which such effects follow? I have examined above a thousand cases, and (except those which I have already discussed) I have not found one in which I can myself perceive them. It is true that many of the changes seem 'arbitrary,'—or I should rather say uncalled for that is, I do not myself see why any change should have been made. But it does not follow that Shakspere could have seen no reason for it, and an 'arbitrary' change, he being arbiter, would probably be an improvement. It is true that metrical irregularities similar to those which we find in the Quartos of Richard III. are frequent in the plays of his earlier contemporaries, and even in his own earliest dramatic writings: does it follow that in revising and correcting them at a later time he would not have removed such irregularities? We know that in his writings of the middle period he avoided them, and that such irregularities as at a later period he affected, and made such rich use of, were of quite a different character. It is true that many words and phrases which were familiar when he began to write, fell gradually into disuse: does it follow that in revising and correcting he would not change them for the words and phrases that had come into use instead? We know that he never affected antiquated phraseology, but wrote always in the spoken language of his own day. Richard III., being one of his earliest works, and yet continuing to be a popular acting play for many years, was the more likely not only to receive alterations from time to time, but to be thought worth re-editing and clearing of everything that from changes in the fashion had become unfit, or from changes in himself distasteful. If "in the time of the corrector" some of the phraseology had grown so obsolete as to require 'modification,' why not in the time of Shakspere himself? Date the correction as late as you will, you cannot put it more than seven years after his death. Between 1616 and 1623 no sudden revolution occurred in popular taste, and you would probably find evidence in his own plays of the middle period that the change had begun long before. Supposing him to have taken the trouble to correct the play at all, alterations of this kind are precisely those which I should have expected him to make; and, therefore, unless it can be shown that they are made without judgment-that they spoil the sense, or weaken the force of the passages in which they are introduced-I cannot understand what pretence there is for refusing to accept them as his. The shortest way to settle this question would be to invite those who agree with the Cambridge editors in maintaining the affirmative to produce their examples; for to prove a negative, we must go through the whole list, which after deducting the cases I have already dealt with, still contains upwards of 900 alterations which the editors have rejected, and of which therefore there is none but may be an offender in this kind. But any man who possesses the Cambridge edition can do that for himself. A glance at the footnotes will tell him at once where the text follows the Quarto in preference to the Folio, and what the reading of the Folio is: and having the whole context before him, he can examine each doubtful point as it arises. I must content myself here with giving a few examples of these rejected alterations; classing them under the several heads indicated in the general remarks which I have quoted from the editor's preface :-namely, alterations made for the purpose of removing-1. defects of metre; 2. recurrence of the same word; 3. obsolete phrases; 4. defects distasteful to the corrector, for reasons not apparent to us. II. ALTERATIONS MADE TO IMPROVE THE METRE. 1. 6 So many of these have been adopted and admitted into the Cambridge text, that if I confine myself to those which have been rejected, and among which, therefore, the offenders must be sought, I may probably find room for all-all, I mean, that are evidently meant to remove gross and obvious defects of metre. Many of the alterations which the editors class as arbitrary,' would probably be found on careful examination to have been made with a view to metrical effect, but if I were to attempt to include these I should involve myself in doubtful disputation. I shall assume that the "supposed defects of metre which could not be amended except by spoiling the sense" are deviations from the recognized rules of dramatic blank verse; and I will quote all that I can find,-of those which the editors have retained in their text. I. ii. 188. "Anne. I have already. 1. Rich. Tush, that was in thy rage." The Folio omits Tush ;' being a redundant syllable. 2. I. ii. 236. "And I nothing to back my suit at all." The Folio reads : "And I no friends to back my suit withal." It is not improbable that, between the writing of the play and the revision, the modern accentuation of 'nothing' had become more general or more marked. 3. I. iii. 36. "Madam, we did: he desires to make atonement." Here is a line distinctly irregular; which the corrector alters, with the obvious intention of removing the irregularity: "I Madam, he desires to make atonement." I. iv. 59. 4. "a legion of foul fiends Environed me about and howled in mine ears." The Folio omits 'about,' and so gets rid of the alexandrine: an irregularity frequent in Richard II., but in the " Histories of the second period" very much less so: one, therefore, which Shakspere had learned to dislike, and might be expected to remove in correcting. 5. I. iv. 64, 65. "No marvel my Lord, though it affrighted you; Here are two irregular lines together, both of which are reduced in the Folio to regularity:- "No marvel, Lord, though it affrighted you; I am afraid (methinks) to hear you tell it.” 6. I. iv. 85. The Lieutenant of the Tower, who has been soliloquizing in very smooth verse, addresses the murderer in prose : "In God's name what are you, and how come you hither?" The Folio makes him speak in verse : "What would'st thou fellow? and how com'st thou hither?" 7. I. iv, 88, 89. "Brak. Yea are you so brief? The Folio reads 2 Exec. O Sir it is better to be brief than tedious." : "Brak. What so brief? 1. 'Tis better, Sir, than to be tedious." I. iv. 192. [202 Globe.] 8. "That thou shalt do no murder, and wilt thou then," The Folio gives 'will you then,' omitting the 'and,' which made an eleventh syllable. 9. I. iv. 198. "Thou didst receive the holy sacrament [208 Globe.] To fight in quarrel of the house of Lancaster." Though not properly an alexandrine, we have here a line of twelve syllables, which the corrector did not like. For he altered it to:"Thou didst receive the Sacrament to fight It In quarrel of the House of Lancaster." I. iv. 207. [218 Globe.] 10. "Why Sirs, he sends you not to murder me for this." may be doubtful whether 'Why Sirs' was meant for part of the line or for an extra-metrical exclamation. Either way, the corrector ""Tis he that sent us hither now to slaughter thee." Another twelve-syllable line, not allowed to remain. The Folio reads:""Tis he that sends us to destroy you here." 12. II. i. 1. "So now I have done a good day's work." Here is a syllable wanting, which the Folio supplies :"Why, so now I," &c. 13. II. i. 116. "how he did lap me Even in his own garments, and gave himself," Here is a metrical irregularity which in some circumstances is used with good effect, but in this place has only the effect of a stumble; and was so felt by the corrector, who carefully removes it :— "Even in his garments, and did give himself,” 14. II. i. 138. "God will revenge it. But come let's in." The editors have felt the unpleasantness of this nine-syllable line coming in as it does for no reason among the smooth decasyllables; and have amended it by printing 'let us' for 'let's.' The corrector has done it better by substituting for the last clause, "Come, Lords will you go?" 15. II. ii. 23-25. "And when he told me so, he wept And hugged me in his arm, and kindly kissed my cheek And bad me rely on him as on my father." Here we have three unmetrical lines coming together, which are all corrected in the Folio : "And when my uncle told me so he wept, And pitied me, and kindly kissed my cheek; The editors accept the correction in the first and third, but retain the alexandrine in the second, remembering, I suppose, that Shakspere used the alexandrine freely in the Chronicle plays of his first period, and not remembering that he disused it in those of his second; to which the version of Richard III. (if we may judge by the style of the inserted passages) probably belongs. I see that the case of Romeo and Juliet is in this respect analogous. According to Mr Fleay's metrical table (Transactions, p. 16) the first copy of Romeo and Juliet (printed in 1597, the same year as the first copy of Richard III.) contained 92 alexandrines; whereas the second copy, printed in 1599, contained only six, and I do not know how to avoid the inference that the weeding out of alexandrines was at that time characteristic |
