Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/648

 644 Adams call attention to them in the footnotes and record the correction of them in later editions. Mr. Lockert has "inserted into the text, inclosed in brackets, the division into scenes as made by Gifford," and he has made this the basis of his line-numbering. But this scheme, unfor- tunately, breaks down at one point: at line 122 of the second scene of the fifth act, the Quarto marks a new scene; Gifford rightly omits this obviously incorrect scene-division, but Mr. Lockert accepts it, and accordingly begins here a new line- numbering. This confusion serves further to illustrate the desirability of reproducing, in a scholarly reprint of this nature, the original quarto without any attempt at editorial manipula- tion. The Notes are conservative and scholarly throughout. Numerous passages, however, which clearly demand elucida- tion have not been commented on. Perhaps Mr. Lockert was unable to explain all the puzzles in the play we could hardly expect that; but it would have been desirable for him to call attention to unsolved passages. In my reading of the text I have jotted down a few additional notes, with a possible correction or two, which I give below for what they may be worth. I. ii. 234. An emendation is absolutely required. Mr. Loc- kert approves Coxeter's change of Lords to cords. But the con- text (see especially line 215 "load me with those yrons") shows that irons, not cords, is the needed word. II. i. 93. Would they not so? This has been emended by all editors to either Would they so? or Would they? Not so. As the editor observes, "the Quarto reading is to be preferred to either of the modern emendations." Yet it does not fit the context. I would suggest Would they but so? II. ii. 99. Gally-foyst. Mr. Lockert writes: "A galley- foist was a state barge, especially that of the Lord Mayor of London. This, however, can hardly be the meaning of the word here, used as it is with Bullion, which were trunk hose, puffed at the upper part in several folds." Possibly the word is an error for Galley-hose; see Stubbes, The Anatomie of Abuses, ed. Furnivall, p. 56. II. ii. 183. This Cammell; cf. line 205, Dromodary. These were terms of opprobrium: cf. Troilus and Cressida, I. ii. 270- 71; Every Man in His Humour, III. i.; The Turk, line 245. III. i. 62-63. Continue idle: this choise Lord will finde So fit imployment for you.