Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

crable a heap of nonsense, under the name of commentaries, as hath been lately given us on a certain fatirick poet, of the laft age, by his editor and coadjutor.

I am fenfible how unjustly the very best claffical criticks have been treated. It is faid, that our great philofopher fpoke with much contempt of the two fineft fcholars of this age, Dr. Bentley and Bishop Hare, for fquabbling, as he expreffed it, about an old play-book; meaning, I fuppofe, Terence's comedies. But this ftory is unworthy of him; though well enough fuiting the fanatick turn of the wild writer that relates it; fuch cenfures are amongst the follies of men immoderately given over to one science, and ignorantly undervaluing all the reft. Thofe learned criticks might, and perhaps did, laugh in their turn (though still, fure, with the fame indecency and indifcretion) at that incomparable man, for wearing out a long life in poring through a telefcope. Indeed, the weakneffes of fuch are to be mentioned with reverence. But who can bear, without indignation, the fashionable cant of every trifling writer, whose infipidity paffes, with himself, for politenefs, for pretending to be fhocked, forfooth, with the rude and favage air of vul gar criticks; meaning fuch as Muretus, Scaliger, Cafaubon, Salmafius, Spanheim, Bentley. When, had it not been for the deathlefs labours of fuch as thefe, the western world, at the revival of letters, had foon fallen back again into a ftate of ignorance and barbarity, as deplorable as that from which Providence had juft redeemed it.

To conclude with an obfervation of a fine writer and great philofopher of our own; which I would gladly bind, though with all honour, as a phylactery, on the brow of every awful grammarian, to teach him at once the use and limits of his art: WORDS ARE THE MONEY OF FOOLS, AND THE COUNTERS OF WISE MEN.

[blocks in formation]

ADVERTISEMENT

TO THE

READ E R.

[Prefixed to Mr. STEEVENS's Edition of Twenty of the old Quarto Copies of SHAKESPEARE, &c. in 4 Vols. 8vo. 1766.]

THE

HE plays of SHAKESPEARE have been so often republifhed, with every feeming advantage which the joint labours of men of the first abilities could procure for them, that one would hardly imagine they could ftand in need of any thing beyond the illuftration of fome few dark paffages. Modes of expreffion must remain in obfcurity, or be retrieved from time to time, as chance may throw the books of that age into the hands of criticks who fhall make a proper use of them. Many have been of opinion that his language will continue difficult to all thofe who are unacquainted with the provincial expreffions which they fuppofe him to have used; but, for my own part, I cannot believe but that those which are now local may once have been univerfal, and must have been the language of thofe perfons before whom his plays were reprefented. However, it is certain that the inftances of obfcurity from this fource are very few.

Some have been of opinion that even a particular syntax prevailed in the time of Shakespeare; but, as I do not recollect that any proofs were ever brought in fupport of that fentiment, I own I am of the contrary opinion.

In his time indeed a different arrangement of fyllables had been introduced in imitation of the Latin, as we find in Af

cham;

cham; and the verb was very frequently kept back in the fentence; but in Shakespeare no marks of it are difcernible: and though the rules of fyntax were more ftrictly obferved by the writers of that age than they have been fince, he of all the number is perhaps the most ungrammatical. To make his meaning intelligible to his audience feems to have been his only care, and with the eafe of converfation he has adopted its incorrectness.

The paft editors, eminently qualified as they were by genius and learning for this undertaking, wanted induftry; to cover which they publithed catalogues, tranfcribed at random, of a greater number of old copies than ever they can be fuppofed to have had in their poffeffion; when, at the fame time, they never examined the few which we know they had, with any degree of accuracy. The last editor alone has dealt fairly with the world in this particular; he profeffes to have made ufe of no more than he had really feen, and has annexed a lift of fuch to every play, together with a complete one of thofe fuppofed to be in being, at the conclufion of his work, whether he had been able to procure them for the fervice of it or not.

