Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor, John Jowett, and William Montgomery (eds), The Oxford Shakespeare: A Textual Companion
pg 3291 HENRY IV
1 Henry IV (BEPD 145) was entered in the Stationers' Register on 25 February 1598:
Andrew Wyſe /.
Entred for his Copie vnder thand of
Mr Dix: and Mr Warden Man a
booke intituled The historye of Henry
the iiijth wth his battaile at Shrewsburye
against Henry Hottſpurre of the Northe
wth the conceipted mirthe of Sr Iohn
Of the earliest quarto, only a fragment of a single copy (Folger) is known to be extant. It consists of Sheet C, and supplies copy for 1.3.199–2.3.19/516–818 in this edition. The quarto has hitherto been known as Q0; it is here referred to as Q1, with the result that later quartos are numbered one higher than has been customary. Q1 probably appeared in Wise's shop shortly after the S.R. entry, for a second edition, Q2, was brought out before the end of (old style) 1598. Q2, which supplies the most authoritative text for all of the play except 1.3.199–2.3.19/516–818, was printed for Wise by Peter Short; it appears to be a fairly accurate reprint of Q1 (which had been set from the same fount), but has been cast off anew to save space and notably omits 'fat' at 2.3.19/818. Jackson ('Two Shakespeare Quartos') identified two compositors, but Zimmerman has since argued that a single compositor worked on the entire quarto, probably setting at least part of it by formes. Greg and Hinman record three minor press variants.
Later derivative quartos are: Q3 (1599), Q4 (1604), Q5 (1608), Q6 (1613), Q7 (1622), and Q8 (1632). Qq4–7 were published by Matthew Law, to whom the title was transferred on 25 June 1603. Q6 provided the printers with copy for the First Folio text (F). Sir Edward Dering's early seventeenth-century manuscript adaptation of the two parts of Henry IV, based mostly on 1 Henry IV, appears to have no independent authority.
It has sometimes been thought that Q1 was set from Shakespeare's papers. The stage directions are authorial in character, and it is not plausible that the manuscript served as a prompt-book. But the following evidence builds up to a positive indication of scribal copy:
1. Q consistently departs from Shakespeare's preference between in favour of betwixt (Jackson, 'Two Shakespeare Quartos').
2. Up to 1600 Shakespeare evidently favoured pray thee; in Q 1 Henry IV, prithee predominates overwhelmingly (Jackson, 'The Manuscript Copy').
3. According to Waller, outside the Fletcherian scenes of All Is True and Two Noble Kinsmen, there is a higher incidence of ye and y' than in any other play in the canon. 1 Henry IV has 29; other relatively higher-counting plays, all collaborative and/or early, are 1 Henry VI (23), Titus (21), Contention (20). These contrast with plays of the same period set from foul papers: 2 Henry IV (5), Henry V (2).
4. Outside the Fletcher collaborations and three plays printed by Simmes, the most authoritative texts of Shakespeare's plays prefer I (ay) to yea by 775 to 125 (see note to Richard III 1.3.98/510). In 1 Henry IV the preference is markedly reversed: the eight instances of I to 21 of yea give a ratio which varies from the normal distribution by a factor of over 16.
5. There are eight examples of the -eth inflexion of verbs in the stage directions of 1 Henry IV; in the remaining substantive texts of the canon there are only another 16. Three of those other examples occur in Act 1 of 1 Henry VI (probably written by Thomas Nashe); another four examples occur in All Is True, where they may be due to collaboration with Fletcher. No other play has more than two examples. The quarto of 1 Henry IV thus strikingly departs from a consistent pattern in all other Shakespeare texts.
6. The quarto is also unusual in its treatment of entrance or exit directions which contain two or more names. On ten occasions it does not join these names together with 'and' or 'with', as is normal in other authoritative texts. In fact, there are more such directions without a conjunction (10) than with 'and' (9). No other good quarto is comparable:
2 Henry IV
7. Q is also unusual in using the plural 'manent' when more than one character remains on stage (188.8.131.52/2616): the rest of the canon boasts only two parallels (Much Ado 184.108.40.206/153.1, Richard II 4.1.310.1/2142.1).
8. 'Earle of Westmerland' occurs four times in the stage directions of Q (220.127.116.11/0.1–2, 18.104.22.168/2496.3, 22.214.171.124/2797.2–3, 126.96.36.199–3/2959.3–4); the only other reference to the character in directions is 'Lord of Westmerland' at 188.8.131.52/2309.1. Even there, 'Lord' could be an error for 'Earl'; but the important point is that the character's rank is specified all five times. 'Westmerland' occurs another thirteen times in stage directions in the substantive texts of 2 Henry IV, Henry V, and Duke of York; on each occasion the name alone appears without title or rank. Scholars agree that both Quarto 2 Henry IV and Folio Henry V were set from Shakespeare's own foul papers.
9. The contracted prithee is unusual not only for its predominance over pray thee, but also in its spelling. The only spelling in Q1 is 'preethe' (three times); the same spelling occurs sixteen times in Q2, the only other being 'prethe' (four times). 'Preethe' occurs elsewhere only twice in the entire canon (Shrew 5.1.54/2314, 'Pree the'; Quarto Lear 1.4.130/624; both in prose). If the spelling is compositorial, the same compositor must have set Sheet C of Q1 and all of Q2; an indication that it is not a compositorial preference comes at 2.1.34/647, where Q1 'preethe' is set 'prethe' in Q2. 'Preethe' does not occur in Q Richard III, which was set from the same fount as Q1 and Q2 1 Henry IV.
10. At 2.5.538/1464 and 2.5.543/1469 (see textual notes) two consecutive speech-prefixes are evidently omitted; the resulting text is self-consistent. The error is most plausibly partly or wholly scribal.
11. As Walker pointed out, Q is sparse in its use of contracted forms; expansions are more likely to be scribal than compositorial.
12. The text is tidier, and the speech-prefixes more regular, than is usual in a foul-paper text.
13. The play as a whole has undergone an almost systematic revision of certain characters' names. It is plausible that the copy for Q1 was prepared in order to demonstrate that these name-changes had been made, and the general success in introducing them systematically would have been difficult to achieve by marking all the required alterations (some 330) in Shakespeare's papers.
The most important revision of names is known to have taken place after the play reached the stage, and the others probably belong to the same time. As is well documented, the character subsequently known as Sir John Falstaff was originally a scurrilous portrayal of Sir John Oldcastle, a historical figure of Henry IV's reign who was often regarded as a proto-Protestant martyr. As a result of 'Offence beinge worthily taken by Personages descended from his title' (by whom are implied members of the Cobham family) the name Oldcastle was emended to Falstaff (or as Q has it, 'Falstalffe'). Subsequent plays featuring the character, including 2 Henry IV, perpetuate the name Falstaff, and in the Epilogue to 2 Henry IV Shakespeare announced that Falstaff should not be taken as a portrayal of Oldcastle. In 1 Henry IV itself the name Oldcastle has been completely replaced and the title-page of Q prominently advertises 'the humorous conceits of Sir | Iohn Falstalffe'. There are no signs that the text has been altered in other ways as a result of this change; indeed at 1.2.41–2/148 there remains a glance at 'my old lad of the castle'. The details of the historical evidence for Oldcastle in 1 Henry IV and its implications for the editor of the play are discussed by Taylor in 'The Fortunes of Oldcastle' and 'Richard James'. Both 'Olde-castle' and 'Falstalffe' are authoritative readings which belong to the text as finished and performed. If substituting 'Falstaff' was an inspired response to pressure from the Cobhams, it nevertheless of necessity eliminated an important dimension of the character as first and freely conceived: a scurrilously satirical representation of a revered historical figure. More incidentally, it introduces a metrical irregularity in verse, and, as in 'old lad of the castle', destroys some arch word-play on 'old', one of the character's distinctive attributes, and 'Olde-castle', his name.
Though Shakespeare may have been reconciled to the new name when he characterized Falstaff in later plays, it made its entry into 1 Henry IV as a response to unsolicited censorship. The major disadvantage in restoring the original, as we restore 'God' where censorship law demanded its alteration to 'heauen', is that it makes manifest an inconsistency between the first performed version of 1 Henry TV and the remaining Falstaff plays. However, there is no evidence that even the two parts of Henry IV were performed in sequence. The theatrical unit was the individual play, as consequently was the textual unit in lost manuscripts and extant printed books. In Shakespeare's lifetime the two Henry IV plays were published only separately, in different years, in quartos printed in different shops, from different kinds of manuscript, and sold by different stationers. 1 Henry IV may and indeed should be edited according to its own criteria.
Restoration of 'Oldcastle' highlights the differences in character between the figure represented in 1 Henry IV and Falstaff in 2 Henry IV. But, as with other name-changes (Philip Falconbridge to Sir Richard Plantagenet in King John, a woman's assumption of her husband's surname, etc.), the old and new names designate the same individual. A measure of this continuity can be maintained in an edited Complete Works by taking 'sir iohn' as the standard speech-prefix and, where they do not already appear, inserting the same words before the names 'Oldcastle' and 'Falstaff' in stage directions. For those wishing, for example, to perform the Henry IV plays in sequence, the substitution of 'Falstaff' for 'Oldcastle' is relatively simple. However, one cannot continue to print 'Falstaff' in edited texts and expect readers optionally to read in an alternative which has been thoroughly alienated from its context. The editorial restoration of 'Oldcastle' is the first stage in a process which will restore its familiarity in a play where it, in precedence to 'Falstaff', belongs.
