[Transcriber's Note:
This e-text contains the introductory material (44 pages) and the
publisher's advertising (16 pages) from Volume I of the nine-volume
1863 Cambridge edition of Shakespeare. The five plays from this
volume, with their notes, will each be produced as a free-standing
e-text.
Numerals written as subscripts are shown inline as F1, F2, Q1....
Except for footnotes and illustrations, all brackets are in the
original.
In the publisher's advertising, the page breaks have been retained
and are shown as a double row of asterisks.]
_THE WORKS_
of
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.
[Illustration (Publisher's Device)]
THE WORKS
of
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
Edited by
WILLIAM GEORGE CLARK, M.A.
Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, and Public Orator
in the University of Cambridge;
and JOHN GLOVER, M.A.
Librarian Of Trinity College, Cambridge.
_VOLUME I._
Cambridge and London:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
1863.
Cambridge:
Printed by C. J. Clay, M.A.
at the University Press.
To His Grace
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, K.G.
Chancellor Of The University Of Cambridge.
THIS EDITION
of
_THE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE_
Is Respectfully Dedicated
by
THE EDITORS.
CONTENTS.
[The e-text numbers for the plays from this edition are shown
in brackets.]
PAGE
The Preface ix
THE TEMPEST [23042] 3
Notes to the Tempest 77
THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA [23043] 83
Notes to the Two Gentlemen of Verona 157
Introduction to the Merry Wives of Windsor 163
THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR [23044] 165
Notes to the Merry Wives of Windsor 253
A Pleasant Conceited Comedy
of Syr John Falstaffe, &c. 257
MEASURE FOR MEASURE [23045] 295
Notes to Measure for Measure 391
THE COMEDY OF ERRORS [23046] 399
Notes to the Comedy of Errors 462
PREFACE.
The main rules which we proposed to ourselves in undertaking this
Edition are as follows:
1. To base the text on a thorough collation of the four Folios and of
all the Quarto editions of the separate plays, and of subsequent
editions and commentaries.
2. To give all the results of this collation in notes at the foot of
the page, and to add to these conjectural emendations collected and
suggested by ourselves, or furnished to us by our correspondents, so as
to give the reader in a compact form a complete view of the existing
materials out of which the text has been constructed, or may be emended.
3. In all plays of which there is a Quarto edition differing from the
received text to such a degree that the variations cannot be shown in
foot-notes, to print the text of the Quarto _literatim_ in a smaller
type after the received text.
4. To number the lines in each scene separately, so as to facilitate
reference.
5. To add at the end of each play a few notes, (_a_) to explain such
variations in the text of former editions as could not be intelligibly
expressed in the limits of a foot-note, (_b_) to justify any deviation
from our ordinary rule either in the text or the foot-notes, and
(_c_) to illustrate some passage of unusual difficulty or interest.
6. To print the Poems, edited on a similar plan, at the end of the
Dramatic Works.
An edition of Shakespeare on this plan has been for several years in
contemplation, and has been the subject of much discussion. That such an
edition was wanted seemed to be generally allowed, and it was thought
that Cambridge afforded facilities for the execution of the task such as
few other places could boast of. The Shakespearian collection given by
Capell to the Library of Trinity College supplied a mass of material
almost unrivalled in amount and value, and in some points unique; and
there, too, might be found opportunities for combined literary labour,
without which the work could not be executed at all. At least, if
undertaken by one person only, many years of unremitting diligence would
be required for its completion.
The first step towards the realization of the project was taken in the
spring of 1860, when the first act of _Richard the Second_ was printed
by way of specimen, with a preface signed 'W. G. Clark' and 'H. R.
Luard,'[1] where the principles, on which the proposed Edition should be
based, were set forth with the view 'of obtaining opinions as to the
feasibility of the plan, and suggestions as to its improvement.'
All the persons who answered this appeal expressed their warm approval
of the general plan, and many favoured us with suggestions as to
details, which we have either adopted, or at least not rejected without
careful and respectful consideration.
Since our work was commenced, we have learned that the need of such an
Edition has presented itself, independently, to the minds of many
literary men, and that a similar undertaking was recommended as long ago
as 1852, by Mr Bolton Corney, in _Notes and Queries_, Vol. VI. pp. 2, 3;
and again by a correspondent of the same journal who signs himself
'Este,' Vol. VIII. p. 362.
This concurrence of opinion leads us to hope that our Edition will be
found to supply a real want, while, at the same time, the novelty of its
plan will exempt us from all suspicion of a design to supersede, or even
compete with, the many able and learned Editors who have preceded us in
the same field.
We will first proceed to explain the principles upon which we have
prepared our text.
A. _With respect to the Readings._
The basis of all texts of Shakespeare must be that of the earliest
Edition of the collected plays, the Folio of 1623, which, for more easy
reference, we have designated F1[2]. This we have mainly adopted, unless
there exists an earlier edition in quarto, as is the case in more than
one half of the thirty-six plays. When the first Folio is corrupt, we
have allowed some authority to the emendations of F2 above subsequent
conjecture, and secondarily to F3 and F4; but a reference to our notes
will show that the authority even of F2 in correcting is very small.
Where we have Quartos of authority, their variations from F1 have been
generally accepted, except where they are manifest errors, and where the
text of the entire passage seems to be of an inferior recension to that
of the Folio. To show that the later Folios only corrected the first by
conjecture, we may instance two lines in _Midsummer Night's Dream_:
Give me your neif, Mounsieur Mustard Seed. IV. 1.
