186 C. F. Tucker Brooke, 



importance. No Just ground exists for supposing either that this 

 edition represents an independent recension of the plays or that it 

 includes any of Shakespeare's alterations. Pavier doubtless used as 

 basis for his printer's " copy " the text of Millington, of which the 

 copyright was in his possession. In the case of the Contention, he 

 increased the total number of lines by some eight or ten ; in the 

 True Tragedy he added two new lines, but omitted, presumably bj' 

 accident, two of the old ones. In the main essentials, however, the 

 text of -Pavier is the text of Millington ; and the failure of the former 

 to make use of the hundreds of new lines by Shakespeare, in spite 

 of his fraudulent insertion of Shakespeare's name on the title-page, 

 is conclusive evidence that he had no access to the Shakespearean 

 version of the dramas. 



Yet Pavier's edition is not a mere reprint of either of Millington's, 

 as MilHngton's 1600 edition is a reprint of his 1594/5 text. Four 

 brief passages in the Contention are given by Pavier in rather longer 

 and more satisfactory form, and about two hundred distinct changes 

 of word or phrase occur through the two parts, exclusive of mere 

 correction of misprints and variation of spelling. A careful Hst of 

 the variant readings of ed. 1619 will be found in the introductions 

 to the Praetorius facsimiles of the Whole Contention (1886). Study 

 of these variants makes it clear that Pavier's edition, though mainly 

 based on Millington's, must have had also another source independent 

 both of the Millington quartos and of the Shakespearean version 

 of the plays. Thus, in the four passages of the Contention, previ- 

 ously mentioned, where ed. 1619 notably amplifies the text of 1594, 

 the later edition often approaches comparatively close to the version 

 of 1623. Yet it is quite certain that ed. 1619 cannot here be merely 

 a corrupted rendering of the Shakespearean text, for it contains 

 matter not found in either of the other versions. For example, in 

 York's list of the descendants of Edward III [2 Henry VI, II, ii, 

 9 ff.), the 1623 Folio differs very radically from the quarto of 1594 ; 

 and the 1619 text, while agreeing in places with each of the others, 

 is in some respects quite independent of both. The progeny of the 

 Black Prince is fully stated by ed. 1619 alone {Facsimile, p. 231) : 

 " Now Edward the blacke Prince dyed before his Father, leaving 

 behinde him two sonnes, Edward borne at Angolesme, who died 

 young, and Richard that was after crowned King, by the name of 

 Richard the second." ^ This Edward of Angouleme, though duly 



^ The suggestion that Edward of Angouleme survived his father is, of 

 course, incorrect. 



