5.

I. iv. 54. "A shadow like an angel, with bright hair

Dabbled in blood, and he squeakt out aloud,
Clarence is come," &c.

The Folio substitutes shrieked for squeakt; because no doubt the word had already begun to lose the tragic character which it once had, and to be unfit for such associations. Its unfitness would be felt at once by every Englishman now living. The correction, whoever made it, proves that it had begun to be felt then; and if the word had any part of the effect on an English ear which it has now, Shakspere would surely have avoided it.

6.

II. iv. 48. "Why or for what these nobles were committed
Is all unknown to me, my gracious lady."

Here we have, unquestionably, a mistake. For the speaker is answering a question asked by the Cardinal. The Folio removes it by putting lord for lady, which seems to be all that is wanted. The Cambridge editors retain the reading of the Quarto, and make it consistent by transferring the question to the Queen. Why they did so, being against the authority of the Quarto as well as the Folio, I cannot guess. The rule of preferring the Quarto to the Folio cæteris paribus (Preface, p. xviii.) cannot apply to cases in which the Folio requires no correction, and the Quarto cannot be followed without one.

7.

II. iv. 53. "Welcome destruction death and massacre."

Death is changed in the Folio to blood, the three words being too nearly alike in meaning.

So IV. iv. 162, "God knows in anguish, pain, and agony," is changed to "God knows in torment and in agony;" pain being a weak word to stand between anguish and agony.

8.

III. iii. 15. "Now Margaret's curse is fallen upon our heads
For standing by when Richard stabb'd her son."

Here we have in the Folio, not an alteration, but a restoration.
Though the meaning of these lines is plain enough, there is a sin-

gularity in the construction which indicates an error of some kind. According to the ordinary construction of these early historical plays, which is always simple and straightforward, it would be their heads that 'stood by.' The Folio shows that the error was the common one of a line omitted :

"When she exclaimed on Hastings, you, and I,
For standing by," &c.

This is one of the two cases in which the Cambridge editors have refused to accept from the Folio an insertion. In the other case (II. i. 67) they explain their reason. I should like to know their reason in this case.

9.

III. iv. 4. "Are all things fitting for that royal time?"

The alteration made by the Folio in this line

"Is all things ready for the royal time".

I have set down among those which cannot have been designed by Shakspere. While things remained in the plural I do not think are would have been deliberately changed to is either by the poet himself or by his nameless corrector. But I am not sure that all thing may not have been at one time a candidate for admission into the language in the sense of everything: and if this is possible, I should conjecture that the corrector meant to change things to thing at the same time that he changed are to is. Ready for fitting gets rid of one of the ings, and so improves the movement.

10.

III. iv. 92. "I now repent I told the pursuivant,
As 'twere triumphing at mine enemies,

How they at Pomfret bloodily were butchered."

The alteration here, though a slight one, is noticeable as an example of the gradual change which was taking place in Shakspere's management of his blank verse. The monotony of the regularly recurring accent and pause was beginning to be wearisome, and a variation of their place in the line was the first device by which he endeavoured to avoid it; an art, the practice and cultivation of which gave him a great deal of work before he assumed the larger liberties which

characterized the versification of his later plays, and remain to show (as used in them) the noblest effects of which the metre has yet been found capable. The three lines quoted above, as they stand in the Quarto, are a good specimen of the earlier style, and by no means remarkable for monotony and yet I see no difficulty in understanding why Shakspere-indeed the difficulty is less if it were he than if it were a nameless transcriber writing before 1623-altered them to the following:

"I now repent I told the pursuivant,

As too triumphing, how mine enemies
Today at Pomfret bloodily were butchered."

11.

IV. i. 85. "But have been waked by his timorous dreams." Here is another example of Shakspere's progress in the management of his verse. In substituting

"But with his timorous dreams was still awaked"

is it not obvious that he was substituting a stronger for a weaker line? And if it be read along with the preceding lines, the value of the change will be much more conspicuous.

12.

