P. 271. The repetition of humble, in Plantagenet's speech, may have been occasioned by the eye of the compositor taking the word instead of honour'd from the next line; but "humble servant" would be quite unexceptionable otherwise.

SCENE II.

Ib. To read "hag of hell's despite," instead of "hag of all despite," is specious, but as the old reading is quite effective, why, again, interfere with it?

P. 272. The same question may be urged in respect to the proposed substitution of matchless for "martial" in Burgundy's address to Talbot. The words could hardly have been mistaken for each other, and it will not do to abandon the old authentic text, because we have the presumption to think we can supply a better word than that we find there, when perfectly good sense can be made of it.

SCENE III.

Ib. The alteration of "lowly" to lovely in the following

line

So looks the mother on her lowly babe,

had long since been proposed by Warburton, and rejected, with good reason, by Johnson. The old text is quite as expressive. But this is another coincidence.

Ib. To change "your truth" for "that truth," in the King's address to Talbot, in the lines

I do remember how my father said

A stouter champion never handled sword.
Long since we were resolved of your truth,

Your faithful service, and your toil in war, &c.

would be to destroy the congruity of the passage, and is a mere piece of wanton interference with an undoubted reading.

ACT IV. SCENE I.

P. 273. The substitution of "worst extremes" for "most extremes," although specious, is doubtful, and would require better authority than that of the corrector to induce us to interfere with the old authentic text, which is quite as intelligible.

"When Gloucester asks

Or doth this churlish superscription
Pretend some alteration of good will.

"Pretend" answers the purpose, but portend was most likely our great dramatist's word, which he often uses elsewhere."

Why "most likely"? Does not our great dramatist as frequently use "pretend" elsewhere in the sense of intend? It is one of the Latinisms so frequently used by Shakespeare and his cotemporaries, prætendo, to design. We have it in a previous passage of this scene

Such are his friends;

And none your foes, but such as shall pretend
Malicious practices against his state.

And in Macbeth, Act ii. Sc. 4.

What good could they pretend.

Mr. Collier, in 1842, says: "The verb pretend is here used in its etymological sense of hold out. In the opening of this scene we have had it employed in the kindred sense of intend, which was its commonest signification in the time of Shakespeare"! How could Mr. Collier, therefore, now think portend was most likely our great dramatist's word?

Ib. The restoration of the words envious, and I pray, from the folio of 1623, which have been the reading of all editions, called for no notice, but that Mr. Collier must insinuate that they may have been obtained from "some other source."! I can think of no other source but some later edition, which in my mind is most probable.

The substitution of "still" for "shall" in the King's speech, is plausible, but not necessary.

SCENE V.

P. 274. "Old Talbot and his son John are contending for the honour of keeping the field, one, by so doing, being certain of destruction, and each is persuading the other to fly. A marginal note in the folio, 1632, instructs us to read fly for 'bow' in the ensuing lines; and we can hardly doubt that 'bow' is a misprint, though we may not be able to account for it. John Talbot speaks:

Flight cannot stain the honour you have won,
But mine it will, that no exploit have done :
You fled for vantage, every one will swear,
But if I bow, they'll say it was for fear.
There is no hope that ever I will stay,

If the first hour I shrink, and run away.

"There seems no assignable reason why the poet should not have used the word fly; and the old corrector informs us that he did use it."

This is all very plausible, except the insinuation about being informed that the poet did use the word fly! His word, however, upon the "authority" of my corrected second folio, was one more resembling the misprint. The line stands there thus corrected :

But if I flew they'd say it was for fear.

A much more probable emendation: flew and bow were easily confounded.

SCENE VII.

There are several petty pieces of meddling with the text in this scene, all of them impertinent surplusage, and such as no one would think of adopting; but, not to be over tedious, pass them over for the present.

I

ACT V. SCENE I.

P.275. "For 'our Christian blood,' in Gloucester's speech,

thec orrector of the folio, 1632, has much Christian blood." This is hardly necessary; but the substitution of kin for "knit," where he speaks of the Earl of Armagnac is right.

SCENE III.

Ib. The observation about the error in the introduction to this scene might well have been spared; it is set right in all editions of recent times at least.

Mr. Collier continues:-"Capel was justified in transposing three lines, near the bottom of this page, where Suffolk lays his hands 'gently on the tender side' of Margaret, and afterwards kisses her fingers. The old corrector always indicates an error of this kind by figures, and 1, 2, 3, in the margin instructs us to read Suffolk's speech thus:—

For I will touch thee but with reverent hands,

And lay them gently on thy tender side.

I kiss these fingers for eternal peace, &c. [kissing."

As this had been also set right in all editions since Capel's time, except those of Mr. Knight and Mr. Collier, the correctors may have availed themselves of some of them. Mr. Collier follows Mr. Knight's suggestion in his edition of Shakespeare, and says, "Malone and others transpose these lines, but without necessity. Somerset takes the lady Margaret's hand, which was hanging down by her side, and when he has kissed it, he restores it to its place again."! So that what was "without necessity" in 1842, becomes evidently necessary in 1853!

P.276. The substitution of go for "pass," and the omission of s in "beams,' on account of the rhyme, are admissible corrections, as that part of Suffolk's speech seems to have been intended to be in rhyme.

Ib. "The text (in the two last lines of this speech) in the old editions, is this:

Aye; beauty's princely majesty is such,

Confounds the tongue and makes the senses rough.

"Sir Thomas Hanmer printed crouch for 'rough'; and Ma

6

lone was obliged to pass over the passage by saying that the meaning of rough' is not very obvious.' Read with the aid of the marginal notes in the folio, 1632, and the obscurity is at an end:

Aye; beauty's princely majesty is such,

Confounds the tongue, and mocks the sense of touch.

'Here, again, who is to determine whether the preceding emendations were derived from some good authority, or whether it was only a lucky guess on the part of the individual through whose hands this copy of the folio, 1632, passed? Certain it is, that not one of the many editors of Shakespeare were ever so fortunate as to stumble on the meaning, which is thus rendered obvious, while, at the same time, the intended rhyme is preserved the princely majesty of beauty confounded the power of speech, and mocked all who would attempt to touch it. The printer, not understanding the copy he was composing, seems to have put down words at random, and to have made nonsense of a beautiful and delicate expression."

The corrector's acuteness, whoever he may have been, must be confined to the restoration of the rhyme, in substituting of touch for "rough," in the rest he is egregiously mistaken. What can be the meaning of the princely majesty of beauty mocking all who would attempt to touch it, which Mr. Collier finds such "a beautiful and delicate expression"? The corrector of my second folio has made a much more "lucky guess." He reads:

Aye; beauty's princely majesty is such

Confounds the tongue, and wakes the sense's touch.

Here, by a closer adherence to the old text, we have much better sense; makes was a much more probable misprint for "wakes" than for mocks, and occurs elsewhere. Beauty, although it confounds the tongue, awakes desire. This must have been the meaning of the poet.

P. 277. The liberties taken in the dialogue between Suffolk and Margaret, by changing words, and introducing rhymes, is only another manifestation of the conceit of this interpo

L