Page 186, line 16. Henry and his sonne are gone.] Instead of this and the next line, we have the following in the edition of 1619— King Henry, and the prince his sonne are gone, And Clarence thou art next must follow them, So by one and one dispatching all the rest.” Page 186, line 24. Once more we sit in Englands royall throne.] The word " royall" is omitted in the edition of 1619, but is found in the amended play. Page 187, line 11. And.] The edition of 1619 reads, " if.” Page 187, line 16. Clarence and Gloster.] Instead of this and the next line, the edition of 1619 reads, "Brothers of Clarence and of Gloster, Pray loue my louely queene, And kisse your princely nephew, both." Page 187, line 27. Hauing my countries peace, and brothers loues.] The edition of 1619 omits this line, but it is found in the amended play. Page 187, line 32. And hither haue they sent it.] Unless there be some omission in this speech, as Douce observes, it must either be regarded as improperly elliptical, or as ungrammatical. It refers to the sum of money borrowed by Margaret's father, which is mentioned by the French historians to have been fifty thousand crowns. The author of the play followed Holinshed. See Douce's "Illustrations," ii. 31. OBSERVATIONS ON THE TEXT OF THE SECOND AND THIRD PARTS OF HENRY VI. In the preceding notes I have taken the opportunity of introducing a few remarks on the two latest editions of the amended play; and, as an appropriate supplement, I here add a few other observations that could not conveniently be introduced among the critical illustrations of the older dramas. I would be permitted to add that I do so with diffidence, and a doubt whether I can add any thing of value to the results of the critics. There are, however, a few passages that seem to require slight alterations, and to these I shall "address myself." To commence in order; in act i., sc. 2, of the Second Part, York says: "The Peers agreed, and Henry was well pleas'd To change two Dukedomes for a Duke's fair daughter. I cannot blame them all, what is't to them? 'Tis thine they give away, and not their own." Should we not read : "Tis mine they give away, and not their own." Again, in act i., sc. 3, the Duchess of Gloucester says: "Though in this place most master wear no breeches, So the first folio and modern editors. The second folio reads "wears." The passage does not appear very intelligible as it now stands. Perhaps we may read : "Though in this place most masters wear no breeches." By which she means to insinuate that all the men present were governed by their wives. In act ii., sc. 3, when Peter is surprised at his victory, he exclaims: "O God! have I overcome mine enemy in this presense?" This is the reading of the second folio; but modern editors follow the edition of 1623, and read "enemies," although Peter only overcomes one enemy. In act iii., sc. 2, when Suffolk affirms: "Tis not the land I care for, wer't thou thence; A wilderness is populous enough, So Suffolk had thy heavenly company.” The second folio reads "hence," which appears worth noticing. In act iv., sc. 3, we have : "These cheeks are pale for watching for your good." The second folio reads, "with watching," which seems preferable. In the same act, most editors have made an alteration in the following passage: "Say. Long sitting, to determine poor men's causes, Hath made me full of sickness and diseases. "Cade. Ye shall have a hempen caudle, then, and the help of a hatchet." The word "caudle is misprinted "candle" in the old copies. Mr. Collier reads, "with the help of hatchet," which he says is the reading of all the early editions. The second folio, however, reads, "help of a hatchet," which seems preferable. The old reading is intelligible, though Farmer proposed to read, "the pap of a hatchet," which appears to be more ingenious than correct. At p. 203 of Mr. Collier's edition and p. 95 of Mr. Knight's should we not read, " make me betake me to my heels," accord ing to the second folio? In act iv., sc. 9, the Messenger, speaking of the Duke of York, says: "His arms are only to remove from thee The duke of Somerset, whom he terms a traitor." The second folio reads "armies," a variation not noticed by the editors, though apparently more congenial to the context. King Henry compares his state A few lines further on, "Like to a ship, that, having scap'd a tempest, Is straightway calm and boarded with a pirate." So Mr. Collier and the first folio. Mr. Knight properly reads "calm'd;" but it ought to be noticed that the edition of 1632 has "claimd," so possibly we might adopt this latter reading as one of more authority than conjecture. In act v., sc. 1, York indignantly exclaims: "False king! why hast thou broken faith with me, Knowing how hardly I can brooke abuse? King did I call thee? no, thou art not king." The second folio reads, "thou art no king," which gives the line a greater power. When Henry says: "For shame! in duty bend thy knee to me, That bows unto the grave with mickle age.” Is not the "milky age" of the second folio worth a passing notice? In the Third Part, collation has not yet been perfected. The line in act i. sc. 1: "Rather than have made that savage duke thine heir," seems better in the second folio, where the word "have" is omitted. Again are we indebted to the second folio: "For on thy shoulder do I build my seat." The first folio reads, "in." Other instances of a similar nature have already been mentioned in the notes. It is well known that the second folio contains numerous variations from the first, and those variations, excepting cases of omission, are for the most part corrections of the older text. It would be an important addition to our knowledge on these subjects, could we ascertain the name of the editor, and the means he employed. It does not seem at all likely that the corrections are the result of conjectural emendation, for occasionally we find words inserted for which undoubtedly there must have been authority; neither is it probable that he used other manuscripts, for the variations are scarcely extensive enough to warrant that supposition; but, as it was printed only eight or nine years after the edition of 1623, the editor might have used the same copies that were employed by his predecessors, or his corrections might have been made from memory, as he had heard and seen the plays performed. This we can easily believe, if Allot were the editor; and, whoever he was, he deserves better treatment at the hands of the editors than he has lately received. The latest editors of Shakespeare, indeed, constantly correct the text of the first folio by means of the second; and Mr. Collier very frequently gives us the readings of the latter edition as conjectural emendations. See v., 284, 321, and the examples mentioned in the notes. Any one who will collate the two first folios, will easily see the use of the second one. If I may be permitted for once to imitate Malone's arithmetic, the reader may not be displeased to know that in the three parts of Henry VI. alone, Mr. Knight admits eighty-five corrections from the second folio, and Mr. Collier adopts eighty-seven. Perhaps after this, notwithstanding its blunders, the opinion of Steevens concerning this volume will be admitted to be nearly right. It will, perhaps, be thought strange if I were to assert that even Mr. Collier and Mr. Knight have not collated the first folio with very great accuracy. Yet I may say with Master Shallow, "it will be found so." Else how can we account for such an oversight as this? "Away, captains, let's get us from the walls, 1 Henry VI., act iii., sc. 2. So the first folio. The second reads, "we came, sir," an addition not at all necessary. But Messrs. Collier and Knight read: "God be wi' you, my lord! we came but to tell you THE END. LONDON: F. SHOBERL, JUN., 51, RUPERT STREET, HAYMARKET, PRINTER TO H.R.H. FRINCE ALBERT. |