Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

We do not know, indeed, which of the two versionsQuarto or Folio-first came into being. Only on one point can we feel any certainty, and that is that neither represents in all respects the play as it first came from Shakespeare's hands. Independent MS. origin for both Quarto and Folio there undoubtedly was, but, curiously enough, the printed text of the Quartos appears in places to have affected or infected that of the Folio; what are admittedly printers' blunders in the Quartos are here and there reproduced in the Folio,1 blunders which could hardly have been made independently of each other. To account for this, Mr. Daniel, in his Preface to Quarto I, before referred to, suggests that the MS. of the Folio version was not printed from directly, but was given to the press through the medium of a copy of Quarto I, altered in accordance with this MS., and that this copy of Quarto I contained at least three of its uncorrected sheets, E, H, and K; by the carelessness of the scribe engaged in preparing this copy of the Quarto for the Folio edition, some errors escaped correction and so got established in the Folio text

In the case of a text which is known to have been revised by its author, an editor's path is clearly marked out for him he must follow the latest directions of that author, however in his own judgment he may prefer his earlier utterances. The reader has already seen that as regards the Quarto and Folio text of King Lear we cannot with any certainty determine whether the author was in any way responsible for their differences. study of the two texts leads me to believe that he was not,

My

1 For a list of these, see Mr. P. A. Daniel's before-mentioned Preface to the reprint of Quarto 1, pp. xix, xx.

and that we have no evidence that from the time he handed over the play to his company, leaving to them to deal with it at their pleasure, he took any further care of it. A modern text, therefore, must needs be eclectic; as a basis the Folio is almost necessarily to be chosen, but its authority should not in my opinion be allowed to absolutely override that of the Quarto; fitness and positive superiority, or what in my judgment I deem to be such, are the only guides I have followed in determining the right to a place in my text of either Quarto or Folio readings where at variance. In this course I do but follow the example of my predecessors, and my readers must therefore not expect to find in my text any very noticeable differences from that generally received; the ground has been too exhaustively worked by preceding editors to admit of any new discoveries of importance. I refer my readers wishing further information on this difficult matter to Mr. Daniel's before-mentioned Preface to the reprinted Quarto I, and I may add that there is a long account of the matter in Mr. A. A. Adee's Preface to the Bankside Shakespeare, parallel column reprint of the play, edited by Mr. Appleton Morgan, and that it is also discussed in Furness's Variorum edition.

It is practically certain that King Lear was not written earlier than March 1603, nor later than December 1606; for the first date-limit we have the following entry in the Registers of the Stationers' Company under date March the 16th, 1603:—

"Master Robertes Entred for his Copie vnder the handes of the wardens 'A Booke called A Declaracon of egregious popishe ympostures, etc.'. . . vjd." (Arber's Transcript, iii. 229).

Samuel Harsnett, who died Archbishop of York in 1631, was the author of this strange work, the full title of which is " A Declaration of Egregious Popishe Impostures, to with-draw the harts of Her Maiestie's Subjects from their allegeance, and from the truth of Christian Religion professed in England, under the pretence of casting out devils. PRACTISED by EDMUNDS, alias Weston, a Jesuit, and diuers Romish Priestes his wicked associates. Where-unto are annexed the Copies of the Confessions, and Examinations of the parties themselues, which were pretended to be possessed, and dispossessed, taken upon oath before his Maiesties Commissioners, for causes Ecclesiastical AT LONDON printed by Iames Roberts, dwelling in Barbican, 1603.”

Shakespeare, it is practically certain, must have had this book in his hands; to it he is indebted for the names of the spirits mentioned by Edgar, when keeping up his assumed character of a Bedlam Beggar, and at least twice in the play he seems certainly to have had his eye on passages in it (see notes to Act III. scene iv. lines 53, 54, and to Act IV. scene i. lines 63, 64).

As to the other limit, we know that King Lear was written before Saint Stephen's Day (26th December) 1606; from the entry in the Stationers' Registers, made November the 29th, 1607, which I have given on pp. xiv, xv. Xu,Xm

We can so far fix the limits to the date of King Lear, but the precise time (between March 1603 and December 1606) at which it was written cannot be clearly demonstrated. Malone conjectured that its first appearance was in March or April 1605. Here it is necessary to refer

L

to the old play of King Leir.

From Henslowe's Diary

(ed. Collier, pp. 33, 34) we learn that a "Kinge Leare " was performed on the 6th April 1594, by the combined companies of the Queen and Lord Sussex. This play

was in all probability that entered in the Stationers' Registers on the 14th of May 1594, to Edward White, as The moste famous chronicle historye of Leire, kinge of England, and his three Daughters (Arber's Transcript, ii. 649). No copy of White's edition of this play has come down to us, nor is there any record of his ever having transferred his right in it to any other publisher. Eleven years later, 8th of May 1605, Simon Stafford entered on the Stationers' Registers A booke called The Tragecall historie of Kinge LEIR and his three Daughiers, etc., as it was latelie acted. On the same day he trans

The

ferred his rights in it to John Wright, reserving to himself the printing of the book (Arber, iii. 289). book was published the same year, with the following title-page :

"The True Chronicle History of King Leir and his three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella. As it hath been diuers and sundry times lately acted. London, printed by Simon Stafford for John Wright, and are to bee sold at his shop at Christ Church dore, next Newgate Market, 1605."

There is no evidence whatever that this play is identical with that entered to White in 1594; but from its style it may reasonably be supposed of much earlier date than May 1605, and it is extremely probable that Malone is right in assuming that both entries relate to one and the same play. He made its consideration an

b

element in determining the date of Shakespeare's King Lear on the theory that the popularity of this latter induced Simon Stafford to reprint the old play with the fraudulent intention of palming it off on the public as the Shakespearian play they had applauded on the stage. This would suppose that Shakespeare's Lear had been produced on the stage some little time before Simon Stafford made his first move on the 8th of May 1605, by entering the old Leir on the Stationers' Registers; hence Malone conjectured that Shakespeare's King Lear made its first appearance" in March or April 1605."

Malone's theory as to date has found a modern supporter in Mr. Fleay, who (writing in Robinson's Epitome of Literature, August 1, 1879) confidently pronounces that "the play was written before May 8, 1605." He is of opinion that "Malone was right in his date, and in his inference that Stafford . . . wished to pass the old play off as Shakespeare's." After noticing that Shakespeare first gave a tragic ending to the story, Mr. Fleay goes on, "the old Chronicle History' could not have been described as 'Tragical' in 1605 had not a tragedy on the subject been 'lately acted,' nor could the tragedy have been any other than Shakespeare's." Wright, however," he goes on, "had not the impudence to put Stafford's ' Tragical History' on his title-page, though he kept the 'latelie acted ""; and this, Mr. Fleay thinks, was the reason why, in 1608, Nathanael Butter described his edition of King Lear as a "Chronicle History" and not as a tragedy.

Now though, at first sight, it may puzzle us as to why the pre-Shakespearian play, The Historie of Kinge Leir, should have been described as " tragecall," yet a little con

« ZurückWeiter »