The Shakespeare-Expositor: An Aid to the Perfect Understanding of Shakespeare's Plays

A FAMILY of the name of Shakespeare—pronounced, it would seem, Shǎkspěr—was numerous in Warwickshire during the middle ages. About the middle of the sixteenth century John, the son of Richard Shakespeare, a farmer residing at Snitterfield in that county, was settled at Stratford-on-Avon, and was—though it appears he could neither read nor write—a leading member of the Corporation. Various accounts are given of his trade and occupation. We have proof that in 1556 he was a glover; he was afterwards a farmer or yeoman; Aubrey says he was a butcher; and according to Rowe, he was "a considerable dealer in wool." He would seem in fact to have been one who was ready to turn to any honest occupation by which money might be made.

In 1557 John Shakespeare married Mary, the youngest daughter of Robert Arden of Wilmecote, a man of good landed property, and belonging to a family of no mean note in the county of Warwick. By her he had either eight or ten children, of whom we need only notice William, the third, who was baptized April 26th, 1564; but the exact date of his birth is unknown. As his father was a member of the Corporation, it is highly probable that, as Rowe asserts, he was sent to the Free School of the town. How long he continued at it, and what he learned there, are matters on which we have no certain information. He had probably an ordinary English education, and he certainly, as his writings show, had learned some Latin; but he does not seem to have got beyond the elementary books, and of Greek, if it was taught in the school, he learned nothing whatever. We are told by one authority that he acted as an assistant in the school; by another that his father took him away early to assist in his own business of wool-stapling or, as the former, namely Aubrey, says, of butchering, who adds that "when he killed a calf he would do it in a high style, and make a speech,"—of course a mere figment. Malone conjectures—and in my opinion not without a show of probability—from the frequent occurrence of law-terms in his dramas, and his correct appreciation of their meaning, that he may have been for some time in the office of an attorney in Stratford. This, however, is all uncertainty; but at all events, judging from the turn of his mind, I should be inclined to say that, beside his accurate observation of men and manners, he read all the books he could obtain in his native town.

In the registry of the diocese of Worcester is preserved a document bearing date November 28, 1582, securing the Bishop against injury in the case of his licensing certain persons to be married with once asking of the banns. These persons are William Shakespeare, then in his nineteenth year, and Anne Hathaway, then apparently aged twenty-six years; for she died in 1623 at the age of sixty-seven years: she was therefore about eight years her husband's senior. When their marriage was celebrated we are unable to learn; but the baptism of Susanna, their first child, took place on the 26th of May, 1583, just six months after the date of the document quoted above. The natural inference is obvious. Shakespeare, like Burns, knew his wife before the law had made her his; and, like him, he acted honourably towards her.

This, perhaps the only imprudent act of Shakespeare's life, has been variously judged. Nothing, we know, is more common than for young men to fall in love with women older than themselves; and among the class of society to which both parties belonged, instances were, and are, not uncommon of the rules of prudence being transgressed in moments of weakness, while the moral principle remains untainted. We know that Burns's "Bonnie Jean" proved a most exemplary wife; and one of the most truly virtuous and unaffectedly modest women I ever knew was one who had acted thus imprudently. The bride of the future poet was Anne, daughter of Richard Hathaway, a husbandman, or substantial yeoman, of Shottery, a hamlet about a mile from Stratford, an intimate friend, it would appear, of John Shakespeare's; and hence we may presume that an intimacy prevailed also between the two families, and the not unlikely result was what has been stated.

We now have Shakespeare, at the commencement of his twentieth year, a married man, and the father of a child. On the 2nd of February, 1584-85, before he had completed his twenty-first year, were baptized Hamnet and Judith, twins. We hear of no more children of William and Anne Shakespeare; and soon after—most probably in 1586—Shakespeare left Stratford, and set out to seek his fortune in the metropolis. According to Rowe, he fled to escape from the persecution of Sir Thomas Lucy, of Charlecote-park, near Stratford, from whose park he and some other young men had stolen deer—a not unusual, and not very discreditable practice in those days. The knight, we are told, was indignant and vindictive, and the transgressor took his revenge by writing and affixing to the gate of Charlecote-park a satirical ballad, of which the first stanza has been preserved, and which, if genuine, is mere doggrel and utterly unworthy of Shakespeare. He may, however, have so written it on purpose. This is said to have added oil to the fire of the knight's rage, and to escape from it the author fled to London. His biographers in general are of opinion that his resentment against his persecutor did not die out, and that after his death and the lapse of many years he ridiculed him in the character of Justice Shallow in The Merry Wives of Windsor. But this was little in the character of "gentle" Shakespeare; and the whole theory is refuted by the fact that the allusion to "the dozen white luces" in the Justice's coat-armour, on which it is founded, does not occur in the original form of that play. It may have been made afterwards by way of joke, and without any malignity.

There is certainly no inherent improbability in this narrative; and it may have had its effect in determining Shakespeare to quit Stratford. But that it should have been the sole cause of his doing so is what I am disposed to question. We must recollect that Shakespeare was a man endowed with genius of the very highest order, and that he must have aspired to a wider field for its exercise than his native town could afford, that he had a family, and that his circumstances were very slender, while those of his father, as we have sufficient evidence, had been greatly reduced. Nor does it appear that he—who, as has been already observed, except in the case of his marriage, was always prudent—set out for London without having a definite object in view.

Now various companies of players, as we learn, were in the habit of visiting Stratford, like other country towns, and performing there in the Guildhall. It can be hardly doubted that Shakespeare, in whom dramatic genius was inborn, must have been excited by these performances, however low the merit of the pieces—perhaps even have felt that he was capable of producing something superior to them of the same kind. He probably then made the acquaintance of the players, one of whom, Burbage, was, it is supposed, a native of the town, and some others, natives of the county, and proposed embracing their profession. He was young, handsome, of animated and even brilliant conversation. There can be little doubt, then, that he met with encouragement, and was readily received among them. This was, it is most likely, in the year 1586, when he was two-and-twenty. Rowe says "he was received into the company at first in a very mean rank;" and in 1693 the parish-clerk of Stratford, a man eighty years of age, told a person named Dowdall, that he "was received into the playhouse as a serviture." Of course, like almost every other actor, he began at the bottom, having as it were to serve his apprenticeship. This, then, seems to be all true enough; not so another tradition, related by Johnson as coming from Pope and Rowe, namely, that his first occupation in London was holding gentlemen's horses at the door of the playhouse, in which business he succeeded so well that he hired boys to act under him. How little like Shakespeare this is need hardly be said.

A question which cannot be answered very satisfactorily is, What did Shakespeare at this time do with his wife and children? The probability would seem to be, that he left them at Stratford, and, as is most likely, at his father's, till he should see what success he was likely to meet with in London.

It would seem that for the first few years he was merely an actor; and if the Ellesmere Papers, published by Mr. Collier, be genuine, he had in 1589 become a sharer in the Blackfriars Theatre. Before this date he may have begun to try his hand at making additions and alterations in the plays of others. Of these we seem to have examples in the Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI.; and there is a manifest allusion to this practice of his in the following passage of Green's Groat's Worth of Wit, bought with a Million of Repentance, published after his death in 1592. Green is addressing his fellow dramatists Marlow, Peele, and others; and he says, "There is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygre's heart wrapt in a player's hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and, being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country." Here the allusion to Shakespeare's name is quite plain, and the line in italics is a parody on one in one of the plays which he appears to have thus treated. As this allusion seems to have caused just offence, Chettle, who had given Green's work to the world, took occasion shortly after in a work of his own, his Kind-hart's Dream, to make an apology, in which he says of Shakespeare, "Myself have seen his demeanour, no less civil than he excellent in the quality he professes. Besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing that approves his art." We thus see that Shakespeare was regarded as an excellent player (for quality then answered to profession at the present time), as an elegant writer (facetious being employed in its classic sense), and as an upright and honourable man, and further, perhaps, as moving in what we should term good society.

Moreover this work of Chettle's, published at the end of 1592 or beginning of 1593, furnishes what I regard as a proof that Shakespeare had not at that time brought an original piece on the stage; for speaking of Green he says, "He was of singular pleasance, the very supporter, and—to no man's disgrace be this intended—the only comedian of a vulgar writer in this country;" of which last words the plain meaning is, that Green had as yet been the only tolerable writer of English comedy. Now we have sufficient means for judging of Green's comic powers; and surely no man in his senses would have ventured to write these words, had he been ever so prejudiced, if Shakespeare had already produced the Comedy of Errors or The Two Gentlemen of Verona. We may therefore venture to assert that neither of these plays was acted earlier than 1593.

We may here, by the way, notice some curious coincidences between Shakespeare and the great comic poet of France, Molière. There is some reason to suppose that both of them were originally connected with the law; they both went on the stage at, we may say, the age of twenty, or a little later. Shakespeare was in his thirtieth year when he produced his first original play, Molière in his thirty-second when he wrote L'Etourdi; but he had previously given some short pieces. Finally, the former died at the close, the latter at the commencement of his fifty-second year.

The allusion to the poet's literary character in Kindhart's Dream was in all probability to his Venus and Adonis, which was published in 1593, but which may, as was the custom in those days, have previously circulated in manuscript among his "private friends;" or it may have been to his Sonnets, which, as we shall presently see, thus circulated at this time. It is impossible to say when this poem was written; but there certainly is no necessity for supposing, with Mr. Collier, that it was composed at Stratford. Shakespeare's mind easily retained the requisite rural imagery; and with his power of rapid composition and command of language, a very few weeks would suffice at any time for its production. This poem, which he terms his "unpolished lines," and "the first heir of my invention," was dedicated to Henry Wriothesly, Earl of Southampton. It met with general applause, and was followed, in 1594, by Lucrece, also dedicated to the same accomplished nobleman. The dedication, commencing with "The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end," would seem to intimate some degree of friendship on both sides; and as Shakespeare's private character, as we have seen, appears to have been most respectable, and Southampton was a well-known admirer of the drama, some kind of intimacy between him and the poet is not by any means improbable. There is also nothing incredible in what Rowe says had been "handed down by Sir William Davenant," of Lord Southampton's having "at one time given him £1000 to enable him to go through with a purchase which he heard he had a mind to." But the amount must be much exaggerated; for none of Shakespeare's purchases that we hear of ever came to so large a sum. Mr. Collier thinks, with some probability, that, as it appears that the Globe Theatre on the Bankside was built in 1594 by the company to which Shakespeare belonged, Lord Southampton may have given him as much money as his share of the cost came to, which could not well have been more than a few hundred pounds.

It was probably also about this time that he wrote his very enigmatic Sonnets, which Meres, in 1598, calls "his sugred sonnets among his private friends," meaning perhaps which only circulated privately in manuscript. I assign them this early date because their style and language so strongly resemble those of his two poems and his early plays, such as Love's Labour's Lost. They were not published till 1609, and then not by the author himself. They seem to have been collected from those who had the manuscripts by a Mr. W. H., whom therefore the publisher in his dedication terms "the only begetter" of them, "begetter" in the language of the time being getter, collector, &c. It has been conjectured, with great probability, that many of them were written in the person of Lord Southampton for the lady with whom he was enamoured; and others may have been written for other persons, a usual custom then of the poets of France and England. I feel almost convinced that few or none of them were written in the poet's own person. Thus in 1598 he was only thirty-four years old, and yet some of them are in the character of a man grey and advanced in years; even in 1609 he was only forty-five.

Along with the Sonnets was published a poem named A Lover's Complaint, of the genuineness of which I am rather dubious. There had already appeared, in 1599, under the name of Shakespeare, a catchpenny collection called The Passionate Pilgrim, in which are two of his manuscript sonnets, and three of those published the preceding year in Love's Labour's Lost, all of them with an altered text.

An account of the dates, &c., of Shakespeare's plays will follow this Life. Here, therefore, it need only be remarked that they extended over a space of less than twenty years (from 1592 to 1610?), during which time he had an active share in the management of the two theatres, and was also an actor for the whole or the greater part of it. He was, as we may well suppose, with Jonson, Beaumont, Fletcher, and others, a member of the club instituted by Sir Walter Raleigh, and which met at the Mermaid Tavern in Bread Street, in which street, it may be observed by the way, Milton was born during this period. Fuller has left us some account of the wit-combats that used to take place at the Mermaid between our poet and Ben Jonson.

The relations between Shakespeare and his family during this time are in a state of ambiguity, which no conjecture can fully clear up. There is not the slightest ground for supposing that he ever was on ill terms with his wife; and surely we have no right to suppose that, like La Fontaine, he left her in the country while he himself lived in the metropolis; for Shakespeare was a householder, while La Fontaine lived usually in the hôtels of his patrons. The more natural supposition is that he would have removed his wife and children to London as soon as he had got a firm footing there. Certainly no entry of the birth of any child of his is to be found in the register of any London parish; but may not some physical change, with which we are unacquainted, have caused his wife to cease from childbearing after the birth of the twins? There is also no entry of this kind in the register of Stratford; and yet it can hardly be that he, any more than La Fontaine, abstained from the bed of his wife in the annual visits which, according to Aubrey's very probable account, he was in the habit of making to his native town. But the burial of his son Hamnet took place in Stratford on the 11th of August, 1596, whence it might appear that the family was living there at that time. To this, however, it may be replied that the family, though usually resident in London, may have been down at Stratford when Hamnet took ill, or that he may have taken ill in London and have been ordered by the physicians to try the effect of his native air, or that, finally, he may have died in London, and his body have been taken down to Stratford for interment with his family, an act quite in character with Shakespeare. The mist, therefore, remains so far undispelled. But we are also to remember that Shakespeare, as above stated, was a householder in London, which might seem to intimate that he had a family there. It is to me a matter of extreme difficulty to believe that he who created so many of the loveliest female characters that the world has ever witnessed, should have led, as, we may say, he otherwise must have done, an irregular life with regard to the sex; for the effect of such conduct is almost always a degrading view of female nature; and how pure on this subject his ideas must always have been is strongly indicated by the circumstance that three of his most lovely female characters—Perdita, Miranda, Imogen—occur in the very last plays he wrote. We may here note the difference between him and La Fontaine. On the whole, then, my opinion is that Shakespeare had his wife and children with him in London, and that his life there was as regular and domestic as his profession permitted.

It has been argued, from a passage in Twelfth Night, in which a man is advised always to marry a woman younger than himself, that Shakespeare had felt the evil consequences of the opposite course. But surely we should not press thus closely language resulting from the situation of a character in a drama. And if Shakespeare was so convinced of the ill consequences of such a procedure, how came it that only a few months before his death he gave an apparently cheerful consent to the marriage of his daughter Judith with Thomas Quiney, who was four years her junior? This objection, then, also may be dismissed, and we remain as uncertain as ever.

We may also venture to deal in a similar way with a passage in the Tempest (iv. 1.), condemnatory of the conduct which he and his wife had pursued before their marriage. Further, as the only mention of his wife in his will is an interlineation, bequeathing her his "second best bed, with the furniture," a want of due regard for her comfort and independence has been inferred. But this in reality is rather indicative of affection; for, as Mr. Knight was the first to observe, as his property was mostly freehold, the law provided for her by assigning her what it terms dower. Lastly, the desire which Mrs. Shakespeare is said to have expressed to be buried with her husband is surely some proof of mutual affection.

It would also seem to be a matter of which there can be little doubt, that Shakespeare must have been an indefatigable reader during the first years of his residence in London. It is strange how none of the commentators appear to have been aware of this fact; for it is the only way of accounting for the remarkable copiousness of his vocabulary. Max Müller, following Professor Marsh, in his Lectures on the Science of Language, having observed, on the authority of a country clergyman, that some of our peasantry have not more than 300 words in their vocabulary, proceeds as follows:—

"A well-educated person in England, who has been at a public school and at the university, who reads his Bible, his Shakespeare, the Times, and all the books of Mudie's Library, seldom uses more than about 3000 or 4000 words in actual conversation. Accurate thinkers and close reasoners, who avoid vague and general expressions, and wait till they find the word that exactly fits their meaning, employ a larger stock; and eloquent speakers may rise to a command of 10,000. Shakespeare, who displayed a greater variety of expression than probably any writer in any language, produced all his plays with about 15,000 words; Milton's works are built up with about 8000; and the Old Testament says all that it has to say with 5642 words."

Now how else but by reading could Shakespeare have got such a store of words? It could not be by conversation, and he surely did not invent more than a few of them. This also tends to prove that Venus and Adonis was not written at Stratford; for his rural vocabulary could hardly have sufficed for such a poem.

But further, I think I am justified in asserting that during the earlier years of his dramatic career Shakespeare acquired a competent knowledge of the French and Italian languages. As we shall see, some of his plays were founded on Italian tales and plays of which no translation has ever been discovered; and the natural inference then is, that he had read them in the original. As to the French, he must have been able to write as well as read it. As a proof, in his Henry V. there are scenes of mingled French and English, which scenes are, like all the prose scenes in our old dramatists, in what I have denominated metric prose; and this could only be caused by the whole scene having been the production of the one mind. The French, too, is incorrect, as it is also in the really prose French scene between Katherine and Alice. It seems therefore probable in the highest degree that Shakespeare was able to write French. In like manner Ben Jonson has shown in his Alchemist and elsewhere, that he was able to write Spanish and other languages.

Another curious question is, Was Shakespeare ever out of England? This, too, cannot be determined; but it is clear to me, from various passages of his plays, that he must have been familiar with the sea-shore; and, from his correct use of nautical terms, we might suspect that he had been at sea on board a ship once, if not oftener. I cannot see any equal proof of his having been familiar with mountain scenery; and from the comparative vagueness of his language respecting mountains in Cymbeline and elsewhere, I rather suspect that he had never gazed on a mountain-range.

In 1597, the year after he had lost his only son, Shakespeare began to carry into effect his long-cherished project of acquiring property in his native county. For the seemingly trifling sum of £60 he purchased from William Underhill one of the best houses in the town of Stratford, named New Place, built by Sir Hugh Clopton in the reign of Henry VII., consisting of one messuage, two barns, and two gardens, with their appurtenances. It was situated in Chapel-street Ward; and as, in a note taken of corn and malt during a dearth in the beginning of the following year, we find him set down as the holder of ten quarters, it would appear that his family, if not he himself, must have been residing at that time in this place.

For some years subsequent to this date we find a few notices of purchases &c. in which Shakespeare was engaged, but nothing that throws any light on his personal history. Neither can we ascertain at what time it was that he disposed of his theatric property; for that he did so is plain, as he says nothing of it in his will. It would seem, however, to have been subsequent to 1610. It would also appear that he lived in Stratford in very handsome style, probably exercising a generous hospitality; for we learn from the diary of the Rev. J. Ward, vicar of that town in 1662, that he had heard that Shakespeare "spent at the rate of £1000 a-year." This sum, however, though not by any means so large, relative to the present value of money, as is usually supposed, is utterly incredible; but still it proves the tradition of his housekeeping having been liberal.

On the 5th of June, 1607, Shakespeare's eldest daughter, Susanna, was married to Dr. John Hall, a physician of some eminence, settled in Stratford. They had but one child, a daughter named Elizabeth, who was married first to Thomas Nash, and secondly to John (afterwards Sir John) Barnard, of Abington, in Northamptonshire. She died in 1649, having had no children by either husband; and with her ended the lineal descent from the great Shakespeare; for Judith, his other daughter, who married a couple of months before his death, though she had three sons, outlived them all, as none of them attained to the age of twenty years. Poetic genius seems fated never to found a family; it is above the vulgar distinctions of human life.

We know not the exact date of Shakespeare's final departure from London and settlement at Stratford; but it probably was not much later than the year 1610. His life after his retirement was not destined to be very long. We may picture him to ourselves as passing his days in tranquil enjoyment, interesting himself somewhat in the affairs of the borough, conversing with his neighbours, telling anecdotes of his life in London, reading his Bible and Chaucer, Spenser, and other poets, and no doubt his North's Plutarch, giving occasional play to his wit, in short, leading the life of a wise and sensible man, contented with the condition he had made his mature choice of as most productive of happiness.

It is probable that in his fifty-second year he felt a decline in his constitution which reminded him of the uncertainty of life; for on the 25th of January, 1615-16, he made his Will, which was executed exactly two months later; and on the 23rd of the following April he breathed his last. He was buried in the church of Stratford, where his grave and monument may still be seen. The disease of which he died is unknown. The vicar, Mr. Ward, already referred to, says, "Shakespeare, Drayton, and Ben Jonson had a merry meeting, and, it seems, drank too hard; for Shakespeare died of a fever there contracted." This no doubt is not impossible, but it is not very probable. If we may judge from passages in his plays, Shakespeare was an enemy to deep drinking; and it is hardly likely that he should, so late in life too, have committed such excess (worthy only of a Burns) as is here supposed, even in the company of Ben Jonson, a visit from whom to Stratford, if he had made it, would with its consequences in all probability have formed part of his communications to Drummond two years later. We may then, I think, safely venture to reject this account of Shakespeare's death, and acknowledge that its cause is utterly unknown, and will probably always remain unknown.

It would appear from Shakespeare's Will that he had at the time of his death but very little money; for, excepting a few trifling legacies, the only sum mentioned is £300 which he left to his younger daughter Judith, making apparently a very unequal division of his property; for to his elder daughter Susanna he left all his lands, tenements, etc., in Stratford and elsewhere, the value of which must have been very far beyond that of the sum devised to Judith. In fact we might suppose that the property enumerated in a general way in his Will had cost more, and were of greater value than would seem to be indicated.

It might be supposed that the cause of this unequal division was displeasure at Judith's marriage; but, beside that we have no proof of any such feeling towards her, the real cause lies evidently far deeper. It was his passionate desire to be the founder of a family in his native county. This it was that animated all his theatric exertions, and he regarded the wonderful creations of his genius merely as means to this one great end. We might have presumed that the death of his only son in 1596 would have given a check to this passion; but, on the contrary, it was, as we have seen, in the very next year that he commenced purchasing property in Warwickshire; and we also find that in that year, or more certainly in 1599, a grant of arms was made to John Shakespeare by the Heralds' College, in which he was authorized to impale the bearings of the Ardens, his wife's family, with his own; and the probability would seem to be, that previously the Shakespeare family had had no coat of arms. By a statute, however, of the later Plantagenets every freeholder was to have his proper seal of arms; and that of the Shakespeares may have been the eagle and spear, whence the Heralds easily formed the coat of arms used by Shakespeare. In obtaining this, John Shakespeare must have acted under the influence and at the expense of his son William.

In his Will, Shakespeare leaves his lands, tenements, &c. to his daughter Susanna, and after her death to her eldest son and his heirs male, and, in default of heirs male of him, to her second son, and so on to the seventh son, and, in default of such issue, to his niece (i.e. granddaughter) Elizabeth Hall and her heirs male, and, in default of them, to his daughter Judith and her heirs male, and, in their default, to the right heirs of the testator.

Every precaution we see was here taken, but all in vain; for, as we have hinted, it seems to be the order of Providence that literary genius should not be the foundation of worldly rank and greatness. Most persons will here call to mind the parallel case of Sir Walter Scott, who, too, as fondly and as vainly yearned to be the founder of a part of the rural aristocracy of his native land, and in whose eyes it was greater to be Laird of Abbotsford than the author of Waverley. But the advantage was on the side of the bard of Avon; for he sought no literary fame, content with a life of peace and competence, while the Scottish baronet would fain have had literary fame as well as wealth and title. How different were the latter days of the two men!

From what precedes—few, very few, as the circumstances are—some faint idea may be formed of Shakespeare as a man. As a poet, his works present him to us, in all his fulness, as the most wonderful dramatic genius that ever the world has seen, ranging with equal ease from the lowest to the highest point of the whole scale of the drama, from the broad farce of the Comedy of Errors, through the enchanting light and graceful comedy of As You Like It, and similar pieces, up to the sublimest tragedy of Macbeth, Lear, Othello. Of him alone can this be asserted. We have no reason to suppose that the great tragic poets of Greece, any more than those of France, excelled also in comedy; while the dramatists of Spain notoriously failed in tragedy, and their comedy, gay, spritely and animated as it is, depends chiefly on plot and intrigue, and is greatly deficient in variety of character.

Mr. Dyce has justly observed how absurd it is to say that Shakespeare was, though the greatest, only one of a race of contemporary giants. The poetic greatness of Jonson, Fletcher, and Massinger was doubtless beyond that witnessed in most other ages of the world; but surely they were but as the stars to the sun when compared with Shakespeare. In like manner I apprehend few will agree with the following character of Shakespeare as a poet, drawn by Gifford in his Introduction to the Plays of Massinger.

"The claims of this great poet on the admiration of mankind are innumerable, but rhythmical modulation is not one of them; nor do I think it either wise or just to hold him forth as supereminent in every quality which constitutes genius. Beaumont is as sublime, Fletcher as pathetic, and Jonson as nervous. Nor let it be accounted poor or niggard praise to allow him only an equality with these extraordinary men in their peculiar excellencies, while he is admitted to possess many others, to which they made no approaches. Indeed if I were asked for the discriminating quality of Shakespeare's mind, that by which he is raised above all competition, above all prospect of rivalry, I should say it was WIT."

That Shakespeare possessed that aroma of humour which we denominate wit, beyond any of his contemporaries or successors, is a matter about which, I think, there cannot be two opinions. I will not deny that in nervousness Jonson may have equalled him, but I certainly know not where to look for the sublime in Beaumont which rivalled that of Macbeth and Lear; and unquestionably I should never even dream of putting the morbid softness of Fletcher in comparison with the genuine manly pathos of Shakespeare. There was however one thing in which I must confess they all exceeded him—perspicuity; for though in many, very many parts of his plays the language is most lucid and unconstrained, there are others—in Troilus and Cressida for instance—which task the intellect to understand them, and which never could have been intelligible to an ordinary audience. But the fact is, neither he nor any other of his brother dramatists ever seems to have asked himself the simple question, Will the audience understand this? I finally must assert, in opposition to Gifford, that, where Shakespeare's verse is uninjured, we have abundant proof that no poet ever excelled him in "rhythmical modulation," and that, when we would produce the most melodious verse in our language, it is in his plays that we shall find our best specimens. It seems to me quite idle to say with Coleridge that Shakespeare's verse is peculiar in rhythm and structure; for, from the nature of verse, it could not be so. It is just as idle to say with Johnson that the blank verse of Thomson is not that of Milton. The difference in such cases lies wholly in the language; and that of Shakespeare is peculiar. This is caused by an excess of figurative expression, in which his metaphors are often broken and confused and his similes imperfect, by inversions and transpositions, and by the use of words in unusual and even incorrect senses.

Shakespeare's power of observation must have been not merely extensive but marvellous:—

Nothing, in fact, high or low, seems to have escaped him; he discerned the nicest shades and varieties of looks, of manners, of language. He had also, in a remarkable degree, that power—that clairvoyance, as we may perhaps venture to term it—so requisite to the dramatist and the novelist, of developing from the faintest sketch, the merest outline, the entire of a character, with its appropriate sentiments, action, and language. In the number and variety of characters no writer ever equalled him, and all are fully and completely delineated, none are, as in other dramatists, mere sketches. Some, such as his Clowns, are peculiar to himself; we meet with no Clowns in the dramas of his contemporaries and successors,—the Gracioso of the Spanish drama, an independent creation, being the nearest approach to them. But of all his creations what has always most astonished me are his women. They are exclusively his own; Fletcher, Massinger, or any other, has nothing like them. Perhaps the nearest approach is made in Spain also, by Cervantes; in whom, however, as in the Spanish drama, they want variety. They would seem to have been produced, if I may so express it, by a projection of his own gentle and noble nature into female forms; for he surely never met his Rosalinds, Mirandas, and Perditas in real life, though he may have had some faint sketches of some of them in his own daughters. He seems to have shrunk almost instinctively from portraying bad women. Goneril and Regan alone are unredeemed; for Lady Macbeth is awful, not detestable, and even the Queen of Cymbeline is but an Agrippina, for like her she is criminal but not selfish.

In fine, though I will not, with Mr. Buckle, term Shakespeare "the greatest of the sons of men"—for I cannot give that preeminence to imagination, observation, and language over the other mental powers, so as to place him above Aristotle and Newton—I will say here of him, as I have said in my 'Life of Milton' that "he was the mightiest poetic mind that Nature has ever produced," and that, in his case, statues and other memorials are utterly needless and superfluous. If we are asked for his monument, we should simply point to his Plays and say,—Monumentum si quæris, inspice! and, in my opinion, he consults best for the poet's fame who seeks to restore his works to their pristine form.

The reader will see by this sketch how little is really known concerning Shakespeare. I have endeavoured, as will be seen, to rectify some points in his biography.

---

In 1598 appeared a work, named Palladis Tamia, written by Francis Meres, in which among other passages respecting Shakespeare we meet with the following:—

"As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy among the Latines, so Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage. For comedy witness his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love Labour's Lost, his Love Labour's Won, his Midsummer's Night Dream, and his Merchant of Venice; for tragedy his Richard II., Richard III., Henry IV., King John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet."

Critics have hence inferred that these were Shakespeare's only plays written before 1598; but they have not observed that, moved probably by a love of symmetry and uniformity, Meres has given just half a dozen of each; and as in reality there were only five of our author's original tragedies then in being, he adds a play to which he could at most have only given a few touches, omitting the two Parts of Henry VI., for which he had done a vast deal more. In like manner he seems in his list of comedies to have omitted The Taming of the Shrew, which must be regarded as the least original of the comedies, and which the language and verse prove to belong to this period of his plays. It is generally agreed that Shakespeare never himself gave a play to the press; those, then, of which there are editions published during his lifetime, must have been printed from copies surreptitiously obtained, perhaps from the prompter. Hence their inaccuracies and imperfections. There is a theory indeed that they may have been taken down in short-hand during representation; but this theory seems only tenable in a single instance, Henry V., and the practice must have found a strong obstacle in the metre, to speak of no other difficulty. My opinion is that when once a copy of a play had been obtained and printed, it became the groundwork of all the subsequent editions which were printed from it, sometimes with corrections, made by the printer himself or by some man of letters employed by him for the purpose—except in such cases as Romeo and Juliet, or The Merry Wives, where the author had himself "corrected, augmented, and amended" his play. I may add that our forefathers, like the Orientals, had not our ideas about adhering strictly to the text of an author. If they thought they could improve it, they never hesitated to do so. I will now briefly state what is of most importance respecting the editions, the dates, and the origins of these immortal dramas.

---

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. As it is mentioned by Meres it must be anterior to 1598. It was probably Shakespeare's first original piece. From the plain allusion (III. 2) to the civil war in France, it must have been written before February 1594, in which year Henry IV. was crowned. I have shown above that it could not have been acted earlier than 1593.

