Abbildungen der Seite
[ocr errors]

The edition of 1619 seems to have been printed from that of 1611. With the average number of misprints, it presents many corrections of the text, sometimes certain and generally happy, but all probably conjectural.

There was also an edition in Quarto of 1630, which we term Qs. Two copies of this are found in the British Museum (C. 34. k. 39, and C. 34. k. 40), which differ in the imprint but are in other respects identical.

The imprint of the former, which is the same as that in the Capell Collection, is as follows:

LONDON, | Printed by I. N. for R. B. and are to be sould | at his shop in Cheapside, at the signe of the Bible. 1630. |

That of the latter:
LONDON, | Printed by J. N. for R. B. 1630.
This fifth Quarto is extremely incorrect.

Another edition, which we call Qe, was printed five years later, from the fourth Quarto. It bears the following imprint:

Printed at London by Thomas Cotes, 1635.

The play of Pericles was not included in either the first or the second Folio. It was however reprinted, together with other plays wrongly attributed to Shakespeare, in the Folio of 1664 and in that of 1685. The text of the third Folio is taken from that of the sixth Quarto, but with a considerable number of conjectural alterations.

A duodecimo reprint of Pericles, taken from the fourth Folio, appeared in 1734.

Rowe included, in both his editions, Pericles and the other plays given as Shakespeare's in the third and fourth Folios but not found in the first and second. They were excluded by Pope and subsequent editors, nor were they republished in any edition of Shakespeare till Malone printed them in his Supplement to Steevens' Shakespeare of 1778, which appeared two

Malone, acting on the suggestion of Farmer, included Pericles in his edition of Shakespeare, published in

years later.

1790. Steevens in 1793 followed his example, and Pericles has been republished by all subsequent editors except Mr Keightley. Mr Knight reprinted it with Locrine and the other spurious plays. There can be no doubt that the hand of Shakespeare is traceable in many of the scenes, and that throughout the play he largely retouched, and even rewrote, the work of some inferior dramatist. But the text has come down to us in so maimed and imperfect a state that we can no more judge of what the play was when it left the master's hand than we should have been able to judge of Romeo and Juliet if we had only had the first Quarto as authority for the text. The plot was founded on Twine's novel, called 'The Patterne of Painefull Aduenters :' first published in 1576 and reprinted by Mr Collier in the first volume of Shakespeare's Library, together with the story of Appollinus, the Prince of Tyr, from Gower's Confessio Amantis, a poetical version of the same romance.

Another novel by George Wilkins, avowedly based on the acted drama, was published in 1608, with the following titlepage:

The | Painfull Aduentures of Pericles Prince of Tyre. | Being | The true History of the Play of Pericles, as it was lately presented by the worthy and an- cient Poet Iohn Gower. | AT LONDON | Printed by T. P. for Nat: Butter, 1608.

Before the imprint is a picture of John Gower.

The work, which is interesting as being the first of all * Tales from Shakespeare' and of considerable use in determining the text of the play, was reprinted by M. Tycho Mommsen in 1857, from a copy in the Public Library at Zurich, with a Preface of his own and an Introduction by Mr Collier.

VENUS AND ADONIS was first published in Quarto, in 1593, with the following title-page:

VENVS AND ADONIS Vilia miretur vulgus: mihi flauus Apollo Pocula Castalia plena ministret aqua. | LONDON | Imprinted by Richard Field, and are to be sold at the signe of the white Greyhound in | Paules Church-yard. 1593.


[ocr errors]

The printer's device is an anchor, with the motto, ' Anchora Spei.?

This we call Q. It is printed with remarkable accuracy, doubtless from the author's own manuscript.

A second edition, also in Quarto, was published in the following year. The title-page is exactly similar to that of the first edition, except that the date 1594 is substituted for 1593. We call this Q2.

A third edition was issued in 1596 from the same printing office, with the following imprint:

Imprinted at London by R. F. for Iohn Harison. 1596.

This edition, like all the subsequent ones, is in Octavo, but in order to avoid using a different set of symbols, we term it Q3.

The fourth edition?, Q. [now Qs], bears this imprint:
LONDON | Printed by I. H. I for Iohn Harison. | 1600. |

In the Bodleian copy the title-page is supplied in manuscript.

This edition was printed from Q3. It contains many erroneous readings, due, it would seem, partly to carelessness and partly to wilful alteration, which were repeated in later copies.

The Bodleian copy once belonged to Malone and was given to him by Farmer. He says in a manuscript note: I have carefully collated the Venus and Adonis with the edition of 1596, with which I have been furnished by Mr T. Warton; and have noted the variations in the margin. March 24, 1785.


