The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 4 of 9]

by William Shakespeare

NOTES.

[Note I.]

Dramatis Personæ. In our enumeration of the Dramatis Personæ we have given no further description of each than might be derived from the Play itself.

In the stage directions of the Folios Queen Elinor is variously indicated as Elinor, Eli., Ele., Elen., Elea., Queen, Qu., Old Qu., and Qu. Mo.; Philip Faulconbridge as Philip or Phil. to I. 1. 132, afterwards Bast, except in III. 1. 133, 135, where he is called Phil.; King Philip is termed King or Kin., and, in the scenes where King John is also present, France or Fra.; King John is designated as K. John, John, and once, III. 1. 324, Eng.; Lewis is called in the 'entrances' Daulphin or Dolphin, and in the dialogue Lewis, Dol., or Dolph. As we do not conceive our rule of modernizing the spelling to apply to proper names we have not substituted Falconbridge for Faulconbridge, the consistent spelling of the Folio. In the old play it is spelt as consistently Fauconbridge.

[Note II.]

Scene. We have not followed Capell and the more recent editors in attempting to define the precise spot at which each scene took place, where none is mentioned in the body of the play or in the stage directions of the Folio. Nothing is gained by an attempt to harmonize the plot with historical facts gathered from Holinshed and elsewhere, when it is plain that Shakespeare was either ignorant of them or indifferent to minute accuracy. For example, the second scene of Act IV. is supposed to occur at the same place as the first scene of that act, or, at all events, in the immediate neighbourhood (IV. 2. 85), and in England (II. 3. 71 and IV. 2. 110). But Holinshed distinctly states that Arthur was imprisoned first at Falaise and then at Rouen (pp. 554, 555. ed. 1577).

The whole play is divided into Acts and Scenes in the first Folio, but arbitrarily. The second act is made to consist of a single scene of 74 lines, and ends in what Theobald has clearly shewn to be the middle of a scene. He, with 'Gildon and others', once supposed the close of the second act to be lost, but afterwards changed his mind and adopted the arrangement we have followed.

[Note III.]

I. 1. 20. This line must probably be scanned as an Alexandrine, reading the first 'Controlment' in the time of a trisyllable and the second as a quadrisyllable.

[Note IV.]

I. 1. 43. Here Steevens gives the same stage direction as Capell, 'Enter the Sheriff of Northamptonshire and whispers Essex,' changing merely 'and' to 'who,' and, as usual, ignoring Capell, says in a note that he had taken it from the Old Quarto. He convicts himself of plagiarism, for the 'Old Quarto' has 'Enter the Shrive and whispers the Earle of Salis. in the care.' It was Capell who changed 'Salis.' to 'Essex.' All the three editions of the Old Quarto agree in this stage direction literatim, except that the edition of 1591 has 'Sals.' for 'Salis.' Salisbury introduces the sheriff thus: 'Please it your Majesty, here is the shrive of Northampton-shire, &c.'

[Note V.]

I. 1. 75. 'Whether.' Here the first three Folios read 'Where.' In the Comedy of Errors, IV. 1. 60, all the Folios agreed in reading 'whe'r.' In both cases we spell 'whether.' The Folios are not consistent. They have, for instance, 'Whether' in line 134 of the present scene, 'Whether hadst thou rather be a Faulconbridge.' As we do not contract the words 'either,' 'neither,' 'mother,' 'brother,' 'hither,' 'thither,' &c. when pronounced in the time of a monosyllable, so we abstain from contracting 'whether', especially as such contraction might cause ambiguity in the sense.

[Note VI.]

I. 1. 85. In Mr Wilbraham's MS. notes the following occurs:

'Trick' is a term in Heraldry for a 'copy.' In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1803, Supplement, p. 1207, in an account of various memorandums of Receipts and Expenditures, &c., by some one at the latter end of the 17th century, I find the three following ones:

July 21st, 1691.	Received of Mr Cole for a trick of Consure's arms. 2s. 6d.
— 25th —	Mr Martyn, the Paynter, for a trick of the Lady Cath. Darnley's arms. 2s. 6d.
Dec. 18th —	Received of Mr Gentry for a trick of Wyatt's arms. 2s. 6d.