External documentation reveals nothing of other revised names in 1 Henry IV. It is from an anomalous reference in Q to 'Falstalffe, Haruey, Rossill, and Gadshil' at 1.2.160/263–pg 3314 and from three speech-prefixes for 'Ross.' at 2.5.175/1105, 2.5.177/1107, and 2.5.181/1111 that we learn that Peto and Bardolph (Q 'Bardoll') originally had other names. Harvey and Russell, unlike Oldcastle, are not found in Shakespeare's sources for 1 Henry IV, though a Sir John Russell (see Introduction to 2 Henry IV and note to 184.108.40.206/804.3) is mentioned elsewhere in Holinshed. Shakespeare's contemporaries would, however, have recognized Harvey as the name of the Earl of Southampton's stepfather, and Russell as the family name of the Earls of Bedford. A deceased Sir John Russell had been husband to the self-styled Dowager Lady Russell who in November 1596 campaigned against the Lord Chamberlain's Men's proposal to move to the Blackfriars and establish a new theatre there. These names, if not included in the reformation of the play on account of the objection to Oldcastle, might therefore have caused offence in their own right.
The changes discussed so far were evidently imposed on the text after the play reached the stage. A potential complication to restoring the original names is that at 220.127.116.11–50/757.1–760 and in QF speech-prefix variants at 2.5.174–81/1104–11 there are independent signs of confusion between Russell/Bardolph and Gadshill (see textual notes). However, in 'The Thieves in 1 Henry IV Jowett argues that these features reflect changes of authorial intention in the foul papers, and so are separable from the later systematic revision of names. Shakespeare's original names Oldcastle, Russell, and Harvey can be restored without creating new inconsistencies. Ours is the first edition to do so.
The often-alleged substitution of Peto for Poins at the end of 2.5/Sc. 8 and 3.3/Sc. 11 is unlikely to have occurred. Most recently, Fredson Bowers has argued that the supposed anomaly arises from annotations indicating doubling of parts—a somewhat implausible hypothesis if, as most critics agree, the manuscript underlying Q was not theatrical in nature. There are two generally accepted reasons why Poins should be substituted: that Poins is earlier Hal's confidant, and should continue to be so, and that at 3.3.199/2115 there is a metrical irregularity unless 'Peto' (or 'Rossill') is emended to 'Poins'. Neither is convincing.
Russell says so little before the closing episode of 2.5/Sc. 8 that no violence is done upon his characterization by Hal's confidence in him. As Falstaff says in Q 'bid my Lieutenant Peto meet me' (4.2.9/2270), we must reckon with Russell/ Peto as a military leader whether or not he is admitted into the Prince's presence at the ends of 2.5/Sc. 8 and 3.3/Sc. 11. Q to this extent supports its own readings in the passages where they are contested. Russell/Peto's emergence from the tavern twilight should not be judged by standards of naturalism especially inappropriate to minor characters. As with Poins, his association with Hal leads to his disappearance from the play: as the action moves to the battlefield, Oldcastle is increasingly isolated.
The argument from the metre of 3.3.199/2115 collapses when the line is put in context. In 3.3.198–202/2114–18, not one line is metrically regular. Pope and other editors regarded the passage as prose, and perhaps rightly. In this edition, the verse arrangement is retained; even so, emendation of the offending name on metrical grounds is by no means justifiable.
The First Folio text was not a simple reprint of Q6. Changes to stage directions and speech-prefixes and the introduction of act and scene divisions are the most obvious indications that the copy had been annotated. Many oaths are softened or completely removed. The expurgator was alert to less obvious forms of profanity such as biblical allusions; the compositors are particularly unlikely to have been responsible. Walker attributed the prevalence of minor variants in F to the careless work of Compositor B, who set over half the text. However, her concentration on this single text led her to overestimate B's capacity for error. Werstine has shown that B set an uncharacteristic number of variants in his stints on 1 Henry IV, and that the compositor's alleged carelessness cannot account for them all. It may be inferred that readings were annotated in the printer's copy. If there is rather less variation in the stints of B's workmate Compositor A/J, this is probably because, as evidently elsewhere (for example in LLL and Richard II), the first and last parts of the text, set by Compositor B, were more efficiently annotated.
Annotations might derive from a manuscript, as Wilson believed, or, as Greg maintained (Folio, 264–5), have no other authority than the 'improvements' which a printing-house editor thought desirable. It is scarcely conceivable that Shakespeare intended many of its variants. But Reid persuasively argues that at least some of the annotation derived from a manuscript, one which showed certain 'literary' characteristics. Reid believes that collation must have been careful in order to be worthwhile, but the example of other Folio plays, notably Richard II (the play preceding 1 Henry IV), suggests that it was not necessarily or even normally so thorough; the extent of compositorial error accumulated from Q3 to Q6 but not corrected in F indicates that the manuscript of 1 Henry IV was consulted much less effectively even than that of Richard II (though some of F's restorations of Q1/Q2 readings are almost equally persuasive evidence that at these points the manuscript was consulted). Reid envisaged a manuscript similar to the copy for Folio Twelfth Night, and attributed features inconsistent with this picture to a second stage of annotation made without reference to the manuscript. If instead F provides glimpses of a text similar to that which is seen extensively in Folio 2 Henry IV, an idiosyncratically literary manuscript which may itself have derived from the prompt-book, an unaided printing-house editor becomes unnecessary to the textual hypothesis: all variants likely to be annotations can be explained as annotations from such a manuscript, and most miscorrections of copy error can be attributed to Compositor B. It may be conjectured that a single scribe prepared literary transcripts of the two Henry IV plays.
Two particular Folio variants need to be considered if this conclusion is to be sustained. They are interdependent, deliberate, physically separate, and wrong: a combination of characteristics which suggest an editor's unaided work. F omits Poins's entry at 18.104.22.168/209.1 and instead adds his name to the characters to enter at the beginning of the scene. It has been suspected that the annotator was trying to make sense of 'Poynes' at the beginning of 1.2.106/210 which was italicized and inset in Q6 and so was indistinguishable from a speech-prefix. By any such account, a manuscript cannot have been consulted for this alteration—and stage directions are the most likely area of the text to have been collated with the manuscript. But an annotator unfamiliar with the play on stage is unlikely to have noticed a problem in the first place, and it is even more unlikely that an annotator familiar pg 332with the play on stage would emend at such obvious variance with the required staging. The emendation does not even adequately solve the supposedly perceived problem. F's transferred entry is best explained as a feature of a literary manuscript. Folio 2 Henry IV shows a similar tendency wrongly to introduce characters at the beginning of a scene; one need only suppose that a similar phenomenon occurred here.
A manuscript such as that envisaged to lie behind F would contain many readings resulting from scribal sophistication. Folio 1 Henry IV has always been recognized as the source for a few unobvious but convincing corrections of Q. It might also incorporate revisions in the scribe's copy made by Shakespeare himself. Application of similar criteria to those used for evaluating variants in 2 Henry IV indeed identifies a small number of Folio variants most satisfactorily attributed to authorial revision. It is of considerable significance that these readings cluster together; they fall within 1.2.165–79/268–80, 1.3.25–133/342–50, and 1.3.209–10/536–7 (see textual notes). Other, rejected, Folio readings which deserve consideration include those of 1.3.231/548, 2.4.86/906 (omission of 'all things'), 2.5.10–11/944, 2.5.51/985, 2.5.59/993, and 5.4.160/2957 (introduction of 'again').
F's colloquial contractions probably correct scribal expansions underlying Q, and in this edition have been adopted. Again significantly, most of them are concentrated in 1.3/Sc. 3 and 1.4/Sc. 4: another indication that this part of the copy for F was relatively well annotated.
F's act and scene divisions are generally followed in this edition. Additional scene-breaks have been supplied in two places, initiating the traditional 5.3/Sc. 18 and this edition's Sc. 6/2.3. Editors have not identified a scene-break in the latter because the action is virtually continuous, but Q indicates that the stage is cleared. It is unlikely that 'Enter' here indicates that characters who have remained in view come forward: (a) 'Enter' rarely has such a sense; (b) the Prince and Poins would have to put on their disguises on stage whilst the main stage business continued; (c) they would then come forward merely to retire again. Though the staging is fluid, the cleared stage emphasizes a change in location between the thieves' exeunt and entry. F's failure to provide a scene-break is a consequence of the missing 'Exeunt' in the quarto copy (and hence F itself)—as happens again at the scene-break first made by Capell beginning 5.3/Sc. 18.