'Neif,' which is spelt 'niefe' in Qq F1, becomes 'newfe' in F2, 'newse'
and 'news' in F3 F4.
And finds his trusty Thisby's mantle slain. V. 1.
F1 omits 'trusty.' F2 makes up the line by inserting 'gentle.'
Where the Folios are all obviously wrong, and the Quartos also fail us,
we have introduced into the text several conjectural emendations;
especially we have often had recourse to Theobald's ingenuity. But it
must be confessed that a study of errors detracts very much from the
apparent certainty of conjectures, the causelessness of the blunders
warning us off the hope of restoring, by general principles or by
discovery of causes of error.
For example: in the _Midsummer Night's Dream_, I. 1,
Or else it stood upon the choice of merit,
the reading of the Folios, is certainly wrong; but if we compare the
true reading preserved in the Quartos, 'the choice of friends,' we can
perceive no way to account for the change of 'friends' to 'merit,' by
which we might have retraced the error from 'merit' to 'friends.'
Nothing like the 'ductus literarum,' or attraction of the eye to a
neighbouring word, can be alleged here.
Hence though we have admitted conjectures sometimes, we have not done so
as often as perhaps will be expected. For, in the first place, we admit
none because we think it better rhythm or grammar or sense, unless we
feel sure that the reading of the Folio is altogether impossible. In the
second place, the conjecture must appear to us to be the only probable
one. If the defect can be made good in more ways than one equally
plausible, or, at least, equally possible, we have registered but not
adopted these improvements, and the reader is intended to make his own
selection out of the notes.
For example, in the _Merry Wives of Windsor_, II. 3. 80, we have assumed
Mr Dyce's conjecture, 'Cried I aim?' to be the only satisfactory reading
of a passage decidedly wrong; but in the same play, IV. 1. 63, 'Woman,
art thou lunaties?' as the error may equally possibly be evaded by
reading 'lunacies' with Rowe, and 'lunatics' with Capell, we have
retained the error.
The well-known canon of criticism, that of two readings 'ceteris
paribus' the more difficult is to be preferred, is not always to be
applied in comparing the readings of the Folios. For very frequently an
anomaly which would have been plausible on account of its apparent
archaism proves to be more archaic than Shakespeare, if the earlier
Quartos give the language of Shakespeare with more correctness. Ex.
_Midsummer Night's Dream_, III. 2: 'Scorn and derision never come in
tears' Qq; 'comes' Ff; and in the same play, IV. 1: 'O how mine eyes do
loath' Q1, altered to 'doth loath' in Q2 F1, and restored, evidently by
a grammatical reviser, to 'do loath' in F2 F3 F4. Again, I. 1: 'what all
but he do know,' Qq, is altered to 'doth know' in Ff.
This last error points to a very common anomaly in grammar; one which
seems almost to have become a rule, or, at any rate, a license in
Shakespeare's own time, that a verb shall agree in number with the
nominative intervening between the true governing noun and the verb.
B. _Grammar._
In general, we do not alter any passage merely because the grammar is
faulty, unless we are convinced that the fault of grammar was due to the
printer altogether, and not to Shakespeare. We look upon it as no part
of our task to improve the poet's grammar or correct his oversights:
even errors, such as those referred to in note (VII) to the _Two
Gentlemen of Verona_, and notes (I) and (X) to the _Merry Wives of
Windsor_, because we thought them to be Shakespeare's own blunders, have
been allowed to stand. But many phrases that are called bad grammar by
us, and rightly so called, were sanctioned by usage among the
contemporaries of Shakespeare, especially, no doubt, by the usage of
conversation, even among educated persons. And as a learned
correspondent (Dr B. Nicholson) remarks, this would naturally be the
style of English which Shakespeare would purposely use in dramatic
dialogue.
As examples of the anomalies of grammar sanctioned by Elizabethan usage
we may mention:--
Singular verbs, with plural nouns, especially when the verb precedes its
nominative:
Hath all his ventures failed? What; not one hit?
_Merchant of Venice_, III. 2.
Nominatives for accusatives:
She should this Angelo have married.
_Measure for Measure_, III. 1. 204.
And repeatedly 'who' for 'whom.'
Omission of prepositions:
Most ignorant of what he's most assured. _Ibid._ II. 2. 119.
------ which now you censure him. _Ibid._ II. 1. 15.
The changes of accidence are less frequent than those of syntax, yet
such occur. In the Folios verbs ending in _d_ and _t_ are constantly
found making their second persons singular in _ds_ and _ts_ instead of
_d'st_ and _t'st_. This was a corruption coming into vogue about the
time of their publication, and in the earlier Quartos we frequently find
the correct form; for example, in _Midsummer Night's Dream_, V. 1:
'standst' in Q1 is corrupted to 'stands' in Q2 and in Ff. We have
therefore confidently replaced the correct form for the incorrect, even
without authority to back us; looking upon the variation as a corrupt
abbreviation of spelling.
But, in general, our practice has been not to alter the text, in order
to make the grammar conform to the fixed rules of modern English. A wide
latitude of speech was allowed in Shakespeare's age both as to spelling
and grammar.
