The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 5 of 9]

NOTE I.

DRAMATIS PERSONÆ. Mr G. R. French writes to us: ‘In 1 Henry VI., it is generally said of the Duke of York: “Richard Plantagenet, eldest son of Richard, late Earl of Cambridge.” But he was an only son. “Eldest” should therefore be left out.’

We have made other changes in the ‘Dramatis Personæ’ of the following plays, in accordance with suggestions from Mr French, to whom we beg to repeat our acknowledgements.

NOTE II.

I. 1. 60. The word Rheims, spelt ‘Rheimes’ in the Folios, must be pronounced as a dissyllable, otherwise the metre halts. Capell’s interpolation, the credit of which is claimed as usual by Steevens derives some support from the fact that Roan, i.e. Rouen, is mentioned by Gloucester in line 65. Possibly we should read Rheimes for Roan in the latter passage.

NOTE III.

I. 3. 59. The insertion made by the Editor of the second Folio for the sake of the metre shows that a change had already taken place in the pronunciation of the word ‘Mayor,’ which in Shakespeare’s day was sometimes written and pronounced ‘Major.’ See 1 Henry IV. II. 4. 473: ‘I deny your major; if you will deny the Sheriff, so; let him enter.’ In line 84 of the present scene, however, the ‘Maior’ of the first Folio becomes ‘Major’ in the second—probably from inadvertence.

NOTE IV.

I. 4. 16–18. We leave this corrupt passage as it stands in the first Folio. In the second Folio, which is followed as usual by the third and fourth, it is thus given:

Pope omits the words ‘For...longer.’

Malone has:

Mr Collier:

NOTE V.

III. 2. 17. All editors previous to Capell, except Hanmer, follow the Folios in making Reignier speak without having brought him on the stage, and all subsequent editors follow Capell in giving Reignier’s speeches to Alençon, without noting that he had made any change. Hanmer altered Alençon to Reignier in the stage-direction, line 16, and Reignier to Alençon in the stage-direction, line 40.

NOTE VI.

V. 1. 17. However plausible the emendation kin may seem, we leave knit, the reading of the Folios, as the conceit suggested by the ‘knot of amity,’ in the preceding line, is not alien from the author’s manner. Mr Collier, in a note to his second edition, says: “Mr Singer is obliged to admit that it has been proposed to read ‘near kin to Charles.’ Where has it been so proposed? In the corrected Folio, 1632, which Mr Singer has always such a wish to ignore. The emendation was never suggested (not even in Mr Singer’s corrected Folio, 1632) until it appeared in our volume of ‘Notes and emendations,’ p. 277.”

In fact, it was first suggested by Pope, and adopted by Theobald, Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson. Capell restored knit, in which he was followed by Steevens and Malone.

NOTE VII.

V. III. 75. This and other speeches which follow are marked by Pope and subsequent editors as spoken aside, but this is so obvious that we have not thought it necessary to encumber our pages with marginal directions.

NOTE VIII.

V. 4. 121. Malone, followed by Singer, Mr Collier, and Herr Delius, attributes the emendation ‘prison’d’ for ‘poison’d’ to Pope. Mr Staunton rightly assigns it to Theobald.