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.'