The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 1 of 9]

Capell’s edition (10 volumes, small 8vo) was not published till 1768, though part of it had gone to press, as the editor himself tells us, in September, 1760. It contained the Plays in the order of the first and second Folios, with a preface, of which Dr Johnson said, referring to Tempest, I. 2. 356, ‘The fellow should have come to me, and I would have endowed his purpose with words. As it is he doth gabble monstrously.’

Defects of style apart, this preface was by far the most valuable contribution to Shakespearian criticism that had yet appeared, and the text was based upon a most searching collation of all the Folios and of all the Quartos known to exist at that time. Capell’s own conjectures, not always very happy, which he has introduced into his text, are distinguished by being printed in black letter.

The edition before us contains the scansion of the lines, with occasional verbal as well as metrical corrections, marked in red ink, in Capell’s hand. This was done, as he tells us in a note prefixed to Vol. I., in 1769.

He described, much more minutely than Pope had done, the places of the scenes, and made many changes, generally for the better, in the stage directions.

In his peculiar notation, Asides are marked by inverted commas, and obvious stage business is indicated by an obelus.

In a note to his preface, p. xxiii, Capell says:

‘In the manuscripts from which all these plays are printed, the emendations are given to their proper owners by initials and other marks that are in the margin of those manuscripts; but they are suppressed in the print for two reasons: First their number, in some pages, makes them a little unsightly; and the editor professes himself weak enough to like a well-printed book; in the next place, he does declare, that his only object has been to do service to his Author; which provided it be done, he thinks it of small importance by what hand the service was administer’d,’ &c.

By this unfortunate decision, Capell deprived his book of almost all its interest and value11. And thus his unequalled zeal and industry have never received from the public the recognition they deserved.

In 1774, a volume of notes12 was printed in quarto, and in 1783, two years after his death, appeared Notes, Various Readings, and the School of Shakespeare, 3 vols. 4to.13 The printing of this work was begun in 1779.

George Steevens, who had edited in 1766 a reprint of Twenty of the Plays of Shakespeare from the Quartos, at a time, when, as he himself afterwards said, he was ‘young and uninformed,’ and had been in the meanwhile one of Johnson’s most active and useful correspondents, was formally associated with him as Editor in 1770 (Boswell, Vol. III. p. 116). At Steevens’s suggestion, Johnson wrote to Dr Farmer of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, requesting him to furnish a Catalogue of all the Translations Shakespeare might have seen and used. Hence, it seems, Farmer took an interest in the successive editions, and supplied many valuable notes and acute conjectural readings. It was on Farmer’s authority that Pericles has been re-admitted among the Plays of Shakespeare.

The first edition of Johnson and Steevens appeared in 1773. The improvements in this edition, as compared with those which bore Johnson’s name only, are evidently the work of the new editor, who brought to the task diligent and methodical habits and great antiquarian knowledge, thus supplementing the defects of his senior partner. J. Collins, editor of Capell’s Notes &c. charged Steevens with plagiarism from Capell. Steevens denied the charge. The second edition came out in 1778; the third in 1785; and the fourth in 1793. In this edition Steevens made many changes in the text, as if for the purpose of differing from the cautious Malone, now become a rival.

Edmond Malone contributed to Steevens his Attempt to ascertain the order in which the plays attributed to Shakespeare were written; in 1780, published a Supplement to the edition of 1778, containing the Poems, the seven plays from F3, notes, &c., and moreover distinguished himself by various researches into the history and literature of the early English stage. He published in 1790 a new edition of Shakespeare in 10 volumes, 8vo, containing the Plays and Poems, ‘collated verbatim with the most authentic copies, and revised,’ together with several essay and dissertations, among the rest that on the order of the plays, corrected and enlarged.

The animosities which both Steevens and Malone had the misfortune to excite, have had the effect of throwing some slur on their names as editors, and even as men, and have prevented the fair appreciation and a due acknowledgment of the services they rendered jointly and severally to English literature.

The learning and ability displayed by Malone in denouncing Ireland’s most clumsy and palpable of frauds, would have sufficed for the detection of the most cunningly conceived and skilfully executed.

Among the critics of this time may be mentioned (1) Joseph Ritson, who published in 1783 his Remarks, &c. on the second edition of Johnson and Steevens, and in 1788, The Quip Modest, on the third edition, and (2) John Monck Mason, whose Comments appeared in 1785, and Further Observations in 1798.

In 1803 appeared an edition in 21 volumes 8vo, edited by Isaac Reed. This is called on the title-page ‘the Fifth Edition,’ i. e. of Johnson and Steevens. It is generally known as the first variorum edition. Chalmers’s edition, 9 vols. 8vo, 1805, professes to be printed from the corrected text left by Steevens. The ‘sixth edition’ of Johnson and Steevens, or the second variorum, appeared in 1813, also edited by Reed; the ‘seventh,’ or third variorum, in 1821, edited by James Boswell, from a corrected copy left by Malone.

