by any means, nor from his wiues handes, which handled the bloddi daggers in hiding them, By which means they became both moch amazed & affronted. the murder being knowen, Dunkins 2 sonns fled, the on to England, the [other to] Walles, to saue them selues. They beinge fled, they were supposed guilty of the murder of their father, which was nothinge so. Then was Mackbeth crowned kinge, and then he for feare of Banko, his old companion, that he should beget kinges but be no kinge him selfe, he contriued the death of Banko, and caused him to be Murdred on his way as he Rode. The next night, beinge at supper with his noble men whom he had bid to a feaste to the which also Banco should have com, he began to speake of Noble Banco, and to wish that he wer ther. And as he thus did, standing up to drincke a Carouse to him, the ghoste of Banco came and sate down in his cheier be-hind him.

And he turn

inge A-bout to sit down Again sawe the goste of banco, which fronted him so, that he fell in-to a great passion of fear and fury, Vtteringe many wordes about his murder, by which, when they hard that Banco was Murdred they Suspected Mackbet.

Then Mack Dove fled to England to the kinges sonn, And soe they Raised an Army, And cam into scotland, and at dunston Anyse overthrue Mackbet. In the mean tyme whille macdouee was in England, Mackbet slewe Mackdoues wife & children, and after in the battelle mackdoue slewe mackbet.

Obserue Also howe mackbetes quen did Rise in the night in her slepe, & walke and talked and confessed all, & the docter noted her wordes."

What valuable lessons the old quack doctor learned from this play is not altogether clear-perhaps that crime may be revealed in the talk of an unquiet sleeper. To the omissions and inaccuracies of his account attention has often been directed, and some rather remarkable inferences have been drawn. His silence about the events of I, i, ii, has been urged as proof that the play began with I, iii, 38, preceded by a conversation between Macbeth and Banquo, narrating the events of the battle. But it is to be noted that he lays very little stress upon the supernatural elements of the play, entirely omitting Macbeth's second meeting with the weird sisters, and

mentioning neither the prophecies in regard to Macbeth's destruction nor the means of their fulfilment. Perhaps, as a professional astrologer, he took no particular interest in the supernatural except for business purposes. The touching for the King's Evil, in like manner, failed to interest him,-or, quite as probably, was not played. His statement that Macbeth was appointed Prince of Northumberland (i.e., Cumberland), is clearly due to a failure to understand the significance of the appointment of Malcolm. His placing Duncan's visit to Macbeth on the day after the appointment of the Prince of Cumberland may indicate only that he followed the time-scheme of the play very poorly. His omission of the meeting of Ross and Angus with Macbeth and Banquo shows how careless his account is, for the jumbled expression “ Hail, King of Codon!" proves that it occurred. That the witches met Macbeth and Banquo in a wood, may be due to a recollection of Holinshed's account (cf. note on II, iii, 121), may be due to the absence of any scenery to make a definite impression on his mind, or may be due to failure of memory. What is said about the inability of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to wash the blood from their hands does not imply, as has been suggested, that such a scene was enacted; it may be the resultant impression of Macbeth's speech, II, ii, 60, and Lady Macbeth's actions and words in the sleep-walking scene. On the whole it seems highly probable that Forman wrote this account when some time had elapsed since he saw the play, and his recollections had become vague and confused. If 1610 is a mistake for 1611, one could account for the note of this play of April 20th following the notes of the other three. -one on April 30th and the other on May 15th-by supposing that this entry was not made until after May 15th. There is some support for this in the fact that while the notes on the first two plays contain several inferences and

hints for "Common Pollicie," those on the last two contain none.

III. THE KING'S EVIL.

The passage concerning the healing of the King's Evil (IV, iii, 140-159), has been supposed by some editors to indicate that "Macbeth" was originally composed for performance at Court, by others it is regarded as a later interpolation for a court performance; but all, I believe, agree in regarding it as a compliment to King James. It is asserted that he "fancied himself endowed with the Confessor's powers;" that "he was especially proud of exercising" them; that the touching for the Evil was "revived by him, and claimed by him as hereditary in his house.”

