I. 3. 20. Notwithstanding that the emendation of the Folios yields an easier sense, we follow the reading of the Quartos, which may be explained, inasmuch as the Duke of Norfolk's 'succeeding issue' would be involved in the forfeiture incurred by disloyalty to his king. It may also be noted that King Richard had never any issue.
[Note IX.]
I. 3. 127. Capell's copy of the first Quarto has cruell. Another copy is said, in the Variorum edition of 1821, to have the reading civil (or civill), but we have been unable to trace it. Mr George Daniel, who possesses the only known copy besides Capell's, informs us that it has cruell.
[Note X.]
I. 3. 129-133. Pope first restored to the text the five lines omitted in the Folios and the fifth Quarto. He found them in the Quarto of 1598, which he took to be 'the first edition.' Warburton 'put them,' as he says, 'into hooks, not as spurious, but as rejected on the author's revise.' Capell omitted the five lines next following. ''Tis probable,' he says, 'that the lines now omitted were left negligently in the MS. from which the Quarto was printed; that a mark was set on them when the Folio came out, but mistook by the printer of it, who changed the sound for the unsound.'
[Note XI.]
I. 3. 150. Some commentators have quoted the second Folio as reading 'slye slow.' In Capell's copy and in Long's it is certainly 'flye slow.' Mr Collier in a letter to Notes and Queries mentions that he has found 'flye slow' in other copies.
[Note XII.]
I. 3. 239-242. Pope introduced the two last of the lines he omitted in this place at the end of Gaunt's speech after line 245. Theobald restored lines 239, 240 to their original place, but left lines 241, 242 as he found them in Pope.