Origin. It is manifestly founded on the Menæchmi of Plautus; but Shakespeare hardly went to the original. He may have merely got an account of that piece from some learned friend; and there was a piece named The Historie of Error, which was played at Hampton Court before the Queen, on New Year's day 1576-77, which may have been formed on the Menæchmi. The proper title of this play seems to have been simply Errors, and The Comedy of Errors is like The Tragedy of Macbeth, &c.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. Anterior to 1598 as it is in Meres's list. The critics have not observed that the resemblance is so strong between Act III. Sc. 1 of this play, and Act I. Sc. 2 of Lyly's Midas, that the one must have been taken from the other. In my opinion our poet was the borrower, as his scene is so superior to Lyly's. Now Midas was printed in 1592; but Shakespeare, it may be said, may have seen the play acted, or he may have written that scene, and added it to his play after he had read Lyly's; so the present comedy might have been written before 1592. This, however, I have shown to be at the least very unlikely. Though in my edition of the Plays I have given, as here, precedence to The Comedy of Errors, I do not feel at all certain upon the point, and would by no means assert that this is not rather "the first heir of his [dramatic] invention."

Origin. The plot seems to have been, in the main, of our poet's own invention; though what relates to Proteus and Julia may have been suggested, mediately or immediately, by the story of Felix and Felismena in the Diana of Montemayor. Indeed the points of resemblance are such that I feel confident the poet must have been acquainted with that part of the Diana; and yet it was not translated till 1598. Might he not have learned it from some one who had read the work in Spanish?

Editions. 4to, 1598; in the folio, 1623.

Date. We have no means of ascertaining the exact time of its composition; but from internal evidence we must regard it as one of our author's earliest pieces, yet, I think, later than those I have placed before it.

Origin. It is apparently wholly our poet's own invention, as no novel, play, or anything else at all resembling it has been discovered.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. Meres, as we have seen, terms one of Shakespeare's comedies "Love Labour's Won." Among our author's extant comedies there is none with that title, and we have no reason whatever for supposing any original play of his to be lost; while on the other hand the subject of the present play accords most accurately with that title. It has therefore been conjectured, with great probability, that this is one of Shakespeare's early plays, which he altered and improved at a later period, giving it at the same time a new title. We can certainly discern in it the style and mode of composition of two different periods—the riming scenes, for instance, belonging to the earlier one. It is to be observed of these riming scenes, that they only occur in the three preceding plays, and in Romeo and Juliet, in all which plays soliloquies, letters, &c. are in stanzas—like the sonnets in Spanish plays; and the very same is the case in the present play, and in it alone of the later ones; whence we may fairly conclude that it belonged to the early period. The second act seems to retain, both in the serious and the comic scenes, much of the original play unaltered; and every one must be struck with the resemblance of the style in it to that of Love's Labour's Lost.

Origin. The tale of Giletta di Narbona in Boccaccio's Decameron, which Shakespeare may have read in the original, or in the translation in Painter's Palace of Pleasure. The comic scenes are, of course, our author's own, as usual.

Editions. 4to (by Fisher), 1600; 4to (by Roberts), 1600; in the folio, 1623.

Date. Anterior to 1598, as it is mentioned by Meres. I do think that in Act II. Sc. 1 there is an allusion to the state of the weather in the summer of 1594, and that Shakespeare may have been writing this play at that very time. I therefore incline to give that year, or 1595, as the date of its composition.

Origin. Purely and absolutely the whole the poet's own invention. He was well read in Chaucer, in Golding's Ovid, and in North's Plutarch, where he got the names of his characters and some circumstances.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. We have no means of ascertaining the exact date of this play; but the style proves it to belong to Shakespeare's early period. The reason of its omission by Meres has been already given.

Origin. It is a rifacimento of an anonymous play, first printed in 1594, though perhaps written and acted some time earlier, and termed "The Taming of a Shrew," and it may be anterior to the Midsummer-Night's Dream; the date 1594 would seem to have some connexion with both plays. The incident of the Pedant personating Vincentio was taken from The Supposes, a translation by Gascoigne of Ariosto's I Suppositi.

Editions. 4to (by Roberts), 1600; 4to (by Heyes), 1600; in the folio, 1623. The two 4tos are in effect the same; for Heyes's was printed by J. R., i.e. James Roberts, who probably had contrived to get a transcript from the copy in the theatre, and then may have made some arrangement with Heyes for the publication.

Date. It is in Meres's list, and it was entered by Roberts in the Stationers' Registers 22nd July 1598; so that it was probably first acted in that or the preceding year. It is, I think, certainly later than any of the preceding comedies.

Origin. The remote origin of the incidents both of the bond and of the caskets is the Gesta Romanorum portions of which had been translated and published by Robinson in 1577. The incident of the bond is also in Il Pecorone of Ser Giovanni Fiorentino, first printed in 1558, and which Shakespeare may have read. There was also a ballad on the subject, in Percy's Reliques, with which he may have been acquainted.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. It is posterior to 1598, as Meres does not mention it, and was entered in the Stationer's Registers, August 4, 1600, by the booksellers Wise and Aspley; but for some reason, which we cannot now discover, they did not print it.

Origin. It is founded on Lodge's novel of Rosalynde, of which the chief origin was The Coke's Tale of Gamelyn, ascribed, but wrongly, to Chaucer. The characters of Jaques, Touchstone, and Audrey, and of course all the comic scenes, are Shakespeare's own.

Editions. 4to, 1600; in the folio, 1623.

Date. Not being mentioned by Meres, it is posterior to 1598; and as it is said, in the title-page of the 4to, that "it hath been sundry times publicly acted," it may have been written in 1598, and may be older than As You Like It; but we have no means of deciding.

Origin. The story of Ariodante and Ginevra in the Orlando Furioso, which Shakespeare may have read either in the original or in Sir John Harington's translation, published in 1591. The story had also been translated by Beverley and Turberville; and there was a play on it, performed before the Queen on Shrove Tuesday 1582-83; so that it was well known. Shakespeare's other authority was the novel of Timbreo di Cardona, &c., in Bandello, in which occur the names Pietro di Aragona, Messina, and Felicia Lionata, and with which therefore Shakespeare must have been acquainted. As there was no known translation of it, save a French one in Belleforest's Histoires Tragiques, I am of opinion that Shakespeare had read the original Italian. It need hardly be added that all the comic scenes and characters are our author's own.

Editions. 4to, 1602; 4to, 1619; in the folio, 1623.

Date. It was entered in the Stationers' Registers 18th January 1601-02, and was, consequently, written between 1597 (it is not in Meres's list) and that date; but we have no means of ascertaining the exact time. Mr. Dyce thinks it was written before 1600. It may be observed that, though some of the characters are the same as those in Henry IV. and Henry V., it is quite independent of these plays. I must here remark that the play is so brief, and, as it were, elementary, in the 4tos as compared with the folio, that it seems quite clear that the poet revised and augmented it some time after its first appearance; and this gives some probability to the tradition of its having been written at the command of the Queen, and in a few days, possibly in 1598 or 1599. Further, as in the 4tos there is no allusion whatever to the Lucy coat of arms, it is highly improbable that the poet showed in it any ill feeling towards that family. Lastly, the occurrence in the 4tos of numerous riming couplets which are not in the folio, completely upsets Mr. Collier's theory of that edition having been made up from memory, and from notes taken at the theatre. The expression "king's English" (I. 4) might seem to indicate that the enlargement of the play was not made till after the accession of James. The change, however, of queen to king may have been made by the Editors; but surely Shakespeare must have been aware that Falstaff lived in the time of the Henries.

Origin. Though some Italian and English tales are referred to as the possible sources of the plot, we may, I think, regard it as, at least in the greater part, Shakespeare's own invention. There is, however, a strong resemblance in part of it to a German play by Duke Henry Julius of Brunswick, who died in 1611. See on The Tempest.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. We learn from the MS. diary of a barrister named Manningham, that this play was performed in the Middle Temple, on the 2nd of February 1601-02. It was therefore written between 1597 and that date; but the exact time is quite uncertain.

Origin. The more remote origin of this play is apparently one of the tales of Bandello, which Shakespeare may have read in the original, or in a French or English version of it; for there were such. But the Rev. Jos. Hunter directed attention to three Italian comedies, two named "Inganni"—one of which is noticed by Manningham—and a third named "Gl'Ingannati," or "Il Sacrificio;" and the resemblance between this last and Twelfth Night is so strong that it is hardly possible to suppose that Shakespeare was unacquainted with it. If so, as it was never translated, as far as we know, he must have read it in the original Italian, which was printed in 1537.

N.B. The reader will observe with respect to these last four comedies, that all that we know with certainty respecting their date is that they were written between 1597 and 1600 or 1602. The arranging of them is little more than guess-work. I have placed first those that we know to have been written before 1600.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. In the Accounts of the Revels at Court, we are informed that this play was performed at Whitehall December 26, 1604. It was therefore probably written in that or the preceding year.

Origin. "The right excellent and famous History of Promos and Cassandra, a drama in Two Parts, by George Whetstone," published in 1578. Whetstone's drama was taken from one of the tales in the Hecatommithi of Cinthio, which Shakespeare may also have read. The comic scenes are of course all his own.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. It appears from the MS. diary of Dr. Forman, that he saw this play performed at the Globe, May 15, 1611; it was also performed at Whitehall on the 5th of November following. Its exact date cannot be assigned; but the great probability is that it could not have been written earlier than 1610. I am disposed to regard it as anterior to The Tempest, which was probably the last play that ever Shakespeare wrote. When we consider the probable date of this play, we see how utterly untenable is the theory of some writers that it was an indirect apology for Anne Boleyn, and a direct compliment to her royal daughter. I may here observe that those ingenious persons who find allusions (except in a very few plain instances) to public events and public persons in Shakespeare's plays merely waste their own and their readers' time. Thus Sir Philip Sidney died the very year the poet came to London; and yet we are told that he is figured in Hamlet, a play not written till many years afterwards!

Origin. With the exception of the comic scenes—which as usual are wholly Shakespeare's own—it was founded on Green's popular novel of Pandosto, The Triumph of Time.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. As it (II. 1) copies a passage from Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essays, published in 1603, we may assume that it is posterior to that year; and Malone has directed attention to the shipwreck of Sir George Somers on the island of Bermuda in July 1609, which may have suggested the scene of "The Tempest." We may therefore venture to assume that it may have been written not long after the account of that event reached England.

Origin. Collins, the poet, told Warton that he had seen a romance called "Aurelio and Isabella," printed in Italian, Spanish, French, and English in 1588, which was the original of the Tempest. But no such romance has ever been discovered, and it may justly be questioned if ever such a one existed. Still it is not improbable that Shakespeare may have heard or read some story of people cast away on a desert island. There is also a German play by Jacob Ayrer of Nuremberg, who died early in the seventeenth century, named "Die schöne Sidea," which in its plot and principal characters, bears so strong a resemblance to The Tempest that it is very difficult to avoid supposing a connexion between them; and it might thence appear that Collins was correct, for Shakespeare could hardly have had any knowledge of a German drama. It may, however, be said that he got his knowledge of the plot, &c., from one of the English actors who, as it is now well known, used to go over and perform in Germany.

---

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. Anterior to 1598, as it is in Meres's list.

Origin. It was founded on a play called "The First and Second Part of the Troublesome Reign of King John of England," published in 1591.

Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1598; 4to, 1608; 4to, 1615; in the folio, 1623.

Date. The exact date cannot be ascertained; but from the style I should be inclined to regard it as one of Shakespeare's earliest plays.

Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle, and an older play on the same subject.

Editions. 4to, 1598; 4to, 1599; 4to, 1604; 4to, 1608; 4to, 1613; in the folio, 1623.

Date. All we can say is, that it was anterior to 1598, and was most probably written in 1597.

Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle, and an anonymous play called "The Famous Victories of Henry V." The comic scenes are entirely Shakespeare's own, both in this and the two succeeding plays.

Editions. 4to, 1600; in the folio, 1623.

Date. Apparently in one of the years between 1597 and 1600. As has been already observed, it could hardly have been in existence when Meres wrote, or he would not have placed Titus Andronicus in his list. It is an objection that before 1597 Shakespeare had changed the name Oldcastle to Falstaff in the First Part, while in the 4to edition of this play a speech (I. 2) has the prefix Old. instead of Fal. But surely that may have been a slip of the copyist's memory, in consequence of Oldcastle having been the original title.

Origin. The same as of the First Part.

Editions. 4to, 1600; 4to, 1602; 4to, 1608; in the folio, 1623.

Date. As in the chorus to Act V. there is an evident allusion to the expedition of the Earl of Essex to Ireland, whither he went in April 1599, and whence he returned in the following September, it would seem to be clear that the play was acted in the interval between those two months. The insertion of this passage seems to be inexplicable on any other hypothesis. This also proves that the choruses formed a part of the original play, though they are not to be found in the 4to editions, which, it is well known, are scandalously imperfect.

Origin. The same as that of the two preceding plays.

Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1598; 4to, 1602; 4to, 1605; in the folio, 1623.

Date. Anterior, of course, to 1597. I incline to regard it as posterior to King John and to Richard II.; for it has no stanzas and no riming passages. It is also very free from quibbles and plays upon words, except in the unfortunate soliloquy of Richard in the last act—a wonderful instance of want of taste, and even of judgment. The same may be said of the scenes between Richard and Lady Anne and the Queen.

Origin. Hollinshed, and probably More.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. The following memorandum is in the Stationers' Registers:—"12 Feb. 1604[-5]. Nath. Butter. Yf he get good allowance for the Interlude of K. Henry the 8th, before he begin to print it, &c." This has been supposed to be the present play; but the style militates against this supposition. I offer the following proof, which has never, that I am aware of, been observed. In his early plays Shakespeare very rarely puts the preposition or conjunction at the end of one line and the noun or verb at the beginning of the next; in his succeeding ones he does so more frequently, and in his latest he is rather profuse of the practice. Now this construction is as frequent in Henry VIII. as in Coriolanus, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, and his other later ones, whence it might seem that it should be referred to the same epoch. We are told, indeed, that in 1613 the Globe Theatre was set on fire and burned down by the discharge of chambers in a new play called "Henry VIII.;" but it is hardly possible that it could be this play, as Shakespeare had retired before that year.

Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle.

---

Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1599; 4to, 1609; in the folio, 1623. There is also an undated 4to issued by Smethwick, the publisher of that of 1609, in which many typographical errors are corrected.

Date. In Act I. Sc. 2, the Nurse says, "'Tis since the earthquake now eleven years;" and, as Tyrwhitt justly observed, this could only have been the earthquake which was felt in England on the 6th of April 1580. It was quite in Shakespeare's way to make the allusion; and this would give 1591 as the year in which this play was first performed. This, then, may be the true date, though I greatly doubt of it; I should rather say, entirely reject it; for it surely can hardly be anterior to the first two comedies. The play, as appears from the 4to, 1597, was little more than a sketch of that which appeared, "corrected, augmented, and amended," in 1599.

Origin. The remote original is the tale of Pyramus and Thisbe in Ovid's Metamorphoses, from which an Italian writer named Luigi da Porto made a tale, printed in 1535. A tale formed from this was given by Bandello in 1554; and in 1562 a poem of Romeus and Juliet, by Arthur Brookes, taken from Bandello's, or rather from the version of it in Belleforest's Histoires Tragiques, was published in London; in 1567 the same tale, also from Bandello, appeared in Painter's Palace of Pleasure. Shakespeare chiefly followed Brooke; but he had also read the Palace of Pleasure, and probably Bandello's tale in the original.

Editions. 4to, 1603; 4to, 1604; 4to, 1611; 4to undated (probably in 1607); in the folio, 1623.

Date. On the 26th of July 1602, an entry was made in the Stationers' Registers of "A Booke, The Revenge of Hamlett, prince of Denmarke, as yt was latelie acted, by the Lord Chambelayn his servantes." There can be little doubt that this was the present play. The text of the 4to, 1603, is in such a mangled, wretched condition, that it has not unreasonably been conjectured that it was formed from notes made during the representation. As in this the Polonius and Reynaldo of the present play are called Corambis and Montano, it is probable that the play received much addition and alteration; for the 4to, 1604, gives it "enlarged to almost as much again as it was, according to the true and perfect coppie." This play being so popular, it is not unlikely that the author may have frequently retouched it. It is very remarkable that it is by many degrees the most faulty of his plays, abounding, we may say, in incongruities, contradictions, and improbabilities.

Origin. Apparently a novel called The Hystorie of Hamblet, translated from Belleforest. There seems also to have been an older play on the subject.

Editions. 4to, 1622; in the folio, 1623. There is also a 4to, 1630; but it is of little value, as it was evidently made not from a MS., but from the two preceding editions with some conjectural emendations. To the 4to, 1622, is prefixed—as to Troilus and Cressida—an Epistle "from the Stationer [Thos. Walkley] to the Reader."

Date. From the Accounts of the Revels, we learn that this play was performed at Court, November 1st, 1604; and if the Egerton Papers, published by Mr. Collier, can be relied on, it had been performed before Queen Elizabeth. In them we meet as follows:—"6 August, 1602. Rewards to the vaulters, players, and dancers—of this x^li to Burbidge's players for Othello—lxiiii^li xviii^s x^d." "The part of the memorandum which relates to Othello," says Mr. Collier, "is interlined as if added afterwards." Mr. Halliwell asserts that Othello must have been written even before 1600; for in a MS. of that date, entitled The Newe Metamorphosis, &c., is a passage evidently, he thinks, imitated from "who steals my purse steals trash" in Othello. But, though Mr. Halliwell thinks otherwise, this passage may have been a later insertion; or it may be a mere coincidence, a thing much more common than is usually supposed. At all events Othello was written, at latest, in 1604. I know not if it has been observed that Voltaire evidently had Othello in his mind when writing his Zaïre.

Origin. The only known source of this play is a tale in the Hecatommithi of Cinthio; and as no English translation of it is known to have existed, the obvious and natural inference is that Shakespeare had read it in the original. There was, however, it seems, a French translation: Paris, 1584.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. The real date of this play is very uncertain, and I am very dubious whether I am right or not in giving it this position. Mr. Collier—with whom Mr. Dyce agrees—is positive that it appeared before 1603, for in that year Drayton published his Barons' Wars, in which is a passage so like the character of Brutus given in this play (v. 5), that one poet must have borrowed from the other; and it is inferred of course that Drayton was the borrower. But this is not by any means so certain, as the eagle did not always disdain to take a plume from the smaller birds (see above, The Two Gentlemen of Verona). It is very strange, however, that neither of these critics seems to have been aware that the very same ideas, and even expressions, are to be found in the character given of Crites in Ben Jonson's Cynthia's Revels (ii. 1), which was performed in 1600, and which may therefore I think justly be regarded as the real immediate original of the passages in both poets; the germ, however, is to be found in Chaucer's Tale of the Doctor of Physik. All, then, that we can venture to affirm is, that Julius Cæsar is posterior to 1600. I incline to place it in point of time before Shakespeare's other plays on Roman subjects. It may be observed that his Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus are as much Histories as those that are so entitled, the history being Roman instead of English.

Origin. North's Plutarch, from the French of Amyot.

Edition. Only in the folio 1623.

Date. From the language of this play I feel inclined to place its date near that of Julius Cæsar. It is true that "A Booke called Anthony and Cleopatra," which may have been this play, was entered in the Stationers' Registers, May 20th, 1608; but it seems never to have appeared, and that entry is no proof that the play may not have been acted some years before that date.

Origin. Life of Antonius in North's Plutarch.

Edition. 4to, 1608; 4to, 1608; 4to, 1608; in the folio, 1623.

Date. Certainly posterior to 1603, in which year appeared Harsnet's Discovery of Popish Impostures, from which Shakespeare evidently took the names of the fiends mentioned by Edgar. There is an entry of it in the Stationers' Registers, November 26th, 1607, in which it is stated that it had been played before the King on the night of St. Stephen's Day in the preceding year. The latest date of its composition, then, that we can suppose is 1606.

Origin. Hollinshed, Mirror of Magistrates, and an old play on the same subject. The episode of Gloster and his sons was taken from Sidney's Arcadia, ii. 10.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. Dr. Forman states in his MS. Diary that he saw this play "at the Globe, 1610, the 20th of April, Saturday;" but it does not follow by any means that it was then a new play. I agree with Mr. Collier in thinking that the mention of "twofold balls and treble sceptres" should induce us to place it not very far from the accession of James I. (Oct. 24, 1604), and therefore in 1605 or 1606. Malone thought there was an allusion (in II. 3) to the state of the corn-market in 1606, and to the conduct of the Jesuit Garnet on his trial in that year; but this is little more than fancy.

Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle.

Editions. 4to, 1609; in the folio, 1623.

Date. It was entered in the Stationers' Registers, January 28, 1608-9. It had not been acted at that time; for the publishers state, in an Address to the Reader, that it had never been "staled with the stage, never clapper-clawed with the palms of the vulgar;" while in a reissue of it in the same year the Address was suppressed, and it was given "as it was acted by the King's Majesty's servants at the Globe." It is therefore evident that it was first acted in 1609; but it might have been written some years earlier. It is a very curious question, and one to which I am unable to give a satisfactory answer, how it came into the hands of the publisher. I entirely disagree with those critics who think they discern in it the hand of another poet; for there is not a play in the whole collection more thoroughly Shakespearian in every scene. The conclusion certainly is huddled up in a way not elsewhere to be met with in these plays; but that is no proof of this theory; for if Shakespeare had taken up the work of another, the conclusion is the very part he would have been most likely to develope. It is further very remarkable, that though this play was not exposed to the wear and tear of the property-room, it contains more imperfect lines than almost any other. This I can only attribute to the haste and carelessness of the transcriber, who, as working surreptitiously, was anxious to hurry through his task in as short a time as possible. I will observe, in fine, that, though it contains the death of Hector—which might perhaps better have been omitted—it is in reality a tragi-comedy, as much so as any of Beaumont and Fletcher's.

Origin. Chaucer's Troilus and Cresseida, Caxton's Recuyl of the Historyes of Troye, and Lydgate's Historye, Sege, and Destruccyon of Troye.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. We have no means of ascertaining the exact date; but the language and the use of rimes in the dialogue induce me to think that it was near that of Troilus and Cressida.

Origin. The story of Timon in Painter's Palace of Pleasure, and life of Antony in North's Plutarch.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. A little later, I think, than the two preceding plays; for there is only one riming passage in it.

Origin. Life of Coriolanus in North's Plutarch.

Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.

Date. From the style and the family resemblance—as appears to me—between Imogen, Miranda, and Perdita, I should deem it to be contemporaneous with the Tempest and the Winter's Tale. We may place it, then, in or after 1610.

Origin. The tale of Bernabò da Genova in the Decamerone, which Shakespeare had probably read in the original. There was an imitation of it in a tract called Westward for Smelts, of which, however, no edition earlier than 1620 is known. For the historical part, he, of course, had resorted to Hollinshed.

---

In these plays we may, I think, distinguish four different phases of composition, in each of which the thoughts and the language of the poet present a peculiar appearance.

The first phase extends we may say from 1593 to 1598, and contains the plays in Meres's list—except 1 Henry IV., and The Merchant of Venice, and The Taming of the Shrew. It is distinguished by a continual play on words and by frequent rimes—both in couplets and in stanzas—while the blank verse, which is as yet unformed, is harmonious and almost always decasyllabic. Richard III. seems to form the connecting link between this and the next phase; for it is free from both rimes and play on words, while the blank verse has not yet acquired its appropriate form.

The second phase would seem to extend from 1598 to 1603. It contains The Merchant of Venice, As You Like It, Much Ado about Nothing, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Twelfth Night, 1 and 2 Henry IV., Henry V., Hamlet, Othello, Julius Cæsar, Antony and Cleopatra. Here the dramatic blank verse is perfect, trisyllabic feet being admitted, and the lines running into each other, rimes only appearing in final couplets. There rarely occurs a play on words, and the language is in general easy and natural.

The third phase may extend from 1603 to 1609. It contains Measure for Measure, Lear, Macbeth, Troilus and Cressida, Timon of Athens, and Coriolanus. In this the poet returned to the practice of giving passages of several lines in rime, though not in stanzas, and his language is obscured by periphrases, inversions, and ellipses to such an extent that many places—the speeches of Ulysses, for instance, in Troilus and Cressida—must have been perfectly unintelligible to an ordinary audience. He had already, as in Antony and Cleopatra, begun to place more frequently the preposition or conjunction at the end of one line and the word connected with it at the beginning of the next, and he continues to do so here, chiefly in Coriolanus, though hardly at all in Troilus and Cressida, or in Timon of Athens.

The fourth and last phase contains The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, Henry VIII., Cymbeline. He here seems to have made a return to the simpler language of the second phase. In Henry VIII. and The Tempest, what has been said of prepositions and conjunctions goes on to a great extent.

---

The plays above noticed—thirty-two in number—are the genuine productions of the poet. Two of them, King John and The Taming of the Shrew, were founded on plays that are still extant, and we may see that he used them precisely as he did the tales and chronicles on which he founded so many of his other plays, taking the story, the incidents, the characters, and, when it suited his purpose, the language which they contained.

But beside these, we find in the folio four other plays of a different kind, of which the most that any critic ventures to assert is that they were retouched, improved, and enlarged by Shakespeare. Of two of these, namely The Second and Third Parts of Henry VI. this would seem to be the truth; for we have the two plays in their original form, and there can be little doubt that it was them chiefly that Green had in view in the passage quoted above from his Groat's Worth of Wit, &c.; and upon examination it appears that in the first of them Shakespeare's additions and improvements amount to a fifth, in the second to only an eighth part of the text. Of the other two, The First Part of Henry VI. and Titus Andronicus, after a very careful study of them, my decided opinion, and apparently that of Mr. Dyce also, is that, with an exception presently to be noticed, neither the one nor the other contains a single speech or even a single line from the pen of Shakespeare. How they got into the folio is a question not easy to answer. Heminge and Condell, no doubt, may not have been critics, and so may have fancied that he had had to do with The First Part of Henry VI. also; or they may have merely inserted it as being connected with the other Parts. As to Titus Andronicus, I have already given a reason for its appearance in Meres's list. He had probably heard that it was by Shakespeare, and he made no exact inquiry, and so ascribed it to him; and the editors of the folio may have taken it on his authority, or have followed the same tradition. I do not believe that it was at any time in Shakespeare's nature to write the horrors of one of these plays, or to treat the noble Maid of Orleans as she is treated in the other, or even to labour on and improve the pieces that contained them. Besides, there are nowhere to be found plays more entirely of one single cast than these are. There is also displayed in them an acquaintance with Horace and others of the ancient Classics which Shakespeare did not possess. They may have been written by either Kyd or Marlow, each of whom had this acquaintance, and also a taste for horrors, and abundant talent for their composition. At the same time I think it possible that, as there is a Clown in Titus Andronicus—the only instance I believe out of the plays of Shakespeare—the two short, trifling, and needless scenes in which he appears may be from our poet's pen, and that hence the play was hastily ascribed to him.

The following plays also were published during Shakespeare's life-time with his name, in full or in initials, on the title-pages: Locrine, 1595; The Life of Sir John Oldcastle, 1600—known to be by Munday, Drayton, Wilson, and Hathway; History of Thomas Lord Cromwell, 1602; The London Prodigal, 1605; The Puritan, or The Widow of Watling Street, 1607; A Yorkshire Tragedy, 1608. These, with Pericles, Prince of Tyre—also published under his name in 1609—were printed in the 3rd folio, 1664, and reprinted in the 4th, 1685, and finally by Rowe in his edition of Shakespeare's Plays. The Two Noble Kinsmen, by Fletcher and Shakespeare, was published in 1634.

Of the first six of these plays the opinion of the critics is tolerably unanimous that Shakespeare had nothing whatever to do with them. Yet, as in Locrine (printed so early as 1595) it is said, "newly set forth, overseen and corrected, by W. S." it is possible, though most unlikely, that it may be one of the plays on which he operated in the early part of his dramatic career; and the fame of his Poems lately printed, may have induced the publisher to place his initials in the title-page. As to Pericles, it was rejected, with Locrine, &c., by Pope, Theobald, and all the editors down to Malone, who printed all these pieces in 1780 in the Supplement to the edition of Johnson and Steevens; he did not, however, include any of them in his own edition of 1790. Steevens admitted Pericles into his edition of 1793 on the authority of Farmer, but marked with an asterisk, as being only in part Shakespeare's, to which opinion Malone, who at first thought it wholly his, acceded. It finally was included in Reed's and in the Boswell-Malone or Variorum edition, which succeeding editors have followed. From mine it has been excluded, as I am most firmly of opinion that it does not contain a single line of Shakespeare's, and that it is an insult to his memory to give it a place among his genuine works. In fact the deliberate rejection of it by Heminge and Condell from the folio ought to outweigh all conjectural proofs in its favour. These, we must recollect, were not ordinary players, they were Shakespeare's fellows or partners in the theatres; and it was therefore utterly impossible that any play could be acted there without their knowing who was the author. They must, then, have known that Shakespeare had had nothing to do with it; for their admission of 1 Hen. VI. and Titus Andronicus proves that evidence even of the slenderest kind would have turned the beam with them. His name at full length in the title-page proves nothing; for it is also in that of Sir John Oldcastle, 1600, which is known not to be his.

As to the Two Noble Kinsmen, it was published in 1634 as "written by the memorable worthies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William Shakespeare"—putting the greater last—an evident bookseller's artifice; for surely Shakespeare at the zenith of his fame, and toward the close of his dramatic career, would not join with a young poet in the composition of a play, a thing that he never seems to have done, even when he was a young poet himself. Mr. Dyce, who had rejected, afterwards adopted the theory of its being in a certain sense a joint composition; and he makes some strange hypotheses upon the subject, which to me seem utterly devoid of probability. Surely, for example, it is not to be supposed that a man of Shakespeare's business-habits would, when winding-up, as we may term it, leave behind him, in the hands of the House, an unfinished drama, and that what he left should have been the beginning and the end of a play! It is pretty generally agreed that the entire play, except the first and fifth acts, is by Fletcher. To me it seems certain that the first act, though the work of a superior poet, is not Shakespeare's; and I feel quite confident that the first, as well as the second, scene of the last act is by Fletcher; while the concluding scenes are by some other poet, different from, and, I think, superior to, the writer of the first act. My theory is, that Fletcher either obtained the commencement of a play by some one else, or began to write in conjunction with some one, and, the play being unfinished at his death, it was concluded by another poet, possibly Massinger, who alone seems capable of writing such a noble termination of so fine a drama.

---

In reading and criticising the plays of Shakespeare, we must always bear in mind that they were written for the stage, not for the closet, to be acted, not to be read. Shakespeare, as it would appear, was utterly regardless of literary fame; he had, as we have seen, one sole object in view, to acquire as much money as would enable him to quit the hurry and bustle of London, and settle down in his native Stratford-on-Avon as a man of independent property, and be, if possible, the founder of a family. Pouring forth, therefore, his tragic and comic strains, with as little apparent effort as the songsters of the grove warble their native notes, he set no value on them but as they filled the Globe and the Blackfriars and thus tended to the realization of the great object of all his ambition; and he never gave a single one of them to the press, as was done by Jonson and others who sought for literary fame by their dramas. Hence, though the verse is always melodious, we must not look in them for the finish and perfection which we find in those of a Racine or a Molière; we must, on the contrary, be prepared to meet with all the marks of haste and carelessness, with contradictions and even with absurdities. It would really dismay one to think of their being submitted to the ordeal through which the pieces of the great Corneille have been made to pass by Voltaire. Corneille, by the way, like Shakespeare, valued his plays by the money they produced.

