The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 8 of 9]

Chapter I: Preface

Text size

1. The earliest edition of HAMLET appeared in 1603, with the following title-page:

We refer to it as (Q₁).

A copy of this edition belonged to Sir Thomas Hanmer, though he does not appear to have mentioned it in his notes to Shakespeare or in his correspondence, and its existence was not known till his library came into the possession of Sir E. H. Bunbury in 1821. In a copy of the Reprint of 1825, now at Barton, Sir E. H. Bunbury wrote the following note:

'The only copy of this edition of Hamlet (1603) which is known to be in existence was found by me in the Library at Barton when it came into my possession in 1821. The Hamlet was bound up with ten others of the small 4to editions of Shakespeare's Plays (1598 to 1603) and with The Two Noble Kinsmen (1634). Most of these were complete. I sold the volume in Dec. 1824 for £180 to Messrs Payne and Foss, who resold it to the Duke of Devonshire for £230.'

This copy wanted the last leaf containing the 22 concluding lines. A second copy, wanting the title-page but otherwise perfect, was discovered in 1856 by Mr W. H. Rooney of Dublin. 'It was bought,' says Mr Timmins, 'by Mr Rooney from a student of Trinity College, Dublin, who had brought it from Nottinghamshire with his other books. After reprinting the last leaf, Mr Rooney sold the pamphlet to Mr Boone for £70, from whom Mr J. O. Halliwell bought it for £120, and it is now in the British Museum.'

We have reprinted this edition, and recorded in foot-notes the few discrepancies which are found between the two copies.

An extremely accurate reprint was made from the Devonshire copy in 1825, and it was lithographed in facsimile, with the addition of the missing leaf, in 1858, under the direction of Mr Collier and at the expense of the Duke. In 1860 Mr J. Allen, Junr., reprinted this edition and the Quarto of 1604, placing the corresponding passages as nearly as possible on opposite pages, with a preface by Mr Samuel Timmins.

The edition of 1603 is obviously a very imperfect reproduction of the play, and there is every reason to believe that it was printed from a manuscript surreptitiously obtained. This manuscript may have been compiled in the first instance from short hand notes taken during the representation, but there are many errors in the printed text which seem like errors of a copyist rather than of a hearer. Compare for example lines 37, 38 of Scene III. of our Reprint, p. 205, with the corresponding lines of the more perfect drama as it was printed in the Quarto of 1604, Act I. Scene 3, lines 73, 74, p. 26.

In the Quarto of 1603 the passage runs thus:

And they of _France_ of the chiefe rancke and station
Are of a most select and generall chiefe in that:

In that of 1604:

'And they in Fraunce of the best ranck and station,
Or of a most select and generous, chiefe in that:'

It is clear that the corruption in both passages is due to an error in the transcript from which both were copied. Probably the author had originally written:

'And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous in that:'

and then given between the lines or in the margin, 'of,' 'chief', meaning these as alternative readings for 'in' and 'best' in the first line. The transcriber by mistake inserted them in the second line. A few lines above both Quartos give 'courage' for 'comrade,' a mistake due undoubtedly to the eye and not to the ear.

We believe then that the defects of the manuscript from which the Quarto of 1603 was printed had been in part at least supplemented by a reference to the authentic copy in the library of the theatre. Very probably the man employed for this purpose was some inferior actor or servant, who would necessarily work in haste and by stealth, and in any case would not be likely to work very conscientiously for the printer or bookseller who was paying him to deceive his masters.

The Quarto of 1604, which we call Q₂, has the following title-page:

The printer 'I. R.' was no doubt, as Mr Collier says, James Roberts, who had made an entry in the books of the Stationers' company as early as July 26, 1602, of 'A booke, The Revenge of Hamlett prince of Denmarke, as yt was latelie acted by the Lord Chamberleyn his servantes.'

For some unknown reason the projected edition was delayed, and in the mean time the popularity of the play encouraged N. L., i.e. Nicholas Ling, and the other publisher, Trundell, to undertake a surreptitious edition.

In the interval between the two editions Shakespeare seems to have changed the names of some of his Dramatis Personæ, substituting 'Polonius' for 'Corambis' and 'Reynaldo' for 'Montano.' He may also have changed the order of one or two scenes, and here and there erased or inserted a few lines, but we think that no substantial change was made, and that the chief differences between (Q₁) and Q₂ are only such as might be expected between a bona fide, and a mala fide, transcription.

