The Text of Shakespeare [pp. 761-764]

SOUTHERN LITERARY MESSENGER.
is produced by a skilful balancing of both sides, and
such pruning of excrescent criticism, as tends to leave
the text, as nearly as possible, in its unembarrassed
and original shape. To this edition, Dr. Symmons
prefixed a luminous Memoir of the great poet, accompanied by a criticism upon his critics, of singular ability
and force. Within the last year or two, Hilliard, Gray,
and Company, of Boston, have issued this edition, with
some slight emendations, in a most beautiful form,
comprising seven elegant octavo volumes, and prepared
for the press by one of the most accomplished and erudite of our countrymen. We can have no hesitation
in ascribing to this edition the palm of excellence over
all others we have ever seen. For the voluminous
publications of the older critics may now be well classed
with those books of reference, the proper place of which
is on those shelves of our libraries, that are labelled
"Philological,"-and are valuable only as Encyclopedias and Lexicons.
The reader will have seen, by this time, to what
edition of the great Poet of nature we intend to resort
as our standard while offering to his notice, a few remarks upon those conjectural readings, which the
Charleston critic of the Messenger has suggested, in
the August and October numbers of that Miscellany.
Before undertaking this examination, however, it is
our purpose to take a cursory review of the different
editions of Shakspeare, which, from time to time, have
made their appearance and to compare their relative
claims to the confidence of the reader. In doing this,
we are naturally thrown back upon the old question of
"Folio" and " Quarto," the settlement of which upon
some sure basis, is absolutely necessary for the proper
adjustment of the proposed comparison. We shall,
however, detain the reader but a brief space in this
review.
"The First Folio,"'which is the grand standard now,
despite the formidable foray against it by the Malonians, bears the following inscription upon its title page.
"M ir. William Shakspeare's
Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies,
Published according to the true original Copies.
London
Iaggard and Ed. Blount.
1623."
The editors of this edition were Messrs. Heminge
and Condell, who prefaced it with a quaint dedication
to Earl Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain, and Earl Montgomery, of the Royal Bed-Chamber. In this dedication,
the editors remark that their author had not the usual
advantage of" being the exequtor to his owne writings,"
which however, they say, "they have collected:" and
they add, moreover, that in giving their volume to the
world, they are but mere compilers of works, " the reputation of which is his, and all the faults of which are
ours." They then go on to allude to various surreptitious copies of some of Shakspeare's plays, which had
then been published, in quarto; averring that, from the
mode in which they were got up, they could not be
genuine, and giving sundry good reasons why their
own folio was the only true and correct edition. These
surreptitious copies comprised fourteen of the plays,
and were all published during the life of the Poet; while
this folio of his fellow-actors, Heminge and Condell,
was not given to the world until seven years after his
death. There is no doubt that every indirect and fraudulent means were resorted to, to obtain copies of the
plays for publication, during the life of the author, who,
to use the words of Dr. Symmons, "seems to have
been as utterly regardless of their publication, as he
necessarily was of that of those which appeared when
he was mouldering in his grave." The folio edition,
on the other hand, was compiled from the clear copy
of the prompter, to whom usage has, in all ages of the
drama, impropriated a perfect transcript of every performance. This copy is often written out, of necessity,
by the hands of illiterate men,-fi'equently from the
disjecta membra of the piece, which are given round,
in manuscript, to the different actors, to study from, each
of which was at that day liable to such emendations and
alterations, as the dramaatis personae saw fit to interpolate,-and of course, may be considered as having been
constantly exposed to the abrasions, innovations, and
omissions, of a thousand different caprices.
In 1709, Mr. Rowe undertook a new edition of Shakspeare, and, instead of following "the first folio" of
HFeminge and Condell, he took a second edition, published thirteen years after the first, as his standard.
But he was very correct in many of his emendations;
and though he did not succeed in producing a standard
work for future ages, he accomplished a great deal towards the attainment of such a desideratum. He even
restored some rejected or omitted passages from the quartos, and backed his improvements in this particular, by
very ingenious, and, for the most part, satisfactory arguments.
In 1725, Pope, in 1733, Theobald, in 1744, Hanmer,
and in 1747, Warburton, severally followed as restorers
of the Shaksperian text. Pope showed that text to
have been more corrupt than the other avowed publications of Shakspeare, prepared and given to the press,
in his lifetime, and of course under his own immediate
supervision; he for the first time collated all the copies
of the plays, and restored many of the quarto readings.
Still, however, he adhered to the old folio, as his standard. But Pope confessed that all this was "dull work
for a poet," and to use Dr. Johnson's expressive language, "he thought more of amputation than of cure."
Of course his notes are full of fanciful hypothesis, and
unsatisfactory speculation. Theobald, Hanmer, and
Warburton did little for the enlightenment of the world
as to the original readings of Shakspeare, although
there is no doubt but that the great poet was much
better understood, and that his text had been purified
of much grossness and corruption, in the course of all
these lustrations.
In 1765, Dr. Johnson took the field. " Xil tetigit
que( 2ion ornavit." But, beautiful as was his preface,
profound as were many of his speculations, minute and
scholastic as were most of his criticisms, the undertaking gave but little satisfaction, and as a whole, added
but little more to the fame of the annotator than to
that of the dramatist.
In 1766, Steevens appeared, and gave the world his
first edition. Steevens showed himself a most able
editor.
In t768,Capell published a kind of syllabus or tabular view of the variorum readings of the great poet,
which is chiefly valuable as a skilful collation of the
labors of his predecessors.
762