[Note VII.]

I. 1. 147. This discrepancy between the readings of the first and second Folios had escaped Capell's notice. In Twelfth Night, II. 4. 88, all the Folios read 'It' for 'I.'

[Note VIII.]

II. 1. 103. 'Large,' which was doubtless a misprint for 'huge' in Rowe's edition, remained uncorrected by Pope, Theobald, Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson, though Grey noticed the mistake (Notes, 1. p. 230). Capell restored the true reading. How great his services were in the restoration of the text may be estimated by the following instances collected from the present play alone. And the list might have been very much extended if we had included all his minute corrections:

II. 1. 175, 'call not me;' II. 1. 176, 'dominations;' II. 1. 213, 'preparation;' II. 1. 345, 'lay down;' III. 1. 24, 'signs;' III. 4. 35, 'buss;' III. 4. 137, 'whiles;' III. 4. 139, 'one;' III. 4. 169, 'that;' IV. 1. 31, 'I warrant;' IV. 3. 66, 'his;' IV. 3. 112, 'savours;' V. 7. 43, 'ingrateful.' In V. 7. 45, however, he omitted to correct 'of them.'

[Note IX.]

II. 1. 149. This line is printed in the Folios as if it were a part of Austria's speech. The objections are of course, first, that Lewis was not a king, and secondly, that Austria would rather have appealed to Lewis's father. Malone once thought that Austria appealed to both 'King,—Lewis, &c.' The objection to the usual emendation is that throughout the scene King Philip is not designated in the stage directions as King, but as Fran. or Fra.

[Note X.]

II. 1. 187. The whole passage from line 185 to 188, inclusive, is thus printed in F₁:

'But God hath made her sinne and her, the plague
On this remoued issue, plagued for her,
And with her plague her sinne: his iniury
Her iniurie the Beadle to her sinne,'

Capell has it as follows:

'But God hath made her sin and her the plague
On this removed issue, plagu'd for her;
And, with her sin, her plague, his injury
Her injury, the beadle to her sin:'

Mr Roby, whose punctuation we have adopted, says, "I suppose the sense to be: 'God hath made her sin and herself to be a plague to this distant child, who is punished for her and with the punishment belonging to her: God has made her sin to be an injury to Arthur, and her injurious deeds to be the executioner to punish her sin; all which (viz. her first sin and her now injurious deeds) are punished in the person of this child.'"

Mr Lloyd, who, with the same punctuation, would read, 'her sin, her injury,' interprets thus: 'Elinor's injuries to Arthur are God's agents to punish him both for the sin of being her grandchild and for the inherited guilt of these very injuries.'

The word 'sin' is twice printed by mistake for 'son' in Johnson's note to this passage, Ed. 1765.

Malone supposed that two half lines had been lost after the words, "And with her."

[Note XI.]

II. 1. 268. This line, with the substitution of 'this' for 'our,' is taken from a prose passage of the old play, The troublesome Raigne of King John, Sig. C. 3. recto, ed. 1622. The names of the provinces given in II. 1. 525, 526, came also from the old play (Sig. D. verso). The line, 'For that my grandsire was an Englishman,' V. 4. 42, is found in the old play, Sig. K. 4. recto.

In a few other passages, as for instance in II. 1. 65, there is an almost verbal identity between Shakespeare and his predecessor.

[Note XII.]

II. 1. 289. Capell's copy of the second Folio has sit's on's; that which belonged to Dr Long has it' son's.

[Note XIII.]

II. 1. 300. The word 'Heere,' used in the stage direction, seems to indicate that the scene was supposed to continue. No new scene is marked in the Folios. Mr Dyce and Mr Grant White have followed their authority.

[Note XIV.]

