Rich. Humbly complaining to her Deitie, 83 85 If we will keepe in fauour with the King, To be her men, and weare her Liuery. Bra. I beseech your Graces both to pardon me, 90 92 that the passage, as it stands in the Folio, cannot be Shakespeare's; I have given good reason, I think, for supposing that it is the corrector's. [See ABBOTT, § 494.] 85. way] For examples of 'way' in sense of course, means, see SCHMIDT (Lex. 5). 88. ore-worne] MARSHALL: Elizabeth Woodville was born in 1437, so that even if we take 1477 as the date of the present Act, her age would be no more than forty. But Richard is sneering at the fact that she had been married before she became Edward's wife. 88. Widdow... selfe] JOHNSON: That is, the Queen and Jane Shore. 89. that] For examples of 'that' as a conjunctional suffix see ABBOTT, § 287. 89. Gentlewomen] WRIGHT: The Queen's kindred were ennobled after her marriage, but they were hardly 'made gentlefolks,' for her father was of a good Northamptonshire family, and had been created Baron Rivers in 1448, and Earl Rivers in 1466; and her mother was the Dowager Duchess of Bedford. Mistress Shore had never any title of rank conferred upon her. 9c. Gossips] SKEAT (Dict.): The old sense of 'gossip' was sponsor in baptism; literally, god-relative (god-sib). The word sib in Anglo-Saxon means peace, but there was a derived word meaning relative, of which there are some traces. 91. I beseech] DYCE, in his second Edition, omits the 'I' for the sake of improving the metre; WRIGHT acknowledges the justice of such an omission, and both HUDSON and MARSHALL follow Dyce. See ABBOTT, § 456. 92. His Maiesty... charge] WRIGHT: The Act for Clarence's attainder was passed in the 17 Edward IV., and on February 8, 1477-8, the Duke of Buckingham was appointed Lord High Steward of England, to see the sentence carried out. Clarence's death was on February 18. [See note on l. 47 supra.] 92. straightly] WRIGHT: That is, strictly. Compare Matt. ix, 30: 'And Jesus straitly charged them, saying, see that no man know it.' That no man shall haue priuate Conference 93 (Of what degree foeuer) with your Brother. Rich. Euen fo, and please your Worship Brakenbury, 95 You may partake of any thing we say: We speake no Treafon man; We fay the King 94. your] Ff, Rowe, +, Coll. Wh. i. his Qq, Var. '73 et cet. 95. So,] so? Cap. Var. '73, Sing. Ktly. seq. 98. his] the Q,. 99 99. ftrooke] ftroke Q, struck Var. '78 et seq. faire] yet fair still Cap. fair loving Seymour. iealious] F. iealous QqF,F, over-jealous Han. jealous Rowe et cet. 95. and] KEIGHTLEY (Exp. Preface, p. iv) acknowledges that he did not read through the Variorum of 1821 until after making all his emendations; and whenever he found that he had been anticipated it 'was a source of real pleasure' to him, as a 'proof of the correctness of his emendation.' In the present case the Variorum might not have excited this feeling of pleasure, but had Keightley looked through Pope's or Theobald's Edition he would have seen that he had been anticipated in proposing to read an't instead of 'and.'-ED. 96. partake] WRIGHT: That is, share; and so, hear. Used absolutely in Coriol., IV, iv, 184: 'O slaves, I can tell you news,-news, you rascals! What, what, what? Let's partake.' 99. Well... iealious] WALKER (Vers. 154) gives a number of examples wherein 'jealous' must, for the sake of the metre, be pronounced as spelt in this line, though, as Keightley observes, none of Walker's examples is from Shakespeare. KEIGHTLEY (Exp., p. 262) prefers 'reading "years" and "fair," as more suited to the slow, chaffing tone of Gloucester.' ABBOTT thinks it might be possible to scan as Keightley suggests, but prefers taking ‘jealious' as a trisyllable. (See GUEST, p. 198.) WRIGHT points out that "“iealious” is the uniform spelling in the First Folio of Othello, even where the metre does not require it.' In a note on 'beautious,' Love's Labour's, IV, i, 72, this edition, the Editor says: "There is a noticeable tendency on the part of Shakespeare's compositors to insert an additional syllable in such words as jealous, dexterous, stupendous, etc., which they spell jealious, dexterious, stupendious. (See note in Twelfth Night, IV, iii, 30, of this edition.) This has been generally considered a corruption, but I incline to think that it was an allowable pronunciation, sometimes even available for rhythm's sake. This preference for the form -ious is found in words where the simpler form does not exist, such as prolixious, robustious, superbious, splendidious, and cannot be attributed solely to the compositors; we have it now-a-days in the vulgar mischievious. Possibly such words as tedious, gracious, delicious, may be responsible for this tendency. . . . In the note on Twelfth Night, IV, iii, 30, cited above, are gathered examples of this termination in ious. To them add from Milton: "All with incredible, stupendious force."