Bevington, David, ed., Henry IV, Part 1, Oxford (1987)
Bowers, Fredson, 'Establishing Shakespeare's Text: Poins and Peto in 1 Henry IV', SB 34 (1981), 189–98
Davison, P. H., ed., Henry IV, Part 1, New Penguin (1968)
Greg, W. W., and Charlton Hinman, eds., Henry the Fourth, Part 1: 1598, Oxford Shakespeare Quarto Facsimile (1966)
Hemingway, S. B., ed., The First Part of King Henry IV, New Variorum (1936)
Humphreys, A. R., ed., The First Part of King Henry IV, Arden (1960)
Jackson, MacD. P., 'Two Shakespeare Quartos: Richard III (1597) and 1 Henry IV (1598)', SB 35 (1982), 173–91
——'The Manuscript Copy for the Quarto (1598) of Shakespeare's 1 Henry IV, N&Q, ns 33 (1986), 353–4
Johnson, T., publisher, The Works of Mr. William Shakespear (1710)
Jowett, John, 'The Thieves in 1 Henry IV', RES, ns 38 (1987), 325–33
——'The Transformation of Hal', N&Q, ns 34 (1987), 208–10
Mahood, M., Shakespeare's Wordplay (1957)
Reid, S. W., 'The Folio 1 Henry IV and its Copy' (forthcoming)
Taylor, Gary, 'The Fortunes of Oldcastle', SSu 38 (1985), 85–100
——'William Shakespeare, Richard James, and the House of Cobham', RES, ns 38 (1987), 334–54
Walker, Alice, 'The Folio Text of 1 Henry IV', SB 6 (1954), 45–59
Waller, Frederick O., 'The Use of Linguistic Criteria in Determining the Copy and Dates for Shakespeare's plays', in Waldo F. McNeir and Thelma N. Greenfield, eds., Pacific Coast Studies in Shakespeare (1966), 1–19
West, Gilian, '"Titan," "Onyers," and Other Difficulties in the Text of 1 Henry IV', SQ 34 (1983), 330–3
Williams, G. W., and G. B. Evans, eds., 'The History of King Henry the Fourth' as Revised by Sir Edward Dering, Bart. (1973)
Wilson, John Dover, ed., The First Part of the History of Henry IV, New (1949)
Zimmerman, Susan, 'The Uses of Headlines: Peter Short's Shakespearian Quartos 1 Henry IV and Richard III', The Library, VI, 7 (1985), 218–55
Title The Hysterie of Henry the fourth] Q1 (running title); the | history of | henrie the | fovrth; | With the battell at Shrewsburie, | betweene the King and Lord | Henry Percy, ſurnamed | Henrie Hotſpur of | the North. | With the humorous conceits of Sir | Iohn Falstalffe. Q2 (title-page); the historie of | Henry the fourth. Q2 (head title); The First Part of Henry the Fourth, | with the Life and Death of henry | Sirnamed hot-spvrre.F(head title); The First Part of King Henry the Fourth.F(running title and table of contents). The Q2 running title is 'The Historie of Henrie the fourth.', varied '… Historie. …', '… history …', and '… Henry …'. Faulty imposition gives transposed headlines in the facing pages of inner forme D. The S.R. entry is as the Q2 title-page, but with 'betweene … surnamed' shortened to 'against', and 'conceipted mirthe' for 'humorous conceits'. 'Conceipted mirthe' could have appeared on the Q1 title-page.
22.214.171.124/0.2 other [⌈ords⌉] Editors usually follow the Dering MS in including Sir Walter Blunt, but it is theatrically awkward for him to stand around until announced as 'new lighted from his horse' (1.1.63/63)—after which he still remains silent. Here at 1.1.62/62 can mean merely 'here at court'.
1.1.39/39 Herfordshire] Q2 (Herdforshire), Q7,F(Herefordshire), Q8. Q2's anomalous form is probably a compositorial error. Although 'e' could easily be misread 'd', the absence of 'd' after '… for' suggests that the compositor accidentally set 'd' after the first 'r' rather than the second.
1.1.40 Glyndŵr] Q (Glendower). Similarly throughout. Glendower is a rough transliteration of the Welsh vowels, and hence a spelling variant. It is misleading in that the pronunciation is always disyllabic and sometimes stressed on the first syllables Glendower has been an established anglicization, but historians now usually accept the correct Welsh form.
1.1.55 Holmedon] Q. The modern form Humbleton suggests three syllables. Compare Pomfret for Pontefract.
1.1.62/62 a deere] Q5b, F; deere Q2
1.1.69/69 bloud did] Q6, F; ⁓. Did Q2
1.1.71/71 the Earle] pope; Earle QF
1.1.73 Moray] Q (Murrey)
1.1.75–6/75–76 not? | westmerland In faith it is a] pope; not? In faith it is. | West⟨merland⟩. A QF. It is sometimes pointed out that Q's space after 'not' would accommodate a missing prefix. However, the copy for Q would be unlikely to have a new speech beginning on the same line as the end of the pg 333previous one, and the mechanics of the error are difficult to explain in terms of an omitted prefix. More plausibly, 'In faith it is' was inserted in a manuscript.
1.1.93/93 vse‸ he keepes, ] Q4, F; ⁓, he ⁓‸ Q2
126.96.36.199/107.3 and Sir Iohn Olde-castle] This edition (G.T.; following early allusions); and Sir Iohn Falstaffe Q; Sir Iohn Fal-|staffe and Pointz F. Falstaff is found in Q and F for Oldecastle throughout (see Introduction); the usual form in Q is 'Falstalffe'. The spelling 'Olde-castle' is taken from the name's one occurrence in Shakespeare: 2 Henry IV Epi. 30/3226–7. For F's relocation from 105.1/209.1 of Poins's entry, see Introduction.
1.2.16/123 a king] Q2; king Q3,F
1.2.33/140 proofe‸ now. A ] rowe; ⁓. Now‸ a QF
1.2.79/184 similes] Q6; ſmiles Q2,F
1.2.80/185 sweet] Q3, F; ſweer Q2
188.8.131.52/209.1 Enter Poines] Q; not in F
1.2.106/210 Poynes:] theobald; ⁓, Q2; Poines. Q5, Qb,F(as speech-prefix). See Introduction.
1.2.112–13/217–8 Iohn, Sacke and Sugar Iacke?] This edition (Mahood); Iohn Sacke, and Sugar lacke? Q2; Iohn Sacke and Sugar, lacke Q6; Iohn Sacke and Sugar: lacke? F; John Sack-and-Sugar? Jack! rowe. Most editions follow Rowe, though Humphreys and others have refined this reading by adding a dash after 'Sack' derived from Q2's comma. The apparent virtue of the dash is its conservatism, but Q2 needs emending in any case; all editors follow the unauthoritative isolation of 'lacke'. Q2's comma after 'Iohn' might be the equivalent to the inception of a hyphenated phrase (as perhaps is the comma after 'foot' in 'came in, foot, and hand' at 2.5.221/1148). The alternative to Rowe adopted in this edition not only gives a crisper phrasing, but is more pointed in that, as Mahood remarked, jack can mean 'leather drinking-vessel, tankard'.
1.2.160/263–4 Haruey, Rossill, and Gadshil] QF; Harvay Peto and Bardolff dering MS; Bardohh, Peto, and Gads-hill theobald. See Introduction.
1.2.160 Russell] Q (Roſsill)
1.2.165/268 But how] F; How Q. See notes to 1.2.172/274 and 1.2.179/280. The 'Yea'/'I' variant at 1.2.172/274 points to consultation of a manuscript behind F; the two separate but linked variants at 1.2.165/286 and 1.2.179/280 suggest the same. Whereas 'Yea' at 1.2.172/274 is probably a quarto error, the transposition of 'But' across 14 lines has the character of an authorial revision, especially as it avoids Q's repeated 'Yea, but' (or Shakespeare's original repetition of 'I, but') in the Prince's consecutive replies at 1.2.172/274 and 1.2.179/280. These variants occur just over sixty lines before the most radically reworked passage in F, which is itself associated with other changes in 1.3/Sc. 3 (see notes to 1.3.26/343, etc.).
1.2.172/274 I] F; Yea Q. For Shakespeare's overwhelming preference for 'I', see Introduction and note to Richard III 1.3.98/510. The variant is best explained as an authoritative correction from manuscript in F of a scribal or printing-house corruption in Q. The omitted 'Yea' at 1.2.179/280 might be a misinterpreted annotation to the same effect ('I' interpreted as a slash), but more plausibly relates to the variant at 1.2.165/268.
1.2.187/289 liues] Q2; lyes Q3,F
1.2.192–214/295–317 I … wil. ] A manuscript version of the speech (BL Egerton MS 2446, fol. 13, dated 14 April 1628) shares the error 'soile' (1.2.212/315) with Qq5–6 and F, and so is evidently transcribed from one of these texts.
317.2 blunt] Q2. A feature of Q is its occasional use of lower-case initial letters for proper names. These probably preserve details of an underlying manuscript, and so are retained. An exception is made of repeated 'iacke' (see Incidentals), where Q evidently deploys lower-case because of shortage of the upper-case letter.
1.3.12 too] Q (to)
1.3.25/342 was] F; is Q2; he Q6. See following note.
