III. 1. 280-286. In the first Folio this passage stands thus: 'It is religion that doth make vowes kept, But thou hast sworne against religion: By what thou swear'st against the thing thou swear'st, And mak'st an oath the suretie for thy truth, Against an oath the truth, thou art vnsure To sweare, sweares onely not be forsworne, Else what a mockerie should it be to sweare?' Mr Staunton suggests the following as 'a probable reading of the passage in its original form:' 'It is religion that doth make vows kept, But thou hast sworn against religion: By that, thou swear'st against the thing thou swear'st, And mak'st an oath, the surety for thy truth, Against an oath, the proof thou art unsure. Who swears swears only not to be forsworn, Else what a mockery should it be to swear!' In line 285 Mr Halliwell appears to adopt _swear'st_ in his note, though he leaves _swears_ in the text. NOTE XIX. III. 2. 4. After this line Pope inserts the following from the old play before quoted: 'Thus hath king Richard's son perform'd his vow, And offer'd Austria's blood for sacrifice Unto his father's ever-living soul.' NOTE XX. III. 4. 41, 42. Mr Lloyd writes to us with reference to the speech of Constance: 'I think the two last lines are a first and second draught, the latter intended to replace the former, and both printed together by mistake.' NOTE XXI. III. 4. 159. As Pope's correction, however ingenious and plausible, cannot be pronounced certain, we, in accordance with the general rule laid down in the Preface to Vol. I., p. xii, retain the reading of the Folios. 'Scope of Nature' may mean anything which lies within the limits of Nature's power. NOTE XXII. IV. 1. 70. Warburton, after quoting Pope's reading, which he adopts, remarks: "Thus Mr Pope found the line in the old editions.... Mr Theobald, by what authority I don't know, reads: 'I would not have believ'd him: no tongue, but Hubert's,' which is spoiling the measure without much mending the sense." Johnson adds, 'I do not see why the old reading may not stand. Mr Theobald's alteration, as we find, injures the measure, &c.' Neither Warburton nor Johnson could have consulted the Folios on this passage, or they would have seen that Pope's reading is not the reading of the old editions, and that Theobald's 'unauthorized alteration' was merely a return to the original text. NOTE XXIII. IV. 2. 50. Sidney Walker (_Criticisms_, I. 279) questions the possibility of Shakespeare having written so ungrammatically. The construction is evidently incorrect, but it may be explained by supposing that the offending word 'them,' following so closely upon 'my self,' was suggested to the writer by the analogous pronoun 'themselves.' NOTE XXIV.