Copies of about one-half of his plays were surreptitiously obtained by the booksellers, who printed them with more or less of care; but of this he took no heed: and when he finally retired to Stratford, he left in the hands of his fellowplayers the manuscripts of his plays, published and unpublished. There is not the slightest ground for supposing that he ever had any intention of collecting and publishing his dramatic writings—a thing of which there had as yet been no instance. In 1616, the very year of Shakespeare's death, Ben Jonson, who, widely different from the great dramatist, set a high value, and a just one, on his plays as literary compositions, collected all he had written up to that date and published them, with his other poetical pieces, in a folio volume. It may have been this that induced Heminge and Condell, two members of the company to which Shakespeare had belonged, to make a collection of his pieces also, and give them to the world in a folio volume. For this purpose they used the 4to impressions of such plays as had been printed, making some corrections and alterations in them from the playhouse copies; and adding to these the manuscript plays which were in the possession of the theatre, they put the whole into the hands of the publishers, one of whom, Edward Blount, who was a man of some literary pretensions, is supposed, not without probability, to have undertaken the task of seeing the work through the press. Such was the origin of the celebrated folio of 1623, of which it was, in my opinion most justly, said by the late Mr. Hunter, that "perhaps in the whole annals of English typography there is no record of any book of any extent and any reputation having been dismissed from the press with less care and attention;" while Mr. Knight (who ought to have known a good deal about such matters) boldly declares that "perhaps, all things considered, there never was a book so correctly printed!" Such as it is, however, it and the previous 4to impressions are the only authority we have for the text of these marvellous creations of the human intellect.

Few, I should hope, will refuse to assent to the two following postulates.

I. No eminent writer—however he might obscure his meaning by metaphor, ellipsis, or other figures of speech—has ever written pure nonsense.

II. No true poet ever wrote limping, imperfect, or inharmonious verses.

We may add to these the plain facts, that printers are not, and never were, infallible, and that those works of which the authors themselves read the proof-sheets are in general more correct than those of which those sheets were read by others.

Now the plays of Shakespeare are, as is well known, full of passages of which it is nearly impossible to make any good sense, and they abound in imperfect and inharmonious verses. On the other hand, the poems of Venus and Adonis, and of Lucrece, which he himself probably saw through the press, are almost entirely free from error, and do not contain a single unmelodious verse. The natural inference, then, is, that the defects of the plays are all owing to the transcribers and printers, and that the correction of them and the restoration of sense and melody, when possible, is the legitimate office of sound emendatory criticism. The truth of this has been felt from the very beginning; for in the 2nd folio, published in 1632, only nine years after the first, there are numerous corrections, which must have been made by the editor solely on his own authority, for, many of them being very bad, he could not have derived them from any manuscripts. And the same is the case in the subsequent folios, of all of which there are many copies in existence, like that which Mr. Collier met with to his misfortune, and which has excited such a storm in a puddle,—of which, by the way, my own opinion is that the corrections in it were made between 1744, the date of Hanmer's, and 1765, that of Johnson's edition; whence I only cite it for the corrections later than the former date. These contain manuscript corrections, some, like that copy, anonymously, others by Southern and other men of repute. In the beginning of the last century Rowe gave the first example of an annotated edition of Shakespeare's works, and from that time to the present edition has succeeded edition bearing the names of critics of various degrees of ability and eminence, but all agreeing in the necessity of revising the text and rendering it as correct as may be possible.

Of the early editors, Rowe and Pope made little more than the most obvious corrections, Warburton, always ingenious and almost always wrong, made notwithstanding some that were very good, as also did Hanmer. But they were all eclipsed by Theobald, one of the acutest emendatory critics that this country has produced, whose merits, though long clouded through the malignity of Pope, are now fully acknowledged. Capell, the next in order of time, also rendered good service; but Johnson, Steevens, and Malone have done much less than might have been expected. Of these the last was a native of Ireland, the only emendatory critic that country has produced; and, in my opinion, he is not at all inferior to his English rival Steevens. That true critic Tyrwhitt should also be noticed as an emendator of a high order. It is surprising how little has really been done in the present century; and I was perfectly astonished to find what a number of passages still remained in a corrupt or imperfect state when I ventured on the task of emendation. It would seem as if critical sagacity, low in rank as it may be, is one of those talents most rarely bestowed; and besides, print appears to exercise almost a magic power over most persons; they seem to think that what is in print cannot be wrong: it is in fact only very few minds that can fully emancipate themselves from its influence. It must, however, be remembered that alteration and critical emendation are widely different. The former is in the power of almost any one; the latter, as I said, requires a peculiar faculty. It is a curious fact that in nothing does critical sagacity show itself more than in, as I may say, seeing what is before the eyes. For an instance see the first note on Henry V. Another curious fact is this, that poets (Coleridge for example) are rarely good emendators. It is, in fine, the merest folly, and a proof of the grossest ignorance, to sneer at such labours and represent them as needless, if not mischievous. Editors, however, ought to be very cautious about introducing their conjectures into the text, and should place them only in notes, unless when they are such as must almost command assent, and the place corrected had previously yielded no tolerable sense or metric melody. It is a good rule to let well alone, as we say, and not to alter what gives tolerable good sense. I have, I believe, transgressed this rule only in a couple of places.

The following instance is a convincing proof of the evil consequences of the proof-sheets not having passed under the author's own eye. Sismondi, the celebrated historian of France, wrote an historic tale named Julia Severa, which was of course written in French, and it was printed at one of the best offices in Paris; but the author himself did not see the proofs, whence, though it makes only two rather slender duodecimo volumes, there are actually whole pages of errata! I know, by the way, no better mode of weaning oneself from what I shall presently describe as printer-worship than a habit of examining the errata in books printed in the two last centuries. Further, in good printing-offices, at least in this country, it is the practice that the proofs, after they come from the compositor, should be read in the office and corrected before they are sent to the author or editor; while, even at the present day, in the Royal printing-office in Copenhagen there are no readers, and the sheets are sent out just as they come from the compositor, and what that state is must be known to any one conversant with printing-offices. Now it is very possible, or rather highly probable, if not certain, that such was the case in England also in former times; and supposing that it was the editors, and not Blount, that read the proofs, as the wretched state of the punctuation might seem to indicate, we need not feel any surprise at the very unsatisfactory state of the text of the folio of 1623. In opposition, however, to this opinion, the Cambridge editors think that "there were no proof-sheets, in those days, sent either to author or editor," and that "after a MS. had been sent to press it was seen only by the printers, and one or more correctors of the press employed by the publishers for that purpose." But on this hypothesis how are we to account for the great correctness of our author's Poems, Spenser's Shepherd's Calendar, the Works of Jonson, Drayton, and others? The following words on the title-page of Marston's Fawne, 2nd edition, offer decisive evidence that authors did read the proof-sheets of their works:—"Now corrected of many faults, which, by reason of the author's absence, were let slip in the first edition."

Notwithstanding all this, there are editors of Shakespeare who, rejecting the evidence of sense, grammar, and logic, obstinately adhere to the printed text, terming that alone authority, and even holding the second and later folios to be such; and it is really pitiable to see them superstitiously retaining for instance 'tis or it's when the metre requires it is, and syncopated forms as lov'd, own'd, etc., when the verse has need of the complete word, and vice versâ. These I denominate Printer-worshipers; for it is in reality to the authority of the printer, not of the poet, that they bow. The most extraordinary instance of this propensity in existence is the retention of "strain at a gnat" in our authorized version of the New Testament, a most manifest printer's error; for no schoolboy could have made it in translating, and in all the previous English versions the word is out. Yet there it has stood uncorrected for two centuries and a half! Hardly inferior as a piece of printer-worship is the following. A stanza of a song in Fletcher's Spanish Curate (ii. 5) ends thus:

thus expressing the very contrary of what was meant! Theobald, a true critic, therefore most properly added doth—in the wrong place, however, as it should begin the line; yet Mr. Dyce says, "the old text is doubtless what the poet wrote"!!

To conclude, then, if the printed text cannot be made to yield sense the fault must lie, not with the poet, but with the transcriber or the printer, and a correction, made in conformity with the language and mode of thinking of the poet and his time, as it may give what he wrote, or may have written, should be admitted into the text. I must here, en passant, impress it on the reader as a maxim, that no word should be used in correction that is not to be found in the poet himself, or in his contemporaries.

A printer is a transcriber or copyist, with the only difference that he uses type instead of a pen. He looks at the copy, as it is termed, and takes up the whole or part of a sentence in his mind, and then goes on composing or setting up the type. Meanwhile he is very possibly engaged in conversation, or he is listening to that of others, or he is thinking of something else. His mind being thus distracted, errors will naturally arise in what he is composing. Besides, he has very often to contend with the difficulties caused by illegible writing in the manuscript. There is another source of error—and one in which the printer is perfectly blameless—which I have never seen noticed. It is this, that in speaking and reading we often slur over, elide or suppress the final consonant if the following word begin with a consonant; and this is not peculiar to the English, but is to be found in the French, German, and other languages, being in fact a law of nature, the result of our organization. The most usual case is when, as in the following example, the first word ends and the next begins with the same consonant. Thus in one of the Irish Melodies of Moore, a poet more devoted to euphony than to sense, we have

where it will be seen that the letters in italics are not, and cannot be pronounced, without making a pause between the words. In another song of the same poet we have

Here, if it were not for the second line, no one, on only hearing the first, could tell whether the word was believed or believe; for the sound is exactly the same: see on Much Ado, iv. 1; M. N. D. ii. 1. We surely then cannot blame the printer who makes a mistake in such cases, but we should not hesitate to correct it. We should also remember that this suppression or clipping is more frequent with the classes to which the printer probably belonged than with the educated.

It is chiefly the dentals t and d that are thus suppressed before words commencing with a mute consonant; and it is surprising what a number of words there are in common use that have been thus curtailed. Thus in and the d is rarely sounded, even before vowels; of is so generally pronounced o' that it were needless printing it so, as is usual in the dramatists, were it not that o' represents on as well as of; we all say "Who did you see?" though we should write it "Whom did you see?" Instances, in fine, are numberless; but we should keep the principle constantly in mind. See the note on sly-slow, Rich. II. i. 3; and on by peeping, Cymb. i. 7.

On the other hand, there is sometimes a transference of a consonant from the end of one word to the beginning of the next, which injures the sense,—ex. gr.,

F. Q. iii. 12. 42.

Here the poet probably wrote allayed, and the printer transferred to it the d of found. See on Temp. iv. 1.

While treating of elision, it may not be useless to remark that when a word beginning with h is monosyllabic, or is not accented on its first syllable, the h is not sounded. Any one who will observe will find that his, for example, is usually pronounced is; so that there is no occasion for the 's of the dramatists. So we should write and pronounce a history, but write an historian and pronounce an 'istorian; for a historian, as it is too often written and pronounced, makes a most unpleasant hiatus. We may observe how constantly the aspirate is suppressed in the poetry of Greece and Rome.

The errors of transcribers and printers are Omission, Addition, Transposition, Substitution. Of these I will now give instances, chiefly from my own experience. I must, however, previously notice the rather curious fact, that these four sources of error, which I had traced out in our printed works, are all, and no other, acted upon by that, in my mind, most able of the German critics, J. Olshausen, in that chef d'œuvre of criticism, his Comment on the Book of Psalms, thus showing how universal they are.

Omission.—If any one will examine a proof-sheet as it comes from the hands of a compositor, he will find abundant instances of this source of error. One would think that such could hardly escape the author's eye; and yet, in the edition of Ben Jonson's plays corrected by himself, almost the only errors detected by the editors have been those of omission; and a few more have, I think, escaped them. I may add that the words supplied by them seem to me to be almost invariably the very words which had been omitted. In Notes and Queries (3 S. vii.) there is a list of the principal errata in the reprint of the First Folio, in 1808; and the far larger portion of them are omissions which can easily be supplied. From my own experience in the case of reprints, I can further assert that corrections of this kind are by no means a matter of hap-hazard; for where I have supplied the words I supposed lost or altered I have almost invariably found, on referring to the original edition, that I had hit on the exact word. As an instance, in a late reprint of Akenside's Poems, the following line occurs in the Hymn to the Naiads:

Here I at once corrected salutary, and on looking at the original edition I found I was right. Yet, had this correction been made in Shakespeare, we know how it would have been disputed. As to omissions I can give the following instances. In a reprint (Lond. 1816) of Fletcher's Purple Island, we find (xii. 74, 85) the following lines:

Each line being short, I read in the first "sweetly plain her," and in the second one and "fairer borrow'd gold," and on looking at the original 4to I found I had supplied the poet's very words. In Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose, the following line is in all the MSS. and editions,

which is evidently a foot short. I read 'She had in hand,' and on looking at the original I found en sa main.

It is not often that proofs have been read more carefully than were those of my edition of Milton's Poems, both by myself and by others; and yet, in the reprint of the text, in one place (Par. Lost, x. 422) it will be found that the word to is missing, thus destroying the metre; and yet none of us perceived it.

A far stronger case is the following. Never apparently was a work edited with greater care than Mr. Panizzi's edition of Bojardo and Ariosto; and yet in the Orlando Innamorato, II. xxiv. 54, the concluding couplet of the stanza is printed thus:

Here a reader, who has even but the slightest knowledge of Italian, will see at once that the word avviso has been omitted at the end of the second line; and yet this escaped not merely the printer's reader, who, even if ignorant of the language, might be supposed to have missed the rime, but the lynx-eyed editor himself, not only in the proof, but in the fair sheets which he was evidently in the habit of examining most carefully. The more I think of this error the more I feel astonished at its occurrence, a thing for which I cannot in any manner account; the following, however, is nearly a parallel. In a most carefully edited Greek Testament (Lond. 1837), in 1 Cor. xi. 23, three important words are omitted! Need we, then, wonder at omissions in Shakespeare?

The omission is generally, as in these cases, of single words, from noun to interjection, all parts of speech included, and also of single letters or syllables. It is rather curious, too, that when a word has been repeated by the poet it is sometimes omitted by the printer. Thus "What wheels? what racks? what fires?" W. T. iii. 2, is printed, "What wheels? racks? fires?" There is another instance in the same play, and many in the other plays. In Chaucer the instances are numerous. Addresses, as sir, my lord, etc., are sometimes left out, as also are pray, now, only, and others which are not absolutely necessary for the sense—and even two or more words; in all which cases the omission is indicated by the defect of metre. This the reader will do well to keep constantly in mind. For an example see on Tam. of Shrew, i. 1. It is surprising how often the negative particle is wanting in these plays of Shakespeare's. I have discovered its absence in between twenty and thirty places, not one-half of which had been observed by preceding editors. But not merely single words have been left out by printers; want of rime or want of connexion shows that entire lines have been omitted. Mr. Collier observes that three lines are wanting in various places of the Variorum Shakespeare; and such being the case in the present century, we need not wonder at so many having been passed over by the original printers. The reader will find about two dozen such cases noticed in my Edition and in the following pages, not one-half of which had been observed by preceding editors. Shakespeare himself furnishes the following remarkable instance. In Com. of Err. ii. 2, the three last folios omit the two lines beginning with "Wear gold and no man," etc. Nares gives in his Glossary (v. Portingall) a curious instance of the omission of a line, which escaped the author's own notice in the proof-sheet. So also in Massinger's Unnatural Combat, lines are wanting in two places, though he himself must have read the proofs. In 2 Hen. VI. iv. 1, there is a line wanting in the folio, to recover which we are actually obliged to go to the original play of The Contention, etc.

Parts of lines, generally the latter part, are also often wanting, but not so often as it may seem; for short lines, and also over-long lines, generally are caused by malarrangement of the text. The main cause, however, of these losses is the ill-usage to which the manuscripts seem to have been subjected in the part of the theatre in which they were kept, and the careless treatment of them by those who had occasion to use them. Hence in some places the writing may have been obliterated by ink-blots, in others effaced by friction, or by damp or dust; while sometimes a part of a leaf may have been torn away. We must remember that a large number of Shakespeare's plays were lying thus exposed to ill-usage, probably in the property-room of the Globe or Blackfriars, for a space of from twenty to thirty years.

The parts most likely to have thus sustained injury must have been those nearest the edges of the page; and hence the part effaced would be the beginning of the line or the end of it; and as the lines run evenly at the beginning, while they are of irregular length, the effacement at the beginning would be in general of mere monosyllables, as I, in, with, and, &c., while that at the end might be of several words, at times even of half a line. In the beginning, too—as will be seen in the notes on Merchant of Venice, iv. 1, As You Like It, ii. 7, and elsewhere—more than one word has been sometimes effaced. In the case of entire lines or large parts of lines, the cause may have been their position at the top or bottom of the page, and their consequent proximity to the edge.

It is rather strange that I should have been—as I believe I am—the first to notice this very simple and natural mode of accounting for the losses in the text. The number of these losses which I have, or seem to have, detected in the beginnings is over seventy, those at the ends more than double that number. As they are all supplied in my Edition, and noted in the following pages, the reader will have ample occasion for ascertaining whether my theory is correct or not. I will here, however, give a couple of instances.

1 Hen. IV. iii. 1.

Here the critics are perplexed with "wilful-blame," which is a compound without example; but let us suppose that the poet wrote "wilful-blameable," and that the final letters had been effaced, we get a compound term of which examples are numerous. The other is,

Cymb. iv. 2.

In the following pages it will be seen that occasionally I attempt to supply the losses of lines and parts of lines. It will not, I hope, be supposed that I am so presumptuous as to expect my productions to be admitted into the text. My object has merely been, by showing how easily and naturally something could be supplied, to make the reader see more clearly that something had been lost. In three places, however (All's Well, i. 1, Tr. & Cr. ii. 1, Cor. ii. 3), I have ventured to place them in the text of my Edition.

I must, in fine, request the reader most earnestly not to pooh-pooh this principle of effacement, but to keep it steadily in mind in reading the other dramatists, as well as Shakespeare; for he will find it a most valuable aid. Among the instances of effacement at the end is to be noted that of compound words of which the last part has been lost. In five places I have thought myself justified in supplying the missing word, namely, Winter's Tale, i. 2, Rich. III. v. 3, Ham. iii. 4, Tim. i. 2, ii. 2; for it is almost only at the end of a line that we ever find reason to suspect this kind of effacement.

In editing the Plays, the additions made to the text should always be marked, so as not to mislead the reader. In my edition, and in this volume, they are always printed in italics.

Addition.—Of this also we meet with instances; but, as might naturally be expected, they are not so numerous as those of omission. In the following pages I place between brackets such words as I regard as additions made by the compositor or transcriber. As proofs of such additions being made I give the following, from the reprint of the text in my own edition of Milton's Poems.

Lyc. 126.

Son. xii.

P. L. vi. 36.

Ib. vii. 618.

Ib. vii. 634.

Ib. x. 366.

Ib. x. 926.

To which I add the following:—

F. Q. iii. 5. 14.

So it is printed in the edition of 1750.

I may here add that printers have a wonderful propensity to add or omit—the former much more frequently—the letter s at the end of words. I remember having one time had to strike out in a single page no less than five of these ss thus liberally bestowed upon me. So also—but whether owing to the poet or the printer is dubious—we meet in Shakespeare with whom used as a nominative. See on Winter's Tale, v. 3, ad fin. In making corrections relating to these finals, our only guides therefore must be grammar, logic, and poetic melody.

Transposition.—Of all modes of restoring the melody, and at times the sense, of verses this is perhaps the most legitimate and the most certain. I have therefore had recourse to it without scruple; and it will be seen that in my Edition and in this volume I have thus restored the sense or the melody of about sixty lines, of which not quite a fourth had attracted the attention of preceding editors. In my Life of Milton (p. 286) will be found a very curious instance of transposition and omission combined in the poet's own reprint of Comus, neither of which he notices, though he made two corrections in one of the lines.

In Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose, the transpositions in the latter part are so numerous that it was necessary to have recourse to the original poem for the proper arrangement; and I suspect that this source of error will be found in most languages. Mr. Brandreth, in his very curious and interesting edition of the Ilias, has made many transpositions, and they are well deserving of attention. His note on Il. i. 18, is "Verborum transpositio tutissimum remedium est, cum saltem, quoad grammaticam, ita dixisse potuerit poeta. Recitatores sæpe verba retinent, dum ordinem obliviscuntur." This most exactly accords with what we find in Shakespeare. I think also that many might be, as some have been, made in the poetic and prophetic books of the Old Testament—ex. gr.,

Now surely the royal poet must have written,

and it appears still more certain when we look at the original Hebrew.

A chief cause of errors of this kind seems to have been the addition, by the author, of one or more lines to a place which he had previously deemed complete, and this addition, having been made in the margin, was taken in by the printer in the wrong place; as such I regard the transposition in M. N. D. ii. 1. Another cause was the omission of something by a transcriber, who, when he detected his error, wrote what he had left out in the margin, and the next transcriber or the printer carelessly inserted it in the wrong place. Of this we have very striking instances in the Chorus to Hen. V. ii., 2 Hen. VI. iii. 1, and Rom. & Jul. iii. 3. As in these cases, entire lines or even couplets get out of place, sometimes parts of lines (King John, iii. 3, Rich. II. v. 3), at other times single words. Thus adjectives change places (Temp. i. 1. iv. 1), and substantives do the same (All's Well, ii. 3, M. N. D. ii. 1, L. L. L. iv. 3). The following is a notable instance. In Massinger's Maid of Honour (i. 1), a play of which the proofs were probably read by the poet himself, we read, "A gentleman and yet no lord," where the context shows that the very opposite is meant. Gifford saw this, but he did not see the cause, namely, that a and no had changed places in the printer's mind.

I have remarked several errors of this kind in Chaucer, in whom, in fact, they are most numerous—ex. gr.,

In the Faerie Queene, we have

vi. 2. 3.

Here, as the riming line ends in appears, we must transpose "eyes" and "ears." Again, in all editions of Parnell's poems, from the first (edited by Pope), we read in the Hermit,

where both the context and common sense show that "rising" properly belongs to "sun." The original printer, however, joined it with "journey," and he has been, of course, duteously followed by his successors, while editors never seem to have discerned the incongruity.

In the edition of Akenside above mentioned, I met with

where it is quite plain that the two first substantives had changed places in the printer's mind.

Surely Wordsworth did not write

Prelude, ed. 1858.

In a proof-sheet of my Edition, I found

3 Hen. VI. iv. 1.

In Troilus and Cressida, v. 2, there is a passage to which transposition, and it alone, gives sense. It is difficult to see how the printer could have made such a jumble; and yet it is manifest that he must have done so. There is, however, as I have shown in my note on the place, just such another in the play of The Two Noble Kinsmen, which the editors have made no attempt at correcting. In the following passage of Chaucer,

Book of the Duchesse.

I would read

In the same poet's Romaunt of the Rose, we have the following passage, unnoticed by any editor,

where in the first line we should read "abrode sprede," and in the second reject "were" as an addition of the copyist. An exactly similar transposition occurs in a later part of that poem.

Substitution.—"He who has not repeatedly observed how a copyist, from inattention, sets down a word which his mind has presented to him instead of that which is before his eyes, must have seen little of copies of print or manuscript." These are the words of a Spanish writer, and they are of universal application. I remember myself once, with Herodotus before my eyes, writing Sestos for Abydos; and the changes I have made in copying passages for this work have amazed me. In Corneille's play of Rodogune (i. 1), we read enlever where the proper word is élever, and Voltaire justly suspected that it was an error of the original printer. Further on the reader will meet with a similar error in the original edition of Tasso's Gerusalemme.

The most ordinary case of substitution seems to be that of synonyms; at least there is none to which I have been so subject myself. In giving examples I will commence with Spenser.

F. Q. ii. 2. 42.

Now, as the rimes are hold, told, the poet must have written, or have intended to write, hold.

Ib. ii. 8. 29.

Here the word must have been upheave, the rimes being leave, cleave, bereave.

Ib. iii. 6. 40.

As the rimes are law, draw, we must of course read saw.

Chapman, Iliads, xxiii. 249.

The right word, it is quite plain, is cup.

Fletch. Valentinian, v. 2.

Here, as it has been shown, the proper word is light; yet Mr. Dyce has not ventured to receive it.

My late friend Rossetti, in copying out this passage of Petrarca in his Amor Platonico, etc., wrote gelo for ghiaccio, and never saw the error, even in reading the proof; and so it is printed.

On the other hand, the adjacent or riming lines sometimes terminate in the same word. There are many instances in Shakespeare, and I have met with the following in Italian.

B. Tasso, Amadigi, xxii. 67.

where, as the rimes show, the first line should end with una stanza.

F. Q. iii. 11. 47.

We meet also with places where the sense or the metre, unaided by rime, must be our guide in correcting—ex. gr.,

Chapman, Iliads, i. 395.

Here the metre shows that the right word is Minerva, not Pallas.

There is one most remarkable case of substitution to which sufficient attention has never been given by the critics. It may be termed reaction or repetition, and arises from the impression made by some particular word on the mind of the transcriber or printer, or even of the writer himself.

Thus in a proof-sheet of my Milton I found

Par. Lost, i. 61.

while the word before the compositor's eyes was dungeon.

Par. Reg. iv. 205: Todd's 4th edit.

Here, again, the true reading is so; yet, as most makes good sense, if the error had been in the original edition it would in all probability never have been detected. Opening by chance Bloomfield's pretty poem of The Farmer's Boy (ed. 1857), I met with

Winter, 173.

We may find in Chaucer—

Knt's Tale.

Here for dauncing we should probably read loking.

Tr. and Cr. i.

The poet probably wrote goodnesse.

Ib. ii.

We should read commaundes in the second line.

Thierry and Theodoret, i. 1.

We should for the first almost, which must be wrong, probably read and the. Mr. Dyce seems never to have seen this; for he had no conception of this source of error: yet I wonder common sense did not suggest that something must be wrong.

F. Q. i. 8. 44.

For delight in the last line we might read dislike, but I think we should rather read annoy; for in these cases, as we may see, no resemblance in form or sound is to be sought. I therefore in Othel. iii. 3, reject the emendation of Pope and 4to 1630 of feels for keeps, because it was evidently suggested by the slight similarity of form, and does not perfectly suit the context. The reader will find an excellent instance in As You Like It, ii. 3.

Ham. ii. 2.

So the folio reads; the 4to has more correctly fruit.

Surely Shakespeare never wrote

Com. of Err. i. 1.

All's Well, i. 3.

As this error never occurs in Jonson and Massinger, and only, I believe, in the instance given above in Beaumont and Fletcher, and has no æsthetic advantage or beauty to recommend it, it seems quite absurd to suppose that Shakespeare, whose vocabulary was the largest of all, and whose ear was so fine and correct, should have found pleasure in it. Surely a just critic will sooner lay the blame on the printer and the careless editors, very different in this respect from those of Beaumont and Fletcher, who seem never to have hesitated to correct an error when they discovered it.

The resemblance in form above alluded to is of great importance, under the name of ductus literarum, in the eyes of Mr. Dyce, and it should always be attended to; for it is usually caused by the attempt of the printer to make out illegible writing. The following are striking instances:—

In Peele's Edward I. these lines occur.

That the last line is nonsense was clear to every one; but no critic ever could emend it. The true reading, however, is doubtless The enkindled, which flashed suddenly on my mind one time when I was considering the passage. It was probably the resemblance of sound chiefly that misled the printer.

At the end of Marston's Insatiate Countess we meet the following unmeaning line,

which Steevens corrected most happily thus—

having discerned the allusion to Herod. ii. 133.

It is very curious that the word substituted is often the very opposite of the right word. I myself once wrote—and so it is printed—diameter for circumference. In Mrs. C. Clarke's most valuable Concordance we have "humorous plebeian" for "humorous patrician." I have met with next for last and none for some; so in The Mer. of Ven., ii. 2, where the folio has "Is sum of nothing," the 4tos read "Is sum of something." In Lear v. 3, the folio reads

while the 4tos have "pleasant virtues."

In All's Well, iii. 2, and Taming of the Shrew, iii. 1, we have old for new. In a proof-sheet which I lately saw there was a quotation of

and the printer had substituted life for "grave," though, as the entire stanza was given, he had the rime to guide him. Many instances of this practice will be found in Love's Labour's Lost. In La Giovanezza, a poem of the Italian poet Pindemonte, I have just met with brutte where the rime and the sense require belle.

It does not seem to have been observed that printers will actually insert words, for the sake of sense or metre, when they have made a mistake. In my Life of Milton, I had occasion to quote a passage from his prose works containing "with a conscience that would retch;" and of this the printer made "with a conscience that he would relish;" and so, I am sorry to say, it is printed. See on Mer. of Ven. iv. 1.

F. Q. v. 12. 43.

As the rimes are deserved, preserved, observed, the poet must have written e'er swerved or nothing swerved.

F. Q. iii. 12, 17.

The rimes are embost, lost, so that Spenser must have written tost, making, as usual, a dissyllable of fire. That it was not the poet himself that made the mistake is clear; for in

the edition of 1750 has did defray.

A contrary error to this is where the printer has made one word of two, caused either by sound or by illegible writing. For instances, see on Com. of Err. iii. 1, Tw. Night, i. 1, Mer. Wives, v. 5, Ant. and Cleop. iv. 9, Macb. iii. 4.

The fact of effacement in the manuscript, on which I have laid such stress in the section on Omission, has also been a cause of substitution; for, the original word having become nearly or totally illegible, the transcriber or compositor, in order to make sense, used to give some term of his own. Thus we have yes for I will, Meas. for Meas. iii. 1, yea for even so, Rich. II. iii. 1, ay for I will, Ham. iv. 7, as is proved by the metre. These are all at the beginning of the line, and hence their liability to effacement. See also on All's Well, ii. 1, Twelfth Night, iv. 3, Rich. II. i. 3, and elsewhere.

Finally, substitutions are often quite capricious, making no sense whatever. For "he went circuit," where my manuscript was perfectly legible, I once got "the local circuit;" so also "the merits" for "there an echo;" "establishment" for "established government." In Alison's Life of Lord Castlereagh, one of the pall-bearers at the funeral of the Duke of Wellington was Sir Peregrine Pickle (Maitland); in all editions of Joseph Andrews we have in one place "Sir John" for "Sir Thomas" Booby.

It is to be observed that to unto, till until, on upon, though although, e'er ever, &c., were frequently confounded. It is therefore the merest printer-worship to hesitate at altering them when the metre requires it. A further observation is, that even down into the eighteenth century, it was the custom to write y for th in monosyllables beginning with this last (þ, A. S.), as y^e the, yⁿ then, y^t that, y^u thou; y^r your was another abridgment; and hence confusion has often arisen. In these plays we have that for then in four places (see on Tr. and Cr. i. 2); and in Paradise Regained (i. 137) we have then for thou, and also, I think, in Tw. Night, v. 1.

Such, then, are the various sources of error in the original editions of Shakespeare's plays, the correction of which and restoration of the poet's real sense are, as I have said, the task of the genuine critic, and one in which, except in a very few instances, success is not to be by any means despaired of.