C. _Orthography._
It was not without much consideration that we determined to adopt the
spelling of the nineteenth century. If we had any evidence as to
Shakespeare's own spelling, we should have been strongly inclined to
adopt it, but to attempt to reproduce it, by operating by rule upon the
texts that have come down to us, would be subjecting Shakespeare's
English to arbitrary laws, of which it never yet was conscious. This
argues no want of education on the part of Shakespeare; for if Lord
Bacon himself had rules for spelling, they were but few, as we may
easily perceive by inspection of his works published under his own eye.
But if we have not Shakespeare's own spelling to guide us, what other
spelling shall we adopt? Every student of Shakespeare has now an easy
opportunity of acquainting himself with the text of F1, by means of Mr
Booth's excellent reprint, and we are certain that not one of them will
consider the spelling of that volume intrinsically better than that of
our day. Rather more like Shakespeare's it certainly is, but we doubt
whether much is gained by such approximation, as long as it is short of
perfect attainment. Moreover, in many of the Plays there is a competing
claim to guide our spelling, put forward by an array of Quartos, of
earlier date than F1. To desert F1 for these, where they exist, would be
but an occasional, and at best an uncertain means of attaining the lost
spelling of Shakespeare, while the spelling of our volume would become
even more inconsistent than that of F1 itself. Add to this; there are
places, though, as has been seen, not many, where we have had to leave
the reading of F1 altogether. How then shall we spell the correction
which we substitute?
D. _Metre._
Corrections of metre are avoided even more carefully than those of
grammar. For the rules of prosody have undergone perhaps greater change
than those of grammar. There is no doubt that a system of versification
has taken root among us very different from that which was in use in the
earlier days of our poetry. The influence of classical prosody has
worked in a manner that could hardly have been expected. Quantity in the
sense in which the Greeks and Romans understood it, is altogether
foreign to our speech; and our poets, willing to imitate the verse
regulated by laws of quantity, have partially adopted those laws,
substituting for long syllables those that bear a stress of accent or
emphasis.
In Greek and Latin accent was essentially distinct from quantity, and
verse was regulated entirely by the latter. In the modern imitation of
classical metres, for want of appreciation of quantity, we go entirely
by accent or emphasis, and make precisely such verses as classical taste
eschewed. Thus we have learned to scan lines by iambuses, or rather by
their accentual imitations, and a perfect line would consist of ten
syllables, of which the alternate ones bore a rhythmical stress. These
iambuses may, under certain restrictions, be changed for 'trochees,' and
out of these two 'feet,' or their representatives, a metre, certainly
very beautiful, has grown up gradually, which attained perhaps its
greatest perfection in the verse of Pope. But the poets of this metre,
like renaissance architects, lost all perception of the laws of the
original artists, and set themselves, whenever it was possible, to
convert the original verses into such as their own system would have
produced. We see the beginnings of this practice even in the first
Folio, when there exist Quartos to exhibit it. In each successive Folio
the process has been continued. Rowe's few changes of F4 are almost all
in the same direction, and the work may be said to have been completed
by Hanmer. It is to be feared that a result of two centuries of such a
practice has been to bring about an idea of Shakespearian versification
very different from Shakespeare's. But we feel a hope that the number of
Shakespeare's students who can appreciate the true nature of the English
versification in our elder poets is increasing, and will increase more
as the opportunity is furnished them of studying Shakespeare himself.
Of course we do not mean to give here an essay on Shakespearian
versification. Those who would study it may best be referred to Capell,
in spite of the erroneous taste of his day, to Sidney Walker, and
especially, if they are earnest students, to Dr Guest's _History of
English Rhythms_.
We will only state some of the differences between Shakespearian
versification and that which has now become our normal prosody; namely,
such as have excited an ambition of correcting in later editors. There
is a large number of verses which a modern ear pronounces to want their
first unaccented syllable. The following we quote as they appear in F1,
in the opening of the _Two Gentlemen of Verona_:
No, I will not, for it boots thee not. I. 1. 28.
Fire that's closest kept burns most of all. I. 2. 30.
Is't near dinner-time? I would it were. I. 2. 67.
These lines are all corrected by editors; and it is evident that there
would be little trouble in altering all such lines wherever they occur:
or they may be explained away, as for instance in the second cited,
'fire' doubtless is sometimes pronounced as a dissyllable. Yet to
attempt correction or explanation wherever such lines occur would be
ill-spent labour. A very impressive line in the _Tempest_ is similarly
scanned:
Twelve year since, Miranda, twelve year since. I. 2. 53.
Where we are rightly told that 'year' may be a dissyllable. Yet that one
word should bear two pronunciations in one line is far more improbable
than that the unaccented syllable before 'twelve' is purposely omitted
by the poet; and few readers will not acknowledge the solemn effect of
such a verse. As another example with a contrary effect, of impulsive
abruptness, we may take a line in _Measure for Measure_:
Quick, dispatch, and send the head to Angelo. IV. 3. 88.
This last example is also an instance of another practice, by modern
judgement a license, viz. making a line end with two unaccented
'extrametrical' syllables.
Two very effective lines together, commencing similarly to the last, are
in the same Play:
Take him hence; to the rack with him! We'll touse you
Joint by joint, but we will know his purpose. V. 1. 309, 310.
Another irregularity is a single strong syllable commencing a line
complete without it. This might often be printed in a line by itself.
For example:
Ay,
And we're betrothed: nay more, our marriage-hour--
_Two Gentlemen of Verona_, II. 4, 175.
