« ZurückWeiter »
more is requisite than acquaintance with the general state of the world, and those faculties which he must always bring with him who would read Shakspeare.
“But when the beauty arises from some adaptation of the sentiment to customs worn out of use, to opinions not universally prevalent, or to any accidental or minute particularity, which cannot be supplied by common understanding, or common observation, it is the duty of a commentator to lend his assistance.
“ The notice of beauties and faults thus. limited will make no distinct part of the design, being reducible to the explanation of obscure passages.
« The editor does not however intend to preclude himself from the comparison of Shakspeare's sentiments or expression with those of ancient or modern authors, or from the display of any beauty not obvious to the students of poetry; for as he hopes to leave his author better understood, he wishes likewise to procure him more rational approbation.
i. The former editors have affected to slight their predecessors : but in this edition all that is valuable will be adopted from every commentator, that posterity may consider it as including all the rest, and exhibit whatever is hitherto known of the great father of the English drama."
Though Dr. Johnson has here pointed out with his usual perspicuity and vigour, the true course to be taken by an editor of Shakspeare, some of the positions which he has laid down may be controverted, and some are indubitably not true. It is not true that the plays of this author were more incorrectly printed than those of any of his contemporaries: for in the plays of Marlowe, Marston, Fletcher, Massinger, and others, as many errors may be found. It is not true that the art of printing was in no other age in so unskilful hands. Nor is it true, in the latitude in which it is stated, that “ these plays were printed from compilations made by chance or by stealth out of the separate parts written for the theatre :” two only of all his dramas, The Merry Wives of Windsor and King Henry V. appear to have been thus thrust into the world, and of the former it is yet a doubt whether it is a first sketch or an imperfect copy. I do not believe that words were then adopted at pleasure from the neighbouring languages, or that an antiquated diction was then employed by any poet but Spenser. That the obscurities of our author, to whatever cause they
may be referred, do not arise from the paucity of contemporary writers, the present edition may furnish indisputable evidence. And lastly, if it be true, that “ very few of Shakspeare's lines were difficult to his audience, and that he used such expressions as were then common,” (a position of which I have not the smallest doubt,) it cannot be true, that “ his reader is embarrassed at once with dead and with foreign languages, with obsoleteness and innovation."
When Mr. Pope first undertook the task of revising these plays, every anomaly of language, and every expression that was not understood at that time, were considered as errors or corruptions, and the text was altered, or amended, as it was called, at pleasure. The principal writers of the early part of this century seem never to have looked behind them, and to have considered their own era and their own phraseology as the standard of perfection: hence, from the time of Pope's edition, for above twenty years, to alter Shakspeare's text and to restore it, were considered as synonymous terms. During the last thirty years our principal employment has been to restore, in the true sense of the word; to eject the arbitrary and capricious innovations made by our predecessors from ignorance of the phraseology and customs of the age in which Shakspeare lived.
As on the one hand our poet's text has been described as more corrupt than it really is, so on the other, the labour required to investigate fugitive allusions, to explain and justify obsolete phraseology by parallel passages from contemporary authors, and to form a genuine text by a faithful collation of the original copies, has not perhaps had that notice to which it is entitled: for undoubtedly it is a laborious and a difficult task: and the due execution of this it is, which can alone entitle an editor of Shakspeare to the favour of the publick.
I have said that the comparative value of the various ancient copies of Shakspeare's plays has never been precisely ascertained. To prove this, it will be necessary to go into a long and minute discussion, for which, however, no apology is necessary: for though to explain and illustrate the writings of our poet is a principal duty of his editor, to ascertain his genuine text, to fix what is to be explained, is his first and immediate object: and till it be established which of the ancient copies is en
titled to preference, we have no criterion by which the text can be ascertained.
Fifteen of Shakspeare's plays were printed in quarto antecedent to the first complete collection of his works, which was published by his fellow-comedians in 1623. These plays are, A Midsummer-Night's Dream, Love's Labour's Lost, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, The Two Parts of King Henry IV. King Richard II. King Richard III. The Merchant of Venice, King Henry V. Much Ado About Nothing, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Troilus and Cressida, King Lear, and Othello.
