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 raisonné
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:
'He for subscribers baits his hook,
And takes your cash, but where's the book?
No matter where; wise fear, you know,
Forbids the robbing of a foe,
But what, to serve our private ends,
Forbids the cheating of our friends?'
Not only Johnson's constitutional indolence and desultory habits, but
also the deficiency of his eye-sight, incapacitated him for the task of
minute collation. Nevertheless, he did consult the older copies, and has
the merit of restoring some readings which had escaped Theobald. He had
not systematically studied the literature and language of the 16th and
17th centuries; he did not always appreciate the naturalness,
simplicity, and humour of his author, but his preface and notes are
distinguished by clearness of thought and diction and by masterly common
sense. He used Warburton's text, to print his own from. The readings and
suggestions attributed to 'Johnson,' in our notes, are derived either
from the edition of 1765, or from those which he furnished to the
subsequent editions in which Steevens was his co-editor. Some few also
found by the latter in Johnson's hand on the margin of his copy of
'Warburton,' purchased by Steevens at Johnson's sale, were incorporated
in later editions. Johnson's edition was attacked with great acrimony by
Dr Kenrick, 1765 (Boswell, Vol. II. p. 300). It disappointed the public
expectation, but reached, nevertheless, a second edition in 1768.
Tyrwhitt's _Observations and Conjectures_ were published anonymously in
1766.
Capell's edition (10 volumes, small 8vo) was not published till 1768,
though part of it had gone to press, as the editor himself tells us, in
September, 1760. It contained the Plays in the order of the first and
second Folios, with a preface, of which Dr Johnson said, referring to
_Tempest_, I. 2. 356, 'The fellow should have come to me, and I would
have endowed his purpose with words. As it is he doth gabble
monstrously.'
Defects of style apart, this preface was by far the most valuable
contribution to Shakespearian criticism that had yet appeared, and the
text was based upon a most searching collation of all the Folios and of
all the Quartos known to exist at that time. Capell's own conjectures,
not always very happy, which he has introduced into his text, are
distinguished by being printed in black letter.
The edition before us contains the scansion of the lines, with
occasional verbal as well as metrical corrections, marked in red ink, in
Capell's hand. This was done, as he tells us in a note prefixed to Vol.
I., in 1769.
He described, much more minutely than Pope had done, the places of the
scenes, and made many changes, generally for the better, in the stage
directions.
In his peculiar notation, _Asides_ are marked by inverted commas, and
obvious stage business is indicated by an obelus.
In a note to his preface, p. xxiii, Capell says:
'In the manuscripts from which all these plays are printed, the
emendations are given to their proper owners by initials and other marks
that are in the margin of those manuscripts; but they are suppressed in
the print for two reasons: First their number, in some pages, makes them
a little unsightly; and the editor professes himself weak enough to like
a well-printed book; in the next place, he does declare, that his only
object has been to do service to his Author; which provided it be done,
he thinks it of small importance by what hand the service was
administer'd,' &c.
By this unfortunate decision, Capell deprived his book of almost all its
interest and value[11]. And thus his unequalled zeal and industry have
never received from the public the recognition they deserved.
In 1774, a volume of notes[12] was printed in quarto, and in 1783, two
years after his death, appeared _Notes, Various Readings, and the School
of Shakespeare_, 3 vols. 4to.[13] The printing of this work was begun in
1779.
George Steevens, who had edited in 1766 a reprint of Twenty of the Plays
of Shakespeare from the Quartos, at a time, when, as he himself
afterwards said, he was 'young and uninformed,' and had been in the
meanwhile one of Johnson's most active and useful correspondents, was
formally associated with him as Editor in 1770 (Boswell, Vol. III.
p. 116). At Steevens's suggestion, Johnson wrote to Dr Farmer of
Emmanuel College, Cambridge, requesting him to furnish a Catalogue of
all the Translations Shakespeare might have seen and used. Hence, it
seems, Farmer took an interest in the successive editions, and supplied
many valuable notes and acute conjectural readings. It was on Farmer's
authority that _Pericles_ has been re-admitted among the Plays of
Shakespeare.
The first edition of Johnson and Steevens appeared in 1773. The
improvements in this edition, as compared with those which bore
Johnson's name only, are evidently the work of the new editor, who
brought to the task diligent and methodical habits and great antiquarian
knowledge, thus supplementing the defects of his senior partner.
