62-716 PREFACE ΤΟ KING RICHARD III THE EDITIONS. The Tragedy of King Richard the Third was first printed in 1597, with the following titlepage: "The Tragedy of | King Richard the Third. | Containing, His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence : | | the pittiefull murther of his innocent nephewes his tyrannicall vsurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserved death. | As it hath beene lately Acted by the | Right honourable the Lord Chamber-laine his servants. | AT LONDON | Printed by Valentine Sims, for Andrew Wise, | dwelling in Paules Churchyard, at the | Signe of the Angell. | 1597. | This Edition, known as Quarto 1, was reprinted more or less correctly in subsequent Quartos issued in the years 1598 (Quarto 2); 1602 (Quarto 3); 1605 (Quarto 4); 1612 (Quarto 5); 1622 (Quarto 6); 1629 (Quarto 7); 1634 (Quarto 8). Each of these issues followed its immediate predecessor, except in the case of the 1612 edition (Quarto 5), which was printed from the Quarto (3) of 1602. In the second and subsequent Quartos the name of the author (By William Shake-speare) was added. The First and Second Folios give the title of the play 1 as follows: "The Tragedy of Richard the Third: with the Landing of Earle Richmond, and the Battell at Bosworth Field." THE TEXT. The textual problems connected with Richard the Third are of a complicated nature, owing to the many differences between the Quarto version and that of the Folio. The main differences may be grouped under the following heads: (1) The Folio contains nearly two hundred lines which are not found in the Quarto,1 while the Quarto contains at least one notable passage not found in the Folio (iv. 2. 104-121). (2) The Folio gives alterations of the Quarto which could not have been intended by Shakespeare.2 (3) In a great many cases the Folio removes (a) gross and obvious metrical defects; (b) imaginary metrical irregularities of the Quarto.1 8 (4) The folio 1 Namely: i. 2. 16, 25, 155–167; 3. 116, 167-169; 4. 36, 37, 69–72, 115, 116, 222, 266–269, 273, 275; ii. 1. 67; 2. 89–100, 123-140; iii. 1. 172–174; 3. 7, 8, 15; 4. 104-107; 5. 7, 103-105; 7. 5, 6, 37, 98, 99, 120, 127, 144-153, 202, 245; iv. 1. 2-6, 37, 98-104; 4. 20, 21, 28, 32, 53, 103, 159, 172, 179, 221–234, 276, 277, 288-342, 400; v. 3. 27, 28, 43. "Unmannered dog! stand'st thou when I command?” ii. 4. 65. -"Or let me die, to look on earth no more!" For instance: ii. 2. 23–25. · "And when my uncle told me so he wept, And pitied me, and kindly kissed my cheek; Compare the Quarto version,— "And when he told me so he wept, And hugg'd me in his arm, and kindly kiss'd my cheek, 4 For instance: iv. 2. 99. "I do remember me, Henry the Sixth," instead of (in the Quarto), "As I remember, Henry the Sixth " (that is, Henery the Sixth). introduces a number of alterations to avoid repeating the same word.1 (5) The Folio often modifies "certain turns of phrase and use of words," which had evidently become obsolete; for example, which is changed to that, betwixt to between, thou wert to thou wast, yea to I [aye], moe to more or other, you to thou. (6) There are, besides, certain minute verbal changes in the Folio the reason for which is not so clear as in the previous cases; but probably in most instances they are due to euphony.2 (7) The stage-directions in the Folio are fuller and more accurate than those in the Quarto. WHICH IS THE BEST AUTHORITY? Critics are divided on this point, some championing the cause of the Quartos; others, of the Folios. The chief representatives of the former party are the Cambridge Editors; of the latter, James Spedding, Professor Delius, P. A. Daniel, etc. 1. According to the Cambridge Editors some such scheme as the following will best account for the phenomena of the text: 1 For instance: i. 4. 18, 19. "Methought that Gloucester stumbled; and in stumbling [Folio, falling] Struck me, that thought to stay him, overboard." ii. 1. 9, 10. "By heaven, my heart [Folio, soul] is purged from grudging hate, And with my hand I seal my true heart's love." For example: iv. 3. 22. "To bring [Folio, bear] this tidings to the bloody king." iv. 4. 382. "The imperial metal circling now thy brow [Folio, head]." C 2 1 A, is the author's original Ms.; B, is a transcript by another hand, with some accidental omissions and slips of the pen. From this transcript was printed the Quarto (1) of 1597. A, is the author's original Ms. revised by himself, with corrections and additions, interlinear, marginal, and on inserted leaves; B2 is a copy of this revised Ms. made by another hand, probably after the death of the author, and perhaps a very short time before 1623. From B2 the Folio text was printed. Perhaps the writer of B, had occasional recourse to the Quarto (3) of 1602 to supplement passages which had become illegible in A, by its being frayed or stained. 2 2 1 The Cambridge Editors thus sum up their statement: "Assuming the truth of this hypothesis, the object of an editor must be to give in the text as near an approximation as possible to A,, rejecting from F, all that is due to the unknown writer of B, and supplying its place from Q1, which, errors of pen and press apart, certainly came from the hand of Shakespeare. In the construction of our text we have steadily borne this principle in mind, only deviating from it in a few instances where we have retained the expanded version of the Folio in preference to the briefer version of the Quarto, even when we incline to think that the earlier form is more terse, and therefore not likely to have been altered by its author. Cæteris paribus, we have adopted the reading of the Quarto." 2. James Spedding, in an exhaustive essay on the sub ject,1 contests this view, maintaining "that the text of the Folio (errors being corrected or allowed for) represents the result of Shakespeare's own latest version, and approaches nearest to the form in which he wished it to stand; " that the First Quarto was printed without preparation for the press or superintendence by himself, and that he began to prepare a corrected and amended copy, but had not leisure to complete this new version. Professor Delius anticipated Spedding in his inquiry,2 and came to an even more determined conclusion regarding the superiority of the Folio. According to him, a nameless corrector had tampered with the original Ms. before it went to the printer in 1597, while the true text appears in the Folio version. P. A. Daniel is also in favour of the Folio "as the basis of the text." After a careful analysis of the early Quartos he comes to the conclusion that the Folio version was printed from a copy of Quarto 6, altered "in accordance with the theatrical Ms. which the transcriber had before him." 3. Surveying all the evidence, the present writer thinks it possible to take a somewhat neutral position; the partisanship of the two schools seems too determined in its devotion to the one text or the other. Whatever may be the history of the First Quarto, it certainly goes back to the author's Ms., probably abridged for acting purposes; on the whole, it is a careless piece of printing. Whatever may be the history of the First Folio version, one can certainly trace in it the touch of a hand other 1 On the Corrected Edition of Richard III. (pages 1-75), New Shakspere Society's Transactions, 1875-76. * German Shakespeare Society's Year Book, vol. vii. • Facsimile Reprint of Quarto 1. |