The players, when they mention these copies, represent them all as mutilated and imperfect; but this was merely thrown out to give an additional value to their own edition, and is not strictly true of any but two of the whole number; The Merry Wives of Windsor, and King Henry V.–With respect to the other thirteen copies, though undoubtedly they were all surreptitious, that is, stolen from the playhouse, and printed without the consent of the author or the proprietors, they in general are preferable to the exhibition of the same plays in the folio ; for this plain reason, because, instead of printing these plays from a manuscript, the editors of the folio, to save labour, or from some other motive, printed the greater part of them from the very copies which they represented as maimed and imperfect, and frequently from a late, instead of the earliest, edition; in some instances with additions and alterations of their own. Thus therefore the first folio, as far as respects the plays above enumerated, labours under the disadvantage of being at least a second, and in some cases a third, edition of these quartos. I do not, however, mean to say, that many valuable corrections of passages undoubtedly corrupt in the quartos are not found in the folio copy; or that a single line of these plays should be printed by a careful editor without a minute examination, and collation of both copies; but those quartos were in general the basis on which the folio editors built, and are entitled to our particular attention and examination as first editions.
It is well known to those who are conversant with the business of the press, that, (unless when the author corrects and revises his own works,) as editions of books are multiplied, their errors are multiplied also; and that
consequently every such' edition is more or less correct, as it approaches nearer to or is more distant from the first. A few instances of the gradual progress of corruption will fully evince the truth of this assertion.
In the original copy of King Richard II. 4to. 1597, Act II. Sc. II. are these lines :
“ You promis'd, when you parted with the king,
“ To lay aside life-harming heaviness." In a subsequent quarto, printed in 1608, instead of life-harming we find half-harming; which being perceived by the editor of the folio to be nonsense, he substituted, instead of it,--self-harming heaviness.
In the original copy of King Henry IV. P. I. printed in 1598, Act IV. Sc. IV. we find
« And what with Owen Glendower's absence thence,
“ (Who with them was a rated sinew too,)” &c. In the fourth quarto, printed in 1608, the article being omitted by the negligence of the compositor, and the line printed thus,
“ Who with them was rated sinew too,” the editor of the next quarto, (which was copied by the folio,) instead of examining the first edition, amended the error (leaving the metre still imperfect) by reading
" Who with them was rated firmly too." So, in the same play, Act I. Sc. III. instead of the reading of the earliest copy
Why what a candy deal of courtesy—" caudy being printed in the first folio instead of candy, by the accidental inversion of the letter n, tlie editor of the second folio corrected the error by substituting gawdy*:
So, in the same play, Act III. Sc. I. instead of the reading of the earliest impression,
“ The frame and huge foundation of the earth—" in the second and the subsequent quartos, the line by the negligence of the compositor was exhibited without the word huge :
« The frame and foundation of the earth-".
• This is a mistake. The second folio merely adopted the misprint of the first. Boswell.
and the editor of the folio, finding the metre imperfect, supplied it by reading,
“ The frame and the foundation of the earth." Another line in Act V. Sc. Ult. is thus exhibited in the quarto, 1598:
“ But that the earthy and cold hand of deathEarth being printed instead of earthy, in the next and the subsequent quarto copies, the editor of the folio amended the line thus:
“ But that the earth and the cold hand of death, Again,' in the preceding scene, we find in the first copy,
“ I was not born a yielder, thou proud Scot—.” instead of which, in the fifth quarto, 1613, we have
“ I was not born to yield, thou proud Scot.” This being the copy that was used by the editor of the folio, instead of examining the most ancient impression, he corrected the error according to his own fancy, and probably while the work was passing through the press, by reading
“ I was not born to yield, thou haughty Scot.” In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet says to her Nurse,
In faith, I am sorry that thou art not well.” and this line in the first folio being corruptly exhibited
“ In faith, I am sorry that thou art so well.” the editor of the second folio, to obtain some sense, printed
“ In faith, I am sorry that thou art so ill.” In the quarto copy of the same play, published in 1599, we find
-O happy dagger,
* Here again both folios adopt the error of their predecessors, but do not insert the word the.' Boswell.