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.'

Act V.

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.

WINTER'S TALE.

Act I.

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.

Act II.

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.'

Act III.

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.

Act IV.

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.

Act V.

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.

THE TEMPEST.

Act I.

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.'