The Quarto of 1605, which we call Q₃, is not, properly speaking, a new edition, being printed from the same forms as Q₂, and differing from it no more than one copy of the same edition may differ from another. The title-page differs only in the date, where 1605 is substituted for 1604.

Another Quarto, our Q₄, printed in 1611, bears a title-page which does not substantially differ from that of Q₃, except that it is said to be:

'Printed for _Iohn Smethwicke_, and are to be sold at his
shoppe | in Saint Dunstons Church-yeard in Fleetstreet. | Under
the Diall. 1611. |'

Another Quarto, without date, is said on the title-page to be 'Newly imprinted and inlarged, according to the true | and perfect Copy lastly Printed,' and to be 'Printed by W. S. for _Iohn Smethwicke_.' Otherwise the title-page is identical with that of Q₄. Mr Collier supposes this undated Quarto to have been printed in 1607, because there is an entry in the Stationers' books of that year and no edition with that date is known to exist. We are convinced however that the undated Quarto was printed from that of 1611, and we have therefore called it Q₅.

Another Quarto, printed 'by _R. Young_ for _John Smethwicke_,' was published in 1637. This we call Q₆. It is printed from Q₅, though the spelling is considerably modernized and the punctuation amended.

The symbol Qq signifies the agreement of Q₂, Q₃, Q₄, Q₅ and Q₆.

Besides these, several editions, usually known as Players' Quartos, were printed at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the following century. Of these we have had before us during our collation, editions of 1676, 1685, 1695 and 1703. These we call respectively Q(1676), Q(1685), Q(1695) and Q(1703). We have given all readings which seemed in any way remarkable, though we need scarcely say that the changes made in these editions have no authority whatever. It is however worthy of notice that many emendations usually attributed to Rowe and Pope are really derived from one or other of these Players' Quartos. When we give a reading as belonging to one of these Quartos, it is to be understood that it occurs there for the first time and that all the subsequent Quartos adopt it.

The text of Hamlet given in the Folio of 1623 is not derived from any of the previously existing Quartos, but from an independent manuscript. Many passages are found in the Folio which do not appear in any of the Quartos. On the other hand many passages found in the Quartos are not found in the Folio. It is to be remarked that several of those which appear in the Folio and not in the Quarto of 1604 or its successors, are found in an imperfect form in the Quarto of 1603, and therefore are not subsequent additions. Both the Quarto text of 1604 and the Folio text of 1623 seem to have been derived from manuscripts of the play curtailed, and curtailed differently, for purposes of representation. Therefore in giving in our text all the passages from both Folio and Quarto we are reproducing, as near as may be, the work as it was originally written by Shakespeare, or rather as finally retouched by him after the spurious edition of 1603.

We have been unable to procure a copy of the Quarto edition of this play, edited in 1703 by 'the accurate Mr John Hughs' (Theobald's _Shakespeare Restored_, p. 26), and have therefore quoted the readings of it on Theobald's authority. It is different from the Players' Quarto of 1703, and is not mentioned in Bohn's edition of Lowndes's _Bibliographer's Manual_. No copy of it exists in the British Museum, the Bodleian, the library of the Duke of Devonshire, the Capell collection, or any other to which we have had access.

We have to thank Dr C. M. Ingleby for the loan of several editions of _Hamlet_ which we should otherwise have had difficulty in procuring.

2. KING LEAR first appeared in 1608. In this year there were two editions in Quarto. One bears the following title:

The printer's device is that of J. Roberts.

This we have called Q₁. In the few instances in which there are differences between Capell's copy and that in the Duke of Devonshire's library, we have distinguished the readings as those of Q₁ (Cap.) and Q₁ (Dev.) respectively. Through the kindness of Sir S. Morton Peto and Mr Lilly, we have been enabled to collate two other copies, but without discovering any variations from that in the Capell collection.

In the same year another Quarto edition of this play was issued by the same publisher. Its title is as follows:

We have called this Q₂. In the six copies we have collated there are a large number of very curious and important variations. To distinguish them we have made use of the following notation.

