Notes

TMOV TOC

Note I.

Dramatis Personæ. ‘The Actors Names’ were first given in the third Quarto, and repeated in Q4. A new list was given by Rowe. The spelling of the name Salanio varies between ‘Salanio’ and ‘Solanio;’ that of Salarino between ‘Salerino,’ ‘Saleryno,’ ‘Salirino,’ ‘Salino’ and ‘Solarino.’ The preponderance of authority seems to favour the spelling given in our text, and we have not thought it worth while to mention each variation as it occurs. Antonio is spelt throughout ‘Anthonio,’ Balthasar ‘Balthazar’ or ‘Balthazer,’ and Launcelot ‘Launcelet,’ in the old editions. See note (ix).

Note II.

i. 3. 129. A breed for barren metal. Pope says in a note: ‘The old editions (two of ’em) have it, A bribe of barren metal.’ This reading is not found in any copy that we have seen of Quarto or Folio, or of either edition of Rowe.

Note III.

ii. 2. 52. Mr Knight remarks ‘this sentence is usually put interrogatively, contrary to the punctuation of all the old copies, which is not to be so utterly despised as the modern editors would pretend.’ Mr Grant White follows Mr Knight, and has a long note justifying the punctuation. Mr Dyce’s remark that the sentence is a repetition of the preceding interrogation, at line 42, seems conclusive as to the sense. Nothing is more frequent than the omission of the note of interrogation in the older editions, apparently from a paucity of types.

Note IV.

ii. 7. 77. The Folios have ‘Flo. Cornets’ at the beginning of the next scene after ‘Enter Salarino and Solanio.’ Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson (ed. 1765) omitted all notice of this stage direction. Capell transferred it to the beginning of Scene 7. Mr Dyce added ‘Cornets’ at the end of the scene also. We have adopted the suggestion, as the Prince’s leaving the stage would naturally be accompanied with the same pomp as his entrance.

Note V.

ii. 8. 42. In the copy of Capell’s edition which he gave to Trinity College Library, he has put a comma after ‘mind’ in red ink. Johnson marked the passage with an asterisk as probably corrupt.

Note VI.

ii., 9. 68. Mr Staunton in a note to The Taming of the Shrew, Act i. Sc. 1, mentions, on Sir F. Madden’s authority, that ‘I wis’ is undoubtedly derived from the Saxon adverb ‘gewis,’ but in the thirteenth century ‘ge’ was changed to ‘y’ or ‘i,’ and in the latter end of the fifteenth it was probably held to be equivalent to the German ‘Ich weiss.’ There can be no doubt that Shakespeare spelt it ‘I wis’ and used it as two words, pronoun and verb.

Note VII.

iii. 2. 61. Mr Halliwell says that Roberts’s Quarto reads then for thou. It is not so in our copy.

Note VIII.

iii. 2. 66. Johnson follows Hanmer in reading ‘Reply’ as a stage direction. It is true that the words ‘Reply, reply’ stand in the margin of the old copies, but they are printed like the song in italics, and seem to be required as part of it by the rhythm and (if we read eye with the Quartos) by the rhyme also. Capell prefixes 1 v. to ‘Tell me, &c.’ and 2 v. to ‘It is engender’d...’ He says that “the words ‘reply, reply’ show it to be a song in two parts or by two voices, followed by a chorus of divers assistant voices which ‘all’ indicates.”

Note IX.

iii. 2. 221. We have retained here and throughout the scene the name ‘Salerio,’ which is so spelt consistently in all the old copies. Rowe altered it to ‘Salanio;’ and if the punctuation means anything, the editor of the third Quarto seems to have doubted about the name.

Capell, not Steevens as Mr Dyce says, restored ‘Salerio’ in the text, supposing Shakespeare to have used it as an abridgement of ‘Salerino,’ which he put in the stage direction. Mr Dyce thinks with Mr Knight that it is altogether unlikely that Shakespeare would, without necessity and in violation of dramatic propriety, introduce a new character, ‘Salerio,’ in addition to Salanio and Salerino. Tried by this standard Shakespeare’s violations of dramatic propriety are frequent indeed, and it is no part of an Editor’s duty to correct them.

In the next scene Q2 Q3 Q4 have ‘Salerio,’ altered in the Folios to ‘Solanio;’ for clearly it cannot be the same person as the messenger to Belmont; and in iv. 1. 15 the same Quartos make ‘Salerio’ the speaker, while Q1 and the Folios have merely ‘Sal.’

Note X.

iii. 4. 72. I could not do withal. In Florio’s Giardino di Ricreatione, p. 9, ed. 1591, the Italian ‘Io non saprei farci altro’ is rendered into English ‘I cannot doo with all;’ and the phrase occurs several times in the same book, meaning always ‘I cannot help it.’

Note XI.

iv. 1. 50. Mr Knight attributes the reading ‘Mistress of...’ to Steevens from the conjecture of Waldron. It was really first adopted by Capell from the conjecture of ‘the ingenious Dr Thirlby.’

Mr Staunton says that in line 51 F1, omits ‘it;’ but this is not the case in our copy.

Note XII.

iv. 1. 56. We have retained the reading ‘woollen’ as it gives a meaning not altogether absurd. In an illuminated copy of an Office de la Vierge in the library of Trinity College there is a representation of a bagpipe which appears to be of sheepskin with the wool on. We incline however to think that Capell’s conjecture ‘wawling’ approaches nearest to the truth.

Note XIII.

iv. 1. 74. In the Duke of Devonshire’s copy of Heyes’s Quarto (our Q2) the passage runs thus:

‘well use question with the Woolfe,
the Ewe bleake for the Lambe.’

Lord Ellesmere’s copy agrees with Capell’s literatim, and reads, not ‘bleat,’ as Mr Collier says, but ‘bleake.’

Mr Halliwell says that line 74, Why...lamb, is omitted in one copy of Heyes’s Quarto which he has seen, but that it is found in three other copies.

Note XIV.

iv. 1. 209. Warburton has claimed this conjecture in a MS. note to our edition of Theobald, but he did not adopt it in his own text.

Note XV.

iv. 1. 303. Mr Knight incorrectly says that this line is first found in the Folio of 1623. It is in all the quartos.