An Introduction to Shakespeare Part 9

1608. King Lear. Later quarto in 1619. (t.i.tle-page date, 1608.) 1608. Pericles. Later quartos in 1609, 1611, and 1619.

1609. Troilus and Cressida. A second quarto in 1609.

1622. Oth.e.l.lo.

These are all the known quartos of Shakespeare's plays printed before the Folio. They represent two distinct cla.s.ses. The first cla.s.s (comprising fourteen texts) of the quartos contains good texts of the plays and is of great a.s.sistance 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 cla.s.s 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 a.s.signed 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 t.i.tle-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, _t.i.tus Andronicus_, was one of his earliest works, and its authors.h.i.+p is even now not absolutely certain.

Since the name of a popular dramatist on the {120} t.i.tle-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 Yorks.h.i.+re 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 b.u.t.ter, 1608"; _Midsummer Night's Dream_, "printed for Thomas Fisher, 1600."

Of these plays, the _Whole Contention_, the _Yorks.h.i.+re {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. Coriola.n.u.s. Timon of Athens.

Julius Caesar. Mackbeth. Anthonie and Cleopatra. Cymbeline." This entry preluded the publication of the First Folio. a.s.sociated 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 ma.n.u.scripts 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 friends.h.i.+p. 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 publis.h.i.+ng his works "so to have publish'd them as where before you were abused with diverse stolne and surrept.i.tious 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 sca.r.s.e received from him a {123} blot in his papers." On the other hand, scholars.h.i.+p 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 t.i.tle-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 subst.i.tuted for eight of the plays already in print in quartos, independent texts from better ma.n.u.scripts. 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 _t.i.tus 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 grat.i.tude.

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 a.s.sociated with him in publis.h.i.+ng the Second Folio. Robert Allott, June 26, 1629, had bought up Blount's t.i.tle 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 _Oth.e.l.lo_ 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 Yorks.h.i.+re 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 pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sage 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."

n.o.body knows what Shakespeare meant to say in this pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage 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, sc.r.a.ps, 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 fas.h.i.+on 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 gra.s.s.' 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 ma.s.ses 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.