Scene 1. Page 21.

Dr. Johnson explains sincere motions to be honest indignation; and, for name not, would substitute blame not. But is not the following the plain sense, without any alteration? "this top-proud fellow, whom I call so, not from an excess of bitterness, but from a genuine impulse of the mind."

Scene 1. Page 26.

It is no easy matter on some occasions to comprehend the precise meaning of Shakspeare's metaphors, which are often careless and confused; and of this position the present lines are, doubtless, an example. We have here a double comparison. Buckingham is first made to say that he is but a shadow; in other terms, a dead man. He then adverts to the sudden cloud of misfortune that overwhelms him, and, like a shadow, obscures his prosperity.

Scene 3. Page 42.

Dr. Johnson's explanation is much too fanciful. Mysteries are arts, and here artificial fashions.

ACT II.

Scene 2. Page 71.

The first folio reads "I'll venture one; have at him," and this, except as to the punctuation, is right. Have at you was a common phrase; it is used by Surrey in the ensuing act, and afterwards by Cromwell.

Scene 2. Page 73.

This is from Holinshed. "Aboute this time the king received into favor doctor Stephen Gardiner, whose service he used in matters of great secrecie and weighte, admitting him in the room of Doctor Pace, the which being continually abrode in ambassades, and the same oftentymes not much necessarie, by the Cardinalles appointment, at length he toke such greefe therwith, that he fell out of his right wittes."

Scene 3. Page 75.

Of the parallel passages already cited, this is not the least so, from Measure for measure;

Scene 4. Page 98.

[they rise to depart.

Mr. Ridley's note is very judiciously introduced to get rid of the interpolated stage direction inserted by some of the editors, and to account for the king's apostrophe to Cranmer. He might have adduced an earlier exemplification of his remark from the ensuing scene, where Norfolk asks, when Cranmer returns? The archbishop of Canterbury, who attends the procession to Blackfriars, was William Warham.

ACT III.

Scene 2. Page 112.

This is, no doubt, a compliment to queen Elizabeth.

Scene 2. Page 126.

Was there any Skeltonical tradition to this effect in Shakspeare's time, or has he only taken a hint from one of the articles against Wolsey, which is conceived in the following terms? "Also the said Lord Cardinall did call before him Sir John Stanly knight which had taken a farm by Covent seal of the Abbot of Chester and afterwards by his power and might contrary to right committed the said Sir John Stanly to the prison of Fleet by the space of a year unto such time as he compelled the said Sir John to release his Covent seal to one Leghe of Adlington, which married one Lark's daughter, which woman the said Lord Cardinall kept, and had with her two children," &c.

Scene 2. Page 127.

We have here in substance the first of the articles exhibited by the lords of the privy council and two of the judges against Wolsey. They had been unfaithfully recorded in some of our histories, but were at length printed by Lord Coke from the originals in his fourth Institute, chap. 8.

Scene 2. Page 127.

The nature of this supposed offence has been apparently misconceived by Shakspeare and others whom he might have followed. The original article against Wolsey, states, that "the Lord Cardinall of his presumptuous mind, in divers and many of his letters and instructions sent out of this realme to outward parts had joyned himself with your Grace, as in saying and writing, The king and I would ye should do thus. The king and I doe give unto you our hearty thankes. Whereby it is apparent that he used himself more like a fellow to your Highnes, then like a subject." Wolsey's crime therefore was not in degrading the king beneath himself, but in assuming a degree of consequence that seemed to place him on a level with his sovereign. The offensive language when put into Latin would be more striking and apt to deceive; but the idiom of the language required the above arrangement of the words.

Scene 2. Page 128.

Both these charges seem included in the third article. "Also the said Lord Cardinall being your ambassador in France, sent a commission to Sir Gregory de Cassalis under your great seale in your grace's name to conclude a treaty of amity with the Duke of Ferrara, without any commandment or warrant of your highnes, nor your said highnesse advertised or made privy to the same."

Scene 2. Page 129.

An absurd and frivolous allegation against the unfortunate Cardinal, being the substance of the fortieth article. The episcopal privileges of coining money had been long established, and were conceded in this reign to Bainbrigge and Lee the predecessor and successor of Wolsey, as well as to the archbishops of Canterbury, Warham and Cranmer. But the great offence was placing the Cardinal's hat under the king's arms, "which like deed," says the article, "hath not been seen to be done by any subject within your realm before this time." It may be asked how could it, Wolsey being the only English cardinal to whom the privilege of striking money had been granted? Nor could there be any substantial reason for regarding the cardinal's hat as more offensive than the bishop's mitre, which had already appeared on the coins of Durham.

Scene 2. Page 129.

The poet was under the necessity of introducing the prÆmunire immediately after the articles; but we learn from Cavendish that "Maister Cromwell inveighed against the byll of articles with such wittie persuasions and depe reasons that the same could take none effect. Then were his enemyes constrained to indite him in a PREMUNIRE," &c.

Scene 2. Page 131.

Manifestly borrowed from that fine passage in Isaiah, xiv. ver. 12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

Scene 2. Page 135.

Mr. Gray seems to have remembered this line in his elegy,—

Scene 2. Page 137.

Dr. Johnson remarks, that "this sentence was really uttered by Wolsey." The substance of it certainly was. The words themselves have been preserved in the valuable Life of Wolsey by George Cavendish his gentleman usher, which Shakspeare might have used either in Stowe's chronicle or in manuscript; for several copies are still remaining that were transcribed in the reign of Elizabeth. Mr. Malone has already taken due notice of their very superior value, and of the omissions and interpolations in the printed editions. In the latter, the work has been abridged of many details of great curiosity with respect to the manners of the times. A new and correct edition would be well deserving of the patronage of an enlightened public. The real words uttered by Wolsey were these; "Yf I hadd served God as diligently as I have done the kinge, he wolde not have geven me over in my graye heares."

ACT V.

Scene 3. Page 193.

It has been observed, in illustration of this practice of crying out clubs, that it was usually adopted in any quarrel or tumult in the streets; but it remains to point out the persons that were so called, because the watchmen's weapon was the bill. Stowe informs us, that "when prentizes and journeymen attended upon their masters and mistresses in the night, they went before them carrying a lanthorne and candle in their hands, and a great long club on their neckes."—Annales, p. 1040, edit. 1631. The frequency of this exclamation in nocturnal quarrels might in process of time adapt the expression to general occasion.

Scene 4. Page 199.

It is submitted that the stage exhibition of Elizabeth's christening should be conducted according to the curious and circumstantial details of the manner in which it was really performed, to be found in Halle's Chronicle, and copied from him by Stowe into his Annales.