As a means of obtaining it, I would, as I have done, lay it down as a rule that no word or phrase should be employed in restoration which is not to be found in the poet's own works, or at least in those of his contemporaries. It is obvious that by so doing we shall greatly diminish the risk of failure. It is a curious fact, that not unfrequently two or even three corrections are so equally good, that it is exceedingly difficult to choose between them, and that the final choice thus becomes a matter of mere chance. In such cases I think the critic should select the one which is the most poetic and most worthy of the poet. The coincidence of two or more independent critics in a correction is, in general, a proof of its truth; yet even this is not infallible. See on Merry Wives, ii. 3.

For correction, then, the first requisite is a thorough knowledge of the poet's language, the acquisition of which is a work demanding both time and close attention. Shakespeare's vocabulary, as we have seen, is extremely copious, and from his not having had the advantage of a regular education his plays present more anomalies, and offer more difficulties to the modern reader than those of the contemporary dramatists.

In his early pieces there is an incessant play on words; and in his later the language is often very elliptical and the sentences greatly involved. These difficulties are enhanced by the ignorance of punctuation, or neglect of it, with which the editors are chargeable. Thus it is only in very plain cases that they notice the break in sense caused by the aposiopesis, the anacoluthon, or an interruption, of which the reader will find so many examples in my Edition and in the following pages, marked for the first time, and designated by the sign (...). I would particularly direct his attention to Temp. iii. 1, 2 Hen. IV. iv. 1, Ham. i. 2, i. 4.

In the dramas and other works of those days we may observe the following peculiarities.

The infinitive mood is used with or without to differently from the present usage—prefixed where we omit, omitted where we prefix. It is also employed, like the Hebrew infinitive absolute, where we use the present participle active, sometimes with a preposition, ex. gr.,

Lydgate, Book of Troy.

Even in Cowley we meet with

The Gazers.

Here it is plain we should use the participle in seeing.

In "He is grown too proud to be so valiant," Cor. i. l, "to be" seems to be i. q. being; too being apparently used in the sense of trop, Fr., i.e. excessively.

The passive participle was continually used in the place of the present or past participle active or of the future. Chapman, for instance, is profuse in his use of it in his Homer. Of this, as of the former, we have some remains among us still, but few indeed compared with what our forefathers had. The perfect was also frequently used as a part. past, and of this also we have still some remains.

In imitation of the Latin and French, the writers of the sixteenth century—for we do not meet with it in Chaucer or Gower—used the verb as a noun, as dispose for disposal, suspect for suspicion.

A further peculiarity was the use of what grammarians call collectives, i.e., the singular noun used for the plural. We still retain this in sheep, swine, fowl, and partially in year, day; but in our older writers we meet with it in horse (Much Ado, i. 1, Hen. V. iv. 1, and in Chapman's Homer continually), pearl (Macb. ad fin.), tree, corpse, witness, business, subject, princess (Temp. i. 2), and other words.

Writers of those days—and Shakespeare more than any—were fond of using verbs in a causative sense, as fall for cause to fall, let fall, fear for make fear. In these plays we meet, in a causative sense, with cease, linger, neglect, silence, faint, perish, &c. Thus learn became teach, take give. It is only thus that "smiles his cheek in years" (L. L. L. v. 2) becomes sense.

There was a peculiarity of the grammar of those days which is now confined to the vulgar, namely, that of joining a plural nominative with a singular verb, ex. gr.,

L. L. L. v. 2.

The rimes here and in several other places prove that this is no printer's error; and this construction is actually most frequent in Peele, Marston, and Fletcher—all University men! Editors, Mr. Dyce for example, are in the habit of taking the most unwarrantable liberty of altering this construction, except where restrained by the rimes. This practice is highly reprehensible and should be avoided; for we should give the text as it came from the poet's pen.

The origin of this structure is very simple. In the Anglo-Saxon the verbs made their plural in th, not in n, as afterwards became the usage. This plural of the verb occurs continually in the Vision of Piers Ploughman, and we find it not unfrequently even in the State Papers of the early Tudor period, in its later form; for, as in the singular, the th was gradually changed to s.

In the more artistic compositions of Chaucer and Gower, however, it is very rare. The following line in Chaucer,

House of Fame.

shows that even in his time the th had been converted into s. The present practice, then, we may see is merely a change of fashion, and our ancestors' mode of forming the plural was perfectly correct and grammatical, with one exception—of which we still meet instances—that of using is and was as a plural. In my Edition of our poet's plays, I have therefore very generally preserved this structure; for we may alter orthography and punctuation, but not grammar.

On the other hand, I must maintain, in opposition to Mr. Dyce, that the union of a single noun with a plural verb was never a rule of the language, but always an error of the copyist, or a slip of the writer. Of this I can give positive instances.

I one day met in my own History of England the following words, "The blood of Catesby and two others alone were shed;" and on looking at the first edition I found of course that my word had been was. In Mr. Lloyd's Critical Remarks on Measure for Measure, in Singer's Shakespeare, we may read "the five acts of the first part of Promos and Cassandra concludes the iniquity of the deputy." Nor is this confined to English; in the Gerusalemme Liberata, and unnoticed by any editor, we find

In all cases it will be found to be the consequence of a noun of a different number having intervened between the nominative and the verb. Mr. Dyce, however, tries to make a rule of it by saying that "our early writers" did it when a genitive plural intervened; but that will not apply to passages like these—

Valentinian, iv. 1.

Shakespeare, Son. cxii.

This last is the error of the poet, who probably had ears in his mind; yet sense may be a collective: all the others are perhaps to be ascribed to the original printers.

The intensive particle be was prefixed to verbs much more frequently than at present. There was also a frequent ellipsis of the first personal pronoun before such verbs as cry, beseech, beshrew, &c.; and finally the habit—still retained by the vulgar—of cutting away the first syllable of a word prevailed to some extent.

The pronunciation of Shakespeare's time of course differed in many points from that of the present day. Thus aspect and many other words were accented, and properly, on the last syllable; we also have obdúrate, árchbishop, cónfessor, &c. In words such as case, pace, lace, the French sound of the a seems to have been partially retained—Chaucer writes these words cas, caas, paas, laas—along with the ordinary English sound. Chaucer also writes 'made' maad, Raleigh 'safe' sauf; and as the Master of the Revels wrote Shakespeare's name Shaxberd, we may suppose that shake and terms of a similar form were pronounced shak, &c. If we do not pronounce lac'd as last in "lac'd mutton" (Two Gent. i. 2), we lose the humour of the passage. When Spenser therefore makes prepar'd, for example, rime with hard, he was probably doing nothing very unusual; for these double sounds—as we may see by the example of shew show, shrew shrow, lese lose—were by no means uncommon. I suspect that sea may have been one of these, and that besides riming with see, as indeed Chaucer always writes it, it retained the sound of the Anglo-Saxon ɼæ; for F. Beaumont in his Poems almost invariably makes it rime with such words as day, lay, ray. Waller, followed by Pope, Gay, and other poets, most improperly made ea rime with ai, ay, as tea with obey, &c. As haste, chaste, waist, &c., constantly rime with fast, last, &c., they were probably, I think certainly, pronounced as they were written, like them; or they may have had a double pronunciation like the words just quoted. As the more usual orthography was chaunge, raunge, &c., these words would seem to have been pronounced as in French, and as we still pronounce daunt, haunt, avaunt. In words chiefly from the French, terminating in ci, si, ti followed by a vowel, as in nation, fashion, passion, &c.—to which we may add ocean—the usual sound was s, not sh as at present. On the whole, the language seems to have been more euphonious than that of the present day.

While on the subject of euphony, I must direct attention to one point. Our ancestors probably pronounced my, thy (mín, þín, A.-S.), mee, thee, with a short sound also, when not emphatic, as in by, to, &c. Owing to its falling out of familiar use, and its employment in the Bible and Liturgy, thy has long—except by the Quakers and the peasantry—been pronounced so as to rime with fly, try; but my retained its proper sound till within the last few years; Walker, for instance, knew nothing of a change. But now our ears are constantly dinned with an egotistic my like thy. I mention this because this new-fangled pronunciation is ruinous to both euphony and humour in our elder writers.

I shall conclude with some remarks upon its, a word of which Shakespeare may almost be regarded as the originator; though Spenser, no doubt, had used it once (F. Q. vi. 11. 34) before him. Singer says it "occurs but twice or thrice" in Shakespeare; and Archbishop Trench and others say "three or four times;" while the fact is that its occurs twelve, and it, as a genitive, no less than fifteen times. We meet its only nine times in the numerous plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, and but half a dozen times in those of Jonson or Massinger.

The Chinese language makes the genitive by merely prefixing the substantive; thus houe jin (houe kingdom) is "man of the kingdom." The same is the structure of the Teutonic and Scandinavian languages, ex. gr., day light, &c.; but while all the others make the two substantives form one word, the English sometimes keeps them separate, sometimes unites them by a hyphen, and at other times makes them into one word. Hence we may observe, by the way, that it is needless, as well as cacophonous, to add an 's to a substantive ending in that letter; even the simple turned comma is superfluous, the position alone indicating its genitive sense.

It appears that not only nouns but pronouns were so employed. In the first page of the Canterbury Tales we have—

Here which is a genitive, for which we should now use whose (the genitive of who), a pronoun that our forefathers used of things as well as persons.

In like manner, though his was the usual genitive of it as well as of he, it was not uncommon to make the genitive by simply prefixing it, as in

Romeus and Juliet, 1562.

and other passages. I do not think it ever occurs in Chaucer, Gower, or Piers Ploughman.

I am therefore of opinion that Shakespeare may be regarded as the chief agent in introducing its into the language. It is to be noticed that it never occurs in the Bible, only thrice, or rather only twice, in Milton, and but once in Waller. Chatterton used it twice in the very first page of his Poems of Rowley; yet the critics of the time did not discern this plain proof of forgery!

On the disputed question of the use of his for the genitive, I will only observe that the fact is that the preceding noun is used absolutely. Thus, as we have "The king, he is hunting the deer," so we have "the king, his palace." The same structure precisely is to be met with in Dutch and German—we meet with it, for instance, in Schiller's Wallenstein; and Captain Burton informs us that in the Kariri language of Eastern Africa, "The Kazi's brother," for example, is Kazi-ih-zo, literally "The Kazi, his brother."

---

Chaucer introduced into English poetry the iambic verse of five feet, formed by the Provençals in imitation of the Classic Phaleucian and Sapphic hendecasyllables, and adopted from them by the Italian poets. These last, however, though they held the principle of admitting but five ictus in a line, did not limit themselves to eleven syllables, as the following examples will show:—

Dante, Inf. xvii. 2.

Petr. Son. xxxi.

Tasso, Ger. Lib. xii. 55.

So the Greeks in their dramatic iambics admitted trisyllabic feet, Æschylus admitting one foot, Sophocles two, Euripides three; while the comic poets, both Greek and Latin, used these feet still more freely, not, however, exceeding the limit of three.

Chaucer did not allow himself the same licence as his masters. He sometimes admits one such foot, rarely two, and three, I believe, only once. He also uses at times the Alexandrine or verse of six feet.

The first who used this verse for the drama in England was Bishop Bale, who in 1538 published three Interludes, as he termed them, or dramatic pieces on Scriptural subjects. Here are a few lines from the one named God's Promises:—

The feet, it will be seen, are here of two or three syllables indifferently; and the same is the case in the couplets which occur also in these plays.

About the same time Nicholas Udall wrote his comedy of Ralph Roister Doister—not printed till 1566—in which we have the earliest specimen of the verse afterwards chiefly used for comedy, namely, one of four feet, the foot of two, three, and even four syllables. It commences thus:—

This measure may be seen in Damon and Pitheas, New Custom, Gammer Gurton's Needle, and other plays, in which we shall find it admitting lines of five and even six and seven feet,—ex. gr.,

Contemporary with Bale and Udall, the illustrious Earl of Surrey had introduced into English a new species of verse—blank verse. This was a five-foot iambic measure without rime, and admitting of verses of six feet. His version of two books of the Æneis in this measure was printed in 1557; and five years later, Jan. 18, 1561-2, a play written in it and named Gordebuc, by Norton and Sackville, was performed before Queen Elizabeth at Whitehall, and it was given to the press in 1566. But more than twenty years elapsed before blank verse made its first appearance on the public stage in the Tamburlain of Marlow. From its inherent superiority, it at once became the established form for the drama, still mingled, however, with riming couplets and stanzas.

I have already expressed my opinion that the earliest among the extant dramas of Shakespeare may have been The Comedy of Errors. This is in blank verse, in general strictly decasyllabic, mingled with the riming measures above noticed. His next play would seem to have been The Two Gentlemen of Verona, much of the same form, but differing from it, and from its immediate successors, by admitting in its blank verse trisyllabic feet, as in

It might seem as if the poet were hesitating about the adoption of a freer kind of verse such as came afterwards into use. Love's Labour's Lost, and the other plays in Meres' list—to which, as may be seen, The Taming of the Shrew is to be added—are all of the same kind. As he advanced in his career, he gradually discarded rime, and admitted the trisyllabic foot more frequently. He also learned to run his verses into each other, thus forming a system; the preposition, for instance, ending one line, and the word it governed beginning the next line.

The blank verse of Surrey and of the authors of Gordebuc—admitting, as we have seen, verses of six feet—may be regarded as strictly decasyllabic. But when it became the standard verse of the theatres it gradually relaxed from its strictness, and admitted trisyllabic feet more and more as it advanced, so that in Fletcher we actually meet with lines containing fifteen syllables, though of no more than five feet. It is most strange that, with these facts staring them, as I may say, in the face, editors, almost without exception, seem to have been haunted by a spectre of five decasyllabic feet. "How often," says Gifford, "will it be necessary to observe that our old dramatists never counted their syllables on their fingers!" They also seem to be unaware of the existence of Alexandrines, or verses of six feet. The play of Othello, for instance, is as full of them as Dryden's riming couplet verse; and yet Mr. Dyce—whom I generally notice as being usually regarded as a leading critic—writes frequently as if such a line were not admissible in dramatic verse.

Again, there are critics who regard a verse as good if it contains ten syllables, no matter how made or how arranged.

Thus Malone gives as good verses,

Mr. Collier regards as a good verse,

"Doth comfort thee in thy sleep. Live and flourish" is the usual reading in Rich. III. v. 5; mine is at least more euphonious.

It has never to my knowledge been sufficiently noticed that Shakespeare makes occasional use of the seven-foot verse of Golding's Ovid and Phaer's Virgil, works in which it is evident he was extremely well-read. Such are the following lines:—

Rich. III. i. 1.

Ib.

Ib. v. 5.

These last six, we may see, all belong to Ancient Pistol. We possibly might add:

I will now make a few general observations on the dramatic verse of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. In the first place, as observed above, we may lay it down as a general rule that their verse—I may perhaps include even that of Marston—is never rugged or inharmonious, but that when it appears to be so it is owing to the copyist or the printer, or to the fact of the manuscript having been damaged, and not unfrequently to want of skill in the reader.

An apparent cause of imperfection in lines is the reader's ignorance of the poet's mode of pronunciation. Thus it was then the custom—one not quite lost yet—in prose as well as in verse, if two words came together, one ending, the other beginning, with an accented syllable to throw back the former accent: hence Shakespeare said, for example, "the dívine Desdemona." If critics kept this fact in mind, they would not reject Tieck's excellent emendation of "the précise Angelo" for "the prenzic Angelo" in Measure for Measure, on account of the accent, when in the very same play we have "a cómplete bosom," i. 4; "O just, but sévere law!" ii. 2; "Will bélieve this," ib.; "Our cómpell'd sins," ib. 4, &c.; we have actually "précise villains," ii. 1. How would they read

(Hen. VIII. v. 1)?

In fine, it must be remembered that ion, ien, and other double vowels were pronounced dissyllabically, as oceän, &c.

Again, neither editors nor readers are in general aware that poets like Shakespeare, who were born in those parts of England where the r at the end of words or syllables has the light sound peculiar to the English language, frequently pronounce as dissyllables those monosyllables, such as fire, hour, more, where, &c., ending in r after a long vowel or diphthong, as in

Here "where" is to be pronounced nearly wheaa; for so the English really do pronounce it, though they may fancy such not to be the case. Malone, as being an Irishman, seems to have been the first to notice it. Of these monosyllables there are upwards of thirty in Shakespeare, and as many in Fletcher; while in the learned Jonson we only meet with fire, hour, our, your, wear. In my Edition, and in this work, I have marked them with a diæresis, as whëre, heär, &c. It is rather remarkable that it is almost solely to his higher characters, such as Hamlet and Coriolanus, that Shakespeare gives this pronunciation. We also find this dissyllabic pronunciation in such words as born, morn, horn, &c.

As in French poetry the e muet in words forms a distinct syllable, ennemi, for example, being read as a trisyllable; so we find angry, entrance, children, mistress (often written misteris), country, witness, juggler, wondrous, &c., forming three, remembrance four syllables. Captain was sometimes capitain, as in French. Many of these cases, we may observe, are mere solutions of contractions, angry, for example, being simply angery contracted.

In opposition to the commonly received theory, I will venture to lay it down as a fixed principle that the dramatic poets rarely, if ever, used short lines, except in speeches of a single line, or in the first or the last line of a speech. This will be apparent to any one who examines the pages of Jonson and Massinger, who printed their plays themselves, or those plays of Shakespeare, Fletcher, and others which are the most correctly printed. Wherever a line of less than five feet occurs, it will be found to have been produced by omission of words or by malarrangement of the text. In plays such as Timon, Troilus and Cressida, or Fletcher's Sea Voyage, of which the original copy was in bad condition, lines of this kind are of course most numerous. I may here observe that in this last-named play, the metre of which Mr. Dyce has pronounced to be "incurably defective," I have, by simple rearrangement of the text, rendered it as correct as in any other of Fletcher's plays.

Even in this also Shakespeare took liberties in which his brethren did not venture to indulge. He began and ended not only speeches, but paragraphs of speeches, with short lines. Nay, he even made the concluding short line of one paragraph and the incipient short line of the next form a single line, thus—

All's Well, iii. 4.

Ant. and Cleop. v. 1.

In the case of final riming couplets the first line may be short, but never the second.

Nothing is more common in the works of our old dramatists than malarrangement of the text, some lines being too long, some too short; but among them they are sure to contain the requisite number of feet. Editors have often taken the most justifiable liberty of rearranging the text; but on other occasions they have exclaimed against those who have followed their example. In this case, however, the only limit to the discretion of an editor is that of not putting—except in the cases above mentioned—more or less than five or six feet in a line. I must not omit to observe that editors have done injury to many passages, by the decasyllabic superstition which I have already noticed.

I will give one instance of a place where a most slight rearrangement gives perfect harmony to what has been a stumblingblock to editors:—

1 Hen. IV. iii. 1.

The last line, it will be seen, is the merest prose, but transfer "him" to it from the preceding line, and we at once get harmonious verse.

The following passages are thus arranged in the original editions:—

Mids. Night's Dream, v. 1.

Temp. ii. 1.

Those, then, who would refuse an editor the right of rearrangement are bound, if they would be consistent, to retain such passages as these unaltered. I may here make the boast that mine is the only edition of these plays in which the text is strictly metrical throughout.

Beside all those forms of verse, the plays of our old dramatists contain a large quantity of prose. But it is only prose to the eye; for it is in reality as metrical as what is printed in separate metric lines, consisting of lines of five or six feet, each of two or three syllables, but printed continuously like prose. I therefore denominate it "Metric Prose" as being metric in substance, prose in form, and as, moreover, it is termed prose both by Chaucer and Shakespeare, probably from its less elevated character and from its being written continuously and without rime or alliteration. I am disposed to regard the former as being its inventor; and perhaps his reason for writing it continuously may have been merely the wish to save paper. We know, from M. de Maucroix's letter to Boileau, that the French poet Racan, whose poems were of course in rime, also wrote them continuously, and, as it would appear, for the same reason, though paper must have been less valuable in his time. As, however, the Anglo-Saxon and early English alliterative verse was written continuously, Chaucer may have been only following an established mode. It may be remarked that the poetry of the Hebrew Scriptures is also written and printed continuously.

Surely it is no egotism to state a plain truth! I therefore say that, as far as I know, I am myself the very first who, for the last century or more, has discerned the existence of this metric prose. My discovery was very gradual. I first recognized it in the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, and, advancing step by step, I at length arrived at the certainty that for three centuries and a half, from Chaucer and Wickliffe to Dryden and Tillotson, almost every work claiming to be regarded as a literary composition is in this form. Such are histories from Sir T. More to Clarendon, translations, controversial and philosophical works, as those of Hooker, Brown, Taylor, and Cudworth, versions of the Scriptures from Wickliffe to the authorized one inclusive, sermons, inclusive of those of Barrow, South, and Tillotson, the Liturgy, except the Creeds, Te Deum, and Catechism, all prefaces, dedications and letters of compliment, &c. The chief exceptions were Hall and the other chroniclers, Purchas, Hakluyt, Fuller, Bunyan, Ludlow, L'Estrange, and Mrs. Hutchinson. The Ecclesiastical Policy, The Liberty of Prophesying, and The Areopagitica, for example, are as decidedly metrical as The Paradise Lost, only admitting more trisyllabic feet, and being printed continuously. Hence, too, in a great measure, arises the charm which we find in the prose of our old writers, and of which we have been ignorant of the secret source; as when Cowper styles Sidney "warbler of poetic prose."

I do not, however, say that this prose was read as verse, with a slight elevation of tone at the end of each metric line. It was, I think, read as prose, as Cowper of course read the Arcadia; but the metre diffused a secret charm through it, which could be felt even by those who were ignorant of the cause. How easy, by the way, must this mode of writing prose have made verse-making to the writers of those days! and how rapidly that prose could be written is proved by the assertion of Sir Kenelm Digby, who says that in the space of twenty-four hours he sent out and bought the Religio Medici, read it through, and wrote his Observations on it, which fill upwards of seventy printed pages, and are metrical—a fact almost inconceivable.

The only writer of the last century who, as far as I am aware, used this metric prose—for we seek it in vain in Addison, Pope, Johnson, Gibbon, &c.—is the historian Robertson, of which fact Mr. Buckle seems to have had a dim conception; for he speaks of his "measured style." It is a question where Robertson got it; for he could hardly have invented it, and I think it must have been in Knox, Spottiswoode, and the Scottish writers of the two preceding centuries, who all wrote like their English contemporaries. At the same period, however, his countryman Macpherson invented a new kind of metric prose for his 'Poems of Ossian.' Even the present century presents us with an instance in Mr. Lecky's eloquent 'History of Rationalism,' which is as metrical as the Areopagitica of Milton. Possibly my own remarks on the subject in 'Notes and Queries' may have directed his attention to it.

Gascoigne's comedy of The Supposes, performed in 1566, a translation from the Italian of Ariosto, appears to have been the first play written in this metric prose; Lyly also, somewhat later, wrote in it his courtly comedies; and it gradually, combined with blank verse, got entire possession of the scene. The last, I believe, to use it was Dryden. Ordinary prose—probably in imitation of the French and Italian comic drama—seems to have been first used after the Restoration, in the comedies of Killigrew, Shadwell, Wycherley, Etheridge, Sedley, and other dramatists of that period.

It is rather remarkable that a union of verse and prose, similar to this union of regular and irregular verse of our drama, occurs also in that of India. Sir William Jones tells us, in his preface to Sacontala, that the Hindoo plays "are all in verse where the dialogue is elevated, and in prose where it is familiar." Coleridge, who had not the slightest suspicion of the existence of metre in the dramatic prose, makes the following just remarks in a note on Fletcher's Custom of the Country:—"In all comic metres the gulping of short syllables and the abbreviation of syllables ordinarily long, by the rapid pronunciation of eagerness and vehemence, are not so much a licence as a law—a faithful copy of nature." This I think completely justifies the frequent use of the syncope and synæresis in metric prose.

The same critic again says of Milton's noble conclusion of his treatise 'Of Reformation in England,' "Written in the fervour of his youthful imagination, in a high poetic strain that wanted metre only to become a lyrical poem." He felt, but did not see, that the metre actually was there.

The fact of this prose being metric causes us sometimes to doubt whether a passage should be printed as verse or as prose; and sometimes what is verse in one edition is prose in another. Thus Mercutio's celebrated account of Queen Mab, in Romeo and Juliet, which is most perfect decasyllabic verse, is properly printed as such in the 4to, 1597, while in all the subsequent early editions it is made prose; and prose it would probably have been at this day had no copy of that edition remained. On the other hand, most modern editors have most improperly printed the Nurse's speeches in the preceding scene as verse, while they are, and rightly, prose in all the original editions. An editor is, I think, at perfect liberty to use his judgement in this matter.

The following extracts, in which the termination of each line is marked, will enable the reader to judge of the truth of my theory. I must at the same time remind him that such contractions as I'll, I've, are rare in these prose scenes, such being left to the knowledge and skill of the actor or reader.

"As I remember, Adam, it was upon this fashion. | He bequeathed me by will but poor a thousand crowns; | and, as thou sayest, charged my brother on his blessing | to breed me well; and there begins my sadness. | My brother Jacques he keeps at school, and report | speaks goldenly of his profit; for my part he keeps me | rustically at home, or, to speak more properly, | stays me here at home unkept; for call you that keeping | for a gentleman of my birth, that differs not from the stalling | of an ox? His horses are bred better; for besides that | they are fair with their feeding, they are taught their manage, | and to that end riders dearly hired; but I, his brother,| gain nothing under him but growth, for the which | his animals on his dunghills are as much | bound to him as I. Besides this nothing that he | so plentifully gives me, the something that Nature gave me | his countenance seems to take from me. He lets me feed | with his hinds, bars me the place of a brother, and as much as | in him lies mines my gentility with my education. | This it is, Adam, that grieves me; and the spirit of my father, | which I think is within me, begins to mutiny | against this servitude. I will no longer endure it, | though yet I know no wise remedy how to avoid it."—As You Like It, i. 1.

"I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation | prevent your discovery, and your secresy | to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of late |—but wherefore I know not—lost all my mirth, | foregone all custom of exercises, and indeed | it goes so heavily with my disposition, | that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile | promontory, this most excellent canopy, | the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, | this majestical roof, fretted with golden fire, | why, it appeareth nothing to me but | a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. | What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! | how infinite in faculties! in form and moving | how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! | in apprehension how like a god! | the beauty of the world! the paragon | of animals! And yet to me what is | this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; | no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so."—Hamlet, ii. 2.

"Here comes Romeo, here comes Romeo.—Without his roe, | like a dried herring. O flesh, flesh, how art thou fishified! | Now is he for the numbers that Petrarch flowed in; | Laura to his lady was a kitchen-wench; | marry, she had a better love to be-rime her; | Dido a dowdy; Cleopatra a gypsy; | Helen and Hero hildings and harlots; Thisby | a grey eye or so, but not to the purpose. | Signior Romeo, bon jour. There's a French salutation | to your French slop. You gave us the counterfeit | fairly last night."—Romeo and Juliet, ii. 4.

"Nay, sure, | he's not in hell. He's in Arthur's bosom, if ever | man went to Arthur's bosom. 'A made a finer end, | and went away as it had been any christom child. | 'A parted even just between twelve and one, | even at the turning of the tide. For after I saw him | fumble with the sheets, and play with flowers, and smile | upon his finger's end, I knew there was but one way; | for his nose was as sharp as a pen, and 'a babbled of green fields. | How now, Sir John! quoth I. What, man! be of good cheer! | So 'a cried out God, God, God! three or four times. | Now I, to comfort him, bid him he should not think of God; | I hoped there was no need to trouble himself | with any such thoughts yet. So 'a bade me lay | more clothes on his feet. I put my hand into the bed, | and felt them, and they were as cold as any stone. | Then I felt to his knees, and so upward and upward, and all was | as cold as any stone."—King Henry V. ii. 3.

---

Sc. 1.

It was surely wrought by Fortune rather than by Nature, and so the poet may have written it. Collier's folio makes the same correction.

---

The editor of 2nd folio read 'me too,' not being aware of the dissyllabic form of 'our.'

---

The editor of 2nd folio added poor, which was probably the poet's word.

---

We might supply 'our ship. Somewhat more than.'

---

It was the mast, not the ship; but the text is probably as the poet wrote it.

We should surely read 'the other.'

---

It might be better to read Thus for 'That.'

For 'for,' the judicious correction of 2nd folio, the 1st has so.—See on L. L. L. i. 1; 1 Hen. IV. i. 3.

---

See Introd. p. 61. For the first 'help,' Pope read life; I read ransom, a word already used by the Duke. If the error should be in the second 'help,' we might, with Malone, read means; which, however, is rather feeble.

---

For 'no' we should surely, with Rowe, read not.

---

Sc. 2.

Mr. Barron Field proposed failing, which may be right.

---

'Clock' is Pope's correction for cook of the folio, which, however, may be right after all; for the cook used to strike on the dresser to give notice that the dinner was ready.

---

Sc. 1.

Hanmer properly added home, which was plainly omitted.

---

To give sense to this passage I read in the second line bide; in the fourth, with Warburton, wear, with Heath so a for 'no'; in which two I had thus been anticipated. The punctuation given here is my own. I am dubious of 'others' in the third line, for which we might read fingers, or some other word.

---

Sc. 2.

For 'jest' Mr. Dyce reads jet, referring to Rich. III. ii. 4, Tit. Andron. ii. 1; and "It is hard when Englishmen's patience must be thus jetted upon by strangers."—Play of Sir T. More, p. 2.

---

For the first 'them' Theobald properly read men.

---

For 'trying' Pope read tyring by simply transposing, Rowe trimming. I rather prefer the former, as tyring is attiring, and 'attire' is head-dress; but whether used of a man or not I am not certain.—See my note on Milton's On Time, v. 21.

---

Quite the contrary; for she would rather "live an unstain'd life." R. and J. iv. 1. Theobald read unstain'd, but I prefer undistain'd. The printer was more likely to omit un (see on Cymb. i. 7) than to change it to di. There is also an agreeable effect on the ear produced by the accents falling on un in both words. In all these plays lines frequently begin with an anapæst.

---

For 'freed,' which can hardly be right, Pope read favour'd, Capell, much better, offer'd.

---

To complete the measure, the editor of 2nd folio inserted elves, and before 'sprites'; from which Rowe made elvish 'sprites.' For 'owls' Theobald read ouphes; but that term occurs only in The Merry Wives. I read—

---

Theobald also made this obvious and necessary transposition of 'I not.'

---

Sc. 1.

---

---

Malone also saw that something was lost. We might read—

---

'Her' is Rowe's correction of your of the folio.

---

To be merry in spite of mirth is like laughing in spite of laughter, dying in spite of death, living in spite of life—pure nonsense. With great confidence I therefore made the correction my wife, and so gave it in my Edition. Meeting, however, in the Cambridge Edition with Theobald's correction wrath—for Editors had ignored it—I saw at once that the poet must have written my wrath (see Introd. p. 67), which resembles 'mirth' both in form and sound, and I have therefore adopted it without hesitation. Like a similar correction in Twelfth Night, i. 1, I regard it as absolutely certain.

---

Sc. 2.

So Theobald, in accordance with the rime, read for ruinate of the folio.

---

Here again we have Theobald's correction of 'but' for not.

