HOW SHAKESPEARE GOT INTO PRINT
The Elizabethan audiences who filled to overflowing the theaters on the
Bankside possessed a far purer text of Shakespeare than we of this
later day can boast. In order to understand our own editions of
Shakespeare, it is necessary to understand something, at least, of the
conditions of publishing in Shakespeare's day and of the relations of
the playhouses with the publishers.
The printing of Shakespeare's poems is an easy tale, _Venus and Adonis_
in 1593, and _The Rape of Lucrece_ in 1594, were first printed in
quarto by Richard Field, a native of Stratford, who had come to London.
In each case a dedication accompanying the text was signed by
Shakespeare, so that we may guess that the poet not only consented to
the printing, but took care that the printing should be accurate.
Twelve editions of one, eight of the other, were issued before 1660.
The other volume of poetry, the Sonnets, was printed in 1609 by Thomas
Thorpe, without Shakespeare's consent. Two of them, numbers 138 and
144, had appeared in the collection known as _The Passionate Pilgrim_,
a pirated volume printed by W. Jaggard in 1599. No reedition of the
Sonnets appeared till 1640.
With regard to the plays it is different. It is first {114} to be said
that in no volume containing a play or plays of Shakespeare in
existence to-day is there any evidence that Shakespeare saw it through
the press. All we can do is to satisfy ourselves as to how the copy of
Shakespeare's plays may have got into the hands of the publishers, and
as to how far that copy represents what Shakespeare must have written.
The editions of Shakespearean plays may be divided into two
groups,--the separate plays which were printed in quarto[1] volumes
before 1623, and the First Folio of Shakespeare, which was printed in
1623, a collected edition of all his plays save _Pericles_. Our text
of Shakespeare, whatever one we read, is made up, either from the First
Folio text, or in certain cases from the quarto volumes of certain
plays which preceded the Folio; together with the attempts to restore
to faulty places what Shakespeare must have written--a task which has
engaged a long line of diligent scholars from early in the eighteenth
century up to our own day.
+The Stationers' Company+.--In the early period of English printing,
which began about 1480 and lasted up to 1557, there was very little
supervision over the publishing of books, and as a result the
competition was unscrupulous. There was a guild of publishers, called
{115} the Stationers' Company, in existence, but its efforts to control
its members were only of a general character. In 1557, however, Philip
and Mary granted a charter to the Stationers' Company under which no
one not a member of the Stationers' Company could legally possess a
printing press. Queen Mary was, of course, interested in controlling
the press directly through the Crown. Throughout the Elizabethan
period the printing of books was directly under the supervision of Her
Majesty's Government, and not under the law courts. Every book had to
be licensed by the company. The Wardens of the company acted as
licensers in ordinary cases, and in doubtful cases the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Bishop of London, or some other dignitary appointed for
the purpose. When the license was granted, the permission to print was
entered upon the Register of the company, and it is from these records
that much important knowledge about the dates of Shakespeare's plays is
gained.
The Stationers' Company was interested only in protecting its members
from prosecution and from competition. The author was not considered
by them in the legal side of the transaction. How the printer got his
manuscript to print was his own affair, not theirs.
Many authors were at that time paid by printers for the privilege of
using their manuscript; but it was not considered proper that a
gentleman should be paid for literary work. Robert Greene, the
playwright and novelist, wrote regularly in the employ of printers. On
the other hand, Sir Philip Sidney, a contemporary {116} of
Shakespeare's, did not allow any of his writings to be printed during
his lifetime. Francis Bacon published his essays only in order to
forestall an unauthorized edition, and others of the time took the same
course. Bacon says in his preface that to prevent their being printed
would have been a troublesome procedure. It was possible for an author
to prevent the publication by prosecution, but it was scarcely a wise
thing to do, in view of the legal difficulties in the way.
Nevertheless, fear of the law probably acted as some sort of a check on
unscrupulous publishers.
The author of a play was, however, really less interested than the
manager who had bought it. The manager of a theater seems, from what
evidence we possess, to have believed that the printing of a play
injured the chances of success upon the stage. The play was sold by
the author directly to the manager, whose property it became. Copies
of it might be sold to some printer by some of the players in the
company, by the manager himself, or, in rarer cases, by some
unscrupulous copyist taking down the play in shorthand at the
performance. When a play had got out of date, it would be more apt to
be sold than while it was still on the stage. In some cases, however,
the printing might have no bad effect upon the attendance at its
performances.
