taken by an editor of Shakspeare, fome of the pofitions which he has laid down may be controverted, and fome are indubitably not true. It is not true that the plays of this author were more incorrectly printed than thofe of any of his contemporaries: for in the plays of Marlowe, Marfton, Fletcher, Maffinger, and others, as many errors may be found. It is not true that the art of printing was in no other age in fo 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 ftealth out of the feparate parts written for the theatre:" two only of all his dramas, The Merry Wives of Windfor and King Henry V. appear to have been thus thruft 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 Spenfer. That the obfcurities of our author, to whatever cause they may be referred, do not arise from the paucity of contemporary writers, the prefent edition may furnish indifputable evidence. And lastly, if it be true, that "very few of Shakfpeare's lines were difficult to his audience, and that he used fuch expreffions as were then common," (a pofition of which I have not the smallest doubt,) it cannot be true, that "his reader is embarraffed at once with dead and with foreign languages, with obfoletenefs and innovation." When Mr. Pope firft undertook the task of revifing these plays, every anomaly of language, and every expreffion that was not understood at that time, were confidered 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 feem never to have looked behind them, and to have confidered 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 Shakfpeare's text and to reftore it, were confidered as fynonymous terms. During the last thirty years our principal employment has been to restore, in the true fenfe of the word; to eject the arbitrary and capricious innovations made by our predeceffors from ignorance of the phrafeology and customs of the age in which Shakspeare lived. As on the one hand our poet's text has been defcribed as more corrupt than it really is, fo on the other, the labour required to investigate fugitive allufions, to explain and juftify obfolete phrafeology by parallel paffages 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 tafk: and the due execution of this it is, which can alone entitle an editor of Shakspeare to the favour of the publick. I have faid that the comparative value of the various ancient copies of Shakspeare's plays has never been precisely afcertained. To prove this, it will be neceffary to go into a long and minute difcuffion, for which, however, no apology is neceffary: for though to explain and illuftrate the writings of our poet is a principal duty of his editor, to afcertain his genuine text, to fix what is to be explained, is his first and immediate object: and till it be eftablished which of the ancient copies is entitled to preference, we have no criterion by which the text can be afcertained. Fifteen of Shakspeare's plays were printed in quarto antecedent to the firft complete collection of his works, which was published by his fellowcomedians in 1623. Thefe plays are, A MidSummer Night's Dream, Love's Labour's Loft, 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 Windfor, Troilus and Creffida, 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 Windfor, and King Henry V.—With refpect to the other thirteen copies, though undoubtedly they were all furreptitious, that is, ftolen from the playhouse, and printed without the confent of the author or the proprietors, they in general are preferable to the exhibition of the fame plays in the folio; for this plain reafon, because, instead of printing thefe plays from a manufcript, the editors of the folio, to fave labour, or from fome other motive, printed the greater part of them from the very copies which they reprefented as maimed and imperfect, and frequently from a late, inftead of the earlieft, edition; in fome inftances with additions and alterations of their own. Thus therefore the first folio, as far as refpects the plays above enumerated, labours under the difadvantage of being at leaft a fecond, and in fome cafes a third, edition of these quartos. I do not however mean to say, that many valuable corrections of paffages undoubtedly corrupt in the quartos are not found in the folio copy; or that a fingle line of these plays fhould be printed by a careful editor without a minute examination, and collation of both copies; but thofe quartos were in general the bafis on which the folio editors built, and are entitled to our particular attention and examination as first editions. It is well known to thofe who are converfant with the business of the prefs, that, (unless when the author corrects and revifes his own works,) as editions of books are multiplied, their errors are multiplied alfo; and that confequently every fuch edition is more or lefs correct, as it approaches nearer to or is more diftant from the firft. A few inftances of the gradual progrefs of corruption will fully evince the truth of this affertion. In the original copy of King Richard II. 4to. 1597, A& II. fc. ii. are these lines: "You promis'd, when you parted with the king, In a fubfequent quarto, printed in 1608, instead of life-harming we find HALF-barming; which being perceived by the editor of the folio to be nonfenfe, he fubftituted, inftead of it,- SELFbarming heaviness. In the original copy of King Henry IV. P. I. printed in 1598, Act IV. fc. iv. we find "And what with Owen Glendower's abfence thence, (Who with them was a rated finew too,)" &c. In the fourth quarto printed in 1608, the article being omitted by the negligence of the compofitor, and the line printed thus, "Who with them was rated finew too,”— the editor of the next quarto, (which was copied amended the error (leaving the metre ftill imperfect) by reading "Who with them was rated firmly too." So, in the fame play, Act I. fc. 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 inverfion of the letter n, the editor of the fecond folio corrected the error by fubftituting gawdy. So, in the fame play, Act III. fc. i. instead of the reading of the earlieft impreffion, "The frame and huge foundation of the earth-" in the fecond and the fubfequent quartos, the line by the negligence of the compofitor was exhibited without the word huge:" "The frame and foundation of the earth—” and the editor of the folio, finding the metre imperfect, fupplied it by reading, "The frame and the foundation of the earth." Another line in A&t V. fc. ult. is thus exhibited in the quarto, 1598: "But that the earthy and cold hand of death-" Earth being printed instead of earthy, in the next and the fubfequent quarto copies, the editor of the folio amended the line thus: "But that the earth and the cold hand of death—.” 2 This reading (undoubtedly the best) is judiciously restored by Mr. Malone; and in the prefent edition has been as unluckily omitted. See Vol. VIII. p. 487, where, instead of the first article-the, the reader is requested to fupply the epithet-huge. STEEVENS. |