KNIGHT'S AND COLLIER'S EDITIONS OF SHAKSPERE..

TILE present month is distinguished by two rival editions of SHAH- SEE; 'both of considerable magnitude, extending to many octavo *aunties; both involving a very heavy outlay in the speculation; and each, in the absence of the other, forming in some senses the most complete edition of the poet that has yet appeared. The first object both of Mr. COLLIER and ,Mr. KNIGHT is to exhibit a pure and correct text : the mode in which they propose to accomplish this object is somewhat different, if we rightly pene- trate their respective intentions. But to understand this difference, the nature of the authorities for the text must be understood. The first collected edition of SHAKSPERE'S Works was the folio of 1623, published by "his fellows" HEMINGE and CORDELL ; and contain- ing six7and-thirty plays. Of these ,plays, eighteen were thenfirst published, and four more were printed in a mature shape for the imper- fect time, the "_previously existingicopies furnishing a very notion of the state in which the poet finally left them." As this point is curious in a bibliographical point of view, interesting from its connexioti with SHAKSPERE s Works, and important to all who would form an idea of the basis which exists for the texts of the dramas, we will exhibit the details tabularly.

PLAYS FIRST PUBLISHED BY IIEMUNGE AND CONDELL.

Comedies.. , The Tempest. King John. The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Henry VI., Part L Measure for Measure. Henry VIII. The Comedy of Errors. Tragedies. As You Like It. Coriolinus.

The Taming of the Shrew. Timon Of Athens, All's Well that Ends. Well. Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night. Macbeth.

Antony antiCleopatra, The Winter's Tale.

PLAYS PUBLISHED BY HEMINGE AND CONDELL IN A MATURE STATE.

The Merry Wives of Windsor. Henry V. ■ The First Part of the Contention of the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster. (Corresponding with Henry VI., Part IL) The Second Part of the Contention, Ike. (Corresponding with Henry VI., Part III.

PLAYS PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FOLIO OF 1623.

Name of Play published in Quarto. . Date of _First Edition.

Date of

Entry at

Stationers Hall. Publishers' Names.

Richard If 1507 1597 Andrew Wise.

Richard I. 1597 1597 William Wise.

Romeo and Juliet, "corrected and augmented" .1599 ... Cuthbert Darby, Love's Labour Lost 1598

Cuthbert Burby.

Henry IV., Part I. 1598 1597 Andrew Wise.

Henry IV. Part IL 1600 160Q Andrew Wise and Win., Apsley.

Merchant of Venice 1600 1598 Thomas Heyes.

Midsummer Night's Dream 1600 1600 Thomas Fisher.

Much Ado About Nothing 1600 1600 A. Wise and W. Apsley.

Titus Androuicua 1600 1593 Edward White.

(An edition is stated to have appeared in 1594.) Hamlet, "enlarged to almost as much again as it was" 1604 ... N. Landure.

Lear '1608 1607 Nat. Butter.

Troilus and Cressida 1609 1608 R. Bonian and H. Walley.

Othello 1622 1621 Thomas Walitley..