Another irregularity is the insertion of syllables in the middle of
lines. The dramatic verse is doubtless descended from the Old English
decasyllables of Chaucer, and that his verse was divided actually into
two sections is evinced by the punctuation of some MSS. The _licenses_
accorded to the beginnings and endings of the whole verse were also
allowed, with some modification, to the end and beginnings of these
_sections_, and accordingly, in early poetry, many verses will appear to
a modern reader to have a syllable too many or too few in the part where
his ear teaches him to place a cæsura. Exactly similarly, but more
sparingly, syllables are omitted or inserted at the central pause of
Shakespeare's verse, especially when this pause is not merely metrical,
but is in the place of a stop of greater or less duration; and most
freely when the line in question is broken by the dialogue.
The following examples of a superfluous syllable at the middle pause are
taken out of the beginning of the _Tempest_:
Obey, and be attentive. Canst thou remember? I. 2. 38.
But blessedly help hither. O, my heart bleeds. I. 2. 63.
Without a parallel; those being all my study. I. 2. 74.
With all prerogative:--hence his ambition growing. I. 2. 105.
The extra syllables may be at the commencement of the second section:
He was indeed the Duke; out o' the substitution. I. 2. 103.
And the following are defective of a syllable:
Dashes the fire out. O, I have suffered. I. 2. 5.
Make the prize light. One word more; I charge thee. I. 2. 452.
To these 'licenses' we may add verses sometimes with one and sometimes
with two additional feet, and many half verses, and some a foot too
short. When these inequalities are allowed, the reader will perceive
much simpler and more general methods of scanning some lines supposed to
be unmetrical than the Procrustean means adopted by Sidney Walker for
reducing or multiplying the number of syllables in words.
E. _Punctuation._
We have now to state our practice of punctuation. The Folio and other
editions, starting with very different principles from those that guide
the punctuation of this day, have acted on those principles with
exceeding incorrectness. Questions are marked and unnoticed almost at
random; stops are inserted in the ends of lines fatal to the sense. In
fact, in many places, we may almost say that a complete want of points
would mislead us less than the punctuation of the Folios. The
consequence is, that our punctuation is very little dependent upon the
Folios and Quartos, but generally follows the practice which has taken
possession of the text of Shakespeare, under the arrangement of the best
editors, from Pope to Dyce and Staunton. Only for an obvious improvement
have we altered the punctuation on our own judgement, and in most cases
the alteration is recorded in the notes.
One thing remains to be said in reference to our text. It is well known,
that in James the First's reign, a statute was passed for exscinding
profane expressions from plays. In obedience to this many passages in
the Folios have been altered with an over-scrupulous care. When we have
seen the metre, or, as is sometimes the case, even the sense marred by
these changes, and the original contains no offensive profanity, we have
recalled Shakespeare's words.
Our object in the foot-notes has been (1) to state the authority upon
which a received reading rests, (2) to give all different readings
adopted into the text by other editors, and (3) to give all emendations
suggested by commentators.
When no authority is mentioned for the reading of the text, it must be
understood that all the Folios agree in it, as well as all editors
previous to the one mentioned, as authority for an alteration. Thus, in
the _Comedy of Errors_, III. 1. 71, '_cake here_] _cake_ Capell'
indicates that 'cake here' is the reading of the four Folios, of Rowe,
Pope, Theobald Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson.
Mere differences of spelling are not noticed, except (1) in corrupt or
disputed passages, where the 'ductus literarum' is important as a help
towards the determination of the true text, and (2) when the variation
is interesting etymologically or characteristic of a particular edition.
In the same way, differences of punctuation are recorded only when they
make a difference in the sense, or when they may serve as a guide to the
restoration of some corrupt, or the explanation of some difficult,
passage.
Misprints also are passed over as a general rule. We have noticed them
occasionally, when they appeared to be remarkable as indicating the
amount of error of which the old printers were capable.
We have endeavoured faithfully to record any variation of reading,
however minute (except, as before said, mere differences of spelling or
punctuation), adopted by any editor, and to give that editor's name.
Sometimes, however, we have passed over in silence merely arbitrary
rearrangements of the metre made in passages where no change was
required and no improvement effected.
In recording conjectures, we have excepted only (1) those which were so
near some other reading previously adopted or suggested, as to be
undeserving of separate record, and (2) a few (of Becket, Jackson, and
others) which were palpably erroneous. Even of these we have given a
sufficient number to serve as samples.
We will now proceed to explain the notation employed in the foot-notes,
which, in some cases, the necessity of compressing may have rendered
obscure.
The four Folios are designated respectively by the letters F1, F2, F3,
and F4, and the quarto editions of separate plays, in each case, by the
letters Q1, Q2, Q3, &c.
When one or more of the Quartos differ so widely from the Folios that a
complete collation is impossible, the letters which designate them are
put between brackets, for the sake of keeping this difference before the
mind of the reader. Thus, in the _Merry Wives of Windsor_, the two
earliest Quartos differ widely from the Folios, while the third Quarto
(1630) is printed from the first Folio. Hence, they are designated thus:
I. 4. 20, _Cain_] F3 F4. _Kane_ (Q1 Q2). _Caine_ F1 Q3 F2.
When no authority is given for the reading in the text, it is to be
understood that it is derived from such of the Folios as are not
subsequently mentioned. Thus, in the _Comedy of Errors_, II. 2. 203,
_the eye_] _thy eye_ F2 F3 indicates that F1 and F4 agree in reading
'the eye.'
