Lo, here this long usurped royalty From the dead temples of this bloody wretch But, tell me, is young George Stanley living? Whither, if it please you, we may now withdraw us. Richm. What men of name are slain on either side? Der. John Duke of Norfolk, Walter Lord Ferrers, Sir Robert Brakenbury, and Sir William Brandon. Proclaim a pardon to the soldiers fled, 5 ΙΟ 15 20 25 4. royalty]Q1; roialties Qq 2-8, Ff. 7. enjoy it] Qq 1, 2; omitted Qq 3-8, Ff. II. if it please you] Qq 2-8; it is please you Q1; (if you please) Ff; if you so please Pope. if... withdraw us] if you please, we will withdraw us now Keightley conj. 13, 14. John. Brandon.] Qq print in italics. 13. Der.] Ff; omitted Qq. Lord] the Lord Pope. Ferrers] Capell; Ferris Qq, Ff. 14. Brakenbury] Brookenbury Qq 1, 2; Brokenbury Qq 3-8, Ff. and] omitted Pope. 15. become] Qq, Ff; becomes Rowe, Camb. 25. rashly] madly Capell. 4. royalty] So 1 Henry IV. Iv. iii. 55. Holinshed has: "When the lord Stanleie saw the good will and gladnesse of the people, he tooke the crowne of king Richard (which was found amongst the spoile in the field), and set it on the earles head; as though he had beene elected king by the voice of the people." 10, II. Lord Strange was on the field, with the keepers of the king's tents. "The same night, in the euening, king Henrie with great pompe came to the town of Leicester." 12. men of name] Compare Much Ado About Nothing, 1. i. 7. 13, 14. Qq print these lines in italics and assign them to no speaker. In addition to those slain Holinshed gives the name of "Sir Richard Radcliffe." Sir William Brandon was Richmond's standard-bearer. See note on v. iv. 13 above. 15. become] If this is not a misprint of the early editions, it is a case of an impersonal verb being attracted into the number of its object. All this divided York and Lancaster, O, now let Richmond and Elizabeth, And make poor England weep in streams of blood! That she may live long here, God say amen! 32. their] Qq 1, 2, 8; thy Qq 3-7, Ff. 30% 35 40 [Exeunt. 33. smooth-fac'd] Ff; smooth-faste Qq 1-3, 5; smooth fast Q4; smooth-fac't Qq 6-8. 41. here] heare Qq 1-3, 5-7. Exeunt.] Ff; omitted Qq. 27. this] Johnson wished to change to the relative "that." But it is the objects divided, and not the causes of division, which can be conjoined together. 35. Abate] blunt, depress, lower. Aldis Wright quotes 2 Henry IV. 1. i. 117, where the metaphor is very complete. The more usual word is "rebate." See Measure for Measure, 1. iv. 60; Lodge and Greene, Looking-Glass for London (Dyce, 117): "Could not rebate the strength that Rasni brought." APPENDIX I I. iv. 257-68. Ff admit six lines which are not in Qq, five of which (or, rather, four and a half) are inserted between Clarence's appeal in line 256, "Relent, and save your souls," and the first murderer's repetition of the word "Relent." (1) It is quite obvious that the force of the repetition, and of Clarence's subsequent comments upon it, is thus destroyed. (2) The reading Would not intreat for life, as you would begge is awkward, as it makes Clarence say over again what he already has said. In his extremity, however, he might be excused for repeating himself, as Queen Elizabeth already has been excused for her grammar, 1. iii. 62-9 above. The advantage of Ff reading is that Clarence, attempting to work on the feelings of both murderers, is repulsed by the first, and then turns to the second for compassion, with such effect that, when the fatal blow is about to descend, the second murderer warns the victim. The reading adopted in the text has these drawbacks: (1) it places Clarence's appeal to both murderers after the first murderer's refusal to relent; (2) it pieces together the two appeals; and (3) separates the words "as you would beg. distress" in a way for which there is no warrant in the original text. On the other hand, (1) the refusal of the first murderer is not absolute, and Clarence might still attempt to soften him; (2) the appeal, producing no effect upon him, might be broken off, and a special appeal be begun to the second murderer. (3) brings us to the root of the whole matter. We assume that the editor of F I used a copy of Q, probably Q 6; that he checked it by comparison with a MS. of the play; that he noted down in the margin or between the lines of the printed book the variations which he preferred from the MS.; and that, having done so, he sent his corrected copy of Q to the printer. In the present case, he would have crowded his margin with a number of lines which are not in Qq; and it is easy to see that the printer would have found some difficulty in gathering the method of their arrangement and insertion. He would have taken the course which seemed to him most probable; and, as the editor probably never saw a printer's proof of the text, the arrangement retained in Ff is, on this hypothesis, that of the printer. If this does not actually vindicate Tyrwhitt's conjecture, it at any rate vindicates his right to make it; and the sense, as it stands, is excellent. In addition to the arrangements mentioned in the collation, we may notice that Theobald followed Ff, proposing the emendation “Ah! you would beg," which was accepted by Warburton and Johnson. Johnson, however, wished to transfer "Which of you . . . distress" to the end of the passage. After the words "what beggar pities not?" one of the murderers should repeat "A begging prince!"; and then Clarence should amplify his illustration with the new lines. "Upon which provocation," adds Johnson, "the villain naturally strikes him." The provocation seems very slight. Spedding agrees with Johnson as to the place of the lines, but observes that the murderer's cry, "A begging prince!" is not wanted, and would read the end of the new lines thus: "Would not entreat for life? As you would beg Were you in my distress- 2. Look behind," etc. Collier eked out the imperfect line from his MS. thus: "Would not entreat for life? As you would beg, Were you in my distress, so pity me." APPENDIX II II. i. 66-68. Two difficulties are involved: (1) The word "all" in line 67, apparently referring to two people only, so that we should expect "both"; (2) the omission of the extra line inserted in Ff. With regard to (1), a judicious re-arrangement of stops surmounts the difficulty thus: Of you, Lord Rivers and Lord Grey; of you Pickers Spedding proposed to read line 66 in Ffthus: " Of you [to Grey] and you, Lord Rivers,—and of Dorset, That all," etc. gill took "all" as an adverb, and "all without desert" as meaning "altogether without desert": cf. II. iv. 48. If "all" be taken in this sense, the flatness of its repetition at the end of line 68 is somewhat lessened. (2) Spedding was ready to accept the line, "Of you Lord Wooduill, and Lord Scales of you" as Shakespeare's, but without any cogent reason apart from its appearance in Ff. Pickersgill thought that it was original, but was omitted in Qq, because it repeated the form of line 66, so that the editor of F 1 in restoring it, felt it necessary to change the form in the latter case. Malone, however, long ago pointed out that there was no such person as Lord Woodville: if the title refers to anybody, it can refer only to Rivers. Rivers also, as Malone might have added, was the only person who could have been addressed as Lord Scales; since this actually was his style, from the time of his marriage with Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of the seventh Lord Scales, and Baroness Scales and Neucelles in her own right, until he succeeded to his father's earldom in 1469. If we accept the line, then, we have to imagine Gloucester begging the pardon of a man whom he already has addressed by his proper title, not only under a second style, but also under a third which does not belong to him. This may be in keeping with Richard's usual irony; but, on this occasion, if he had used his opportunity to taunt his enemy so obviously with his many |