It thus appears, that for half of the plays the folio of 1623 is- the only authority for the text ; and for four other dramas " maimed and deformed," as HEMINGE and CONDELL express it, the folio is the sole virtual authority. , Of the fourteen in the last list, Mr. Kitianr, for reasons adduced, at length, believes that the first nine are au- thentic; that "the text of the folio, with slight alterations, is un- questionably founded upon them"; that Othello, printed after SHAKSPERE'S death, is genuine ; and that the other four, though probably printed against the author's liking, were from authentic copies,—two of the plays, for example, were performed before the Court, and possibly taken from the copies then furnished. After a detailed investigation of the whole series, Mr. Kruutrr thus sums up the bibliographical question- ' "The folio of 1623 contains thirty-six plays : of these, thirteen were pub- lished in the author's lifetime, with such internal evidences of authenticity and under such circumstances as warrant us in receiving them as authentic copies. These copies are, therefere, entitled to -a very high respect in the settle- ment of the author's text. But they do not demand an exclusiVe respect ; for the evidence in several instances is most decided, that the author's posthu- mous copies in manuscript were distinguished from the printed copies by verbal alterations, by additions,hy omissions not arbitrarily made, by a more correct metrical arrangement. To refer these differences to alterations made by the players has been a favourite theory with some of Shakspere's editors ; but it is manifestly an absurd one. We see, in numerous eves, the minute but most effective touches of the skilful artist ; and a careful- examination of this matter in the plays where the alterations are most numerous is quite sufficient to satisfy us of the jealous care with which Shakspere watched over the more im- portant of these productions, so as to leave with his 'fellows' more complete and accurate copies thanhad been preserved by the press. Between the quarto editions of the four comedies—'.Love's Labour's Lost,' A MidsuMmer Night's Dream,' 'The Merchant of Venice,' Much Ado about Nothing'— and the folio Of 1623, the variations are exceedingly few ; and these have pro- bably, for the most, part, been created by the printer. Of the histories, 'Richard the Second, in the folio, is founded upon the quarto of 1608, with the omission of about fifty lines. The variations between the two copies of 'The First Part of Henry the Fourth' are very slight. In "The Second Part. of Henry the Fourth' there are large additions in the folio. 'Richard the Third,' in the folio, presents an example of constant verbal alterations, evi- dently made with a most minute scrupulousness: there arc two passages omitted, although in the author's best manner, and about a hundred and twenty lines added. Of the tragedies, Romeo and Juliet,' in the folio, is founded upon the quarto of 1599, with occasional verbal alterations. Titus Andronicus ' is essentially the same in the folio as the quarto of' 1600, with the exception of the added scene. 'Hamlet,' in the folio, is founded upon the quarto of 1604, but the verbal alterations are numerous; and there are pas- sages omitted in the folio which we should indeed be sorry to lose, although there was probably a dramatic reason for their omission. The most important of the variations between the quartos and the folio are to be found in 'Lear.' The verbal alterations are perpetually recurring, but the changes of the folio are decidedly to be preferred In nearly every instance. The metrical arrange- ment of the quarto is one mass of confusion.: we have about fifty lines added in the folio, and about two hundred and twenty-five lines omitted: for these omissions there is again a sufficient dramatic reason, although it is truly for- tunate that passages of such exquisite beauty as they for the most part are, should have been preserved to . us in the original publication. 'Troilus and Cressida,' in the folio, differs in the very smallest degree from the text of the quarto copy. The verbal changes in 'Othello' are few; but there are many additional lines in the folio,

We have thus seen, that of the fourteen plays originally published in quarto,. which may be considered authentic, nine of that number contain very unim- portant differences from the text in the folio. The differences, however, are not merely the typographical changes which always creep into any new edi- tion; they are in many cases either the corrections of the author or the cor- rections of those who represented the plays. The theatre, there can be no doubt, possessed a manuscript copy, as Heminge and Condell expressly tell us; and the variations, especially in the metrical arrangement, even in those plays which appear the most alike, afford satisfactory evidence that in the republica- tion some manuscript was referred to." So much for the more substantial differences between the collected folio edition of 1623 and the previous quartos. As regards the

general typographical accuracy of this folio, both Mr. COLLIER and Mr. KNIGHT speak in hifh terms : each considers it had an editor who performed the task in a manner unrivalled in that age of lax- printed English books, and that its typographical correctness is remarkable for the period. Mr. CoLuaa, indeed, affirms that only one book of that age can be compared with it—the Works of BEN JoNsom, which there is no doubt JONSON himself corrected : and of this folio Mr. KNIGHT observes-

" We have no hesitation in stating that, with one or two exceptions, the text of these plays may be considered to be as correct, and as little corrupted, as those which had the advantage of having previously gone through the press. This is a most remarkable circumstance with reference to any posthumous pub- lication; and when we consider the essential difficulties which belong to the correct printing of a play—the mistaking of one character for another, the con- fusion which must arise from the intermingling of prose and verse, the varie- ties of the versification itself, and the possibility of receiving the stage-direc- tions as the text—it is perfectly astonishing that these productions have come down to us with so few vital errors and deformities. To form a correct esti- mate of the value of the folio copy with reference to the plays there first printed, we should compare them with any other play or plays printed either after the death of an author or without an adequate revision during his life."