In the same scene, line 191, the note '_or_] _and_ Theobald' means, that
the four Folios, followed by Rowe and Pope, agree in reading 'or.'
When the difference between the reading adopted and that given in one or
more of the Folios is a mere difference of spelling, it has not been
thought worth while to record the name of the first editor who
modernized it: for instance, in the _Two Gentlemen of Verona_, II. 6.
35, the note is: _counsel_] _counsaile_ F1 F2. _councel_ F3.
_council_ F4.
We have given at full the name of the editor who first introduced a
particular reading, without recording which of his successors adopted
it. Thus, in _Measure for Measure_, III. 1. 138, 'grant' for 'shield' is
read by Pope, Theobald, Hanmer, Warburton, and others, but the first
only is mentioned: '_shield_] F1. _shield:_ F2 F3 F4. _grant_ Pope.'
The conjectures made by annotators or by editors, but not introduced by
them into the text, are distinguished by the addition of 'conj.,' as
'Farmer conj.,' 'Johnson conj.' &c. 'Steevens (Farmer conj.)' indicates
that the reading in question was first suggested by Farmer, and first
introduced into the text by Steevens. If, however, the person who first
made the conjecture, afterwards became an editor, and gave it in his own
text, while, in the mean time, it had been adopted by some other editor,
the 'conj.' is omitted. Thus, for example, 'Theobald (Warburton)' shows
that Warburton was the first to propose such and such a change, that
Theobald first incorporated it in the text, and that Warburton
afterwards gave it in the text of his own edition. We have designated
the readings derived from Mr Collier's corrected copy of the second
folio thus: 'Collier MS.' not 'Collier MS. conj.,' as in this case we
could consult brevity without danger of misleading any one.
We have arranged the names both of Editors and of Commentators (as far
as was possible) in order of time. It has frequently happened that
several persons have hit on the same conjecture independently. In such
cases we have assigned it to the earliest, determining the priority by
the date of publication.
The metrical arrangement of each passage is marked in the notes by
printing each word which commences a line with an initial capital
letter. In the Folios, many substantives, other than proper names or
titles, are printed with initial capitals; but, in order to avoid
ambiguity, we have generally made our quotations conform, in this
respect, to the modern usage.
We had originally intended to give in our Preface a catalogue raisonnГ©
of all the editions of our author and other books used by us in the
preparation of the present work, but this labour has been fortunately
spared us by Mr Bohn's reissue of Lowndes's _Bibliographer's Manual_,
the eighth part of which contains a full and accurate account of
Shakespearian literature. To that work we refer our readers for more
complete bibliographical details, and propose to confine ourselves to
some remarks on the critical value of the principal editions and
commentaries. We have, of course, confined our collation to those
editions which seemed to possess an independent value of their own. Mr
Bohn enumerates two hundred and sixty-two different editions of
Shakespeare. It was therefore a matter of necessity to make a selection.
In the following remarks we pass briefly in review the editions which we
have habitually consulted.
Whenever any commentary was known to us to exist in a separate form, we
have always, if possible, procured it. In some few instances, we have
been obliged to take the references at second-hand.
The first Folio (F1), 1623, contains all the plays usually found in
modern editions of Shakespeare, except _Pericles_. It was 'published
according to the True Originall Copies,' and 'set forth' by his
'friends' and 'fellows,' John Heminge and Henry Condell, the author 'not
having the fate common with some to be exequutor to his own writings.'
In an address 'To the great variety of Readers' following the dedication
to the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery, the following passage occurs:
'It had bene a thing, we confesse, worthie to have bene wished, that the
Author himselfe had liv'd to have set forth, and overseen his owne
writings; But since it hath bin ordain'd otherwise, and he by death
departed from that right, we pray you do not envie his Friends, the
office of their care, and paine, to have collected & publish'd them; and
so to have publish'd them, as where (before) you were abus'd with
diverse stolne and surreptitious copies, maimed, and deformed by the
frauds and stealthes of injurious impostors, that expos'd them: even
those are now offer'd to your view cur'd, and perfect of their limbes;
and all the rest, absolute in their numbers, as he conceived them. Who,
as he was a happie imitator of Nature, was a most gentle expresser of
it. His mind and hand went together: And what he thought, he uttered
with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in
his papers.'
The natural inference to be drawn from this statement is, that all the
separate editions of Shakespeare's plays were 'stolen,' 'surreptitious,'
and 'imperfect,' and that all those published in the Folio were printed
from the author's own manuscripts. But it can be proved to demonstration
that several of the plays in the Folio were printed from earlier Quarto
editions, and that in other cases the Quarto is more correctly printed
or from a better MS. than the Folio text, and therefore of higher
authority. For example, in _Midsummer Night's Dream_, in _Love's
Labour's Lost_, and in _Richard the Second_, the reading of the Quarto
is almost always preferable to that of the Folio, and in _Hamlet_ we
have computed that the Folio, when it differs from the Quartos, differs
for the worse in forty-seven places, while it differs for the better in
twenty at most.
As the 'setters forth' are thus convicted of a 'suggestio falsi' in
one point, it is not improbable that they may have been guilty of
the like in another. Some of the plays may have been printed not from
Shakespeare's own manuscript, but from transcripts made from them for
the use of the theatre. And this hypothesis will account for strange
errors found in some of the plays--errors too gross to be accounted for
by the negligence of a printer, especially if the original MS. was as
unblotted as Heminge and Condell describe it to have been. Thus too we
may explain the great difference in the state of the text as found in
different plays. It is probable that this deception arose not from
deliberate design on the part of Heminge and Condell,--whom as having
been Shakespeare's friends and fellows we like to think of as honourable
men,--but partly at least from want of practice in composition, and from
the wish rather to write a smart preface in praise of the book than to
state the facts clearly and simply. Or the preface may have been written
by some literary man in the employment of the publishers, and merely
signed by the two players.
