« السابقةمتابعة »
they had, with any degree of accuracy. The last editor alone has dealt fairly with the world in this particular ; he professes to have made use of. no more than he had really seen, and has annexed a list of such to every play, together with a complete one of those supposed to be in being, at the conclufion of his work, whether he had been able to procure them for the service of it or not.
For these reasons I thought it would not be unacceptable to the lovers of Shakspeare to collate all the quartos I could find, comparing one copy with the rest, where there were more than one of the same play; and to multiply the chances of their being preserved, by collecting them into volumes, instead of leaving the few that have escaped, to share the fate of the rest, which was probably hastened by their remaining in the form of pamphlets, their use and value being equally unknown to those into whose hands they fell.
Of some I have printed more than one copy ; as there are many persons, who, not contented with the possession of a finished picture of some great master, are desirous to procure the first sketch that was made for it, that they may have the pleafure of tracing the progress of the artist from the first light colouring to the finishing stroke. То such the earlier editions of King John, Henry the Fifth, Henry the Sixth, The Merry Wives of Windfor, and Romeo and Juliet, will, I apprehend, not be unwelcome; since in these we may discern as much as will be found in the hafty outlines of the pencil, with a fair prospect of that perfection to which he brought every performance he took the pains to retouch.
The general character of the quarto editions may more advantageously be taken from the words
of Mr. Pope, than from any recommendation of my
“ The folio edition (says he) in which all the plays we now receive as his were first collected, was published by two players, Heminges and Condell, in 1623, seven years after his decease. They declare that all the other editions were stolen and surreptitious, and affirm theirs to be purged from the errors of the former. This is true, as to the literal errors, and no other ; for in all respects else it is far worse than the quartos.
- First, because the additions of trifling and bombaft passages are in this edition far more numer
For whatever had been added since those. quartos by the actors, or had stolen from their mouths into the written parts, were from thence conveyed into the printed text, and all stand charged upon the author. He himself complained of this usage in Hamlet, where he wishes those who play the clowns would speak, no more than is set down for them, (Act III. sc. iv.) But as a proof that he could not escape it, in the old editions of Romeo and Juliet, there is no hint of the mean conceits and ribaldries now to be found there. In others the scenes of the mobs, plebeians, and clowns, are vaftly shorter than at present; and I have seen one in particular (which seems to have belonged to the play-house, by having the parts divided by lines, and the actors names in the margin,) where several of those very passages were added in a
be proper on this occafion to observe, that the actors printed several of the plays in their folio edition from the very quarto copies which they are here striving to depreciate ; and additional corruption is the utmost that these copies gained by pafling through their hands.
written hand, which fince are to be found in the folío.
“ In the next place, a number of beautiful passages were omitted, which were extant in the first single editions ; as it seems without any other reason than their willingness to shorten some scenes.”
To this I must add, that I cannot help looking on the folio as having suffered other injuries from the licentious alteration of the players; as we frequently find in it an unusual word changed into one more popular ; sometimes to the weakening of the sense, which rather seems to have been their work, who knew that plainnefs was neceffary for the audience of an illiterate age, than that it was done by the consent of the author : for he would hardly have unnerved a line in his written copy, which they pretend to have transcribed, however he might have permitted many to have been familiarized in the representation. Were I to indulge my own private conjecture, I should suppose that his blotted manuscripts were read over by one to another among those who were appointed to transcribe them; and hence it would easily happen, that words of fimilar sound, though of senses directly opposite, might be confounded with each other. They themselves declare that Shakspeare's time of blotting was past, and yet half the errors we find in their edition could not be merely typographical. Many of the quartos (as our own printers aflure me) were far from being unskilfully executed, and some of them were much more correctly printed than the folio, which was published at the charge of the same proprietors, whose names we find prefixed to the older copies; and I cannot join with Mr. Pope in acquitting that edition of more literal errors than those which went before it. The particles in it seem to be as fortuitously disposed, and proper names as frequently undistinguished by Italick or capital letters from the rest of the text. The punctuation is equally accidental ; nor do I see on the whole any greater marks of a skilful revisal, or the advantage of being printed from unblotted originals in the one, than in the other. One reformation indeed there seems to have been made, and that very laudable; I mean the substitution of more general terms for a name too often unnecessarily invoked on the stage ; but no jot of obscenity is omitted : and their caution against profaneness is, in my opinion, the only thing for which we are indebted to the judgment of the editors of the folio.9
How much may be done by the assistance of the old copies will now be easily known ; but a more difficult task remains behind, which calls for other abilities than are requisite in the laborious collator.
From a diligent perusal of the comedies of contemporary authors, I am persuaded that the meaning of many expressions in Shakspeare might be retrieved ; for the language of conversation can only be expected to be preserved in works, which in their time assumed the merit of being pictures of men and manners. The style of conversation we may suppose to be as much altered as that of books; and, in consequence of the change, we have no other authorities to recur to in either case. Should our language ever be recalled to a strict examination, and the fashion become general of ftriving to maintain our old acquisitions, instead of gaining new ones, which we shall be at last obliged to give up, or be incumbered with their weight; it will then be lamented that no regular collection was ever formed of the old English books; from which, as from ancient repositories, we might recover words and phrases as often as caprice or wantonness should call for variety ; instead of thinking it necessary to adopt new ones, or barter solid strength for feeble splendour, which no language has long admitted, and retained its purity.
and their caution against profaneness is, in my opinion, the only thing for which we are indebted to the editors of the folio.] I doubt whether we are so much indebted to the judgment of the editors of the folio edition, for their caution against profaneness, as to the statute 3 Jac. I. c. 21, which prohibits under levere penalties the use of the sacred name in any plays or interludes. This occasioned the playhouse copies to be altered, and they printed from the playhouse copies.
We wonder that, before the time of Shakspeare, we find the stage in a state fo barren of productions, but forget that we have hardly any acquaintance with the authors of that period, though fome few of their dramatick pieces may remain. The same might be almoft said of the interval between that age and the age of Dryden, the performances of which, not being preserved in sets, or diffused as now, by the greater number printed, must lapse apace into the same obfcurity,
« Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona
And yet we are contented, from a few specimens only, to form our opinions of the genius of ages gone before us.
Even while we are blaming the taste of that audience which received with applause the worst plays in the reign of Charles the Second, we should consider that the few in possession of our theatre, which would never have been heard a second time had they been written now, were pro