The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 5 of 9] · William Shakespeare
PREFACE.
Copies with this title are in the Library of the Duke of Devonshire, and in the Bodleian (Malone, 867). An imperfect copy, wanting the last seven leaves, is in the Capell collection. Another impression bearing the same date, ‘Printed by W. W. for Thomas Millington,’ is said to exist, but we have been unable to find it. The MS. title quoted by Mr Halliwell from a copy in the Bodleian (Malone, 36) is prefixed to what appears to us unquestionably the same edition as the above. The minute correspondence of misplaced and defective letters between this copy and Capell’s, with which, as well as with the other copy in the Bodleian, we have compared it, proves beyond question that all three must have been printed from the same form, and that the MS. title inserted in Malone’s copy is out of place. So far therefore from Capell’s imperfect copy of this edition being unique, as Mr Halliwell states, there are at least two other perfect copies in existence, besides one which only wants the title-page. In Lowndes’s _Bibliographer’s Manual_ (ed. Bohn, p. 2281), another is said to be in the possession of Mr Tite. The late Mr George Daniel is stated, on the same authority, to have had the editions printed by Valentine Simmes and by W. W. in one volume, but they were not sold at his sale, and we have been unable to trace them.
Copies of this edition are in the Duke of Devonshire’s Library, the Bodleian (Malone, 36), and the British Museum. In Malone’s Shakespeare (ed. 1790, Vol. I. Pt. I. p. 235), among the ‘Dramatick Pieces on which plays were formed by Shakespeare,’ an edition of The True Tragedy is mentioned, bearing date ‘1600, V. S. for Thomas Millington,’ but in a note to the ‘Third Part of King Henry VI.’ (Vol. VI. p. 261) he confesses, ‘I have never seen the quarto copy of the _Second_ part of The whole Contention, &c. printed by _Valentine Simmes_ for Thomas Millington, 1600;’ and it is extremely doubtful whether such a one exists. A copy of The True Tragedy, and not, as stated in Bohn’s Lowndes, of The First Part of the Contention, printed by W. W. 1600, was sold at Rhodes’s sale in 1825 (No. 2113). The only authority therefore for the existence of an edition of The First Part of the Contention, printed by W. W. in 1600, is the MS. title-page of Malone’s copy in the Bodleian Library. Capell merely quotes it on the authority of Pope, and all that Pope says in the Table at the end of his first edition, after giving the title of The Whole Contention printed in 1619, is, ‘Since Printed under the same Title by _W. W._ for _Tho. Millington_, with the true Tragedy of _Richard_ D. of _York_, and the Death of good King _Henry_ the 6th, acted by the Earl of Pembroke his servants 1600.’ This clearly refers to the second Quarto of The True Tragedy, not to that of The First Part of the Contention, and appears to us to be the origin of the error†.
With regard to the authorship of The First Part of the Contention and The True Tragedy, while we cannot agree with Malone on the one hand that they contain nothing of Shakespeare’s, nor with Mr Knight on the other that they are entirely his work, there are so many internal proofs of his having had a considerable share in their composition, that, in accordance with our principle, we have reprinted them in a smaller type. The first edition of KING RICHARD is a Quarto printed in 1597, with the following title-page: The Tragedy of | King Richard the third. | Containing, | His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: | the pittiefull murther of his innocent nephewes: | his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the whole course | of his detested life, and most deserued death. | As it hath beene lately Acted by the | Right honourable the Lord Chamber-|laine his seruants. | AT LONDON | Printed by Valentine Sims, for Andrew Wise, | dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the | Sign of the Angell. | 1597. | This edition is referred to, in our notes, as Q1. We have collated a complete copy belonging to the Duke of Devonshire and also an imperfect copy formerly belonging to Malone and now in the Bodleian. Malone had supplied the missing leaves by the insertion of some from the second Quarto†. There is no copy in the Capell collection.
There is no copy of Q4 in the Capell collection. We have collated one in the Bodleian which formerly belonged to Malone. It is numbered 880. The fifth Quarto, Q5, was printed in 1612, not from its immediate predecessor, but from the Quarto of 1602, although it was printed by the same printer and for the same bookseller as that of 1605. The title-page of Q5 is as follows: THE | TRAGEDIE | of King Richard | the third. | _Containing his treacherous Plots against his brother | Clarence_: the pittifull murther of his innocent Ne-phewes: his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the | whole course of his detested life, and | most deserued death. | _As it hath beene lately Acted by the Kings Maiesties | seruants_. | Newly augmented, | By _William Shake-speare_. | LONDON, | Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by Mathew | Lawe, dwelling in Pauls Church-yard, at the Signe | of the Foxe, neare S. Austins gate, 1612. | The edition of 1622 is so rare that its very existence has been called in question†. There is however a copy in the Capell collection, of which the title-page is as follows: ────────── † ‘An impression of 1622 is mentioned in some lists, but the existence of a copy of that date is more than doubtful.’ Collier, Ed. 2, Vol. iv. p. 217.