---

I have printed 'hears' for the 'hairs' of the folio, as it rimes with 'tears,' and was the constant pronunciation of Chaucer, and frequently of Spenser; and in his early plays Shakespeare indulged in riming archaisms of this kind occasionally. We are to recollect that this play was not printed till thirty years after it had been written, and by that time hair had been established as the sole orthography. The matter is, however, put out of dispute by the Poems, in which Shakespeare himself spells it hear when riming with tear and ear. 'Bed' is the correction of 2nd folio for bud. Mr. Dyce proposed bride.

---

For 'am' Capell read, I think rightly, aim, and Singer quotes "I make my changes aim one certain end."—Drayton Leg. of Rob. Duke of Normandy.

---

The folio has is for 'and'; the correction is Thirlby's.

---

Sc. 1.

For 'it' I think we should read we.

---

Sc. 2.

This structure seems strange, but it was in use:—

Rich. III. i. 3.

Twelfth Night, ii. 2.

---

For 'Sweet,' which is rather free in the mouth of Dromio, Collier's folio reads Swift; we might also conjecture Speed. The truth, however, seems to be that mistress has been omitted after 'Sweet.'

---

There is something evidently lost here, riming with 'steel.' It may have been by the heels, or laid by the heels, alluding to 'Tartar Limbo'; but still, or at his will, seems preferable.

---

For 'fairy' Theobald proposed fury, and we have "O, my good lord, deliver me from these furies" (i.e. bailiffs).—Massinger, Fatal Dowry, v. 1. "Fiends, fairies, hags that fight in beds of steel."—Peel, Battle of Aleazar, where Mr. Dyce reads furies. In Jonson's Poetaster (iii. 1) the Lictors are termed furies.

---

Sc. 3.

For 'or' we should read and, as usual. Mr. Dyce reads so.

---

Sc. 4.

The change of pronouns is so frequent that I think it would be simpler to read your for 'his' than as is usually done make 'my bones,' etc. an aside.

---

Sc. 1.

---

---

See Introd. p. 55. In my Edit. only is at the end.

---

We should probably read his for 'her,' as kinsman is the antecedent.

---

As 'his' was probably written 's, it escaped the printer's eye.

---

I would read sore or sour for 'sorry'; Collier's folio proposes solemn. The 1st folio has depth for 'death.' The correction was made in the 3rd.

---

Mr. Dyce properly reads scotch; for, as he observes, the very same misprint occurs in Macb. iii. 2, and Knt. of Burning Pestle, iii. 4.

---

---

For 'These' we should perhaps read They.

---

---

Editors ought to be ashamed of themselves for not seeing that 'arose' is the same as 'arisen.' See Introd. p. 70.

---

I read this passage thus:

All the corrections here made are my own; and yet in all but one I had been anticipated! in been by 2nd folio; in until by Boaden; in here by Grant White; in felicity by Hanmer. In my Edition of these plays I have printed "Go ... come with me." The difference is unimportant. In the first line Theobald, followed by succeeding editors, read twenty-five; but such alterations are not to be allowed.

---

---

Sc. 1.

The folio has 'I love.' Pope made the obvious correction.

---

These last words are an addition by Theobald, and the context shows they had been lost.

---

Sc. 2.

'Lov'd ye' would rime better with 'mov'd me.'

---

As time and 'tune' were synonymous, perhaps the poet used the former, which would accord with 'rime.'

---

---

---

A syllable is wanting. Some read moneth, but that is not a Shakespearian form. We might also read 'unto' for 'to' but I prefer 'I see that you'; as I have given it in my Edition.

---

Sc. 3.

---

Sc. 1.

A just and necessary addition of Collier's folio.

---

For 'hose,' apparently suggested by what went before, I should incline to read, with the Cambridge editors, shoes; or clothes might be better.

---

---

Sc. 3.

For 'she' Blackstone proposed shoe; better the shoe, as I have given it.

---

Sc. 4.

---

---

It seems to me that the best way to give sense to this passage is to take 'by' in the sense of beside, near. See Index s. v.

---

So it stands in the original. It need hardly be observed that the two first words must be transposed. It is also plain to me that a substantive has been lost after 'mine,' and none seems so likely to be the right word as eye, the conjecture of Warburton, and which seems to be omitted in the same manner in the last line of Son. cxiii.

L. L. L. v. 2.

Fletch. Maid in Mill, i. 2.

See also his Love's Pilgrimage, ii. 3. Steevens and others read 'her mine,' taking the latter as mien, a term not Shakespearian. (See on Mer. Wives, i. 3.) As there is still a syllable wanting, I would read 'Valentinès,' a mode of forming the genitive not unusual in our author's early plays.

---

Sc. 5.

That 'Padua' was the poet's word is proved by the metre, and the editors had no right to change it to Milan. 'By mine honesty' occurs in exactly the same manner in the play of Damon and Pitheas, with which Shakespeare was familiar.

---

The 2nd folio added so, which is required both by sense and metre.

---

Sc. 7.

The 2nd folio reads 'as infinite,' which may be right, but 'infinite' seems to be made a substantive here.

---

Sc. 1.

Here again 'Verona,' the poet's word, has been altered by the editors. Pope, who is usually followed, read 'sir, in Milan,' and Mr. Dyce adopts the unheard-of term Milano of Collier's folio! We have no right to make such changes.

---

Perhaps the poet's word was By not 'For'; or there may be an omission of by after 'For.'

---

For 'his' Singer read is.

---

For 'anthem' Singer very plausibly read amen.

---

Rowe added kissed, which, though generally received, is not absolutely necessary.

Massinger, Very Woman, i. 1.

---

---

Sc. 2.

The context seems to require wind for 'weed,' and I have so given it.

---

Though in my edition I have made here an aposiopesis, I think it more probable that a line has been lost.

---

Sc. 1.

So Capell read also.

---

The folio has "And heir and niece." Theobald made the corrections.

---

As in v.1 we have

we should probably read here cave or caves for 'crews.'

---

Sc. 3.

'Abhorreth' is probably what the poet wrote.

---

This is mere nonsense; 'grievance' never had any meaning but that which it has at present. A line has evidently been lost; something like this:—"And sympathize with your affections." The corrector of Collier's folio, who first saw the loss, added—"And the most true affections that you bear," which seems wanting in ease and simplicity.

---

---

Sc. 4.

For the second 'not' we should read to. See on All's Well, v. 3. For 'leave,' see Index s. v.

---

This is the proper arrangement; that of the editions, my own included, is wrong.

---

---

So I should have given it in my Edition.

---

The sense might seem to require 'mine is high,' as Pope also saw; but her meaning may be, so is mine also. A high forehead was, however, a part of beauty. See Fletcher, Woman-hater, iii. 1.

Marston, Ant. and Mel. I. iv.

---

Sc. 2.

---

Sc. 4.

---

'Include' here evidently signifies conclude; and as there is no instance of its use in that sense, it might be better to read the latter word with Hanmer.

---

Sc. 1.

The usual confusion of then and there. We should read the latter. The contrary occurs in: "In summer where the ways are fair enough."—M. of Ven. v. 1.

---

A line is certainly lost. It may have been like this:—"Among the offspring of the teeming earth."

---

This, except the punctuation, is the reading of the folio; that of the 4to, 1598, is:

To which editors have given the preference, not a little, I think, moved by what seemed to them the metric regularity of the last line. I prefer the reading of the folio, and explain it thus:—Berowne had just been showing how he liked everything in its due time and season; and youth being the proper time for instituting a course of study, it was, he thought, as absurd for them who were full-grown men to set about it, as it would be for a man who wanted to unlock the gate of his court-yard to climb over the house to get to it. A couplet, however, may have been lost; for 'So you,' &c., joins but awkwardly with what precedes; but I believe the true solution of the difficulty is that the poet wrote 'For you,' &c. We have instances of the confusion of these words in Com. of Err. i. 1, 1 Hen. IV. i. 3, Macb. i. 2, Son. xliv. 5. I have so given it in my Edition. There seems to be much more humour in the reading of the folio, caused by the aposiopesis, than in that of the 4to, where 'the little gate' makes a difficulty; but the meaning may be, they were giving themselves a deal of labour for a very trifling result. I think the reading of the 4to may have arisen thus. In the transcript from which it was printed "That were to" may have been effaced or omitted, and then 'little' was added to complete the metre.

---

As it rimes with 'more,' we must, with 2nd folio, read swore.

---

The reading of Collier's folio, garrulity, would agree better with the context; but it is not a Shakespearian term.

---

Theobald's reading having has been generally, and I think rightly, adopted; but Mr. Dyce adheres to the text.

---

Capell read laughing for 'hearing,' which correction the next speech shows to be right.

---

---

Sc. 2.

Hanmer, who is generally followed, read 'sonneteer'; but it is doubtful if that term was then in use. In Hall's Satires we meet with sonnetist; he also has sonnet-wright; and in Marston's Fawne (iv.) and in the play of Lingua (ii. 2), we have sonnet-monger, which I have adopted, as we have 'fancy-monger' in As You Like It, iii. 2. Dr. Verplank, an American critic, proposed 'turnsonnets,' which Mr. Staunton has adopted.

---

Sc. 1.

---

I read 'In arts well-fitted'; so also Grant White. The 2nd folio has 'in the arts.'

---

The metre requires a syllable.

---

Perhaps something may have been lost. It might be ''tis no sin.'

---

'Several' is the very opposite of 'common.' "Truth lies open to all; it is no man's several."—Jonson, Discoveries. We should therefore, I think, for 'though' read for, which is proved by the following speeches. The printer might have taken for for tho', or have supposed that 'be' was the conjunctive mood.

---

The 4to reads 'point you'; but neither reading makes sense. We might read 'prompt you,' or 'tempt you.' I have adopted the former.

---

By 'dispos'd' here we are to understand—like dispos Fr.—cheerful, or rather gamesome; we have undisposed in Com. of Err. i. 2. It would seem, however, to be simply inclined with an ellipsis of the object.

---

Sc. 1.

I agree with the proposed reading of me for the second 'men.'

---

Tyrwhitt's most happy emendation 'in them all' gives in my opinion, the true reading.

---

Collier's folio, which Singer follows, reads making, which may be right, but is not necessary.

---

Costard's reply shows that marry, added by Collier's folio, had been omitted.

---

The same folio supplies free. Singer received both corrections.

---

'So' should be more, or rather moe; but it may be as the poet wrote it.

---

The original editions have 'This signior Junio's giant-dwarf,' which possibly may be right, there being an allusion to some poem or tale now lost. The text is the correction of Hanmer.

---

---

Rosaline was dark, so Collier's folio reads witty for 'whitely,' and the Cambridge editors wightly; yet the poet may have been merely oblivious.

---

---

Sc. 1.

The meaning of 'purpose' is not very clear; perhaps it should be purchase.

---

Both 4to and folio read 'see.' Rowe made the obvious correction.

---

It was the 4th folio that supplied it.

---

'Pin' is the correction of the 2nd folio; both the 4to and 1st folio have is in, as in preceding line, and possibly so the poet wrote it; for it makes a kind of sense, and he may have had his reasons for using it.

---

So I read, as the 4to has ath toother side, and the folio ath to the side. The usual reading is "on the one side;" but we are not to look for rigid consistency in Costard's language.

---

A line riming with this seems to be lost.

---

Sc. 2.

Misled by Singer, I gave in my Edition, set, the reading of Collier's folio, for 'see,' which may be right.

---

Rowe was right, I think, in supplying I have. Singer reads I will call; Collier's folio I call; he Cambridge editors call I.

---

The reading of the Cambridge editors is one soul.

---

The poet, I suspect, wrote Oh! not 'Of'; and so I have ventured to give it.

---

We might also read, with S. Walker, 'the heaven's; but I prefer what is in the text. A syllable was undoubtedly omitted.

---

For 'before repast' of the 4to, the folio has 'being repast' in a parenthesis; and it may possibly be right, the school-master, in his pedantic way, using 'repast' as a participle. The grace, then, would be after dinner.

---

Sc. 3.

Both 4to and folio read 'The night of dew,' and so most editions; but the context requires the transposition. The same is the case in the last line but one of this sonnet, where 4to and folio read 'dost thou.'

---

This is no rime; the poet must have written sobriety in the second line.

---

As 'hose' has just occurred, Theobald read slop, which both Singer and Dyce properly adopt. The usual reading is shape.

---

Both rime and metre demand pate in the second line (see Introd. p. 63). The whole dialogue, with this exception, is in rime.

---

Theobald, who is usually followed, reads "By earth she is but corporal; there you lie." I think, however, the text is right. In iii. 1 Berowne, styling Love a "great general," adds, "and I to be a corporal of his field!" so he may well apply that title to Dumain. See Index s. v.

---

Capell read lasting.

---

---

For 'gnat,' of which it is not very easy to see the meaning, Mr. Staunton would read quat, the conjecture of Mr. Becket, and surely not better. We also meet sot and knot, equally bad. In Pericles (ii. 3), however, princes wanting in liberality are compared to gnats.

---

Capell transposed 'by' and 'to'; which seems to be right. Yet 'to' may have been suggested for by, by the preceding line.

---

As something is evidently wanted, the 2nd folio read 'of strange,' and that is the usual reading; Theobald 'moon-like men.' I have read, as I find S. Walker had done,

---

The 'wood' of the first line is Rowe's certain correction of word.

---

It is most certain that 'school' cannot have been the poet's word. The usual reading is that of Warburton, scowl; but that substantive is not used by Shakespeare, and it gives but an indifferent sense. Theobald read stole, which also is not Shakespearian; I myself cloak, as the "cloak of night" occurs in R. and J. ii. 2, Rich. II. iii. 2. But the Cambridge editors seem to have hit on the exact word, suit written, as pronounced, shoot. In the Puritan (ii. 1), we have a play on suitor and archer, i.e. shooter; we retain this sound in sure and sugar. In Hamlet we have "suits of solemn black" and "suits of woe" (i. 2), and "suit of sables" (iii. 2) for mourning, and in Rom. and Jul. iii. 2,

---

Capell sagaciously saw that in this speech, from "For when would you" to "From whence doth spring," and from "For where is any" to "And in that vow," are passages which the poet had cancelled in the "corrected and augmented" play. The same occurs in Rich. III. v. 3, and on a much smaller scale, however, in Rom. and Jul. iii. 3, iv. 1.

---

There can be no doubt of this, the reading of Theobald—prisons for poisons.

---

As beauty is not taught, we should perhaps read wisdom. Perhaps, however, the error may be in 'Teaches.'

---

Though this passage be very obscure, I doubt if it be corrupt. By 'voice' may be meant the assenting voice, the voices all sounding in unison, which induces repose over heaven. Compare the opening of Gray's Progress of Poesy. The original editions commit the usual error of putting 'make' for 'makes.'

---

The reading of Griffith and Collier's folio humanity is, I think, right. I have adopted it in my Edition.

---

The correction of Theobald for 'Alone, alone!' of the originals. The poet, however, does not use French words in this play, and I think we should read All on, all on! or rather Along, along! (See on Temp. v. 1.) "Along my lords! Well, Cromwell is half dead."—Thomas Cromwell, iv. 5.

---

As a word cannot love, Hanmer, for 'loves,' read moves, Heath joys, Mason leads. I read 'Love's' for 'love's' and god for 'word.'

---

Sc. 1.

The 2nd folio reads, and, I think, most properly, 'affectation.' It is much more likely that a syllable should have been omitted by the printer, than that Nathaniel, who in general speaks correctly, should blunder. We have the very same error in v. 2, where the rime leaves no doubt on the subject.

---

This is Theobald's correction of bene intelligo.'—Boone, boon for boon prescian, &c.; which has been universally received. The Cambridge editors, however, partly anticipated by Capell, read 'Bon, bon fort bon. Priscian! a little scratcht, twill serve.' Ingenious as this is, I still adhere to Theobald; for, as I have just observed, French does not occur in this play; and when those critics say that "Sir Nathaniel is not represented as an ignoramus who would be likely to say bone for bene," I may remind them that he adds, 'Videsne quis venit,' which is nearly as bad. The printer, in fact, had spoiled the humour by his bene, and Theobald restored it, as I think, most happily.

---

Malone read 'remember not' (see Ham. v. 2, M. N. D. iv. 1). Dyce quotes "Pray you remember your courtesy.... Nay, pray, be covered."—Every Man in his Humour, i. 1. But the negative may been omitted here also.

---

These additions, I find, were made by Capell also.

---

Sc. 2.

Here, again, the original reading is 'Alone!'

---

The old editions transpose 'cure' and 'care.' The correction was by Thirlby. The old reading is retained, I know not how, in my Edition.

---

The rime proves 'device' to be wrong. See Introd. p. 63. The 2nd folio read 'all to my behests.' I read, as S. Walker also had read, 'to my hests.'

---

'Portent' is a correction of pertaunt.

---

So the 2nd folio for 'wanton be.'

---

Perhaps it should be stuff'd, not 'stabb'd.' We have, however, "stabs the centre."—W. T. i. 2.

---

A line has evidently been lost here.

---

For 'feat' Collier's folio, and S. Walker, followed by Singer and Dyce, read suit, which I also have adopted.

---

Both 4to and folio read his for 'her.'

---

It should evidently be Boyet, as in my Edition.

---

The line riming with this is lost, as Malone also saw.

---

So also 2nd folio.

---

The editors omit 'mad,' as it is what they deem a superfluous syllable. We should perhaps omit 'thou' and retain 'mad.'

---

Fair is an addition of 2nd folio.

---

As the whole scene is in rime, there should be a couplet here. We might then for 'this' read more.

---

A line riming with this, before, or after, seems lost.

---

The whole difficulty of this place lies in the word 'dies,' which has two senses, now distinguished by the orthography, namely, die and dye, but which in Shakespeare's time were spelt indifferently. In this place editors have invariably taken it in the former sense; and as they regard 'contents dies' as a false concord—which, by the way, it is not—they print 'Die,' and then change 'that' to them, and alter the punctuation. The result, however, is anything but satisfactory. I, on the contrary—and I believe I have been the first to do so—take 'Dies' in its second sense of tinging, colouring, imbruing, making 'zeal' the subject and 'contents' the object, and regarding this last as being by metonymy—a figure Shakespeare uses so frequently—the persons contented, or to be contented, just as in Ant. and Cleop. i. 4. "The Discontents" are the discontented. All then becomes plain, and the passage is parallel to one in the speech of Theseus in M. N. D. v. 1. As to using 'Dyes' of mind, we may justify it by the employment of tinge and tincture in the same way in our ordinary language; and the following passages are very apposite:—

Cowley, The Complaint, 122.

"For dye a husband that has wit with an opinion that thou art honest, and see who dares wash the colour out." (Killigrew, Parson's Wedding, ii. 3.) "Ma ben di rado avviene che le parole affermative e sicure d'una persona autorevole in qualsivoglia genere non tingano dal loro colore la mente di chi le ascolta." (Manzoni, Prom. Sposi, ch. xx.) The 'zeal' in the last line may have been produced in the usual way by that in the preceding line, and the poet's word have been hue; but a change is not absolutely necessary.

---

---

---

I conjectured nimble, in which I had been preceded, as usual, by Theobald. "You have a nimble wit." (As You Like It, iii. 2.) The error, however, may be, and I think is, in 'not,' for which I read but, as these words are so constantly confounded. Collier's folio makes the same correction.

---

For 'And' I incline to read Then. (See on M. N. D. ii. 1.)

---

Coleridge read 'stray,' which seems better.

---

---

This is the reading of Hanmer generally received. That of the folio is 'than these are our respects,' where, if we read 'than these our respects are,' we get perhaps as good a sense. 'Devout' seems to mean devoted, or serious, or in earnest; 'respects' sc. of you, behaviour respecting you.

---

This passage should certainly be omitted as a repetition. See on iv. 3.

---

---

Sc. 1.

---

In the folio the first of these speeches is given to the Countess; but Tieck saw rightly that it could only belong to Helena. I have transposed the next two speeches; for Lafeu must reply immediately; metrically also his reply is the complement of the speech of Helena, in which 'living' and 'grief' should perhaps change places.

---

---

For 'his' I read this, i.e. that of Bertram, whose departure has caused her tears to flow. There is an evident aposiopesis of graced his, arising from the perturbation of her mind, as is proved by the falling of the metric ictus on 'him,' and which also proves that 'his' could not have been the poet's word.

---

Bertram is always a dissyllable. We might also read 'but only,' but with less force.

---

This is sheer nonsense; 'virgin,' suggested by the following 'virginity,' should be self-murderer, as I have given it in my Edition, or rather perhaps the legal term felo de se; for what Parolles means is that as suicides were 'buried in highways,' Virginity being such should be treated in the same manner.

---

For 'two' Hanmer read ten, and Steevens for 'ten' two. The best reading seems to be that of Singer's folio, months for 'years,' which I have given in my Edition.

---

This is complementary to the preceding speech, of which it completes the metre. The emphasis is to be on 'my,' as her meaning is that her virginity is not yet old and withered. She stops there, and enters on a new subject, and it is evident that at least the first line is lost. It may have been like this, "Monsieur Parolles, you are for the Court," which I have ventured to insert in my Edition; it seems so essential to the sense.

---

None of the editors seem to have perceived that in this and the six following lines Helena is enumerating the titles, mostly Euphuistic, that lovers at that time used to give their mistresses (comp. L.L.L. iii. 1 ad fin.), "Christendoms," i.e. baptismal names, as she styles them, to which Cupid stood gossip. As 'mother' could hardly have been one of these, I feel almost certain that the original word was lover, which being damaged and only er remaining (see on ii. 1), the printer made 'mother' of it. There is, however, it seems a term mauther or mother still in use in the Eastern counties, and signifying young girl. In Fletcher's Maid in the Mill (iii. 2), the miller says of his daughter,

In the Alchemist (iv. 4) Kastrill says to his sister, "You talk like a foolish mauther." Tusser has in his Husbandry,

And again,

But surely such a term could not be used of the ladies of the Court of France. The context shows that it is not mother-in-law that is meant. 'Captain' in the next line may appear suspicious; but lovers were in the habit of regarding their mistresses as commanders, whose orders they were bound to obey. "She that I spake of our great captain's captain," Othel. ii. 1. Steevens states that guerrière is a favourite term for a mistress in Ronsard.

---

---

Sc. 2.

I doubt if the editors have perfectly understood this passage. I cannot, for example, see that they have been aware that the 'tongue' and the 'hand' both belong to the metaphorical 'clock'—the former being the bell which sounds, when the latter gives the signal by arriving at the point of twelve, that is, when 'Exception,' i.e. contradiction, 'bids it speak.'

---

I would read whose for 'their,' evidently suggested by 'them' in the preceding line; and as the verb 'humble' rarely, if ever, occurs without its object, we should perhaps read, as I have done, 'humbled him.'

---

I incline to suspect that 'fathers' should be children—not an unusual error. (See Introd. p. 66.) "A parcel of conceited feather-caps, whose fathers were their garments."—Old Play quoted by Steevens. "Whose mother was her painting."—Cymb. iii. 4.

Jonson, Staple of News, i. 1.

See, however, the character of Piso in Marston's Scourge of Villainy, Sat. xi.

---

Sc. 3.

Fletch. and Rowl. Maid in Mill, ii. 2.

---

---

---

The words in Italics, absolutely necessary for the sense, were supplied by Theobald.

---

I can only make sense here by reading 'I'd care e'en more for it.' The damp had probably effaced the d, e'e, it, or t, and be. For a similar omission of 'd, see on King John iv. 2. The 'no,' however, may have been a casual insertion of the printer's. In my Edition of these plays, unaware of the rime, I placed be at the end of the line; but I corrected it.

---

So Theobald properly corrected the loveliness of the folio, the n, as was so frequent, having been turned upside down.

---

The folio has 'ton tooth to th' other. The 2nd folio made the necessary correction by rejecting tooth—a mere reduplication of 'to th'. Knight, it would appear, was the first to correct 'ton.

---

For 'captious' we should certainly read, with Farmer, capacious. It was, in fact, only the omission of a letter. (See on M. for M. iv. 2.) T and c were often used indifferently before e and i. Reck might be better than 'lack.'

---

With Collier's folio I read manifold; "an epithet," says Mr. Dyce, "which, I apprehend, can hardly be applied to 'experience.'" Why not?

---

One 'help' has evidently been suggested by the other; for the first I would read cure. (See Introd. p. 65.)

---

The best correction of the passage is to supply tells me after 'in it.' This had evidently been effaced, as in Hen. VIII. i. 2.

I arrange the passage thus:

In the first line I inserted in my Edition all; but it was needless; for 'doctrine' was no doubt pronounced as a trisyllable. 'Off' was evidently added by the printer to complete the metre. (See Introd. p. 67.) For 'in't' of the folio Hanmer read hints.

---

Unto or upon would seem more correct; but no change is needed.

---

Sc. 1.

This passage has never been understood, yet it is perhaps plain enough. By 'higher Italy' is meant the part more distant from France. "Will you travel higher [i.e. go further south], or return again to France," iv. 3. In this place it is Tuscany that is termed 'higher Italy.' "But then up farther, and as far as Rome," Tam. of Shrew, iv. 2, where the speaker is at Padua. By 'bated' is meant abated, subdued, as we abate a nuisance; 'inherit' is, as usual, possess; and 'the fall of the last monarchy' is the fallen final state of the Roman Empire, the last monarchy according to the current interpretation of the Book of Daniel. "The antique ruins of the Roman Fall."—F. Q. i. 549. "The underseated deities that circle Saturn's fall."—Chap. II. xv. 208. "Redeem'd him from his fall and made him mine."—Fletch. Kt. of Burn. Pest. iv. 3. But perhaps we should read pall, as being still more contemptuous, indicating that the symbol only and not the real power had been inherited. By 'Those,' etc., I think are meant the Ghibelines or Imperial party, to which Siena belonged, while Florence was usually Guelf, the side which was always taken by France, out of opposition to the German Emperor. There is, however, no mention of Guelfs or Ghibelines either in the story in the Decamerone or in the Palace of Pleasure; so that Shakespeare must have gotten his knowledge elsewhere, which is to me one proof, among many, of the extent of his reading. I regard this as the only explanation that gives sense to the passage.

---

---

The folio reads 'his cicatrice with.' As usual, Theobald made the correction.

---

This is the arrangement of the folio, which Malone altered needlessly. For 'see' Theobald read fee, and in the next line bought for 'brought.' These corrections most editors have adopted, but I see no great gain in them. I confess I do not clearly discern the meaning here of either 'see' or fee; and Mr. Staunton's sue is not much better, and I suspect that the poet's word may have been a different one, which I think I can fix on with something like certainty. He wrote then 'I beseech thee,' but ch being either blotted or rubbed out, the transcriber or printer read I be 'Ile,' the usual form of I'll. In Ham. iii. 4, and Tim. i. 2, we have a similar effacement of two letters. "Pardon, my lord.—I pray you all, stand up" (M. N. D. iv. 1), is exactly parallel. See also Hen. VIII. v. 1.

---

We should, I apprehend, read it for 'you.' There had been no allusion yet to the king.

---

It would be better to read, with Hanmer, as I have done, 'To write.'

---

We thus get some appearance of sense; but I still am suspicious of 'blame.' Task might seem better. "I dare not task my weakness with any more."—Othel. ii. 3. We meet, however, in the Faerie Queen with

where blame seems to signify blemish, or expose to blame.

---

We might suspect 'cause'; but it is right.

Cor. iii. 1.

---

This would seem to mean that, notwithstanding her boldness, he would still continue to think her modest. It would be derogatory to Helena to read sum for 'one.'

---

Johnson saw rightly that a line had been lost after this.

---

For 'shifts' Pope read sits, Theobald fits, which I think is right; fits occurs in the sense of suits in

Son. cxx.

---

She means, be racked to death. Malone read, as I do, Nay, worst of worse. 'Nay' was sometimes spelt ne. "Is't true? Ne, let him run into the war."—Chapman, All Fools, i.

---

Warburton also supplied virtue, but after 'wisdom.' In the next scene but one, the King speaks again of her virtue.

---

This is the correction of Thirlby; the folio has help for 'heaven,' regardless of rime.

---

The proper word would seem to be 'demand'; but see on As You Like It, ii. 5.

---

For 'image' Warburton, whom Singer follows, read impage, while Steevens says (and, I believe, truly) there is no such word. By 'image' may be meant child, offspring, which is its signification in

In the original tale she expressly excepts the children and relatives of the King.

---

Sc. 2.

For 'An end' I feel almost certain we should read Attend, or possibly And now. I have, however, made no change in the text of my Edition. Some point 'An end, sir: to your business.'

---

Sc. 3.

---

For 'writ' we should, I think, read wore or with. Mr. Dyce, however, says it was "the phraseology of Shakespeare's time." He should, then, have given us examples of it; for write man and such like are not such. Perhaps this and the following speeches of Lafeu should be Asides.

---

The folio reads, "Do all they."

---

So the folio reads and punctuates. The context shows that we should read when, with Thirlby. Two lines further on we have 'additions swell's,' which, reading 'swells,' is grammatically right; but the 2nd folio read 'addition,' and Malone, who is usually followed, swell.

---

For 'damn'd' we might feel inclined to read dim, damp, or dank. "And in a dark and dankish vault," Com. of Err. v. 1; or (as in Tr. and Cr. iii. 2) blind. The text, however, is probably right, for 'damn'd' often merely meant what is odious, or hateful, was to be condemned or simply was reprehensible. "Surfeits, impostumes, grief, and damn'd despair."—Ven. and Adon. (See on Othel. i. 1.)

---

I have read, with Theobald, defend. Farmer's explanation of 'defeat' is untenable.

---

By 'brief' I would understand the marriage-contract; for brief is used with great latitude. So in v. 3 we have "a sweet verbal brief," i.e. commission or address. The 'now borne' of the folio is, I think, now-born, i.e. which has just come into being, been made. Possibly we might read new-born, like "things new-born" (W. T. iii. 3), "new-born gauds" (Tr. and Cr. iii. 3). We have now for new (M. N. D. i. 1). I read come for 'seem.' (See on Macb. i. 2.)

---

Hanmer transposed 'commission' and 'heraldry'; and most editors have followed him. They seem to be right, and I agree with them.

---

---

The folio reads detected; the correction is Rowe's.

---

Sc. 5.

For 'And' Mr. Collier found End in MS. in a copy of the folio.

---

So the 2nd folio reads; the 1st has 'to deserve'; and perhaps a noun may have been omitted after 'have.'

---

Some would transfer 'not' to the former speech, but I think it more likely that not was omitted.

The folio gives all this to Helena; while Theobald, followed by the Cambridge editors, reads "Ber. Where are my other men, monsieur? Farewell."

---

Sc. 1.

---

Rowe's reading of nation for 'nature' seems certain.

---

Sc. 2.

Both the sense and the metre require this addition. 'Sold' is the correction of 3rd folio for hold of the 1st.

---

We should, I think, read 'new ling,' as 'old ling' had just been mentioned.

---

No doubt are gives sense, but I should prefer as. I have, however, made no change.

---

The folio reads "of his hand haply."

---

The folio reads "of that too much." As yet no one has made sense of the second line. Perhaps for 'holds' we should read hurts, foils, or soils. I have adopted the first. 'To have' is, the having. (See Introd. p. 70.)

