صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[blocks in formation]

The fixteen plays in p. 69, were affigned by Tho.
Blount to Edward Allot, June 26, 1632.

Edward Allott was one of the publishers of the second Folio, 1632.

109

It is worth remark, that on these books of the Stationers' Company, Titus Andronicus, Venus and Adonis, two parts of King Henry VI. Locrine, Widow of Watling Street, King Richard II. King Richard III. King Henry IV. &c. are the first performances attributed to Shakespeare. Thus might the progrefs of his dramatic art be afcertained, were we abfolutely fure that his productions were fet down in chronological arrangement on thefe records of ancient publication. It may be added, that although the private interefts of playhoufes had power to fufpend the printing of his theatrical pieces, they could not have retarded the appearance of his poems; and we may therefore justly date the commencement of his authorship from the time when the first of them came out, viz. his Venus and Adonis, when he was in the twenty-ninth year of his age. In the dedication of this poem to the Earl of Southampton, Shakefpeare calls it "The firft heir of his invention."

Of all his undifputed plays, the only one omitted on the books of the Stationers' Company, is King John. The fame attention to secure a lafting property in the works of Ben Jonfon and Beaumont and Fletcher, does not appear to have been exerted; as of the former I have met with no more than feven or eight entries, and of the latter a ftill lefs confiderable number,

number. Beaumont died in 1615, Fletcher in 1625, and Jonfon in 1637. My researches, however, were not continued below the year 1632, the date of the fecond folio edition of Shakespeare.

Let it likewise be added to the praises of our author, that if he did not begin to write till 1593, nor ceased till within three years of his death, which happened in 1616, in the courfe of twenty years he had produced no less than thirtyfive plays, admitting that eight others (among which is to be reckoned Titus Andronicus) were fpurious. I feize this opportunity, however, to express my doubts concerning all but the last mentioned piece, and Locrine. Locrine has only the letters W. S. prefixed to it, and exhibits internal proofs that it was not only the compofition of a scholar but of a pedant. See a note to the Lift of Plays afcribed to Shakefpeare by the Editors of the two later folios, or the Compilers of Ancient Catalogues, where the fame affertion is more fully fupported. See also another note at the beginning of Troi lus and Creffida. Neither has it ever yet been fufficiently proved that it was once cuftomary to fet the names of celebrated living authors at full length in the title pages to the works of others, or to enter them under these faife colours in the books at Stationers' Hall. Such frauds indeed have been attempted at a later period, but with little fuccefs. The moft inconfiderable of all the pieces rejected by the editors of Shakespeare, is the Yorkshire Tragedy; and yet in 1608 it was both registered and publifhed with his name. At this time too, he was probably in London, prefiding at the Globe theatre, in confequence of the licence granted by K. James I. to him and his fellow-comedians in 1603. The Yorkshire Tragedy is only one out of four short dramas which were exhibited for the entertainment of a fingle evening, as the title page informs us; and perhaps would have been forgotten with the other three, but that it was known to have been the work of our celebrated author. Such miscellaneous reprefentations were not uncommon, and the reader will find a fpecimen of them in the tenth volume of Mr. Seyward's edition of Beaumont and Fletcher. Shakefpeare, who has expreffed fuch a folicitude that his clowns fhould fpeak no more than was fet down for them, would naturally have taken fome opportunity to fhew his impatience at being rendered answerable, in a ftill more

* See the notes at the end of this play.

[blocks in formation]

decifive manner, for entire compofitions which were not his own. It is poffible likewife, that the copies of the plays omitted in the first folio, had been already difpofed of to proprietors, out of whofe hands they could not be redeemed; or if Heminge and Condell were difcerning friends to the reputation of their affociate, confcious as they might have been that fuch pieces were his, they would have omitted them by defign, as inferior to his other productions. From this inferiority, and from a cast of style occafionally different, nothing relative to their authenticity can with exactnefs be inferred; for as Dr. Johnfon very justly obferves on a fimilar occafion, "There is little resemblance between the first works of Raphael and the laft." But could it even be proved that thefe rejected pieces were not among the earliest effufions of Shakespeare, fuch proof would by no means affect their authenticity, as both Dryden and Rowe, after having written their best plays, are known to have produced others, which reflect a very inconfiderable degree of honour on their memory.

