ing to the company of the King's servants, to which they were still attached. ness of col Readers in general are not at all aware of the Carelessnonsense they have, in many cases, been accustomed lation. to receive as the genuine text of Shakespeare; and from a comparison of some of the plays, as they stand in the first folio, with modern copies, I shall now proceed to establish, how carelessly former editors have executed the necessary, but mechanical work of collation. I shall not refer to dramas of which there are several old quarto editions, which would have required exact examination, and might possibly have somewhat distracted the attention of the commentators, but to those printed, for the first time, in the folio of 1623; where an editor, as far as regards collation, had no more to do than to take care that his text follows that of the single ancient impression under his eye, with only occasional reference to the second folio, of 1632. And here I Folio of may take occasion to remark, that although the folio value. of 1632 is not to be considered a decisive authority, it is by no means to be so slightly treated, as Malone was disposed to do, in opposition to Steevens: Steevens was certainly willing to rely too much upon it; but, although it is not uniformly well corrected, and although a few of the plays appear to have entirely escaped attention, it is indisputable that it was not a mere reprint, left to the mercy of compositors, but that some editorial care was exercised in the production of considerable portions of it. 1632, its Two Gentlemen of Verona. Its changes are nevertheless not to be invariably adopted; and although the supervisor of it might possibly have resorted to then existing manuscripts, I do not think it probable that he did so, nor do I perceive sufficient evidence of the fact to warrant •the degree of confidence in his emendations they would in that case deserve. With this remark I will cite a few passages from "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," to prove that the modern editors of Shakespeare strangely neglected the duty they undertook, as far as respects furnishing an authentic text, supported by the best authority to which they could refer the folio of 1623. The modern text is taken as it is found in the edition in 21 vols. 8vo., which the late Mr. Boswell saw through the press, and which contains Malone's latest corrections and contributions, besides the notes of Pope, Theobald, Warburton, Johnson, Steevens, Reed, and other commentators, during considerably more than a century. In act i. sc. 2, of "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," Julia asks her maid, Lucetta, her opinion of her various suitors; and first, "What think'st thou of the fair Sir Eglamour?” To which Lucetta replies, according to the folio of 1623, "As of a knight well-spoken, neat and fine." How is this line printed in Malone's Shakespeare by Boswell? Thus: "As our knight, well-spoken, neat and fine." In the same scene, on the re-entry of Lucetta, Julia inquires, "Is it near dinner time?" and Lucetta's answer completes the line, "I would it were." In Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, the word "near" is omitted in Julia's question, by which the metre is destroyed; and the omission is the more extraordinary, because Boswell added a note of his own, to inform the reader, that "Is it" was printed "Is 't" in the folio; but he did not carry his attention even to the very next word, or he must have seen that it was wanting, even if his ear did not make him acquainted with the deficiency. Passing over mere misprints, of which a formidable list might be furnished from this very play, the following striking errors of a different kind in a small part of a single page (iv. 102), are not to be forgiven. "You would then have them always play but one thing." The adverb in italic is an interpolation, without the slightest reason assigned, and as the passage is only prose, no excuse could be found in the requirements of the metre'. In fact, in this scene, some 1 The excuse of the improvement of the metre (though we ought to be far from wishing for any such improvements,) may however be made for the unwarranted insertion of the same adverb in a line of "The Taming of the Shrew," act i. sc. 1. "In brief, then, sir, sith it your pleasure is," &c. If commentators and verbal critics were to be allowed on all occasions to passages meant for colloquial verse, just above the level of ordinary speaking, have been printed by Malone as prose; such, for instance, as Julia's answer to the line above quoted, which ought to be regulated thus: "I would always have one play but one thing. But, Host, doth this Sir Proteus, that we talk on, A few lines farther we meet with a careless transposition, which I should not have noticed, but for the other defects in the same passage: the observation of Proteus, "Sir Thurio, fear not you, I will so plead," was allowed by Boswell to stand, "Sir Thurio, fear you not, I will so plead'." Again, on the re-appearance of Silvia at her amend in their own way what they might consider the defective metre of Shakespeare, they would generally make strange work of it. Steevens was the boldest experimenter of this class, although his ear was notoriously most exceptionable. It is not the province of an editor to attempt to improve Shakespeare. 1 In the following instance of the same kind from "The Taming of the Shrew," the transposition would seem to have been wilful : "This will I do, and this will I advise you," as if, because "will I" occurred in the first clause of the sentence, it was necessary that it should be repeated in the second. It is printed, "and this I will advise you" in the folio; and perhaps the very reason which induced Malone to make the change (without any notice that he had done so,) was the very reason why Shakespeare wrote the contrary. Where no alteration is absolutely necessary, we are apt to consider the poet the best judge of the mode in which he will express himself. window, Proteus, in the old copy of 1623, addresses her "Madam, good even to your ladyship;" which is printed by Malone "Madam, good evening to your ladyship," avoiding the authorised and refined term Shakespeare purposely employed, and giving an air of familiarity to the salutation, inconsistent with the relative positions of the parties to the dialogue. These errors (not one of which is countenanced even by the text of the second folio) are all included within a space of nineteen lines; and on the very next page (103), we meet with a passage which is rendered pure nonsense by the substitution of one word for another. Silvia is reproaching Proteus with injuring his friend by making persevering love to her, and she asks "and art thou not ashamed To wrong him with thy importunacy?" Thus it stands in the first and in all the folio editions; yet in Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, the preposition has been absurdly changed, and the passage is thus given: "and art thou not ashamed To wrong him of thy importunacy?" A form of expression neither authorised by the original text, nor by the customary mode of writing |