_Bas._ The king, my brother, shall have note of this.
_Lav._ Ay, for these slips have made him noted long]
He had yet been married but one night.
II.iii.104 (431,2) Should straight fall mad, or else die suddenly] This
is said in fabulous physiology, of those that hear the groan of the
mandrake torn up.
II.iii.126 (432,3) And with that painted hope she braves your
mightiness] [W: cope] _Painted hope_ is only _specious_ hope, or ground
of confidence more plausible than solid.
II.iii.227 (435,4) A precious ring, that lightens all the hole] There is
supposed to be a gem called a carbuncle, which emits not reflected but
native light. Mr. Boyle believes the reality of its existence.
II.iv.13 (438,5) If I do dream, 'would all my wealth would wake me'] If
this be a dream, I would give all my possessions to be delivered from it
by waking.
III.i.91 (443,8) It was my deer] The play upon _deer_ and _dear_ has
been used by Waller, who calls a lady's girdle, _The pale that held my
lovely_ deer.
III.i.216 (447,1) And do not break into these deep extremes] [We should
read, instead of this nonsense,
--woe-_extremes_.
i.e. extremes caused by excessive sorrow. But Mr. Theobald, on his own
authority, alters it to _deep_, without notice given. WARB.] It is
_deep_ in the old quarto of 1611, (rev. 1778, VIII, 510, 8)
III.ii (450,2) _An apartment in Titus's house_] This scene, which does
not contribute any thing to the action, yet seems to have the same
author with the rest, is omitted in the quarto of 1611, but found in the
folio of 1623.
III.ii.45 (452,3) by still practice] By _constant_ or _continual_
practice.
IV.i.129 (458,6) Revenge the heavens] It should be,
_Revenge_, ye _Heavens_!--
_Ye_ was by the transcriber taken for _y'e_, the.
IV.ii.85 (461,7) I'll broach the tadpole] A _broach_ is a _spit_. I'll
_spit_ the tadpole.
IV.ii.99 (462,8) Coal-black is better than another hue,/ In that it
seems to bear another hue] We may better read, _In that it_ scorns _to
bear another hue_.
IV.iii.88 (466,1) Yet wrung with wrongs] To _wring_ a horse is to press
or strain his back.
IV.iv.90 (472,4) With words more sweet, and yet more dangerous,/ Than
baits to fish, or honey-stalks to sheep] _Honey-stalks_ are
clover-flowers, which contain a sweet juice. It is common for cattle to
over-charge themselves with clover, and die.
V.i.102 (476,7) As true a dog, as ever fought at head] An allusion to
bull-dogs, whose generosity and courage are always shown by meeting the
bull in front, and seizing his nose.
V.ii.189 (484,1) And of the paste a coffin will I rear] A _coffin_ is
the term of art for the cavity of a raised pye.
V.iii.19 (486,2) break the parley] That is, _begin_ the parley. We yet
say, he _breaks_ his mind.
(492) General Observation. All the editors and critics agree with Mr.
Theobald in supposing this play spurious. I see no reason for differing
from them; for the colour of the stile is wholly different from that of
the other plays, and there is an attempt at regular versification, and
artificial closes, not always inelegant, yet seldom pleasing. The
barbarity of the spectacles, and the general massacre, which are here
exhibited, can scarcely be conceived tolerable to any audience; yet we
are told by Jonson, that they were not only borne, but praised. That
Shakespeare wrote any part, though Theobald declares it _incontestible_,
I see no reason for believing.
The testimony produced at the beginning of this play, by which it is
ascribed to Shakespeare, is by no means equal to the argument against
its authenticity, arising from the total difference of conduct,
language, and sentiments, by which it stands apart from all the rest.
Meeres had probably no other evidence than that of a title-page, which,
though in our time it be sufficient, was then of no great authority; for
all the plays which were rejected by the first collectors of
Shakespeare's works, and admitted in later editions, and again rejected
by the critical editors, had Shakespeare's name on the title, as we must
suppose, by the fraudulence of the printers, who, while there were yet
no gazettes, nor advertisements, nor any means of circulating literary
intelligence, could usurp at pleasure any celebrated name. Nor had
Shakespeare any interest in detecting the imposture, as none of his fame
or profit was produced by the press.
The chronology of this play does not prove it not to be Shakespeare's.
If it had been written twenty-five years, in 1614, it might have been
written when Shakespeare was twenty-five years old. When he left
Warwickshire I know not, but at the age of twenty-five it was rather too
late to fly for deer-stealing.
Ravenscroft, who in the reign of Charles II, revised this play, and
restored it to the stage, tells us, in his preface, from a theatrical
tradition, I suppose, which in his time might be of sufficient
authority, that this play was touched in different parts by Shakespeare,
but written by some other poet. I do not find Shakespeare's touches very
discernible, (see 1765, VI, 364) (rev. 1778, VIII, 559)
Vol. IX.