day poor THEOBALD still staggered under the weight of Pope's unjust and jealous Dunciad,' and was therefore contemned by the Editor of the earlier Variorums; and CAPELL had no friends anywhere among the leading literary men of his day. It was such omissions as these, and others, that led me, although at the cost of additional labour, to enlarge the rule by which I was restricted in the First Volume, and to set aside the Variorum of 1821 as the starting-point of Shakespearian research.

In the present volume will be found, therefore, such notes and comments from all sources as I have deemed worthy of preservation, either for the purpose of elucidating the text, or as illustrations of the history of Shakespearian criticism.

Let it be distinctly understood that the notes are not exact reprints of the original, but have been condensed, care having always been taken to retain as far as possible the very words of the author; in some cases indeed, such as in Theobald's notes, and Capell's, I have retained the spelling even, as lending a certain charm to the quaintness of the expression.

All references to other plays of Shakespeare which have been cited simply to show a repetition of the same word are omitted. Mrs Clarke has done that office for us once and for ever. But where there is a reference to a similarity of thought, a peculiarity of construction or expression, there the case is very different; of these citations there cannot be too many. All references to Romeo and Juliet refer to the preceding volume of this edition; in all other cases I have adopted The Globe Edition, which every student undoubtedly possesses, as a standard authority in regard to Acts, Scenes, and Lines.*

In the TEXTUAL NOTES I have recorded a thorough and exact collation of the Four Folios, and of the editions enumerated on p. xiii. In regard to the Folios I have preferred to err on the side of fulness; in regard to the later editions I have exercised my discretion, and have not recorded minute variations in punctuation (as the use of a colon instead of a semicolon or the like), nor in cases where the sense can be in nowise affected. I have not in every instance noted the various spellings of the word weyward, wayward, weyard, &c.; Theobald was the first to adopt weird; after noting his emendation once or twice, I have not repeated it as often as the word occurs. I am not so rash as to assert that no varietas lectionis has escaped me, but I trust that no error will ever be found in the various readings that I have recorded.

*In Romeo and Juliet all references were made to The Globe Edition, although I forgot to mention it in the Preface.

The present Editor and all future Editors will always remain deeply indebted to the Cambridge Editors for their accurate collation of the early editions of Shakespeare; they may well be proud of work which is done for all time. Although the present collation is entirely original, and no reading recorded at second-hand, yet it should be always borne in mind that I had the great advantage of a check-list, so to speak, in the footnotes of the Cambridge Edition. If here and there, at rare intervals, there appear a discrepancy between my collation and that of the Cambridge Editors, let it not hastily be supposed that any inaccuracy exists in either. To all familiar with the venerable Folios there comes with age and wider experience no little caution in pronouncing upon the accuracy or inaccuracy of any alleged reading. Whatever be the explanation, the fact is certain that not only in these volumes, but in others of the same period, more or less variety exists in copies bearing the same date on the title-page. That the copies of the First Folio vary has been generally known ever since the appearance, a dozen years ago, of Booth's most accurate Reprint. Wherefore, all a cautious editor can claim for his collation is that it is that of his own copies, 'always thought' that there exists that mysterious percentage of error for ever inherent in every book which issues from the press.

In an edition like the present it is of great moment to economise space, especially in the textual notes. Of course abbreviations cannot be avoided. I have endeavored to make them as intelligible as possible, and hope that I have made one or two improvements on those adopted in my first volume.

There was so little genuine collation of the Folios by the earlier editors (though they all more or less claimed great diligence in the discharge of that duty) that from Rowe to Johnson, inclusive, the text in this play is comparatively uniform; and as Rowe printed from the Fourth Folio, that text may be also included in the series. Pope printed from Rowe, and Hanmer printed from Pope; I am not quite certain from whom Theobald printed, but I incline to think from Pope's second edition. I am quite sure that Warburton printed from Theobald's second edition, and Dr Johnson printed from Warburton, even retaining in one instance a ridiculous and palpable misprint. I have therefore adopted the simple mathematical sign + to signify Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson, collectively, or any of them not specified as adopting another reading; where any of these editors differed from the rest I have used the oppo site mathematical sign before the name of the deserter: thus, Rowe (Johns.) means that all these editors followed Rowe except Dr Johnson, whose reading is the same as the text; if his reading be

different from the text, it is of course given, and no reference is made to him after Rowe +. In any note on the numbering of the scenes, this sign, +, does not include Theobald, in whose edition the scenes are not numbered.

The abbreviation et cet. after any reading indicates that it is the reading of all editors other than those specified.

An asterisk indicates that the reading or conjecture is taken from The Cambridge Edition.

These are the only abbreviations which I have used except in the case of proper names, and of the inferior numerals to indicate the four Folios, and Coll. (MS),' as an equivalent for Mr Collier's Manuscript Corrector. My abbreviations of proper names will be found in the List of Editions collated. It may be proper to mention here, that Var. includes Malone's Edition of 1790; and that Steev. includes Steevens's earlier editions, unless otherwise recorded, and except in cases of trifling differences.

When a conjecture by an Editor is recorded I place 'conj.' after his name, lest it be supposed that the emendation was incorporated in his text. In all other cases conj. is omitted. When any conjectural reading is given in the commentary it is not repeated in the textual notes unless it has been adopted in some text. And in this regard it is to be noted that I have diverged from the custom in Romeo and Juliet. There very many conjectures are simply recorded in the textual notes without comment. Here I have always endeavoured, where practicable, to give space to the critic to explain or advocate his emendation, except in the cases of two writers for whose suggestions, I might as well confess, my patience was long since exhausted. After examining the pages of this volume every candid student will, I think, give me the credit at times of long-suffering patience. But I reserve to myself the right to set a limit beyond which my editorial duty of impersonality does not oblige me to pass, and that limit I place before the volumes of ZACHARY JACKSON and ANDREW BECKET. Here and there Jackson's technical knowledge of a printer's case has enabled him to make a lucky guess, and there I hope I have done him justice. But I can perceive no knowledge, technical or otherwise, that has served Andrew Becket in any stead. If these two wholesale omissions be reckoned against me, I shall take my punishment without flinching.