During the years before 1623, seventeen of Shakespeare's plays were
published in quarto. Two of these, _Romeo and Juliet_ and _Hamlet_,
were printed in two very different versions, so that we have nineteen
texts of Shakespeare's plays altogether published before the First
Folio. A complete table of these {117} plays with the dates in which
the quartos appeared follows:--
1594. Titus Andronicus. Later quartos in 1600 and 1611.
1597. Richard II. Later quartos in 1598, 1608, and 1615.
1597. Richard III. Later quartos in 1598, 1602, 1605, 1612,
and 1622.
1597. Romeo and Juliet. Later quartos in 1599 (corrected
edition) and 1609.
1598. I Henry IV. Later quartos in 1599, 1604, 1608, 1613,
and 1622.
1598. Love's Labour's Lost.
1600. Merchant of Venice. Later quarto in 1619. (Copying
on the title-page the original date of 1600, however.)
1600. Henry V. Later quartos in 1602 and 1619. (Dated on
the title-page, 1608.)
1600. Henry IV, Part II.
1600. Midsummer Night's Dream. Later quarto in 1619.
(Dated, however, 1600.)
1602. Merry Wives of Windsor. Later quarto in 1619.
1603. Hamlet.
1604. Second edition of Hamlet. Later quartos in 1605 and 1611.
1608. King Lear. Later quarto in 1619. (Title-page date, 1608.)
1608. Pericles. Later quartos in 1609, 1611, and 1619.
1609. Troilus and Cressida. A second quarto in 1609.
1622. Othello.
These are all the known quartos of Shakespeare's plays printed before
the Folio. They represent two distinct classes. The first class
(comprising fourteen texts) of the quartos contains good texts of the
plays and is of great assistance to editors. The second (comprising
five texts), the first _Romeo and Juliet, Henry V, Merry Wives_, the
first _Hamlet_, and _Pericles_, {118} is composed of thoroughly bad
copies. Two of this class were not entered on the Stationers' Register
at all, but were pure piracies. Two others were entered by one firm,
but were printed by another. The fifth was entered and transferred on
the same day. Of the fourteen good texts, twelve were regularly
entered on the Stationers' Register, and the other two were evidently
intended to take the place of a bad text. It is evident, therefore,
that registry upon the books of the Stationers' Company was a safeguard
to an author in getting before the public a good text of his writings.
It also indicates that the good copies were obtained by printers in a
legal manner, and so probably purchased directly from the theaters,
whether from the copy which the prompter had, or from some transcript
of the play. The notion that all plays were printed in Shakespeare's
time by a process of piracy is thus not borne out by these facts.
The five bad quartos deserve a moment's attention. The first of these,
_Romeo and Juliet_, printed and published by John Danter in 1597, omits
over seven hundred lines of the play, and the stage directions are
descriptions rather than definite instructions. The book is printed in
two kinds of type, a fact due probably to its being printed from two
presses at once. Danter got into trouble later on with other books
from his dishonest ways. The second poor quarto, _Henry V_, printed in
1600, was less than half as long as the Folio text, and was probably
carelessly copied by an ignorant person at a performance of the play.
The third, the _Merry Wives of Windsor_, was pirated through the
publisher of _Henry V_, John Busby, who assigned his {119} part to
another printer on the same day. As in the case of _Romeo and Juliet_,
the stage directions are mere descriptions. No play of Shakespeare's
was more cruelly bungled by an unscrupulous copyist. The first edition
of _Hamlet_ in 1603 was the work of Valentine Sims. While the copying
is full of blunders, this quarto is considered important, as indicating
that the play was acted at first in a much shorter and less artistic
version than the one which we now read. For eight months of 1603-1604
the theaters of London were closed on account of the plague, and
Shakespeare's revision of _Hamlet_ may have been made during this time.
At any rate, the later version appeared about the end of 1604. The
last of these pirated quartos, _Pericles_, was probably taken down in
shorthand at the theater. Here, unfortunately, as this play was not
included in the First Folio, and as all later quartos were based on the
First Quarto, we have to-day what is really a corrupt and difficult
text. Luckily, Shakespeare's share in this play is small.