For thefe reafons I thought it would not be unacceptable to the lovers of Shakefpeare to collate all the quartos I could find, comparing one copy with the reft, where there were more than one of the fame play; and to multiply the chances of their being preferved, by collecting them into volumes, inftead of leaving the few that have efcaped, to fhare the fate of the reft, which was probably haftened by their remaining in the form of pamphlets, their ufe and value being equally unknown to those into whose hands they fell.

Of fome I have printed more than one copy; as there are many perfons, who, not contented with the poffcffion of a finished picture of fome great mafter, are defirous to procure the firft sketch that was made for it, that they may have the pleasure of tracing the progrefs of the artift from the first light colouring to the finishing ftroke. To fuch 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; fince in thefe we may difcern as much as will be found in the hafty outlines of the pencil, with a fair profpect of that perfection to which he brought every performance he took the pains to retouch. The general character of the quarto editions may more

[13]

advan

advantageously be taken from the words of Mr. Pope, than from any recommendation of my own.

"The folio edition (fays he) in which all the plays we "now receive as his were first collected, was published by

two players, Heminges and Condell, in 1623, feven "years after his deceafe. They declare that all the other "editions were ftolen and furreptitious, 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 refpects "elfe it is far worse than the quartos.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"First, because the additions of trifling and bombast "paffages are in this edition far more numerous. For whatever had been added fince thofe quartos by the actors, or "had Rolen 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 ufage in Hamlet, where he wishes those who play the "clowns would speak no more than is fet down for them (A& 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 fcenes of the mobs, plebeians, and clowns, are vaftly fhorter than at prefent; and I have feen one in particular (which feems to have belonged to the playhoufe, by having the parts divided by lines, and the actors names in the margin) where feveral of thofe very pas"fages were added in a written hand, which fince are to be "found in the folio.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"In the next place, a number of beautiful paffages were "omitted, which were extant in the firft fingle editions; as "it feems without any other reafon than their willingness "to fhorten fome scenes."

To this I must add, that I cannot help looking on the folio as having fuffered other injuries from the licentious alteration of the players; as we frequently find in it an unusual word changed into one more popular; fometimes to the weakening of the fenfe, which rather feems to have been their work, who knew that plainnefs was neceffary for the

*It may be proper on this occafion to obferve, that the actors printed feveral of the plays in their folio edition from the very quarto copies which they are here ftriving to depreciate; and additional depravation is the utmoft that thefe copies gained by paffing through their hands,

audience

audience of an illiterate age, than that it was done by the confent of the author: for he would hardly have unnerved a line in his written copy, which they pretend to have tranfcribed, however he might have permitted many to have been familiarized in the reprefentation. Were i to indulge my own private conjecture, Ifhould fuppofe that his blotted manufcripts were read over by one to another among those who were appointed to tranfcribe them; and hence it would eafily happen, that words of fimilar found, though of fenfes directly oppofite, might be confounded with cach other. They themselves declare that Shakespeare's time of blotting was paft, and yet half the errors we find in their edition could not be merely typographical. Many of the quartos (as our own printers affure me) were far from being unfkilfully executed, and fome of them were much more correctly printed than the folio, which was published at the charge of the fame proprietors, whofe 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 fortuitoufly difpofed, and proper names as frequently undiftinguished by Italick or capital letters from the rest of the text. The punctuation is equally accidental; nor do I fee on the whole any greater marks of a fkilful revifal, or the advantage of being printed from unblotted originals in the one, than in the other. One reformation indeed there feems to have been made, and that very laudable; I mean the fubftitution of more general terms for a name too often unneceffarily invoked on the ftage; but no jot of obfcenity is omitted: and their caution against prophanenefs is, in my opinion, the only thing for which we are indebted to the judgment of the editors of the folio.

How much may be done by the affistance of the old copies will now be easily known; but a more difficult talk remains behind, which calls for other abilities than are requifite in the laborious collator.

From a diligent perufal of the comedies of contemporary authors, I am perfuaded that the meaning of many expreffions in Shakespeare might be retrieved; for the language of converfation can only be expected to be preferved in works, which in their time affumed the merit of being pictures of men and manners. The ftile of converfation we may fuppofe to be as much altered as that of books; and in confequence of the change, we have no other authorities to recur

[14]

to

« AnteriorContinuar »