Partake to every one.8 I, an old turtle,

Will wing me to some wither'd bough, and there
My mate, that's never to be found again,

Lament till I am lost.

Leon.

O, peace, Paulina !

Thou shouldst a husband take by my consent,

As I by thine a wife: this is a match,

And made between's by vows. Thou hast found mine;

But how, is to be question'd; for I saw her,

As I thought, dead; and have, in vain, said many
A prayer upon her grave. I'll not seek far,

For him, I partly know his mind, - to find thee

An honourable husband. - Come, Camillo,

And take her by the hand; whose worth and honesty
Is richly noted; and here justified

By us, a pair of kings. - Let's from this place. -
What! look upon my brother: both your pardons,
That e'er I put between your holy looks

My ill suspicion. This is your son-in-law,

And son unto the King, who— Heavens directing -
Is troth-plight to your daughter. - Good Paulina,
Lead us from hence; where we may leisurely
Each one demand, and answer to his part
Perform'd in this wide gap of time, since first
We were dissever'd; hastily lead away.

[Exeunt.

8 A singular use of partake; meaning, of course, impart, communicate, or extend the participation of. So, in Pericles, i. 1: “Our mind partakes her private actions to your secrecy."

9 Whose refers, not to Paulina, but to Camillo; as appears by what follows.

CRITICAL NOTES.

ACT I., SCENE I.

Page 140. The Heavens continue their love! - The original has Loves instead of love. The latter is shown to be right by the next speech: "I think there is not in the world either malice or matter to alter it."

ACT I., SCENE 2.

P. 142. I'm question'd by my fear of what may chance

Or breed upon our absence: may there blow

No sneaping winds at home, to make us say,

This is put forth too truly! In the first of these lines, the original has fears instead of fear, and, in the second, that may instead of may there. The latter is Warburton's reading, as it is also that of Collier's second folio. I do not see how the last clause can be understood otherwise than as referring to fear; so that either the antecedent ought evidently to be in the singular, or else we ought to read These are instead of This is. The passage has troubled the editors a good deal, and various other changes have been made or proposed.

P. 143.

I'll give you my commission,

To let him there a month behind the gest, &c. So Hanmer. The original has "I'll give him my commission." Mr. Joseph Crosby sustains the old reading, as in accordance with the usage of the North of England. His comment at least throws light on the question: "Of the two directly opposite meanings of the word let, viz., to detain or hinder, and to allow or permit, the latter is, I believe, the only meaning used in the North. I'll let you do so and so,' is an every-day idiom for 'you have my permission to do so and so.' I have heard a thousand times such expressions as these: 'I'll let my boy at school another year'; that is, I'll let him remain,' &c.: 'John is making a

good job, and I think I had better let him at it awhile longer.' In the present instance, 'I'll give him my commission, to let him there a month behind the gest,' &c., a Westmoreland Hermione would be instantly recognized as meaning to say, 'I'll give him [his Majesty my husband] my permit to stay or remain at your Court a month after the day named on the royal scroll for his departure.'” ;

P. 143. I love thee not a jar o' the clock behind

What lady e'er her lord. The old text reads "What lady she her lord." The word she seems very odd here; editors have naturally questioned it; and some read " What lady should her lord"; adopting a change written in the margin of Lord Ellesmere's copy of the first folio. The abbreviation of should might indeed be easily misprinted she; but I think should misses the right sense. Not how any lady ought to love, but how any lady does love, her husband, seems to be the speaker's thought. See foot-note 7.

P. 144.

We knew not

The doctrine of ill-doing, no, nor dream'd

That any did. So the second folio. The first lacks no.

P. 145. God's grace to boot! So Walker. The original omits God's. See notes on “God save his Majesty,” page 117; also on “God save your Honour," vol. vi. page 253.

P. 145.

You may ride's
With one soft kiss a thousand furlongs, ere

With spur we heat an acre. -I at one time thought we ought to read, with Collier's second folio, "we clear an acre." But further consideration and the judicious help of Mr. Joseph Crosby have convinced me that the old text is right. See foot-note II.

P. 146. From heartiness, from bounty's fertile bosom. — So Hanmer and Collier's second folio. The old text, "from Bountie, fertile Bosome."

P. 148. Affection, thy intention stabs the centre!

Thou dost make possible, things not so held;

Communicatest with dreams, how can this be?·
With what's unreal thou coactive art,

And fellow'st nothing: then 'tis very credent

Thou mayst cojoin with something; and thou dost,

And that beyond commission, (as I find it,)
Ay, even to the infection of my brains

And hardening of my brows. It would be something strange if a transcriber or compositor or proof-reader found his way rightly through such a tangled puzzle, or rather bramble-bush, as we have here. Accordingly, the original has, in the seventh line, “and I find it," and, in the eighth, “And that to the infection." I have little doubt that, amidst so many ands, that word got repeated out of place in the seventh line, and that, in the eighth, And that crept in, for the same cause, from the line before. In other respects, I give the nine lines, verbatim, just as they stand in the original: the punctuation is there so disordered, that no one now thinks of adhering to it.

The commentators differ widely in their interpretation of this hard passage. In fact, the passage has been a standing poser to editors from Rowe downwards: to Rowe it was so much so, that he boldly changed the first line to "Imagination, thou dost stab to centre." And some others understand affection as equivalent to imagination: but I more than doubt whether the word ever bears that sense in Shakespeare; though he certainly uses it with considerable latitude, not to say looseness, of meaning. I reproduce what seem to me the two best explanations. I have met with :

“In this place, affection seems to be taken in its usual acceptation, and means the passion of love, which, from its possessing the powers which Leontes here describes, is often called in Shakespeare by the name of Fancy. Leontes addresses part of this speech to his son; but his wife and Polixenes, who are supposed to be in sight, are the principal objects of his attention; and, as he utters it in the utmost perturbation of mind, we are not to expect from him a connected discourse, but a kind of rhapsody, interrupted by frequent breaks and starts of passion; as thus: 'Sweet villain! - Most dearest! - My collop! Can thy dam?— May it be?' In answer to this last question, may it be? and to show the possibility of Hermione's falsehood, he begins to descant upon the power of love; but has no sooner pronounced the word affection than, casting his eyes on Hermione, he says to her, rather of her, in a low voice, 'thy intention stabs the centre!' And if we suppose that in speaking these words the actor strikes his breast, it would be a further explanation of his meaning. After that, he proceeds again in his argument for a line and a half, when we have another break, How can this be? He then proceeds with more connection, and says, 'If love can be coactive with what is unreal, and