This Table, from which we learn that there are above forty thousand Emphasis-Capitals in the First Folio, or, on an average, one to every second or third line, suggests several interesting questions, which we purpose considering in a future Part of this Series :-such questions as, Why should there be in the Comedy The Merchant of Venice, of 2,655 lines, only 387 of these Emphasis-Capitals, while in The Tragedy of Macbeth, of 2,385 lines, there are 1467,—a thousand more in a shorter play; or, Why are all the English Histories so richly endowed with these, their possessions ranging from 1,400 to 2,261, while King John has only 479?

As stated in the Introduction to the Hamnet Edition of Macbeth, recently published, these Special Capitals,—not Capitals attached to Proper Names, or at the commencement of lines or sentences,-were, we believe, employed by Shakspere in his Manuscript, to show his Fellow Players on what words weight was to be laid, so as to bring out his right and full meaning, and in the First Folio they seem to have been religiously preserved by the Editors, Heminge and Condell, his friends and fellow players, in what they call "the office of their pain and care": that colossal task, possibly delegated to them by Shakspere himself in his last illness, and whose fulfilment occupied them about seven years.

Of editing Shakspere's works, and writing books on them and him, there is no end, and with such a popular subject many have to do whom the Gods have not made Poetical, and who, therefore, do not know what Poetical is. We have laborious contributors in every branch connected with him and his writings, but, of course, the first thing, which has led to all the interest, is his MEANING, that is "the Heart of heart," and on which depends the accurate reading or reciting of his language, and we claim for these Emphasis-Capitals, that in this, they are the confidential servants or body-guard. Adherents to our opinion increase in number more rapidly than could have been anticipated, for there are so many grave interests bound up with Modern Editions which shew the shorn Text, that any published favourable words of an Edition restoring these abolished Capitals, and upon the ground of their being indispensable, cannot be other than few and far between. With a large number of persons, to admit that there is anything whatever in them, making them worthy of restoration, would be to lift a stone to break their own heads, and, accordingly, there is either silence, or

utterances of the "when I ope my lips, let no dog bark" character, to force the Emphasis-Capitals to be regarded as merely types of a different shape, signifying nothing; emanating from the Printers, and not thoughtfully selected, and carefully set down in his Manuscript, by Shakspere himself. One of the reviewers has said, "These Capitals were simply inserted by the printers in the fashion of the time when no two printing offices agreed in the matter, or even took the trouble to be consistent with themselves," a statement with which we think no earnest and impartial student of the First Folio, capable of judging, can agree.

So far from their being simply inserted by the printers on their own responsibility, these Emphasis-Capitals must have been to them the cause of immense additional anxiety and labour, and there are numerous instances to shew that, occurring as they did in quite unusual places, they had actually confused the printers, and led to passages being misprinted. We can only here give one or two examples, and shall take them from the present Play so that the reader may the more readily examine them, and satisfy himself that this is the case. On page 53 will be found the lines:

King. I have nothing with this answer Hamlet, these words are not mine. Ham. No, nor mine. Now my Lord, you play'd, &c.

In most of the Modern Editions this last line is printed:

Ham. No, nor mine now. My Lord you play'd, &c.,

and no doubt this was Shakspere's meaning," the words have been spoken,—they are mine no longer,-they are public property,”—and it is confirmed by the Second Quarto (1604), where we find :

Ham. No, nor mine now my Lord.

You play'd once, &c.

We believe that in Shakspere's Manuscript, from which the First Folio was printed, it stood thus:

Ham. No, nor mine Now. My Lord, you play'd, &c.,

and that the oddness of the position of the Emphasis-Capital led to the

printers believing that the "Now" commenced a new sentence, and to their sinking the Capital letter which really commenced the new sentence. Another instance will be found on page 56:

King. I do believe you. Think what now you speak :

But what we do determine, oft we break :

The Second Quarto has:

King. I do believe you think what now you speak,

and so it is printed in the most of Modern Editions.

In Shakspere's Manuscript it evidently stood :

King. I do believe you Think what now you speak.

and the Emphasis-Capital, appearing where it did, led the printer to treat the part before it as a separate sentence.

