The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 3 of 9]

EPILOGUE.

NOTES.

Note I.

Dramatis Personæ. In the Folios Rousillon is spelt, almost without exception, 'Rossillion,' and Helena in the stage directions 'Hellen.' As the Clown's name occurs in the play we have introduced it among the 'Dramatis Personæ,' changing however the spelling from 'Lavatch' to 'Lavache.'

Violenta, whose name occurs in the stage direction at the beginning of Act iii. Sc. 5, is a mute personage, but as it is possible that Diana's first speech in that scene should be given to her, we have retained the name in the list.

Note II.

i. 1. 153. It cannot be doubted that there is some omission here. The editors, except Steevens, who is satisfied with the text as it stands, substantially agree either with Hanmer's emendation or Malone's. Mr Grant White, however, thinks that in either case the transition would be too abrupt and that the passage omitted was longer and more important.

If it were not for the

we should be inclined to suppose that the whole passage was by another hand. Indeed all the foregoing dialogue between Helena and Parolles is a blot on the play. Mr Badham (Cambridge Essays, 1856, p. 256) would strike out the whole passage (105-152) from 'Ay, you have &c.' to 'Will you any thing with it?' as an interpolation.

Note III.

i. 3. 50. No one has been able to discover the origin of the names 'Charbon' and 'Poysam,' or to guess at any probable meaning for them. Yet it is not likely that they should have been given at random. Is it possible that Shakespeare may have written 'Chairbonne' and 'Poisson,' alluding to the respective lenten fare of the Puritan and the Papist?

The same suggestion was made independently by Mr Easy (Notes and Queries, 3rd S. iv. 106) after the present note was in the printers' hands (Ibid. p. 203).

Note IV.

i. 3. 106. We have not inserted Theobald's admirable emendation in the text, because it is probable that something more has been omitted, perhaps a whole line of the MS.

Becket would transpose the sentences and read thus:

'... level. This she delivered ... exclaim in.—Queen of Virgins! that ... afterward. This I held....'

We take this opportunity of saying that many of Becket's proposed changes are so sweeping that we found it impossible to record them in the compass of a foot-note, and at the same time so improbable, that we did not think it worth while to record them separately at the end.

Note V.

i. 3. 118. We have followed the Folios in placing Helena's entry after line 118, rather than after 126, as most recent editors have done. The Countess may be supposed to be observing Helena earnestly as she enters with slow step and downcast eyes. Her words have thus more force and point.

Note VI.

ii. 1. 1, 2. The editors have for the most part followed Hanmer's correction 'lord ... lord' for 'lords ... lords,' the reading of the Folios, on the ground that there is no reason why the lords who are taking leave should be divided into two sections. But from the stage direction 'divers young Lords,' it is clear that there are more than two. Mr Staunton thinks that the king first addresses himself to the young lords in general, and then turns to the two who are spokesmen in the scene and bids them share in the advice just given to their companions.

We rather incline to think that the young lords are divided into two sections according as they intended to take service with the 'Florentines' or the 'Senoys.' The king had said, i. 2. 13-15:

Throughout this scene the two speakers whom Rowe and all subsequent editors have called 'First' and 'Second Lord' are called in the Folios 'Lord G.' and 'Lord E.' In all likelihood, as Capell has suggested, the parts were originally played by two actors whose names began respectively with G and E; and, in fact, in the list of 'Principall Actors' prefixed to the first Folio we find the names 'Gilburne,' 'Goughe' and 'Ecclestone.' The same actors doubtless took the parts of the two gentlemen who bring the letter to Helena in the 2nd scene of Act iii., and who in the stage directions of the Folio are termed 'Fren. G.' and 'Fren. E.' Mr Collier indeed interprets these words to mean 'French Envoy' and 'French Gentleman,' but they are spoken of as 'two gentlemen' in the stage direction at line 41, and one was as much an 'envoy' as the other. This interpretation moreover leaves the 'G.' and 'E.' of the former scene and of subsequent scenes quite unexplained. Some have supposed the 'two gentlemen' of iii. 1, to be the same as the 'two lords' of ii. 1, and as far as the action of the Drama is concerned, there is no reason why they should not be, but when the two lords reappear in iii. 6 they are introduced thus; 'Enter Count Rossillion and the Frenchmen, as at first:' which seems to prove that the two gentlemen were different persons though played by the same actors. In this latter scene the two lords are called Cap. G. and Cap. E. according to their rank in the Florentine service. The confusion of speakers in the dialogue at the close of this scene will be remedied if we suppose the Folio to have printed Cap. G. by mistake for Cap. E. in line 97 and Cap. E. for Cap. G. in lines 99, 105. 'Lord E.' appears again in iv. 1, and 'Cap. G.' and 'Cap. E.' in iv. 3.

