The Life of Timon of Athens

Shew me this piece, I am joyful of your sights. (Page 9.)

The Third Folio has "and when dinners done."

You have added worth unto't, and lustre. (Page 14.)

The Third Folio has "and lively lustre."

Gently put out of Office, before I were forc'd out. (Page 16.)

The Third Folio has "ere I were forc'd out."

All to you.

Lights, more Lights. (Page 17.)

The Second and Fourth Folios repeat "More Lights."

Ask nothing, give it him, it Foals me straight
And able Horses. (Page 18.)

The Third and Fourth Folios have "An able Horse."

Plays in the right hand, thus: but tell him, (Page 18.)

The Third Folio has "but tell him, Sirrah.”

There are also several slight indications in the After-Folios of things which were likely to have been in the Manuscript, and overlooked by their great Progenitor. Of these the following is an example:

(Shame that they wanted, cunning in excess) (Page 70.)

Here the whole line is made a parenthesis, and a misplaced comma completes the paradox. As it appears in the First Folio it is all wrong. In the Third and Fourth Folios we find the true meaning "excessive shame for their want of wisdom "-struggling to free itself, and we get at least one half of the proper parenthesis, which should have ended at "cunning." There we find :--

Shame (that they wanted cunning in excess)

Hath broke their hearts.

In the Original Folio we have (Page 40):—

2 This is the old man still.

3 Wilt hold? Wilt hold?

2 It does: but time will, and so.

3 I do conceive.

The Fourth Folio has:

2 It does: but time will, and so

3 I do conceive.

It has been noticed by one of the Reviews that in the first page of the Hamnet Edition of Cymbeline there is an error, "be married" for "he married;" and certainly the word "be" for "he" does stand in our Reprint, but thereby hangs a tale, and neither the Sons of Gutenberg who labour for us, nor we ourselves can, we think, be justly held accountable for this.

In carrying on the Hamnet Edition of Shakspere, we have beside us, what we spoke of thus in our Introduction to Macbeth: "The Photographic Fac-Simile published last year by Messrs Chatto & Windus, with an Introduction by Mr Halliwell-Phillipps, is the best piece of fortune which has yet befallen the Shaksperian student, and we cannot conceive a better laid out half-guinea than that through which he can obtain possession of this marvellous reproduction, which, as Mr Halliwell-Phillipps remarks, will, 'for all usual practical objects of study, place its owner on a level with the envied possessors of the farfamed original.”” We have next Mr Booth's Reprint, 1864, which is extremely correct, but not faultless. Then we have the Folio Reprint of 1808, in which Mr William Upcott discovered 368 typographical errors, after spending nearly five months in reading and comparing it with the original, at the suggestion of Professor Porson. Again, we have Mr Howard Staunton's "Reproduction in exact Fac-simile of the Famous First Folio, 1623, By the Newly-Discovered Process of Photo-Lithography, 1866." And, as the Final Court of Appeal in all extreme questions, we have at hand, The Four Noble Kinsmen themselves, the Original Folios.

In revising the Proofs of the Hamnet Cymbeline, we observed, and corrected, "be married" to "he married," and also "I see my foot" to "I set my foot" on page 46 of that Tragedy, but when the Reprint was published, these errors were found to be still in existence, and on recovering the last proofs in the hands of the Printers, the two deleted words were found counter-marked correct, and reinstated, as if they were confident of their ground, and were determined to be true to the Original. It only remains then to be said, that in the press-room

there is used one of our copies of the Fac-Simile published by Messrs Chatto & Windus above referred to, and that in these copies are “be married" for "he married," and "see my foot" for "set my foot;” the explanation of which is that there are minute differences occasionally in different copies of the First Folio. For instance, Mr HalliwellPhillipps' copy of edition 1623 has curious textual variations hitherto only found in Lord Ellesmere's copy.

Sharper eyes may lead to a different result, and we hail the labour of Upcotts, but in the meantime, we are gratified in believing that in the Hamnet Edition of Cymbeline (106 pp.) there is only one letter wrong: where, in the 21st line of the 46th page, "Not Cymbeline" is printed for "Nor Cymbeline."

GREENOCK LIBRARY:

WATT MONUMENT.

Lines in Timon of Athens containing Words whose Emphasis-Capitals escaped the Editors and Printers of the Second Fulio (1632). page referred to in this and the following Lists applies to the present Edition, and Italic-Capitals distinguish what had been omitted, or added.)

(The