-Samson Agonistes, line 1628.' As an instance of the small dependence to be placed on the spelling of the Folio, see the spelling 'ielous' in l. 88.-ED. We fay, that Shores Wife hath a pretty Foot, A cherry Lip, a bonny Eye, a passing pleafing tongue : 101. A cherry Lip] One line, Steev. Var. '03, '13. cherry] chery Q 100 101. a bonny Eye] Om. Pope,+, Cap. 99. strooke in yeares] WRIGHT: Here 'struck' is from the Anglo-Saxon strican, to go quickly, to run, Early English striken. In the Ormulum, ll. 14804, 14810, 'strac inn' is went in. Hence is derived the substantive stroke in the sense of pace. Consequently, 'well struck' is far advanced. ... With this may be compared the phrase 'stepped in years' which occurs in old writers. For example: Holland's Pliny, vii, 46: 'Now this Aglaus was, good honest man, well stept in yeeres.-WORDsworth (Sh. Knowledge, etc.): We find in Luke i, 7: 'They had no child because that Elizabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.' In Tyndale's translation, 1534, and Cranmer's, 1539, the words were 'well stricken in age'; which we find also in Genesis xviii, 11, and xxiv, 1. Is it possible that our translator of St. Luke altered the expression out of deference to this passage of Shakespeare? Steevens, in his note in the Variorum edition, calls the phrase 'an odd, uncouth expression.' It does not appear to have occurred to him that it is used several times in the English Bible; still less that our poet might have chosen it in this passage because the Queen spoken of was also an Elizabeth, wife of Edward IV. 100, 101. Shores Wife... tongue] Shakespeare was perhaps indebted to More for this characterisation of Jane Shore: 'Proper she was and faire: nothing in her body that you wold haue changed, but if you would haue wished her somewhat higher.... Yet delited not men so much in her bewty, as in her plesant behauiour. For a proper wit had she, and could rede wel and write, mery in company, redy and quick of aunswer, neither mute nor ful of bable, some time taunting without displesure and not without disport,' p. 83.—ED. 101. cherry Lip] SEYMOUR: There seems to have been something lost in the enumeration of the lady's features, perhaps words like these: 'fair forehead dimpled cheeks.' [It is somewhat difficult to understand why Seymour should wish to add six extra syllables to a line already too long, as it appears in the Qq and Ff. It is possible that he had before him either Steevens 1793, or Reed's Steevens 1803; 1813, wherein the words 'A cherry lip' are printed as one line; these with Seymour's addition will complete a line of ten syllables.—ED.]—GUEST (p. 272): The difference in the flow of this line and the next was certainly not accidental. The Libertine sneer upon the wretched mistress was to be contrasted with the bitter sarcasm levelled at more formidable, and therefore more hated rivals. But in the text, as 'corrected' by Steevens, this happy turn of the rhythm is lost.-Keightley (Exp., p. 79): It has never to my knowledge been sufficiently noticed that Shakespeare makes occasional use of the seven foot verse of Golding's Ovid and Phaer's Virgil, works in which it is evident he was extremely well-read. This line is such a verse. Compare also Much Ado, II, i, 99: 'My visor is Philemon's roof within the house is Jove.-Why then your visor should be thatch'd.—Speak low if you speak love.' [ABBOTT, § 498, classifies this line in Rich. III. as ‘a pure Alexandrine, or nearly so, if the text be correct.' 'Much virtue in If.'-ED.] And that the Queenes Kindred are made gentle Folkes. Bra. With this (my Lord) my selfe haue nought to doo. Rich. Naught to do with Miftris Shore? I tell thee Fellow, he that doth naught with her (Excepting one) were beft to do it fecretly alone. Bra. What one, my Lord? Rich. Her Husband Knaue, would'st thou betray me? 102. And that] That Rowe, +, Cap. Varr. Mal. And Steev. Var. '03, '13, Knt, Coll. MS. Kindred] kin Marshall. gentle Folkes] gentle-folks Rowe. gentle-folk Theob. Warb. Johns. 