'd,” in the speech, is to be understood in the same way as 'tir'd like a boy in what he appended to the heading of the scene. This is a point upon which we may or may not take his word; for we may imagine that Imogen means that she has tired herself with the tediousness of a man's life, and with sleeping two nights following upon the ground. It seems, however, more likely that she should refer to her dress, and purposely call the attention of the audience to the change it had undergone. The entrance of Belarius, Guiderius, and Arviragus is improperly made a new scene in the folios; but Scæna Septima is struck through with a pen, and Same written instead of it, as in several former instances.

Note return to page 1159 10109C42P. 211. The word “imperseverant,” as it stands printed in the folios, has naturally given trouble to the commentators, who have not known what to do with it. Hanmer altered it to “ill-perseverant,” meaning persevering in ill, while Steevens argued that it was to be understood as perseverant. It appears, on the authority of an emendation in the folio, 1632, that the compositor blundered by combining two words, one of which had relation to the obstinacy of Imogen, and the other to the wandering life to which she had taken. It is Cloten who speaks, and who is complaining of the perverseness of the heroine, who absurdly preferred Posthumus to him, and ran away from court in order to avoid him. Very probably the manuscript was here confused and illegible, which led to the printing of “imperseverant” for perverse errant, as it is amended, and as we may be confident it ought hereafter to be printed—“Yet this perverse, errant thing loves him in my despite.” Cloten had come to Milford Haven in search of this “perverse, errant thing,” and to destroy Posthumus.

Note return to page 1160 10109C43P. 217. The question, somewhat hotly argued between Theobald, Warburton, Mason, Malone, &c., whether in the following, as we find it in the old copies,— “Though his honour Was nothing but mutation,” “honour” should not be read humour, is decided (if, in truth, decision were wanted) by the old corrector, who converts “honour” into humour by the change of two letters in the margin. It has been a misreading of frequent occurrence.

Note return to page 1161 10109C44P. 221. An emendation in the folio, 1632, changes “the leaf of eglantine,” very naturally, but not necessarily, into “the leafy eglantine;” but at the end of the speech we meet with a valuable improvement of the text in the setting right of a misprint, which has occasioned some pages of useless explanation and comment. It applies to this passage, as given in the folios:— “The ruddock would With charitable bill (O, bill, sore shaming Those rich-left heirs, that let their fathers lie Without a monument!) bring thee all this; Yea, and furr'd moss besides, when flowers are none, To winter-ground thy corse.” The puzzle has been the compound verb “to winter-ground;” and Warburton insisted upon “winter-gown,” while Malone and Steevens were for preserving the text unaltered. Warburton was right in treating “winter-ground” as a blunder, but no farther; and when we show, from the corrected folio, 1632, what must have been the poet's language, it will be seen that the compositor's mistake was an easy one:— “Yea, and furr'd moss besides, when flowers are none, To winter-guard thy corse:” i. e. the redbreast would bring furred moss to protect Imogen's corse in winter, when there were no flowers.

Note return to page 1162 10109C45P. 222. There is a substitution in the song over the body of Imogen which requires notice, and which improves the reading of a line, but by no means forces adoption upon us: the text has always been,— “Golden lads and girls all must, As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.” It is altered as follows in the amended folio, 1632:— “Golden lads and lasses must, As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.” “Lads and lasses” may be said to follow each other in every song (as well as in every place), and perhaps Shakespeare here purposely avoided the repetition. Several variations from the received text are marked in this part of the play; but near the end of the volume the outer margins are so worn, torn, and encroached upon by damp and rough handling, that although words are corrected, or crossed out, what was substituted for them has sometimes disappeared. The subsequent comparatively trifling change on p. 224, has just escaped: it is where Imogen wakes and says,— “I hope I dream, For so I thought I was a cave-keeper.” The proposed emendation is to convert an adverb into an interjection:— “For lo! I thought I was a cave-keeper.” This part of the play is carelessly printed in the second folio, and literal errors (all of them corrected by the manuscript-annotator, though his writing is often obscured or obliterated) are very frequent.

