But the whole speech is in confusion, and I suspect something left out. I should read, --_What he would do, He sent in writing after; what he would not, Bound with an oath. To yield to his conditions_. Here is, I think, a chasm. The speaker's purpose seems to be this: _To yield to his conditions_ is ruin, and better cannot be obtained, _so that all hope is vain_. V.ii.10 (424,7) it is lots to blanks] A _lot_ here is a _prize_. V.ii.17 (424,8) For I have ever verify'd my friends, (Of whom he's chief) with all the size that verity Would without lapsing suffer] [W: narrified] [Hanmer: magnified] If the commentator had given any example of the word _narrify_, the correction would have been not only received, but applauded. Now, since the new word stands without authority, we must try what sense the old one will afford. To _verify_ is _to establish by testimony_. One may say with propriety, he brought false witnesses to verify his title. Shakespeare considered the word with his usual laxity, as importing rather _testimony_ than _truth_, and only meant to say, _I_ bore witness _to my friends with all the size that verity would suffer_. V.ii.45 (426,1) the virginal palms of your daughters] [W: _pasmes_ or _pames_, French for "swooning fits." Warburton also quotes _Tarquin and Lucrece_, "To dry the old oak's sap, and cherish springs" and emends to "tarnish," from the French, meaning "to dry up," used of springs and rivers.] I have inserted this note, because it contains an apology for many others. It is not denied that many French words were mingled in the time of Elizabeth with our language, which have since been ejected, and that any which are known to have been then in use may be properly recalled when they will help the sense. But when a word is to be admitted, the first question should be, by whom was it ever received? in what book can it be shown? If it cannot be proved to have been in use, the reasons which can justify its reception must be stronger than any critick will often have to bring. Even in this certain emendation, the new word is very liable to contest. I should read, --_and_ perish _springs_. The verb _perish_ is commonly neutral, but in conversation is often used actively, and why not in the works of a writer negligent beyond all others of grammatical niceties? V.ii.60 (427,2) Back, I say, go; lest I let forth your half pint of blood;--back, that's the utmost of your having:--Back] [Warburton emended the punctuation] I believe the meaning never was mistaken, and therefore do not change the reading. V.ii.69 (428,3) guess by my entertainment with him] I read, _Guess_ by _my entertainment with him, if thou standest not i' the state of hanging_ [in place of _guess_ but _my entertainment_]. V.ii.80 (428,4) Though I owe/My revenge properly] Though I have a _peculiar right_ in revenge, in the power of forgiveness the Volacians are conjoined. V.ii.104 (429,5) how we are shent] _Shent_ is _brought to destruction_.