The title-pages of the quartos of Shakespeare bear convincing
testimony, not only to the genuineness of his plays, but also to his
rise in reputation. Only six of his plays were printed in quartos not
bearing his name. Of these, two--_Romeo and Juliet_ and _Henry
V_--began with pirated editions not bearing the author's name.
Three--_Richard II, Richard III, I Henry IV_--were all followed by
quartos with the poet's name upon them. The sixth play, _Titus
Andronicus_, was one of his earliest works, and its authorship is even
now not absolutely certain.
Since the name of a popular dramatist on the {120} title-page was a
distinct source of revenue to the publisher after 1598, it was to be
expected that anonymous plays should be ascribed in some cases to
William Shakespeare by an unscrupulous or a misinformed printer. Here
arose the Shakespeare 'apocrypha,' which is discussed in a following
chapter.
A new problem in the history of Shakespearean quartos has been
presented since 1903 by a study of the quartos of 1619. Briefly
summarized, the theory which is best defended at the present time is,
that in that year Thomas Pavier and William Jaggard, two printers of
London, decided at first to get up a collected quarto edition of
Shakespeare's plays, but on giving up this idea, they issued nine plays
in a uniform size and on paper bearing identical watermarks, which were
either at that time or later bound up together as a collected set of
Shakespeare's plays in a single volume.[2] These plays are the _Whole
Contention Between the Two Famous Houses of Lancaster and York_,
"printed for T. P."; _A Yorkshire Tragedie_, "printed for T. P., 1619";
_Pericles_, "printed for T. P. 1619"; _Merry Wives_, "printed for
Arthur Johnson, 1619"; _Sir John Oldcastle_, "printed for T. P., 1600";
_Henry V_, "printed for T. P., 1608"; _Merchant of Venice_, "printed by
J. Roberts, 1600"; _King Lear_, "printed for Nathaniel Butter, 1608";
_Midsummer Night's Dream_, "printed for Thomas Fisher, 1600."
Of these plays, the _Whole Contention_, the _Yorkshire {121} Tragedie_,
and _Sir John Oldcastle_ are spurious, but had been attributed to
Shakespeare in earlier quartos. The five plays dated 1600 or 1608 in
each case duplicated a quarto actually printed in the year claimed by
the Pavier reprint; so that this earlier dating was an attempt to
deceive the public into believing they were purchasing the original
editions.
Under the date of the 8th of November, 1623, Edward Blount and Isaac
Jaggard entered for their copy in the Stationers' Register "Mr. William
Shakspeers Comedyes, Histories and Tragedyes, soe manie of the said
copyes as are not formerly entred to other men viz^t, Comedyes, The
Tempest. The two gentlemen of Verona. Measure for Measure. The
Comedy of Errors. As you like it. All's well that ends well. Twelfth
Night. The winter's tale. Histories The third parte of Henry the
sixth. Henry the eight. Tragedies. Coriolanus. Timon of Athens.
Julius Caesar. Mackbeth. Anthonie and Cleopatra. Cymbeline." This
entry preluded the publication of the First Folio. Associated with
Blount and Jaggard were Jaggard's son Isaac, who had the contract for
the printing of the book, I. Smethwick, and W. A. Aspley. Smethwick
owned at this time the rights of _Love's Labour's Lost, Romeo and
Juliet_, and _Hamlet_, and also the _Taming of a Shrew_, which latter
right apparently carried with it the right to print Shakespeare's
adaptation of it, the _Taming of the Shrew_. Aspley owned the rights
to _Much Ado About Nothing_, and to _II Henry IV_. These four
printers, making arrangements with other printers, such as Law, who
apparently had the rights of _I Henry IV, Richard II_, {122} and
_Richard III_, and others, were thus able to bring out an apparently
complete edition of Shakespeare's plays. One play, _Troilus and
Cressida_, was evidently secured only at the last moment and printed
very irregularly.[3] Blount and Jaggard apparently got the manuscripts
of the sixteen plays on the Register from members of Shakespeare's
company, two of whom, John Hemings and Henry Condell, affixed their
names to the Address to the Reader which was prefixed to the volume.