1. Q₂ (Cap.) The copy in Capell's collection.

2. Q₂ (Dev.) The copy in the Library of the Duke of Devonshire.

3. Q₂ (Mus. per.) A perfect copy in the British Museum (C. 34. K. 18).

4. Q₂ (Mus. imp.) An imperfect copy (wanting title) in the British Museum (C. 34. K. 17); formerly in the possession of Mr Halliwell.

5. Q₂ (Bodl. 1). A copy in the Bodleian Library (Malone 35), with the title, but wanting the last leaf.

6. Q₂ (Bodl. 2). A copy in the Bodleian Library (Malone 37), wanting title but having the last leaf.

It has been supposed in consequence of statements made by Malone and Boswell that a third edition of King Lear was published in 1608. We shall show that there is no evidence for this. In the _Variorum Shakespeare_ (II. 652), edited by Boswell in 1821, three Quartos are described, which are distinguished in the notes to the play by the letters A, B, C, respectively. The first of these is a copy of Q₂, quoted by us as Q₂ (Bodl. 1); the second is a copy of Q₁; and the third, which is in reality another copy of Q₂ and is quoted by us as Q₂ (Bodl. 2), is described as follows:

"Title the same as the two former, except that like the first it begins at signature B: and like the second, has no reference to the place of sale."

This statement of Boswell's is taken from a note in Malone's handwriting prefixed to the copy in question, which we transcribe.

"This copy of King Lear differs in some particulars from the two others in Vol. IV.

"The title-page of it is the same as the second of those copies, that is, it has no direction to the place of sale, and the first signat. is B,--notwithstanding which there are minute diversities; thus, in this copy in H₃ verso, we have 'A _foole_ vsurps my _bed_'; in the other whose first signature is also B, we find--'My _foote_ usurps my _body_', and in the copy without any direction to the place of sale (whose first signature is A) 'My _foote_ usurps my _head_'."

Now it is a little remarkable that at present the copy has no title-page at all, and there is no trace of the title-page having been removed since the volume has been in its present condition. The probability is that the title was originally wanting and that one had been supplied from a copy of Q₁ before it came into Malone's hands, and that while it was in this condition he wrote the above note upon it. It was then sent to be bound in a volume with other quartos, and the title may have been lost at the binder's, or may have been intentionally removed as not belonging to the book. That alterations were made by the binder is evident from the fact that the copy to which Malone refers as the _second_ of those in Vol. IV. is in reality the _first_. Malone, writing his note when Vol. IV. was arranged for binding, described the then order of the plays, which must afterwards have been altered. In any case, however Malone's statement is to be accounted for, it is quite clear that Boswell must have described the Quarto after it was bound, when the title could not have existed.

We have said that Boswell quotes the three Quartos of Lear, now in the Bodleian, by the letters A, B, C, respectively. In doing so, however, he is not consistent. We record his mistakes that others may not be misled by them. Bearing in mind therefore that A = Q₂ (Bodl. 1), B = Q₁, and C = Q₂ (Bodl. 2), we find in Act II. Scene 2 (Vol. X. p. 97) 'Quarto B, _ausrent_; Quarto A, reads _unreverent_.' Here B and A should change places. In Act III. Scene 7 (p. 188), 'Quarto A omits _roguish_:' for A read C. In Act IV. Scene 2 (p. 199), for 'Quartos B and C, _the whistling_,' read 'Quarto C' alone. In Act IV. Scene 6 (p. 220) B and A should again be interchanged. In Act V. Scene 3 (p. 277), 'Quarto A omits this line'; for A read B. It will be seen from these instances that A has been in turn made to represent three different copies.

The differences in various copies of Q₂ are accounted for by supposing that the corrections were made before the sheets were all worked off, and that the corrected and uncorrected sheets were bound up indiscriminately. It will be observed that the readings of the uncorrected sheets of Q₂ agree for the most part with those of Q₁, and this led us to the conclusion which had previously been arrived at by Capell and also by J. P. Kemble, that the edition which we have called Q₁ was the earlier of the two printed in the same year. But upon collating a copy of Q₂ in the Bodleian, which we have called Q₂ (Bodl. 1), we found evidence which points to an opposite conclusion. In Kent's soliloquy (II. 2. 160) that copy, as will be seen in our notes, reads,

nothing almost sees _my rackles_
But miserie, &c.