1.3.26/343 Who either through enuie] F( … enuy ); Either enuie therefore Q. This passage (1.3.25–7/342–4) is the first of a series of readings in 1.3, all set by Compositor B on Folio page e1, in which F differs from Q in a way not accountable as error (Werstine, 'Folio Compositors', p. 266). Nor are F's changes well explained as a result of damage in the printed copy, unless that damage was made good by reference to the manuscript: if 'enuy therefore' was legible in the Q6 copy, an unauthorized correction would have to be both deliberately wrong and less obvious than the required reading, whereas if 'enuy' was missing, a corrector would have to be gifted with considerable luck to guess it. Here, and at 1.3.65, 126, 131, and 133/382, 443, 448, and 450, the Folio readings are taken as deliberate authorial changes incorporated from the manuscript.
'Through' might be emended 'thorough', but 'enuie' can be accented on the second syllable.
1.3.27/344 Was] F; Is Q. See previous note.
1.3.52/369 or] F; or he Q
1.3.65/382 Made me to answer] F; I anſwered Q. F's reading almost certainly derives from the consulted manuscript, and can only be explained as an authorial alteration. Further evidence of annotation from an authoritative source comes 2 lines earlier, where Q6's apparently satisfactory 'haue been himselfe' is corrected to the Q2 reading 'himselfe haue beene'. The Folio text varies more markedly from the phrasing at 1.3.51/368; as with its rewording at 1.3.26/343, the tone becomes more defiant and accusatory.
1.3.83/400 the] Q3, F; that Q2
1.3.115 Owain] Q (Owen). Similarly throughout.
1.3.122/439 youle] F (you'll); you wil Q
1.3.126/443 Although it be with] F; Albeit I make a Q. See note to 1.3.26/343.
1.3.131/448 In his behalfe] F; Yea on his part Q. See note to 1.3.26/343. At 184.108.40.206/444.1 F successfully reintroduces an entry missing in Q6, correctly identifying the character where the context does not establish his name. Again an authoritative annotation is suggested.
1.3.133/450 downfall] F; down-trod Q. The variant is of the type associated with minor authorial adjustments as seen in Richard II and elsewhere. It is especially likely to derive from the manuscript as other readings in this passage, one just two lines above, also appear to do so. F gives an acceptable but unusual past-participle form, one that Shakespeare used elsewhere, for this very word, at Macbeth 4.3.4/1551.
1.3.192 3/509–10 swim. … West, ] Q3 ( ⁓, … ⁓, )F( ⁓: … ⁓, ); ⁓, … ⁓. Q2
1.3.199/516 hotspur] Q6, F; no speech-prefix in Q1
1.3.209–10/526–7 a while … me. ] F; a while. Q. F's part-line is not convincingly explained except as an authorial addition incorporated from a manuscript. Compare similar part-lines in Folio 2 Henry IV.
1.3.237/554 whipt] Q2, F; whip Q1
1.3.240/557 de'ye] F; do you Q
1.3.241/558 vpon't] F; vpon it Q
1.3.253/570 to't] F (too't); to it Q
1.3.254/571 Weele] F (Wee'l); We wil Q
1.3.260/577 granted. … You my Lord, ] theobald (Thirlby); ⁓‸ you my ⁓. QF
1.3.264/581 ist] F (is't); is it Q
1.3.265 Bristol] Q (Bristow)
1.3.271/588 well] Q; wond'rous well F. F's addition may not derive from a manuscript. The line is set in F two lines from the foot of column b of e1v, with a line-break introduced alter 'I smell it'. Compositor B, who set the page, was evidently accustomed to adding a word or words to his copy in order to facilitate or disguise space-wasting. The verse-line without 'wond'rous' would easily fit the Folio measure; with it, a line-break becomes necessary.
1.3.276 well aimed] Q ( ⁓, ⁓ ). The comma is equivalent to a hyphen.
1.3.287/604 course.] rowe; ⁓‸ QF
1.3.289 Lord] Q (Lo:)
1.3.292/609 our] Q2, F; out Q1
2.1.1/614 Ant] F (an't); An it Q
2.1.24 races] Q (razes)
2.1.40/652–3 quoth a] F (quoth-a); quoth he Q
2.1.55 Weald] Q (wild)
677 Saine] Q. Possibly a misprint, but OED records early forms without 't', including the 16th-c. spelling 'sayn'.
2.1.68/681 hees] F (hee's); he is Q
2.1.73/686 foot landrakers] Q4, F; fcotland rakers Q1
2.1.76/689 Oiezres] This edition; Oneyres QF; owners hanmer; mynheers capell; ones;—yes collier (conj.); O-yeas davison. Humphreys comments, 'What is wanted … is something facetiously grandiloquent, recognizable as a title, yet far-fetched'. Malone's conjecture 'onyers', from O.Ni, oni, which Humphreys follows, is unintelligible; it is a particularly unlikely construct as the first known example of O.Ni is 1644, and its meaning is there explained. Davison's reading is attractive as far as it goes, but does not give a title and necessitates an unlikely conjectural spelling ('Owyres'). 'Oiez' is a recognized spelling variant, and the addition of the suffix '-res' gives both a closer analogy with 'Burgomasters' and a more directly applicable sense. The result is a nonce-word, but in context a recognizable one, with a combination of letters that could easily have confused a compositor. See also note to 'min-heires' at Merry Wives 2.1.206/765.
2.1.86 recipe] Q (receyte)
2.1.97/710 Exeunt] F; not in Q.
220.127.116.11/710.1 Haruey, ⌈Rossill⌉] This edition; and Peto, &c. Q; and Peto F; not in capell; bardolph and peto, at some distance malone
18.104.22.168/711.1 Exeunt … doore ] This edition; not in QF
2.2.4/714 Exit Poynes] This edition; not in QF; They retire, dyce
2.2.10/720 Exit] This edition; not in QF; Retires. dyce
2.2.17 two-and-twenty] Q (xxii:),F
2.2.21/732 Rossill, Haruey] This edition; Bardoll, Peto Q; Bardolph, Peto F. Similarly throughout, in text, stage directions, and speech-prefixes, except at 1.2.160/263; see Introduction and Jowett, 'The Thieves in 1 Henry IV'.
2.2.27/738 vpon't] F; vpon it Q
2.2.31/742 prince Peace] Q (text), F; Peace Q (c.w.)
2.2.40 Prince‸ Hal ] Q ( ⁓, ⁓ ). This is the only example of Prince collocated with Hal(l) in the play (and at 2 Henry IV 5.5.41/3129 'King Hall' is a comic construction). Q's comma may indicate two distinct vocatives.
22.214.171.124/757.1 Gadshill] QF; Gadshill and Bardolph rowe; gadshill; bardolph, and peto, with him capell. Editors' introduction of Bardolph (i.e. Russell) here makes little theatrical sense and is an expedient designed to make sense of the text in Q at 2.2.50–1/760 (see note).
126.96.36.199/757.1 vizarded] This edition; not in QF
2.2.50–2/760–2 Gadshill, what newes. | ⌈gadshill⌉] This edition; Bardoll, what newes. | Bar⟨doll⟩. QF; Bard⟨olph⟩. What newes? | Gads⟨hill⟩. steevens (Johnson). Editors who follow Q, as is usual, emend the stage directions so that Bardolph (i.e. Russell) enters with Gadshill at 188.8.131.52/757.1. But both on its own terms and in relation to the textual problem of 2.5.174–81/1104–11, Q is best explained here as reflecting foul-paper confusion between Russell/Bardolph and Gadshill. See Jowett, 'The Thieves in 1 Henry IV'.
184.108.40.206/767.1 They … vizardes ] This edition; not in QF
220.127.116.11/783.1 Exeunt … Poynes ] malone; not in QF
18.104.22.168/785.2 amongst … Carriers ] This edition; not in QF
2.2.78/788 their] This edition; our QF. The Travellers surely dismount when descending the hill to assist the horses. Corruption could easily arise, either accidentally or deliberately, after 'our horses' and 'weele walke a foote a while'.
2.2.80/790 ⌈2⌉ trauailler] dyce 2; unnumbered in QF; Trav⟨ellers⟩. malone
2.3.13/812 al] Q1; not in Q3,F
2.4.4/822 respect] Q7, F; the reſpect Q2. Q2 gives an idiom unexampled in Shakespeare and an awkward repetition of 'the'; it also misquotes the letter.
2.4.48 thee] Q (the)
2.4.54/874 ransomd] dyce 2 (Capell); ranſome QF
2.4.62/882 hest] QF; heft west (conj.). An attractive emendation. OED's one instance of heft meaning 'A heave, a strain; a heaving effort' (sb. 4) is from Shakespeare (Winter's Tale 2.1.47/559). Typographical error is not possible, as 'st' is a ligature and 'ft' separate typepieces, but Q could arise from simple misreading.
2.4.69/889 a Roane] Q4, F; Roane Q2
2.4.84/904 to] This edition; vnto QF. The speech is prose in Q; 'vnto' is set at the end of a line and may have been expanded to aid justification, but is an easy substitution.
2.4.89 maumets] Q (mammets)
2.5.8 christen] Q. In this context semantically indifferent with 'Christian' (the form in Q6), but unique as an adjective in Shakespeare and probably here an imitation of the Puritan-influenced idiom of a citizen.
2.5.32/966 president] F; preſent Q
2.5.35/969 poines] Q5, F; Prin⟨ce⟩. Q2
2.5.65 o'] Q (a). Similarly at 5.1.136.
2.5.120/1051 Titan,] pope; ⁓‸ QF; Butter, theobald. Theobald's emendation has rightly been thought to weaken the sense (see Humphreys) and is an awkward substitution. If Q is seriously wrong, perhaps 'pittifull harted Titan' is a wrongly-placed addition which should appear after 'see Titan'.
2.5.121 sun's] Q (sonnes)
2.5.126/1056 Exit Frances] This edition; not in QF. Editors usually leave Francis on stage until 2.5.486/1414, but an exit here allows the part to end as it began, with comic business, instead of trailing into a ghost.
22.214.171.124/1098.1 He … sword ] This edition; not in QF
2.5.174/1104 prince] F; Gad⟨shill⟩. Q
2.5.175, 177, 181/1105, 1107, 1111 gadshill] F; Ross⟨ill⟩. Q. Wilson argued that Gadshill cannot be intended to speak 2.5.174/1104 (see previous note), and that the prefix in Q was probably an addition to the copy manuscript designed to replace 'Ross.'. The Folio emendation is surely good evidence of annotation from a manuscript, though F is followed even by editors who deny the text such authority. The probable reason why the speeches were originally given to Russell but were transferred to Gadshill, not Bardolph, is that Shakespeare originally intended a single character, but decided, perhaps whilst writing the later part of 2.4, that Gadshill and Russell should be distinct (see Jowett, 'The Thieves in 1 Henry IV').
126.96.36.199/1125.1 He … fight ] This edition; not in QF
188.8.131.52/1133.1 He … buckler ] This edition; not in QF
2.5.248/1176 elfskin] Q4, F; elſskin Q2
2.5.252/1180 to't] F; to it Q
2.5.327/1255 Exit] This edition; not in QF. An exit is required before 2.5.486.2/1414.2, where Russell re-enters; editors usually supply it immediately before this entry. It is doubtful whether Shakespeare would have envisaged such a staging without supplying either intervening dialogue (such as we find if the Hostess exits at 2.5.486.1/1414.1, to re-enter at 2.5.490.1/1418.1) or stage directions as elsewhere in 1 Henry IV for distinctive aspects of staging. Russell's 'Choler' gives a good natural cue for his—but not the Hostess's—exit.
2.5.333 talon] Q (talent)
2.5.343/1271 O.] QF ( ⁓‸ ), dering MS (Owen). Sir John's 'Owen, Owen, the same' is much more intelligible if Poins actually said 'Owen' himself. It is only necessary to suppose that Shakespeare used the initial 'O' as an abbreviation. Hand D in More did not habitually place a full stop after such initials, so the text is pg 335scarcely corrupt; however, such pointing would usually have been introduced in Q1 or Q2.
2.5.343 Owain] Q (O). See previous note.
2.5.368–372 But … afraid ] Q has question marks after 'afeared', 'again', and 'afraid'. Thou being heir-apparent' could be interpreted as belonging to the first question. The modernized punctuation substantively follows F.
2.5.383 joint-stool] Q (ioynd stoole)
2.5.396 Father] Q (father), F. Taken to be God the Father, but alternatively Sir John as Henry the father.
25.397/1324 tristfull] dering MS, rowe; trustfull QF
2.5.405/1332 yet] Q4, F; ſo Q2
2.5.458 reverend] Q (reuerent)
2.5.478/1405 leane] Q3, F; lane Q2
2.5.486.1/1414.1 Exit hostesse] This edition; not in QF; Exeunt Hostess, Francis, and Bardolph malone. Sisson would have the Hostess conveyed off stage at 2.5.401/1328, but her appreciative comment at 2.5.399–400/1326–7 does not sound like someone taking leave of Sir John's performance. See notes to 2.5.126/1056 and 2.5.327/1255.
2.5.498/1425 made] Q, F1; mad F3. F3 may give a modernization: 'made' appears as a spelling of mad in 2 Henry IV 2.1.106/714 and Sonnet 129.9. This makes the crux more finely balanced (compare Humphreys's note), but though not necessarily a more conservative reading, 'made' gives better sense.
2.2.508/1434 Exeunt … Gadshill ] Exit F; not in Q
2.5.508/1434 Poines] See note to 2.5.533/1459 etc.
2.5.529, 530 Good … good ] Q ( God … god )
2.5.533, 536, 553/1459. 1462, 1479 haruey] This edition; Pet⟨o⟩. Q; Poins. dering MS, steevens (Johnson). Similarly 'Haruey' at 2.5.542/1478. It has often been thought that Poins, not Harvey/Peto, should remain on stage after 2.5.508/1434 and at the end of 3.3. See Introduction.
2.5.538/1464 haruey] This edition; Peto. F; not in Q
2.5.543/1469 prince] F; not in Q
184.108.40.206/1483.1 Mortimer … sit ] bevington (subs.); not in QF
3.1.7/1486 Hotspur sits] This edition; not in QF
3.1.48/1527 standing] This edition; not in QF
3.1.48/1527 speaketh] This edition; ſpeakes QF. pope and others have preferred the metrical expansion 'there is', but the resultant metre remains awkward.
3.1.67/1546 heres] F (heere's); here is Q
3.1.97/1576 cantle] F; ſcantle Q
3.1.126 metre] Q (miter)
3.1.129 on] Q (an)
3.1.152/1631 the least] capell; least QF
3.1.182 nobleman] Q (noble man)
220.127.116.11–2/1666.1–2 Mortimers … Welsh ] This edition; not in QF
3.1.197/1676 thou downe powrest] keightley (Seymour); thou powrest downe Q; thou powr'st down F; down thou pourest seymour (conj.). Other metrical emendations are 'down too' (capell) and 'two swelling' (pope); neither is convincing, and both depend on the secondary emendation of 'powrest'. Seymour's suggested 'down thou pourest' is attractive, but depends on transposition of 'down' across two words. His alternative adopted by Keightley assumes a transposition of single words, one which would be encouraged by the original's unusual word order.
18.104.22.168/1686.1 sits … and ] This edition; not in QF
3.1.228/1707 hees] F (hee's); he is Q
3.1.259/1739 hot,] Q5 (Hot,), F; Hot. Q2
3.2.59 won] Q (wan)
3.2.84/1825 gorgde] Q3, F; gordge Q2
3.2.96 then] Q (than)
3.2.112 swaddling-clothes] Q (ſwathling cloaths)
3.2.156/1897 intemperature] F; intemperance Q. Wilson defended F as the better reading.
3.2.157 bonds] Q (bands)
22.214.171.124–2/1921.1–2 with … waist ] wilson (subs.); not in QF
3.3.34/1955 thats] Q4; that Q2
3.3.56/1976 tith] theobald; tight QF. Sisson conjectures copy spelling 'tihte' for tithe, but it is not necessary to suppose a manuscript transposition of 'th': OED gives 'tite' as an erroneous 17th-c. spelling of tight.
3.3.73 four-and-twenty] Q (xxiiii.),F
126.96.36.199/2004–5 raising his trunchion] This edition; not in QF
188.8.131.52/2006.1 and Haruey] See note to 3.3.199/2115.
3.3.118 no thing] Q (nothing)
3.3.134 owed] Q (ought)
3.3.173 guests] Q (ghesse)
3.3.178 beef] Q (beoffe)
3.3.191 two-and-twenty] Q (xxii.),F
3.3.199/2115 Haruey] This edition; Peto QF; Poins dering MS, steevens (Johnson). The character who must enter with the Prince is only identified in this reading. See Introduction and note to 2.5.533/1459.
3.3.202 o'clock] Q (of clocke)
3.3.206/2124 Exit] capell; not in Q2; Exeunt. Q3; Exeunt omnes. F. Q's omitted exit and entry directions give the appearance of continuous action. F's expanded wording might indicate that the reading was checked in the manuscript. At first glance, 'Exeunt' is exactly what is needed, but F's direction may be prompter's shorthand for staggered exits. If an annotation came (indirectly) from a prompt-book in late use, it would be important for that manuscript clearly to indicate a cleared stage before the act-break.
184.108.40.206–2/2124.1 Enter … Douglas ] Q3,F( … Harrie Hotſpur … and Dowglas ); not in Q2. Q2 never refers to Harry Hotspur.
220.127.116.11/2136.1 a Messenger] F; one Q
4.1.18 jostling] Q (iustling)
4.1.20/2144 my lord] capell; my mind Q2; his mind Q4,F
4.1.31/2155 sicknesse staies him,] This edition; sicknesse, QF; sickness holds him; capell. Rowe and many subsequent editors consider that Hotspur runs on to the next part of the letter without completing his sentence, and supply a dash for Q's comma after 'sicknesse'. It is more likely that words are missing and need to be supplied. For another lacuna that may be related, see note to 4.1.98–100/2222–4.
4.1.50 sole] Q (ſoule). Q's spelling is applicable to either sole or soul, and gives no indication of the primary sense. Soul is taken as subordinate because it is (a) less consistent with 'bottom' and 'list', (b) abstract, (c) an indirect application of the word (OED's first illustration of figurativè sense 7).
4.1.55/2179 is] F; tis Q
4.1.98 ostriches] Q (Estridges). An Estridge is alternatively a goshawk, but few critics support such an interpretation here.
4.1.98–100/2222–4 that with the wind | ⌈ … ⌉ | Batting ] This edition (conj. Malone); that with the wind | Baited QF; that wing the Wind, | Baited rowe; and with the wind | Baiting hanmer. The passage has troubled editors, though recent texts follow Qperhaps because emendation of no individual word leads to a convincing text. Q is best explained as having a missing line followed by a corruption of 'Baiting'. See Jowett, 'The Transformation of Hal'.
4.1.106 cuishes] Q (cushes)
4.1.109/2233 dropt] Q3, F; drop Q2
4.1.117/2241 altar] Q5, F; altars Q2
4.1.124 corpse] Q (coarſe)
4.1.127/2251 cannot] Q6b, F; can Q2
4.1.127 this] Q. Possibly an old spelling of these, but if so it is odd to find it in a context where the singular is acceptable.
4.1.128/2252 yet] Q6, F; it Q2
4.1.135 merrily] Q (merely). Similarly at 5.2.12/2648.
4.2.3 Coldfleld] Q (cop-|hill)
4.2.16 yeomen's] Q (Yeomans)
4.2.24 ensigns] Q (Ancients)
4.2.31 feazed ensign] Q (fazd ancient)
4.2.34 tattered] Q (tottered)
4.2.57/2318 all] QF; at This edition conj. Q gives an odd reading. 'At' could easily be misread 'al', especially as 'all' occurs just four words earlier.
4.3.23/2364 horse] Q5, F; horſes Q2
4.3.26/2367 the halfe] steevens; the halfe of QF; half of pope
4.3.30/2371 our] Q2, F. Q7's 'ours' is an inflexional modernization: 'our' is acceptable as an absolute possessive, and is found again at 5.4.156/2953.
4.3.65/2406 innocencie] QF; innocence pope
4.3.74/2415 heires‸ as Pages, followed ] F4 (subs.); ⁓, as Pagesfollowed Qa; ⁓, as Pages‸ followed Qb, F1
4.3.84/2425 Countreys] Q6b, F; Countrey Q2
18.104.22.168/2456.1 Exeunt] F; no stage direction in Q
22.214.171.124 Michael] Q (Mighell). Similarly throughout.
4.4.30 more] Q (mo)
4.4.35/2491 not,] Q3, F; ⁓‸ Q2
5.1.2/2498 bulky] Q2; busky Q3,F
5.1.42, 58 Doncaster] Q (Dancaster)
5.1.83/2579 our] F; your Q. There is no self-evident error in Q, but on closer examination F has the more plausible reading. Some or all of the following variants may attest to occasional manuscript consultation behind F hereabouts:
4.4.16/2472 what with] Qq2–3, F; what Qq 4–6
5.1.5/2501 by his] Qq2–3, F; by the Q4; by Qq 5–6
5.1.40/2536 outdare] Q2, F; outdate Qq 3–6
5.1.73/2569 Proclaimd] Q2, F; Proclaimed Qq 3–6
5.1.90/2586 actiue, valiant] Qq 2–3, F; actiue, more valiant Q9 4–6
5.1.100/2596 in a] Q2, F; in Qq 3–6
5.1.84/2580 this] QF; this dire G.T. conj. 'Dearely' may be trisyllabic (Cercignani, pp. 355–6), though the Shakespeare canon offers no parallel for such a pronunciation.
5.1.131/2627 then?] Q3, F; ⁓‸ Q2
5.1.138/2633 wil it] Q3, F; Wil Q2
5.2.3/2639 vndone] Q6, F; vnder one Q2
5.2.8/2644 Supposition] QF; Suspicion rowe
5.2.10/2646 nere] F(ne're); neuer Q
5.2.70/2706 On] QF; Upon pope
126.96.36.199/2724.1 Messenger] F; not in Q
5.2.92–3/2728–9 draw I | a sword, whose] Q (dividing after sword); I draw a Sword, | Whoſe worthy F. The variants are of very doubtful provenance. 'I draw' gives a firmer line-end than 'draw I', but the interpolation of 'worthy' establishes a regular pentameter of 'Whose … staine' based on the QF line-break after 'sword'. Compositor B is known to make occasional metrical interpolations, and Shakespeare never describes a sword or 'temper' as 'worthy'. The transposition could be an error, though conceivably in Q rather than F.
5.2.94–5/2730–1 withall, … day. ] Q3, F ⁓. … ⁓, Q2
5.3.1/2737 in the] t. johnson; in QF
5.3.22/2758 A foole‸ ] capell; Ah foole, QF
188.8.131.52/2765.1 Exeunt] F; no exit direction in Q
5.3.36 ragamuffins] Q (rag of Muffins)
5.3.40 stand'st] Q (stands)
5.3.41 noble man] Q. Usually modernized 'nobleman'.
5.3.43/2779 as yet ar] dyce 2; are yet Q; are F. Q collapses into prose in a line whose subject matter continues in the heroic vein. The resemblance of 'as' and 'ar' would make scribal error easy. F's reading may be a further mistake, but as Compositor B squeezed 'What … sword' on to one type line and F also omits 'I', 'yet' may have been deliberately omitted.
5.3.48/2784 He is] QF; He's sure vaughan (conj.)
5.3.51 gett'st] Q (gets)
5.3.61/2797 Exit] F; not in Q
5.3.61/2797 with Blunts body] This edition; not in QF
184.108.40.206/2820.1 Enter Douglas] F; not in Q
5.4.57 Sir] Q (S.),F
5.4.57/2854 Exit] F; Exit Ki⟨ng⟩: Q
5.4.67/2864 Nor] F; Now Q
220.127.116.11/2872.1 who] F; he Q
5.4.91 thee] Q (the)
5.4.97 rites] Q (rights)
18.104.22.168/2924.2 Prince, Iohn,] Q3 ( ⁓‸ and Iohn ); ⁓‸ | Iohn Q2
5.4.147/2945 take't on] F; take it vpon Q
5.4.151/2948 ere] F (e're); euer Q
5.4.156/2953 The Trumpet] QF. Their Trumpet G.T. conj.
5.4.156/2953 our] Q2; ours Q3, F. See note to 4.3.30/2371.
22.214.171.124/2974.1 Exeunt … garded ] F(Exit Worcester and Vernon.); not in Q
5.5.37/2996 bend‸ ] Q5, F; ⁓, Q2
REJECTED FOLIO VARIANTS
Readings not accepted in this edition which originate in F
1.1.28/28 now is twelue month] Q2; is twelue month Q4; is a tweluemonth F
1.1.42/42 A] And a
1.1.64/64 Staind] Strain'd
1.1.66/66 welcom] welcomes
1.1.103/103 so] and ſo
126.96.36.199/107.3 prince] Henry Prince
1.2.4/111 after noone] in the afternoone
1.2.20/127 by my troth] not in F
1.2.39/146 By the Lord thou] Thou F
1.2.41/148 the … Hibla ] is the hony
1.2.56/162 it not] it
1.2.63/169 by the Lord] not in F
1.2.73/178 Zbloud] not in F
1.2.82/187 to God] not in F
1.2.88–9/193–4 wisedome … and ] not in F
1.2.93/198 am I] I am
1.2.95–6/200–1 by the Lord] not in F
1.2.100/204 Zounds where] Where F
188.8.131.52/209.1 Enter Poines] not in F
1.2.106/211 match] Watch
1.2.121/226 bin] not in F
1.2.128/232 night] not in F
1.2.136/240 by my faith] not in F
1.2.144/247 By the lord, ile] Ile F
1.2.150/253 God giue thee] maist thou haue
1.2.151/254 him] he
1.2.214/317 Exit] not in F
184.108.40.206/317.2 with] and
220.127.116.11/337.1 Exit Worcester] not in F
1.3.22/339 name] not in F
1.3.41/358 bore] bare
1.3.45/362 termes] tearme
1.3.59/376 This] That
1.3.70/387 What ere Lord] Q2; What e're Q3; What euer F
1.3.76/393 he] not in F
1.3.107/424 bare] baſe
1.3.111/428 not him] him not
1.3.120/437 you] ye
1.3.129/446 Zounds] Yes
1.3.134/451 in the] Q2; in'the Q6; i'th F
1.3.143/460 not he] he not
1.3.157/474 starue] staru'd
1.3.160/477 weare] wore
1.3.183/500 to you] Q2; you Q6; vnto you F
1.3.213/530 God] heauen
1.3.231/548 him poisond] Q (him poiſoned); poyſon'd him F
1.3.234/551 waspe-stung] Q1; waſpe-tongue Q3; Waſpe-tongu'd F
1.3.245/562 Zbloud, when] When F
1.3.247/564 candy] caudie
1.3.252/569 I] for I
1.3.254/571 Ifaith] inſooth
1.3.271/588 well] wond'rous well
1.3.296.1/613.1 Exeunt] exit
2.1.6/619 poore] the poore
2.1.9/622 that] this
2.1.11/623 Ostler] the Ostler
2.1.14/627 bee] Q1; to be Q6; is F
2.1.16/629 by the Masse] not in F
2.1.17/630 christen] in Christendome
2.1.26/639 Gods bodie, the] The F
2.1.36/649 by God soft] ſoft I praye ye
2.1.37/650 I fayth] not in F
2.1.63/676 pray thee] prythee
2.1.79/692 (zoundes)] not in F
2.1.79/693 to] vnto
2.1.80/693 pray] to pray
2.1.88/701 by my faith] not in F
2.1.88/701 thinke] thinke rather
2.1.89/702 Ferneseed] the Fernſeed
2.1.92/705 purchase] purpoſe
2.1.96/709 my] the
18.104.22.168/710.1 Haruey, ⌈Rossill⌉] and Peto, &c. Q; and PetoF
2.2.11/721 theeues] Theeſe
2.2.12/722 the] that
2.2.22/732 ile robbe] I rob
2.2.23/733 drinke] to drinke
2.2.29/740 vpon] light vpon
2.2.29/740 all, giue mee] all. Giue
2.2.35/746 zbloud] not inF
2.2.59/769 Poynes] not in F
2.2.61/771 How many be there] Q1; How many be they Q3; But how many be they Q4; But how many be F
2.2.63/773 Zounds will] Will F
2.2.67/777 Well, we] Q1; Well, weele Q4; Wee'l F
22.214.171.124/785.2 the] not in F
2.2.80/790 Iesus] Ieſu
2.2.86/796 are yee] are you
126.96.36.199/804.2–3 sir … Gadshill ] the theeues Q; Theeues F
188.8.131.52–3/810.2–3 and … too, ] not in F
2.4.16/836 by the Lord] I protest
2.4.16/836 a good] as good a
2.4.21/841 Zoundes and] By this hand, if
2.4.32/852 skim] skim'd
2.4.33/854 forward] forwards
2.4.66/886 ago] agone
2.4.78/898 In faith] In ſooth
2.4.85/905 In faith] Indeede
2.4.86/906 And if] if
2.4.86/906 all things] not in F
2.4.93/913 you … you ] ye … ye
2.4.96/916 you speake] thou ſpeak'st
2.4.103/923 you] thee
2.4.104/924 farther] further
2.4.109/929 far wil] Q2; farewill Q6; farre wilt F
2.5.7/941 all] not in F
2.5.8/942 christen] not in F
2.59/943 saluation] confidence
2.5.10–11/944 and tel] telling
2.5.12–3/946–7 (by … me) ] not in F
2.5.16/950 they] men they
2.5.51/985 Anon] Anon, anon
2.5.59/993 Lord] Lord sir
2.5.78/1011 thou not] thou
184.108.40.206/1018.1 Enter Poines] after 2.5.86/1017
2.5.117/1048 and ſoote them] not in F
2.5.126/1056 lime in it] in't (Fa); lime (Fb)
2.5133/1063 psalmes, or any thing] all manner of ſongs
2.5.144/1073 Zoundes ye fat] Ye ſatch
2.5.144–5/1074 by the Lord] not in F
2.5.190/1120 God] Heauen
2.5.240/1167 Zoundes, and I were] No: were I
2.5.248/1176 Zbloud] Away
2.5.261/1188 here] not in F
2.5.263/1191 run] ranne
2.5.270/1198 By the Lord,] not in F
2.5.271/1199 you] ye
2.5.278/1206 by the Lord,] not in F
2.5.281/1209 titles of good] good Titles of
2.5.287/1215 O Iesu, my] My F
2.5.301/1229 birlady] not in F
2.5.306/1234 Faith tell] Tell F
2.5.374/1302 ifaith] not in F
2.5.394/1321 O Iesu,] not in F
2.5.399/1326 Iesu] rare
2.5.448/1375 Zbloud] Yfaith
2.5.449/1376 I faith] not in F
2.5.475/1402 God] Heauen
2.5.487/1415 most] most most
2.5.491/1419 Iesu] not in F
3.1.9/1488 cheeke lookes] cheekes looke
3.1.30/1509 topples] Q2; toples Q6; tombles F
3.1.127/1606 cansticke] Candlestick
3.1.168/1647 come] doe
3.1.197/1676 powrest] powr'st
3.1.243/1723 Hart, you] You F
3.2.4/1745 God] Heauen
3.2.29/1770 God] Heauen
3.2.59/1800 wan] wonne
3.2.130/1871 God] Heauen
3.2.153/1894 God] Heauen
3.2.154/1895 he be pleasd I shall performe] I performe, and doe furuiue
3.323/1944 my] thy
3.3.34/1955 thats Gods Angell] Q4; that Gods Angell Q2; not in F
3.3.46/1968 God] Heauen
3.3.48/1969 Zbloud,] not in F
3.3.49/1970 Godamercy, so] So F
3.3.61/1981 Gods light] not in F
3.3.69/1989 they] and they
3.3.73/1992 pound] pounds
3.3.83/2002 O Iesu,] not in F
3.3.86/2005 Zbloud and] and if
220.127.116.11/2006.2 vpon] on
3.3.88/2007 ifaith] not in F
3.3.92/2011 doth] Q2; dow Q6; does F
3.3.115/2034 thing] nothing
3.3.117, 118/2036, 2037 God] heauen
3.3.129/2047 an] not in F
3.3.147/2065 prince] a Prince
3.3.151/2070 and] if
3.3.152/2070 I pray God] let
3.3.172/2090 cherish] and cherish
3.3.190/2107 of the age] not in F
4.1.6/2130 God] heauen
18.104.22.168/2136.1 with letters] not in F
4.1.13/2137 thou] not in F
4.1.17/2141 Zounds, how‸ ] How?
4.1.17/2141 sicke] sicke now
4.1.85/2209 tearme] Q2; deame Q6; Dreame F
22.214.171.124/2261.1 Exeunt] Exeunt Omnes.
4.2.9/2270 at] at the
4.2.31/2293 fazd] Q2; faczde Q6; fac'd F
4.2.32/2294 as] that
4.2.57/2318 night] to Night
4.3.34/2375 God] Heauen
4.3.115/2456 And] And't
4.3.115/2456 God] Heauen
5.1.25/2521 I] I do
5.1.71/2567 your] not in F
5.1.72/2568 articulate] articulated
126.96.36.199/2616.1 manent] Manet
5.1.126/2622 God] heauen
5.1.130/2626 yea,] not in F
5.1.137/2633 tis] Is it
5.2.3/2639 are we] we are
5.2.29/2665 newes] newe
5.2.92/2728 draw I] I draw
5.2.93/2729 whose] Whoſe worthy
188.8.131.52/2736.2 enters] entereth
184.108.40.206/2736.3 to] vnto
5.3.11/2747 a yeelder thou proud] Q2; to yeeld, thou proud Q6; to yeeld, thou haughty F
5.3.13/2749 Lord] Lords
220.127.116.11/2749.1 They … enter ] Fight, Blunt is slaine, then enters
5.3.15/2751 triumpht vpon] Q2; triumpht ouer Q4; triumphed o're F
18.104.22.168/2765.2 Enter] and enter
5.3.34/2770 God] heauen
5.3.37/2773 they are] they
5.3.41/2777 lies] likes
5.3.43/2779 as yet are] are yet Q; are F
5.3.43/2779 I] not in F
5.3.50/2786 before God] not in F
22.214.171.124/2790.1 it … be ] out
126.96.36.199/2791.1 He … bottle ] Throwes it
5.4.5/2802 your] you
5.4.10/2807 God] heauen
5.4.15/2812 Gods] heauens
5.4.16/2813 God] heauen
5.4.33/2830 and] ſo
188.8.131.52/2834.1–2 of Wales] not in F
5.438/2835 thy] they
5.4.50/2847 God] heauen
5.4.68/2865 God] heauen
184.108.40.206/2870.1 They fight] Fight
5.4.83/2880 earthy and] Q2; earth and Q3; earth and the F
5.4.86/2883 Fare thee wel] Farewell
220.127.116.11/2897.1 He … ground ] not in F
5.4.112/2909 Zbloud twas] Twas F
5.4.120/2917 Zounds] not in F
5.4.122/2919 by my faith] not in F
5.4.127/2924 with] not in F
18.104.22.168/2924.1 He takes vp] Takes
5.4.149/2946 zounds] not in F
5.4.160/2957 God] heauen
5.4.160/2957 great] great again
5.5.2/2961 not we] we not
5.5.14/2973 the] not in F
52 Hotspur] Hotſpur
117 taffat a,] ⁓;
258 Eastcheap.] ⁓‸
333 peremptorie] percmptorie
342 deliured] deliuered
363 questiond] queltioned
373 soueraignst] ſoueraignest
386 considred] consildered
428 slandred] slandered
532 You‸ ] ⁓,
548 poisond] poiſoned
559 kept,] ⁓‸
588 well.] ⁓:
690 in,] ⁓‸
714 close.] ⁓:
733–4 true-man] true-|man
741 hangd.] ⁓:
812 scattred] ſcattered
868 murmur‸ ] ⁓,
871 sallies‸ and retyres, ] ⁓, and ⁓‸
877 sleepe] sleeepe
1003 not-pated] not-|pated
1089 morning.] ⁓‸
1230 lions‸ to, ] Qb; ⁓, ⁓‸ Qa
1257, 1259 Iacke] iacke
1346 Harrie, now‸ ] Qb; ⁓‸ ⁓, Qa
1352 corpulent,] ⁓‸
1368 Hare.] ⁓‸
1373 My] Mv
1383 dropsies,] ⁓‸
1438 Now] Prin⟨ce⟩. Now
1462 What] Pr⟨ince⟩. What
1495 Shakd] Shaked
1512 In] Jn
1524 sonne,] Qb; ⁓? Qa
1532 them?] ⁓‸
1582 wind?] ⁓‸
1617 night.] ⁓‸
1619 your‸ ] ⁓,
1665 schoold,] ⁓‸
1724 comfit-makers] comfit-|makers
1727 giu'st] giuest
1819 gaze,] ⁓.