---

No sense in which peer is used will answer here. I once thought that 'still' might be taken in the sense of quiet, tranquil; but I have been unable to find an instance of its being so used in composition. It seems, however, to have found favour in the eyes of Mr. Dyce. The reading generally adopted is that of Steevens, piecing; and though the usual meaning of this verb is, to eke, to add, it is also used in the sense of closing, filling. Mr. Dyce doubts if "a poet with a delicate ear would have written piecing ... piercing," not recollecting that the latter was pronounced percing. I should, however, prefer fleeting, which I have given in my Edition. In the Third Part of The Seven Champions (ch. xiii.), the author of which was more than once indebted to Shakespeare, or vice versâ, we read, "Whose feathery arrows outrun the piercing eye, and cut a passage through the fleetiag air." Spenser, too, has (F. Q. ii. 8. 2) "the flitting sky (i.e. air)." Elsewhere he says (vii. 7 22) that the air is felt "to flit still," and in The Tempest (iii. 3) we meet with the "still-closing waters." At the same time, as 'peering' may have been suggested by 'piercing' in the next line, the poet's word may not have resembled it.

---

As 'ravin' only occurs as a verb, the poet probably used here the part. ravening. "As a ravening and a roaring lion" (Ps. xxii. 13) was evidently in his mind.

---

Sc. 5.

This is the original stage-direction, in which Violenta—an evident mistake for Violante—might appear to be the name of the daughter, though she is always called Diana. Helen, however, at the end of the scene, mentions a 'gentle maid' along with Mariana, whom she invites to supper.

---

Here, as in ii. 3, the verb 'write' makes no sense. The 2nd folio has 'I (ay) right,' which, from the punctuation, would seem to have been a mere makeshift; the ordinary reading is that of Malone, 'A right good creature,' which we may be very sure is not what the poet wrote. As in Hamlet (ii. 1) the 4to, 1604, has "a fetch of wit" for "a fetch of warrant" of the folio, my first impulse was to read I warrant—also that of the editors of the Globe Shakespeare; but I then fixed on "I wis," and so it stands in my Edition. I am now convinced that the reading of the 2nd folio, when properly pointed, is the true one. I point it thus: "Ay, right.—Good creature! wheresoe'er she is." The 'Ay, right,' expresses the widow's assent to the truth of her daughter's observation; she then proceeds to speak of Helena. To my great surprise and gratification, I found, after I had made this natural and certain correction, that I had been completely anticipated in it by Capell. How it does provoke one to think of the wilful blindness or obtuseness of editors! For nearly an entire century they have had the true reading before their eyes, and never could see it! Singer has "Ay, right; good creature" etc.; but the punctuation shows he did not understand the passage.

---

Sc. 6.

---

'Ore' is Theobald's correction of ours in the folio.

---

For 'honour' I, with others, have adopted Theobald's correction humour; which, however, is not absolutely certain.

---

Sc. 7.

As this is the only place in the play where 'county' occurs, and as we have had 'the count he' twice already in this scene, I think we ought to read so here also. (See on Twelfth Night, i. 5.)

---

The 2nd folio added this, which had evidently been effaced.

---

If we were not aware of the abjectness of printer-worship, we might wonder at Warburton's most certain correction wicked for the last 'lawful' not having been adopted by every editor.

---

Sc. 1.

Warburton read mute for 'mule,' and I think he was right. We have "Turkish mute" (Hen. V. i. 2).

---

In the first line Rowe read 'em for 'on.'

---

Sc. 2.

Collier's folio reads as stone for 'and stern,' which is very plausible.

---

I read to for 'by,' in which I had been anticipated by Johnson, who was followed by Malone. 'Swear' naturally suggested 'by' to the printer's mind. (See on Macb. i. 5, R. and J. i. 1.)

Jonson, New Inn, iii. 2.

The same sentiment is expressed in "Yes, as I love the woman that wrong'd him" (Meas. for Meas. ii. 3). In this speech of Diana's, Mr. Staunton would give 'Then pray you ... love you ill' to Bertram; but without any great advantage.

---

This is evident nonsense. Rowe read hopes and affairs for 'ropes' and 'scarre'; and to this emendation, or Mitford's of case for 'scarre,' I see no very serious objection. We have "make envy" (Hen. VIII. v. 2), "make doubt" (Ib.), "make comfort" (Cymb. i. 2), "making practice" (Meas. for Meas. iii. 2). Why then object to "make hopes?" even though it is to be found nowhere else in Shakespeare. 'Scarre,' however, is probably right; in Lingua (i. 6) we have, "Poets will write whole volumes of this scar." It must be remembered that scare was written scarre, and so as a substantive 'scarre' may be fright, alarm, flutter, perturbation. Finally, it is even possible that 'ropes' may be right, a line being lost; something of this sort: "Of oaths and vows to scale our fort, in hope."

---

Here, as elsewhere, we have has and had confounded.

---

Sc. 3.

I think it would be better to read, as I have done, is for 'in' (see on King John, iv. 2), and conceal for 'reveal,' unless for the latter we should prefer reading veil. Perhaps also we might retain 'reveal,' and read when for 'till.'

---

Malone's first thought was most for 'meant.' Mr. Dyce proposes mean and; I think he is right, and have followed him. (See on Rom. and Jul. i. 3.)

---

The context seems to require die, not 'live'; so here, as elsewhere, we may happen to have a substitution of the contrary term. (See Introd. p. 66.)

---

This would seem to be one of the places where 'or' is for and.

---

Sc. 4.

Both sense and metre require this addition.

---

As 'revives' seems to make no sense, we might read reproves, or rather invites. "The time invites you. Go." (Ham. i. 3.)

---

Sc. 5.

For 'sure' we should, I think, read since.

---

Sc. 2.

Warburton's conjecture of moat for 'mood' is very specious, but, I fear, nothing more. 'Muddied' and 'mood' form what is termed a paronomasia.

---

The Cambridge editors adopt Warburton's reading similes. I doubt if either was the poet's word.

---

It was the 3rd folio that supplied one.

---

Sc. 3.

The context would suggest blaze to any one, as it did to Theobald.

---

He means Helena, but I do not see how 'nature' applies to her. Perhaps we should read motive; or some other word.

---

Something seems evidently lost here; for the address to Bertram is too abrupt. I would read 'seasonable weather.' We have, 'Like an unseasonable stormy day (Rich. II. iii. 2); and there was in the Liturgy, at that time, "a prayer for seasonable weather." The phrase 'day of season,' I believe, occurs nowhere else. Lower down—probably in the same page of the MS.—there appears to be an effacement of the same kind, and the loss of an entire line.

---

Is it not amazing that no one seems ever to have perceived that a line must have been lost between the last two lines? It may have been of this kind, "Another object met my wandering fancy." Capell, I find, read 'At the first sight.'

---

I read 'last time' and e'er for 'ere.' Rowe read e'er she; but the text is right.

---

The proper word would seem to be told, not 'bade'; but bid was used in the sense of tell or say, as in "bid farewell," etc.

---

As 'ingaged' is usually the same as engaged, a sense which would be absurd here, we might venture to read 'ungaged,' or 'uningaged. (See on Com. of Err. ii. 2.)

---

So Steevens also reads.

---

The second 'sir' is an evident error. The 2nd folio omits it, and reads 'are such.' I read, as Tyrwhitt had done, since.

---

---

---

For 'hit,' which is probably wrong, Capell read it; Pope, who is generally followed, his. It is very hard to choose; as each makes good sense, each is a natural printer's error.

---

I accept without hesitation the excellent correction of Collier's folio, and of Sidney Walker, infinite cunning. In Tr. and Cr. iii. 2, we read 'coming in dumbness,' where Pope made the proper correction cunning.

---

As I can make little sense of 'diet,' I read deny.

---

The negative is required for both sense and metre.

---

Sc. 1.

'New' is the correction of Rowe; the 4tos and folio have Now.

---

Collier's folio gives the right word, 'revelry.'

---

The verse in this play is strictly decasyllabic. The 2nd folio omits 'man,' with Mr. Dyce's approval. In omitting be, I have been preceded by Theobald.

---

The 2nd folio needlessly reads 'to whose.'

---

---

Common sense dictates the transposition made here of the last lines. There is no note on this passage in the Cambridge Shakespeare; so none of the known critics can have noticed it. The third line, it is evident, had been an addition made by the poet in the margin.

---

Singer transposes these lines. It is, by the way, surprising how many transpositions there are in this play; but it was not necessary to transpose here, and his doing so arose from his misunderstanding the second line; in which the allusion is most probably to the Cestus of Venus.

---

For 'your words' Hanmer read 'Yours would,' an excellent emendation, and generally adopted.

---

'Sweet' and 'stranger companies' are Theobald's corrections of swelled and strange companions. "More certain emendations," says Mr. Dyce, "were never made."

---

Sc. 2.

---

Sc. 1.

The decasyllabic form must be preserved. Pope read as I do.

---

In the 4tos and folio 'Fairy.' (See Introd. p. 52.)

---

This is the reading of the folio; the 4tos, which all the editors follow, have hast. I prefer the former; for Shakespeare invariably employs the verb substantive with 'stolen away,' except in the case of a doubly-compound tense.

---

Theobald proposed and then rejected 'winter-cheer.' I should prefer summer for 'winter' (see Introd. p. 66); for in Dr. Forman's Diary of the year 1594—which year Shakespeare had certainly in view—we read, "This monethes of June and July were very wet and wonderfull cold, like winter, that the 10 dae of Julii many did syt by the fyer, yt was so cold; and soe was it in Maye and June; and scarse too fair dais together all that tyme, but it rayned every day more or lesse. Yf it did not raine then was it cold and cloudye.... There were many gret fludes this sommer."

2 Hen. IV. iv. 4.

It is possible, however, that the error may lie in 'want,' for which we might read have, or some other word.

---

For 'chin' Grey read chill; Tyrwhitt, whom some follow, thin. But it is probably one of those inadvertencies so frequent in our poet.

---

Thirlby's just correction of stay and stayeth.

---

For 'there' in the second line, Mr. Dyce reads—and perhaps rightly—here.

---

I read and arrange the whole passage thus:

In the second line I have transposed 'oxlip' and 'violet'; for the former 'nods' and the latter does not, "With cowslips wan, that hang the pensive head" (Lycidas, v. 14). In the third I give o'er for 'over.' The transposition which follows is imperatively demanded by the sequence of ideas, and we have other instances in this play. The fifth and sixth lines may have been an addition made by the poet or transcriber in the margin, and taken in in the wrong place by the printer. (See on i. 1.) If 'And' be the right word in the last line, something must have been lost, ex. gr. "Upon her will I steal there as she lies;" but the poet's word may have been what I have given, Then, strongly emphaticized, and written Than, the two first letters of which having been effaced, the printer made it 'And.' The very same thing seems to have taken place in L. L. L. v. 2. It may also have been that yⁿ, then, was taken for &, and.

---

Sc. 2.

The rime demands the old form hear. (See on Com. of Err. iii. 2.)

---

The transposition 'her shows' of the folio is merely one of those of which we have so many examples in these plays. The usual reading is that of the 2nd folio, 'here shows.'

---

It would seem better to read 'not ripe'; or 'ripe' may be a verb.

---

Sc. 1.

---

This and the two following lines are transposed in Roberts' 4to and the folio.

---

Sc. 2.

Mr. Dyce, with whom I agree, adopts the excellent reading of Coleridge and Sidney Walker, 'knee-deep.'

Woman Killed with Kindness.

---

Pope added so, which is required by metre and rime, and yet is wanting in all the old editions.

---

For 'princess' Hanmer read pureness; Collier proposes impress; but no change is needed. 'White' is whiteness, and 'princess of pure white' is sovereign lady of whiteness, i.e., white in the highest degree. I suspect that Chaucer wrote emperes in

Leg. of Good Women.

---

The 2nd folio read 'O and is'; Malone added now; we might also add then. A syllable certainly is wanting.

---

---

Here 'prayers' is the correction by Theobald of praise of the original editions.

---

This is the reading of the folio, which, with the addition of me—evidently rubbed out at the end—gives excellent sense and metre. For 'sir' the 4tos read he'll, which makes the passage abrupt.

---

The same omission was made by Pope.

---

For 'news' Collier's folio, followed by Singer, reads means. I think they are right.

---

Rowe read light for 'love,' and Johnson and Singer have followed him. But it seems to be Cephalus that is meant.

---

Sc. 1.

It should be 'fairies.' (See on ii. 1.)

---

The reading hitherto has been 'May all,' but the transposition restores the grammar.

---

The 4to and folio read or. The correction is Thirlby's.

---

Fisher's 4to has 'nights,' of which I have made a dissylable, as being more Shakespearean than 'the night's' of the folio and Roberts' 4to, which most feebly and inharmoniously throw the emphasis on 'the.' This gen. occurs more than once in our poet's earlier plays.

---

With Hanmer I incline to read boar.

---

Here, too, I suspect that the poet wrote 'mountains.' 'Seem'd in next line is the reading of the 2nd folio; the originals have seeme.

---

This is the reading of Fisher's 4to; Roberts' and the folio read 'might be'; which does not suit the metre of this play. Egeus breaks in and interrupts him.

---

Green's Tu Quoque.

The ordinary correction is that of Capell, 'as doth'; an Anon. read 'All melted.'

---

'Saw' is Steevens' correction of see; in L. L. L. iv. 1, we have "I came, see and overcame." 'In sickness' is Farmer's correction of 'a sickness' of the originals.

---

The folio omits 'are ... awake.' Capell also added But and an Anon. yet. The poet's words may, however, have been, "Are you sure we are awake? it seems to me." But that would make the preceding speech terminate in a manner that does not occur in this play.

---

Sc. 1.

'Strange' is a very feeble word here. If, as I have ventured to do, we read 'sable snow,' we have a parallel to 'hot ice.' Upton read black; Staunton swarthy; Hanmer scorching.

---

As there are no short lines in this play, I think a word has been lost in the first line. I read faltering, Theobald read 'willing duty.'

---

---

A line riming with the first appears to be lost. Some read 'by name hight,' making a triplet; but I cannot agree with them.

---

Theobald reads moon for 'man.' The correction is ingenious, but not certain. I have, however, adopted it.

---

So Singer reads; others 'A lion's fell.'

---

This is the reading of the 2nd folio; for the old editions repeat 'beams' from the preceding line. "Phebus of gold his stremès down hath sent" (Chauc. Merch. Tale), was probably in the poet's mind; or

(Induct. to Mir. for Magistrates.)

---

---

Rime demands Theobald's 'lily brows.'

---

Sc. 2.

'Behowls' is Warburton's correction of beholds of the originals. It is proved to be right by the following passage of Marston's Antonio's Revenge:—

As this play was not printed till 1602, this may be an imitation of the passage of our text.

---

Singer and a friend of Mr. Staunton's very judiciously transposed these lines, the third, or rather fourth transposition in this play. We may observe that twice before it was the second line of the couplet that commenced with 'Ever.' For a fifth transposition in the original editions, see on iii. 1. By the 'owner' is meant the occupant of the 'chamber.' Malone read 'shall it,' which is the usual reading.

---

Sc. 1.

It is very strange that none of the critics should have seen that S. is Signior, not Saint. The poet probably wrote it Sr; for we shall find in the subsequent part of the play sir twice used for signior, the ordinary address in plays the scene of which lies in Italy. The 4to edition of 1631 omits S., but it is of no authority. I should feel inclined to read the next line, "Humph, Go to thy cold bed, and wärm thee," which occurs again in Lear (iii. 4). It may have been borrowed from some unknown play; but there is nothing like it in Kyd's Spanish Tragedy, which is evidently referred to in what precedes.

---

Theobald, whom most editors follow, induced by the reply of Sly, read thirdborough. But might not Sly have mistaken the word?

---

'Brach' cannot be right; for brach was bitch (see Index s. v.), and what sportsman would say Bitch Sweet lips, for instance, of one of his hounds? In the usual manner the printer was led away by the 'brach' in the following line. The original word must have been a verb, and, were we not aware of what critics usually are, we might wonder at Johnson's most simple and natural emendation, Bathe not being universally adopted. In his whole speech the lord shows his affection for his hounds; for the charge about coupling Clowder with another hound is evidently owing to his being united to an ill-conditioned dog. Poor Merriman, it is plain, had got a swelling in the leg or elsewhere—for that is the only possible meaning of 'emboss'd' in this place; so when the Prince (1 Hen. IV. iii. 3) calls Falstaff an "embossed rascal," he means swollen up—the proper remedy for which was bathing or fomenting with warm water; and this he directs to be done. But Mr. Collier tells us that "a dog or a deer is said to be embossed when fatigue makes them foam at the mouth;" from which all that can be inferred is that Mr. Collier is no sportsman; for any one who has been out with hounds knows that when fatigued they pant and put out their tongues, but never foam. Shakespeare, who apparently knew something of hunting, has correctly, "Lolling the tongue with slaughtering" (Cymb. v. 3), alluding to hounds. On the other hand, Mr. Dyce most confidently reads Trash, i.e., put a "heavy collar, strap or rope dragging loose on the ground" on him to check his speed. I fear that Mr. Dyce is no sportsman either. At least at the present day hounds do not carry weight; for that, I suppose, is what he means. He probably understood 'emboss'd' in the same sense as Mr. Collier. I adopt Johnson's reading, though aware that in cases of this kind (Introd. p. 65) we should not look for any similarity of form (Mr. Dyce's ductus literarum) in the word to be substituted. (See on Othel. iii. 3.) Here, for example, we might read Mind, or some other word.

---

---

Sc. 2.

---

---

Sc. 1.

In the first four lines I have, with previous editors, given the correct punctuation, and have omitted the superfluous s after Vincentio in the fourth. In the following line the metre shows that something is wrong, and it may be that 'Vincentio's' should be Lucentio his, for nothing is more common than this confusion of proper names. (See on King John, ii. 1.) Hanmer I find also made this correction. At the same time it is equally probable that something has been omitted, and that we should read 'only son,' or 'son and heir,' as in v. 1. It is one of those cases in which choice is difficult. I have given the first in my Edition of the plays; but I now greatly prefer the third.

---

Undoubtedly Ethics, the correction of Blackstone and Collier's folio.

---

For 'Balk' the editors read talk, but it is right.

F. Q. iii. 2. 12.

---

Here and elsewhere in this play, and nowhere else, the printer seems to have added an s to 'Gramercie.' I follow Collier's folio in reading now were for 'thou wert.'

---

So I have printed it, but Pray or Now might be better.

---

---

The 3rd folio properly read Our for 'Their.'

---

As 'longly' occurs nowhere else, it is probably only a printer's error for longingly, which I have given. This omission of a syllable is by no means unusual. (See on M. for M. iv. 2; All's Well, i. 3.)

---

With Singer I read he for 'she.'

---

We should perhaps read charge for 'charm'; for it is the tongue that is charmed. We have, however,

A King and no King, v. 4.

---

Sc. 2.

---

'Masters' is the correction of Theobald for mistress of the folio. Master and mistress are confounded also in v. 1, and in Mer. of Ven. iv. 1, 2 Hen. IV. ii. 4, 2 Hen. VI. i. 3, Tim. ii. 2. Mistress was frequently written misteris, which may have been partly the cause of the confusion.

---

For 'to hear,' which makes very poor sense, Warburton most happily read to th' ear. He was equally happy in Tim. i. 2.

---

For 'yours' Thirlby most properly read ours.

---

For Bion. I read Gre., in which I had been anticipated by Capell, Tyrwhitt, and Heath; so that it is certain. In my Edition will be found the correct punctuation of the whole passage.

---

There is either an aposiopesis or a line lost after this; I think the latter.

---

There is apparently something wrong here. As 'what!' is almost invariably followed by an interrogative, I would read 'will this gentleman'; we might also insert an adj. before 'gentleman,' or read all of us for 'us all.' The speech, however, as it is a single line, may be as the poet wrote it; I have therefore let it stand in my Edition.

---

To avoid the jingle we might read 'I do hear.'

---

I have no doubt that for 'that' we should read then. (See Introd. p. 68.)

---

For 'seek' I read deed; Rowe read feat.

---

Sc. 1.

---

Perhaps for 'sir' we should read signior, and for 'walk' look.

---

So we should arrange the passage.

---

We might read 'Not such a jade.' Mr. Dyce reads, after Collier's folio, 'as bear you,' which is better, and which I follow.

---

---

For 'me' Rowe properly read in.

---

There must be a line at least lost after this.

---

---

Rime demands for 'cunning' the reading of Steevens, doing. Wooing and doing have already rimed in this scene. (See also Tr. and Cr. i. 2, ad fin.)

---

Sc. 1.

---

All are agreed to read change with 2nd folio; and as 'old' evidently makes no sense, Theobald read odd. With Rowe I prefer new. (See Introd. p. 66.)

---

Sc. 2.

The 2nd folio adds yes, Malone them, Dyce guests after 'invite'; my own conjecture was aye. Would it not be better, however, to read as I have done, "Make friends be invited, and proclaim the banns"? There is an exactly similar omission of be in All's Well, i. 3, where there can be no doubt. We might also read simply 'friends invited'; but I doubt, after all, if it were not best to read "Make invite friends too and proclaim the banns," which would agree better with the character of the speaker.

---

Is it quite evident that old has been omitted in the first line. Rowe, who is followed, prefixed it to the first 'news.' I think it is better with the second, as in Collier's folio.

---

---

Collier's folio reads "The Amours or forty Fancies."

---

Sense and metre demand the negative. There is, I think, a break in sense at the end of the line.

---

So I find Tyrwhitt also correctly completed the line.

---

---

For 'sir' we should most certainly read signior. (See on Induction, sc. 1.)

---

This speech is prose in the 1st folio; in the 2nd it is arranged as verse, but not well. In my Edition I have rearranged it, as I find Reed also had done.

---

S. Walker conjectured my grange; the Cambridge editors my garner.

---

Sc. 1.

---

I had also conjectured, like Capell, 'all the rest of.'

---

Sc. 2.

Pope also made this metric correction. Master and Mistress do not occur in this play as titles.

---

---

Rowe also added her.

---

If 'angel' be right, it must mean that he was an angel of deliverance to them. Singer and Dyce quote from Cotgrave's Dictionary "Angelot à la grosse escaille. An old Angel, and by metaphor a fellow of the old, sound, honest, and worthy stamp." But how could Biondello know his character? Some read engle, properly ingle; but this is rather, comrade, bosom-friend. In Gascoigne's Supposes, from which this part of the play is taken, he is termed "good soul," and it may be that the poet's word here was uncle—the conjecture also of a Mr. Bubier, in the Cambridge Edition—a term used of elderly persons. (See Index s. v. Nuncle.) Just afterwards he is said to be "surely like a father" and (iv. 5) Katherine says to the real Vincentio "Now I perceive thou art a reverend father."

---

'Marcantant' is the Italian mercante, mercatante, or mercadante. It may be corrupt.

---

As this is so very abrupt and not very clear, we might conjecture an effacement of will you make or something similar.

---

Here, again, the printer has put 'Sir' for Signior, and probably added the 'to' to make up the metre.

---

The 2nd folio reads 'Go with me, sir.'

---

Sc. 3.

---

---

Sc. 4.

---

---

Here is what seems to be a convincing proof of the effacement of the ends of lines in the MS. In the second line the 2nd folio inserted sir in the middle, and in the third it read 'most ready and most willing.' Lower down the ends of two lines more have been also effaced.

---

'Your son' belongs to first line; and as we have had (iii. 2) "And marry sweet Bianca with consent," we might complete the metre by reading 'with my full consent'; but it is more probable, as this page of the MS. appears to have been injured, that the loss was at the end. I read of me, Baptista, as (v. 1) we have "mine only son and heir to the lands of me, signior Vincentio." In the next line 'know' is most probably a mere printer's error. I have in my Edition, given hold, the reading of Collier's folio; but I think now that the right word is trow, which occurs more than once in Shakespeare in the sense of think, and which I find was also the conjecture of Hanmer.

---

The 1st folio has expect, which was rightly corrected in the 2nd. While was properly supplied by Capell.

---

Both sense and metre counsel the ejection of 'to come' caused by the following 'you come.'

---

The rime evidently requires this addition, made also by Pope.

---

Sc. 5.

'Still' is Ritson's correction of so in the folio.

---

---

Sc. 1.

This is the reading of Capell, which I have followed; master's, that of Theobald, is perhaps better. The folio has mistress: see on i. 2.

---

Tyrwhitt, who has been followed by all succeeding editors, reads Pisa, which is no doubt right; but the error was the poet's.

---

---

---

Sc. 2.

The folio has come; but both sense and rime demand 'done,' Rowe's correction. We might also, as Mr. Collier observes, read gone; and this is perhaps the best.

So also Capell.

---

---

---

---

Sc. 1.

---

---

For 'docks' the editors read, after Rowe, 'dock'd'; but it is simpler to read 'dock,' the s being the usual printer's addition. We might even perhaps retain the text, reading 'see!'

---

---

Sc. 2.

Perhaps a rime and a seven-foot line were intended, in which case we should arrange thus, as Knight has also done;

---

Sc. 3.

---

This speech should be marked Aside. It is so in my Edition.

---

We should read 'monies,' the word Shylock always uses.

---

So it should be arranged.

---

Sc. 1.

'page' is Theobald's undoubted correction; 4tos and folio read rage.

---

Surely 'temple' has no meaning here. Must not the poet have written table. In Lucrece (st. 168), in the Var. Shakespeare, "Her sacred temple" is printed "Her sacred table." I am not aware that any critic has observed this palpable error. The term 'table,' it may be observed, was much more used by our forefathers than by us. Thus in The Elder Brother (iii. 4) Miramont says to his brother, "May be I'll see your table too," i.e. be of your dinner-party.

---

Sc. 2.

---

Mr. Dyce thinks Shakespeare wrote 'not know,' which occurs again in Lancelot's next speech. I have adopted his reading.

---

Sc. 3.

The 2nd folio properly read did. (See on Jul. Cæs. ii. 2.) This change of tense was not unfrequent. We often meet see for saw.

---

Sc. 5.

It might be better to read 'the judge.' Even at the present day printers confound these words.

---

I prefer this, the reading of the old copies, to 'Jewess,' Pope's reading, which is usually followed.

---

Sc. 6.

Rowe's correction for 'younger.'

---

Sc. 7.

So also at end of scene; but as in sc. ix. it is 'curtain,' I ascribe the s to the printer.

---

See also Capell.

---

Pope read wood may for 'timber do' of the 4tos and folio; Johnson, who is always followed, read tombs; I read woods. The meaning is that gilded wooden work was often worm-eaten.

---

Sc. 1.

So also Warburton.

---

'Where' is Rowe's correction; the original editions read Here, which may be right.

---

Sc. 2.

'Piece' is Rowe's correction for peize, and is, I think, right.

---

The originals all have voice; 'vice' is a correction, and a true one, of the 2nd folio.

---

Unless we take it ironically—which is unworthy of the poet—'beauty' here is nonsense. It plainly owes its origin to the preceding 'beautious.' Hanmer read dowdy; Sidney Walker gipsy—both bad. I read, with the utmost confidence, feature as the only word suited to the place. (See Index s. v.) Mr. Spedding, I find, conjectured visage or feature, apparently taking them to be synonymous.

---

For 'pale' Farmer read stale, perhaps needlessly.

---

Warburton read plainness, of which Mr. Dyce approves, and perhaps with reason. I have, however, made no change. Lead in fact never is pale; for its surface is always oxydized. Shakespeare, moreover, would hardly use the same term of two distinct substances. (See, however, on Rom. and Jul. ii. 5.)

---

Sc. 3.

I thus point and amend the passage, as Capell had done, followed only, I believe, by Knight. I am rather dubious of 'justice,' and should prefer interest or traffic.

---

Sc. 4.

I prefer 'misery,' the reading of the first 4to, to cruelty, that of the others and the folio.

---

These compounds of two adjectives—the first being used adverbially—are not by any means uncommon. They are frequent in Shakespeare; in Fletcher's Hum. Lieut. (iii. 2) we have "serious-true," and in his Chances (ii. 1) "glorious-foolish." (See on 1 Hen. IV. iii. 1.)

---

All the old editions read Mantua, but it is so certain that it must have been a mere slip of the poet or the printer that Theobald's correction has been universally and properly adopted. (See on Hen. V. iii. Chor.)

---

Rowe, I think properly, read Traject (tragetto It.).

---

Sc. 5.

Here 'it' seems to mean 'to live an upright life'; rather a harsh construction. It is not likely that the poet used 'mean' in the sense of mener Fr., yet it seems to be used so sometimes in Piers Ploughman.

---

Sc. 1.

The original editions all read "Cannot contain their urine for affection;" but that this cannot be right is proved by the context. The only question then is, should we read Master with Thirlby, or Mistress with the same and Capell. Nothing (see Introd. p. 59) is more common than the addition of s, while master and mistress are frequently confounded. (See on Taming of Shrew, i. 2.) On the whole, I prefer mistress. In the last line I read she for 'it,' evidently caused by that in the preceding line. For the meaning of 'affection,' see Index s. v.

---

The bag of the bag-pipe is no doubt generally covered at the present day with a piece of green baize, which is woollen; yet I incline with Hawkins and Steevens to read swollen; the s might easily have been lost, of which I think we have another example in the change of sway to wag (Much Ado, v. 1).

---

I prefer this punctuation.

---

Though by reading 'a Jew' we get sense, and Launce (Com. of Err. ii. 3) makes a Jew the type of hard-heartedness, and we have the same notion in Much Ado, ii. 3, I yet cannot but adhere to stint your for 'think you,' as I have given it in my Edition. It seems to me so much more forcible, and more suited to the calm resignation of Antonio; while in the other reading there is something of sneer or irony that is unpleasant. Nothing was easier than for the printer to read stint, the more unusual term, as think, and then to make your you for the sake of sense (see Introd. p. 67), and as they are pronounced nearly alike. However, judicet lector.

---

This is the reading of the Bridgewater copy of Heyes' 4to, only reading bleak for 'bleat'; in the Devonshire copy of that 4to it is:

In the folio:

So editions vary!

---

A syllable is wanting, and a, the reading of the 2nd folio, is feeble. We have "such deep sin"(Rich. II. i. 1); "deep grief" (Ham. iv. 5); and many similar expressions. The omission of an adjective is not unusual. (See on M. N. D. v. 1.)

---

By reading Of for 'Or' we gain both in sense and energy. The proof-sheets of my Edition have given me instances of this confusion of or and of.

---

---

Sc. 1.

By reading morn we should get a rime.

---

Both 4tos and folios read "signify I pray you."

---

The reading of the 2nd folio, patterns, the one usually followed, is decidedly wrong. In Spanish patena is a medal worn by country-women about the neck.

---

I think we should read this in the plural, as no particular poet was regarded as the author of this mythe.

---

In reading "ho!" for the how of the original editions, I had been anticipated by Malone.

---

By punctuating thus, we need not read, with Steevens, 'to me.'

---

It might be better, with Pope, to read retain. (See on Two Gent. v. 4, ad fin.)

---

The usual confusion of where and when.

---

A waggish allusion to a story told by Poggio, Ariosto, Rabelais, La Fontaine, and Prior. Our poet probably got it from Rabelais, with whom he was familiar.