As far as I know, this is the first edition of any play of Shakespeare's in which there has been any attempt to give literally the notes of CAPELL. All editors acknowledge the general purity of his text, yet none quote his voluminous notes upon it. Nor can the faintest blame be attached to them for the omission. For so obscure is Capell's style that it happens not infrequently that his elucidation is far darker than

son.

the passage which he explains. Dr Johnson said that if Capell had come to him he would have endowed his purposes with words; and Warburton pronounced him an 'idiot.' 'His style,' says Lettsom, 'may be fairly described by parodying Johnson's panegyric on AddiWhoever wishes to attain an English style uncouth without sim'plicity, obscure without conciseness, and slovenly without ease, must 'give his nights and days to the Notes of Capell.' And as if all this were not enough, these Notes are printed in so odd a fashion, that it is in itself an additional stumbling-block. The page is a large Quarto, divided into parallel columns, and at whatever letter the lines end, there the word is cut off, and a hyphen joins the dismembered syllable. For instance, on looking over only a page or two, I find such divisions as the following: 'pr-oceed,' 'wh-ere,' 'gr-ound,' 'thr-ough,' 'wh-ich,' 'editi-ons,' 'pl-ease,' 'be-auty,' 'apothe-gms,''mat-ch,' 'sou-rce.' It is really humiliating, after the drollery has worn off, to find how serious is the annoyance which so trifling a matter can create. And yet in spite of all this, Capell's notes are worthy of all respect. He had good sense, and his opinions (when we can make them out) are never to be lightly discarded. The note cited at the beginning of Act II, and on 'The Date of the Play' on p. 381, are instances of his style at its best.

'WALKER,' without further specification, refers to the Third Volume of W. SIDNEY WALKER'S Criticisms on the Text of Shakespeare.

Citations from ABBOTT's Shakespearian Grammar refer to the third Edition of that invaluable book, which was issued in its present enlarged form while my former volume was going through the press, but too late to be cited except here and there towards the close. Occasionally I have cited Abbott, not because he was by any means the first to call attention to certain peculiarities of construction, but because he spreads before us such a wealth of illustration.

In 1673 there appeared 'Macbeth: A Tragedy. Acted At the Dukes"Theatre.' This has hitherto been cited as D'AVENANT'S Version, even by the very accurate Cambridge Editors, and in sooth it may be that it is, but it is very different from the D'avenant's Version published in the following year, to which almost uniformly all references apply, and not to this edition of 1673. The only points of identity between the two are to be found in the Witch-scenes, and there they are not uniformly alike, nor are the Songs introduced in the same scenes at the same places; and of the Song 'Black Spirits and white,' &c., only the first two words are given. In other respects the edition of 1673 is a reprint of the First Folio, as for instance, to give one proof out of very many that might be adduced, the phrase the times has

'been' (III, iv, 78) is retained by D'avenant from the First Folio, while in the later Folios it is changed to modern usage. It is a source of regret that I did not record a more thorough collation of this edition in the First Act, but it was some time before I discovered the difference between it and the version of 1674, reprinted in the Appendix. As a general rule, however, unless otherwise stated, the readings of F, include the edition of D'avenant of 1673. I am also sorry that I did not distinguish between the two versions by citing the earlier under some other title, as, for instance, Betterton's: it is a mere suspicion of mine that the success which attended the representation of this earlier version induced the Poet Laureate in the following year to ' amend' it still more, and prefix an Argument,' which, by the way, he took word for word from HEYLIN'S Cosmography.

The first divergence from the First Folio in Betterton's version (if I may be permitted so to term it for the nonce, to avoid repetition and confusion) occurs at the end of the Second Scene in the Second Act, where the Witches enter and 'sing' the song found in D'avenant's Version (see p. 324), beginning Speak, Sister, is the Deed done?' &c., down to What then, when Monarch's perish, should we do?'

At the end of the next scene occurs the second divergence, consisting of the Witches' Song (see p. 325), beginning Let's have a Dance 'upon the Heath,' &c., down to 'We Dance to the Ecchoes of our 'Feet,' as it is in D'avenant's version, except that the chirping Cricket' is changed into the chirping Critick.'

The third and last addition, which is not wholly unauthorized, since it is indicated in the Folios, is to be found at III, v, 33. Here the extract from Middleton (see pp. 337 and 401) is given: • Come away 'Heccat, Heccat, Oh, come away,' &c., down to Nor Cannons Throats 'our height can reach.' As I have before said, with these three exceptions, Betterton's version is a more or less accurate reprint of the First Folio; some of the most noteworthy discrepancies, however, that occur in the First Act are as follows, and I might as well give them here, since they are not recorded in the textual notes: In I, vi, 26, 'in 'compt' (to count-Betterton); I, vii, 11, ' Commends th' Ingredience' (Commands th' Ingredience-Betterton); I, vii, 13, 'First, as I am' (First, I am-Betterton); I, vii, 22, Heauen's Cherubin' (Heavens Cherubim-Betterton); I, vii, 51, 'Be so much more the man' (Be much more the Man-Betterton); I, vii, 70, 'What not put vpon' (What not upon-Betterton); I, vii, 76, their very Daggers' (their Daggers-Betterton). Noticeable also is the phrase everlasting bone'fire' in the Porter's speech, which may contain an allusion which would point more to D'avenant as its author than any other. I think that I have recorded all other varias lectiones of any moment. Let it be borne