Among those whose notes were communicated to or collected by various editors from Johnson to Boswell, the best known names are the following: Sir William Blackstone, Dr Burney, Bennet Langton, Collins the poet, Sir J. Hawkins, Musgrave, the editor of Euripides, Dr Percy, editor of the Reliques, and Thomas Warton. Less known names are: Blakeway, J. Collins, Henley, Holt White, Letherland, Roberts, Seward, Smith, Thirlby, Tollet, and Whalley14.

Harness’s edition, 8 volumes, 8vo, appeared in 1825.

Of the comments published separately during the present century the principal are:

1. Remarks, &c., by E. H. Seymour, 2 vols, 8vo, 1805, in which are incorporated some notes left by Lord Chedworth.

2. Shakspeare’s himself again, by Andrew Becket, 2 vols, 8vo. 1815. The author has indulged in a license of conjecture and of interpretation which has never been equalled before or since. We have nevertheless generally given his conjectures, except when he has gone the length of inventing a word.

3. Shakspeare’s Genius Justified, by Zachary Jackson, 1 vol. 8vo, 1811. As the author himself had been a printer, his judgement on the comparative likelihood of this and that typographical error is worth all consideration. But he sometimes wanders ‘ultra crepidam15.’

Douce’s Illustrations to Shakespeare, 2 vols. 8vo, 1807, ought to be mentioned as a work of great antiquarian research, though he rarely suggests any new alteration of the text, and his name therefore will seldom occur in our notes.

The more recent editions of Shakespeare are so well known and so easily accessible, that it is unnecessary for us, even were it becoming in this place, to undertake the invidious task of comparing their respective merits.

It will suffice to mention the names of the editors in the order of their first editions: S. W. Singer, Charles Knight, Barry Cornwall, J. Payne Collier, S. Phelps, J. O. Halliwell, Alex. Dyce, Howard Staunton.

We have also to mention the edition of Delius, 7 vols. 8vo, Elberfeld, 1854-61, the English text, with concise notes, critical and explanatory, in German, and that of Mr Richard Grant White (known as the author of Shakespeare’s Scholar, 1854), published at Boston, United States, 1857.

In 1853, Mr J. Payne Collier, published in 1 vol. 8vo, Notes and Emendations to the text of Shakespeare’s Plays, from early manuscript corrections, in a copy of the Folio 1632, in his own possession. All the emendations given in this volume by Mr Collier, or subsequently as an Appendix to Coleridge’s Lectures, except, of course, where they have been anticipated, have been recorded in our notes.

We have no intention of entering into the controversy respecting the antiquity and authority of these corrections, nor is it necessary to enumerate the writings on a subject which is still so fresh in the memory of all.

M. Tycho Mommsen, of Marburg, who published the most elaborate work on the so-called ‘Perkins Folio,’ also published in 1859 the text of the first Quartos of Romeo and Juliet, with a collation of the various readings of all editions down to Rowe’s, a full description of the critical value of the different texts, and an inquiry into the versification, and incidentally the grammar and orthography of Shakespeare. The precise rules which he lays down disappear, for the most part, on a wider induction, and we greatly question whether it be worth while to register and tabulate such minutiæ as do not represent in any way Shakespeare’s mind or hand, but only the caprices of this or that compositor, at a period when spelling, punctuation, and even rules of grammar, were matters of private judgement.

But M. Mommsen’s industry is beyond praise, and his practice of using the labours of English Editors, without insulting them, is worthy of all imitation16.

Among the works to which reference will be found in our edition are the following:

Coleridge’s Literary Remains: Dr Guest’s History of English Rhythms: the Versification of Shakespeare, by W. Sidney Walker, (1854), and Criticisms, by the same, 3 vols., post 8vo, (1860), edited by Mr Lettsom, who has also contributed in his notes some suggestions for the improvement of the text. It is to be regretted that these volumes have not been accompanied by an Index. Dr. Charles Badham’s article in the Cambridge Essays, 1856, contains many ingenious suggestions.

We have borrowed from several literary journals, the Athenæum, Notes and Queries, and the Parthenon, and from Magazines, the conjectures of their correspondents. When the real name of the correspondent, or what might be such, was signed, we have given it in our notes, as ‘Hickson,’ ‘S. Verges’ (from Notes and Queries). When the name was obviously fictitious, or when the article was not signed at all, we have noted it thus: ‘Anon. (N. and Q.) conj.,’ ‘Anon. (Fras. Mag.) conj.,’ &c., referring to Notes and Queries, Fraser’s Magazine, &c.

‘Spedding,’ ‘Bullock,’ ‘Lloyd,’ ‘Williams,’ ‘Wright,’ indicate respectively our correspondents, Mr James Spedding, Mr John Bullock, of Aberdeen, the Rev. Julius Lloyd, Mr W. W. Williams, of Oxford, and Mr W. Aldis Wright, to each and all of whom we beg to return our best thanks. We have also to thank Mr Archibald Smith, Mr C. W. Goodwin, Mr Bolton Corney, Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton, Mr J. Nichols, Mr Jourdain, Dr Brinsley Nicholson, Mr Halliwell, Dr Barlow, Mr Grant White, Mr B. H. Bright, Mr Henry A. Bright, and Mr Bohn, for friendly suggestions and kind offers of assistance.