J. Collins, editor of Capell's _Notes_ &c. charged Steevens with
plagiarism from Capell. Steevens denied the charge. The second edition
came out in 1778; the third in 1785; and the fourth in 1793. In this
edition Steevens made many changes in the text, as if for the purpose of
differing from the cautious Malone, now become a rival.
Edmond Malone contributed to Steevens his _Attempt to ascertain the
order in which the plays attributed to Shakespeare were written_; in
1780, published a _Supplement_ to the edition of 1778, containing the
Poems, the seven plays from F3, notes, &c., and moreover distinguished
himself by various researches into the history and literature of the
early English stage. He published in 1790 a new edition of Shakespeare
in 10 volumes, 8vo, containing the Plays and Poems, 'collated verbatim
with the most authentic copies, and revised,' together with several
essay and dissertations, among the rest that on the order of the plays,
corrected and enlarged.
The animosities which both Steevens and Malone had the misfortune to
excite, have had the effect of throwing some slur on their names as
editors, and even as men, and have prevented the fair appreciation and a
due acknowledgment of the services they rendered jointly and severally
to English literature.
The learning and ability displayed by Malone in denouncing Ireland's
most clumsy and palpable of frauds, would have sufficed for the
detection of the most cunningly conceived and skilfully executed.
Among the critics of this time may be mentioned (1) Joseph Ritson, who
published in 1783 his _Remarks, &c._ on the second edition of Johnson
and Steevens, and in 1788, _The Quip Modest_, on the third edition, and
(2) John Monck Mason, whose _Comments_ appeared in 1785, and _Further
Observations_ in 1798.
In 1803 appeared an edition in 21 volumes 8vo, edited by Isaac Reed.
This is called on the title-page 'the Fifth Edition,' _i.e._ of Johnson
and Steevens. It is generally known as the first _variorum_ edition.
Chalmers's edition, 9 vols. 8vo, 1805, professes to be printed from the
corrected text left by Steevens. The 'sixth edition' of Johnson and
Steevens, or the second _variorum_, appeared in 1813, also edited by
Reed; the 'seventh,' or third _variorum_, in 1821, edited by James
Boswell, from a corrected copy left by Malone.
Among those whose notes were communicated to or collected by various
editors from Johnson to Boswell, the best known names are the following:
Sir William Blackstone, Dr Burney, Bennet Langton, Collins the poet, Sir
J. Hawkins, Musgrave, the editor of _Euripides_, Dr Percy, editor of the
_Reliques_, and Thomas Warton. Less known names are: Blakeway,
J. Collins, Henley, Holt White, Letherland, Roberts, Seward, Smith,
Thirlby, Tollet, and Whalley[14].
Harness's edition, 8 volumes, 8vo, appeared in 1825.
Of the comments published separately during the present century the
principal are:
1. _Remarks, &c._, by E. H. Seymour, 2 vols, 8vo, 1805, in which are
incorporated some notes left by Lord Chedworth.
2. _Shakspeare's himself again_, by Andrew Becket, 2 vols, 8vo. 1815.
The author has indulged in a license of conjecture and of interpretation
which has never been equalled before or since. We have nevertheless
generally given his conjectures, except when he has gone the length of
inventing a word.
3. _Shakspeare's Genius Justified_, by Zachary Jackson, 1 vol. 8vo,
1811. As the author himself had been a printer, his judgement on the
comparative likelihood of this and that typographical error is worth all
consideration. But he sometimes wanders 'ultra crepidam[15].'
Douce's _Illustrations to Shakespeare_, 2 vols. 8vo, 1807, ought to be
mentioned as a work of great antiquarian research, though he rarely
suggests any new alteration of the text, and his name therefore will
seldom occur in our notes.
The more recent editions of Shakespeare are so well known and so easily
accessible, that it is unnecessary for us, even were it becoming in this
place, to undertake the invidious task of comparing their respective
merits.
It will suffice to mention the names of the editors in the order of
their first editions: S. W. Singer, Charles Knight, Barry Cornwall,
J. Payne Collier, S. Phelps, J. O. Halliwell, Alex. Dyce, Howard
Staunton.