Note VII.

ii. 1. 3. Johnson in his note to this passage says that all the latter copies have '... if both again,' and that Sir T. Hanmer reads 'if both gain all.' The statement as to Hanmer's reading was corrected in the 'Steevens and Johnson' of 1793, but that as to all the latter copies, though equally erroneous, was allowed to remain.

Note VIII.

ii. 1. 23. In the absence of any guidance from the Folios we have thought it better to follow Pope, who makes the king leave the stage, than Capell, who supposes that he retires to a couch. Bertram and Parolles could hardly, consistently with the etiquette of a court, or indeed the rules of good manners (of which Shakespeare had an instinctive knowledge), carry on a whispered conversation in the royal presence. The king we may suppose is carried out on a couch. When Bertram says, 'Stay: the king,' the ushers in attendance throw open the folding doors at the back of the stage, Bertram and Parolles retire close to one of the side doors, and while they are speaking together then the king is borne in upon his couch to the front of the stage. To say that the king retires to a couch, as Capell does, would imply that he was able to walk, but from what Lafeu says, lines 61, 62, it is clear that he could not even stand. We must therefore suppose that he is reclining on a couch throughout the whole scene. Thus, at his first appearance, his illness would be made evident to the spectators. After they have set the couch down, the attendants retire to the back of the stage so as to be out of ear-shot.

Note IX.

ii. 1. 46. As printed in the Folios, the words 'what will ye do?' seem to be a taunt addressed, after the speaker's manner, to the young lords when their backs were turned and they were out of hearing.

Note X.

ii. 1. 142. The correction made by Theobald is found also in a MS. note on the margin of the copy of the first Folio, which belongs to Lord Ellesmere, i.e. 'ffits' for 'shifts.' Theobald's emendation 'loneliness' for 'loveliness,' i. 3. 162, is also found there.

Note XI.

ii. 3. 282. In the margin of the third Folio belonging to the Capell collection an unknown hand has made the correction 'detested' for 'detected.'

Note XII.

ii. 5. 36. Another reading proposed by an anonymous correspondent of Theobald's will be found in his Letters to Warburton, Nichols' Illustrations, ii. 346.

Note XIII.

iii. 3. 3. Mr Grant White says that the Folio has merely 'Sir it'—'is' having dropped out. He appears to have quoted from the reprint of the first Folio, published in 1808. The copies to which we have access read 'Sir it is.'

Note XIV.

iii. 7. 22. In this, as in so many other cases, Capell was the first to restore the true reading from F1. Steevens follows him, but as usual without acknowledgement. Sometimes as at v. 3. 193, he passes his authority over in silence, sometimes as at i. 2. 35, he sedulously attributes to some one else that which was undoubtedly Capell's by priority of publication. At iv. 3. 152 he assigns to an anonymous correspondent a reading which Hanmer had introduced. Steevens probably derived his knowledge of it from Capell, who had adopted it. Such unworthy practices go far to explain and justify the enmities of which Steevens was the object during his life-time.

Note XV.

iv. 2. 25. The word Jove's has here probably been substituted for the original God's in obedience to the statute against profanity. Read 'God's' and all is plain. 'How,' asks Diana, 'can you believe me if I swear by the purity and holiness of God to do an impure and unholy deed?'

Johnson said in his note that he could hardly distinguish whether the reading of the first Folio were Iove's or Love's. Ritson, who was not ashamed lusco dicere 'lusce,' taunted him bitterly.

Note XVI.

iv. 3. 55. Mr Singer says that the old copy (meaning the first Folio) misprints selfe for itselfe. Mr Collier tells us that some copies of F1 have itselfe. All the copies we know of read it selfe.

Note XVII.

v. 2. 4. Warburton adopts Theobald's reading and copies in substance his note, but he has not claimed it in his copy of Theobald's edition. The conjecture was originally made in one of Theobald's letters to Warburton, Capell adopted the emendation, but afterwards repented.

Note XVIII.

Epilogue, 4. Mr Collier, in his second edition, quotes this substitution of 'succeeding' for 'exceeding,' but does not say by whom it was proposed.

TWELFTH NIGHT;
OR,
WHAT YOU WILL.

DRAMATIS PERSONÆ[9].