1 In consequence of the discovery in 1867 of a copy of Venus and Adonis printed in 1599 for William Leake, now Q4, it has been necessary to change the notation of the subsequent editions. This copy is in the possession of Sir Charles Isham, Bart., Lamport Hall, Northamptonshire, and an edition of it by Mr Charles Edmonds was published in 1870. [W. A. W.]

The date 1600 is conjectural and has been assigned to this edition in consequence of its being bound up with the Lucrece of that year, which was “printed by I. H. for Iohn Harison.' But it appears from internal evidence to be subsequent to the edition of 1599, from which it was possibly printed. [W. A. W.]

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

E. M. Like most careful collations, which have not been revised, this of Malone's leaves many discrepancies unrecorded.

Two new editions were published, as we have discovered, in the year 1602.

There is extant, as we believe, only a single copy of each, one in the British Museum and one in the Bodleian Library!.

The imprint of the former is as follows:

Imprinted at London for William Leake, dwelling at the signe of the Holy Ghost, in Paules Church-yard. 1602.

1 The title-page of the Bodleian copy is the same as that of the Museum copy, excepting that it has 'vulgus : mihi' for

vulgus, mihi,' and Pauls Churchyard' for ' Paules Church-yard,"? and the printer's device is different. The similarity of title-page and identity of date have led to the supposition that these were copies of the same edition, but a comparison of the two proves to demonstration that they were different editions. The Bodleian copy is very inferior to the Museum copy in typography, in the quality of the paper, and in accuracy.

The Museum copy formerly belonged to the late Mr George Daniel, who has written in a fly-leaf the following note : No other copy of this excessively rare edition is known. Mr Evans was wrong in stating that a copy is in the Malone Collection in the Bodleian Library. No copy is mentioned in the catalogue, nor is there one to be found there.' Mr Daniel had overlooked the existence of the Bodleian copy of 1602, but, as it turns out,

1 Another has since been discovered in the Earl of Macclesfield's Library at Shirburn Castle, Oxfordshire. This has the same printer's device as the copy in the British Museum, viz. & winged globe surrounded by a laureated skull, an hour-glass, and an open book bearing the inscription I liue to dy, I dy to liue.' But I learn from a minute description kindly furnished by Lady Macclesfield that differs from it in several particulars, which shew that it was from a different setting of the type. It also has a colon for a comma after 'vulgus' in the motto. It is possible therefore that there was a third edition issued in the same year. In the Bagford Collection of title-pages is one which appears to be identical with that of Lord Macclesfield's copy. For this information, as well as for many other acts of courtesy and kindness, I am indebted to Mr W. Y. Fletcher. [W. A. W.]

? This is a mistake. Both copies have · Paules Church-yard.' (W. A. W.]


1 6

his own copy is unique after all. That in the Bodleian has the autograph of R. Burton, author of the Anatomy of Melancholy.

We term the Museum copy Q. [Q.] and the Bodleian Q. [Q7]. Neither was printed from the other, but both from Q. [Qs).

The next edition known to us has the following imprint:
LONDON, Printed for W. B.

This we term Q7 [Q8].
The next, our Q: [Q.], has the imprint:
LONDON, | Printed for I. P. 1620.

A copy exists in the Capell Collection. Dr Bandinel also purchased one for the Bodleian, but it cannot now be found?

The next edition, which we call Q. (Q.), is remarkable as having been printed at Edinburgh. It is also in Octavo, but longer than the English editions. The title

The title page is as follows: VENUS | AND | Adonis. | Vilia miretur vulgus, mihi flavus Apollo | Pocula Castalid plena ministret aqua. | EDINBVRGH, Printed by Iohn Wreittoun, and are to bee sold in his Shop a litle be | neath the salt Trone. 1627. |

We believe that this was printed from a manuscript which the writer had copied from Q6 [Qz], but in which he had introduced, probably by happy conjecture, several emendations agreeing with the text of the three earliest editions. The only copy known to exist is in the British Museum?

An edition in the Bodleian wanting the title page, but catalogued with the date 1630, is referred to by us as Q10 [Q.).

1 The copy bought by Dr Bandinel in 1839 has no title-page and is the one catalogued with the date 1630, now Malone 891 (Q12]. The date 1620 was supplied by conjecture, but it is a different edition from that of 1620 in the Capell Collection.

2 According to Mr Edmonds, another copy was sold at Sotheby's in 1864, and as I learn from Dr Justin Winsor's Bibliography of Shakespeare's Poems it is now 'in the Library of Almon W. Griswold, New York City.' (W. A. W.]

3 A copy formerly in the Ashmolean Museum, and now in the Bodleian (Wood 79, 9), has a title-page bearing date 1630. This is quoted as Qıv, and was printed by J. H., who is probably the same as I. H., the printer of the edition of 1636 for the same publisher. [W. A. W.]

« ZurückWeiter »