41. III. iv. 4. "Are all things fitting for that royal time?" The Folio has : "Is all things ready for the royal time?" 'Ready' seems to be an improvement upon 'fitting,' besides that it avoids the two ings. 'Is' with 'things' can not be justified: but it is more likely to have been caused by some confusion in the correction than by the corrector's preference. 42. III. iv. 19. "But you my noble Lo: may name the time." The Folio has : "But you, my honourable Lords, may name the time." A misprint probably from reading 'ho:' for 'no:' 'no' being an unusual abbreviation for 'noble,' while 'ho:' was the ordinary abbreviation for 'honourable,' it is easy to imagine how the mistake arose. 43 III. iv. 57. "By any likelihood he showed to-day." Here the Folio has livelyhood. A misprint. 44. III. iv. 84. "Stanley did dream the boar did race his helm." The Folio reads rowse our helmes. Another misprint, I presume, as far as 'rowse' is concerned; for it cannot have been meant for a correction by anybody: 'our helms,' for 'his helm,' may perhaps have been intended. For though Stanley's message was that he had dreamed that "the boar had rased off his helm," it was a dream in which he supposed Hastings to have an equal interest; and as it had not come true in his own case, it was only as applying to them both that it was in point. "Stanley did dream the boar did race his helm The change in the wording of the message, as recalled under the present circumstances, is legitimate and natural. And according to the authority which Shakspere was following it was, in fact, the more correct. The circumstance is taken from Sir T. More's life of Edward V. "For the self night next before his death, the Lord Stanley sent a trusty secret messenger unto him at midnight in all the haste, requiring him to rise and ride away with him, for he was disposed utterly no longer to bide, he had so fearful a dream, in which him. thought that a Boar with his tusks so rased them both by the heads, that the blood ran about their shoulders." The misprint of rowse may perhaps have been owing to some alteration of the spelling of the word 'race.' In Stowe's black-letter copy of More's life of Edward V. it is spelt both race and rase in the same page. It is possible that an attempt to turn race into rase may have made the word look like rouse. 45. III. vii. 58. "Here comes his servant. How now Catesby, what says he?" Here the Folio makes a correction which I cannot think that Shakspere would have authorised, although those who accept the first Folio as representing him most faithfully can hardly say so. "Now Catesby what says your Lord to my request?" I think he meant to strike out now, as well as how. These are all the corrections in Act III. which I see any reason for thinking that Shakspere could not have made. And yet out of the 1028 lines which the Act contains, there are 411 that have undergone more or less alteration. IV. ii. 46. 46. "Enter Darby. King. How now, what news with you? Darby. My Lord, I hear the Marquis Dorset Is fled to Richmond, in those parts beyond the seas where he abides." Instead of this, the Folio reads: "Enter Stanley. Rich. How now Lord Stanley, what's the news? Stanley. Know my loving Lord, the Marquess Dorset As I hear, is fled to Richmond, In the parts where he abides." I cannot believe that Shakspere intended the passage to stand in either of these forms. But if he wrote directions in the margin, or between the lines, for regulating the metre, it is easy to imagine a printer misunderstanding them. Suppose he was making his corrections in a copy of the Quarto ; and that the brackets which I use represent a line drawn through the bracketed words, and the dotted lines words inserted. His first correction may have been as follows: Stanley - King. How now, what news with you? Know loving Stanley [Darby.] [My] Lord || [I hear] the Marquis Dorset, as I hear, the Is fled || to Richmond in [those] parts [beyond the seas] where he abides. This would mean : King. How now, what news with you? Stanley. Know, loving Lord, The Marquis Dorset, as I hear, is fled To Richmond in the parts where he abides. Afterwards he may have thought it better to introduce Lord Stanley's name into the dialogue, as the audience were not very familiar with him; and altered it again : Lord Stanley, what's the King. How now, [what] news [with you]} [Know loving] [My] Lord [I hear] the Marquis Dorset, &c. This would mean : King. How now, Lord Stanley, what's the news? The Marquis Dorset, &c. Stanley. My Lord, The printer, understanding that my was to be put in again, but not understanding that Know loving was to be put out, made it Know my loving Lord—not readable into verse any how. This would be one of those accidents of the press which, though not what can be called ordinary, yet will happen occasionally. An error so easily made and so easily mended cannot justify any inference as to the capacity of the corrector. 47. IV. ii. 72. “I, my Lord, but I had rather kill two enemies." The Folio reads: "Please you : But I had rather kill two enemies." And here, again, I suspect, we have the result of a misunderstood direction to the printer. Suppose the correction made thus : Please you "[I my Lord but] I had rather kill two enemies." If the erasing line was not carried through 'but,' or if the printer did not observe that it was, we should have our present reading of the Folio. But the corrector meant, no doubt, to make a verse of it. 48. IV. ii. 94. "The earldom of Herford, and the moveables." The Folio has Hertford here for Herford, which I believe is a mistake. But it is printed Hertford (once at least) in Stowe. 49. IV. ii. 103–120. Here we have in the Quarto seventeen lines of dialogue which are omitted in the Folio. But the fact does not help to settle the question at issue; for, though it is not easy to see why they should have been struck out, the scene reads quite well without them. They relate to the dismissal of Buckingham by Richard, and perhaps Shakspere thought that he had represented Richard as making too many words about it, and approaching it too indirectly. "Thou troublest me: I am not in the vein," was enough. 50. IV. iii. 15. “Which once (quoth Forrest) almost changed my mind." Here the Folio reads one for once: a misprint. 51. IV. iii. 31. "Come to me, Tyrrel, soon at after supper." The Folio reads and for at. Another misprint. 52. IV. iv. 41. "I had a Richard till a Richard killed him." Here the Quarto is undoubtedly wrong. For it is old Queen Margaret that speaks. The obvious error might have suggested the correction to anybody; and the Folio substitutes “I had a husband." I suspect, however, that it was Shakspere's own mistake, and I doubt whether it was his own correction. The line was evidently meant to correspond in form with the next but one "Thou hadst a Richard, till a Richard killed him," and no word but Richard will give the proper effect. Here, therefore, I admit that we have reason to suspect the intrusion of a non-Shaksperean hand. .53. IV. iv. 52, 53. Here we have two lines inserted in the Folio, but inserted in the wrong order, an accident that may easily happen in printing from an interlined manuscript, and cannot be presumed to have been intentional. 54. IV. iv. 86. Here we have another instance of the same kind, but not so obvious, and worth explaining at length. "One heaved a high, to be hurled down below: To be the aim of every dangerous shot; Thus it stands in the first Quarto, where it seems as if some of the lines had got displaced; for the two beginning "A sign of dignity" ought apparently to follow the first-" One heaved a high," &c.-while the one beginning "A dream of what thou wert "—would come more naturally between "A mother only mocked," &c., and "A queen in jest," &c. The corrector intended, as I suspect, to tell the printer to put the fourth and fifth lines before the second and third, which was all that was wanted; but the printer mistook the direction, and increased the disorder by making "a garish flag" |