which of course is an accidental corruption, by displacement of the type, of 'myrackles' (i.e. 'miracles') the true reading. In the corrected copies of Q₂ this is altered, apparently by the printer's conjecture, to 'my wracke', which is also the reading of Q₁. Throughout the sheet in which this occurs the readings of Q₁ agree with the corrected copies of Q₂, and had it not been for the instance quoted, we might have supposed that the corrections in the latter were made from Q₁. But the corruption 'my rackles' for 'miracles' must have come from the original MS., and 'my wracke' is only a conjectural emendation, so that the order of succession in this sheet at least appears to be the following. First the uncorrected copy of Q₂, then the same corrected, and lastly Q₁. On the other hand it is remarkable that Q₁, if printed from Q₂ at all, must have been printed from a copy made up, with the exception just mentioned from II. 1. 128 to II. 4. 133, and another containing from IV. 6. 224 to V. 3. 64, of uncorrected sheets. Another hypothesis which might be made is that Q₁ and Q₂ were printed from the same manuscript, and that the printer of Q₁ corrupted 'miracles' into 'my wracke', while the printer of Q₂ made it 'my rackles', which was afterwards altered by a reference to Q₁. The question, however, is very difficult to decide, and at most is one rather of bibliographical curiosity than of critical importance. We may mention that, without giving the reasons for his conclusion, Jennens, in his edition of _Lear_ in 1770, quotes as the 1st Quarto that which we have called Q₂ and vice versa.

A third Quarto, which we have called Q₃, was printed very carelessly page for page from Q₁ and published in 1655.

In the first Folio _King Lear_ was printed from an independent manuscript, and its text is on the whole much superior to that of the Quartos. Each however supplies passages which are wanting in the other.

Capell appears to have prepared the play for press in the first instance from Pope's first edition. The manuscript readings and stage directions, marked in his copy of that edition but not adopted in his own, we have quoted as 'Capell MS'.

* * * * *

3. OTHELLO was first printed in Quarto in 1622 with the following title:

To this edition which we call Q₁, the following preface was affixed by the publisher:

The Stationer to the Reader.

_To set forth a booke without an Epistle, were like to the old
English prouerbe_, A blew coat without a badge, _& the Author
being dead, I thought good to take that piece of worke vpon
mee: To commend it, I will not, for that which is good, I hope
euery man will commend, without intreaty: and I am the bolder,
because the Authors name is sufficient to vent his worke. Thus
leauing euery one to the liberty of iudgement: I haue ventered
to print this Play, and leaue it to the generall censure._

_Yours_,

Thomas Walkley.

This first Quarto contains many oaths and expletives, which in all the later editions are altered or omitted. This shows that the MS. from which it was printed had not been recently used as an acting copy. Many passages are omitted in Q₁, by accident or design, and some which we find only in the later editions look like afterthoughts of the author.

The title-page of the second Quarto is letter for letter the same as the first, except that it has the following imprint:

_LONDON_,| Printed by _A. M._ for _Richard Hawkins_, and are to
be sold at | his shoppe in Chancery-Lane, neere Sergeants-Inne.
| 1630. |

Of this Quarto, which we term Q₂, Mr Collier says: 'It was unquestionably printed from a manuscript different from that used for the Quarto of 1622, or for the Folio of 1623.' But after a minute comparison of the two it appears to us clear that the Quarto of 1630 must have been printed from a copy of the Quarto of 1622, which had received additions and corrections in manuscript. The resemblances between the two are too close to allow of any other supposition. These additions and corrections, though agreeing for the most part with the first Folio, which had appeared in the interval, were derived from an independent source.

The third Quarto, which we refer to as Q₃, was printed from the second, and is called 'The Fourth Edition.' It has the following imprint:

_LONDON_, | Printed for _William Leak_ at the _Crown_ _in
Fleet-_ | _street_, between the two Temple Gates, 1655 |

Jennens, in his edition of _Othello_, published in 1773, was not aware of the existence of the Quarto of 1630, and quotes as the readings of the second Quarto those of the edition of 1655.

An edition in Quarto, without date, is quoted by Capell on the authority of Pope; but on reference to Pope's list it appears that, though he has omitted the date, he refers to the Quarto of 1622, which contains the publisher's preface.