We have also to mention the edition of Delius, 7 vols. 8vo, Elberfeld,
1854-61, the English text, with concise notes, critical and explanatory,
in German, and that of Mr Richard Grant White (known as the author of
_Shakespeare's Scholar_, 1854), published at Boston, United States,
1857.
In 1853, Mr J. Payne Collier, published in 1 vol. 8vo, _Notes and
Emendations to the text of Shakespeare's Plays, from early manuscript
corrections, in a copy of the Folio 1632_, in his own possession. All
the emendations given in this volume by Mr Collier, or subsequently as
an Appendix to Coleridge's _Lectures_, except, of course, where they
have been anticipated, have been recorded in our notes.
We have no intention of entering into the controversy respecting the
antiquity and authority of these corrections, nor is it necessary to
enumerate the writings on a subject which is still so fresh in the
memory of all.
M. Tycho Mommsen, of Marburg, who published the most elaborate work on
the so-called 'Perkins Folio,' also published in 1859 the text of the
first Quartos of _Romeo and Juliet_, with a collation of the various
readings of all editions down to Rowe's, a full description of the
critical value of the different texts, and an inquiry into the
versification, and incidentally the grammar and orthography of
Shakespeare. The precise rules which he lays down disappear, for the
most part, on a wider induction, and we greatly question whether it be
worth while to register and tabulate such minutiæ as do not represent in
any way Shakespeare's mind or hand, but only the caprices of this or
that compositor, at a period when spelling, punctuation, and even rules
of grammar, were matters of private judgement.
But M. Mommsen's industry is beyond praise, and his practice of using
the labours of English Editors, without insulting them, is worthy of all
imitation[16].
Among the works to which reference will be found in our edition are the
following:
Coleridge's _Literary Remains_: Dr Guest's _History of English Rhythms_:
_the Versification of Shakespeare_, by W. Sidney Walker, (1854), and
_Criticisms_, by the same, 3 vols., post 8vo, (1860), edited by Mr
Lettsom, who has also contributed in his notes some suggestions for the
improvement of the text. It is to be regretted that these volumes have
not been accompanied by an Index. Dr. Charles Badham's article in the
_Cambridge Essays_, 1856, contains many ingenious suggestions.
We have borrowed from several literary journals, the _Athenæum_, _Notes
and Queries_, and the _Parthenon_, and from Magazines, the conjectures
of their correspondents. When the real name of the correspondent, or
what might be such, was signed, we have given it in our notes, as
'Hickson,' 'S. Verges' (from _Notes and Queries_). When the name was
obviously fictitious, or when the article was not signed at all, we have
noted it thus: 'Anon. (N. and Q.) conj.,' 'Anon. (Fras. Mag.) conj.,'
&c., referring to _Notes and Queries_, _Fraser's Magazine_, &c.
'Spedding,' 'Bullock,' 'Lloyd,' 'Williams,' 'Wright,' indicate
respectively our correspondents, Mr James Spedding, Mr John Bullock, of
Aberdeen, the Rev. Julius Lloyd, Mr W. W. Williams, of Oxford, and Mr
W. Aldis Wright, to each and all of whom we beg to return our best
thanks. We have also to thank Mr Archibald Smith, Mr C. W. Goodwin, Mr
Bolton Corney, Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton, Mr J. Nichols, Mr Jourdain, Dr
Brinsley Nicholson, Mr Halliwell, Dr Barlow, Mr Grant White, Mr B. H.
Bright, Mr Henry A. Bright, and Mr Bohn, for friendly suggestions and
kind offers of assistance.
The proposed emendations, marked 'Anon. conj.' are those which we have
not been able to trace, or those in which the authors have not
sufficient confidence to acknowledge them.
Those proposed with some confidence by the present editors are marked
'Edd. conj.'
In conclusion, we commend this volume, the first product of long labour,
to the indulgent judgement of critics. In saying this we are not merely
repeating a stereotyped phrase. We have found errors in the work of the
most accurate of our predecessors. We cannot hope to have attained
perfect accuracy ourselves, especially when we consider the wide range
which our collation has embraced, and the minute points which we have
endeavoured to record, but at all events we have spared no pains to
render our work as exact as we could. Those who have ever undertaken a
similar task will best understand the difficulty, and will be most ready
to make allowance for shortcomings. 'Expertus disces quam gravis iste
labor.'