All honour, say we, to the Printers of the First Folio! They were not guilty of the "careless hap-hazard printing" which has been imputed to them. We owe them much, and should never forget it. To blame them for careless printing is of a piece with accusing of careless editing Shakspere's personal friends, Heminge and Condell, who were gentlemen and scholars, and undertook their great enterprize, “without ambition either of self-profit, or fame." Well did the printers perform their onerous task, but to no printer do these Emphasis-Capitals owe existence. The printer who could have placed these forty thousand special Capital letters where they are, following all the subtilties of the Poet's thought, would himself have been a Shakspere.

Through the course of the Second, Third and Fourth Folios, these Emphasis-Capitals suffered reduction, but not to any great extent. For instance, the Tempest, out of 722, lost 116; Macbeth, out of 1467, 287; and Coriolanus, out of 2142, 221: not a great loss during nearly half a century.

On the other hand, the Folios of 1632, 64, and 85, possess other Emphasis-Capitals, the Tempest showing 186, Macbeth 287, and Coriolanus 698-679 of these being contributed by the Fourth Folio, a disproportion which is striking, and must have a good reason, to be yet discovered.

Appended to the Introduction to the Hamnet Macbeth, we gave a List of the lines in it containing new Emphasis-Capitals, and did so, instead of incorporating them in the Text and distinguishing them by figures or footnotes, through desire that the reader should not have his attention disturbed on the way. This arrangement is now again followed, but as in the Hamlet of the First Folio there are no Acts or Scenes beyond the Second Scene of the Second Act, reference in this List is made to the pages in which lines receiving new EmphasisCapitals are to be found.

We feel assured that an unprejudiced study of these additional Emphasis-Capitals must result in the opinion which we hold, that they were in "the True Original Copies," according to which the First Folio was published, and that, whatever their after-fate, Shakspere's Manuscripts existed, and were referred to, up to 1685. It will be found that in the most of cases, the word receiving an Emphasis-Capital in the after Folios, is the complement of a word so distinguished in the First Folio, and often, at parts in the First Folio, where we have said to ourselves, "Surely Shakspere would, with equally good reason, have marked this other word in the same way,” we found, on reference to the after Folios, that that other word had been advanced to its proper dignity, and was holding up its head along with its responsible fellows. The following are instances :

"My Mother: Father and Mother is Man and Wife: Man and Wife is one flesh, and so my Mother."

In the First Folio the last five Emphasis-Capitals are wanting four of them appear in the Second, and the remaining one in the Third.

"Oh Heavens, is't possible, a young Maid's wits

Should be as mortal as an old Mans life."

The Emphasis-Capital in the second line appears only in the Fourth Folio.

How came he dead? I'll not be Juggled with.
To Hell Allegiance : Vows, to the blackest Devil.
Conscience and Grace, to the Profoundest Pit.

The first and last Emphasis-Capitals in the second of these lines appear in the Fourth Folio; and the second last in the third line, in the Second Folio; and it is manifest that they supply omissions. Besides cases like these, where words in apposition are similarly marked, there are numerous instances of independent words being so distinguished, to the plain advantage of the Text: as in "Fear not our Person," "The Very same," and such like. Upon the whole, so far as our examination has been carried, we have found the Folios of 1632, 64, and 85, faithful in the matter of the Emphasis-Capitals. Each, in turn, dropped some of these Golden Letters, which, to our eyes, Illuminate the page, yet they all had reverence for them all, and each, in turn, caught up for preservation many of those which had been previously dropped. After the Folios' joint reign, however, of eighty-six years, the EmphasisCapitals began to vanish, and at such a speed, that, for example, in Theobald's Edition of Macbeth, 1733, we find only 261 surviving, twelve hundred belonging to this play alone having been discarded.

Originally intended, no doubt, for the guidance of the Stage (and it will be obvious to any one studying them that all the set and prominent passages, the Speeches, are most richly cared for in this respect), these Emphasis-Capitals should not only be always considered as of vital importance to Members of Shakspere's Profession, but to us they appear the surest advisers of private or public readers, as to where to place the mental or audible emphasis.

In evidence that no mere chance or antiquated method of printing regulated them, and that they bring the meaning of the Text, as it were, to a focus, we, in introducing the Hamnet Edition of Macbeth, gave about a hundred instances of these in a series of short passages from different Plays, taken almost at random; such brief extracts as :