II. 1. 325. Mr Knight alone of modern editors retains Hubert, supposing this citizen of Angiers to be the same person as Arthur's gaoler. But in the old play the citizen who proposes the league to the two kings is a distinct person from Hubert de Burgh. It is much more probable that the name Hubert has crept in here from the fact that the same actor who was to play Hubert played also the part of 'First citizen.'

[Note XV.]

III. 1. 69. In Boswell's edition (1821) the reading 'its owner stoop' is derived from a misprint of Johnson, who quotes it as the reading of the old editions. Mr Collier incorrectly attributes it to Malone.

[Note XVI.]

III. 1. 133. Pope inserts after this line the following passage, adapted from the old play of The troublesome Raigne of King John:

'Aust. Methinks that Richard's pride and Richard's fall
Should be a precedent to fright you, Sir.

Bast. What words are these? how do my sinews shake!
My father's foe clad in my father's spoil!
How doth Alecto whisper in my ears;
Delay not, Richard, kill the villain strait,
Disrobe him of the matchless monument,
Thy father's triumph o'er the savages—
Now by his soul I swear, my father's soul,
Twice will I not review the morning's rise,
Till I have torn that trophy from thy back,
And split thy heart, for wearing it so long.'

[Note XVII.]

III. 1. 260. Mr Staunton says, in his note on this passage, 'Chafed was first suggested by Mr Dyce.' It is found first in Theobald, who is followed by Hanmer, Warburton, Johnson, and Capell. Steevens, who mentioned it, returned to the old reading, 'cased.'

[Note XVIII.]

III. 1. 280-286. In the first Folio this passage stands thus:

'It is religion that doth make vowes kept,
But thou hast sworne against religion:
By what thou swear'st against the thing thou swear'st,
And mak'st an oath the suretie for thy truth,
Against an oath the truth, thou art vnsure
To sweare, sweares onely not be forsworne,
Else what a mockerie should it be to sweare?'

Mr Staunton suggests the following as 'a probable reading of the passage in its original form:'

'It is religion that doth make vows kept,
But thou hast sworn against religion:
By that, thou swear'st against the thing thou swear'st,
And mak'st an oath, the surety for thy truth,
Against an oath, the proof thou art unsure.
Who swears swears only not to be forsworn,
Else what a mockery should it be to swear!'

In line 285 Mr Halliwell appears to adopt swear'st in his note, though he leaves swears in the text.

[Note XIX.]

III. 2. 4. After this line Pope inserts the following from the old play before quoted:

'Thus hath king Richard's son perform'd his vow,
And offer'd Austria's blood for sacrifice
Unto his father's ever-living soul.'

[Note XX.]

III. 4. 41, 42. Mr Lloyd writes to us with reference to the speech of Constance: 'I think the two last lines are a first and second draught, the latter intended to replace the former, and both printed together by mistake.'

[Note XXI.]

III. 4. 159. As Pope's correction, however ingenious and plausible, cannot be pronounced certain, we, in accordance with the general rule laid down in the Preface to Vol. I., p. xii, retain the reading of the Folios. 'Scope of Nature' may mean anything which lies within the limits of Nature's power.

[Note XXII.]

IV. 1. 70. Warburton, after quoting Pope's reading, which he adopts, remarks: "Thus Mr Pope found the line in the old editions.... Mr Theobald, by what authority I don't know, reads:

'I would not have believ'd him: no tongue, but Hubert's,'

which is spoiling the measure without much mending the sense." Johnson adds, 'I do not see why the old reading may not stand. Mr Theobald's alteration, as we find, injures the measure, &c.' Neither Warburton nor Johnson could have consulted the Folios on this passage, or they would have seen that Pope's reading is not the reading of the old editions, and that Theobald's 'unauthorized alteration' was merely a return to the original text.

[Note XXIII.]

IV. 2. 50. Sidney Walker (Criticisms, I. 279) questions the possibility of Shakespeare having written so ungrammatically. The construction is evidently incorrect, but it may be explained by supposing that the offending word 'them,' following so closely upon 'my self,' was suggested to the writer by the analogous pronoun 'themselves.'