Note return to page 1163 10109C46P. 231. Only about one page of this act has been preserved in the corrected folio, 1632, four leaves at the end of the volume being entirely wanting. A manuscript addition to the heading of the first scene has been partly torn away, so that we can only read in print, “Enter Posthumus alone,” and with a following it in the writing of the old corrector: probably napkin or handkerchief was the word lost.

Note return to page 1164 10109C47P. 232. The last emendation we have to notice (beyond the insertion of some new stage-directions relating to the battle, such as Drums and trumpets, Alarums on both sides, &c.) is in the soliloquy of Posthumus, and it relates to a passage which has been much discussed, but never clearly understood: the old text has been this:— “You some permit To second ills with ills, each elder worse; And make them dread it, to the doer's thrift.” Here, in the first place, is an admitted inaccuracy, because, as Malone remarked, the last ill deed, which was the “worse,” was, in fact, the younger, and not the “elder.” For this the corrector provides a remedy, and writes later in the margin for “elder,” which was, perhaps, a misprint. The line that follows is far from intelligible, for to what does “them” in it apply?— “And make them dread it to the doer's thrift.” The last antecedent was “ills,” but “them” cannot refer to the crimes committed. This appears to be another instance where “them” has been misheard for another word, the adoption of which, on the testimony in our hands, makes a clear meaning out of an obscure line. The passage, therefore, stands thus, as amended in the folio, 1632:— “You some permit To second ills with ills, each later worse, And make men dread it, to the doer's thrift.” The doer of ill deeds profited by the fears produced in men by still-increasing enormities. Later, therefore, was misprinted “elder,” and men misheard “them.” The word men is only just legible in the margin, in consequence of a stain and the abrasion of the paper.

Note return to page 1165 10109C48 Page 2 It should be added that in “Richard II.,” vol. iv. p. 172, the poet speaks of “the cloudy cheeks of heaven;” and, on the whole, heat in this place seems to be one of those alterations, which, though supported by some probability, it might be inexpedient to insert in the text.

Note return to page 1166 10109C49 Page 3 It ought to be noted that opposite the expression, on p. 13, “Out three years old,” the old corrector of the folio, 1632, has written the word Quite, but he has not erased “Out;” and possibly he only meant that “Out three years old” was to be understood as “Quite three years old.” As he made no change, we may conclude that the text is right.

Note return to page 1167 10109C50 Page 9. Perhaps neither of the smaller emendations on p. 40 is necessary: “she, from whom” may mean, she, coming from whom “we were all sea-swallowed.”

Note return to page 1168 10109C51 Page 13. Nevertheless, it seems proper so to divide the song; and, possibly, it is a point which did not attract the attention of the corrector of the folio, 1632. The emendation of rain for “spring,” appears somewhat violent, and springs for “spring” might have been all that was really necessary.

Note return to page 1169 10109C52 Page 21. In reference to the line supplied in manuscript in the folio, 1632, it is very possible that it was obtained from more correct recitation.

Note return to page 1170 10109C53 Page 25. At the bottom of this page, “Scene IV.” ought to have been marked as preceding the passage quoted from vol. i. p. 164. This division ought, therefore, to be deleted on p. 26.

Note return to page 1171 10109C54 Page 27. We may add that it is much more easy to suppose “include” misprinted for conclude, than to accept the very forced construction of Malone, that all jars were to be “included or shut in the bosoms of the parties, and to be prevented from getting out by triumphs, masques,” &c.

Note return to page 1172 10109C55 Page 34. In “Othello,” Act I. Scene III., the folios misprint “couch” coach, where the hero is speaking of “the flinty and steel couch of war.”

Note return to page 1173 10109C56 Page 40. In the sentence “which, however, was sometimes in the language of the day,” dele in.

Note return to page 1174 10109C57 Page 44. This mistake of “winter” for windows, ought not here, properly, to have been charged upon the printer, but upon the copyist, who, writing by his ear, mistook the sound of the word.

Note return to page 1175 10109C58 Page 45. It is to be observed, however, that Shakespeare uses “top” sometimes in a peculiar manner: thus in “Macbeth,” Act IV. Scene I., he speaks of “the round and top of sovereignty;” and in “Coriolanus,” Act I. Scene IX., he has “the spire and top of praises.”