That he exercised the power is, of course, perfectly certain; but it is by no means certain that he ever did so willingly. Professor S. R. Gardiner (“ History of England," ed. 1884, vol. i, p. 152) cites two contemporary documents—one of September-October, 1603, the other of January, 1604—as authorizing the following statements: "When he first arrived in England James had objected to touch for the king's evil. He had strong doubts as to the existence of the power to cure scrofulous diseases, which was supposed to be derived from the Confessor. The Scotch ministers whom he had brought with him urged him to abandon the practice as superstitious. To his English counsellors it was a debasing of royalty to abandon the practice of his predecessors. With no very good will he consented to do as Elizabeth had done, but he first made a public declaration of his fear lest he should incur the blame of superstition. Yet as it was an ancient usage, and for the benefit of his subjects, he would try what would be the result, but only by way of prayer, in which he requested all present to join."

Professor Gardiner thinks that later James had no hesitancy about the touching, but apparently his only reason for thinking so is this passage in "Macbeth." There is, however, some evidence that even so late as 1613 he retained his scruples. In that year Johann Ernst, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, visited the Court of England, and on Sunday, September 17th, was present at Theobalds at the religious service held in the palace. "When it was concluded," says the contemporary account, "the Royal Physician brought a little girl, two boys, and a tall strapping youth, who were afflicted with incurable diseases, and bade them kneel down before his Majesty; and as the Physician had already examined the disease (which he is always obliged to do, in order that no deception may be practised), he then pointed out the affected part in the neck of the first child to his Majesty, who thereupon touched it, pronouncing these words: Le Roy vous touche, Dieu vous guery (The King touches, may God heal thee!) and then hung a rose-noble round the neck of the little girl with a white silk ribbon. During the performance of this ceremony the above mentioned Bishop, who stood close to the King, read from the Gospel of St. John, and lastly a prayer, whilst another clergyman knelt before him and made occasional responses during the prayer. This ceremony of healing is understood. to be very distasteful to the King, and it is said he would. willingly abolish it; but he cannot do so, because he assumes the title of King of "France" as well; for he does not cure as King of England, by whom this power is said to have been never possessed, but as a King of France, who ever had such a gift from God. The Kings of England first ventured to exercise this power when they upward of two centuries and a half ago had possession of nearly the whole of France, and when Henry VI had himself crowned at Paris as King of France [Dec. 17,

1431].”—Rye, "England as seen by Foreigners," pp. 151, 152. This evidence of a general belief in James's reluctance to touch can hardly be set aside, or regarded as merely an echo of his feeling when he ascended the throne. The only thing that even seems to weaken the evidence is the explanation given of the origin and significance of the power. But there is reason to think that this was a current explanation; the discussion cannot be undertaken here, but cf. Delrio's remarks, "Disq. Mag.," pp. 24, 25, on Tooker's book and its purpose; and consider the significance of the fact that the formula used by James is not Latin or English, but French. [The account above is translated from the German.]

On the whole it is at least doubtful whether this famous passage was intended to please James. It may have been ; but it is quite as probable that it was intended to please the audience at the Globe, by supporting the patriotic theory of the origin of the healing-touch.

IV. THE SUSPECTED PASSAGES, AND "THE WITCH."

In 1778 Steevens discovered a play (in MS.) called "The Witch," written by Thomas Middleton, who died in 1627. It was found to contain the full text of the two songs, "Come away" ("Macbeth," III, v, 33) and "Black spirits" (IV, i, 43), indicated in "Macbeth"1 by the first words only.

The question at once arose whether they were the composition of Shakspere or of Middleton. The presence in "The Witch" of a considerable number of expressions that recall certain lines of "Macbeth"2 seemed to indi

1 The first of them had been given in full in the 1673 version of Macbeth, and both in the 1674 version.

2 The most striking are: I know he loves me not," said by Hecate of Sebastian, who has come to seek her aid (cf. Macbeth, III, v, 13); “For the maid-servants and the girls o' th' house, I spiced