8. Similar interpolations may be found in Cymbeline, and possibly in The Tempest, Henry V. (French scene), and Merry Wives, Q I (Fairies). Of these results those concerning the Two Noble Kinsmen (Hickson and Spalding, after Weber), Henry VIII. (Spedding), Troylus and Cressida (Dyce and Fleay), Timon of Athens (Fleay), Pericles (Fleay), Taming of the Shrew (Fleay), are granted by all the best critics; those concerning Macbeth (Clark, Wright, and Fleay), Tempest (Staunton), Romeo and Juliet (Fleay), Richard III. (Fleay), Henry VI. (Fleay), Edward III. (Fleay), Julius Cæsar (Fleay), are yet disputed. N.B. The names in parentheses in the above indicate not the first proposers of the theory of combined authorship in each case, but the first critics who brought the several theories to distinct tests by separating the Shakespearian portions from the second writers. The theory of double authorship in Timon has been previously advanced by Knight and Delius; in the Taming of the Shrew by Collier; in Pericles by Delius and Tennyson (forty years since he tells me); not to mention earlier statements for the most part very indefinite. For details, see the notices under the heading of each play. Besides this question of authenticity it may be well here to notice a question which involves similar critical investigation. There are certain plays that were not entirely written at one date. 1. All's Well that Ends Well was probably a recast of Love's Labour's Won. Traces of the early work may be found in it. (See p. 46.) 2. Troylus and Cressida was certainly written at three dates :— The last of these dates about 1608. The two earlier of these written about 1593-6, probably constituted the play entered in 1602 on the Stationers' books by J. Roberts, as acted by the Chamberlain's men. 3. The verse part of Twelfth Night (in my opinion) was first written about 1594 and recast 1601, when the rest of the play was added. 4. We know that the Merry Wives of Windsor and Hamlet were thus written, since we have the first drafts (imperfectly) in the first quartos.j 5. Love's Labour's Lost certainly, and Midsummer Night's Dream and Richard II. probably, were recast previously to publication. (B.) The Early Editions of Shakespeare's works : Besides the Folio of 1623, the first collected edition of the plays, there were a number of separate plays published in quarto before that date. In the table in Part II. will be found the printers' and publishers' names of every one of these editions anterior to 1623. The later copies are of no critical value. The symbols, Q1, Q 2, &c., are those used in Clark and Wright's excellent "Cambridge Shakespeare;' a * indicates all the editions published without Shakespeare's name on the title-page; a † that the printers of the Folio used that edition to print from. The Folio editions were published in 1623 (F 1), 1632 (F 2), 1664 (F 3), 1685 (F 4). (C.) On the Relative Value of the Quarto and Folio Texts of Shakespeare: The following results are derived from a careful examination of the Quarto and Folio editions, aided by but not dependent on the collations in the "Cambridge Shakespeare" : 1. The Cambridge editors are quite right in stating that the following plays in the Folio are printed from the Quarto texts, and therefore the earliest complete Quarto must be looked to in each case as being the highest authority : 2. I also agree with them that the Fisher Quarto of Midsummer Night's Dream gives better readings than the Roberts, which was used by the Folio editors. But for the Merchant of Venice the Heyes Quarto used for the Folio seems to me better than the Roberts Quarto. 3. In no other case did the Folio editors use the Quarto texts, which were undoubtedly, as they state in their preface, all surreptitious. 4. All omissions of passages in the Folio texts may be reduced to two classes: one of accidental omissions of words or lines in printing, the other of intentional cancelling of long passages for purposes of stage representation. The passages found in the Folio but not in the Quarto, on the other hand, are generally such as would not be so omitted. 5. The Quarto Lear abounds with errors of ear, and was clearly surreptitiously taken down by notes at the theatre. Henry V., the Contention, and the True Tragedy were similarly though still more clumsily stolen. 6. Romeo and Juliet, Q1, the Merry Wives of Windsor, Q1, and Hamlet, Q1, though surreptitious and abridged, still represent the earliest forms of these plays; they were all rewritten afterwards, but they are very valuable to the Shakespeare student, as showing his manner of work, as well as sometimes preserving lines or expressions which we would not willingly lose. Richard III. in some re-pects belongs to this class. One other Quarto, which might be thought to be analogous (Henry V.), is merely an imperfect piratical issue, and utterly worthless. The Contention and the True Tragedy, on which Henry VI. has been supposed to be founded, are in like manner merely piratical issues grossly imperfect, by the same publisher, T. Pavier, possibly touched up by his partner, H. Chettle. 7. Hamlet, Q2, and Othello, Q2, were not derived from sources independent of their first quartos, but were formed by corrections being made in copies of QI at subsequent representations. The' same thing is true for the Whole Contention of 1619, which does not give an intermediate stage of composition between the Quartos and Folios as has been supposed. This conclusion, which is quite certain, is most important. So Hamlet and Othello, Q 2, are founded on QI, with corrections from the Folio. 8. The Troylus and Cressida Quarto has been printed from a written transcript of a copy belonging to the theatre, hastily and not quite accurately made. 9. The Richard III. Quarto represents Shakespeare's first correction of an earlier play; so does the First Quarto of Romeo and Juliet. 10. The Quartos of 2 Henry IV. and Othello are useful for correction of many readings: they are transcripts of the stage copies as first used, obtained in somewhat the same way as the Troylus and Cressida. From all this it results that in every instance except the first two groups, eight plays in all, our text must be founded on the Folio of 1623. But for these eight the Quarto readings are generally better. As, however, even in these, the Folio spelling and punctuation agrees more nearly with the rest of the plays in the Folio, it is preferable to correct the Folio text from the Quarto for a revised edition than conversely. For a scholar's text the Folio with the Quarto variations noted (and introduced where desirable), is the one thing needful. Booth's wonderfully accurate reprint of this edition, or Chatto and Windus's photographic reproduction, if interleaved, will enable any student to make such an edition for himself without great labour. In any case he had better use the Folio as the foundation of all his work. No published edition except Knight's has done this, and he has gone too far by rejecting the Quarto readings even in the eight plays mentioned. (D.)-On the division into Acts and Scenes of Shakespeare's Plays: There is no authority for this division for any play (except Othello, QI, 1622) anterior to the Folio edition of 1623. And in that edition not all are divided. The exceptions are : 1. Plays printed from Quarto editions : Love's Labour's Lost. Midsummer Night's Dream. Much Ado about Nothing. Titus Andronicus. Romeo and Juliet. Divided into Acts only. Not divided at all. 2. Plays probably produced between 1606 and 1609 : The other eighteen plays in the Folio (just half) are divided into Acts and Scenes. Lists of the Dramatis Persona (Actors' Names) are given only in seven plays : Two Gentlemen of Verona. Measure for Measure. Timon. Pericles. Henry V. Tempest. Winter's Tale. (E.)-Dates of Entries at Stationers' Hall: Venus and Adonis. Titus Andronicus. 1593 April 18. 1594 February 6. |