Note return to page 1176 10109C59 Page 47. This emendation of boasted for “blessed” may have been adopted as a mere matter of taste.

Note return to page 1177 10109C60 Page 50. It ought to have been stated that Pope made the correction of “his lordship's man,” which has ever since been considered the text.—In the last line but three of this page, the full point ought to be only a comma, and the sentence should run—“but the fact seems to be that it is a misprint, and that the duke's real exclamation,” &c.

Note return to page 1178 10109C61 Page 51. Johnson was once, he tells us, in favour of confined, in preference “combined.”

Note return to page 1179 10109C62 Page 52. The expression, “bears such a credent bulk,” may look more like an attempt to mend, than an emendation.

Note return to page 1180 10109C63 Page 54. On further consideration we may be disposed to prefer an adherence to the old text, since to “retort” and to “reject” etymologically have nearly the same meaning.

Note return to page 1181 10109C64 Page 60. Nevertheless, it seems to us that Malone's alteration of ruinate to “ruinous,” in order to rhyme with Antipholus, is on some accounts preferable: at all events it is shorter.

Note return to page 1182 10109C65 Page 67. The word “father,” which is left out in the folios, is found in the quarto, 1600—“to make courtesy and say, Father, as it please you.” Perhaps the old corrector of the second folio obtained it from thence.

Note return to page 1183 10109C66 Page 78. It seems not unlikely that the compositor, confusing the two similar terminations, died and belied, misprinted the latter “defil'd.”

Note return to page 1184 10109C67 Page 79. It should be stated, as mentioned in note 8, that most of these emendations were suggested by Hanmer, and have since been adopted by Malone and some other modern editors.

Note return to page 1185 10109C68 Page 89. For “the manuscript stage-directions,” read “the stage-directions.”

Note return to page 1186 10109C69 Page 96. Malone has “strange shapes” for “straying shapes,” but he did not detect the previous error of strangeness for “strains.”

Note return to page 1187 10109C70 Page 100. The note on “Take pains; be perfect,” &c., belongs to Act I. Scene II.: the same remark applies to the two preceding notes on pp. 400, 401; but that division has been accidentally omitted in its right place. The division, Act II. Scene I., ought to precede the note on p. 404.

Note return to page 1188 10109C71 Page 107. Theobald supposed that Bottom was to sing the ballad of his dream after his death on the stage, and Steevens terms it a happy emendation; but his own notion, that Bottom might mean that he would sing it at Thisbe's death, turns out to be the correct one.

Note return to page 1189 10109C72 Page 120. “Bollen” occurs in Chaucer, Compl. of the Bl. Knight, and Tyrwhitt derives it from Bolge, of which, he says, it is the part. pa. It may be doubted whether Bolstrum, a bolster, which we meet with in Beowulf, had not its origin in the A. S. word signifying to swell.

Note return to page 1190 10109C73 Page 122. Of this we have proof in Act V. Scene I. of this play, on the entrance of Launcelot; but elsewhere we sometimes find it printed hoa.

Note return to page 1191 10109C74 Page 127. Nevertheless, “safest haste” may allude to the danger Rosalind would incur by remaining.

Note return to page 1192 10109C75 Page 130. This emendation, and the note upon it, as we discover in a subsequent scene (Act III. Scene IV.), is founded upon a mistake: “sat,” or “sate,” seems perfectly right.

Note return to page 1193 10109C76 Page 132. This quotation should have been “Not seen him since,” both here and immediately afterwards.

Note return to page 1194 10109C77 Page 143. It does not follow that this emendation, regarding Warwickshire ale, was necessarily obtained from some better manuscript, in as much as the corrector of the folio, 1632, might have heard the old actor of the part of Sly repeat the true text.