IV. iii. 22. "To bring this tidings to the bloody king."

The Folio substitutes bear for bring. Why? No doubt to get rid of the jingle between bring and king: not to mention the ing in 'tidings.'

13.

IV. iii. 35. "Farewell till soon."

The Folio substitutes 'till then.' I presume, because soon was an error of the press. It had been used just before, and 'then' meant

'soon.'

14.

IV. iii. 42. "And by that knot looks proudly o'er the crown."

The Folio substitutes on for o'er. I suppose, because the meaning was that Richmond looked up to the crown; and to 'look o'er' did not mean to 'look up to."

15.

IV. iv. 76. "Earth gapes, hell burns, fiends roar, saints pray,
To have him suddenly conveyed away."

The Folio reads-'conveyed from hence:' no doubt to avoid the rhyme with 'pray.'

16.

IV. iv. 382. "The imperial metal circling now thy brow."

Brow changed in Folio to head: to avoid the jingle between brow and now.

17.

IV. iv. 397. "As I intend to prosper and repent,

So thrive I in my dangerous attempt
Of hostile arms."

Attempt changed in Folio to affairs: to avoid the jingle with 'repent' in the last line.

18.

IV. iv. 487. "They have not been commanded, mighty sovereign." Sovereign changed in Folio to King. The word 'sovereign' having occurred in the line immediately preceding.

19.

IV. iv. 507. "Flock to their aid, and still their power increaseth." Here the Folio reads:

"Flock to the rebels, and their power grows strong;"

probably because "Is in the field and still his power increaseth" has occurred in the scene before. See IV. iii. 48.

VI.

ALTERATIONS IN THE STAGE-DIRECTIONS.

I have already given some reasons for suspecting that the revision of the play was never completed, and I find some confirmation of the suspicion in the state of the stage-directions. Though the stagedirections in the Folio differ very much from those in the Quarto (being generally both fuller and more accurate), they are not reduced to perfect consistency. This is notably the case with regard to the

name of Lord Stanley. "The Lord Stanley that was after Earl of Darbie "- -so Sir T. More introduces him in the history of Edward V. and Richard III., which Shakspere follows closely-makes his first entrance in the third Scene of the first Act, where he is announced and addressed throughout the Scene (according to both Quarto and Folio) as my Lord of Derby. In the first Scene of the second Act he appears again, and, though not addressed by his name in the dialogue, is described in both as Darbie, or Earl of Derby. So also in the second Scene of the same Act, he appears in the stagedirection of the Folio (in the Quarto he is not mentioned by name) as Derby. Thus far, therefore, the two copies substantially agree, and present no difficulty beyond the ordinary anachronism of calling a man by his last title at a time when he did not yet bear it.

:

But in the first Scene of the third Act we find Richard asking Catesby what he thinks Stanley will do. In the second "a messenger from the Lord Stanley" knocks at Hastings's door; and shortly after we have (in both copies) "enter Lord Stanley:' and his speeches are distinguished by the letters Sta. From which it might seem that the writer had bethought himself of the anachronism and corrected it. But then, again, in the fourth Scene of the same Act we find Darby mentioned among the Lords going to the council, and his speeches distinguished by Dar., and yet a little later in the same Scene, Hastings, recalling his warning dream, calls him Stanley again and in the first Scene of the next Act we have the entrance of Stanley in the stage-direction of both copies. So far, therefore, the Quarto and the Folio agree in their inconsistency, and no inference can be drawn in favour of the authority of either. During the next two Scenes they differ. In Act IV. Scene ii. the Quarto announces the entrance of Darby, and prints Dar. before his first and only speech (though Richard addresses him throughout the Scene as Stanley) and in Scene iii. again repeats the same thing. Darby enters, and Dar. speaks. What Richard would have called him we do not know, for he is not addressed in this Scene by name. The Folio, on the contrary, adheres to the name Stanley throughout these two Scenes. Lord Stanley enters. Stanley speaks, and is spoken to by the name of Stanley. All which looks like careful

: