Main Text

pg 529THE TRAGEDY OF KING LEAR(BASED ON THE FOLIO OF 1623)

Hinman demonstrated that Folio Lear was set by Compositors B and E; Howard-Hill (A Reassessment) has since shown that E set rather more of the play than Hinman thought. Werstine ('Folio Editors'), on the basis of a thorough survey of the work of both compositors elsewhere in the Folio, analysed the kinds and quantities of error we should expect in their stints here. The editorial usefulness of compositor study has probably been demonstrated more effectively in Folio Lear than in any other play.

Identification of the compositors has been crucial in determining the nature of the printer's copy. Greg's examination of press variants in Q1, by demonstrating a clear link between F and printing-house errors in different exemplars of Q, made it clear that F in some way derives from Q. Greg, committed to the view that Q represented a debased text, could only explain such derivation by assuming that Q served as printer's copy for F, and he identified two key variants (at 1.4.322/828 and 5.3.45/2685) which suggest the use of Q1 rather than Q2. The assumption that Q1 served as printer's copy for F, which governed the editing of Lear for four decades, was thus based entirely on evidence of textual derivation (transmission of readings) rather than bibliographical dependence. This unexamined assumption depended upon the belief that Q and F were both defective reproductions of a single lost archetype, and collapsed with it. Stone, Taylor ('Folio Compositors'), and Howard-Hill ('The Problem') have demonstrated clear links in punctuation, spelling, and substantive variants between Q2 and Compositor E's stints. Such links are less remarkable in B's stints, and Stone proposed that B worked directly from manuscript. But the difference seems more likely to reflect E's exceptional conservatism in retaining features of his copy, than any difference in the copy itself. Taylor's more thorough study of B's stints suggests that the number of links in spelling and punctuation between F and Q2 is, in terms of B's practice elsewhere, what we should expect if Q2 were his copy. The proposed allocation of different kinds of copy to the two compositors would be an exceptional procedure which creates more problems than it solves, and it seems reasonable to assume that, here as elsewhere, both men worked from the same materials.

The compositors' Q2 copy must have been annotated by reference to an independent manuscript. Yet this manuscript itself apparently derived from Q1: F repeats press-variant errors present in Q1 but not Q2 (1.4.320/826, 1.4.322/828, 5.3.45/2685). It thus seems probable that the revision began initially on a copy of Q1, and this conclusion is compatible with the evidence of sources, style, vocabulary, act divisions, and topical allusions (including possible censorship), which THE TRAGEDY OF KING LEAR (BASED ON THE FOLIO OF 1623)all suggest that the revision took place several years after the original composition (see Taylor, 'The Date and Authorship' and 'Act Intervals').

Howard-Hill (1985) has challenged F's alleged dependence upon Q1. If Q1 influenced F, then it did so indirectly, because the document immediately behind F is—as everyone now agrees—either Q2 or a manuscript. The key piece of evidence for Q1 influence (though not the only one) is the phrase 'and appointed guard' (5.3.45/2685), omitted from F and from the uncorrected state of Q1. We assume that Shakespeare, working from an exemplar of Q1, simply failed to rectify this omission, because Q1 makes sense without it; Howard-Hill offers alternative explanations (p. 172). All of these alternatives, however—including his ingenious suggestions about manuscript insertion—postulate coincidental omission of the same phrase by widely separated agents of transmission. Such a coincidence seems to us, as it did to Greg, unlikely, though we cannot claim that such coincidences are 'necessarily' impossible. Textual critics always deal in relative probabilities, and in constructing our own stemma for King Lear we committed ourselves to the assumption that coincidental omissions of a complete, identical phrase should not occur in two unrelated documents fifteen years apart. If we accept that assumption—as did Greg and all subsequent editors, none of them committed to the hypothesis of authorial revision—then Q1 must have influenced F, and can hardly have done so unless it influenced the manuscript which was the source for pg 530F's variants. If we reject that assumption, and allow improbable coincidence to play such a large part in textual transmission, then it is hard to see how textual hypotheses can be constructed at all.

The complicated derivation of F creates several complex editorial problems. The Quarto has a simple derivation (printed directly from foul papers) but contains much evident error, error which apparently results from misreading of a difficult authorial manuscript: emendation is therefore obviously necessary and difficult, but rewarding. The Folio by contrast offers a clean and intelligible text, with a complicated history of derivation and sophistication: emendation is easy, but not obviously necessary, and not at all rewarding.

Because F was (we believe) set from Q2 copy, it would have been possible to treat it in the way we have treated Troilus, Othello, and Hamlet: accepting Q1 as copy-text for incidentals, but inserting into that tissue of incidentals actual substantive variants from the control-text F. Such a policy would have the advantage of emphasizing F's very limited authority for incidentals: F's spelling and punctuation are almost wholly the result of normal compositorial sophistication of Q2's own (derivative) incidentals. However, Q's incidentals are already recoverable from the edited Quarto version (and its textual apparatus); Q1's erratic incidentals, particularly its punctuation, have in any case to be often emended by reference to Q2 or F; and the two texts in parallel serve as a useful illustration of the dramatic extent to which Folio incidentals reflect late printing-house rather than early authorial practice. Finally, Howard-Hill continues to argue (1985) that an intermediate transcript intervened between Q2 and F. Werstine has provided yet further evidence for F's dependence upon Q2, in its treatment of lineation (1984, p. 121); nevertheless, logically, no amount of correspondence between the substantives and incidentals of Q2 and those of F can prove that F was set from Q2, rather than from a remarkably faithful transcription of Q2. In discounting such a transcription one is arguing from economy of hypothesis—but the real world is not always economical. Moreover, while no amount of correspondence can prove direct dependence, significant departures from correspondence might disprove it, and hence it is always possible that a future investigator will discover some important disparity between Q2 and F, hitherto overlooked, which would definitively establish the presence of an intervening transcript. Hence, although at this time Howard-Hill's hypothesis of an intervening transcript seems to us unnecessary, it cannot be disproven, and might yet be proven, and the uncertainty it generates increases the desirability of preserving the Folio incidentals.

We have therefore treated F as both copy-text and control-text for the Folio version. However, in order to allow readers to reconstruct all F readings which may result from consultation of manuscript, we provide a complete collation of Q2 variants. The list includes Q2 departures from Q1, as well as a record of unauthoritative Q1 press variants reproduced in Q2. Any Q2 departures from Q1 which recur in F are recorded in the Textual Notes; nonsensical literal errors in Q2 are excluded.

F divides the play into acts and scenes. We have accepted F's division of Act 2 into only two scenes rather than four: see the Introduction to Q. F mistakenly numbers 4.6 as 'Scæna Septima'. Because Shakespeare seems to have revised the play at a time when intervals had become normal theatrical practice, act-breaks are here given the same prominence reserved for the late plays. In purely chronological terms F Lear should probably be placed between The Winter's Tale and Cymbeline, but it has seemed preferable to juxtapose the two versions of the play.

It is necessarily difficult to determine much about the nature of the manuscript consulted in annotating the compositors' Q2 copy. A number of apparent misreadings, apparently transferred from the manuscript on to Q2, suggest that it may have been a scribal, not an autograph, transcript—though the paucity of such errors, in contrast for instance with Folio Troilus, is within the range of an author copying his own work. The apparent efficiency of the manuscript in identifying characters and supplying businesslike stage directions suggests that it may have been the promptbook, a supposition which would also explain why the publishers went to the trouble of annotating Q2 rather than printing directly from a clean manuscript. However, in the absence of actors' names, duplicated directions, or warnings for the use of properties, confidence about the use of a prompt-book, or a transcript of one, is unattainable.

However, a number of details of the stage directions of F suggest that the manuscript consulted by the printers was scribal. Storms occur often enough in Shakespeare's plays, but they are usually cued by directions for 'lightning' (nine times) and/or 'thunder' (twenty-one times), in a variety of texts set from both scribal and autograph copy; only Folio Lear uses the stage direction 'Tempest' (2.2.457.1/1471.1) or 'Storme' (2.2.457.1/1471.1, 3.1.0.1/1495.2, etc.). Folio Lear also calls for characters to enter 'seuerally' three times (2.1.0.1/884.1, 2.2.0.1/1013.1, 3.1.0.1–2/1495.2–3). This formula occurs only another three times in the entire canon—Shrew 4.1.164.1/1724.1, K. John 5.6.0.1–2/2410.1–2, and Kinsmen 1.5.16.1/544—and of these parallels that in K. John occurs in a scribal text, while those in both Shrew and Kinsmen might be scribal. By contrast, characters are directed to enter 'at seueral doores' or 'seueral ways' thirteen times, in texts of varied provenance; and the formula 'at one doore … at another' also occurs frequently. Although not so unmistakably anomalous as 'Tempest' and 'Storme', the Folio's 'seuerally' is relatively unlikely to be Shakespeare's own formula. The word 'here', in the stage direction at 2.2.299.1/1313.1, is also extremely rare in autograph texts (see Taylor, 'Shakespeare and Others'). Although Shakespeare might conceivably have phrased stage directions in a 'literary' transcript differently from in his foul papers, it would be simpler to assume that such uncharacteristic locutions testify to the presence of a scribe—a scribe perhaps more interested in the convenience of readers than in preparing a text for use in the theatre. (For comparable anomalies see The Tempest.)

The use of variant forms of the word does may also be revealing. In the acknowledged good quartos, the form 'does' occurs 42 times, the form 'do's' only 5 times. Only In Troilus does 'do's' predominate (4 occurrences, to only 1 'does'). In Kinsmen 'does' predominates in Shakespeare's stints, 'do's' occurs consistently in Fletcher's. The same pattern can be observed in the Folio, where 'does' predominates, with the following exceptions:

does

do's

pg 531

Tempest

1

13

Measure

2

7

Merry Wives

2

16

Winter's Tale

0

23

Cymbeline

2

6

As You Like It

0

1

Contention

0

1

Macbeth

8

16

Lear

1

14

Othello

0

15

In As You Like It and Contention the number of occurrences is too small to warrant confident conclusions—although As You Like It is generally regarded as a scribal text, and the line in Contention occurs in a scene which may not be by Shakespeare. But in eight plays the anomaly cannot be easily dismissed, and in all eight cases it probably derives from scribal interference. Five of the undoubtedly anomalous plays were probably set from Ralph Crane transcripts; in the six Folio texts probably set from Crane transcripts, 'do's' predominates over 'does' by 65 to 8. All editors agree that Macbeth and Othello were set from scribal copy, although the identity of the scribe has not been determined. If we disregard the Crane plays, Macbeth, and Othello, the remaining Folio plays set from manuscript copy contain 118 occurrences of 'does' to only 39 of 'do's'. These proportions are not so striking as those in the good quartos, probably because more of the Folio texts were set from scribal copy; but they still demonstrate a strong preference for 'does', a preference which is presumably Shakespeare's own. The overwhelming predominance of 'do's' in Folio Lear therefore suggests scribal interference.

The preference for 'do's' cannot, in Lear or in most other Folio plays, be attributed to the compositors. Compositor B in the Folio as a whole prefers 'does'; in his stints 'do's' only predominates when he is working on one of the plays (listed above) which have a strong preference for that form, a preference extending through the work of more than one compositor and hence presumably reflecting the manuscript copy. Compositor E preferred 'does' in Antony and Hamlet, where it predominates overall, and 'do's' in Othello and Cymbeline, where it predominates, thus suggesting that in this—as in so many other respects—he accurately reproduced the incidentals of his copy. In eight cases in Folio Lear Compositor B set 'do's' when the quartos had nothing, or some other word; in two cases Compositor E set 'do's' in a similar situation. Thus, ten of the Folio's fourteen uses of 'do's' apparently reflect either the preference of the manuscript, or of the annotator who transferred readings from the manuscript on to an exemplar of Q2; yet another 'do's' could come from quarto copy. These examples thus do not help us to establish the nature of the copy the compositors used, but they do confirm that the use of 'do's' almost certainly reflects the preferences of someone other than the compositors or Shakespeare himself.

However, at TLN 2411 Compositor B set 'do's' where the quartos read 'does'; at TLN 163, 2762, and 2976 Compositor E set 'do's' where the quartos read 'does'. In these four cases the anomalous form cannot be due to the activities of an annotator, transferring readings from a manuscript on to Q2, for such an annotator would have no reason to interfere with Q2 at all: the variant is not substantive. Either these four examples must be attributed to the four compositors, imposing a preference (which we have little reason to suppose), or they reflect a scribal preference in the manuscript itself—in which case the compositors were working from a transcript, as Howard-Hill conjectures, and not from Q2 itself.

The use of apostrophes in the word has also lends some support to Howard-Hill's interpretation. The usefulness of 'h'as' as a clue to scribal interference is discussed in the Introduction to All Is True. Here, we may note that both Compositor B's uses of the apostrophied form in Lear, and three of Compositor E's, occur in substantive variants, and hence might be due to an annotator; but Compositor E also set 'ha's' once (1.5.28/861) where the quartos have 'has'. On the evidence of Compositor E's work elsewhere, the departure from Q is unlikely to reflect a preference of his own—though single anomalies of this kind can never be ruled out.

Five apostrophes hardly constitute decisive evidence of the existence of an intervening transcript, but they do at least hint at that conclusion. The survey of these forms also isolates another un-Shakespearian feature of the incidentals of F, and tends to cast doubt on the hypothesis that the manuscript authority for F was holograph. But if what lies behind F is a transcript, merging features of Q2 and of some other (manuscript) source, then it becomes even more difficult than before to characterize the manuscript which, at one remove, provided the authority for Folio variants. The features of the Folio which suggest scribal interference could originate in the intervening Q2-based transcription; the manuscript which the scribe was copying might have been authorial, might have been a prompt-book, or might have been neither. In short, if Howard-Hill is right about printer's copy for the Folio, then we find ourselves in a situation very similar to that prevailing in the Crane texts, where the presence of an interfering scribe for the most part successfully obscures the kind of copy the scribe was himself copying. Certainly, no 'bibliographical' evidence exists which allows us to determine the provenance and authority of the underlying manuscript; everything depends, in such situations, upon an analysis of the variants themselves. All in all, although in the last five years an extraordinary amount of new data has been brought to bear on the problem of the printer's copy for F, a confident solution still eludes us. However, for an editor of the Folio version an exact definition of the copy, though desirable, matters rather less than the knowledge that it was heavily influenced by Q2, either directly or at one remove, and that its incidentals have little authority.

Our account of Folio press variants has been informed by the work of Michael Warren, in his forthcoming The Complete King Lear; Warren, working with Blayney, at a number of points revises Hinman's interpretation of the evidence. As in The History of King Lear, we have been given access to Blayney's edited text of the Quarto version, which has occasionally affected our interpretation of Folio variants; specific debts are recorded among the Textual Notes. When emending F by importing into it a variant from Q, we have noted whether such emendations were made in the later folios or by Rowe. These later editions have no independent authority, but they were prepared without access to Q, and hence pg 532indicate that the Folio text seemed objectionable on its own terms to some early readers.

In the Textual Notes, 'see Q' indicates a reference to the corresponding passage in The History of King Lear and its notes.

G.T./(S.W.W.)

works cited

  • Blayney, Peter W. M., The Texts of King Lear and Their Origins, vol. i, Nicholas Okes and the First Quarto (1982)

  • —— ed., King Lear, unpublished edition of Q (see Introduction)

  • Duthie, G. I., ed., Shakespeare's 'King Lear': A Critical Edition (1949)

  • —— and John Dover Wilson, eds., King Lear, New (1960; cited as Duthie-Wilson)

  • Furness, H. H., ed., King Lear, New Variorum (1880)

  • Greg, W. W., The Variants in the First Quarto of 'King Lear': A Bibliographical and Critical Inquiry (1940)

  • Halio, J. L., ed., King Lear, Fountainwell (1973)

  • Howard-Hill, T. H., A Reassessment of Compositors B and E in the First Folio Tragedies (1977), summarized with additions in 'New Light on Compositor E of the Shakespeare First Fotio', The Library, VI, 2 (1980), 156–78

  • —— 'The Problem of Manuscript Copy for Folio King Lear', The Library, VI, 4 (1982), 1–24

  • —— 'The Challenge of King Lear' (review of Division), The Library, VII, 2 (1985), 161–79

  • Hunter, G. K., ed., King Lear, New Penguin (1972)

  • Jennens, Charles, ed., King Lear (1770)

  • Muir, Kenneth, ed., King Lear, Arden (1952)

  • Ridley, M. R., ed., King Lear, New Temple (1935)

  • Schmidt, A., ed., King Lear (Berlin, 1879)

  • Stone, P. W. K., The Textual History of 'King Lear' (1980)

  • Tate, Nahum, The History of King Lear, adaptation (1681)

  • Taylor, Gary, 'The War in King Lear', SSu 33 (1980), 27–34

  • —— 'Four New Readings in King Lear', N&Q, ns 29 (1982), 121–3

  • —— 'The Date and Authorship of the Folio Version', in The Division of the Kingdoms (1983), 351–468

  • —— 'Troilus and Cressida: Bibliography, Performance, and Interpretation', SSt 16 (1983), 99–136

  • —— 'Folio Compositors and Folio Copy: King Lear and its Context', PBSA 79 (1985), 17–74

  • —— 'Textual Double Knots: make rope's in such a scarre', forthcoming in Susquehanna University Studies

  • Werstine, Paul, 'Folio Editors, Folio Compositors, and the Folio Text of King Lear', in The Division of the Kingdoms, ed. G. Taylor and M. Warren (1983)

TEXTUAL NOTES

1.1.55/56 words] Q; word F. F's line is cramped, and OED's only parallel—in Jonson's Poetaster, 3.5.25—is an error, since 'words' occurs in all early texts and is required by the rhyme.

1.1.74/75 possesses] Q (possesses) professes F

1.1.100 Haply] F (Happily)

1.1.110/111 misteries] F2; miſeries F1; mistresse Q. F1's reading cannot have resulted from typographical error, since F2 (as Q) requires an st ligature.

1.1.139 crownet] F (Coronet)

1.1.155/156 a] Q, F2; not in F1

1.1.156/157 nere feard] riverside (Furness); nere feare F; nor feare Q

1.1.161/162 albany andcordelia⌉] halio; Alb. Cor. F; Alb. Corn. rowe. F is ambiguous, but on bibliographical grounds 'Cor', is likelier to be Cordelia; for these and other arguments, see Division, 143–51.

1.1.169/170 sentence] Q, Fa, F2; ſentences Fb. F's press-correction seems clearly both wrong and deliberate: see Hinman, i. 304–6. Although error in the copy cannot be ruled out, it is equally possible that a proper correction has been misplaced. Terminal 's' could sensibly have been added to 'power', or 'potencie' (1.1.171/172): but the first of these is contextually unattractive, the second rather distant from the miscorrection.

1.1.175/176 seuenth] collier 2; tenth F. F's change of 'Four' and 'fift' to 'Fiue' and 'sixt' seems designed to lead up to 'seuenth' here (which cannot, for that very reason, have been Q's copy reading). Q's evident error 'tenth' probably suggested, by rhyme, the authorial correction/revision 'seuenth' (or se'nth, as it would have been pronounced), and the two earlier words were adjusted accordingly. F, set from Q2 copy, might easily have failed to transfer the manuscript correction.

1.1.179/180 sith thus] F; since thus Q1; since Q2. F's line is crowded, 'sith thus' is not very felicitous, and the need to insert 'thus' immediately after might have given Compositor E the hint (consciously or not) to alter 'since' to 'sith'. All but one of Shakespeare's 21 other uses of 'sith' occur in plays written by 1604.

1.1.187/188 cordelia] Cor. F; Glost. Q1; Glo. Q2. See note to 1.1.161/162.

1.1.215/216 best] Q; not in F. (A metrical emendation.)

1.1.215/216 deer'st] This edition; deerest QF. F reproduces Q, which is unreliable for such terminations (and in any case aligns differently); in this case assimilation to 'best' is also probable. Shakespeare uses 'dear'st' seven times elsewhere (all in late plays).

1.1.225/226 well] Q; will F. No modern editor accepts F; for the alleged error compare 1 Henry IV 2.4.107/927 (Q1 'will', Q4 'well'). Compositor C is guilty of a similar error at Titus 1.1.366/366 ('tell' for copy 'till'). See 1.4.1/504.

1.1.230/231 the] hanmer; for QF. See Q.

1.1.267/268 Ye] rowe; The QF. See Q.

1.1.280 pleated] F (plighted) Q

1.1.281/282 couert] rann (Mason); couers QF. F appears to retain accidentally a Q reading which had been revised. In the altered context of F's version of the rest of the line, Q's verb is awkward, and although time proverbially 'discloses all' (Tilley T 333), and 'tries all' (T 336), and 'tries truth' (T 338), the image of time covering faults is not only eccentric but dramatically irrelevant. The t/s misreading, easy enough intrinsically, would be especially likely for the Folio annotator, who would have had Q's 'couers' in front of him.

1.2.1/309 edmond] Bast. F. At the beginning of the play, and again later in this scene (1.2.155/465, 1.2.161/471, 1.2.167/477), F uses 'Edm.' prefixes; throughout Act 1 it uses the spelling 'Edmond', which it also substitutes for Bastard in the play's first stage direction. All these facts suggest that the manuscript had 'Edmond' in directions and prefixes; that an attempt was initially made to impose this preference in F; but that in the end inertia led to retention of most of Q2's 'Bastard' directions and speech prefixes. We have, consequently, imposed 'Edmond' consistently in prefixes (as a reflection of the manuscript), though by our normal numerical criteria 'Bastard' would have been preferred. Quarto 'Bastard' is changed to 'Edmond' or 'Edmund' in Folio stage directions three times, and returned three times; in speech-prefixes, the same change is made six times. With one exception (2.2.41.1/1054.1), all Folio uses of 'Bastard' in directions and prefixes could derive from Q copy.

1.2.4/312 curiosity] QF; curtesy theobald

1.2.21/329 to'th'] QF; top th' capell. See Q.

1.2.128/437 Fut,] Q; not in F. F's omission is almost certainly due to censorship: see Division, 77–8, 109–10.

1.2.132/441 sith] Q1; sigh Q2; sighe F (in a justified prose line)

1.2.167/477 Exit Edgar] Q1; after 1.2.166/476 Q2; Exit. F (after 1.2.166/476)

pg 5331.3.18–19/501–2 so, | Ile] F. Werstine notes that, working from Q2 copy, it would have been easy to eyeskip from 'I' 'Ile', thereby omitting Q's 'I would breed from hence occasions, and I shall, that I may speake' ('Folio Editors', 284). However, F's omission accords well enough with other changes in Goneril's character here, and—combined with F's omission of 'very'— produces equally acceptable verse.

1.4.1/504 well] Q, F2; will F1. See 1.1.225/226.

1.4.2 diffuse] QF (defuse)

1.4.22/525 thar't] Q1; thou art Q2, F

1.4.31/534 canst] Q1; canst thou Q2, F

1.4.44/547 You you] F;'s repetition might easily result from dittography.

1.4.49/553 Daughter] Q, F3; Daughters F1. A typical Compositor E error.

1.4.54/558 A] Q1; He Q2, F

1.4.70 these] QF (this)

1.4.98/602 ones] Q2, F; on's Q1. Since Shakespeare evidently often spelled one as 'on', Q1's 'on's' probably means 'one's' (as in Q2 and F) rather then 'on his' (which seems less idiomatic).

1.4.108 off] QF (of)

1.4.111/616 the Lady Brach] F;Ladie oth'e brach Q. Q seems an error (see note), but could have been corrected simply by striking out 'o'. F looks instead like a deliberate revision, perhaps prompted by Q's error: instead of 'a bitch named Lady' (Q, as emended), it offers 'a lady named Bitch'.

1.4.135/640 know] Q1; thou know Q2, F

1.4.143/648 Crowne] Q, F2; Crownes F1. See 1.4.49/553.

1.4.144/649 at'h] Q1; on thy Q2, F

1.4.159/664 Fooles] Q, F3; Foole F1. See 1.4.49/553.

1.4.160/665 Pry'the] Q, F3; Pry'thy F1

1.4.180/685 nor crum] Q, F2; not crum F1

1.4.186/691 riots. Sir,] capell; ⁓,) ⁓‸ Q1; ⁓, Q2; ⁓‸ ⁓. F

1.4.199/704 it's] F1: it Q, F2. Possibly another example of Compositor E's weakness for terminal 's'.

1.4.236.1/741.1 Exit one or more] This edition; not in QF

1.4.266–7/771–2 That she may feele, | That she may feele,] Q1 (setting as prose); That she may feele, Q2 (prose), F (verse). See Q.

1.4.269.1/774.1 Exit Lear, ⌈Kent, and Attendants⌉] This edition; Exit. F; not in Q. See Q. Since F calls for Lear's re-entrance alone, the Fool presumably remains on stage while the others leave (as he does again below). Editors retain F, and so must interpret 'Away, away' either as an address to Fool (who must then deliberately ignore it), or as an exclamation directed at Lear himself, alone (a usage for which there ere no parellels in Shakespeare).

1.4.271/776 more of it] F1; of it F2; the cause Q. Few editors before Schmidt (who obsessively favoured F) accepted F's reading, which is metrically awkward; but no emendation, or explanation of the suspected error, suggests itself.

1.4.291/795 Exit] Q2, F; not in Q1. Either this [Folio] 'Exit' or that at 1.4.269.1/774.1 must be inadequate, since Lear's train (including Kent) must at some point leave the stage. Naturally some suspicion attaches to 1.4.291/795, which may suffer from Q2's influence; most editors since Rowe get the train off at this point. But Lear last addresses his train at 1.4.269/774 ('Away, away'), no one refers to them after that line, and it would seem most natural for them to leave then. See note at 1.4.269.1/774.1. Compositor B substituted 'Exit.' for copy 'Exeunt.' at Merchant 1.1.112.1/112.1 (and similar errors occur often in plays set from manuscript).

1.4.319/825 hasten] Qb, F; after Qa, Q2. Qb's variant seems unauthoritative (see Q), but F's revision was clearly based on it: see Taylor, 'Date and Authorship', 358–9.

1.4.320/826 milky] Qb, F; mildie Qa, Q2

1.4.322/828 You] F2; Your F1

1.4.322/828 attaskt] Qb; at task F; alapt Qa, Q2; ataxt duthie (Greg). Qb's form presumably stood in the manuscript, which means that Shakespeare at least passively accepted it.

1.5.0.1/833.1 First Gentleman] This edition; Gentleman F. It seems almost certain that the Folio version intends the same gentleman to appear here, in 2.2, 3.1, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6. So interpreted, the Gentleman becomes an important minor role, linking the two halves of the play, Lear and Kent and Cordelia; his use in 4.6, particularly, becomes much more comprehensible, dramatically. See also note to 3.1.0.2/1495.2–3. (All identifications of 'Gentleman' as 'First' in directions and speech-prefixes hereafter are editorial.)

1.5.1/834 To Gentleman, giuing him a Letter] jennens; not in QF. See Division, 445, n. 115.

1.5.2/835 Exit Gentleman] This edition; not in QF

1.5.3/836 to Kent, giuing him a Letter] jennens; not in QF

1.5.24/857 a may] Q1; he may Q2, F

2.1.0.1/884.1 Curan] QF. See Q.

2.1.2/886 you] Q, F2; your F1

2.1.15.1/898.1 Enter … aboue ] This edition. See Q.

2.1.19.1/903.1 Edgar climbes downe] This edition; not in QF. See Q.

2.1.36/920 ho, helpe?] This edition (conj. Stone). See Q.

2.1.36/920 where's] Q2, F; where is Q1. F is more consistent than Q1 in marking such metrical elisions, and would probably have read 'where's' even if Q2 hadn't.

2.1.39/923 stand's] Q1; stand his Q2; stand F. See Taylor, 'Folio Compositors', 27.

2.1.44/928 But] QF (text); Gainst Fa (c.w.)

2.1.53/937 right] Q2, F; rights Q1. Though Q's plural is possible (and has hence been retained there), F's reading is preferred by all editors, and may well represent a correction (anticipeted by Q2).

2.1.54 ghasted] QF (gasted)

2.1.57/941 found,] Q1; ⁓; Q2, F

2.1.69/953 I should] Q, rowe; should I F

2.1.70/954 I,] Q; not in F. This may be a simple compositorial omission; but it might be an incomplete correction, 'I' being struck out for replacement by 'yea'. For yea, though see Lucrece 204, Much Ado 2.3.141/967, Othello 1.3.69/355, Cymbeline 5.6.100/2905; there are no Shakespearian parallels for I, though. Here 'I' (ay) is potentially confusing, and I doubt that editors would have conjectured it without Q: Rowe solved the metrical difficulty by emending to 'although'.

2.1.77/961 said he?] F; I neuer got him, Q. Duthie defends conflation on the grounds that F's 'said he?' was an addition misinterpreted as a replacement. But the result is an irregular fourteen-syllable line, and F can be interpreted as a genuine question rather than a mere indignant exclamation—a question which shows Gloucester on the brink of a thought which would destroy Edmond. Cornwall's tucket, however, interrupts that development, and turns his thoughts back into the subject of his previous speech.

2.1.78/962 why] Q, rowe; wher F

2.1.86/970 strange newes] Q, rowe; strangenesse F

2.1.94/978 tend] theobald; tends Q; tended F. See Q.

2.1.99/983 th'expence‸ ] F; thſe— Qa, Q2; the wast Qb. See Q.

2.1.99/983 spoyle] Qb; wast Qa, Q2, F. See preceding note. It seems likely that the Qa/Q2 variant should have been corrected, to bring it into conformity with Qb (which was in the copy of Q on which the revision was initiated). It alliterates and contrasts better with F's 'expence'.

2.1.119/1003 poyse] Qb; priſe Qa; prize Q2, F

2.1.122/1006 lest] Qb; best Qa, Q2, F

2.1.122/1006 thought it] Q, F2; though it F1; thought schmidt

2.2.1/1014 dawning] F; deuen Qa; euen Qb, Q2. If Qa were an error, F might result from revision on a copy which contained it; but see Q.

2.2.4/1017 I'th'] Fb; It'h Q1; In the Q2; I 'th' Fa

1027 suited] F; ſnyted Qa; shewted Qb, Q2. Unless E (uncharacteristically) altered the spelling on his own initiative, F's reading appears to show the influence of the form present in Qa (and Shakespeare's original foul papers).

1028 woosted-stocking] F; wosted stocken Qa; worsted-stocken Qb, Q2. E retains his Q2 copy's hyphen, but reverts (possibly via the manuscript) to the Qa form of the first word.

2.2.21/1034 clamourous] Q, F3; clamours F1

pg 5342.2.41.1/1054.1 then] This edition; not in QF

2.2.64/1077 you'l] Q1; you will Q2, F

1087 holly] Fa; holy Fb. Though ambiguous, Fa's spelling could take the same meaning as Fb's in 17th-c. usage.

2.2.75/1088 to] Q; t' F. The metrically desirable elision of the preposition 'to' to 't'' later in the line seems to have led the compositor or scribe to anticipate the same elision here; though Riverside accepts it, t' for the adverb—never normal—would here make the nonce word intrince unintelligible.

2.2.78/1091 Reneag] Q; Reuenge F

2.2.79/1092 gall] F1; gale Q, F2. Since 'varry' has no nautical or meteorological associations outside this passsage, the fact that Q's 'gale' fits so well with 'halcyon' should not tell decisively against F1's 'gall', which might mean 'a state of mental soreness or irritation' (sb.2 2; 1591+). However, F2's independent emendation does support Q.

2.2.83/1096 and] Q1; if Q2, F

2.2.98/1111 tak't] Q1; take It, Q2, F. (An unnecessary metrical correction, which sacrifices an apt colloquiatism.)

2.2.106/1119 flickring] pope; flicking F; flitkering Q

2.2.120/1133 dread] Q; dead F

2.2.123/1136 ancient] F; auſrent Qa; miſcreant Qb, Q2. Whether or not Qb is correct, if it had stood in Shakespeare's exemplar of Q1 he might have let it stand, whereas Qa would demand correction, and could have suggested F.

2.2.127/1140 respect] Q; reſpects F. A typical Compositor E error, In a line already full of sibilants; It weakens the parallelism with singular 'malice', and few early editors accepted it.

2.2.129/1142 Stocking] F; Stobing Qa; Stopping Qb, Q2. See preceding note.

2.2.139.1/1152.1 They put Kent in the Stocks] This edition; not in QF

2.2.141/1154 Gentlemen] Q1; gentleman Q2, F (Gentleman)

2.2.142/1155 good] Q1; not in Q2, F

2.2.142.1/1155.1 Exeunt. Manet Glouster and Kent] dyce; not in Q1; Exit. Q2, F

2.2.143/1156 Dukes] Q, F2; Duke F1. See 1.4.49/553

2.2.150/1163 to] Q1; too Q2, F

2.2.151/1164 say] Qa; ſaw Qb, Q2, F. See Q.

2.2.158/1171 now] This edition; not Qa; most Qb, Q2, F. See Q.

2.2.160/1173 For] rowe; From QF. See Q.

2.2.167/180 vnusuall] Q1, F3; vnuſall Q2, F1. The Q2/F spelling is not recorded elsewhere, and looks like a simple literal error which Compositor E mechanically repeated.

2.2.181/1194 Sheep-Coates] Q, rowe; Sheeps-Coates F. See 1.4.49/553. F's form is unparalleled.

2.2.182/1195 Sometime] Q; Sometimes F. See 1.1.49/553, and Werstine, 'Folio Editors'', 285.

2.2.183/1196 Tuelygod] Qa; Turlygod Qb, Q2, F. See Q.

2.2.186/1199 Messenger] Q, F3; Messengers F1. See 1.4.49/553.

2.2.192/1205 mans] Q; man F1; man is F2. See 1.4.49/553.

2.2.207/1221 painting] F1; panting Q, F2. Though universally rejected, F1's reading makes pertinent and characteristic sense: see OED, v.1 2b ('to depict or describe in words; to set forth as in a picture'), 3c ('To adorn or variegate with or as with colours; to deck, beautify, decorate, ornament'), 6 ('To talk speciously … To flatter or deceive with specious words'). The use with forth was current from 1558 to 1649 (v.1 10), meaning To express or display by painting … to depict as in a painting or vivid description'. Though 'halfe breethlesse' naturally suggests 'panting', this fact could itself account for F2's (or Q's) error for F1's more unusual—and more pertinently abusive—verb. Moreover, F1's word—with its strong suggestions of cosmetics-naturally anticipates the 'arrant whore' of F's added speech at 2.7.221–30/1236–44.

2.2.210/1224 whose] Q; thoſe F. An easy substitution for Compositor E.

2.2.222/1236 wild] F2; wil'd F1. An apostrophe error characteristic of Compositor E: see 2.2.480/1494.

2.2.232/1246 Histerica] F4; Histerica Q, F1

2.2.237/1251 the] Q, F2; the the F1

2.2.248/1262 giues] Q, Fb; giue Fa. See 1.4.49/553.

2.2.249/1263 haue] Q, F2; hause F1. Hunter emends F to 'ha'' here, conjecturing that two marginal corrections have been unintelligently conflated: 'ha' (for Q 'haue') and 'vse' (for Q 'follow'). Although this conjecture is attractive, it leaves unexplained F's use of terminal 's' for medial 'ſ'. It seems more likely that the intrusive 's' has slipped from the end of F's 'giues' in the line above—which in F's uncorrected state is 'giue'.

2.2.253/1267 begin] Q1; begins Q2, F

2.2.262/1276 fetches,] Fb; ⁓‸ Fa; Iustice, Q. See Taylor, 'Folio Compositors', 27.

2.2.274/1288 commands, tends,] F; come and tends‸ Qa; commands her‸ Qb, Q2

2.2.276/1290 Fiery? The fiery] F; The fierie Qa; Fierie Qb, Q2; Fierie? the blayney. Blayney suggests that F's reading results from a botched attempt to make the correction he conjectures (which we have adopted for Q); but there seems little reason to impugn F's effective and metrical reading. One could as easily conjecture that Qb's 'Fierie' was meant as an addition to, rather than a replacement for, Qa's 'The fierie'.

2.2.301/1315 you] Q, F2; your F1

2.2.303/1317 Mothers] Q, F2; Mother F1

2.2.303/1317 scrine] This edition; fruité Qa; tombe Qb, Q2, F. See Taylor, 'Four New Readings'.

2.2.305/1319 Exit Kent] riverside (Ringler); not in QF

2.2.341/1355 blister] F; blast her pride Q; blister pride schmidt; blister her muir. Recent editors retain F, glossing the preceding fall as 'strike'. This seems unlikely: there ere no Shakespearian parallels, end the only OED support is 'To bring or throw to the ground; to overthrow' (v. 51; first example 1629). Hunter glosses 'to fall on her', but of course the object is precisely what is apparently missing. Almost certainly fall means 'to drop from a high or relatively high position … [used] of what comes or seems to come from the atmosphere' (i.d). The whole clause presumably depends on drawn: the fogs are drawn from the sun in order that they may be dropped, end used to cause blisters. So understood, the passage does not require emendation.

2.2.344 tender-halted] F (tender-hefted). The 'heft' spelling is well-attested for haft; OED and most editors so understand the word here. 'Heaved by tenderness' seems a grotesque alternative.

2.2.355.1/1369.1 Enter Steward] Q; after 'Stockes' F; after 'heere' at 2.2.357/1371 dyce. riverside reverts to F, but Oswald's entry virtually answers Cornwall's question.

2.2.359/1373 sickly] F3; sickly F1; sickle Q. Q's sickle is a pertinent dig at Goneril's inconstancy (and hence undercuts Oswald's 'pride' in her favour); but it might suggest or provoke some sympathy for Oswald's predicament. Moreover, 'diseased grace' is a possible oxymoron (he calls her 'a disease' at 2.2.395/1409, for instance), and sickly could also mean 'Causing sickness or ill-health' (usually of a climate), in a way which goes with 'Diuels in'. Moroever, fi/si typographical confusion is exceptionally easy, while e/y error here presupposes error in the manuscript, combined with complete inattention by the annotator.

2.2.359/1373 a] Q1; he Q2, F

2.2.382–3/1396–7 To be … ayre ] theobald; in reverse order QF. See Q.

2.2.385/1399 hot-bloodied] Fb; hot-blooded Fa. Hinman regarded Fb as a 'quite unsatisfactory' reading which could only be accounted for 'as a mistake on the part of the printer' (i. 309–10), but it is the form used in OED's only early citation of the compound (Merry Wives 5.2.2/2497).

2.2.459/1473 mad] Q, Fb; mads Fa

2.2.462/1476 blame,] hanmer; ⁓‸ QF

2.2.478/1492 to] Q1; too Q2, F 2.2.480/1494 wild] Q, F3; wil'd F1. See 2.2.222/1236.

3.1.0.2/1495.2–3 ⌈FirstGentleman] This edition; a Gentleman QF. In Q, no 'Gentleman' has yet appeared: 1.5 calls for a servant and 2.2 for a knight. So in Q the article makes sense; here in F, it seems to imply a new character. Elsewhere F calls for 'Gentleman' only, reserving 'a Gentleman' for the character, clearly different, who appears in 5.3 (5.3.196.1/2830.1). F therefore probably pg 535retains the article here inadvertently, from its Q2 copy: the manuscript probably read 'Gentleman' (its normal manner of identifying the character which this edition calls 'First Gentleman').

3.2.3/1531 drownd] Q; drown F

3.2.50 pother] F (pudder), Q. See OED.

3.2.83/1611 When Nobles are their Taylors Tutors] F. No one seems to have doubted this line, but it might make better sense if 'Nobles' and 'Taylors' were transposed. It is natural, in the morality of Shakespeare's age and the practice of all ages, for those of high rank to teach, to serve as models for, those of low rank; contemporary satirists complained about the aristocracy reversing this natural order. See for instance The Second Maiden's Tragedy (King's Men, 1611), where the righteous Govianus scornfully addresses two anonymous (and despicable) 'Nobles': 'Do but entertain | A tailor for your tutor, to expound | All the hard stuff to you, by what name and title | Soever they be called' (1.1.93–6). Later in the same play a 'painter' who deals in cosmetics is described (5.1.36–7) as 'a court schoolmaster … A ladies' forenoon tutor'. (Both passages were censored.) Transposition of the two names here would make the satirical point clearer.

3.2.85–6/1613–14 Then … confusion ] duthie-wilson (1960; after 3.2.92/1620 F (as 1 verse line). Most previous editors followed Warburton in transposing 3.2.93–4/1621–2 instead. The error must have been due to confusion in the manuscript, or in the annotator's marking up of Q2: it can hardly be a simple compositorial error, and in any case bridges the page-break between rr2v (Compositor B) and rr3 (Compositor E, and set before rr2v).

3.3.17/1641 for't] Q1; for it Q2, F 3.4.10/1658 thy] Q, F2; they F1

3.4.10/1658 roaring] F, Qb; raging Qa, Q2.

3.4.12/1660 this] Qb; the Qa, Q2, F

3.4.26/1674 Kneeling] This edition; not in QF. This direction is suggested by F's description of the following speech as a prayer.

3.4.31 looped] F (lop'd)

3.4.36.1–2/1684.1–2 Enter Fooleand Edgar as a Bediam Beggar in the Houell.⌉] This edition; Enter Edgar, and Foole. F; not in Q. Although Edgar clearly does not 'Come forth' until Kent orders him to do so at 3.4.43/1691, he might reasonably appear at a window, or in the doorway, to speak his enigmatic entrance line, before disappearing back into the hovel. Compare the staging of prison scenes, and the general phenomenon of characters on the edge of the playing space (discussed in Taylor, 'Troilus and Cressida: Bibliography, Performance, and Interpretation', 11–17).

3.4.43/1691 Edgar comes forth] This edition; not in QF; Enter Edgar, disguis'd like a Madman. theobald

3.4.44/1692 thorough] Q1; through Q2, F

3.4.45/1693 cold] Q; not in F. F's omission of ';cold' twice within seven words is suspicious. It seems likely that only one of the adjectives should have gone, but that the instruction to omit one led to unconscious omission of the other; Compositor E was particularly prone to omission between lines of prose (as here). The preceding phrase makes sense enough without 'cold', but 'cold' here seems essential to provide a contrast with 'warm'. Finally, the fact that a similar injunction occurs in The Taming of the Shrew—'go by S. Ieronomie, goe to thy cold bed, and warme thee' (Ind.7–8/7–8)—makes it likely that an allusion to some lost play or poem is intended, a probability which reinforces the authority of Q's adjective here. That Edgar himself says 'cold windes' later in this scene (3.4.92/1743) does not offer the same confirmation of the adjective in the previous phrase; in fact, the repetition may have motivated F's change.

3.4.46/1694 two] Q; not in F. Since Lear's preceding and his following speeches are verse, prose seems unlikely here, and F as it stands can hardly be construed as verse.

3.4.49/1697 led through] Q, F2; led though F1

3.4.50/1698 Foord] Q; Sword F. 'Sword' is a period spelling of sward ('grassy turf', 'earth's surface covered with herbage', or— rarely—'surface of the water')—but this hardly seems obstacle enough to qualify for inclusion in Edgar's list. F is not an easy compositorial error for Q. Of alternatives, fiord is not recorded till 1674 (of Scandinavia), and would in any case not explain F's error, since it would require only changing one letter ('foord' to 'fiord'). Collier's attractive 'swamp' is first recorded in 1624, as a North American import. The anonymous conjecture 'flood' is also attractive, and has none of the compelling disadvantages of other conjectures; but it presupposes that F's misreading stood in the manuscript itself; and if the error originates in the manuscript, 'foord' might have caused it as easily as—or more easily than—'flood'. Resort to Q seems the safest option.

3.4.54, 55 Bless] F (Blisse)

3.4.72/1721 alow: alow, loo, loo] F; a lo lo lo Q. OED understands alow as a variant of halloo, but finds no other examples of the form; 'Alow!'would mean 'Below decks' (alow, 3), which seems no more irrelevant than 'Fathom and half'. Likewise, though Q's repeated lo might be an alternative spelling of loo, no parallels have been recorded; it might be a refrain from the same ballad as the rest of the line, or simply a repeated imperative Lo! (Look, look, look!). It seems unsafe to assume that Q and F mean the same thing, or that either clearly enough 'means' anything specific enough to allow for confident modernization.

3.4.85/1735 deepely] Q2; deeply Q1; deerely F

3.4.92–3/1743–4 Sayes suum, mun, nonny] F; hay no on ny Q. Q is easily emended to 'hay no nony', a nonsense-refrain associated with sexual euphemism. (See Q.) F, by contrast, must in its entirety represent a deliberate change which makes (to us) no recognizable sense at all. Syntactically, 'suum, mun, nonny' is what the 'winde … Sayes', so Knight's suggestion that Edgar in some way imitates the sound of the wind can hardly be resisted. OED records a verb sum, meaning 'to hum softly' (c.1440); Shakespeare is unlikely to have known this but it demonstrates a similar onomatopoeic effect. By contrast, 'nonny' would certainly have been for Jacobean audiences a recognizable word, and one which was almost certainly produced deliberately by a correction of Q; 'suum', too, is close to Latin sum (I am), which a large proportion of Shakespeare's audience would know, and which would create a teasing possibility of meaning. Both 'suum' and 'nonny' are thus probably an accurate reflection of the manuscript: nonsensical in an onomatopoeic, teasing, recognizable way. But 'mun' might be corrupt: apparent nonsense is easy enough to misread, Shakespeare's minims gave most printers difficulty, and 'mum' would be an attractive alternative.

3.4.93 Dauphin] F (Dolphin). See next note.

3.4.93/1744 sesey] This edition; Seſey F1; Sessey F2; caeſe Q1; ceaſe Q2. F's capital, combined with italics, suggests that Compositor B thought he was setting a proper name; no such name is known, and the construction does not encourage that interpretation, and it therefore seems legitimate to emend to lower case. What the word means remains obscure, though an imperative or interjection seems called for. Malone and subsequent editors interpret as 'sessa', which occurs at Shrew Ind. 5/5; but we can hardly be confident that the same word is intended, given the disparity of form (Shrew 'Sessa', Tragedy of Lear 3.4.93/1744 'Sefey', 3.6.32/1879 'ſeſe'). The Shrew context provides no association with dogs, as Lear 3.6.32/1879 does; 'trot' at 3.4.94/1744 could be used of other quadrupeds besides horses (OED), so dogs might be relevant here too. The hunting cry 'sa sa' may be pertinent; so may the interjection sess, which OED records in 1608 (in the form 'Ses, ses') as 'a call to a dog when giving it food'. No one has provided parallels for 'Dolphin' as the name of a dog or horse; or for 'my boy' as a contemporary idiom for addressing an animal. Since Q1 probably means 'cease' (see Q), it seems significant that F here could so easily represent French cessez (as Johnson, and possibly F2, understood it). F's odd use of italics would be explained by the switch to a foreign language, which might have been prompted by the preceding 'Dolphin' (in its meaning 'Dauphin', intended here or not). The syntax of the whole clause suggests an address to one party pg 536('Dolphin') concerning another ('him'); the second party is to be allowed to 'trot by', and it would be natural enough to interpret the imperative to the first party as an instruction to refrain from interfering. 'Cease' (barking, or interfering) thus makes more obvious sense than 'sa! sa!' (an incitement to pursuit and capture). Johnson's interpretation thus seems markedly preferable to any other.

3.4.93 cessez] F (Sesey). See preceding note.

3.4.102–3/1752–3 Come, vnbutton heere.] F; come on be true. Qa, Q2; come on‸ Qb

3.4.108/1758 fiend] Q; not in F. An easy eyeskip.

3.4.109/1759 till the] Q; at F. See Duthie, 178–9.

3.4.110/1760 and the Pin, squints] F; & the pin, ſquemes Qb; the pin-|queues Qa; the pinqueuer Q2; squenies duthie (Greg). Q2 would certainly have driven the annotator to check his manuscript, and if he (or the scribe who prepared the manuscript) did not know what 'squenies' meant, it is unlikely he would have 'sophisticated' it to a use of 'squints' not elsewhere recorded till 1637. Anyone intent upon clarifying and simplifying the language here would presumably have altered to 'makes the eye squint', or something similar; F's apparent stretching of usage seems more characteristic of an author (and Shakespeare in particular).

3.4.113/1763 Swithune] This edition (after tate); Swithold F; ſwithald Q. See Q.

3.4.113 wold] QF (old)

3.4.114/1764 A] Qa; he Qb, F

3.4.114/1764 nine ſold] Q; nine-fold F. Although OED follows Capell in identifying F's 'nine-fold' as nine attendants or retainers, it provides no other examples beyond an imitation of this passage by Sir Walter Scott. Tyrwhitt's suggestion that fold is an alternative form of foal, influenced by the rhyme, is supported by examples of excrescent final d elsewhere in Shakespeare (Cercignani, 318); alternatively, fold might refer to coils in a serpent's body (sh.3 1e), appropriate enough for a devil. Neither interpretation permits F's hyphen, probably based on compositorial misunderstanding.

3.4.114 foal] QF (fold). See preceding note.

3.4.122/1772 Tod-pole] F, Qb (tod pole); tode pold Qa; toade pold Q2

3.4.127/1777 had] Q; not in F

3.4.132/1782 Smulkin] F; ſnulbug Q. See Q.

3.4.157/1807 a] Q1; he Q2, F

3.4.163/1813 in't] Q1; into th' Q2, F

3.5.25/1847 deerer] Q; deere F

3.6.26/1873 Mongrill‸ ] rowe; ⁓, QF

3.6.27/1874 Hym] F. See Q.

3.6.28/1875 Bobtaile] Q; Or Bobtaile F

3.6.28/1875 tike] Q, F4; tight F1. F1 makes sense if 'Bobtaile' is understood as a substantive (see OED, C. 1, 2), and 'tight' as 'skilful, alert, lively' (a. 3) or 'steadfast, constant' (a. 5). However, as an approving adjective 'tight' seems less characteristic of Tom's rhyme than the opprobrious 'tike'. Q's word could easily have been misread 'tite', and then normalized, by the manuscript scribe or Jaggard's annotator—especially since it makes good local sense.

3.6.28/1875 Trondle] Q1 (trūdle), Q2 (trundle); Troudle F. F seems unlikely to result from misreading, since 'Troudle' is not a word; compositorial inadvertence seems likelier. Although Compositor B could have omitted the 'n' accidentally, OED does not record 'troundle' as a variant spelling; it does record 'trondle' as a 17th-c. spelling, and so foul-case error, or a turned 'os;n', probably accounts for F's form.

3.6.32/1879 Do, de, de, de: sese] F; loudia doodla Q. See 3.4.93/1744. Since Q's variant seems to be nonsense, F's need be nothing else, although the motives for exchanging one bit of nonsense for another remain obscure. Since Compositor B set 3.6.32/1879 before 3.4.93/1744, one might have expected him to repeat 'Sesey' here, if that were in his copy; his failure to do so perhaps suggests that different 'words' are intended. By itself the letter combination 'sese' here might be a spelling of cease, cess, see, seize, sess, or siser; but these words are either irrelevant or historically unlikely. 'Cease' (or some variant) makes sense at 3.4.93/1744, but not here, where Tom has driven the dogs away. It thus seems probable that 'sese' is either nonsense, or an interjection of unknown meaning, unrelated to 'Sesey'. Likewise, there seems no reason to repunctuate the preceding syllables as 'Do de, de, de' (or the run of similar syllables at 3.4.55/1703–4).

3.6.36/1883 makes] Q; make F. Schmidt defends F, citing Abbott, 367 ('Subjunctive used indefinitely after the relative'). But of only four examples Abbott cites in Shakespeare, one is misquoted (Lucrece 1344 reads 'bosomes lie', making the false concord explicable by association), and two involve the idiom 'as please (object)'. This leaves only Measure 1.2.172/253 and this passage (not cited by Abbott), both in texts which owe their authority to a scribal transcript, and in one of which a collateral substantive text supplies the normal alternative. Moreover, the passage in Measure may well be due to a false plural 'prone and speechless dialect'. Given the ease with which compositors or scribes can omit terminal 's', and Shakespeare's overwhelming preference for the indicative in such circumstances, error seems probable here.

3.6.36/1883 hard-hearts] F. Editors follow Q, removing the hyphen, but the compound was current as a verb and an adjective (OED), and on the analogy of hard-head(s) could easily have been understood as a substantive ('persons with hard hearts').

3.6.43.1/1890.1 Enter Gloster] Q; after 3.6.39/1886 F. See Division, 117.

3.6.53/1900 Take vp, take vp] F; Take vp to keepe Qa, Q2; Take vp the King Qb. See Introduction.

3.6.55.1/1902.1 Kentarmes ] This edition; not in F. See Division, 101.

3.7.0.1/1902.2 Regan,] Q2, F; and Regan, and Q1

3.7.8/1910 festinate] F2; ſestiuate F1; festuant Q. See Q.

3.7.21/1924 Exeunt Gonerill and Edmond] Q (Exit Gon. and Bast.); Exit F. F's variant probably arose from shortage of space: Q's direction was simply shortened to 'Exit', which is wrong (since it only applies to 'Gonerill').

3.7.63/1966 Cruels ile subscribe:] This edition (conj. Stone); cruels elſe ſubſcrib'd‸ Q; Cruels elſe ſubſcribe: F. See Q.

3.7.75/1978 To Cornwall] This edition; not in QF. See Q.

3.7.80/1983 Regan stabs him againe] This edition; not in QF.

3.7.81.1/1984.1 Heeye ] This edition; not in QF. See Q.

3.7.96.1/1999.1 with the body] This edition; not in QF.

4.1.2/2001 flatter'd:] pope; ⁓‸ Q; ⁓, F

4.1.2/2001 worst,] Q; ⁓: F

4.1.10/2009 partie-eyd] Qb (parti, eyd); poorlie, leed Qa; poorely led Q2, F. See Q. Though the number of Qa readings from inner H which occur in the Folio makes it highly probable that Shakespeare worked from an exemplar of Q1 which contained the uncorrected state of that forme, some of the Qa readings may occur in F because of a failure to correct Q2 (which derives from Q2 here); even if we knew which readings came from the manuscript, they would have only a passive authority. We have therefore emended all such readings: see 4.2.30/2103, 4.2.36/2109, 4.2.47/2120.

4.1.11/2010 hate] QF; hold, walker (conj.)

4.1.12/2011 Edgar stands aside] This edition; not in QF. See Q.

4.1.32/2031 A] Q1; He Q2, F

4.1.40/2039 He comes forward] This edition; not in QF. See Q.

4.1.42/2041 Get thee away] F; Then prethee get thee gon Q. Werstine ('Folio Editors', 283) thinks this may be an instance of Compositor B omitting the beginning of a line ( 'Then prethee'); but conslation produces an unmetrical line, unless we also adopt Q's 'gon'. It seems excessive to attribute three variants in five words to the compositor. F's tetrameter is acceptable, especially as 'I, my lord' may be regarded as en amphibious section.

4.2.0.1–2/2073.2–3 at one dooreat another ] This edition; not in QF. If Oswald enters now (rather than during Goneril's speech, as in Q), it is presumably from another direction.

4.2.17/2090 names] F; armes Q. Though modern editors normally pg 537adopt Q, there seems insufficient reason to abandon F here. In Q armes = 'weapons'; at Winter's Tale 1.2.37/84 a distaff is a woman's weapon, and Cymbeline 5.5.33–4/2539–40 speaks of nobleness 'which could have turn'd | A Distaffe, to a Lance'. These parallels establish the probable authenticity of Q's reading, which has forced most conflating editors to adopt it; but the authenticity of Q's variant need not impugn F's. Shakespeare might have altered Q because the corporal sense of 'armes' was ludicrously encouraged by 'hands'; and he would have been especially alert to any such pun, having used it several times elsewhere (John 4.3.47/1938, Shrew 2.1.221/1029, Hamlet 5.1.33/3004, Troilus 1.3.273/708). As 'names [of husband and wife], reputations, authorities', F of course makes sense; see also Measure 1.4.46/363 ('change their names'), where as here change = 'exchange'; husbandry occurs two lines before.

4.2.29/2102 My Foole vsurpes my body] F; My foote vſurpes my body Qa; My foote vſurpes my head Q2; A foole vſurps my bed Qb. See Q. Q2 (head) must in this case have been corrected by reference to the manuscript, which contained the same reading as Qa (body); unless F's 'Foole' is a compositorial error—which seems too much of a coincidence—Q2's 'foote' (Qa) must also have been deliberately altered. Although 'My' may be a retained Q2 error, in this case it seems best to treat F's entire sentence as a unit, and hence to retain it as an accurate reflection of Shakespeare's revised text.

4.2.29.1/2102.1 Enter Albany] F. Editors follow Q in having Oswald exit after his speech; this is, however, not strictly necessary, and his presence increases the indecorum of the quarrel, and (perhaps) confirms his inseparability from his mistress.

4.2.30/2103 whistling] Qb; whistle Qa, Q2, F. See 4.1.10/2009.

4.2.36/2109 shewes] Qb; seemes Qa, Q2, F. See note to 4.1.10/2009.

4.2.43/2116 thereat-enrag'd] Q, F2; threat-enrag'd F1, F1 could as easily result from Compositor B omitting a single type as from misreading of, or in, the manuscript. F1 is not impossible, but Q provides more metrical and apter sense.

4.2.44/2117 and among'st them] QF. See Q.

4.2.47/2120 Iusticers] Qb; lustices Qa, Q2, F. See 4.1.10/2009.

4.2.55.1/2128.1 Exit with Oswald] This edition; not in F; Exit. Q. If Oswald does not leave earlier (see 4.2.29.1/2102.1), and if Goneril exits here, then Oswald must go with her. However, the absence of an exit direction in F may be correct: her presence, and her reaction to the Messenger's next revelation, could be dramatically effective.

4.3.3/2141 Femitar] Q; Fenitar F. See 'Folio Compositors', 20.

4.3.4/2142 Burdockes] hanmer; Hardokes F; hor-docks Q. See Q.

4.3.8/2146 Exit one or more] See Q.

4.3.18/2156 Good mans] Q, F3; Goodmans F1

4.3.18/2156 distres] Q; desires F. Werstine notes that F's reading is unlikely to result from substitution by Compositor B ('Folio Editors', 286), and Stone calls F 'not altogether impossible' (222). But no editor since Rowe has accepted F, which could be due to a misreading in the manuscript. Alternatively, a simple ligature error (producing 'disires' in place of 'distres') might have been miscorrected in foul proofs.

4.4.6/2173 Letters] Q1, letter Q2; Letter F

4.4.15/2182 after, Madam] This edition; after him, Madam F; after him‸ Q. A metrical emendation. 'Madam' could have been intended by the annotator to replace rather than (as the compositor misunderstood) to follow Q's him. See Q.

4.4.39/2206 him] Q, F2; not in F1

4.5.7/2214 speak'st] Q2; ſpeakest Q1

4.5.17/2224 walke] Q, rowe; walk'd F

4.5.22/2229 heard‸ so high. ] F; heard, its so hie‸ Q1; heard: it is so hie‸ Q2

4.5.53/2260 alenth] This edition (conj. Stone); at each QF. See Q.

4.5.66/2273 strangenesse.] Q2 ( ⁓: ); ⁓, F; ⁓‸ Q1

4.5.67/2274 Cliffe,] Q2; ⁓. F; ⁓‸ Q1

4.5.69/2276 me thoughts] Q1; me thought, Q2, F

4.5.71/2278 enraged] F; enridged Q. Editors prefer Q, but Shakespeare describes the sea as enraged 11 times elsewhere; he also associates fiends with rage at Richard III 1.4.218/981 and Lear 3.4.123/1773. Shakespeare could easily be as responsible for F's adjective as Q's.

4.5.83/2290 crying] F; coining Q. F's variant may have been prompted by censorship: see Taylor, 'Date and Authorship', 483.

4.5.92 Whew!] F (Hewgh). OED lists no other examples of this word under F's spelling; 'heugh' is not recorded until 1852, and seems clearly derived from Shakespeare's use here. OED defines it as 'an imitation of the sound of whistling' and cross-refers to Whew—an interjection current then as now, which gives the appropriate range of meanings in a form intelligible to modern readers.

4.5.99/2306 said‸ ] blayney; ⁓, Q1; ⁓: Q2, F. See Q.

4.5.122/2329 Tha're] Q1; they are Q2, F

4.5.160/2367 Through] Q; Tho-|rough F. F's unmetrical substitution straddles a page-break in a passage set as justified prose; 'Through' could not be split, and Compositor B almost certainly added the 'o' for reasons of page make-up.

4.5.161/2368 Plate sinne] theobald 2; Place sinnes F

4.5.183.1/2390.1 ⌈2 Gentlemen⌉] This edition; a Gentleman F; three Gentlemen Q. See Division, 447.

4.5.184/2391 him. Sir,] rowe; him, sirs, Q1; him‸ sirs. Q2 (omitting remainder of speech); him, Sir. F

4.5.201/2408 speaking] This edition; ſpeaking of QF. See Q.

4.5.207–8/2414–15 heares that, | That] Q; heres‸ | That Q2; heares that, which F. See Taylor, 'Folio Compositors', 27.

4.5.212/2419 in] This edition; on QF. See Q.

4.5.225/2432 To boot, and boot] F; to saue thee Qa; to boot, to boot Qb. By combining Qa and Qb one may conjecture (as Blayney does) that Shakespeare originally wrote 'to send thee boot, to boot' (an emendation we have accepted in the Quarto version). But the two documents which contributed to Jaggard's copy for F did not combine Qa and Qb. Q2 derives from Qb here, and so has 'to boot, to boot'; Compositor B might have emended this, on his own initiative, as nonsense. If so, however, the annotator must have left it uncorrected, which means that two errors (of oversight, then sophistication) must be presumed. One would not expect the manuscript to have reproduced Q2 here, because—on the evidence of 5.3.45/2685—it apparently derived from an exemplar of Q1 in which the outer forme of sheet K was uncorrected. This means that Shakespeare, in revising the play, would have confronted 'to saue thee' in his copy of Q1. One might well expect him to regard this as unsatisfactory; it is less easy to know what he would have done with it. However, it seem unlikely that he would have, coincidantally, altered it to Qb's 'to boot, to boot'; hence, the manuscript almost certainly differed from Q2. F also differs from Q2. It would therefore seem most economical to suppose that F differs from Q2 because the manuscript did, and that F's variant results from consultation of the manuscript rather than oversight compounded by compositorial sophistication. This requires us to assume that Shakespeare, when he came to this point in Q1, discarded the Qa 'to saue thee' as nonsense, did not remember (or care to preserve) exactly what he originally wrote, but did remember and restore the word-play on 'boot'. A similar combination of partial recall combined with-partial revision must be assumed often elsewhere, and seems acceptable here, We have therefore retained F. However, the annotator or the compositor might have substituted 'and' for the wrong 'to': 'And boot to boot' would be more intelligible.

4.5.225/2432 happie;] Q2; ⁓‸ F. See Taylor, 'Folio Compositors', 68–9.

4.5.231/2438 Durst] Q1; darst Q2, Dar'st F

4.5.234/2441 'caglon] Q; 'casion F. F could easily result from substitution of the common for the unusual form.

4.5.236/2443 voke] Q1; volke Q2, F. (Probably an unintentional normalization.)

4.5.237/2444 swaggerd] Q1; zwaggar'd Q2, zwaggerd F. Here and elsewhere Q2 (and hence F) elaborate the indications of dialect in Edgar's speech, in a manner typical of Jaggard's shop. (See for instance Q3 of Henry V.)

pg 5384.5.238/2445 so] Q1; zo Q2, F

4.5.240/2447 ice] F; ile Q. Stone calls F's form 'a Northernism', an error resulting from misreading of manuscript; but see Kökeritz, 39, 279–80.

4.5.240/2447 Batton] blayney (Furness); bat-|tero Qa; bat Qb, Q2; Ballow F. F's word, for which there are no parallels, looks like a misreading of the same word behind Qa's 'battero'.

4.5.241/2448 ile] Q1; chill Q2, F. Q1 might, alternatively, be emended to 'ice', as at 4.5.240/2447.

4.5.243/2450 Sir] Q1; zir Q2, Zir F

4.5.256/2463 sorrow] Q1; sorry Q2, F

4.5.258/2465 manners:] F; ⁓‸ Q

4.5.258/2465 not.] pope; ⁓‸ Q1, F; ⁓, Q2. Stone (272) regards F's mispunctuation as clear evidence of derivation from Q1, via the manuscript. This assumes serious misunderstanding in the manuscript, and conflicts with the clear evidence of Q2 influence on this Folio column. It seems more likely—as Rowe and Johnson assumed—that 'Leaue' governs 'manners' as well as 'waxe' (intelligibly enough), and that Compositor B inadvertently omitted a stronger stop after 'not'. Whether this interpretation of the sense derives from manuscript cannot be determined, but since Q1 is ambiguous, we have no other evidence of Shakespeare's preference here.

4.5.269/2475 and for you her owne for] Q1 (roman); not in Q2, F

4.5.269/2475 venter.] ridley; Venter, Q1; not in Q2, F

4.6.0.1/2492.2 4.6] This edition; Scæna Septima F. See Taylor, 'Date and Authorship', 417–18.

4.6.0.2/2492.1 and] Q, Fb; not in Fa. See Taylor, 'Folio Compositors', 27–8.

4.6.20.1/2512.1 EnterSeruants ] F (subs.); not in Q. See Taylor, 'Date and Authorship', 411–14. Richard Knowles ('The Case for Two Lears', SQ 36 (1985), 115–20) reports Blayney's conjecture that F's staging reflects a provincial tour. But (a) there is no evidence that the play was toured; (b) even if it were, the play requires musicians elsewhere, and musicians regularly toured; (c) different venues would allow or require different stagings, and one could not expect the company to enforce one option in all locales; (d) even if the staging were changed on tour, such changes should not have affected the prompt-book, or been passed on to a literary transcript.

4.6.22/2514 not of] Q, F3; of F1. F1 might be defended: the Gentleman wanting Cordelia's help in case Lear were not temperate. However, this seems unlikely, especially when compounded with metrical irregularity.

2515 restauratian] F; restoratiō Q1; Resteration Q2. Editors—and Howard-Hill ('The Problem', 10)—comment on the peculiarity of F's spelling, which is not recorded in OED; but it recurs in Dekker's Whore of Babylon, 3.2.142; Compositor E set the word nowhere else, and this might be his preferred spelling.

4.6.29/2521 warring] Q; iarring F. Q seems much more appropriate here, and Compositor E could have substituted 'iarring' from above (where it would have been written in the margin of his Q2 copy).

4.6.51/2543 your hands] Q; yours hand Fa; your hand Fb. Fa looks like compositorial metathesis, followed by (in Fb) correction without reference to copy.

4.6.52/2544 mocke] Q1; mocke me Q2, F

5.1.3/2572 abdication] Qa; alteration Qb, Q2, F

5.1.14/2583 me] Q; not in F

5.1.29/2598 Exeunt both the Armies] furness; F (at 5.1.27/2596); Exeunt. Q1 (after 'word'); Exit. Q2 (at 5.1.27/2596). F corrects Q2's wording but retains its misplacement.

5.1.36/2605 loue] Q; loues F. See 1.4.49/553.

5.1.42.1/2611.1 Hepaper ] This edition; not in QF. See Q.

5.3.13/2653 ‸poore Rogues‸ ] Q, F2; (⁓) F1

5.3.24/2664 goodyeare] This edition; good Q; good yeares F. See Division, 488–9. See also John Day's Isle of Gulls, 'What a gudyere aile you mother' (H2v).

5.3.25/2665.1 Exeunt. Manet Edmond and the Captaine] blayney (after Theobald); not in Q1; Exit Q2, F

5.3.37.2/2677.1–2 with Drumme and Trumpet] This edition; not in F. See Taylor, 'The War', 33.

5.3.45/2685 and appointed guard,] Qb, Q2; not in Qa, F. F returns not only (presumably via the manuscript) to Qa's text, but also to its lineation. Q2 divides into two lines (as here), whereas Q1a and F both set 'To send … retention' as one line. (Qb has an even longer line, with a turnover.) Since the annotator need not have altered Q2's lineation when he excised the three words, and since Compositor E is apparently never guilty of such gratuitous relineation (and was wasting space elsewhere on this page), the manuscript must have followed Q's arrangement.

5.3.76/2716 attaint] Q; arrest F

5.3.77/2717 Sister] Q, rowe; Sisters F. See 1.4.49/553.

5.3.91/2731 he is] Q, F2; hes F1

5.3.112/2752 lost:] theobald; ⁓‸ QF

5.3.113/2753 tooth‸ ] theobald; ⁓. Q1; ⁓: Q2, F

5.3.120/2760 Behold it is the priuiledge] Q; Behold it is my priuiledge, | The priuiledge F. Duthie plausibly suggested that F's redundant and unmetrical reading resulted from an erroneous first start, 'my priuiledge' not being properly cancelled before the correct reading 'the priuiledge' (1949, p. 422). But if the error were compositorial, as he suggested, it seems unlikely that the first line would have been finished (filled in with blank spaces) and a new line begun with the currente calamo correction; moreover, since the page was set by Compositor E, it was probably proof-read more carefully than usual, and—though errors do slip through—something so blatant as this shouldn't have. If the proposed duplication occurred in the manuscript, however, the annotator might well have transferred it to the printer's copy, since it makes acceptable sense. Compositor E would then have split the line because it would not fit his column.

5.3.120/2760 Honour] This edition; Honours F; tongue Q. No one seems to have questioned F's plural, but all the other nouns in the four following lines are singular, as is Q's variant here; Compositor E is notoriously apt to add terminal 's'; and 'integrity or good name or high rank' (singular) seems more appropriate here than 'honours won, marks of esteem earned' (plural).

5.3.123/2763 Despight] Q; Deſpiſe F. F can hardly result from misreading of Q, or typographical error; even in manuscript, 'ſ' and 't' are not easily confused; F's error presumably results from substitution. Always elsewhere E spelled 'despight' (as in Q), not 'despite' (as presumed by Duthie, in explanation of F's error).

5.3.134/2774 ‸some say‸ ] Q; (⁓) F

5.3.135/2775 well demand‸ ] This edition (Hudson); well delay, F; claim, delay, eccles (conj. in Furness). As Eccles asked, 'how can he be said to "disdain and spurn" that which, without delay, he determines to undertake?' Moreover, with 'delay', the whole clause added by F ('What … delay') can only refer to the combat, which hardly seems appropriate to what precedes or follows. Goneril later claims that Edmond is 'By th' law of Armes … not bound to answer | An vnknowne opposite' (5.3.143–4/2783–4); she says nothing about a right to 'delay', instead stressingߞas do the preceding lines here—Edgar's refusal to give his name. Edgar's identity is, of course, the crucial dramatic fact here, and 'demand' is a good technical verb in a trial by combat (as at Richard II 1.3.7/286). Emendation to 'demand' thus makes the meaning of the added line, and its relation to the context, much clearer. The misreading could have been made by (a) the scribe who prepared the manuscript, (b) the annotator who transferred the line to the margin of Q2, or (c) Compositor E. But the error would hardly have been possible unless 'demãd' or 'demand' were misread 'delaie', and given E's conservatism it was probably the scribe or annotator who normalized the latter to 'delay'. For 1/minim misreadings, see Taylor, 'Textual Double Knots', note 20.

5.3.137/2777 those] Q1; theſe F. Q2 omits the whole line, which therefore must have been reintroduced by the annotator. Q1's 'those' seems much more appropriate, and F could result from an easy and common misreading by scribe, annotator, or compositor.

5.3.141.1/2781.1 Alarums. Fight] rowe; Alarums. Fights F (after pg 5395.3.142/2782); not in Q. The second plural probably results from assimilation or Compositor E's fondness for terminal 's'; the misplacement from the direction's ambiguous marginal status in the manuscript or the annotated quarto.

5.3.141.1/2781.1 Edmond is vanquished] This edition; not in QF. See Q.

5.3.142/2782 all] blayney (Van Dam); Alb. QF

5.3.143/2783 Armes] Q; Warre F. 'What governs trial by combat is the law of arms, and even if a 'law of Warre' were supposed to exist it would be irrelevant' (Blayney).

5.3.146/2786 stople] Q1; stop Q2, F

5.3.150–1/2790–1 Most monstrous! | O,] F; Most monstrous‸ Q1; Monster, Q2. In Q the whole speech is addressed to Gonoril; in F the question is directed at Edmond. Q2's error would have made it easier for the annotator to supply the first three words in the margin, rather than attempt so complicated a correction of Q2; we therefore take F's punctuation as authoritative, linking 'O' to the following question rather than (as in Globe and other editions) the preceding exclamation. This relates F's added interjection to its change of addressee. See also lineation notes.

5.3.225/2865 the Captaine,] Q1; not in Q2, F 5.3.226.1/2866.1Exit Gentleman⌉] This edition; not in QF. Most editors follow Q in attributing this line to Albany, and thus send off Edgar; Theobald had a 'Messenger', Schmidt a 'Captain', exit. Since F requires a 'Gentleman⟩.' to enter with or soon after Lear, it seems sensible to have him exit here. The use of the same Gentleman for both functions has, in any case, an ironic appropriateness. See Q.

5.3.231.3/2871.2–3 followed by the Gentleman] This edition; not in QF. See above.

5.3.232/2872 Howie, howle, howle, howle] Q; Howle, howle, howle F. See Division, 285.

5.3.232/2872 you] Q, F3; your F1

5.3.236/2876 He lays her downe] This edition; not in QF

5.3.252/2892 them] Q; him F. Compositor E commits the same error at Titus 2.3.257/910.

5.3.256/2896 This] schmidt (W. S. Walker); this is F. Compare Cymbeline 5.5.64/2570. Compositor E interpolated 'is' at Troilus 1.2.113/259.

5.3.265/2905 You'r] Q1; You are Q2, F2; Your are F

5.3.268/2908 thinke I] Q1; I thinke Q2, F

5.3.285/2925 To Kent] This edition; not in QF. See Division, 71.

REJECTED SECOND QUARTO VARIANTS

1.1.171/172 made] make

1.1.182/183 hast] hath

1.1.188/189 of] or

1.1.222/223 plant] plaint

1.1.299/301 starts] ſtars

1.2.15/323 a] not in Q2

1.2.68/374 It is his.] F; ⁓? Q1; Is it his? Q2

1.2.84/390 shold] shal

1.3.0.1/483.1 and] and a

1.4.64/568 wrong'd] is wrong'd

1.4.69/573 intoo't] F; into't Q1; into it Q2

1.4.101/605 on's] of his

1.4.107/6.1–12 Coxcombes] F: coxcombs Q1; coxcombe Q2

1.4.129/634 for't] for it

1.4.143/648 i'th'] in the

1.4.162/667 And] If

1.4.174/679 now thou] Qb, F; thou, thou Qa, Q2

1.4.218/723 should] you should

1.4.219/724 a] one

1.4.230/735 Which]; that Q1; and Q2

1.4.235/740 repents] F; repent's Q1; repent's vs Q2

1.4.241/746 lyest.] F; list‸ Q1; lesser‸ Q2

1.4.280/785 vntented] Qb, F; vntender Qa, Q2

1.4.281/786 Pierce] Qb, F; peruse Qa, Q2

1.4.322/828 attaskt] Qb; at task F; alapt Qa, Q2

1.4.327/833 Exeunt] Exit.

1.5.16/849 she's] she is

1.5.23/856 side 's] F; side's Q1; side his Q2

1.5.31/864 to his] vnto his

2.1.0.1/884.1 seuerally] F; meeting Q1; meetes him Q2

2.1.10–12/894–6 curan Haue … word. ] not in Q2

2.1.26/910 'gainst] F; gainst Q1; against Q2

2.1.122/1006 differences] F, Qb (diferences); defences Qa, Q2

2.1.123/1007 home] Qb, F; hand Qa, Q2

2.1.129/1013 Exeunt] Q F; Exit. Q2 (after 1071, 'vſe')

2.2.89/1102 do's] F; does Q1; doth Q2

2.2.111/1124 too't] to it

2.2.123/1136 reuerent] vnreuerent

2.2.134/1147 selfe] not in Q2

2.2.135/1148 of] off

2.2.156/1169 miracles] F; my rackles Qa; my wracke Qb, Q2

2.2.184.1/1197.1 Foole, and Gentleman] and a Knight Q2; not in Q1

2.2.191–2/1204–5 by'th' … by'th' … by'th' ] by the … by the … by the

2.2.193/1206 then] hen

2.2.198/1212 do't] do it

2.2.199/1213 do't] do it

2.2.238/1252 And] If

2.2.294/1308 'em … 'em ] vm … vm Q1; them vp … vm Q2

2.2.333/1347 blacke] backe

2.2.334/1347 strooke] stroke

2.2.354/1368 to'th'] to the

2.2.372/1386 Sir] not in Q2

2.2.406/1420 Sir] not in Q2

2.2.441/1455 life is] F; life as Q1; life's as Q2

2.2.449/1463 so] to Q1; too Q2

2.2.458/1472 hundred] not in Q2

2.2.459/1473 Or] not in Q2

2.2.481/1495.1 Exeunt] Exeunt omnes

3.1.25/1520 feare] doubt

3.2.2/1530 Cataracts] caterickes Q1; carterickes Q2

3.2.6/1534 Sindge] singe Q1; sing Q2

3.2.36.1/1564.1 Enter Kent] after 'patience' Q1; after 'nothing' Q2

3.2.50/1578 pudder] Thundring

3.3.22/1646 me] to me

3.4.6/1654 contentious] F; crulentious Qa, Q2; tempestious Qb

3.4.9/1657 Thou'dst] thou wouldst

3.4.14/1662 beates] F, Qb; beares Qa, Q2

3.4.16/1664 too't] to it

3.4.41/1689 name's] name is

3.4.74/1724 o'th'] at'h Q1; of the Q2

3.4.99/1749 on's] ons Q1; ones Q2

3.4.108/1758 Flibbertigibbet] F; fliberdegibek Qb; Sriberdegibit Qa; Sirberdegibit Q2

3.4.109/1759 giues] Qb, F; gins Qa, Q2

3.4.110/1761 Hare-lippe] F, Qb (hare lip); harte lip Qa, hart lip Q2

3.4.114/1764 A met the Night-Mare] Qb (he), F (He); a nellthu night more Qa; anel-|thu night Moore Q2

3.4.117/1767 Witch] Qb, F; with Qa, Q2

3.4.122/1772 wall-Neut] Qb (wall newt), F; wall-wort Qa, Q2

3.4.123/1773 furie] fruite

3.4.159/1809 true] truth

3.4.160/1810 hath] has

3.5.10/1832 of] off

3.6.0.1–2/1847.1 Kent disguised, and Gloucester] Gloster and Lear, Kent, Foole, and Tom Q1; Glocester, Lear, Kent, Foole, and Tom Q2

3.6.9/1856 be] may be

3.6.38/1885 garments] garment

3.6.42/1889 i'th'] in the

3.6.48/1895 in't] in it

pg 5403.7.44/1947 late] lately

3.7.45/1948 You haue] haue you

3.7.56/1959 Annointed] F, Qb (annoynted); aurynted Qa, Q2

3.7.58/1961 buoy'd] F, Qb (bod); layd Qa, laid Q2

3.7.59/1962 Stelled] F, Qb; steeled Qa, Q2

4.1.44/2043 toward] to Q2. (Further evidence that this form 'toward' derives from the Folio's manuscript: see Division, 276.)

4.1.63/2062 do's] doth

4.1.72/2071 I shall] shall I

4.2.12/2085 terror] F, Qb (terrer); curre Qa, Q2

4.2.21/2094 command] Qb, F; coward Qa, Q2

4.2.24/2097 fare thee well] far you weU Q1; faryewell Q2

4.2.28/2101 thee a] Qb, F: thee Qa, Q2

4.2.29.1/2102.1 Enter Albany] not in Q1; Enter the Duke of Albeney Q2 (after Goneril's next speech)

4.3.8/2146 wisedome] wiſedome do

4.3.19/2158 Enter a] Enter F; Enter a Q2

4.4.3/2170 Sister is] sister's

4.4.8/2175 on] on a

4.4.14/2181 o'th'] of the

4.5.17/2224 beach] beake

4.5.21/2228 Pebble chafes] peebles chafe

4.5.26/2233 th'] the

4.5.34/2241 Is] tis

4.5.45/2252 had thought] thought had

4.5.78/2285 'twould] would it Q1; would he Q2

4.5.99/2306 euery thing] all

4.5.116/2323 lacke] want

4.5.135/2342 of it] oft Q1; on't Q2

4.5.142/2349 no] not in Q2

4.5.182/2389 Son in Lawes] ſonnes in law

4.5.185/2392 Your … Daughter ] not in Q2

4.5.188/2395 shall haue] shall haue a

4.5.193/2400 water-pots.] F; waterpots, I and laying Autums | dust. | Lear. Q1; water-pottles, I and laying Au-|tumnes dust. Gent. Good Sir. | Lear.

4.5.198/2405 and] if

4.5.207/2414 euery one] euery ones

4.5.214/2421 Her] His

4.5.268/2474 affectionate] your ⁓ Q1; & your ⁓ Q2

4.5.278/2484 thy] his

4.6.11/2503 be't] be it

4.6.11/2503 good] not in Q2

4.6.16/2508 That] not in Q2

4.6.21/2513 Be] (Before the speech Q1 has the prefix 'Gent.', Q2 the prefix 'Kent'.)

4.6.41/2533 do you know me] know me Q1; know ye me Q2

4.6.42/2534 where] when

4.6.56/2548 in my perfect] perfect in my

4.6.61/2553 not] no

5.1.3/2572 he's] he is

5.1.8/2577 but then] then

5.1.9/2578 In] I, Q1; ⁓‸ Q2

5.1.28/2597 man] one

5.1.41/2610 o're-looke] looke ore

5.1.57/2626 intends] entends Q1; extends Q2

5.1.12/2652 and sing,] not in Q2

5.3.19/2659 by th'] by the

5.3.37.1/2677.1 Albany] Duke Q1, the Duke Q2

5.3.38/2678 shew'd] shewne

5.3.47/2687 bosome] blossomes

5.3.51/2691 at] at a

5.3.79/2719 this] her

5.3.114/2754 Yet am I Noble] not in Q2

5.3.115/2755 Which] What

5.3.121/2761 my] not in Q2

5.3.125/2765 to thy] to the

5.3.130/2770 are] Is

5.3.143/2783 answer] offer

5.3.150/2790 for't] for it

5.3.163/2803 thee he] he thee

5.3.170/2810 know't] know it

5.3.194/2834 be] be any

5.3.196/2836 Hearing of this.] not in Q2

5.3.202/2842 confesses] has conſest

5.3.207/2847 vs] not in Q2

5.3.211/2851 thing] things

5.3.220/2860 in it) to'th'] into‸ the

5.3.230/2870 That … selfe ] not in Q2

5.3.234/2874 she's] O, she is

5.3.237/2877 or] and

5.3.238/2878 Why then she] she then

5.3.241/2881 which] that

5.3.244/2884 you Murderors,] your murderous‸ Q1; you murdrous ‸ Q2

5.3.246/2886 Ha:] not in Q2

5.3.251/2891 haue] ha

5.3.251/2891 with my good] that with my

5.3.254/2894 not] none

5.3.267/2907 fore-done] fore-doom'd

5.3.285/2925 you vndo] vndo

5.3.289/2929 hates him] hates him much

5.3.296/2936 gor'd] good

INCIDENTALS

95 mend] Fa: Mend Fb

95 speech a] Q, Fb; ſpeec ah Fa

147 wouldst] F4; wouldest F1

160 lear] Kear.

161 kent] Lent.

161 swear'st] ſwear.st

179 reuok'd] ⁓,

189 Burgundie] Bugundie

224 Maiesty,] Q; ⁓. F

229 dishonour'd] Q1; dishonoured Q2, F

235 t'haue] t‸haue F (with an apostrophe floating after had'st in the line above, at different heights in different copies of F)

271 nam'd] named QF

318 Bastardie] Barstadie F

325 Fathers] Farhers F

421 Villain‸ ] F (partially inked space sometimes mistaken for comma)

429 predominance,] ⁓.

434 Starre.] ⁓,

457 all.] ‸,

549 Clot-pole] ⁓-|⁓

691 endured] Q; endur'd

758 mou'd] moued

829 prais'd] prai'sd

892 eare-kissing] (Some copies show nothing in the space between 'r' and the hyphen, but others have faint inking which suggests the 'e' present in Q.)

969 came] Q, Fb; csme Fa

979 bad.] Q, Fb; ⁓, Fa

988 your] yout

1027 three-suited, hundred] three-ſuited-hundred

1059 that strikes] Fb (strikes); that; s strikes Fa

1109 Nature] Q, Fb; Narure Fa

1138 King,] ⁓.

1143 sit till] Q, Fb; si ttill Fa

1152 restrain'd] restrained QF

1175 heauie] heanie

1176 shamefull) shamefnll

1202 thy] ahy

1203 Garters,] ⁓‸

1212 Iuno] Iuuo

1248 With] Wirh

1262 counsell,] Fa; ⁓‸ Fb

1276 fetches,] Fb; ⁓‸ Fa; Iustice, Q

1329 restrain'd] restrained

1416 when] Q, Fb; wheu Fa

1454 then Nature] Q, Fb; then Nattue Fa

1462 Daughters] Q, Fb; Daughte s Fa

1470 Ile‸ ] Q, Fb; ⁓, Fa

1475 and's] an'ds

1655 skin: so‸ ] F press-correction (Huntington copy); skin.ſo‸ Fa; skinſo Fb

1662 there,] Fb; ⁓‸ Q, Fa

1669 lies, let] Fb; lie slet Fa

1703 Traitor] Q, Fb; T aitor Fa

1725 commit not‸ ] Q; ⁓, F

1739 nor] Nor

1766 troth‸ plight ] Q; troth-plight F

1792 ventur'd] Q; ventured F

1880 dry.] Q; ⁓, F

1904 him] Fb, Q; hin Fa (reported). (Fa is in fact either a defective m or one not inking properly.)

1916 hence.] ⁓‸

1919 Lords‸ ] Q; ⁓, F

2057 heauens] heau'ns

2107 eye‸ discerning ] Q1; ⁓-⁓ F

2143 Darnell‸ ] Q, F c.w.: ⁓,

2168 Madam.] Q; ⁓, F

2188 much,] Q; ⁓‸ F

2264 Bourne,] Q; ⁓‸ F

2270 Tyrants] Tyranrs

2281 preseru'd] preserued QF

2295 Crow-keeper] Q; ⁓-|⁓ F

2470 done,] Q1; ⁓: Q2, ⁓. F

2475 Seruant,] ⁓.

2477 indistinguish'd] Q1, F4; vndistinguisht Q2; indinguish'd F

2479 in the] in rhe

2573 selfe-reprouing] Q2; ſelfereprouing F

pg 5412590 particular] Q, F2; particurlar F1

2609 fare thee well] farethee well

2665 'em] e'm

2678 straine,] Q; ⁓‸ F (comma shifted to preceding blank line)

2723 arm'd] armed

2723 Trumpet] Trmpet

2740 Trumpet] Trumper

2747 Againe] Her. Againe

2748 Againe] Her. Againe

2766 illustrious] Q, F2; illustirous F1

2779 scarsely] Q2; ſcarely F

2846 tremble,] Q; ⁓. F

2908 dead.] Q; ⁓‸ F

2926 this?] Fb; ⁓, Fa

FOLIO STAGE DIRECTIONS

1.1.0.1–2/0.1 Enter Kent, Gloucester, and Edmond.

1.1.32.1, 33.1–2/33.1, 34.1–2 Sennet. Enter King Lear, Cornwall, Albany, Gonerill, Re|gan, Cordelia, and attendants.

1.1.35/36 Exit.

1.1.186/188 Exit.

1.1.186.1–2/188.1–2 Flourish. Enter Gloster with France, and Bur-|gundy, Attendants.

1.1.266/267 Flourish. Exeunt.

1.1.282.1/283.1 Exit France and Cor.

1.1.306/308.1 Exeunt.

1.2.0.1/308.2 Enter Bastard.

1.2.22.1–2/330.1 Enter Gloucester.

1.2.47/354 Glou, reads.

1.2.115/423 Exit

1.2.130.1/439.1 Enter Edgar.

1.2.167/477 Exit.

1.2.173/483 Exit.

1.3.0.1/483.1 Enter Gonerill, and Steward.

1.3.20/503 Exeunt.

1.4.0.1/503.1 Enter Kent.

1.4.7.1–2/510.1–2 Hornes within. Enter Lear and Attendants.

1.4.43.1/546.1 Enter Steward.

1.4.45/548 Exit.

1.4.75.1/579.1 Enter Steward.

1.4.92.1/596.1 Enter Foole.

1.4.169.1/674.1 Enter Gonerill.

1.4.235/740 Enter Albany.

1.4.269.1/774.1 Exit.

1.4.273.1/778.1 Enter Lear.

1.4.290/795 Exit

1.4.300/806 Exit

1.4.312/818 Enter Steward.

1.4.327/833 Exeunt

1.5.0.1–2/833.1 Enter Lear, Kent, Gentleman, and Foole.

1.5.8/841 Exit.

1.5.50.1/884 Exeunt.

2.1.0.1/884.1 Enter Bastard, and Curan, seuerally.

2.1.13.1/897.1 Exit.

2.1.15.1/898.1 Enter Edgar.

2.1.32.1/916 Exit Edgar.

2.1.36/920 Enter Gloster, and Seruants with Torches.

2.1.77.1/961.1 Tucket within.

2.1.84.1/968.1 Enter Cornewall, Regan, and Attendants.

2.1.129/1013 Exeunt. Flourish.

2.2.0.1–2/1013.1 Enter Kent, and Steward seuerally.

2.2.41.1–3/1054.1–2 Enter Bastard, Cornewall, Regan, Gloster, Seruants.

2.2.133.1/1146.1 Stocks brought out.

2.2.142.1/1155.1 Exit.

2.2.150/1163 Exit.

2.2.164/1177 Enter Edgar.

2.2.184/1197 Exit.

2.2.184.1/1197.1 Enter Lear, Foole, and Gentleman.

2.2.234.1/1248.1 Exit.

2.2.260.1/1274.1 Enter Lear, and Gloster:

2.2.291.1/1305.1 Exit.

2.2.297.1–2/1311.1 Enter Cornewall, Regan, Gloster, Seruants.

2.2.299.1/1313.1 Kent here set at liberty.

2.2.355/1369 Tucket within.

2.2.355.1/1369.1 Enter Steward.

2.2.360.1/1374.1 Enter Gonerill.

2.2.457.1/1471.1 Storme and Tempest.

2.2.459.1/1473.1 Exeunt.

2.2.467/1481 Enter Gloster.

2.2.481/1495.1 Exeunt.

3.1.0.1–2/1495.2–3 Storme still. Enter Kent, and a Gentleman, seuerally.

3.1.33/1528 Exeunt.

3.2.0.1/1528.1 Storme still. Enter Lear, and Foole.

3.2.36.1/1564.1 Enter Kent.

3.2.78.1/1606.1 Exit.

3.2.96/1624 Exit.

3.3.0.1/1624.1 Enter Gloster, and Edmund.

3.3.19/1643 Exit.

3.3.24/1648 Exit.

3.4.0.1/1648.1 Enter Lear, Kent, and Foole.

3.4.3/1651 Storme still

3.4.27.1/1675.1 Exit.

3.4.36.1–2/1684.1–2 Enter Edgar, and Foole.

3.4.58.1/1707.1 Storme still.

3.4.94.1/1744.1 Storme still.

3.4.103.1/1753.1 Enter Gloucester, with a Torch.

3.4.152.1/1802.1 Storm still

3.4.172/1822 Exeunt

3.5.0.1/1822.1 Enter Cornwall, and Edmund.

3.5.25/1847 Exeunt.

3.6.0.1–2/1847.1 Enter Kent, and Gloucester.

3.6.5.1/1852.1 Exit

3.6.5.2–3/1852.2 Enter Lear, Edgar, and Foole.

3.6.43.1/1890.1 Enter Gloster.

3.6.55.1/1902.1 Exeunt

3.7.0.1–2/1902.1–2 Enter Cornwall, Regan, Gonerill, Bastard, | and Seruants.

3.7.11.1/1914.1 Enter Steward.

3.7.21/1924 Exit

3.7.26/1929 Enter Gloucester, and Seruants.

3.7.78.1/1981.1 Killes him.

3.7.92/1995 Exit with Glouster.

3.7.96.1/1999.1 Exeunt,

4.1.0.1/1999.2 Enter Edgar.

4.1.9/2008 Enter Glouster, and an Oldman.

4.1.51/2050 Exit

4.1.74.1/2073.1 Exeunt.

4.2.0.1–2/2073.2–3 Enter Gonerill, Bastard, and Steward.

4.2.26/2099 Exit.

4.2.29.1/2102.1 Enter Albany.

4.2.37.1/2110.1 Enter a Messenger.

4.2.65/2138 Exeunt.

4.3.0.1–2/2138.1–2 Enter with Drum and Colours, Cordelia, Gentlemen, | and Souldiours.

4.3.20/2158 Enter Messenger.

4.3.29/2167 Exeunt.

4.4.0.1/2167.1 Enter Regan, and Steward.

4.4.40.1/2207.1 Exeunt

4.5.0.1–2/2207.2–3 Enter Gloucester, and Edgar.

4.5.80/2287 Enter Lear.

4.5.183.1/2390.1 Enter a Gentleman.

4.5.199.1/2406.1 Exit.

4.5.214.1/2421.1 Exit.

4.5.225/2432 Enter Steward.

4.5.260.1/2467.1 Reads the Letter.

4.5.282.1/2488.1 Drum a|arre off.

4.5.286.1/2492.1 Exeunt.

4.6.0.1–2/2492.2–3 Enter Cordelia, Kent, and Gentleman.

4.6.20.1/2512.1 Enter Lear in a chaire carried by Seruants

4.6.77/2569 Exeunt

pg 5425.1.0.1–2/2569.1–2 Enter with Drumme and Colours, Edmund, Regan. | Gentlemen, and Souldiers.

5.1.15.1–2/2584.1–2 Enter with Drum and Colours, Albany, Gonerill, Soldiers.

5.1.27.1/2596.1 Enter Edgar.

5.1.29/2598 Exeunt both the Armies.

5.1.41/2610 Exit.

5.1.41.1/2610.1 Enter Edmund.

5.1.45/2614 Exit. 5.1.60/2629 Exit.

5.2.0.1–4/2629.1–4 Alarum within. Enter with Drumme and Colours, Lear, | Cordelia, and Souldiers, ouer the Stage, and Exeunt. | Enter Edgar, and Gloster.

5.2.4.1/2633.1 Exit.

5.2.4.2/2633.2 Alarum and Retreat within. | Enter Edgar.

5.2.11.1/2640.1 Exeunt.

5.3.0.1–3/2640.1–2 Enter in conquest with Drum and Colours, Edmund, Lear, | and Cordelia, as prisoners, Souldiers, Captaine.

5.3.25/2665.1 Exit.

5.3.37/2677 Exit Captaine.

5.3.37.1–2/2677.1–2 Flourish. Enter Albany, Gonerill, Regan, Soldiers.

5.3.95.1/2735.1 Enter a Herald.

5.3.101.1/2741.1 A Trumpet sounds.

5.3.102/2742 Herald reads.

5.3.106.1/2746.1 1 Trumpet

5.3.107.1/2747.1 2 Trumpet.

5.3.108.1/2748.1 3 Trumpet.

5.3.108.2/2748.2 Trumpet answers within.

5.3.108.2/2748.2 Enter Edgar armed.

5.3.141.1/2781.1 Alarums. Fights.

5.3.150/2790 Exit.

5.3.196.1/2836.1 Enter a Gentleman.

5.3.204.1/2844.1 Enter Kent.

5.3.205.1/2845.1 Gonerill and Regans bodies brought out.

5.3.231.2–3/2871.2–3 Enter Lear with Cordelia in his armes.

5.3.270/2910 Enter a Messenger.

5.3.287/2927 He dies.

5.3.302.1/2942.1 Exeunt with a dead March.

logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out