1830 desird] desired
1851 capitall,] ⁓. (at foot of page)
1856 Enlarged] Enlargd
1864 nearst] nearest
2015, 2019 Iacke] iacke
2033 womanhood] womandood
2084 Iacke] iacke
2094 court,] ⁓‸
2101 thing.] ⁓‸
2123 world,] ⁓‸
2129 world.] ⁓‸
2231 feathred] feathered
2285 now] Q (text); nowe Q (c.w.)
2310, 2322 Iacke] iacke
2326 inough] inongh
2330 bare,] ⁓‸
2727 talking,] ⁓‸
2752 won, here‸ ] ⁓‸ ⁓,
2798 bleedst] bleedest
2832 bearst] bearest
2844 redeemd] redeemed
2883 hart,] ⁓‸
2953 The] Prin⟨ce⟩. The
QUARTO STAGE DIRECTIONS
1.3.296.1–2.3.19/613–818 from Q1; others from Q2
22.214.171.124–2/0.1–2 Enter the King, Lord Iohn of Lancaster, Earle of | Westmerland, with others.
126.96.36.199/107.3 Enter prince of Wales, and Sir Iohn Falstaffe.
188.8.131.52/209.1 Enter Poines.
1.2.191/294 Exit Poines.
184.108.40.206–3/317.1–2 Enter the King, Northumberland, Worcester, Hotspur, | sir Walter blunt, with others.
220.127.116.11/337.1 Exit. Wer.
18.104.22.168/439.1 Exit King
22.214.171.124/444.1 Enter Wor. (after 'vncle', 1.3.128/445)
126.96.36.199/613.3 Enter a Carrier with a lanterne in his hand.
188.8.131.52/620.1 Enter another Carier.
184.108.40.206 /644.1 Enter Gadshill:
220.127.116.11, 2.1.46/660.1, 659 Enter Chamberlaine, Exeunt.
18.104.22.168/710.1 Enter Prince, Pognes, and Peto &c.
22.214.171.124/714.1 Enter Falstalffe.
126.96.36.199/739.1 They whistle,
188.8.131.52/757.1 Enter Gadshill.
184.108.40.206/785.2 Enter the trauallers,
220.127.116.11–2/799.1–2 Here they rob them and bind them. Exeunt.
18.104.22.168/799.3 Enter the Prince and Poynes.
22.214.171.124–3/804.2–3 Enter the theeues againe.
126.96.36.199–2, 188.8.131.52–3/808.1–2, 810.1–4 As they are sharing the prince & Poins | set vpon them, they all runne away, and | Falstalffe after a blow or two runs away | too, leauing the bootie behind them. (opposite 2.3.10–11/809–10)
184.108.40.206/818.1 Enter Hotspur solus reading a letter.
220.127.116.11/854.1 Enter his Lady.
18.104.22.168/969.1 Enter Drawer.
22.214.171.124–3/1011.1–3 Here they both cal him, the Drawer stands amazed not knowing | which way to go. Enter Vintner.
126.96.36.199/1018.1 Enter Poines.
188.8.131.52/1043.1 Enter Falstaffe.
184.108.40.206/1049.1 he drinketh.
220.127.116.11/1085.1 He drinketh.
2.5.286.1/1214.1 Enter hostesse
2.5.328.1/1256.1 Enter Falstalffe. (after 2.5.327/1255)
2.5.486.2/1414–2 Enter Bardoll running.
2.5.490.1/1418.1 Enter the hostesse.
2.5.511.2/1437.1 Enter Sheriffe and the Carrier.
2.5.535.1–2/1461.1–2 He searcheth his pocket, and findeth certaine papers.
18.104.22.168–2/1479.2–3 Enter Hotspur, Worcester, Lord Mortimer, | Owen Glendower.
22.214.171.124–2/1665.1–2 Enter Glendower with the Ladies, (after 3.1.187/1666)
126.96.36.199–2/1672.1–2 Glendower speakes to her in Welsh, and she answeres | him in the same.
188.8.131.52/1674.1 The Ladie speakes in Welsh.
184.108.40.206/1678.1 The Ladle againe in welsh.
220.127.116.11–2/1686.1–2 The Ladle speakes againe in Welsh.
18.104.22.168/1704.2 The musicke playes.
22.214.171.124/1720.1 Here the Ladie sings a welsh song.
126.96.36.199/1741.2 Enter the King, Prince of Wales, and others.
188.8.131.52/1744.1 Exennt Lords.
184.108.40.206/1902.1 Enter Blunt. (after 3.2.162/1903)
220.127.116.11/1921.1–2 Enter Falstalffe and Bardol.
18.104.22.168/1970.1 Enter host.
22.214.171.124–3/2006.1–3 Enter the prince marching, and Falstalffe meetes him | playing vpon his trunchion like a fife.
3.3.175/2093 Exit Hostesse
126.96.36.199/2136.1 Enter one with letters, (after 'him')
188.8.131.52/2209.1 Enter sir Ri: Vernon.
184.108.40.206/2261.2 Enter Falstalffe, Bardoll.
220.127.116.11/2309.1 Enter the Prince, Lord of Westmerland.
18.104.22.168–2/2341.1 Enter Hotspur, Worcester, Doug: Vernon.
22.214.171.124–2/2372.1–2 The trumpet sounds a parley. Enter sir Walter Blunt.
126.96.36.199/2456.3 Enter Archbishop of Yorke, sir Mighell.
188.8.131.52–3/2496.2–4 Enter the King, Prince of Wales, Lord Iohn of Lancaster, Earle of | Westmerland, sir Walter Blunt, Falstalffe.
184.108.40.206–2/2504.1–2 The trumpet sounds. Enter Worcester
220.127.116.11/2610.1 Exit Worcester.
18.104.22.168/2616.1 Exeunt: manent | Prince, Falst. (opposite 5.1.120–1/2616–17)
22.214.171.124/2636.1 Enter Worcester, sir Richard Vernon.
126.96.36.199/2662.1 Enter Percy, (after 5.2.25/2661)
5.2.33/2669 Exit. Dou.
188.8.131.52/2676.1 Enter Douglas.
184.108.40.206/2714.1 Enter a Messenger.
220.127.116.11/2724.1 Enter another.
18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124–4/2736.1–4 Here they embrace, the trumpets sound, the king enters with his | power, alarme to the battel, then enter Douglas, and sir Wal-|ter Blunt.
126.96.36.199/2749.1 They fight, Douglas kils Blunt, then enter Hotspur.
188.8.131.52/2765.2 Alarme, Enter Falstalffe solus.
184.108.40.206/2774.1 Enter the Prince. (after 5.3.39/2775)
220.127.116.11–2/2790.1–2 The Prince drawes it out, and finds it to be a bottle of Sacke.
18.104.22.168/2791.1 He throwes the bottle at him. Exit.
22.214.171.124–3/2797.1–3 Alarme, excursions. Enter the King, the Prince, Lord Iohn | of Lancaster, Earle of Westmerland.
126.96.36.199–2/2834.1–2 They fight, the king being in danger, Enter Prince of Wales.
188.8.131.52/2839.1 They fight, Douglas flieth.
5.4.57/2854 Exit Ki.
184.108.40.206/2854.1 Enter Hotspur.
220.127.116.11–2/2870.1–2 They fight: Enter Falstalffe.
18.104.22.168–3/2872.1–3 Enter Douglas, he fighteth with Falstalffe, he fals | down as if he were dead, the Prince | killeth Percy.
22.214.171.124/2897.1 He spieth Falstalffe on the ground.
126.96.36.199/2906.1 Falstalffe riseth vp.
188.8.131.52–2/2924.1–2 He takes vp Hotspur on his backe. Enter Prince | Iohn of Lancaster.
184.108.40.206/2952.1 A retraite is sounded.
220.127.116.11–4/2959.2–5 The Trumpets sound. Enter the King, Prince of Wales, Lord | Iohn of Lancaster, Earle of Westmerland, with Worcester, | and Vernon prisoners.