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.
"How might she tongue me! Yet reason dares her no;
For my authority bears of a credent bulk,
That no particular scandal once can touch,
But it confounds the breather."
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.
"Might in the time to come have ta'en revenge