Be this as it may, their duties as editors were probably limited to
correcting and arranging the manuscripts and sending them to the press.
The 'overseeing' of which they speak, probably meant a revision of the
MSS., not a correction of the press, for it does not appear that there
were any proof sheets in those days sent either to author or editor.
Indeed we consider it as certain that, after a MS. had been sent to
press, it was seen only by the printers and one or more correctors of
the press, regularly employed by the publishers for that purpose[3].
The opinions of critics have varied very much as to the merits of the
first Folio, some praising it as among the most correct, and others
blaming it as one of the most incorrect editions of its time. The truth
seems to be that it is of very varied excellence, differing from time to
time according to the state of the MS. from which it was printed, the
skill of the compositor, and the diligence of the corrector. There is
the widest difference, for instance, between the text of the _Two
Gentlemen of Verona_ and that of _All's well that ends well_.
As is the case with most books of that time[4], different copies of the
first Folio are found to vary here and there; generally, however, in a
single letter only. It is probable that no one copy exactly corresponds
with any other copy. We have indicated these variations, wherever they
were known to us, in a note either at the foot of the page or at the end
of each play.
A reprint of the first Folio, not free from inaccuracies, was published
in 1807. A second reprint is now in course of publication by Mr Lionel
Booth. The first part, containing the Comedies, has already appeared. It
is probably the most correct reprint ever issued.
The second Folio (F2) is a reprint of the first, preserving the same
pagination. It differs, however, from the first in many passages,
sometimes widely, sometimes slightly, sometimes by accident, sometimes
by design. The emendations are evidently conjectural, and though
occasionally right, appear more frequently to be wrong. They deserve no
more respect than those of other guessers, except such as is due to
their author's familiar acquaintance with the language and customs of
Shakespeare's day, and possible knowledge of the acted plays.
Capell's copy of the second Folio has been of great use to us in our
collations. He has annotated the margin with a multitude of marks in red
ink,--conventional symbols indicating where and how it differs from the
first. We have hardly in a single instance found his accuracy at fault.
The third Folio (F3) was first published in 1663, and reissued in the
following year with a new title-page[5], and with seven additional
plays, viz.: _Pericles, Prince of Tyre_: _The London Prodigal_: _The
History of the Life and Death of Thomas Lord Cromwell_: _The History of
Sir John Oldcastle, the good Lord Cobham_: _The Puritan Widow_: _A
Yorkshire Tragedy_: and _The Tragedy of Locrine_. With regard to the
plays which it contains in common with the former Folios, it is on the
whole a tolerably faithful reprint of the second, correcting, however,
some obvious errors, making now and then an uncalled-for alteration, and
occasionally modernizing the spelling of a word. The printer of course
has committed some errors of his own.
The fourth Folio (F4) was printed from the third, but with a different
pagination, in 1685. The spelling is very much modernized, but we have
not been able to detect any other evidence of editorial care.
The first octavo edition was that of Nicholas Rowe, published in 1709,
dedicated to the Duke of Somerset, in words which we take pleasure in
recording: ''Tis the best security a poet can ask for to be sheltered
under that great name which presides over one of the most famous
Universities of Europe.' It contained all the plays in the fourth Folio
in the same order, except that the seven spurious plays were transferred
from the beginning to the end. The poems were added also.
It is evident that Rowe took the fourth Folio as the text from which his
edition was printed, and it is almost certain that he did not take the
trouble to refer to, much less to collate, any of the previous Folios or
Quartos. It seems, however, while the volume containing _Romeo and
Juliet_ was in the press he learned the existence of a Quarto edition,
for he has printed the prologue given in the Quartos and omitted in the
Folios, at the end of the play. He did not take the trouble to compare
the text of the Quarto with that of F4. When any emendation introduced
by him in the text coincides with the reading of F1, as sometimes
happens, we are convinced that it is an accidental coincidence. Being,
however, a man of natural ability and taste he improved the text by some
happy guesses, while, from overhaste and negligence, he left it still
deformed by many palpable errors. The best part of the work is that with
which his experience of the stage as a dramatic poet had made him
familiar. In many cases he first prefixed to the play a list of dramatis
personæ, he supplied the defects of the Folios in the division and
numbering of Acts and Scenes, and in the entrances and exits of
characters. He also corrected and further modernized the spelling, the
punctuation, and the grammar.
A characteristic specimen of blunders and corrections occurs in the
_Comedy of Errors_, V. 1. 138.
_important_] F1 _impoteant_ F2. _impotent_ F3 F4. _all-potent_ Rowe.
A second Edition, 9 Volumes 12mo, was published in 1714.
Pope's edition in six volumes, 4to, was completed in 1715. On the
title-page we read, 'The Works of Shakespeare, in six volumes.' The six
volumes, however, included only the plays contained in the first and
second Folios. The poems, with an _Essay on the Rise and Progress of the
Stage_, and a Glossary, were contained in a seventh volume edited by Dr
Sewell.