The kindness of Sir S. Morton Peto has enabled us to consult a copy of the first Quarto in the library at Chipstead, which, in cases where its readings differ from those of the copies in the Capell and Devonshire collections, we have distinguished as Q₁ (Chip.) A Players' Quarto of 1695, for the use of which, as well as for other acts of kindness, we have to thank Sir Charles Bunbury, is quoted as Q (1695).

In the Addenda we have given some readings which we had not previously seen from an anonymous tract published in 1752, with the title, _Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark_. The rest are chiefly from books which have been published since the greater part of our volume was struck off.

W. G. C.
W. A. W.

ADDENDA.

HAMLET, I. 1. 117, 118. Add to note, _As stars with ...
Distempered_ or _As stars with ... Discoloured_
Staunton conj.

I. 4. 36, 37. Add to note, _the dram of leaven ... of
a dough_ Cartwright conj. _the dram of evil ... oft
weigh down_ Bailey conj.

I. 4. 73. _your ... reason_] _of sovereignty your_
Hunter conj.

I. 5. 11. _And for_] _Tho' in_ Anon. MS.

I. 5. 32, 34. _shouldst ... Wouldst_] _wouldst ...
Shouldst_ Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on Hamlet, 1752).

II. 2. 82. Add to note, _And think upon and answer_
Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on Hamlet, 1752).

II. 2. 140. _out of thy star_] _out of thy soar_ Bailey
conj.

II. 2. 162. _Be ... then;_] _Let ... then_ Anon. conj.
(Misc. Obs. on Hamlet, 1752).

II. 2. 438, 439. _tyrannous ... murder_] _treacherous
and damned light To the vile murtherer_ Anon. conj.
(Misc. Obs. on Hamlet, 1752).

III. 1. 58. _slings and arrows_] _stings and harrows_
Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on Hamlet, 1752). _stings
and horrors_ Anon. MS.

III. 2. 21. _scorn_] _sin_ Bailey conj.

III. 2. 22. _the very age_] _the visage_ Bailey conj.

III. 2. 23. _pressure_] _posture_ Bailey conj.

III. 2. 206. _Nor ... give_] _Let earth not give me_
Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on Hamlet, 1752).

III. 3. 15. _The cease of_] _Deceasing_ Bailey conj.

III. 3. 169. Add to note, _And either house_ Bailey conj.

IV. 7. 112. _begun_] _begnawn_ Bailey conj.

V. 2, 180. _and outward ... a kind_] _and out of the
habit of encounter get a kind_ Bailey conj.

V. 2. 180, 181. _collection_] _diction_ Bailey conj.

V. 2. 182. Add to note, _profound and renowned_ Bailey
conj.

KING LEAR, I. 1. 72. Add to note, _precious treasure_
Bailey conj.

I. 1. 226. Add to note, _burden, or_ Bailey conj.

II. 4. 92. Add to note, _Fiery? what? quality?_ Taylor
conj. MS.

HAMLET.

DRAMATIS PERSONÆ[A].

CLAUDIUS, king of Denmark.
HAMLET, son to the late, and nephew to the present king.
POLONIUS, lord chamberlain.
HORATIO, friend to Hamlet.
LAERTES, son to Polonius.

VOLTIMAND, }
CORNELIUS, }
ROSENCRANTZ, } courtiers.
GUILDENSTERN, }
OSRIC, }
A Gentleman, }
A Priest.
MARCELLUS, } officers.
BERNARDO, }
FRANCISCO, a soldier.
REYNALDO, servant to Polonius.
Players.
Two Clowns, grave-diggers.
FORTINBRAS, prince of Norway.
A Captain.
English Ambassadors.

GERTRUDE, queen of Denmark, and mother to Hamlet.
OPHELIA, daughter to Polonius.

Lords, Ladies, Officers, Soldiers, Sailors, Messengers, and other
Attendants.

Ghost of Hamlet's Father.

SCENE: _Denmark_[B].

[A] DRAMATIS PERSONÆ.] First given by Rowe.

[B] Denmark] Edd. (Globe ed.) Elsinoor. Rowe.

THE TRAGEDY OF
HAMLET
PRINCE OF DENMARK.

Comments

The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 8 of 9]Chapter I: Preface

0%18 min left in chapter