---

Sc. 1.

The 2nd folio reads 'a poor thousand,' but the metre is in favour of the original reading, and we meet "What poor an instrument" (Ant. and Cleop. v. 2). It is really surprising to see with what pertinacity editors reject the necessary word He, first supplied by Blackstone.

---

Warburton read stys, as in Temp. i. 2, which is certainly more forcible; but Orlando could not be said to be 'sty'd,' like Caliban.

---

Hanmer added old to 'Duke,' which, however, is not necessary.

---

Sc. 2.

Ros. should probably be Cel. (so also Theobald), and the second 'enough' be rejected.

---

The princess here plays on the similarity of sound between spot and sport, pronounced with the r nearly effaced.

---

Hanmer properly read men.

---

Celia had desired Le Beau to call him; Orlando, seeing two princesses, says 'them'; so the corrections of the critics are needless.

---

Warburton ingeniously, but perhaps needlessly, read our for 'your.'

---

Hanmer read 'here exceeded.'

---

For 'taller' Pope read shorter, Malone smaller, which is the usual reading, as Rosalind was 'the taller.' I feel, however, almost certain that the poet wrote 'less taller,' and have so printed it. We have, "Against the envy of less happier lands" (Rich. II. ii. 1), and no one would object to more taller.

---

Sc. 3.

The 'No,' it will be seen, was transferred to the beginning of the next speech, where it was not wanted; while both sense and metre require it here.

---

Rowe properly read 'father's child.' Sense, taste, and delicacy, alike commend this simple and natural transposition. Some editors, however, think otherwise.

---

For 'safest' Collier's folio reads fastest; we might also read, with Singer, swiftest, like "swiftest expedition" (Two Gent. iii. 1); "in all swift haste" (Tr. and Cr. i. 1). But it is not necessary to alter the text; for safe is, sure, certain, a sense which it retains in the Midland counties. "To take the safest occasion by the front" (Oth. iii. 2).

---

Such was the structure of the time. "My thoughts and I am for this other element" (Jonson, Cynthia's Revels, i. 1). It was the same in French:

Racine, Bajazet, iv. 1.

---

Sc. 1.

As the Duke proceeds to show that he did feel this difference, the text cannot be right. Critics, therefore, for 'not' read but, as these words were frequently confounded by the printers. But then a question arises, was 'the season's difference' any part of 'the penalty of Adam.' In Scripture that penalty was "in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread;" and this was the very penalty that the Duke and his friends did not feel; for we have just been told of them (i. 1) that "they fleet away the time carelessly, as they did in the Golden World." Further, it does not appear that any writer anterior to Milton made the Ovidian change of seasons a part of Adam's penalty. The text may therefore be right, and a line, something like this, have been lost,

---

Upton, most properly, made this the conclusion of the Duke's speech. (See on W. T. v. 1)

---

Pope's change of 'into' to in has been generally followed, but without the slightest reason, by the decasyllabists. I am almost ashamed to say that I have joined them from pure inadvertence.

---

---

The 2nd folio supplied the.

---

---

Sc. 3.

There is either a line lost after these, or we should read 'be in corners thrown,' as I have done. The omission of be was not infrequent.

---

The 'service' in the first line arose from that in the second (See Introd. p. 64). I read fashion; Collier's folio has favour.

---

Such is the reading of the folio—a convincing proof of how little the old printers are to be relied on. Editors, without exception, read seventeen.

---

Sc. 4.

'Weary' is Warburton's correction of merry of the folio.

---

For 'cannot' the 2nd folio has can, the usual reading. Yet I doubt if the change was needed.

---

Johnson read, as every man of sense would read, peas for 'cods.' I have just shown the origin of the change.

---

Sc. 5.

We still say turn a tune and a note. Pope, then, was wrong in reading tune for 'turn.' "When threadbare Martial turns his merry note" (Hall. Sat. vi. 1) was probably in the poet's mind.

---

Sc. 7.

Both sense and metre demand this addition of Theobald's, whom all editors follow. We have the very same omission in

Philaster, ii. 4.

where none of the editors have perceived the loss.

---

There is something wanting here; for in this play the speeches never begin thus with a short line. It is evident also that it is one kind of pride, that of dress, that is spoken of. I therefore read without hesitation 'pride of bravery,' and, three lines further on, wearer's for 'weary,' in which I had been anticipated by Singer.

---

This seems to be a third instance of effacement in a single page of the MS. I would add I marvel.

---

"And in his room not only to eat his fill, but be the lord of the feast." (Lodge, Rosalynde, p. 53.) "They covet not their neighbours' goods; but command all that is their neighbours' as their own." (MS., 1559, ap. Froude, Hist. of Eng. viii. 3.)

---

This is a proper addition of Pope's.

---

Sc. 2.

Though it stands thus in the folio, metre and the usage of the time reject the s.

---

We might read 'fair face,' or, with Rowe, face for 'fair'; which last, however, is the same as fairness; so no change is needed.

---

The 3rd folio properly reads Winter.

---

Rowe read 'a desert'; Tyrwhitt 'silent be.' I rather prefer the latter; but it is against it that, excepting in one of the following and the six last lines, the first foot is always monosyllabic. I have therefore followed Rowe.

---

For 'Or' I read And. (See Note at end of Samson Agonistes in my Edition of Milton's Poems.)

---

The 2nd folio reads 'forth such; Capell read such for 'forth.' Perhaps the first is to be preferred; yet I find I have followed Capell in my Edition.

---

Surely the passage thus gains not only in metre, but in spirit.

---

Sc. 3.

There is apparently an aposiopesis here.

---

Both rime and metre require this addition; yet none of the critics has made it.

---

Sc. 4.

Singer, very unnecessarily and most tamely, reads notable for 'noble.' Printing from his edition, I have heedlessly followed him in mine.

---

---

Sc. 5.

It is quite impossible that this line in its present form could have come from the pen of the poet. He must have seen the absurdity of dying before living, and he could have had no motive for departing from the universal form "live and die," as in "I could live and die in the eyes of Troilus" (Tr. and Cr. i. 2). If we then transpose, and take 'by' in the sense of beside, near, in contact with (Index s. v.), we get excellent sense. 'Dies,' however, may be a printer's error for some other verb—sheds perhaps; and then 'by' may be taken in its ordinary sense. I had also, like Heath, conjectured 'daily lives.'

---

For 'capable' Singer's and Collier's folio read palpable; I have followed them.

For 'Nor' we might perhaps better read And. (See my note on Sam. Agon., 1692.) Still no change is needed.

---

The transposition in the first line removes all necessity for correction. Strange that the critics should not have thought of it! In my Edition the transposition is, "That you insult and all at once exult," which is wrong; but it is there corrected. By reading 'What!' the difficulty found here by critics is removed.

---

In the folio 'Carlot' is printed as a proper name, and it may be the Spanish Carloto. No such substantive as 'carlot' is known.

---

For 'she' we should, I think, read, as I have done, you.

---

The I was supplied in the 2nd folio.

---

Sc. 1.

The use of the word 'found' proves that Hanmer's reading coroners is right. In Twelfth Night (i. 5) the coroner is said to sit on a drowned man.

---

This seems to mean occasioned, caused by her husband. Or we may read, with Hanmer, accusation. I find I have done so, but doubt if I was justified in so doing.

---

Both sense and metre seem to demand this addition.

---

Sc. 3.

Editors, myself included, follow 2nd folio, and omit 'did.' I think we are wrong.

---

I think we should read 'a god.'

---

The necessary insertion was made in the 2nd folio.

---

There may have been, as Malone thought, a line lost here; but I rather think it is an aposiopesis.

---

Sc. 2.

Rowe supplied Her.

---

As 'observance' is the word in the riming line, Collier's folio and Malone read obedience; Heath perseverance; Harness and Singer, whom I find I have followed, endurance.

---

I quite agree with those who read, with Rowe, Who and to.

---

Sc. 3.

Theobald read untimeable, as the reply is "we kept time;" but, as time and tune were synonymous, there seems to be no need of change.

---

Sc. 4.

To give sense here, I read 'their hope' and 'their fear,' and for 'know' hope. In the change of 'they' to their I find I had been anticipated by Heath. The thought is the same as in "In these feared hopes." (Cymb. ii. 4). The printer having made 'they hope,' in order to get some sense, changed the following 'hope' to know, no unusual practice. Yet Mr. Dyce says, "I believe that the line now stands as Shakespeare wrote it." Coleridge thus expresses the same thought:

---

Editors read her for 'his' in both lines. The first change, made in the 3rd folio, is necessary; the second, made by Malone, not so.

---

For 'him' editors very properly, following Rowe, read them; in MS. probably 'em.

---

---

Sc. 1.

For 'it' we should probably read her, or rather on.

---

The 'were' was probably suggested by the preceding ''twere.'

---

Sc. 2.

The metre requires 'should be.'

---

Sc. 3.

---

Sc. 1.

It should be Balt. here and in the next two speeches.

---

Collier's folio reads needlessly 'then, Hero.'

---

For 'though,' which can hardly be right, the usual reading is the, the correction of Johnson, which is very good; the words were easily confounded, especially when though was written tho'.

---

We should expect him; but 'me' may have been the poet's word. For the first 'at' we might perhaps read as.

---

There must certainly be an error either in 'left' or in 'before.' For the latter we might read after; for the former perhaps lent or about. I think the true reading is lent, in which I had been anticipated by Collier's folio. Lend was constantly used in the sense of give. "I can lend you letters to divers officers," etc. (Jonson, Every Man out, etc. iii. 1.) It is not quite out of use yet.

---

For 'County,' which occurs nowhere else in the play, I read Count, which also suits the metre.

---

Sc. 2.

The poet no doubt wrote 'Claudio' here; but from what precedes it certainly should have been Borachio. These slips were not at all unusual with him.

---

Sc. 3.

The originals read 'kid-fox'; but his hiding had just been mentioned, and the name of the game probably alluded to was Hide Fox. Warburton made the correction.

---

Something seems evidently wanting for the sense.

---

Theobald's correction; the old copies have nothing.

---

Perhaps for the sake of metre yonder should be added.

---

I agree with Collier's folio and Singer in reading cries for 'curses,' which was suggested by 'prays.'

---

---

It would perhaps be better to read 'disprove it.'

---

Collier's folio reads 'not choke'; but it is dubious.

---

Sc. 1.

Pope read 'into.'

---

There has probably been an omission of in before 'her.'

---

The proper word is nor, as Capell also saw.

---

Sc. 2.

Both folio and 4to read 'cannot' for 'can,' Pope's correction.

---

This is only in 4to, 1600. We should probably read, as Mason also did, 'all doublet.'

---

For 'fool' we should perhaps read food.

---

That is, like everybody else. Theobald read heels for face, quoting,

(Fletcher, Wild-goose Chase, i. 3)

while Mason proposed feet. But Singer says, referring to Winter's Tale, iv. 3, that the meaning is, she shall be buried in her lover's arms; and I think there is a waggish allusion to nuptial joys.

---

Sc. 1.

For 'thee' we should, I think, read thy or this, as they were pronounced alike, and for 'seem' seem'd, for the same reason.' (See Introd. p. 52.) Pope also read thy, and Hanmer seem'd.

---

I would read in; for 'but,' suggested by 'But,' makes nonsense. I have, however, made no change in my Edition.

---

Sc. 1.

---

For 'wag,' which gives no sense, I would read sway, which gives most excellent sense.

Mer. of Ven. iv. 1.

M. N. D. i. 1.

Ib. ii. 2.

Fletch. Chances, ii. 3.

It seems evident that the initial s of sway was effaced, a thing not unusual. As to the change of y to g, I lately read a work on South America, in which the well-known name Almagro was invariably printed Almayro. 'Cry Hem!' may mean, use the language of rakish youths; "Our watch-word was, Hem boys!" (2 Hen. IV. iii. 2).

---

---

The meaning of 'wake' is not clear; perhaps we should read task. Hanmer read rack; Talbot waste.

---

A printer's error, probably caused in the usual way. We might better read make, though 'bid' makes sense. 'Can I make men live whe'r they will or no?' (2 Hen. VI. iii. 3.)

---

It would seem that something had been lost at the end, the speech terminates so abruptly. We might supply at your pleasure.

---

Mr. Dyce would read 'for they did swear'; but the two dids rather offend the ear.

---

---

Sc. 1.

The metre requires of, which makes the expression more idiomatic. Sir Hugh naturally omits it.

---

The folio reads 'love you'; the correction is Farmer's. So also in Shallow's next speech.

---

Sc. 3.

As "minim's rest" occurs in Rom. and Jul. ii. 1, Langton and Collier's folio would so read here; but it may be, and probably is, a mere blunder of Nym's.

---

The folio reads will; in both places the 4tos have 'well' in the first, and omit it in the last.

---

---

For 'the' we must, with Pope, read this. We have, "For this revolt of thine" (Hen. V. ii. 1). Theobald, whom some critics follow, read mien for 'mine,' which I utterly reject. (See on Two Gent. ii. 4.) I do not think 'revolt' occurs anywhere in the sense of mere change.

---

Sc. 1.

I is the insertion of the 2nd folio; and is perhaps not absolutely necessary, as we might put a (!) after 'beauty.'

---

For 'precision,' which gives but poor sense, we should adopt, as I have done, Johnson's conjecture, physician:

---

Theobald's reading, 'fat men' has been generally and properly adopted. There is a similar omission of fat in 1 Hen. IV. ii. 2. In the 4to she says, "Well, I shall trust fat men the worse while I live for his sake."

---

This is mere nonsense. Boaden's conjecture, Cavalieres, adopted by Singer and myself, seems to be very good; it might easily, with a little effacement, have been mistaken by the printer. We might also, and still better I think, read on heróes, as this last word was thus pronounced at times by Spenser, Chapman, and others; and we have, "Noble heróes, my sword and yours are kin" (All's Well, ii. 1). The metre excludes héroes. Theobald, followed by Dyce, read mynheers, not a Shakespearian term; Steevens on hearts; Malone and hear us. The reading of the 4tos is 'Bully Hector!'

---

Theobald read fealty, Collier's folio has fidelity. I prefer the last; but I make no change.

---

Sc. 2.

Most certainly 'my' should be thy; the confusion is common.

---

Sc. 3.

Mr. Douce, Mr. Dyce, and myself, all independently corrected 'Cried I aim?' and Warburton had proposed Cry aim. The correction might therefore appear to be certain; and yet I am dubious of it. 'Cried game' is the reading of the 4tos, as well as of the folio; and as the first 4to and the folio were printed from independent MSS., it is not at all likely that two transcribers or printers should have fallen into the same error. 'Cried Game? said I well?' would suit the abrupt tone of the Host, and signify, Did I intimate sport?

---

The 4to reads bent for 'beauty'; so the right word may be bend. I have given 'bent'.

---

For 'tyrant' the 4tos read traitor. I have adopted this reading, though dubious of its being the best.

---

So also Capell.

---

The metre proves this to be the right text.

---

I think Hanmer was right in reading uncouple; for 'uncape,' as a term of the chase, is unknown. The final letters of uncouple had probably been effaced in the MS.

---

Sc. 4.

Both sense and metre gain, I think, by this addition. Policy, if nothing else, should make Fenton return the farewell of Mrs. Page. Capell read 'my gentle.'

---

We should certainly read with Hanmer or for 'and.'

---

Sc. 5.

The original copies read 'a blind bitch's'; Hanmer made the obvious transposition.

---

Sc. 2.

The folio has lines. Theobald made the correction. See W. T. ii. 2.

---

The negative was added in the 2nd folio.

---

Sc. 4.

It might be better to read see for 'say.'

---

With Mr. Dyce, I adopt Theobald's reading of tire for 'time,' as best suited to the context.

---

If 'husband' be the subject to 'affects,' as I think he is, we should read him. See Introd. p. 52.

---

Sc. 5.

Collier's folio for 'or' reads and; but the text is right. Simple had used 'conceal' in the sense of reveal, and the Host repeats his word.

---

Sc. 6.

---

Sc. 2.

The word daughter, necessary both for sense and metre, was supplied by the 2nd folio.

---

Sc. 5.

Among the characters given in the heading of this scene, we meet Mrs. Quickly and Pistol; the 4tos have "Mrs. Quickly, like the Queen of Fairies," and prefix Quic. to the following speeches, and it is not said that Anne was to assume that character. The folio heads the speeches with Qui. and Qu. We may therefore say that the poet was oblivious when, in iv. 4. 6, he said that Anne should "present the Fairy Queen;" for throughout she only appears as an ordinary fairy, as is plain by the mistake made by Caius and Slender. The poet seems to have confined the speaking to the elder persons.

---

No one has been able to make any sense of 'orphan-heirs,' which may therefore be treated as a corruption. Warburton read 'ouphen-heirs,' which Singer adopts; but there is no such word as ouphen. My own opinion is that the poet wrote ouphes and heirs; and as in general the d in and is not pronounced, even before vowels, and the ou might easily be mistaken for or, the printer made orphan. The line, we may see, thus forms a parallel to the preceding line. The poet seems to have used 'heirs' in the sense of children. In Fletcher's Mad Lover we have,

In favour of my reading, it may be observed that in iv. 4 and in the following speeches the Ouphes occur, as well as the Elves and Fairies, and nowhere else in Shakespeare.

---

The rime shows that 'toyès' is a dissyllable. In 'unswept' the t should not be sounded, and, I think, not be printed. Unswep is merely the apocopated part, of which examples are so numerous in our language; it is like kep, crep, etc., which, though regarded now as vulgarisms, are grammatically correct. Collier's folio, followed by Mr. Collier and others, reads 'when thou'st leap'd,' a mere result of ignorance of grammar.

---

From what precedes, we might conjecture burn.

---

I have, after Theobald, added here from the 4tos the following lines, of which, however, he did not give the last:—

The play is thus made to end more agreeably, and Falstaff can accept the invitation to supper with a better grace. These lines, it is true, rime, and so are not quite in harmony with the other speeches, whence it seems to follow that the omission was made by the poet. But his judgement in this case must have fallen asleep; for Ford had no right to be so hard on the poor knight, as he had given him the money, or rather we might say forced it on him. As to the rime, we have two other couplets toward the end of the play.

---

Sc. 1.

As a sound breathing is pure nonsense, Pope read south for 'sound'; and, with the exception of Mr. Knight and Mr. Staunton, all the editors, I believe, have followed him. Yet even this correction does not remove the difficulty, for south alone, no more than north, east, or west, is never used of the wind. It seems to me then that the poet wrote south wind, and as the th was usually suppressed in south, north, etc., as sou'-west, sou'-east, the printer pronounced sou wind or, it may be, sou 'ind, which easily became 'sound' in his mind, and so he printed it. (See Introd. p. 67.) It is rather remarkable that this very correction is made by an Anon. in the Cambridge Shakespeare. The same idea, I may observe, occurs in the Antonio and Mellida of Shakespeare's contemporary, Marston (Act I.):

Both were probably indebted to "Her breath is more sweet than a gentle south-west wind, that comes creeping over flowery fields and shadowed waters" in Sidney's Arcadia. For a similar omission of wind, see on Temp. i. 2.

---

---

That is, not for seven summers, possibly with an allusion to racing, as in Win. Tale, i. 2. As the element is the sky, the heaven, we might also read it.

---

That is with Love. We might also transpose, but, I think, with a loss of force. We have an instance of this prefixing of the genitive in Temp. iii. 3.

---

Sc. 2.

This is the judicious transposition of Theobald. The folio has 'sight' in the first, 'company' in the second line, to the manifest injury of the metre.

---

Sc. 3.

Warburton's conjecture of volto for 'vulgo' is ingenious, and may be right, meaning putting on a grave countenance, like a Castilian.

---

It was left to the 3rd folio to supply the needful her.

---

Theobald's indubitable emendation of 'cool my nature' of the folio.

---

This is Pope's correction of 'dam'd coloured' of the folio. Knight reads damask; Collier's folio dun, which is very bad indeed. We meet in other dramatists with straw-, peach-, carnation-colour'd stocks. It is perhaps impossible to recover the right word, yet I see little objection to flame-colour; for if we suppose flame pronounced as in Latin and French (see Introd. p. 74), flame-coloured might easily become 'damn'd (pr. dam) coloured' in the printer's mind. In confirmation we have elsewhere in the folio 'scar-crow,' not 'scare-crow,' and other like words.

---

Sc. 4.

I have read 'in sound'; for and and in are perpetually confounded. I also read 'semblative to.'

---

Sc. 5.

So also Capell.

---

For 'and' I read or, and so did Hanmer.

---

Mason omitted the negative, but perhaps needlessly.

---

This is Warburton's arrangement, the folio giving the whole to Viola. (See on Meas. for Meas. ii. 3.) I have added the sign of the break, which seems necessary.

---

By reading and pointing thus we get most excellent sense, and increase the vivacity and humour of the passage. Mason, whom Singer follows, read "as this presents," which no doubt may be right, but is far less effective.

---

See Introd. p. 55.

---

Capell, who is invariably followed, made it county's. I, however, read, as in iii. 3, 'count his.' With one exception (Mer. of Ven. i. 2), County is peculiar to Romeo and Juliet; formosissima in Much Ado, ii. 1, we should, I think, read Count.

---

Sc. 2.

As it is evident from Malvolio's reply that this was not what Viola said, the negative may have been omitted here, as in so many other places; Malone read 'no ring.' Singer retains the reading of the folio, saying that Viola fibs to "avoid betraying the weakness of Olivia to her steward."

---

The 2nd folio read 'That sure methought.'

---

For 'if,' which is undoubtedly wrong, Tyrwhitt, followed by Steevens and others, read of, which would seem to be confirmed by,

M. for M. ii. 4.

Dryden, Wife of Bath's Tale.

I have printed my own conjecture e'en. Hanmer read ev'n, and yet Tyrrwhitt probably was right, frailty being meant.

---

I quite agree with Mr. Dyce in reading As for 'And' in the second line. These words are confounded even at the present day.

---

Sc. 3.

I suspect 'leg'; for what has it to do here? and Sir Andrew had already praised his own leg.

---

Sc. 4.

---

In Mer. of Ven. i. 4, the folio reads 'well-worn thrift' for the 'well-won thrift' of the 4to. Hanmer was therefore right in reading here won, the usual concomitant of 'lost.'

---

As it is the Clown that goes away, we should perhaps transpose the pronouns, 'Give' being I give. Mr. Dyce, however, says the text is right, it being "a courteous form of dismissal," to which explanation I see no objection.

---

The reply proves that 'It' should be I, as Hanmer corrected.

---

Sc. 5.

This punctuation of Mr. Collier's is excellent.

---

For 'cars we might perhaps read 'car-' or 'cart-ropes.' In iii. 1. we have drawing with "oxen and wain-ropes." Hanmer read by the ears, S. Walker racks.

---

---

We should probably read 'be not.' Hanmer read ben't.

---

It might appear better to read would; but all is right.

Jonson, Sejanus, v. 10.

---

Sc. 1.

It might be better to omit the second 'are.'

---

The negative is absolutely necessary. Collier's folio, Johnson, and Dyce, read 'Not like'; but 'And' should be retained.

---

So the folio reads; Theobald and Tyrwhitt 'wise men folly-fallen.' I agree with them, and have so printed it. Some read 'taints.'

---

---

The usual reading is 'Hides my poor heart'; but this simple change, made also by Delius, fully restores the metre. The printer may, however, have substituted 'Hides' for conceals or covers.

---

Perhaps for 'thy' we should read my.

---

Sc. 2.

The 3rd folio first added thee.

---

I think 'him' should be thee. Ritson read you.

---

Sc. 3.

Here we have an instance of the advantage of transposition, for the folio has "oft good turns." 'Turns' is a dissyllable. Theobald read 'thanks, and oft.'

---

We should surely read latched, i.e. caught, taken. See on M. N. D. iii. 2. Mr. Hunter, I find, read as I do.

---

Sc. 4.

---

Surely the poet's word must have been ounce for the last 'scruple.'

---

Malone proposed 'an hatched,' and he was probably right.

---

---

---

Sc. 3.

So it is in the folio, with the omission of the last letter, which had either been effaced in the MS. or was left out by the printer. Mason seems also to have seen the truth: yet no one followed him!

---

The second line is imperfect. In my Edition I added still (printed, or perhaps written, till), and we might also read closely or truly, i.e. faithfully. 'Whiles' is to be understood as till whiles. (See Index s. v.) We might also end the line with it, and begin the next with That; as while and whiles that occur in Chaucer, Golding, and others.

---

Sc. 1.

We should perhaps read 'bauble-vessel,' as in Tr. and Cr. i. 3.

---

The 2nd folio, which is generally followed, reads pavin, which is a dance, and so could hardly be used of a man.

---

For 'Then' I read 'Thou.' (Introd. p. 68.) Theobald read 'cam'st thou.' In the next line we should probably read as for 'which.'

---

We might read 'In the meantime,' but there is no necessity whatever for change.

---

Sc. 1.

I know of no meaning 'put' has in English that will make any sense here. We must, then, regard it as a misprint; and as a negative is plainly wanting, I read not yet, the negative being, as so frequently, omitted, and 'put' printed for yet. "Why, brother Rivers, are you yet to learn?" (3 H. VI. iv. 4.) Pope read not for 'put.'

---

It is quite evident that part of a line has been lost. The numerous corrections attempted here may be seen in the Cambridge Edition. I supply you add diligence.

---

Something was surely lost here; and as Angelo is constantly called the Deputy, deputation (which occurs a few lines higher) seems to be the missing word.

---

Sc. 2.

---

---

Sc. 3.

For 'propagation' Malone would read prorogation; but the text seems to be right, as 'propagation' was used in the sense of extension, increase.

Massinger, Rom. Actor. i. 3.

And portions—as we learn by Sir Moth Interest in Jonson's Magnetic Lady—used to double in seven years. The same play would also justify Malone's reading, as guardians were not always willing to part with dowers in their hands. Perhaps for 'of a dower' we should read 'of her dower,' for the h in her not being pronounced, and the r but slightly, the printer might easily make the mistake; so also 'coffer' should probably be 'coffers.'

---

Sc. 4.

In the second line Becomes was added by Pope, or rather by Davenant, and it has been adopted by subsequent editors. Yet the poet may have written, and I think did write, 'the rod is' and 'More mocked at.'

---

---

---

---

Sc. 5.

For 'story' Singer would read sport; but 'me' may be 'to me,' and her meaning be, seek not to impose on me.

---

---

As in and and are so frequently confounded (see on iii. 2 ad fin.) I would read in for 'and' in the last line.

---

Sc. 1.

---

---

We have a similar sentiment in Cymb. v. 1. As of ice and of vice are pronounced exactly alike, we may safely assume the latter to be the true reading. The whole difficulty then lies in 'brakes.' A brake was certainly, as we are told, a frame to confine restless or vicious horses in when shoeing; but when it is added that it is also an instrument of torture, I become somewhat dubious. At any rate no one would say a rack or a gibbet of vice; so why a brake of vice? I incline then, but with hesitation, to think that we should read wreaks o' vice. We have "wreak the love" (R. and J. iii. 5); "wreak our wrongs." (Tit. And. iv. 3.) I put the ambiguous o', because wreak takes on rather than of after it.

---

For 'by the,' the usual correction (which I have followed) is 'by your.' Mr. Collier thinks 'by this' might be better; for this and your were used promiscuously. Either might easily be confounded with the. (See Introd. p. 68.)

---

Sc. 2.

This apparently necessary transposition was made by S. Walker. The folio reads "But might you."

---

Here back is the proper addition made in the 2nd folio.

---

---

As the first 'were' may have been caused by the second, I would, like Warburton, read for it are. In "We cannot cross the cause why we were born" (L. L. L. iv. 3), the folio reads 'are born.'

---

So it stands in the folio, and Pope was, it may be, right in reading 'If the first man,' but we might also read, and perhaps better, as I have done, 'the edict did.'

---

For 'now' I felt inclined to read new, with Pope, but I prefer 'now born,' and so I have printed it. (See on All's Well, ii. 3.)

---

We should for 'here' either read where, or better, with Hanmer, ere.

---

---

Lyly, Campaspe, ii. 2.

---

---

In all the English versions of the Scriptures anterior to the Authorized one, sicle is the word, from siclus of the Vulgate, by which the Hebrew shekel is rendered. Shakespeare therefore knew nothing of this last, and must of course have written sickle. Yet all editors, the Cambridge and myself included, have adopted Pope's correction, shekel, for which all are highly to blame. The word 'tested' proves that Gen. xxiii. 16 was in the poet's mind.

---

It would be simpler and better to read: "Would laugh themselves all mortal."

---

---

---

Sc. 3.

Editors follow Warburton in reading flames for 'flaws'; but as flaw is defect, weakness, the text may be right. Flaw is also gust, blast of wind, which also might make some sense here. We should, then, perhaps read 'flaw.'

---

For 'spare' Collier's folio reads serve.

---

So Ritson properly arranges. It is evident that the names and May, which I and Steevens have added, were effaced in the MS. In Twelfth Night (i. 5) we have a similar effacement of names of speakers. In the following line 'love' should be law, a change made by Hanmer.

---

Sc. 4.

The folio has 'fear'd'; the correction is Warburton's. It is a most unusual use of 'sear'd' in the sense of dry; sear would seem less strange. So Heath also thought.

---

Pope read 'but blood'; Malone 'still blood.'

---

It might be better to read, with Malone, moulds instead of 'means.'

---

---

Here 'or' is a correction by Davenant and Rowe of and of the folio.

---

---

As Shakespeare has used 'morn' elsewhere but once in a compound, it were better, as the metre requires, to read 'morning', as Hanmer also read.

---

Editors read 'craftily'; we might also read 'seeming.' "Or seeming so in skill" (Winter's Tale, ii. 1); but no change is necessary. The folio has 'that's'; hence the reading of the editors, the Cambridge included.

---

The word 'enshield' occurs nowhere else. It is of course, as Steevens says, enshielded, covered with a shield. To this there is no very great objection; but as elsewhere (Cor. iv. 6) the poet has 'inshell'd,' i.e. covered with a shell, it might be better to read so here also, as I find Tyrwhitt has done.

---

So I think we should read, and not 'displayed' and with the metric accent on 'me.' Perhaps also for 'beauty' we should read itself.

---

There is no need, with Johnson and others, to change 'loss'; it is quite correct. (See Index s. v. 'Lose.')

---

Sense and metre alike demand the negative, which had evidently been effaced. Steevens also read 'akin.'

