The Director also stated that on a recent visit to Dublin, he had been much gratified at the wide-spread interest in Shakspere work which he had seen and heard of there. The following list of New Members was read: Chas. M. Roupell. Rev. J. Kirkman. Columbia College. Wesleyan University, Mid dleton, Connecticut. Thos. Chorlton. Wm. Wilkins. Walter Derham. Miss Conolly. The first Paper this evening was on "The Date of King John," by Dr Brinsley Nicholson. The thanks of the meeting were voted to Dr Nicholson as writer and reader of this Paper. Messrs Furnivall, Simpson, and Pickersgill took part in the Discussion which followed. The second Paper was "On the Old Hamlets," by Richard Simpson, Esq. The thanks of the Members were given to him. Questions raised in Mr Simpson's Paper were discussed by Mr Furnivall and Dr Nicholson. Adjourned. SEVENTEENTH MEETING. Friday, June 11, 1875. F. J. FURNIVALL, Esq., Director, in the Chair. THE Minutes of last Meeting were read. The Hon. Sec. reported that Mr F. Chance and Miss L. B. Courtenay had joined the Society since the last Meeting. The Paper for this evening was "On the Originals of Shakspere's Plots," by Henry B. Wheatley, Esq., by whom the Paper was also read. The thanks of the Members were voted to Mr Wheatley. The Discussion upon this Paper was carried on by Messrs Furnivall, Simpson, Hales, Pickersgill, and Miss L. Toulmin Smith. Adjourned. CONTENTS. I. ON THE CORRECTED EDITION OF RICHARD III. BY I. ON THE CORRECTED EDITION OF RICHARD III. BY JAMES SPEDDING, ESQ., M.A., HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. (Read at the 15th Meeting of the Society, April 9, 1875.) THE attempts which have been made of late to determine the date of the composition of Shakspere's plays by the changes in metre and style give importance to the comparison between the two editions of Richard III. The first Quarto, printed in 1597, is supposed to contain the most correct representation of the play as it was first produced. The copy in the Folio of 1623 contains not only several considerable additions, but also a great number of minute corrections of metre and language, extending over the whole of the first four Acts and part of the fifth, and being evidently the result of a careful critical revision of the work. Such a body of corrections made by Shakspere in a work of his own should afford valuable evidence as to the changes of his taste as he advanced in his art, and help materially to date his compositions. But upon this point an important doubt has been lately raised. The editors of the Cambridge edition, to whom we owe the first complete collation of the several copies of Richard III., while they admit all the additions and many of the corrections to be of Shakspere's own hand, find in the rest so much evidence of inferior workmanship, that they have been driven to a bold conjecture. They think that a copy of the play, revised, corrected, and augmented by Shakspere himself, came after his death into the hands of some 'nameless transcriber,' who made other corrections according to his own taste, and "worked in the spirit, though not with the audacity, of Colley Cibber." (Preface, p. xvii.) The plan of their edition did not allow of their explaining in detail the grounds of their opinion, and therefore we must seek for them as N. S. SOC. TRANS., 1875, 1 |