It will be remembered that these men received by Shakespeare's bequest
a gold ring as a token of friendship. Their intimacy with the
dramatist must have been both strong and lasting. Their actual share
in the editing of the volume cannot be ascertained. It may be that all
the claims are true which are made above their names in the Address to
the Reader as to their care and pains in collecting and publishing his
works "so to have publish'd them as where before you were abused with
diverse stolne and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed, the
stealthes of injurious copyists, we expos'd them; even those are now
offer'd to your view, crude and bereft of their limbes, and of the rest
absolutely in their parts 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 told with that easinesse that
wee have scarse received from him a {123} blot in his papers." On the
other hand, scholarship has discovered more in the life of Edward
Blount to justify his claim to the chief work of editing this volume.
Whoever they were, the editors' claim to diligent care in their work
was sincere. Throughout the volume there are proofs that they employed
the best text which they could get, even when others were in print.
It is owing to this volume, in all probability, that we possess twenty
of the best of Shakespeare's plays and the best texts of a number of
the others. We are therefore glad to hear that the edition was a
success and was considered worth reprinting within nine years. It is
not improbable that this edition ran to five hundred copies. Among the
most interesting work of the editors of the volume was the prefixing of
the Droeshout engraved portrait on the title-page, and an attempt to
improve the stage directions, as well as the division of most of the
plays, either in whole or in part, into acts and scenes.
The twenty plays which appeared in print for the first time in the
First Folio were taken in all probability directly from copies in the
possession of Shakespeare's company. Their texts are, upon the whole,
excellent. In the case of the sixteen other plays the editors
substituted for eight of the plays already in print in quartos,
independent texts from better manuscripts. This act must have involved
considerable expense and difficulty, and deserves the highest praise.
Five of the printed quartos were used with additions and corrections.
In the case of _Titus Andronicus_ a whole scene was added. In three
cases only {124} of the sixteen plays already printed did the editors
follow a quarto text without correcting it from a later theatrical
copy. This conscientious effort to give posterity the best text of
Shakespeare deserves our gratitude.
The Second Folio, 1632, was a reprint of the First; the Third Folio,
1663, a reprint of the Second; the Fourth Folio, 1685, a reprint of the
Third. This practice of copying the latest accessible edition has been
adopted by editors down to a very late period. Between 1629 and 1632
six quartos of Shakespearean plays were printed,--a fact which
indicates that the First Folio edition had been exhausted and that
there was a continued market. A man named Thomas Cotes acquired
through one Richard Cotes the printing rights of the Jaggards, and
added to them other rights derived from Pavier. The old publishers,
Smethwick and Aspley, were still living and were associated with him in
publishing the Second Folio. Robert Allott, June 26, 1629, had bought
up Blount's title to the plays first registered in 1623, and was thus
also concerned in the publication, while Richard Hawkins and Richard
Meighen, who owned the rights of _Othello_ and _Merry Wives_, were
allowed to take shares. The editors of the Second Folio made only such
alterations in the text of the First Folio as they thought necessary to
make it more "correct." The vast majority of the changes are
unimportant grammatical corrections, some of them obviously right,
others as obviously wrong.
Five more Shakespearean quartos followed between 1634 and 1639.
Between 1652 and 1655 two other {125} quartos were published. The
Third Folio, 1664, was published by Philip Chetwind, who had married
the widow of Robert Allott and thus got most of the rights in the
Second Folio. Chetwind's Folio is famous, not only for the addition of
_Pericles_, which alone it was his first intention to include, but also
for the addition of six spurious plays--_Sir John Oldcastle, The
Yorkshire Tragedie, A London Prodigall, The Tragedie of Locrine,
Thomas, Lord Cromwell_, and _The Puritaine_, or _The Widdow of Watling
Streete_. Chetwind's reason for thus adding these plays was that they
had passed under Shakespeare's name or initials in their earliest
prints. The Fourth Folio, 1685, is a mere reprint of the Third.
With the Fourth Folio ends the early history of how Shakespeare got
into print. From that time to this a long line of famous and obscure
men, at first mostly men of letters, but afterwards, and especially in
our own times, trained specialists in their profession, have devoted
much of their lives to the editing of Shakespeare. Their ideal has
been, usually, to give readers the text of his poems and plays in their
presumed primitive integrity. Constant study of his works, and of
other Elizabethan writers, has given them a certain knowledge of the
words and grammatical usages of that day which go far to make
Elizabethan English a foreign tongue to us. On the other hand, more
knowledge about the conditions of printing in Shakespeare's time has
helped the editors very greatly in their attempts to set right a
passage which was misprinted in the earliest printed text, or a line of
which two early texts give different versions.