THE | TRAGEDIE | _OF_ | KING | RICHARD | _THE THIRD_. | Contayning his treacherous Plots against | _his brother_ Clarence: _The pittifull murder of his innocent_ | Nephewes: his tyrannicall Vsurpation: with the whole | course of his detested life, and most | _deserued death_. | As it hath been lately Acted by the Kings Maiesties | _Seruants_. | Newly augmented. By _William Shake-speare_. | LONDON, | Printed by _Thomas Purfoot_, and are to be sold by _Mathew Law_, dwelling | in _Pauls_ Church-yard, at the Signe of the _Foxe_, neere | _S. Austines_ gate, 1622. This edition we call Q6. It is printed from Q5. Another edition in Quarto was printed in 1629, not from the first Folio, but from the sixth Quarto. It was printed by Iohn Norton for Matthew Law. Except in the name of the printer and the substitution of the word ‘tiranous’ for ‘tyrannicall’ the title-page does not differ from that of Q6. We call it Q7. The eighth and last Quarto, our Q8, copied from the seventh, was printed by Iohn Norton in 1634. There is no bookseller’s name on the title-page, if we may trust that which Capell has supplied in MS. ‘from a copy in the possession of Messrs Tonsons and Draper.’ * * * * * In quoting the readings of the Quartos and Folios, we have, in all cases where the spelling is unimportant, given that of the earliest copy.
The Quarto, Q1, contains passages not found in the Folio, F1, which are essential to the understanding of the context: the Folio, on the other hand, contains passages equally essential, which are not found in the Quarto. Again, passages which in the Quarto are complete and consecutive, are amplified in the Folio, the expanded text being quite in the manner of Shakespeare. The Folio, too, contains passages not in the Quartos, which though not necessary to the sense yet harmonize so well, in sense and tone, with the context that we can have no hesitation in attributing them to the author himself. On the other hand, we find in the Folio some insertions and many alterations which we may with equal certainty affirm not to be due to Shakespeare. Sometimes the alterations seem merely arbitrary, but more frequently they appear to have been made in order to avoid the recurrence of the same word, even where the recurrence adds to the force of the passage, or to correct a supposed defect of metre, although the metre cannot be amended except by spoiling the sense. Occasionally we seem to find indications that certain turns of phrase, uses of words or metrical licences, familiar enough to Shakespeare and his earlier contemporaries, had become obsolete in the time of the corrector, and the passages modified accordingly. In short, _Richard III._ seems even before the publication of the Folio to have been tampered with by a nameless transcriber who worked in the spirit, though not with the audacity, of Colley Cibber.
The following scheme will best explain the theory which we submit as a not impossible way of accounting for the phenomena of the text: A1 A2 │ │ │ │ │ │ B1 B2 │ │ │ │ │ │ Q1 F1 A1 is the Author’s original MS. B1 is a transcript by another hand with some accidental omissions and, of course, slips of the pen. From this transcript was printed the Quarto of 1597, Q1. A2 is the Author’s original MS. revised by himself, with corrections and additions, interlinear, marginal, and on inserted leaves. B2 is a copy of this revised MS., made by another hand, probably after the death of the Author and perhaps a very short time before 1623. As the stage directions of the Folio, which was printed from B2, are more precise and ample as a rule than those of the Quarto, we may infer that the transcript, B2, was made for the library of the theatre, perhaps to take the place of the original which had become worn by use, for _Richard III._ continued to be a popular acting play. Some curious, though not frequent, coincidences between the text of the Folio and that of the Quarto of 1602, Q3, lead us to suppose that the writer of B2 had occasionally recourse to that Quarto to supplement passages which, by its being frayed or stained, had become illegible in A2.
Assuming the truth of this hypothesis, the object of an Editor must be to give in the text as near an approximation as possible to A, rejecting from F1 all that is due to the unknown writer of B2 and supplying its place from Q1, which, errors of pen and press apart, certainly came from the hand of Shakespeare. In the construction of our text we have steadily borne this principle in mind, only deviating from it in a few instances where we have retained the expanded version of the Folio in preference to the briefer version of the Quarto, even when we incline to think that the earlier form is more terse and therefore not likely to have been altered by its Author. Our reason is this: as the Folio version contains substantially that of the Quarto and as the question does not admit of a positive decision we prefer the risk of putting in something which Shakespeare did not to that of leaving out something which he did write. Cæteris paribus, we have adopted the reading of the Quarto. In conclusion we commend a study of the text of _Richard III._ to those, if such there be, who imagine that it is possible by the exercise of critical skill to restore with certainty what Shakespeare actually wrote. We have great pleasure in repeating our thanks to the curators of the British Museum and of the Bodleian Library and in adding to the number of those who have laid us under obligation the names of the Rev. Joseph Power, Fellow of Clare College, Mr Huth, and Mr Lilly.
It is only right to add that it is the constant kindness of the Duke of Devonshire which enables us to publish this volume without further delay and with such an approach to completeness as it may be found to possess. _First Part of Henry VI._ I. 1. 43. For _Except it to be_ read _Except it be_. _Second Part of Henry VI_. I. 3. 115. Add note, _his_] _this_ F4. I. 3. 144. Add note, _master_] _masters_ Halliwell conj. I. 3. 146. Add note, _I will_] _I’ll_ Pope. II. 1. 130. Add note, _and_] om. Hanmer. III. 1. 222. Add to stage direction, _Somerset remains apart_. IV. 2. 176. For _tis_ read _’tis_. _Third Part of Henry VI_. V. 4. 36. Dele _the_. _Richard III_. I. 4. 167. Add note, _To, to, to--_] _To, to, to, to--_ Capell conj.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.