The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 5 of 9] · William Shakespeare
NOTE VI.
II. 2. 45, 46. The first Folio has the whole passage thus: ‘His eldest Sister, _Anne_, My Mother being Heire vnto the Crowne, Marryed _Richard_, Earle of Cambridge, Who was to _Edmond Langley_, _Edward_ the thirds fift Sonnes Sonne; By her I clayme the Kingdome: She was Heire to _Roger_, Earle of March, Who was the Sonne of _Edmond Mortimer_ Who marryed _Phillip_, sole Daughter Vnto _Lionel_, Duke of Clarence.’ The later Folios follow the first, except that in the seventh line they read ‘She then was’ for ‘She was.’ Rowe read, ‘Who was son to Edmond Langley,’ but made no other change; and Pope followed him. Theobald read: ‘Who was the son to Edmond Langley, Edward the Third’s fifth son.’-- and arranged the following lines as they are found in our text. Hanmer: ‘Who was the son of Edmund Langley, Edward the Third’s fifth son’s son, and by her I claim the kingdom, for she then was heir To Roger &c.’ It was Capell who arranged the earlier lines of the speech as we have given them. Steevens, as usual, adopted his arrangement without acknowledging the obligation. Mr Collier, in his first edition, read: ‘Married Richard Earl of Cambridge; who was To Edmond Langley Edward the third’s fifth son, son.’ III. 1. We retain here Salisbury and Warwick among the persons who enter to the parliament, because they are found both in the Folios and Quartos. In the latter their ‘exeunt’ is also marked. Capell was the first to omit them because they do not speak throughout the scene.
III. 2. 11. The murderer’s answer _’Tis_, which Rowe changed to _Yes_ without authority, shows that we ought to retain the _Is_ of the first Folio notwithstanding the grammatical inaccuracy. In the Quartos the murderer says, ‘All things _is_ hansome now my Lord.’ III. 2. 26. We have left ‘Nell’ in the text as the mistake is, in all probability, Shakespeare’s own. He was thinking of the Duchess of Gloucester. Oddly enough neither Rowe nor Pope discovered the blunder. Shakespeare again wrote ‘Elianor’ or ‘Elinor’ for ‘Margaret’ in the 79th, the 100th, and 120th lines of this scene. In _Henry V._ V. 1. the author has made a similar mistake and written ‘Doll’ for ‘Nell.’ See also note VII on _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_. III. 2. 182. This is a striking example of the way in which corrections were made in the successive Folios; _i.e._ by mere guess-work, without reference to the first. The true reading escaped the notice of all editors before Capell. IV. 10. 14. By comparing this scene as it stands in the Quartos with that of the Folios it will appear that Shakespeare, in remodelling it, intended that Iden should be alone when he encountered Cade, as his first speech is evidently a soliloquy; and after he has killed Cade he disposes of the body with his own hands. Shakespeare omitted, however, to strike out the reference to the ‘five men’ in line 36. Steevens who brought the servants on the stage forgot to send them off it. The mistake remained uncorrected down to Mr Dyce’s first edition. Another example of Shakespeare’s incomplete alteration of the Quarto has been pointed out by Malone at V. 1. 56. V. 2. 66. Malone, referring to the corresponding passage of the Quartos, supposes that a line has been omitted, to the following effect: ‘Behold, the prophecy is come to pass; For, &c.’
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.