{126}
An example of the difficulties that still confront editors may be given
from _II Henry IV_, IV, i, 94-96:--
"_Archbishop_. My brother general, the commonwealth,
To brother born, an household cruelty.
I make my quarrel in particular."
Nobody knows what Shakespeare meant to say in this passage, and no
satisfactory guess has ever been made as to what has happened to these
lines.
A knowledge of Elizabethan English has cleared up the following passage
perfectly. According to the First Folio, the only early print, Antony
calls Lepidus, in _Julius Caesar_, IV, i, 36-37:--
"A barren-spirited fellow; one that feeds
On objects, arts, and imitations...."
This has been corrected to read in the second line
"On abjects, orts, and imitations."
Abjects here means outcasts, and orts, scraps, or leavings; but no one
unfamiliar with the language of that time could have solved the puzzle.
A different sort of problem is offered by such plays as _King Lear_, of
which the quartos furnish three hundred lines not in the Folio, while
the Folio has one hundred lines not in the quartos, and is, on the
whole, much more carefully copied. The modern editor gives all the
lines in both versions, so that we read a _King Lear_ which is probably
longer than Shakespeare's countrymen read or ever saw acted. The
modern editor selects, however, when Folio and quartos differ, the
reading which seems best.
{127}
FOLIO. "Cordelia. Was this a face
To be opposed against the _jarring_ winds?"
QUARTOS. "Was this a face
To be opposed against the _warring_ winds?"
In such a difference as this, the personal taste of the editor is apt
to govern his text.
We cannot here go farther in explaining the problems of the Shakespeare
text. To those who would know more of them, the _Variorum_ edition of
Dr. H. H. Furness offers a full history. In the light of the knowledge
which he and other scholars have thrown upon textual criticism, it is
unlikely that there will ever be poor texts of Shakespeare reprinted.
The work of the Shakespeare scholars has not been in vain.
+Later Editions+.--Nicholas Rowe in 1709 produced the first edition in
the modern sense. He modernized the spelling frankly, repunctuated,
corrected the grammar, made out lists of the dramatis personae,
arranged the verse which was in disorder, and made a number of good
emendations in difficult places. He added also exits and entrances,
which in earlier prints were only inserted occasionally. Further, he
completed the division of the plays into acts and scenes. Perhaps his
most important work was writing a full life of Shakespeare in which
several valuable traditions are preserved. The poems were not included
in the edition, but were published in 1716 from the edition of 1640.
He followed the Third and Fourth Folios in reprinting the spurious
plays. The edition was reprinted in 1714, 1725, and 1728.
In 1726 Alexander Pope published his famous edition of Shakespeare.
Pope possessed a splendid lot of the old quartos and the first two
folios, but his edition was wantonly careless. He did, indeed, use
some sense in excluding the seven spurious plays as well as _Pericles_
from his edition, and he undoubtedly {128} worked hard on the text. He
subdivided the scenes more minutely than Rowe after the fashion of the
French stage division,--where a new scene begins with every new
character instead of after the stage has been cleared. Pope's
explanations of the words which appeared difficult in Shakespeare's
text were often laughably far from the truth. The word 'foison,'
meaning 'plenty,' Pope defined as the 'natural juice of grass.' The
word 'neif,' meaning 'fist,' Pope thought meant 'woman.' Pistol is
thus made to say, "Thy woman will I take." Phrases that appeared to be
vulgar or unpoetical he simply dropped out, or altered without notice.
He rearranged the lines in order to give them the studied smoothness
characteristic of the eighteenth century. In fact, he tried to make
Shakespeare as near like Pope's poetry as he could.
In 1726 Lewis Theobald published _Shakespeare Restored_, with many
corrections of Pope's errors. In this little pamphlet most of the
material was devoted to _Hamlet_. Theobald's corrections were taken by
Pope in very bad part; and the latter tried to destroy Theobald's
reputation by writing satires against him and by injuring him in every
possible way in print. The first of these publications, _The Dunciad_,
appeared in 1728; and this, the greatest satire in the English
language, was so effective as to have obscured Theobald's real merit
until our own day. Theobald's edition of Shakespeare followed in 1734,
and was reprinted in 1740. It is famous for his corrections and
improvements of the text, many of which are followed by all later
editors of Shakespeare. The most notable of these is Mrs. Quickly's
remark in Falstaff's deathbed scene, "His nose was as sharp as a pen
and a' babbled of green fields." The previous texts had given "and a
table of green fields." Pope had said that this nonsense crept in from
the name of the property man who was named Greenfield, and thus there
must have been a stage direction here,--"Bring in a table of
Greenfield's."
