[P. 347]. “Bodkin.” The text and margin show that this was used for a small dagger, and the woodcut on the next page that it was sometimes at least a rod-like and pointed weapon. Being thus shaped it was small, more easily carried at the waist, and less readily broken either by a bone or by an adversary’s stroke.
[P. 382]. “Beliall.” This goes to show that he was “the other devil” whose name had escaped Macbeth’s porter. Its being less common in men’s and preachers’ mouths would account for his non-remembrance.
[P. 416]. “Lignum aloes.” Against any argument drawn from the italic use of Hews in Son. 20, and its not being italicised in its first use in the same line, nor anywhere else in Shakespeare, the fact that Alloes appears in The Lover’s Complaint, as well as do other words in the Sonnets, has been brought forward. But without entering in detail into the question, I would note that three substantives, all names of vegetables, are here mentioned, and that this alone is placed in italics. So, in the Appendix II, 1665, pp. 67-8, we have a number of aromatics named, but this only, and only on its second occurrence, is with Sperma Ceti placed in italics—the reason, I presume, being, that as a medicine, a more strange and less-known name to the commonalty, and a Latin one, it was treated as a quoted proper name.
[P. 497]. “He burned his booke.” A precedent, as was Acts ix, 19, for Prospero’s “I’ll drown my book”, when he left his island.
[P. 498]. “Bicause they want.” One example, among many, from Elizabethan and present authors, and from provincial use, where want = “be”, or “are without”. This in part explains Macbeth, iii, 6, where Lennox exclaims, “Who cannot want the thought?” The true difficulty lies in the use of the negative “cannot”. But while a more correct style would have “can”, the more colloquial and hasty use of the former was, I think, permissible, just as was the use of the double negative where it was not meant to be, as it usually was, emphatic. Moreover, it gives here a double or ambiguous sense, such as, I think, Lennox wanted to express.
[P. 504]. “One instant or pricke of time.” Illustrates somewhat differently than I think is usually explained, “the prick of noon”. R. and Jul., and other places.
[P. 516]. “Diverse shapes and forms.” Shakespeare follows this ruling when he makes Ariel and his co-spirits assume different shapes, though some modern critics find fault because he being on some occasions invisible, these changes are, in their opinion, unnecessary. But the appearance of these spirits, sometimes as invisible, sometimes as visible, sometimes in spirit form, sometimes as Juno or Ceres, sometimes as harpies, is not only in accordance with the then beliefs as to airy spirits, but to me, and to those who have seen their representatives, it is more pleasant to see them in forms appropriate to their office, besides bringing their spiritual existence and power more vividly before us. Critics here, as well as elsewhere, too often insist on considering Shakespeare as the author of books to be read, and not of plays to be acted and seen.
[P. 518]. “This devil Beelzebub.” So seems to have thought Macbeth’s porter.
[P. 520]. “The cruell angel.” Here in Prov. 17 [11] we have one of the principles on which Macbeth was planned and executed.
[P. 533]. “Soules appeare oftenest by night;... never to the whole multitude, also may be seene of some[,] and of some other in that presence not seene at all.” Here is proof of the folk-lore correctness of the ghost appearing only when Marcellus and Bernardo were alone on watch, and of his being afterwards invisible to the Queen in her own chamber, though visible to Hamlet while there in obedience to her summons.