Note return to page 1195 10109C78 Page 148. See also a note in vol. viii. 475, where it is stated that Shakespeare seems to allude to Drayton and his little volume called “Amours,” in sonnet xxi., which begins,— “So is it not with me, as with that muse Stirr'd by a painted beauty to his verse,” &c. This may have formed another ground of difference between Shakespeare and Drayton. The whole collection of sonnets is headed “Amours;” but on the title-page that word only comes second: we quote it exactly, with the imprint, as we copied it many years since:—“Ideas Mirrour. Amovrs in Qvatorzains. Che serve e tace assai domanda. At London, Printed by James Roberts, for Nicholas Linge. Anno. 1594.” 4to.

Note return to page 1196 10109C79 Page 153. It might be doubted whether “haled” is not to be taken as hauled; but still the true word may have been handled.”

Note return to page 1197 10109C80 Page 167. Yet if Helena were right in what she says, “Sir, I have seen you in the Court of France,” he was not an absolute “stranger” to her. Most likely she only means it as a sort of introduction, to warrant her in addressing him.

Note return to page 1198 10109C81 Page 175. It is easy to see how this remarkable blunder originated: both the speeches of Sir Toby and Sir Andrew (as amended) end with “song,” and the eye of the compositor glanced from one to the other, and omitted the last, with its introductory words.

Note return to page 1199 10109C82 Page 180. On reconsideration we are inclined to think that the old reading, “drew in that,” may be right.

Note return to page 1200 10109C83 Page 190. Unless we suppose Hermione to mean “there, while you weep yourself, leave the infant crying.” This, however, seems a very forced construction, to which we are not at all driven.

Note return to page 1201 10109C84 Page 193. In fact, the expression, “charm your tongues,” wants no illustration from any other author than Shakespeare himself, who uses it in “Henry VI. Part III.,” Act V. Scene V.: in “The Taming of the Shrew,” Act IV. Scene II., he has “charm your chattering tongue,” &c.

Note return to page 1202 10109C85 Page 200. Farther reflection, on the proposed change of “conversion” into “diversion,” induces us to give preference to the former, as well as to the ordinary punctuation. It is, however, not to be disputed that the corrector of the folio, 1632, may be right in his construction; but we do not consider him so decidedly right as to warrant, in this place, the desertion of the usual text. The next emendation is possibly in the same predicament: the introduction of a mark of interrogation certainly makes the passage read with more spirit.

Note return to page 1203 10109C86 Page 202. A note ought to have been made applicable to a line on p. 30 of “King John:” it has been common to print it thus:— “You equal potents, firy-kindled spirits;” but the emendator of the folio, 1632, informs us that it ought to run:— “You equal potent, fire-ykindled spirits.”

Note return to page 1204 10109C87 Page 203. Johnson says that “sightless” is here used for unsightly: not so the old corrector; nor have the commentators pointed out any other similar application of “sightless.”

Note return to page 1205 10109C88 Page 215. Scene III. ought to have been placed before the emendation in the line, “And furbish new,” &c. A note, applicable to a passage on p. 133, should have been added: Aumerle says,— “Farewell: and for my heart disdained that my tongue Should counterfeit oppression of such grief,” &c. The measure of the first of these lines is restored by printing disdain'd, and omitting that. On p. 35, the two hemistichs, “Where lies he?” and “At Ely house,” are completed by now added to the King's interrogatory, and by my liege subjoined to Bushy's answer. The faintness of the ink in the correction of the folio, 1632, occasioned the omission.

Note return to page 1206 10109C89 Page 217. The lines as quoted from a manuscript (note 7, p. 143) do not support the change of “as thoughts” to “our thoughts,” but the last cannot possibly be wrong.

Note return to page 1207 10109C90 Page 219. Scene III. ought to have preceded the note upon the epithet despoiling, for “despised.”

Note return to page 1208 10109C91 Page 226. It should have been mentioned that the old corrector puts for, instead of “sir,” in the line beginning “Now, sir, the sound,” &c.

Note return to page 1209 10109C92 Page 227. It has been omitted to be stated that there is a change of punctuation on p. 216, which makes it appear that Bolingbroke declares that he will incontinent, or with all speed, visit the Holy Land; and consistently with this emendation we find him, at the opening of “Henry IV. Part II.,” ordering immediate preparations. The passage, just before the closing couplet of “Henry IV. Part I.,” is made to run thus in the corrected folio, 1632:— “Come, mourn with me for that I do lament, And put on sullen black. Incontinent I'll make a voyage to the Holy Land, To wash this blood off from my guilty hand.”

Note return to page 1210 10109C93 Page 231. When it is said, that the old corrector of the folio, 1632, was indebted for the emendation of Lord either to the quarto, 1598, or to his own sagacity, it ought to have been added, as in some other places, that he possibly derived it from some source, independent of the quarto, 1598, such, for instance, as having heard the passage properly delivered on the stage.

Note return to page 1211 10109C94 Page 235. A small, but interesting emendation, on p. 287, escaped notice, which may be mentioned here: it is welling for “swelling,” when Mortimer tells his weeping wife, “That pretty Welsh, Which thou pour'st down from these swelling heavens, I am too perfect in.” Steevens maintained that “swelling heavens” meant Lady Mortimer's “two prominent lips,” while Douce rightly argued that her eyes were intended, and that they were swollen with tears. The poet's word was, doubtless, welling, the compositor having preceded it by s by mistake. To well is to issue as from a spring; and Lady Mortimer's tears welled from her blue eyes: we must in future read,— “Which thou pour'st down from these welling heavens.”

Note return to page 1212 10109C95 Page 247. In vol. vi. p. 312 of “Notes and Queries,” an emendation of the closing couplet of Henry's speech on sleep is proposed by Mr. Cornish: for “happy low, lie down,” he proposes to read “happy lowly clown.” The change, we may remark, is needless, the sense being very evident, and the expression not at all improved: the King by “happy low” means all the humble classes of the community, and does not confine himself to mere country clowns. Just before, he has expressly mentioned “the wet sea-boy,” and he would hardly fly off, without the slightest introduction, to such a discordant object as a lowly clown. The corrector of the folio, 1632, makes no alteration in the received text.

Note return to page 1213 10109C96 Page 250. It ought here to have been stated, that in the quarto, 1600, the word is win, so spelt.

Note return to page 1214 10109C97 Page 255. For “see also vol. p. 161,” read “see also this vol. p. 161.”

Note return to page 1215 10109C98 Page 264. For “Julius Cæsar on bright Cassiope,” read “or bright Cassiope.”

Note return to page 1216 10109C99 Page 268. It ought to have been mentioned that the regulation of the verse, near the close of the Master Gunner's second speech, is materially altered in the folio, 1632, by the insertion of the words on my post after “I can stay no longer.” The lines are thus rendered quite regular. On p. 44, an emendation makes blind Mortimer refer to his long imprisonment “in a cage of care,” meaning the Tower, instead of “in an age of care,” which are the words in the folios.

Note return to page 1217 10109C00 Page 292. See this vol. p. 358; but, perhaps, it is hardly as certain there as here, that “courage” ought hereafter to be printed carriage. A third instance is pointed out in a subsequent play (p. 498), but still it is not decisive.

Note return to page 1218 10109D01 Page 295. How English and foreign soldiers were distinguished, as regards dress, at that time, on the stage, is not explained any where that we remember. It is not stated that Edward, Richard, and Hastings had any English soldiers with them.

Note return to page 1219 10109D02 Page 297. The line, “They that stabb'd Cæsar shed no blood at all,” is from the older play which Shakespeare used, but there is no trace in it of the two lines which follow.

Note return to page 1220 10109D03 Page 298. Except that “a boding” is printed as one word: it has also undigest for “indigest,” but they were, in fact, the same.

Note return to page 1221 10109D04 Page 319. This blunder of printing way for “sway,” with the pronoun “his” before it, occurs in a couplet at the end of “Henry IV. Part I.,” where, in the folios, we read,— “Rebellion in this land shall lose his way,” instead of “lose his sway.”

Note return to page 1222 10109D05 Page 326. The words, “And of an earthy coldness,” ought not to be followed by a mark of interrogation: it is not a question, but an observation.

Note return to page 1223 10109D06 Page 332. It stands “that breath fame follows,” &c., in Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, vol. viii. p. 271. In the quarto, 1609, it is properly printed “fame blows.”

Note return to page 1224 10109D07 Page 334. At the same time, “pass the difficulties,” in the sense of go through the difficulties, is very intelligible, and may be right.

Note return to page 1225 10109D08 Page 352. It should have been stated that although physic of old was sometimes spelt physique, the most usual orthography of the word at that time was physicke. Even this mode of spelling might account for the corruption, and emperickqutique is mere nonsense.

Note return to page 1226 10109D09 Page 356. When referring to the misprinting of bisson on p. 173, we ought to have added that in the folios it is spelt beesome in one place, as it is bosome in the other.

Note return to page 1227 10109D10 Page 361. The note applicable to p. 245 ought to have been preceded by “Scene VII.,” which was accidentally omitted.

Note return to page 1228 10109D11 Page 370. In the note on p. 334, for the words, “the latter change is, however, by any means required,” read “the latter change is, however, not by any means required.”

Note return to page 1229 10109D12 Page 373. There is a mistake in reference to the date when Titus Andronicus was “printed:” the word “printed” ought to have been acted. We know of no impression older than that of 1600, in the library of the Earl of Ellesmere; but Langbaine tells us that it originally came out in 1594, and we find it entered in the Stationers' Register on 6th February, 1593, which looks like a memorandum just anterior to publication. Henslowe inserts a play, which he calls “Titus and Andronicus,” under the date of 23 Jan., 1593: it was then a new play, and it may very likely have been the piece entered at Stationers' Hall only a fortnight afterwards.

Note return to page 1230 10109D13 Page 379. Correctly speaking, something more is required than the alteration of a single letter, in as much as to make “unbruised” unbusied, not only the r is to be struck out, but the place of the i is to be changed.

Note return to page 1231 10109D14 Page 380. The blood had begun to mantle in Juliet's cheeks, and the Nurse anticipated that the moment afterwards they would be scarlet at the news she had just communicated.

Note return to page 1232 10109D15 Page 382. The letters would scarcely be too few, if we suppose (as we frequently the case, though not here in the margin of the folio, 1632) that enemies was spelt ennemyes. We can also imagine that the compositor may have been puzzled by the word “eyes,” which immediately followed ennemyes.

Note return to page 1233 10109D16 Page 383. It is not unlikely that the corrector of the folio, 1632, did not know Edwards's poem, although he might be sure that the lines he underscored were a quotation.

Note return to page 1234 10109D17 Page 394. When it is said that “to load our purposes” is very like nonsense, compared with the expression “to load our purses,” it ought to have been admitted that some meaning may be gathered from the passage by a forced construction, which supposes that the Poet and Painter came to have their designs loaded.

Note return to page 1235 10109D18 Page 411. But for this emendation of Lay for “Let,” we should have thought that the alteration might have been only that of a letter, viz.— “Set your highness’ Command upon me,” Set would have answered the purpose nearly as well as Lay: it is a mere trifle, but “Let” can hardly be right.

Note return to page 1236 10109D19 Page 413. With reference to the amended word bleaded for “bladed,” Spelman, in his Glossarium, p. 83, tells us: Certè apud priscos Saxones (a quibus latè per Europam vox diffunditur) blada, seu blæda, omnem fructum significat, etiam arborum et vitis: he also gives seges and frumentum as other meanings of the word. Jamieson, in his Etym. Dict., under Bled, speculates that in the expression, “Of his blude bled,” bled is to be understood as sprung of his blood, from A. S. blaed, fruit.

Note return to page 1237 10109D20 Page 414. An objection to ripened, instead of “opened,” may be, that Malcolm is representing these “particulars of vice” in him as already at maturity.

Note return to page 1238 10109D21 Page 416. The old corrector writes “may of life” without a capital, and we feel assured that the blunder was caused by the confusion, common with the old printer, between m and w. We have had many instances of it. In the repetition of the line,— “Cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous grief,” “that” is accidentally misprinted the.

Note return to page 1239 10109D22 Page 426. Still the emendation of purse for “prize” is liable to the objection that “prize,” or price, in the sense of purse, affords a consistent meaning.

Note return to page 1240 10109D23 Page 432. The word Finis marks “the conclusion of the piece;” of course, as it was abridged probably for performance, with the omission of all the portions struck through with a pen.

