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
That all without desert have frown'd on me,
Dukes, earls, lords, gentlemen; indeed of all.

Spedding proposed to read line 66 in Ffthus: " Of you [to Grey] and you, Lord Rivers,-and of Dorset, That all," etc. Pickersgill 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

great preferments, he could hardly have achieved his object of lulling his suspicions and effecting, as he did, an apparent reconciliation. This Shakespeare must have seen. It is not impossible that he made a mistake about the titles: "Lord Grey" in Qq is, of course, an inaccuracy. But it is difficult to think that the line, whose point, if it has any, must defeat the intention of Gloucester's speech, can have appeared in Shakespeare's original MS.-at any rate, in such a form that the editor of F 1, if he had access to that MS., would have been able to reproduce it correctly. The position of the line is awkward, whether we take it as it stands, or assume that the printer has transposed it with the line before. Its meaning and point are doubtful and unsatisfactory. My own conclusion is that the editor of F I found, in the margin of the MS. which he used, some notes intended as the beginning of an alteration of line 66; that the words "Woodville" and "Scales" were among them ; and that, wishing to preserve as much of Shakespeare's text as could be recovered, he assumed that a line had been dropped and so worked in a new line composed of these fragments. The difficulty of "all" was thus settled; but the printer, working with the interlined copy of Q, made a mistake as to the order of the lines, and so perpetuated the state of things which the new line was intended to remove.

APPENDIX III

READINGS OF THE FOLIO IN ACT II. SCENE IV

THE stage-direction at the opening of II. iv. and the first three lines of the scene are of high importance with respect to the methods adopted by the editor of F 1.

(a) Ff read "Enter Arch-bishop." Qq read "Enter Cardinall." In III. i. Qq again read "Enter Cardinall." Ff read “Enter . . . Lord Cardinall." The impression which these passages leave is that the archbishop, introduced by Ff in II. iv. was not a cardinal, but a distinct person from the Cardinal of III. i. and Qq. In III. i. it is unquestionable that the prelate employed to persuade Elizabeth to give up the Duke of York was Thomas Bourchier, Cardinal of San Ciriaco and Archbishop of Canterbury. But the prelate who, as in this scene, delivered up the great seal to the queen-dowager, was Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York, and not a cardinal. He fell into disgrace with Richard on account of his conduct about the seal. The fact that he and Bourchier bore the same Christian name caused some confusion among the historians. More, by an oversight, made "the archbishop of Yorke" the prelate who advised Elizabeth, as in III. i., to give up the Duke of York, and speaks of him as our reuerend father here present, the lord cardinall." Halle saw the error, and substituted "Cauntorburye and "the reuerend father my lord Cardinall archebishop of Cauntorbury," in the places mentioned above. However, Holinshed followed More's account. It is clear that, in the present passage, either Shakespeare himself, or the editor of F I, intended the Archbishop and the Cardinal to be, as they were, different persons. Probably Shakespeare is responsible for this. Scarcity of actors may have led to the union of the two parts, which thus may have passed into Qq as one. The editor of F I probably restored them from his MS. copy of the play.

(b) The opposed readings are :—

"

Qq. Car. Last night I heare they lay at Northampton.
At Stonistratford will they be to night,

To morrow or next day, they will be here.

Ff. Arch. Last night I heard they lay at Stony Stratford,
And at Northampton they do rest to night:

To morrow, or next day they will be heere.

Ff reading, while improving the defective metre, is generally supposed to be in harmony with history. Edward V., after sleeping a night at Stony Stratford, was actually taken back by Gloucester to Northampton. If we can satisfy ourselves that Ff reading is (1) a distinct metrical improvement; (2) intentionally consonant with the true details of time and place in the historical account of the affair; and (3) the original reading of the passage, it should no doubt be adopted in preference to Qq.

(1) The metrical improvement is obvious. If we lay stress on the first syllable of "Northampton," it is just possible to make Qq reading scan. We still speak of Berkhamstead, Wénhaston, where the second syllable might seem to demand the chief accent. But I can find no instance in Shakespeare's time in which the accent of Northampton is thrown so far back. Pope read the passage, "I heard they lay the last night at Northampton"; Capell, "Last night, I hear, they rested at Northampton." Reed followed Ff; and Steevens, recognising the historical difficulty, wrote, "Where sense cannot claim a preference, a casting vote may be safely given in favour of sound."

(2) The historical facts of Edward V.'s journey to London are as follows: On his way from Ludlow, he passed through Northampton, and went on with his train to Stony Stratford. Gairdner (p. 49) says that Rivers and Lord Richard Grey rode back to Northampton to salute Gloucester, who was expected there the same day (April 29). More's statement is that Rivers stayed behind, perhaps for the above reason, and probably because the whole train could not have been accommodated at Stony Stratford. Gloucester, having joined forces with Buckingham, as he came south from York, arrived at Northampton soon after the king had left. More's account is that they were very friendly with Rivers; but, after he was gone to bed, they held a long council with some of their most privy friends. They got hold of the keys of the inn, picketed the road to Stony Stratford, and anticipated Rivers' household in getting to horse, explaining that they were anxious to be the first to greet the king that day. When Rivers in person asked for an explanation of their movements, they accused him of