Yet, for our gentlemen that mean to see The Tuscan service, freely have they leave To stand on either part. Throughout this scene the two speakers whom Rowe and all subsequent editors have called 'First' and 'Second Lord' are called in the Folios 'Lord G.' and 'Lord E.' In all likelihood, as Capell has suggested, the parts were originally played by two actors whose names began respectively with G and E; and, in fact, in the list of 'Principall Actors' prefixed to the first Folio we find the names 'Gilburne,' 'Goughe' and 'Ecclestone.' The same actors doubtless took the parts of the two gentlemen who bring the letter to Helena in the 2nd scene of Act III., and who in the stage directions of the Folio are termed '_Fren. G._' and '_Fren. E._' Mr Collier indeed interprets these words to mean 'French Envoy' and 'French Gentleman,' but they are spoken of as 'two gentlemen' in the stage direction at line 41, and one was as much an 'envoy' as the other. This interpretation moreover leaves the 'G.' and 'E.' of the former scene and of subsequent scenes quite unexplained. Some have supposed the 'two gentlemen' of III. 1, to be the same as the 'two lords' of II. 1, and as far as the action of the Drama is concerned, there is no reason why they should not be, but when the two lords reappear in III. 6 they are introduced thus; 'Enter Count Rossillion and the Frenchmen, as at first:' which seems to prove that the two gentlemen were different persons though played by the same actors. In this latter scene the two lords are called Cap. G. and Cap. E. according to their rank in the Florentine service. The confusion of speakers in the dialogue at the close of this scene will be remedied if we suppose the Folio to have printed _Cap. G._ by mistake for _Cap. E._ in line 97 and _Cap. E._ for _Cap. G._ in lines 99, 105. 'Lord E.' appears again in IV. 1, and 'Cap. G.' and 'Cap. E.' in IV. 3. NOTE VII. II. 1. 3. Johnson in his note to this passage says that all the latter copies have '... if both again,' and that Sir T. Hanmer reads 'if both gain all.' The statement as to Hanmer's reading was corrected in the 'Steevens and Johnson' of 1793, but that as to all the latter copies, though equally erroneous, was allowed to remain. NOTE VIII.