After the publication of Farmer’s _Essay_ there was a change in the
character of the editions of Shakespeare. Farmer is the forerunner of
Steevens and Malone. He had a just idea of the importance of his work when
he spoke of himself as the pioneer of the commentators. It did not matter
whether his main contention were accepted; he had at least shown the
wealth of illustration which was awaiting the scholar who cared to search
in the literature of Shakespeare’s age, and Steevens and Malone were not
slow to follow. They had the advantage of being early in the field; but it
is doubtful if any later editor has contributed as much as either of them
did to the elucidation of Shakespeare’s text. They have been oftener
borrowed from than has been admitted, and many a learned note of later
date may be found in germ in their editions. But with the advance of
detailed scholarship the Prefaces deteriorate in literary merit. They
concern themselves more and more with textual and bibliographical points,
and hence, if they are of greater interest to the student, they are of
less value as indications of the century’s regard for Shakespeare. The
change is already noticeable in Capell’s Preface, on the literary
shortcomings of which Johnson expressed himself so forcibly. Johnson is
the last editor whose Preface is a piece of general criticism. It is an
essay which can stand by itself.
By the time of Johnson and Capell the editor of Shakespeare has come to a
clear idea of his “true duty.” Rowe had no suspicion of the textual
problems awaiting his successors. A dramatist himself, he wished merely to
publish Shakespeare’s plays as he would publish his own. Accordingly he
modernised the spelling, divided the scenes, and added lists of dramatis
personae; and the folio gave place to six octavo volumes. He was content
to found his text on the fourth Folio, the last and worst; he had no idea
of the superior claims of the first, though he professed to have compared
the several editions. He corrected many errors and occasionally hit upon a
happy emendation; but on the whole his interest in Shakespeare was that of
the dramatist. Pope’s interest was that of the poet. There is some truth
in the criticism that he gave Shakespeare not as he was, but as he ought
to be, though Pope might well have retorted that in his opinion the two
conditions were identical. Whatever did not conform to his opinion of
Shakespeare’s style he treated as an interpolation. His collation of the
texts, by convincing him of their corruption, only prompted him to a more
liberal exercise of his own judgment. In the supplementary volume of
Pope’s edition, it had been suggested by Sewell that our great writers
should be treated in the same way as the classics were, and the idea was
put into practice by Theobald, who could say that his method of editing
was “the first assay of the kind on any modern author whatsoever.” By his
careful collation of the Quartos and Folios, he pointed the way to the
modern editor. But he was followed by Hanmer, who, as his chief interest
was to rival Pope, was content with Pope’s methods. It is easy to
underestimate the value of Hanmer’s edition; his happy conjectures have
been prejudiced by his neglect of the older copies and his unfortunate
attempt to regularise the metre; but what alone concerns us here is that
he reverts to the methods which Theobald had discarded. Warburton,
confident in his intellectual gifts, was satisfied with Theobald’s
examination of the early copies, and trusted to his own insight “to settle
the genuine text.” The critical ingenuity of editors and commentators,
before the authority of the Folios was established, betrayed them into
inevitable error. The amusing variety of conjectural readings was met by
the exquisite satire of Fielding,(21) as well as by the heavy censure of
Grub Street. “It is to be wished,” says a catchpenny publication, “that
the original text of Shakespeare were left unaltered for every English
reader to understand. The numerous fry of commentators will at last
explain his original meaning away.”(22) This criticism was out of date by
the time of Johnson and Capell. As it has long been the fashion to decry
Johnson’s edition, it is well to recall two statements in his Preface,
which show that he had already discovered what later editors have found
out for themselves:
“I collated all the folios at the beginning, but afterwards used
only the first.”(23)
“It has been my settled principle that the reading of the ancient
books is probably true.... As I practised conjecture more, I
learned to trust it less.”
Johnson’s collation may not have been thorough; but no modern editor can
say that he proceeded on a wrong method.
Johnson has included in his Preface an account of the work of earlier
editors, and it is the first attempt of the kind which is impartial. He
shows that Rowe has been blamed for not performing what he did not
undertake; he is severe on Pope for the allusion to the “dull duty of an
editor,” as well as for the performance of it, though he also finds much
to praise; he does more justice to Sir Thomas Hammer than has commonly
been done since; and he is not silent on the weaknesses of Warburton. The
only thing in this unprejudiced account which is liable to criticism is
his treatment of Theobald. But the censure is as just as the praise which
it is now the fashion to heap on him. Though Theobald was the first to pay
due respect to the original editions, we cannot, in estimating his
capacity, ignore the evidence of his correspondence with Warburton. In the
more detailed account of his work given below, it is shown that there was
a large measure of justice in the common verdict of the eighteenth
century, but it was only prejudiced critics like Pope or Warburton who
would say that his Shakespearian labours were futile. Johnson is careful
to state that “what little he did was commonly right.”
It would appear that Macaulay’s estimate of Johnson’s own edition has been
generally accepted, even by those who in other matters remark on the
historian’s habit of exaggeration. “The Preface,” we read, “though it
contains some good passages, is not in his best manner. The most valuable
notes are those in which he had an opportunity of showing how attentively
he had, during many years, observed human life and human nature. The best
specimen is the note on the character of Polonius. Nothing so good is to
be found even in Wilhelm Meister’s admirable examination of _Hamlet_. But
here praise must end. It would be difficult to name a more slovenly, a
more worthless edition of any great classic. The reader may turn over play
after play without finding one happy conjectural emendation, or one
ingenious and satisfactory explanation of a passage which had baffled
preceding commentators.”(24) And we still find it repeated that his
edition was a failure. Johnson distrusted conjecture; but that there is
not one happy conjectural emendation is only less glaringly untrue than
the other assertion that there is not one new ingenious and satisfactory
explanation. Even though we make allowance for Macaulay’s mannerism, it is
difficult to believe that he had honestly consulted the edition. Those who
have worked with it know the force of Johnson’s claim that not a single
passage in the whole work had appeared to him corrupt which he had not
attempted to restore, or obscure which he had not endeavoured to
illustrate. We may neglect the earlier eighteenth-century editions of
Shakespeare, but if we neglect Johnson’s we run a serious risk. We may now
abandon his text; we must rely on later scholarship for the explanation of
many allusions; but, wherever a difficulty can be solved by common sense,
we shall never find his notes antiquated. Other editions are distinguished
by accuracy, ingenuity, or learning; the supreme distinction of his is
sagacity. He cleared a way through a mass of misleading conjectures. In
disputed passages he has an almost unerring instinct for the explanation
which alone can be right; and when the reading is corrupt beyond
emendation, he gives the most helpful statement of the probable meaning.
Not only was Johnson’s edition the best which had yet appeared; it is
still one of the few editions which are indispensable.