This folio, therefore, will form the basis of use text of Mr. KNIGHT'S edition ; other sources being used, but kept subordinate to that copy which he deems received the final revision of the author.

We are bound, we think," says he, "to make the later copy the foundation of the text. But we are also called upon to point out the deviations from the text of the quartos, not only whenever the differences are of importance, but when they vary from the commonly-received reading. This is the course which we have pursued in our first edition; and which we shall carry out as much farther as may appear to us necessary in the present impression. q Of the other five plays, in which the variations between the quarto editions and the folio are more important, we have not only to adhere to the principles just laid down, but to preserve even what the author, we may believe, advisedly rejected; and in preserving it, to furnish materials for a just appreciation of the judgment with which he retrenched as well as added. Where there are omissions in the folio of passages found in the quartos, such omissions not being superseded by an extended or a condensed passage of a similar character, we give them a place in the text; distinguishing them, however, by brackets. But we utterly object to the principle which has too often guided the modern editors, of making up a text, when the variations are considerable, out of the text of the quartos and that of the folio. If any part of the variation demon- strates that it is the author's improvement, we are bound to receive the whole of the improvement, with the exception of any manifest typographical error ; satisfying, however, the critical reader, by giving him the original passage in a note. To act upon any other principle, is to set up private judgment against all authority. "But if the principle which we have jest laid down be all-important with regard to the authentic quartos, how much more important is it with reference to those plays which are essentially, and upon the face of them, imperfect and deformed. In three instances, those of Romeo and Juliet,' 'Henry the Fifth,' and The Merry Wives of Windsor,' and especially in the two first, the modern editors have received the text of the imperfect copy as something to be relied upon ; and wherever they have found a line not in the folio, they have thrust it in, and clamoured for its restoration."

If we understand Mr. COLLIER'S purpose rightly, his text will, in the words of his titlepage, be more "formed" than seems to be the case with Mr. KNIGHT'S. Using the folio as a high authority, and for one-half of the plays indeed as the only authority, Mr. Coimmi proposes to collate all the existing quarto copies, and the second folio of 1632, as well to avail himself of certain manuscripts he speaks of in his Reasons for a New Edition of Shakspere ; and thence to "form" a text. Theoretically, we incline to prefer Mr. Krimur's plan ; because a definite standard presents a more uniform whole, and leaves less -to individual discretion. Practically, we doubt whether there will be much substantial difference. The only play in the volumes that admits of examination for the pur- pose of comparison, is Lore's Labour 's Lost: and Mr. KNIGHT uses the quarto of 1598 for the more important variations, as freely as Mr. Com.rua ; whilst the emendatory notes of both commentators are very often the same in substance, the difference being merely that of individual expression,—as

I from my mistress come to you in post; If I return I shall be post indeed; For she will score your fault upon my pate."

—Comedy of Errors. Post indeed The post of a shop was used as the tally-board of a publican is now used, to keep the score.—KNIOHT. For she will scoax your fault upon my pate.] The reference is here to the old custom of keeping a score upon a post, instead of entering the item in a book. The old copies have scoure.—CoLtavn.

Again— "Methinks your maw like mine should be your clock."—Comedy of Errors. Clock. The original has cook Pope made the necessary change.—KNIGHT. —should be your ccoce.] The old copies read cook. Pope made the

change ; which may be adopted, though cooks at dinner-time struck on the dresser.—COLLIEB.