It has hitherto been usual to represent the ancient quartos of our author as by far more incorrect than those of his contemporaries; but I fear that this reprefentation has been continued by many of us, with a design to magnify our own fervices rather than to exhibit a true ftate of the question. The reafon why we have difcovered a greater proportion of errors in the former than in the latter, is because we have fought after them with a greater degree of diligence; for let it be remembered, that it was no more the practice of other writers than of Shakespeare, to correct the press for themselves. Ben Jonfon only (who, being verfed in the learned languages, had been taught the value of accuracy) appears to have fuperintended the publication of his own dramatic pieces; but were thofe of Lilly, Chapman, Marlow, or the Heywoods, to be revised with equal industry, an editor would meet with as frequent opportunities for the exertion of his critical abilities, as in these quartos which have been fo repeatedly cenfured by those who never took the pains to collate them, or juftify the many valuable readings they contain; for when the character of them which we have handed down, was originally given, among typographical blunders, &c. were enumerated all terms and expreffions which were not strictly grammatical, or not cafily understood. As yet we had employed in our attempts at explanation only fuch materials as cafual reading had fup

plied; but how much more is requifite for the complete explanation of an early writer, the laft edition of the Canterbury Tales of Chaucer may prove a fufficient witnefs; a work which in respect of accuracy and learning is without a rival, at least in any commentary on an English poet. The reader will forgive me if I defert my fubject for a moment, while I exprefs an ardent with that the fame editor may find leisure and inclination to afford us the means of reading the other works of the father of our poetry, with advantages which we cannot derive from the efforts of those who have lefs deeply and fuccessfully penetrated into the recesses of ancient Italian, French, and English literature. -An author has received the highest mark of diftinction, when he has engaged the fervices of fuch a commentator.

The reader may perhaps be defirous to know by whom thefe quartos of Shakespeare are fuppofed to have been fent into the world. To fuch a curiofity no very adequate gratification can be afforded; but yet it may be obferved, that as these elder copies poffefs many advantages over those in the fubfequent folio, we fhould decide perverfely were we to pronounce them fpurious. They were in all probability iffued out by fome performer, who deriving no benefit from the theatre except his falary, was uninterested in that retention of copies, which was the chief concern of our ancient managers. We may fuppofe too that there was nothing criminal in his proceeding; as fome of the perfons whofe names appear before thefe publications, are known to have filled the higheft offices in the company of Stationers with reputation, bequeathing legacies of confiderable value to it at their deceafe. Neither do I difcover why the first manuscripts delivered by fo careless a writer to the actors, fhould prove lefs correct than those which he happened to leave behind him, unprepared for the prefs, in the poffeffion of the fame fraternity. On the contrary, after his plays had paft for twenty years through the hands of a fucceffion of ignorant tranfcribers, they were more likely to become maimed and corrupted, than when they were printed from papers lefs remote from the originals. It is true that Heminge and Condell have called thefe copies furreptitious, but this was probably faid with a view to enhance the value of their own impreffion, as well as to revenge themselves as far as poffible on those who had in part anticipated the publication of works from which they expected confiderable gleanings of advantage, after their firft harveft on the stage

was

was over.I mean to except from this general character of the quartos, the author's rough draughts of the Merry Wives of Windsor and Romeo and Juliet; together with the play of King Henry V. and the two parts of King Henry VI; for thefe latter carry all the marks of having been imperfectly taken down by the ear, without any afliftance from the originals belonging to the playhouses in which they were firit reprefented.

A preceding table of thofe ancient copies of the plays of Shakespeare which his commentators have really met with and confulted, if compared with the earlieft of these entries on the books already mentioned, may tempt the reader to fuppofe that fome quartos have not yet been found, from which future affiftance may be derived. But I fear that no fuch refources remain; as it feems to have been the practice of the numerous theatres in the time of Shakespeare, to caufe fome bookfeller to make immediate entries of their new pieces, as a fecurity againft the encroachments of their rivals, who always confidered themselves as justified in the exhibition of fuch dramas as had been enfranchised by the prefs. Imperfect copies, but for thefe precautions, might have been more frequently obtained from the repetition of hungry actors invited for that purpose to a tavern; or fomething like a play might have been collected by attentive auditors, who made it their bufinefs to attend fucceeding representations with a like defign. By thefe means, without any intent of hafty publication, one company of players was ftudious to prevent the trefpaffes of another t. Nor did their policy conclude here; for I have not unfrequently met with regifters of both tragedies and comedies, of which the titles were at fome other time to be declared. Thus, July 26, 1576, John Hunter enters "A new and pleasant comedie or plaie, after the manner of common condycyons;" and one Fielder, in Sept. 1581, prefers his right to four others, "Whereof he will bring the titles." "The famous Tragedy of the Rich Jewe of Malta," by Christopher Marlow, is afcertained to be the property of Nich. Ling and Tho. Millington, in May 1594, though it was

* See the notes of Mr. Collins and Mr. Malone at the end of the third part of K. Henry VI.

From the year 1570 to the year 1629, when the playhouse in White Friars was finifhed, it appears that no less than seventeen theatres had been built,

not

« السابقةمتابعة »