'Lear. I would learn that; for, by the marks of sovereignty,
Knowledge, and reason, I should be false-persuaded
I had daughters.'
Mr Staunton reads 'I would ... reason' as prose, and the next line as verse. He suggests that "possibly the meaning may be restored by simply omitting the comma after sovereignty, 'by the marks of sovereignty knowledge and reason,' i.e. of supreme or sovereign knowledge, &c." But his later conjecture is that for 'Of sovereignty, of knowledge' we should read 'Of sovereignly knowledge.' Mr Keightley, adopting some of the readings of the Quartos, arranges the whole passage as follows:
'Lear. Does any here know me?—Why, this is not Lear.
Does Lear walk thus? speak thus? Where are his eyes?
Either his notion weakens, or his discernings
Are lethargied.—Sleeping or waking?—Ha!
Sure 'tis not so.—Who is it that can tell me
Who I am?
Fool. Lear's shadow,—
Lear. I would learn that; for by
The marks of sovereignty, knowledge, and reason,
I should be false persuaded I had daughters.'
Becket proposes:
'Who is it that can tell me who I am?
Lear's shadow? I would learn that; for by the marks
Of sov'reignty, I should be false persuaded.—
Of knowledge and of reason I had daughters.'
Note VIII.
I. 4. 338. In the imperfect copy of Q2 in the British Museum 'attaskt for' was the original reading, but the first two letters of the word have been erased. In II. 1. 123, 'lest,' the original reading, has been altered to 'best.'