Theobald's edition was followed in 1744 by Thomes Hanmer's edition in
six volumes. Hanmer was a country gentleman, but not much of a scholar.
Warburton's edition followed in 1747. In 1765 appeared {129} Samuel
Johnson's long-delayed edition in eight volumes. Aside from a few
common-sense explanations, the edition is not of much merit.
Tyrwhitt's edition in 1766 was followed by a reprint of twenty of the
early quartos by George Steevens in the same year. Two years later
came the edition of Edward Capell, the greatest scholarly work since
Theobald's. In this edition was the first rigorous comparison between
the readings of the folios and the quartos. His quartos, now in the
British Museum, are of the greatest value to Shakespeare scholars.
With his edition begins the tendency to get back to the earliest form
of the text and not to try to improve Shakespeare to the ideal of what
the editor thinks Shakespeare should have said.
In 1773 Johnson's edition was revised by Steevens, and _Pericles_ was
readmitted. This was a valuable but crotchety edition. In 1790 Edmund
Malone published his famous edition in ten volumes. No Shakespearean
scholar ranks higher than he in reputation. Numerous editions followed
up to 1865, of which the most important is James Boswell's so-called
Third _Variorum_ in twenty-one volumes. In 1855-1861 was published J.
O. Halliwell's edition in fifteen volumes, which contains enormous
masses of antiquarian material.
In 1853 appeared the forgeries of J. P. Collier, to which reference is
made elsewhere.
In 1854-1861 appeared the edition in Germany of N. Delius. The Leopold
Shakespeare, 1876, used Delius's text.
In 1857-1865 appeared the first good American edition of R. G. White.
It contained many original suggestions. Between 1863 and 1866 appeared
the edition of Clark and Wright, known as the Cambridge edition. Mr.
W. Aldis Wright, now the dean of living Shakespearean scholars, is
chiefly responsible for this text. It was reprinted with a few changes
into the Globe edition, and is still the chief popular text.
Prof. W. A. Neilson's single volume in the Cambridge series, 1906, is
the latest scholarly edition in America. It follows in most cases the
positions taken by Clark and Wright.
Within the last few years there has been an enormous {130} stimulus to
Shakespeare study. The chief work of modern Shakespearean scholarship
is the still incomplete _Variorum_ edition of Dr. H. H. Furness and his
son.
Other aids to study are reprints of the books used by Shakespeare,
facsimile reprints of the original quartos of the plays, and, perhaps
as useful as any one thing, the facsimile reproduction of the First
Folio. The few perplexing problems that the scholar still finds in the
text of Shakespeare will probably never be solved.
On the subject of this chapter, consult A. W. Pollard, _Shakespeare
Folios and Quartos_, Methuen, London, 1910; Sidney Lee, Introduction to
the facsimile reproduction of the First Folio by the Oxford University
Press; T. R. Lounsbury, _The Text of Shakespeare_, New York, Scribners,
1906. For the remarks of critics and editors, the _Variorum_ edition
of Dr. H. H. Furness is invaluable.
[1] A quarto volume, or quarto, is a book which is the size of a fourth
of a sheet of printing paper. The sheets are folded twice to make four
leaves or eight pages, and the usual size is about 6x9 in. A folio is
a volume of the size of a half sheet of printing paper. The paper is
folded once and bound in the middle, the usual size being about 9 x 12
in. The divisions of the book made by thus folding sheets of paper are
called quires, and may consist of four or eight leaves.
[2] This view of the Pavier-Jaggard collection is held by A. W. Pollard
of the British Museum and W. W. Greg of Trinity College Library,
Cambridge. The writers of this volume incline to accord it complete
recognition.
[3] It was evidently designed to fit in between _Romeo and Juliet_ and
_Julius Caesar_; but the owner of the publishing rights holding out
till that part of the book was ready, the editors "ran in" _Timon of
Athens_ to fill up. When _Troilus and Cressida_ was finally arranged
for, it had to be inserted between the Histories and Tragedies.
{131}