Note return to page 1241 10109D24 Page 437. In “Notes and Queries,” vol. vi. p. 6, is a suggestion by Mr. Singer for reading the commencement of this quotation as follows:— “Let him fly far, Not in this land shall he remain uncaught, Unfound,” &c. According to this conjectural change, “despatch” would hardly refer to Edgar, so much as to the Duke, whose speedy arrival was expected.

Note return to page 1242 10109D25 Page 438. We have not been able to find in Stow, or in any other authority, a notice of Finsbury Pinfold, but we need scarcely doubt of its existence in Shakespeare's time.

Note return to page 1243 10109D26 Page 440. But for the sake of the verse, which would be continued redundant, we might read, with even a smaller alteration of the old text,— “Which are to France the spies and speculators.” We are by no means satisfied with “spectators,” recommended in the margin of the folio, 1632.

Note return to page 1244 10109D27 Page 441. As the sentence ends at “flattered,” the words “when known,” which we have added in our comment, are supposed to be understood.

Note return to page 1245 10109D28 Page 443. If delires had been a word in use in Shakespeare's age, it would on all accounts appear preferable to “distress:” delires might easily have been misprinted “desires,” and it would most accurately express the state of King Lear's mind.

Note return to page 1246 10109D29 Page 449. Todd, in his edit. of Johnson's Dict., derives the verb “to wheedle” from the A. S., which he says means seducere, “to entice by soft words;” but the earliest instance he cites of its use is from Butler's “Hudibras.” Richardson gives wædlian, A. S., to cajole, to coax, as the etymology.

Note return to page 1247 10109D30 Page 462. It is very possible that Richard Burbadge, the original Othello, cast himself on the ground in the agony of his despair and remorse; but not at all likely that he would be guilty of the needless brutality of dragging Desdemona by the hair, as described in a ballad written, it should seem, shortly before the Civil Wars. Eyllierdt Swanston, as he spelt his own name, was a distinguished actor, who, certainly at one time, between 1619 and 1642, had the part of Othello; and it is not unlikely that he, in order to give greater effect to the scene, before a degenerate audience, introduced more coarseness and violence than was ever displayed by his great predecessor.

Note return to page 1248 10109D31 Page 467. We might have guessed that dumbe, or dumb'd, was a misprint for drown'd; but the words of Alexas could not have been drowned, unless they had been first spoken: he says that what he “would have spoke” was “boastfully dumb'd” by the neighing of the horse.

Note return to page 1249 10109D32 Page 469. The expression, “well deserv'd of rashness,” may, perhaps, be understood in the same sense as “well deserv'd for rashness.”

Note return to page 1250 10109D33 Page 475. Still it may be fit to hesitate before miseries for “measures” is introduced into the text.

Note return to page 1251 10109D34 Page 487. Shakespeare does not elsewhere use the word vauntage, but “vaunting;” and on p. 401 we have already seen “make your vaunting true,” in the same way as here we have “make good your vauntage.”

Note return to page 1252 10109D35 Page 489. At the same time the meaning may certainly be, that they gamble with their infirmities, staking them against the gold that is paid to them.

Note return to page 1253 10109D36 Page 497. Mr. Halliwell has thought this emendation worthy of a separate and clever tract (London, 1852), in which he has inserted various passages where Shakespeare resorted to a similar mode of expression. The more our great and original poet has done so elsewhere, the less likely is he to have done so here; but if some of Mr. Halliwell's quotations are apposite, which we admit them to be, others are opposite, as most people will perceive them to be. Mrs. Cowden Clarke's admirable “Concordance” will furnish them all, so that it is not necessary to quote them; and we freely acknowledge Mr. Halliwell's ingenuity in sometimes applying to his purpose what in no way makes in his favour: it is one thing to represent a prostitute as the mother of her painting, and another to say that painting is the mother of the prostitute: so it is one thing to represent a young fop as the father of his garments, and another to make the garments the father of the young fop. This is a distinction to which Mr. Halliwell has, perhaps, hardly sufficiently attended.

Previous section