---

"A very obscure passage," says Mr. Dyce, "in which Rowe printed 'by weakness,' and Malone proposes 'this weakness.' (On 'fedary' see Richardson's Dictionary, sub Federal.)" And this is all this noted critic has to say! For my part I do not regard this passage as by any means past cure, and I think that Warburton came very near the true sense. The main point is to ascertain the exact meaning of fedary. "Federy and federary," says Richardson, "in Shakespeare are the same word differently written (having no connexion whatever with Feud or Feudatory), and signify a colleague, associate, or confederate;" and he refers to Minshew, s. v. Feodarie. Now Minshew's words are "Feodarie alias Feudaris alias Feudatrie, Feudelarius, is an office authorized by the Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries by letters patent, and under the seal of that office," etc. Cotgrave has "A feodarie, feudal, feodal, feudataire;" in both of which places I think the "connexion with Feud and feudatory" is very apparent; and the last convinces me that a fedary or feodary was a vassal, a liegeman; and that, I have no doubt, is its sense in this place? and in Cymb. iii. 2, where it again occurs, as I shall there show. I do not think Richardson was at all justified in making, as he seems to do, fedary a different word from feodary. There was also feodar a vassal, "For seventeen kings were Carthage feodars." (Marston. Sophon. Prol.) It must strike every one of taste with surprise that Shakespeare should have written such a leonine verse as

And further, whether 'fedary' be vassal or confederate, the person should be mentioned to whom he stood in that relation. In the former sense—the only true one—that person must be either Heaven or the Duke, which was omitted by the printer. I am in favour of the former, both for metre-sake and because we have elsewhere, "The rest of your fees, O Gods! the senators of Athens" (Tim. iii. 5); and "God's vassals drop and die" (Hen. V. iii. 2). I read thus:—

Isabella replies at once, fully assenting to Angelo's observation. After a brief pause, she is proceeding to reason on the subject, when he interrupts her. We may observe that 'owe' and 'succeed' are legal terms, which here form a hysteron-proteron, like some other common phrases. Perhaps, indeed, we might transpose them; for Isabella is speaking quite calmly and composedly. The change of 'thy' to this is perfectly legitimate; and to may have been omitted or effaced after 'succeed.'

---

The same addition was proposed by Mr. Seymour.

---

Though this addition is not absolutely necessary, it gives such force to the sentiment that I willingly believe it may have come from the poet's pen.

---

Sc. 1.

No doubt 'dost' may make some sense here, but do, or rather, as more Shakesperian, doth, makes far better sense. In Son. xxxix. there is the very same confusion of dost and doth.

---

Johnson read affects, which seems to be better.

---

There might seem to be no need of adding anything here. But we may see that there is not an end of a paragraph. (See Introd. p. 82.) I therefore read, 'And Death in fine.'

---

No sense has been made of 'as aged,' which may therefore be regarded as corrupt. As in Tr. and Cr. v. 3, as lawful should be unlawful, I have here read in my Edition engaged (also the reading of Mr. Staunton) in the sense of dependent, in subjection, the ordinary state of youth under the authority of parents and elders, depending on them for money, etc. We might perhaps read as gaged in the same sense, if we had examples. The Cambridge editors propose abased, which is good, and might easily have become 'as aged.' Possibly the poet wrote an abject, as we have, "We are the Queen's abjects" (Rich. III. i. 1), and "I will make thee stoop, thou abject" (Jonson, Ev. Man Out, etc., v. 3), "That thou wilt never let me live to be An abject" (Chapman, Hymn to Venus, v. 312), "Yea, the very abjects" (Ps. xxxv. 15).

---

For 'Yet,' caused by the other two, I read Yea; for 'moe' some, not more, as is usual, and which makes no sense.

---

For 'sir' Mason, with whom I agree, reads son. Further on in the scene the Duke calls him 'son.' (See on Cor. iii. 2.) It was perhaps the following line that suggested 'sir' to the printer.

---

So Steevens read, transposing the 'them' and 'me' of the folio; and later editors have properly followed him.

---

This is the proper arrangement. Editors usually omit the first 'most good,' to get their favourite decasyllabic verse, heedless of the loss of force.

---

It appears to me that a negative is required to make the passage more correct and natural; and we know how frequently it is omitted in these plays. Here, however, I think, 'a' has been printed in its place (see on Twelfth Night, ii. 2), for the compositor probably did not pronounce the t in 'cannot,' and so made it 'can a.' I therefore read, 'I cannot resolution fetch.' Heath takes 'Think you' as imperative, not interrogative, like Bethink you.

---

It might seem better to read By than 'In'; but it is not safe to meddle with prepositions. See on iv. 4.

---

It is the falcon, not the fowl, that is enmewed. Would that every correction were as certain as that which I have made here! I read, with the fullest confidence, enew. (See Index s. v.) It is a most curious circumstance that in this place of the MS. I unconsciously wrote bud for 'head,' a correction which was afterwards given in Notes and Queries (3rd S. v. 229), and had, I believe, been previously proposed by Grey. If 'head' be the right reading, it may signify the state of bloom. "That unmatch'd form and feature of blown youth" (Ham. iii. 1).

---

So the passage stands in the folio. As there is no such word known in English as 'prenzie,' the 2nd folio read princely, Hanmer priestly, which Mr. Dyce adopts. I think, however, that the German Tieck hit on the right word, precise, and I have so printed it without hesitation. We have had already, "Lord Angelo is precise" (i. 4), "is severe" (ii. 1), and "well-seeming" (iii. 1); but it is nowhere said that he was princely or priestly, and surely the guards or bindings of a dress could hardly be so termed. As to the change of accent, which Mr. Dyce makes an objection, a reader of our old poets should be ashamed to urge it, it is of such frequent occurrence, and it occurs more than once in this very play. In i. 2 we actually have "précise villains," and "A sort of sober, scurvy, precise neighbours" (Jonson, Alch. i. 1). (See Introd. p. 80.) I further think we should read 'bodies,' and with Collier's folio garbs, which being spelt garbes differs only in one letter from 'gardes.' As the latter were mere bindings, edgings, facings, they could hardly be said to cover a body. The infinitives 'invest' and 'cover' are used (as so frequently) where we now use a participle with an article. See Introd. p. 70.

---

For 'Yes' the metre demands I will, as I have printed it. See Introd. p. 68.

---

The folio reads perjury; 'penury' is the correction of the 2nd folio.

---

---

Sc. 2.

The folio reads away. Theobald's correction, 'array,' is self-evident.

---

Both metre and sense require Neither.

---

I adopt Grey's reading, to't for 'trot.' He has just asked a question, and he is repeating it.

---

---

With Theobald I read 'ungenerative.'

---

---

The folio has deare; the obvious correction is Hanmer's.

---

With Hanmer I read not for 'now.'

---

The metre requires this addition, which also relieves the Provost's speech from abruptness.

---

The folio reads Sea. This wrong spelling was not unusual. In King John (iii. 1) we have 'holy Sea' used of Canterbury. As 'See' never occurs thus alone, we might read 'the Holy See,' or rather, as I have done, "the See of Rome;" "I Pandulph ... Legate from the See of Rome." (Old Play of King John.) For a similar effacement see Ant. and Cleop. ii. 4.

---

The last line is evidently corrupt. I would read,

in which I had been anticipated by Johnson. We have more than one instance of in being effaced in the beginning of a line; and such having been the case here, the printer, to get some appearance of sense, converted the remaining 'in' to and—also a usual change. 'To know,' 'to stand,' 'to go,' are equivalent to knowing, etc. (See Introd. p. 70.) For 'know,' I, as well as Mr. Staunton, had conjectured show; but no change is needed.

---

"A passage," says Mr. Dyce, "in which it seems hopeless to ascertain what the poet really wrote." At all events, by omitting 'To' in the third line we get excellent sense, and what more need we require? After I had made this simple emendation, I learned, to my great surprise—for the editors gave no heed to it—that I had been anticipated in it by Theobald. 'Draw' in the third line connects with 'may' in the first; but the printer, taking 'practice' for a verb, added 'To' to try to make sense. For 'making practice,' see on All's Well, iv. 2. 'Likeness' is simulation: "Do not assume my likeness," i.e. pretend to be like me. (Tim. iv. 3.) "Thou simular of virtue." (Lear iii. 2.) The poet probably wrote 'crime' and 'time.'

---

Sc. 1.

Capell, I think rightly, arranges thus:

Transpositions of this kind, made by the printers, are not uncommon. (See on Tr. and Cr. v. 2.) Capell read 'on him.'

---

So Pope also conjectured.

---

I incline to read their. The 2nd folio added s to 'quest.'

---

Warburton properly read tilth.

---

Sc. 2.

I quite agree with those who make this part of Abhorson's speech.

---

Mr. Singer reads 'seldom-when' as one word, and quotes in defence of it seldom-time, any-when, seldom-what; and he might have added seld-when, from Gower's Conf. Amantis. In any case, 'Tis seems wanting before it, as in "'Tis seldom when the bee doth leave her comb" (2 Hen. IV. iv. 4).

---

The printer, by a most common error, omitted re in unresisting. Surely the critics in general should have seen this, as Rowe did.

---

The folio reads 'lord's man'; but both sense and metre require the correction adopted by the editors, after Pope.

---

So Pope. The folio transposes 'Is' and 'It.' (See on Two Gent. ii. 4.)

---

So I should have printed it, but did not.

---

Hanmer also added here.

---

Sc. 3.

---

Persons are not continued. Perhaps we should read 'continue to keep.'

---

I adopt Hanmer's emendation, 'under' for 'yond' of the folio. "The under-generation," says Mr. Dyce, "is the human race that dwells under heaven." In Timon (i. 1) we have "this beneath-world," i.e. this world under heaven.

---

---

Surely the correct reading is well. So also Rowe.

---

---

The punctuation of the first line, which is that given by the editors, while aiming at sense, makes it unreadable. We should read "Pace, if you can, your wisdom." Or, retaining this line unaltered, we might in the third line read Then for 'And.' (See on M. N. D. ii. 1.)

---

As 'combined' makes no good sense, we might read constrained. "But other vows constrain another course" (Marston Ant. and Mel. II. v. 6). Perhaps the word was confined, in the sense of limited, held in.

---

Sc. 4.

There is evidently something wrong here. What is the meaning of 'dares?' Mr. Singer says overawes (as larks?), and in proof of 'no' being crying No, he quotes: "I wear a sword to satisfy the world no" (Fletch. Chances, iii. 4). "I am sure he did it for I charged him no" (Id. Wife for Month, iv. 3). In the next line Mr. Dyce reads so, others such, for 'of.' My own decided opinion is, that in the first line the poet wrote saies (says), which of course, being written with a long s in the beginning, might easily be taken for 'dares.' 'Says her no,' then, is forbids her, as in "Who shall say me Nay?" (1 H. IV. iii. 1); "God defend his Grace should say us Nay" (Rich. III. iii. 7); and in this play (ii. 2), "Did I not tell thee Yea?" In the second line I would omit 'of.' See on Rich. II. v. 1; Cymb. iii. 5.

---

For 'By' we should apparently read For; yet in Jeronimo (ii. 1) we have:—

Either, then, the printers made the same confusion in both places, or by was used in the sense of for.

---

Sc. 5.

In 'Valentius' an n may have been omitted.

---

Sc. 6.

---

Something had evidently been lost at the end of the second line. Perhaps also we should read 'The most generous.'

---

Sc. 1.

For 'here' we might read hear; but no change is needed.

---

Perhaps it should be 'truer.'

---

---

---

It is your in the 1st folio; the correction was made in the 2nd.

---

---

---

---

For his in the second line we should certainly read your.

---

---

---

---

---

In the folio 'so deserv'd.'

---

The poet may have written 'gratulating,' and the final letters have been effaced. The meaning, however, is the same.

---

Sc. 1.

Both sense and metre require so, given in Collier's folio.

---

Sc. 2.

The third line has apparently no sense. The critics say 'let' is detain; but no instance of its use in that sense is to be found. We might read sit, which occurs in the sense of stay, dwell, live, as "I sit at ten pounds a week" (Mer. Wives, i. 3); and we have "and sit him down and die" (2 Hen. IV. iii. 1). We might also, and still better, read set, which has nearly the same sense, settled, seated: "Being unarm'd and set in secret shade" (F. Q. vi. 3, 8). "Whoever shoots at him, I set him there" (All's Well, iii. 2). In Fletcher's Nice Valour (iv. 1) Heath, followed by Dyce, reads sets for 'lets' in "That lets it out, only for show or profit." 'Gest' (from giste, gîte, Fr.?) is used of the halting-places on a royal progress. Singer quotes from Strype a request from Cranmer to Cecil, "to let him have the new-resolved upon gests from that time to the end, that he might know from time to time where the king was." Hence it would appear that there was a program of the gests, stating the time of arrival at and departure from each of them. I have therefore read 'gest-day,' supposing the last word, as usual, to have been effaced. See Introd. p. 58.

---

I read soe'er for 'she.' "What bloody work soe'er" (Othel. iii. 3).

---

The usual reading is 'no nor,' that of the 2nd folio.

---

---

The phraseology here is evidently that of the race-course, where a heat is a race. I read 'we heat us.' The phrase is elliptic, the full phrase being 'We heat us by running over an acre of ground.'

---

So I would point, with Steevens; in the folio it is "May it be affection?" The whole passage is rather obscure. 'Affection' is imagination, fancy (see Index s. v.); and the meaning seems to be that it stretches to (expressed by intention), and stabs, or pierces, even the centre of the earth.

---

The folio reads 'methoughts,' and a MS. correction, followed by Mr. Collier, my thoughts; but 'recoil' is always a neuter verb in Shakespeare.

---

---

---

This is the reading of the 2nd folio also.

---

Hen. VIII. ii. 2.

With Collier's folio, I read a for 'her.' The error, suggested by the preceding 'her,' is an ordinary one with printers.

---

In Florio a cataract in the eye is termed "a pin and a web."

---

---

The 'appointed him' of the folio is a strange expression.

---

This, if correct, would seem to mean exorcise his thought, try to banish it.

---

How could his expedition or haste to depart comfort the queen? It would seem to have the contrary effect, as tending to prove her guilt. For 'and' in the third line we might, with Singer, read God, or, as I have done, with Hanmer, Heaven. The insertion of love in the first line seems necessary.

---

Sc. 1.

---

---

For 'is' it might be better to read was. The change was not unusual.

---

Has might seem to have been the poet's word.

---

'Federary' is an unknown word. It may be a printer's error for federate; but I rather think—as I find that Malone, followed by Singer and Dyce, reads, and which is also more metrical—that the right word is fedary, to be taken in the same sense as in Meas. for Meas. and Cymb. As Polyxenes is styled 'her principal,' the meaning may be that she (and Camillo 'with her') had transferred her allegiance to him.

---

---

As 'land-damn' seems to be an unknown term, it might be better to read, with Collier's folio, lamback, derived perhaps from lambiccare, It. There is also a vulgar term lambaste. 'Damn' was probably suggested by the same word in the preceding line.

---

Sc. 3.

---

We might also read it; or, with Pope, 'This good speed.'

---

Sc. 2.

---

We might be inclined to read plead for 'prate'; but no change is required.

---

I read 'have I Strain'd to appear thus?' in which I had been anticipated by Hanmer. An 'uncurrent encounter' was an unusual kind of meeting; and 'strain'd' signifies pulled against the line of my duty as a wife—a metaphor taken from dogs in a leash—

It might also signify, acted indecorously, "Unless he know some strain in me that I know not myself." Merry Wives, ii. 1.

---

So also Hanmer corrected.

---

If we read 'left to itself' we might get better sense.

---

So we may best punctuate, with Hanmer. We might perhaps read 'For life,' as above.

---

The 2nd folio reads 'certain hazard.'

---

See above, i. 2. Introd. p. 55.

---

---

Sc. 3.

So Rowe also.

---

I think we should read 'maid-child', a term we meet with in Pericles, v. 3. We have man-child in Cor. i. 3, and in the Bible. I made the correction without being aware of the passage in Pericles.

---

In the folio it is mad; but this correction, given by Theobald, is indubitable.

---

---

This is evidently one of the cases in which 'that' has taken the place of than, then. See Introd. p. 68.

---

Sc. 1.

I adopt Theobald's reading of and for 'but.'

---

Sc. 2.

---

Sc. 3.

For 'sworn' Theobald, followed by Singer and Dyce, reads swoon; but the text is right; 'myself' is simply me:

Rich. III. i. 2.

King John, v. 7.

---

---

So also Hanmer read. (See on Temp. ii. 1.) The folio has 'must be necessities.'

---

---

A syllable is lost apparently. We might add hither or to us at the end, or, as I have done,'you're welcome.' Malone would read 'welcome, sir,' which sounds rather flat. Mr. Collier observes that "Shakespeare [i.e. the printer?] was a better judge of verse than Mr. Malone."

---

An epithet, probably yellow, which I have given, has evidently been lost here. All the other flowers, we may see, have epithets. Coleridge also saw the want, and supplied golden. How ill-qualified he was for emendatory criticism! Hanmer's early was much better.

---

---

Collier's folio makes a natural and obvious correction, reading 'so fairly.' The usual reading is that of Steevens, a transposition of 'peeps' and 'fairly,' and I have retained it.

---

Here again the same folio makes the correction says for 'seems'; yet it is not very necessary.

---

This is probably the genuine text; but 'wakes her blood. Look on it!' the reading of Collier's folio, is very plausible. It is strange that neither Singer nor Dyce notice this reading. They read with Theobald 'look out.'

---

Steevens, quoting passages from Drayton, explains 'feeding' in the sense of pasture, and Mason explains 'worthy' as valuable, substantial; but neither is convincing. I would, with Hanmer, read 'breeding:'

Fletcher, Monsieur Thomas, i. 1.

In reading 'I have it but' for 'but I have it' of the folio, I am supported by Hunter and Singer.

---

Hanmer and Mason would read 'the other,' and so we should say now; but there is no need of change. It was, in fact, the language of the time; we should still say, "they love one another."

---

---

Grey proposed Charm for 'Clamour,' and in Othello (v. 2) we have the very phrase, "charm your tongue." But, as far as I have observed, charm in this sense is used only by characters of the educated class. Singer says 'clamour' here is a mere corruption of chamour, chaumer, or chaumbre, from the French chômer, 'to refrain,' and he adds, "Mr. Hunter has cited a passage from Taylor, the water-poet, in which the word was thus again perverted:—'Clamour the promulgation of your tongue.'" For my own part I think that, except in orthography, the text is right. The real word was probably clammer or clemmer, the same as the simple clam or clem, to squeeze or press, and the phrase answers to Hold your tongues. "To clam a bell," says Johnson, "is to cover the dapper with felt, which drowns the blow and hinders the sound." As for the extract from Taylor, I attach little importance to it, as he probably adopted the word from this very passage. See on Rom. and Jul. iii. 3.

---

The folio places 'sir' at the end of the speech; but the metre requires the transposition, which also makes the reply run more naturally. I neglected to make it in my Edition.

---

In Romeo and Juliet (iii. 3) we have, "Let me dispute with thee of thy estate;" but in Jonson's Fox, iii. 2,

---

'Far' is an old form for farther, as near is of nearer. (See Rich. II. iii. 2, v. 1.) We need not then read farther, nor, with Johnson, 'Far as.'

---

The folio has 'hope,' the orthography of the time.

---

---

---

For 'our' the folio reads her, probably from the preceding line. Theobald made the correction.

---

The folio has there for 'the.' The correction was made in the 3rd folio.

---

---

Hanmer added the negative.

---

---

Sc. 1.

The folio gives 'True' to the King. See on As You Like It, ii. 1. Ant. and Cleop. ii. 2.

---

---

In the third line I adopt, with Mr. Dyce, the certain, as I think, emendation of Mr. Spedding, 'Where we offend her,' and I join 'now' with it. Offender and offend her are pronounced exactly alike, and 'we' caused the printer to add s. In the last line 'such,' caused by that in the preceding line, is superfluous, and should be omitted.

---

---

I would read, as I find Thirlby read, her for the second 'his,' caused probably by the first.

---

The 2nd folio reads needlessly 'as friend.'

---

This last word, added by Singer, is required both by sense and metre.

---

---

---

---

Sc. 3.

Hanmer properly read Or for 'On.'

---

---

So it should be punctuated. The folio reads 'whom,' confounding, as usual, who and whom; of which there are other instances in this play. See Introd. p. 59.

---

Sc. 1.

This is, beyond question, "the confused noise within," and not the exclamation of Gonzalo, of whose family we hear nothing. Speaking behind the scenes was not unusual.

---

As the epithets are here most inappropriate, we should probably transpose them, as I have done (see on iv. 1); for heath is brown, and "they were in a clump or cluster of tall furze," says Scott (Redgauntlet, ch. xvi.). We might also transpose the substantives (see on Twelfth Night, i. 2, and on M. N. D. ii. 1). Hanmer proposed to read "Ling, heath, broom, furze;" and this reading Mr. Dyce adopts; but ling was probably a word unknown to the poet, and it is only another name for heath.

---

Sc. 2.

If 'creature' is not a collective, it is a misprint for 'creatures.'

---

Pope read, I think correctly, 'A princess.' We have, "And marriage" for "A marriage" (Hen. VIII. ii. 4). See also on Jul. Cæs. v. 2.

---

We should perhaps read 'a stranger.'

---

So also Ritson. See Rom. and Jul. i. 1.

---

---

As the plural of 'princess' does not occur in Shakespeare, and a plural seems required here, I suspect that 'princess' may be a collective. (See Introd. p. 70.) For 'hours' we might read joys, i.e. enjoyments. Still the passage may be as the poet wrote it.

---

I am not sufficiently versed in astrology to determine whether 'zenith' be right or not.

---

Like the subsequent "Why, that's my spirit!" and "That's my noble master!" So also Hanmer.

---

---

This is undoubtedly the proper arrangement.

---

So we should arrange the whole passage.

---

Steevens made the same addition.

---

As north, south, etc., were not used alone of the wind, I have added wind, which also gives energy to the expression, which is tame and feeble, if the metric accent fall on 'ye.' See on Twelfth Night, i. 1.

---

---

Steevens properly made this a parenthesis. 'Whist' is whisted, hushed. "The moisting air was whist, no leaf ye could have moving seen." Golding, Ovid, p. 81.

---

---

---

For 'nor' Steevens read or; we might also read and or nay; but perhaps it is as it was written. For 'are,' too, the proper word would be were.

---

Sc. 1.

I make the transposition of "So have we all—of joy," in the second line boldly; for surely neither Shakespeare nor any other writer would put a parenthesis between a noun and its genitive. Gonzalo is speaking quite calmly, and without any perturbation. We have an exactly similar printer's error in

Ant. and Cleop. iii. 10.

Wint. Tale, iv. 3.

See also Hen. VIII. iii. 1.

---

The word 'merchant' occurs here in two different senses; and when this play was written Shakespeare had long since abstained from such practices. One of them, therefore, must belong to the printer; if the first, then we might, and I think should, read vessel, if the second, owner. 'Merchant' certainly occurs in the sense of merchantman. See B. and F. Coxcomb, i. 3.

---

Theobald's arrangement; the folio gives 'So,' etc., to Seb.

---

Possibly the poet wrote receive, which seems more appropriate.

---

The editors in general read, with Malone, she'd for 'should'; but surely she was not the balance. We get very good sense by omitting either 'at' or 'o'; in my Edition I have, as Pope had done, omitted the latter; for o', or of, was sometimes added by the printers. (See on M. for M. iv. 4.) 'Weigh'd' is pondered.

---

Editors have taken strange liberties with the whole of this passage. Here they omit 'Bourne.'

---

It is very strange that none of the editors should have seen that the negative had been effaced or omitted. Surely the very last thing that Antonio could have wished was that he should hear them; and how could he if he went to sleep? Not, we may also see, is required by the metre. The latter part may be a half-aside.

---

---

---

Perhaps to complete the measure and improve the sense we should add, I say. The folio spells 'throes' throwes.

---

Though in my Edition I have not altered the text, I think we should read 'from whom coming' with Singer; 'we were all,' and 'cast up.' Musgrave proposed 'destin'd,' which is probably right. Rowe, followed by the other editors, omitted 'that' in the first line.

---

I must confess I do not clearly understand this passage. Surely as he was, as he had just said, in actual possession of Milan, his conscience could not 'stand' between him and it. Perhaps, however, we are to view 'stand' as in the conjunctive mood, and expressing a condition. Neither do I see clearly the meaning of 'candied' and 'melt' in this place.

---

Pope's reading, verity, is most certain. "'Tis verity, I assure you" (Mass. New Way, etc. i. 1).

---

Sc. 2.

---

Theobald, in my mind most properly, proposed sea-mells, of the existence of which term Malone and Reed have given abundant proofs; by the usual change of l to w we have sea-mew, the term now in use. Yet some editors persist in retaining the old printer's error, as limpets are in some places called scams or scammels, not reflecting that old limpets are to be preferred. Mr. Dyce reads staniels, after another conjecture of Theobald's.

---

In the folio it is 'trenchering,' caused by the participles in the preceding line.

---

Sc. 1.

The first line here is short, which it should not be, as it does not begin or end a paragraph. (See Introd. p. 82.) We should therefore arrange thus:

It is very remarkable that I never noticed this until after my Edition had been printed. However, I rectified it in the corrections.

---

This punctuation removes all difficulty. The entrance of Miranda causes him to break off.

---

The folio reads peetiesse. It escaped the Camb. editors.

---

Though, as Malone has shown, this construction is quite correct, still, as Pope also saw, the metre demands 'than I would suffer.' In the Maid's Tragedy (iv. 2) we have

where we must either read 'fit for,' or 'should fight,' to make any sense.

---

---

---

Sc. 2.

Perhaps for 'As' we should read An.

---

The first sentence here belongs, I think, to Stephano's last speech. See on As You Like it, ii. 1.

---

Sc. 3.

The folio has 'islands.' So in the Queen of Corinth (iii. 1), "Our neighbour islands would make of us." In both places sense and metre alike require islanders.

---

---

---

We should perhaps read on for 'of'; or, with Thirlby and Malone, transpose 'five' and 'one,' of which both Gifford and Dyce approved. Yet it may be that no change is necessary, for of and on are constantly used interchangeably, and o' stands for both. The 'of' of the text may, however, have been caused by the initial letter of the following word.

---

Mason arranged thus:—

Mr. Dyce properly rejects this arrangement, but on the last line he observes "They cannot with any propriety be reduced to a single line." Was Mr. Dyce unaware of the existence of six-foot lines in these plays? The true reason for rejecting this arrangement is, that in this play Shakespeare does not employ couplets.

---

The first folio has 'up you'; the necessary and obvious transposition was made in the fourth. Some editors, most unjustifiably, throw out 'you.'

---

For 'dowle' I read with confidence down, believing it to be a printer's error for dowlne, a mode of spelling down:

2 Hen. IV. iv. 2, fol.

Singer refers to dictionaries, etc., of the 17th century for the use of dowle; but they all probably found it only in this place.

---

Sc. 1.

For 'third,' which might easily have been a printer's error for thrid, i.e. thread, editors in general follow Theobald in reading this last word. It is easy to conceive how Miranda might be regarded as a thread or integral portion of her father's life, but not how she could be a third of it.

---

Of course Shakespeare wrote 'of her.' The editors, without, I believe, an exception, have 'boast her off'—a phrase unknown to the poet—introduced by the editor of the 2nd folio, who had little or no idea of emendation by transposition.

---

As it is difficult to make any good sense here of 'can' alone, we should perhaps read 'can make', or 'can give,' making 'Genius' a trisyllable, and the line of six feet.

---

---

'Banks' may be either the margins of streams or hillocks, or slight elevations of land; but 'brims,' which can only be the edges or margins of hollows, shows that it is the former that is meant. 'Pioned' seems to be a word of Shakespeare's own creation; for, finding the word pioneer in common use, and pyonings—a word of Spenser's coinage—in the Faerie Queen (ii. 10. 63) signifying defences, the work of pioneers, he thought himself at liberty to form a verb pion. This is generally taken to mean dig; and 'twilled' is supposed to be a term transferred from cloth, etc., and signifying ridged; and so the passage is made to mean dug, and laid out in ridges, which, however, hardly accords with the context. Steevens, on the other hand, read 'pioned and lilied'; but neither the piony nor the lily can properly be regarded as a wild flower (though the former is said to grow on the Severn), and such only could be meant here. Others again for 'twilled' read tilled, or give strange meanings to 'twilled.' My own opinion is, that the sense which Shakespeare gave to his 'pioned' was fenced, and that 'twilled' was a printer's error. We may observe that 'and twilled' is pronounced an twilled, which differs very slightly in sound from 'and willow'd.' (See Introd. p. 52.) By reading, then, "Thy banks with pioned and willow'd brims" we get most excellent sense, the idea in the poet's mind being the bank of a stream, fenced, as it were, and secured against overflow, with a range of willows along its edge, and 'betrimmed,' i.e. adorned, with primroses, violets, and other wild flowers; for "April showers bring forth May flowers." I have not hesitated to make this correction in my Edition.

---

In my Edition I have here transposed the adjectives (See on i. 1). We are to take 'cold,' as so frequently, in the sense of cool, which agrees well with flowers growing on the edge of a stream, while it seems absurd to term them 'chaste.' 'Nymphs' is evidently maidens; for if the Naiades were meant there would be an article.

---

This must be the right reading, as the folio has gras'd. Some would read graz'd, which can hardly be right.

---

For 'broom' Hanmer read brown, which I have adopted; though contrary to my rule (see Introd. p. 51), as I have met no earlier authority for this use of brown than Milton. The poet's word may have been broad or trim. The broom never attains a height to justify the terming it a 'grove.' Dyer, a good authority, has in his Fleece "low-tufted broom," and Bloomfield (Rural Tales) "tufts of green broom," both using the proper term. I doubt if 'grove' is ever used of any but forest-trees.

---

No one has ever made, or can make, sense of this. For 'Spring' Collier's folio reads Rain—no great improvement. The fact is, as the context plainly shows, that the poet's word was Shall. With this simple change the whole passage becomes clear and grammatical, and forms a parallel to the fairy-blessing at the end of Mids. Night's Dream.

---

Some copies of the folio read 'wife' for 'wise'; which has become the general reading, even that of the Cambridge Edition. I prefer, as more Shakespearian, the other reading, which is also that of all the succeeding folios.

---

---

The word in the folio is windring; so it is doubtful whether we should read winding or wandering. 'Sedg'd' may have been sedge; for the sound is exactly the same in this place.

---

The folio reads "my son, in a moved sort."

---

This is undoubtedly the true reading. The folio has racke, but instances of this error are common. See my note on Milton's Par. Reg. iv. 452. We have wrack for rack in

1 Hen. VI. ii. 5.

---

With Malone, I read are for the second 'all.' In the same way we have "sir, sir," in All's Well, v. 2.

---

---

With Theobald I read 'Let us along,' which connects so well with what follows: we have this very expression in Wint. Tale, v. 2; and see on L. L. L. iv. 3. Hanmer read 'Let it alone.'

---

---

---

Sc. 1.

---

It is better, I think, to correct thus than, with the editors, to read 'boil'd.'

---

Lear, ii. 4.

Cymb. i. 7.

Still I think that the final syllable of servant may have been effaced.

---

This is the reading of the folio, and I see no need of reading with editors 'entertain'd.'

---

With Collier's folio I read e'er for 'or.'

---

This is a remarkable instance of the use of whom for who in the nominative. See W. Tale, ad fin.

---

For 'our' in the first line we must of course read her with Thirlby and Theobald. It was probably caused by the 'Our' of the next line; but from similarity of pronunciation our is sometimes confounded with her and a.

---

For 'them' we should perhaps read her.

---

With Capell I read 'as strange a.' We have just had

---

I confidently read 'element,' that is air, his return to which had been already promised him.

---