103. fir?] fir Qq. 104. haue] hath Q, nought] naught Dyce. 106-108. Naught...one] Ff, +. Two lines, ending fellow, ...one, Qq et cet. 106, 107. Naught...thee Fellow,] What, fellow? nought...you Sir, Pope,+. Naught] Nought Q 106. to] Om. Vaughan. Miftris] Miftreffe Qq. Miftrifs F,. Mistress F. 107. doth] Om. Wh i (misprint). doth...with her] In sens. obs. 108, 109. were... Lord ?] As one line, omitting alone Cap. 108. were] 'Twere Cap. to] he Qq, Cam. Webb, Taw. Om. Han. alone] Om. Pope,+, Cap. 109, 110. Bra. ...me?] Om. Q, 110. me?] me? ha? Cap. 106. Naught] COLLINS (p. 112) compares the 'whole turn of this passage, with the play on the word,' to Tit. And., IV, ii, 73–76. 107, 108. he that... were best to] WRIGHT: [In the Qq] there is first of all a confusion of construction, the second 'he' being superfluous, and rendering the previous 'he,' with its attendant clause, a kind of suspended nominative. Further, the expressions I were best, he were best, are possibly corruptions of me were best: = it were best for me, etc. See ABBOTT, §§ 230, 352. 108. 109, were... one] STEEVENS: Surely the adjective 'alone' is an interpolation. Besides, this word deranges the metre, which, without it, would be regular-for instance, 'Were best to do it it secretly. What one.'-MALONE: The above note is a good specimen of Steevens's readiness to suppose an interpolation in the old copies, whenever he chose to disturb the text. He does not seem ever to have perceived that many short prosaical sentences are frequently interposed in Shakespeare's metrical dialogues. Of this kind are the words 'What one, my lord? and the following line: Her husband, knave, etc. [Steevens was, however, not the first offender in this instance. See Text. Notes.-ED.]-Boswell: These four speeches were probably all designed for prose. What verse can be made out of line 114? IIO. would'st... me] That is, would you make me say openly what might be considered treason? Perhaps Richard means to imply that he himself is also as guilty as the King.—ED. III Bra. I do befeech your Grace To pardon me, and withall forbeare Your Conferenee with the Noble Duke. Cla. We know thy charge Brakenbury,and wil obey. Brother farewell, I will vnto the King, And whatsoe're you will imploy me in, Were it to call King Edwards Widdow, Sifter, 115 118 III. I... beseech] See note, line 91 supra. 115. We... obey] SEYMOUR: I cannot but suspect that Richard's remark was suggested by words different from those uttered by Clarence, who, in the meekness of his loyalty, might naturally have said: 'We're the king's subjects and we will obey.' 115. abiects] JOHNSON: That is, not the queen's subjects, whom she might protect, but her 'abjects,' whom she drives away.-MONCK MASON: I cannot approve of Johnson's explanation. Gloucester forms a substantive from the adjective abject, and uses it to express a lower degree of submission than is implied by the word 'subject,' which otherwise he would naturally have made use of. The 'Queen's abjects' means the most servile of her subjects, who must, of course, obey all her commands; which would not be the case of those whom she had driven away from her. In a preceding passage Gloucester says of Shore's wife—‘I think, it is our way, If we will keep in favour with the king To be her men and wear her livery'; the idea is the same in both places, though the expression differs. In Jonson's Every man out of his Humour Puntarvolo says to Swift: 'I'll make thee stoop, thou abject.'-STEEVENS: This substantive was not of Shakespeare's formation. We meet with it in Psalm xxxv, 15: '—yea, the very abjects came together against me unawares.' [MURRAY (N. E. D.) gives two examples of 'abject,' in the sense of an outcast, earlier than that quoted by Steevens, but does not note the present line as an example of the meaning, correctly interpreted, as I think, by Mason. For a somewhat similar use of 'abject' in opposition to subject compare: 'I accompt all those abiects, that be not hir [Elizabeth's] subiectes,' Lyly, Euphues Glass for Europe.-p. 208, ed. Bond.—ED.] 116. I will vnto the King] For examples of 'ellipsis of verb of motion before a preposition or adverb,' see ABBOTT, § 405. 118. Widdow] JOHNSON: This is a very covert and subtle manner of insinuating treason. By slipping, as it were casually, 'widow' into the place of wife, he tempts Clarence with an oblique proposal to kill the king. [Did Johnson forget that he himself had explained 'widow,' line 88 above, as referring to the |