The proposed emendations, marked ‘Anon. conj.’ are those which we have not been able to trace, or those in which the authors have not sufficient confidence to acknowledge them.

Those proposed with some confidence by the present editors are marked ‘Edd. conj.’

In conclusion, we commend this volume, the first product of long labour, to the indulgent judgement of critics. In saying this we are not merely repeating a stereotyped phrase. We have found errors in the work of the most accurate of our predecessors. We cannot hope to have attained perfect accuracy ourselves, especially when we consider the wide range which our collation has embraced, and the minute points which we have endeavoured to record, but at all events we have spared no pains to render our work as exact as we could. Those who have ever undertaken a similar task will best understand the difficulty, and will be most ready to make allowance for shortcomings. ‘Expertus disces quam gravis iste labor.’

W. G. C.J. G.

The five plays contained in this volume occur in the first Folio in the same order, and, with one exception, were there printed for the first time.

In the case of The Merry Wives of Windsor, two Quartos (Q1 and Q2), imperfect copies of an earlier play, appeared in 1602 and 1619, the second a reprint of the first. They are described in a special Introduction to that play, and a reprint of Q1, collated with Q2, follows it. A third Quarto (Q3) was printed from F1 in 1630.

The Tempest was altered by Dryden and D’Avenant, and published as The Tempest; or the Enchanted Island, in 1669. We mark the emendations derived from it: ‘Dryden’s version.’ D’Avenant, in his Law against Lovers fused Measure for Measure and Much ado about Nothing into one play. We refer to his new readings as being from ‘D’Avenant’s version.’

1

A third editor was afterwards added. Mr Luard’s election to the office of Registrary compelled him to relinquish his part, at least for the present; and the first volume, consequently, is issued under the responsibility of two editors only.

2

See page xxi.

3

A passage in the Return from Parnassus compared with one in Bale’s preface to his Image of Both Churches puts this almost beyond a doubt.

4

Mr Wright in his preface to Bacon’s Essays mentions that he has collated ten copies of the edition of 1625, ‘which though bearing the same date, are all different from each other in points of no great importance.’

5

Mr Bohn is mistaken in saying that the Capell copy has both titles. It has that of 1664 only, with the portrait, and B. J.’s verses underneath on the opposite page.

6

Capell’s copy now before us contains the following note in Capell’s hand-writing: ‘This copy of Mr Theobald’s edition was once Mr Warburton’s; who has claim’d in it the notes he gave to the former which that former depriv’d him of and made his own, and some Passages in the Preface, the passages being put between hooks and the notes signed with his name. E. C.’ The passage quoted from Theobald’s Preface is one of those between hooks.

7

Thomas Rymer, whose book, called A short View of Tragedy of the last Age, 1693, gave rise to a sharp controversy.

8

Capell, who might be supposed to write ‘sine ira et studio,’ denies to Theobald even this merit: ‘His work is only made a little better [than Pope’s] by his having a few more materials; of which he was not a better collator than the other, nor did he excel him in use of them.’ The result of the collations we have made leads us to a very different conclusion.

9

Notwithstanding this claim of identity, Warburton seems to have used Theobald’s text to print from. Capell positively affirms this, (Preface, p. 18).

10

Dr Johnson told Burney that Warburton, as a critic, ‘would make two-and-fifty Theobalds cut into slices.’ (Boswell’s Life of Johnson, Vol. ii. p. 85. Ed. 1835). From this judgment, whether they be compared as critics or editors, we emphatically dissent.

11

We trust that in our edition the matter which Capell discarded has been presented in a well-printed book. We have found no trace of the Manuscripts here spoken of.

12

In Lowndes’s Manual (Bohm), p. 2316, we find ‘Notes and Various Readings to Shakespeare. By Edward Capell, Lond. 1759.’ No such book of this date is in the Capell collection, nor is it ever mentioned elsewhere, so far as we know. In the preface to the work of 1783, it is mentioned that the first volume had been printed in 1774, but no allusion is made to any former edition.

13

These volumes, together with the whole of Shakespeare’s Plays and Milton’s Paradise Lost, written out in Capell’s own regular, but not very legible hand, are among his collection in Trinity College Library.

14

Steevens was accused of giving, under fictitious names, notes which he was afraid to sign himself.

15

The two last-named books, as well as some suggestions from correspondents, did not reach us till the first Volume was partly printed. We propose to supply all omissions in an Appendix to the whole work.

16

Aber man läuft ein gefährliches Spiel, wenn man nicht überall offen und bescheiden bekennt, dass man ganz von den Engländern abhange: ja man scheitert gewiss, wenn man mit der einen Hand allen Stoff von dem man lebt und athmet ihnen entnimmt, und mit der andern zum Dank Hohn und Beleidigung auf ihren Namen wirft. Vorrede, pp. vi. vii.