We offer these, however, merely as general samples. We have not attempted to collate the two volumes : and it would be useless for any purpose of comparison—first, because so small a portion of SHAKSPERE'S Works are included in each ; second, because they do not afford full means of comparison so far as they go. Mr. Comma, holding that we cannot positively fix the exact chronology of Smax.- SPERE s writings, follows the classification and order of HEMINGE and CORDELL. Mr. Kumar, taking their general classification into Comedies, Tragedies, and Histories, adopts a chronological order, which he gets at by inference. Hence' of the six plays in the volume of COLLIER, only two are to be found in Kumar's.

Of the information furnished by each edition, beyond the mere emendation of the text, no decided opinion can be given, because Mt. Com.ma begins with the second volume ; reserving the Life of SHARSPERE, the History of the Early English Stage, &c. for the first volume, which is to be published last. On the other hand, the Life and Times of SHARSPERE, which Mr. KNIGHT contemplates, will match with his edition, but we also be published as a distinct work. Hence, matter that appearit in Kilinur's preface, &c., may perhaps be held in reserver bp COLLIER. SO far as we can judge, the little notes we have quoted exhibit pretty accurately the emendatory and explanatory charac- ters of the editions; though we think it likely that COLLIER will eventually be found the most minutely painstaking. In point of illustration and criticism, we prefer KNIGHT. The introductions. to each play in COLLIER are somewhat exclusively bibliographical : the topics of the various editions of a particular play, and the sources whence SHAKSPERE might or might not have drawn his plot or his images, are also noticed by KNIGHT, but in a wider and loftier spirit, as if there were other things in nature than old books. Mr. KNIGHT also appends to each play a critical view of it, in which will be found much nice and refined remark ; though he is too controversial and stiff on the no-faults of his author, preferring what he calls "reverence" to truth. To each act, too, are added illustrative notes upon manners, allusions, &c. ; and a variety of wood-cuts are sprinkled through the volume, generally exhibiting some locality or subject of the text. These engravings are transferred from the Pictorial ; on which, indeed, the present edition is founded. Beyond these illustrations, there is no substan- tial difference in the getting-up of the respective volumes. The extent and consequent price of either work must shut it out from the purchase of the people, and of many above the people. These publications, however, will no doubt be the means of im- proving the text of most future editions ; and if not, we must be content to read SHARSPERE as we have hitherto done. "It is not very grateful to consider," says JourisoN in his celebrated Preface, " how little the succession of editors has added to this author's power of pleasing." Nor is Joarisores advice as to perusal to be

disregarded. "Let him that is yet unacquainted with the pow*, of Shakspere, and who desires to feel the highest pleasuro .thaa

drama can give, read every scene from the first to the lasti-Aiitht. utter negligence of all his commentators. When his fancy is ante on the wing, let it not stoop at correction or explanation. When his attention is strongly excited, let it disdain alike to turn aside to the name of Theobald or of Pope. Let him read on through brightness and obscurity, through integrity and corruption; let him preserve his comprehension of the dialogue, and his interest in. the fable. And when the pleasures of' novelty have ceased, let him. attempt exactness, and read the commentators." And this advice, which is applicable to most great writers, is especially applicable to SHAKSPERE, from the comprehension of his mind, and the direct purpose of his art. Not only do his dramas excel in critical action those of all modern and perhaps all ancient writers, but the move- ment of the action—what the players call the "business of the stage "—so carries on the story and exhibits the characters, that if the text were much more corrupt than it is, the reader could still "preserve his comprehension of the dialogue, and his interest in the fable,"—the whole and the purpose would be ever present. This general largeness and unity prevails even in minor matters, and sometimes renders exactness rather a nicety than a necessity for the general. Whether we read "like quills upon the freVul" or " the fearful porcupine," the image of a terror stiffening the hair is equally impressed; though it adds to our wonder at SHARSPERVO universal acquirements to know that the nature of the porcupine is fretful, and that "fretful" is the more genuine reading.