[Note XXIV.]

IV. 2. 117. It is extremely doubtful whether the reading of the first Folio in this passage is 'eare' or 'care'. The first letter of the word is broken, but we are inclined to believe that is a broken 'e' and not a broken 'c', and in this we are supported by the opinion of Sir F. Madden and Mr Hamilton. Mr Staunton informs us that in Lord Ellesmere's Folio, it is more like a defective Italic e than any other letter, but in the two copies of F₁ before us it is certainly Roman, whether 'c' or 'e'. On the other hand, Mr Charles Wright is in favour of an italic c. Under these circumstances, we have left 'care' in the text.

[Note XXV.]

IV. 3. 33. Mr Collier mentions that the Duke of Devonshire's copy of the first Folio reads 'man' instead of 'mans,' which is in the ordinary copies. The error was corrected no doubt while the sheet was passing through the press, and after some copies had been struck off, in accordance with the practice which was common in printing-offices at the beginning of the 17th century.

[Note XXVI.]

V. 2. 64. 'And even there, methinks, an angel spake.' None of the interpretations of this line hitherto suggested are at all satisfactory. Surely the close proximity of 'purse,' 'nobles,' and 'angel,' shews that Shakespeare has here yielded to the fascination of a jeu de mots, which he was unable to resist, however unsuitable the occasion might be. The Dauphin, we may suppose, speaks 'aside,' with an accent and gesture which mark his contempt for the mercenary allies whom he intends to get rid of as soon as may be. See V. 4. 30-39.

[Note XXVII.]

V. 3. 8, 17. There can be no doubt, as has been pointed out to us by Mr Hopkinson of Stamford, that 'Swinstead' is an error for 'Swineshead,' the place of King John's death. The same fact was communicated to Reed by Mr Dodd, the then vicar of Swineshead. But as the mistake occurs in the old Quarto, which Shakespeare follows, we have not felt justified in removing it from the text.

[Note XXVIII.]

V. 4. 14. Sidney Walker (Criticisms, II. 234) suggests as another solution of the difficulty in this passage that a line may have been lost after 'loud day.' Mr Keightley has independently made the same conjecture. In support of the reading which we propose, 'lord' for 'lords,' we would refer to Hen. V. IV. 4, where 'the French' is used in the singular; 'the French might have a good prey of us if he knew of it.'

[Note XXIX.]

V. 5. 7. In Capell's copy of his own edition 'clearly' is corrected to 'chearly,' in accordance with the conjecture in his notes. In the same way he altered 'compulsion' to 'compunction' in V. 2. 44. 'Cleanly' is equivalent to 'neatly,' and seems to be appropriate as antithetical to 'tottering' or 'tattering.'

[Note XXX.]

V. 7. 2. Mr Grant White says that the Folio reads 'pore' for 'pure,' and this suggests his own reading, 'poor.' In all the copies known to us the reading is 'pure.'

[Note XXXI.]

V. 7. 97. Sidney Walker (Criticisms, I. p. 293) is of opinion that the word 'princes' is a corruption, the transcriber's or compositor's eye having been caught by the word 'prince' in the preceding line. Or the error may be in the word 'prince,' for which it would be easier to suggest a substitute than for 'princes.' As an illustration of the facility with which such mistakes may be made we may mention that Sidney Walker himself, quoting King John, IV. 3. 44, 45:

'Could thought without this object
Form such another?'

wrote inadvertently 'such object.' In another place, as Mr Lettsom remarks, he wrote 'Swings on his horse back' for 'Sits ...,' the word 'swinged' of the previous line being in his eye or his mind.

[Note XXXII.]

V. 7. 115. Mr Lloyd suspects that this line is spurious: 'A compliment to Steenie and Baby Charles, who came back from Madrid in the year that the first edition of King John was published, and thrust in by the editors, or perhaps by the actors, in place of a line of similar purport, but less applicable.'

---