Pope, unlike his predecessor, had at least seen the first Folio and some
of the Quartos of separate plays, and from the following passage of his
preface it might have been inferred that he had diligently collated them
all:
'This is the state in which Shakespeare's writings be at present; for
since the above-mentioned folio edition [_i.e._ F4], all the rest have
implicitly followed it without having recourse to any of the former, or
ever making the comparison between them. It is impossible to repair the
injuries already done him; too much time has elaps'd, and the materials
are too few. In what I have done I have rather given a proof of my
willingness and desire, than of my ability, to do him justice. I have
discharg'd the dull duty of an editor, to my best judgment, with more
labour than I expect thanks, with a religious abhorrence of all
innovation, and without any indulgence to my private sense or
conjecture. The method taken in this edition will show itself. The
various readings are fairly put in the margin, so that every one may
compare 'em, and those I prefer'd into the text are constantly _ex fide
codicum_, upon authority.'
This passage, as any one may see who examines the text, is much more
like a description of what the editor did _not_ do than of what he did.
Although in many instances he restored, from some Quarto, passages which
had been omitted in the Folio, it is very rarely indeed that we find any
evidence of his having collated either the first Folio or any Quarto,
with proper care. The 'innovations' which he made, according to his own
'private sense and conjecture,' are extremely numerous. Not one in
twenty of the various readings is put in the margin, and the readings in
his text very frequently rest upon no authority whatever. The glaring
inconsistency between the promise in the preface and the performance in
the book may well account for its failure with the public.
It would, however, be ungrateful not to acknowledge that Pope's
emendations are always ingenious and plausible, and sometimes
unquestionably true. He never seems to nod over that 'dull labour' of
which he complains. His acuteness of perception is never at fault.
What is said of him in the preface to Theobald's edition is, in this
point, very unjust[6].
'They have both (_i.e._ Pope and Rymer[7]) shown themselves in an equal
_impuissance_ of suspecting or amending the corrupted passages, &c.'
Pope was the first to indicate the _place_ of each new scene; as, for
instance, _Tempest_, I. 1. 'On a ship at sea.' He also subdivided the
scenes as given by the Folios and Rowe, making a fresh scene whenever a
new character entered--an arrangement followed by Hanmer, Warburton, and
Johnson. For convenience of reference to these editions, we have always
recorded the commencement of Pope's scenes.
By a minute comparison of the two texts we find that Pope printed his
edition from Rowe, not from any of the Folios.
A second edition, 10 volumes, 12mo, was published in 1728, 'by Mr Pope
and Dr Sewell.' In this edition, after Pope's preface, reprinted, comes:
'A table of the several editions of Shakespeare's plays, made use of and
compared in this impression.' Then follows a list containing the first
and second Folios, and twenty-eight Quarto editions of separate plays.
It does not, however, appear that even the first Folio was compared with
any care, for the changes made in this second edition are very few.
Lewis Theobald had the misfortune to incur the enmity of one who was
both the most popular poet, and, if not the first, at least the second,
satirist of his time. The main cause of offence was Theobald's
_Shakespeare Restored, or a Specimen of the many Errors committed as
well as unamended by Mr Pope in his late edition of this Poet_, 1726.
Theobald was also in the habit of communicating notes on passages of
Shakespeare to _Mist's Journal_, a weekly Tory paper. Hence he was made
the hero of the _Dunciad_ till dethroned in the fourth edition to make
way for Cibber; hence, too, the allusions in that poem:
'There hapless Shakespear, yet of Theobald sore,
Wish'd he had blotted for himself before;'
and, in the earlier editions,
'Here studious I unlucky moderns save,
Nor sleeps one error in its father's grave;
Old puns restore, lost blunders nicely seek,
And crucify poor Shakespear once a week.'
Pope's editors and commentators, adopting their author's quarrel, have
spoken of Theobald as 'Tibbald, a cold, plodding, and tasteless writer
and critic.' These are Warton's words. A more unjust sentence was never
penned. Theobald, as an Editor, is incomparably superior to his
predecessors, and to his immediate successor, Warburton, although the
latter had the advantage of working on his materials. He was the first
to recal a multitude of readings of the first Folio unquestionably
right, but unnoticed by previous editors. Many most brilliant
emendations, such as could not have suggested themselves to a mere
'cold, plodding, and tasteless critic,' are due to him. If he sometimes
erred--'humanum est.' It is remarkable that with all his minute
diligence[8], (which even his enemies conceded to him, or rather of
which they accused him) he left a goodly number of genuine readings from
the first Folio to be gleaned by the still more minutely diligent
Capell. It is to be regretted that he gave up numbering the scenes,
which makes his edition difficult to refer to. It was first published in
1733, in seven volumes, 8vo. A second, 8 volumes, 12mo, appeared in
1740.
In 1744, a new edition of Shakespeare's Works, in six volumes, 4to, was
published at Oxford. It appeared with a kind of sanction from the
University, as it was printed at the Theatre, with the Imprimatur of the
Vice-Chancellor, and had no publisher's name on the title-page. The
Editor is not named--hence he is frequently referred to by subsequent
critics as 'the Oxford Editor';--but as he was well known to be Sir
Thomas Hanmer, we have always referred to the book under his name. We
read in the preface: 'What the Publick is here to expect is a true and
correct Edition of Shakespear's Works, cleared from the corruptions with
which they have hitherto abounded. One of the great admirers of this
incomparable author hath made it the amusement of his leisure hours for
many years past to look over his writings with a careful eye, to note
the obscurities and absurdities introduced into the text, and according
to the best of his judgment to restore the genuine sense and purity of
it. In this he proposed nothing to himself but his private satisfaction
in making his own copy as perfect as he could; but as the emendations
multiplied upon his hands, other Gentlemen equally fond of the Author,
desired to see them, and some were so kind as to give their assistance
by communicating their observations and conjectures upon difficult
passages which had occurred to them.'
