and the three following are almost the same to a letter. For 'Ramston' and 'Coines' the first Folio has 'Rainston' and 'Quoint.' According to Holinshed it was not Lord Cobham but 'Thomas Arundell' who escaped from the Duke of Exeter's house, where he was kept. In order to make Shakespeare and the Chronicler agree, Capell reads: 'That _Harry Hereford, Reignold_ lord _Cobham_; The archbishop late of _Canterbury_; his nephew That late broke from the duke of Exeter; &c.' Malone introduces within brackets the following line: '[The son of Richard earl of Arundel].' His view that a line is lost seems to us more probable than Capell's transpositions, omission, and insertion. And as Shakespeare evidently wrote with Holinshed before him, it is not probable that he would have made such an error as we find in the printed text. Ritson proposed to fill up the gap with '[The son and heir of the late earl of Arundel],' which is taken almost verbatim from Holinshed. NOTE XVII. II. 2. 109. The Quarto of 1597 reads the lines thus: 'Gentlemen, will you go muster men? If I know how or which way to order these affayres Thus, &c.' The other editions have the same arrangement (the Folios omitting 'go' in the first line). Pope reads: 'Gentlemen, will you go and muster men? If I know how to order these affairs, Disorderly thrust, &c.' Capell reads: 'Gentlemen, will you muster men? if I know How, or which way, to order these affairs Thus most disorderly thrust, &c.' Mr Dyce has: 'Gentlemen, will you go muster men? if I know How, or which way, &c.' Mr Staunton says in a note: The redundant _or which way_ I have always suspected to be an interlineation of the poet's, who had not decided whether to read '_how_ to order these affairs,' or '_which way_ to order.' Perhaps the author in expressing York's agitation and perplexity, instinctively broke into irregular rhythm, and the rest of the speech might be printed as prose. NOTE XVIII. II. 3. 5. The fact that _Drawes_ (not _Draws_) is the reading of the first Quarto tends to show that the singular is not a misprint for the plural. The construction is not unfrequent in Shakespeare nor in colloquial language even at the present time. It is as if the author had said, 'Travelling over these high wild hills, &c. Draws....' NOTE XIX. III. 2. 70. Theobald in a letter to Warburton, Nichols' _Illustrations_, Vol. II. p. 398, suggests that in lines 70, 76, 85, we should read 'forty thousand,' because Holinshed says that Lord Salisbury raised forty thousand men in Wales for the King. But the proposed reading would not suit the metre in line 70; and it is difficult to see how the mistake should have arisen in two places if the poet had written 'forty' originally in all three. NOTE XX.