From this passage the character of the edition may be inferred.
A country gentleman of great ingenuity and lively fancy, but with no
knowledge of older literature, no taste for research, and no ear for the
rhythm of earlier English verse, amused his leisure hours by scribbling
down his own and his friends' guesses in Pope's Shakespeare, and with
this _apparatus criticus_, if we may believe Warburton, 'when that
illustrious body, the University of Oxford, in their public capacity,
undertook an edition of Shakespeare by subscription,' Sir T. Hanmer
'thrust himself into the employment.'
Whether from the sanction thus given, or from its typographical beauty,
or from the plausibility of its new readings, this edition continued in
favour, and even 'rose to the price of 10_l._ 10_s._ before it was
reprinted in 1770-1, while Pope's, in quarto, at the same period sold
off at Tonson's sale for 16_s._ per copy.' Bohn, p. 2260.
In 1747, three years after Pope's death, another edition of Shakespeare
based upon his appeared, edited by Mr Warburton.
On the title-page are these words: 'The Genuine Text (collated with all
the former Editions, and then corrected and emended) is here settled:
Being restored from the _Blunders_ of the first Editors, and the
_Interpolations_ of the two Last: with a Comment and Notes, Critical and
Explanatory. By Mr Pope and Mr Warburton[9].'
The latter, in his preface, vehemently attacks Theobald and Hanmer,
accusing both of plagiarism and even fraud. 'The one was recommended to
me as a poor Man, the other as a poor Critic: and to each of them, at
different times, I communicated a great number of Observations, which
they managed as they saw fit to the Relief of their several distresses.
As to Mr _Theobald_, who wanted Money, I allowed him to print what I
gave him for his own Advantage: and he allowed himself in the Liberty of
taking one Part for his own, and sequestering another for the Benefit,
as I supposed, of some future Edition. But as to the _Oxford Editor_,
who wanted nothing, but what he might very well be without, the
reputation of a Critic, I could not so easily forgive him for
trafficking in my Papers without my knowledge; and when that Project
fail'd, for employing a number of my Conjectures in his Edition against
my express Desire not to have that Honour done unto me.'
Again he says of Hanmer: 'Having a number of my Conjectures before him,
he took as many as he saw fit to work upon, and by changing them to
something, he thought, synonimous or similar, he made them his own,' &c.
&c. p. xii.
Of his own performance Warburton says, 'The Notes in this Edition take
in the whole Compass of Criticism. The first sort is employed in
restoring the Poet's genuine Text; but in those places only where it
labours with inextricable Nonsense. In which, how much soever I may have
given scope to critical Conjecture, when the old Copies failed me,
I have indulged nothing to Fancy or Imagination; but have religiously
observed the severe Canons of literal Criticism, &c. &c.' p. xiv. Yet
further on he says, 'These, such as they are, were amongst my younger
amusements, when, many years ago I used to turn over these sort of
Writers to unbend myself from more serious applications.'
The excellence of the edition proved to be by no means proportionate to
the arrogance of the editor. His text is, indeed, better than Pope's,
inasmuch as he introduced many of Theobald's restorations and some
probable emendations both of his own and of the two editors whom he so
unsparingly denounced, but there is no trace whatever, so far as we have
discovered, of his having collated for himself either the earlier Folios
or any of the Quartos.
Warburton[10] was, in his turn, severely criticised by Dr Zachary Grey,
and Mr John Upton, in 1746, and still more severely by Mr Thomas
Edwards, in his _Supplement to Mr Warburton's edition of Shakespeare_,
1747. The third edition of Mr Edwards's book, 1750, was called _Canons
of Criticism and Glossary, being a Supplement, &c._ This title is a
sarcastic allusion to two passages in Warburton's preface: 'I once
intended to have given the Reader a _body of Canons_, for literal
Criticism, drawn out in form,' &c. p. xiv, and 'I had it once, indeed,
in my design, to give a general alphabetic _Glossary_ of these terms,'
&c. p. xvi. Dr Grey's attack was reprinted, with additions, and a new
title, in 1751, and again in 1752. Warburton and his predecessors were
passed in review also by Mr Benjamin Heath, in _A Revisal of
Shakespeare's text_, 1765.
Dr Samuel Johnson first issued proposals for a new edition of
Shakespeare in 1745, but met with no encouragement. He resumed the
scheme in 1756, and issued a new set of Proposals (reprinted in Malone's
preface), 'in which,' says Boswell, 'he shewed that he perfectly well
knew what a variety of research such an undertaking required, but his
indolence prevented him from pursuing it with that diligence, which
alone can collect those scattered facts that genius, however acute,
penetrating, and luminous, cannot discover by its own force.' Johnson
deceived himself so far, as to the work to be done and his own energy in
doing it, that he promised the publication of the whole before the end
of the following year. Yet, though some volumes were printed as early as
1758 (Boswell, Vol. II. p. 84), it was not published till 1765, and
might never have been published at all, but for Churchill's stinging
satire:
