generally to preserve that of the first folio; so that, except in cases of unquestionable misprints, 1 have preferred retaining in the text even difficult readings, where any reasonable interpretation of the author's meaning could be given. Of course, very many of the alterations of language, of punctuation, and of arrangement of versification, introduced by Stevens and Malone, and followed in most of the popular editions, have been rejected, as indeed they have frequently been by Mr. Collier, and generally by Mr. Knight. Agreement with Mr. Knight, in the principle of adherence to the authority of the first folio, except where the reasons for departing from it seemed irresistible, has led, of course, to a closer resemblance of the readings of this edition, in the disputed passages, to those of his Pictorial and Library editions, than to those of any other edition; but as my adherence to that authority has been far less scrupulous than his, I have often profited by the new light thrown on these points by the minute researches of Mr. Collier, as well as, still more recently, by the acute and learned criticisms of Mr. Dyce. In some few instances I have differed both from Mr. Collier and Mr. Knight; but in the main the text will be found to correspond much more nearly with that of either of those editors, than with the more commonly received text of Stevens and Malone, and the numerous editions formed upon their authority. But the choice between not a few of those variances is exceedingly doubtful, and many of the older various readings are, in my judgment, unquestionably alterations by the author himself, in revisions and enlargements of several of his plays. Many of these various readings, and it is hoped all of any interest or curiosity, are detailed in the notes, with a summary, as brief and as little controversial as might be, of the authority or reasons adduced in support of each of them. To the use of Mr. Collier's text by the printer, after it had been thus varied and corrected, this edition is indebted for another great advantage over very many of the most popular, and some of the most splendid English editions; as the text has been thus kept free from many accidental modern. typographical errors of mere carelessness,―some of them being omissions of words, others alterations which, having accidentally crept into some one or other of the best editions of the last century, were transferred by the printers to succeeding ones, escaping the observation even of laborious editors, whose attention was directed mainly to points of doubtful discussion. These, having been carefully corrected and pointed out by Mr. Collier, are avoided here. II. The notes of exposition and interpretation, in this edition, have been prepared with the view and the hope of giving, in the briefest form, with the rejection of much useless controversy and digression, the substance of all the annotations valuable either for the elucidation of obscurely expressed thoughts, of obsolete words and phrases, or of antiquated allusions. Much of the labour of selection and abridgment has been saved (as already intimated) by the previous labours, in the same way, of Messrs. Knight and Collier, and by the excellent condensation of the Variorum commentary, by Mr. Singer. All of these have been freely used, as one or another seemed preferable; but as the selection was never made without reference to the fuller original commentaries, as well as to other later authorities, critical or philological, the notes thus selected have been very frequently altered, enlarged with new matter, or abridged in language, as the case seemed to demand. Such of the notes of the former commentators as seemed of peculiar value or excellence have also been extracted, at large, in their own words. Wherever any of the selected notes contained original views, or were remarkable for peculiarity of thought, like Warburton's, or power of expression, like those of Johnson, due credit has been given (with the possible exception of some accidental oversights) to the original annotator. In other cases, such as in many of the notes extracted from the editions of Knight, Singer, or Collier, where the later editor has merely summed up the learning of his predecessors, or referred to and extracted from some other well-known authority, it is presumed that the present general acknowledgment is all that is strictly due to the claims of annotating authorship. The editor has also attempted to incorporate with the mere verbal and antiquarian commentary, the substance of much of that higher Shakespearian criticism, in which this century has been so prolific. This is done sometimes by extracts from the authors themselves, as from Coleridge, Ulrici, Schlegel, Mrs. Jameson, Hallam, etc., and frequently in an abridged statement of the various and often clashing critical opinions or theories, at the end of each body of notes. To all this the editor has added, in many places, such original critical observations or suggestions as occurred to him. Some of these, it is hoped, may contain views or suggestions new to the reader, and either tend to the elucidation of the great Poet's thoughts or design, or contribute somewhat to general critical inquiry. These are sometimes incorporated with the remarks of preceding critics, and sometimes given in separate notes; but I have not felt enough of the pride of authorship in any of them to designate them by my name, or any other peculiar mark. III. As an appropriate accompaniment to an edition enriched with numerous pictorial decorations and antiquarian illustrations of art, many of the more curious notices of costume, arms, architecture, etc., contributed to the English Pictorial edition by Mr. Planché, have been selected or abridged, and prefixed to each play, with the addition of such original remarks, or information. from other sources, as seemed likely to throw light either on the scenes of the dramatist, or the history of medæval art, taste, manners, or opinion. Those illustrations, whether literary or graphic, have a great and peculiar value in relation to the dramas of English History, and to those plays where the scene and date approach most nearly to the author's own time and country; as they there always (and sometimes, with less historic accuracy, elsewhere) enable us to call up before our own "mind's eye" the personages and adjuncts of the scenes, in shapes and colours resembling those in which they rose before the Poet's own mental vision. It is true that many others of those illustrations of antiquarian accuracy contain matter, or present pictures, of which Shakespeare never dreamed; yet these, too, may have their use and value, in an age like ours, when art finds so many of its subjects in Shakespeare's scenes, and when, from the diffusion of popular knowledge, many a violation of costume, in dress, or architecture, such as the author could not have himself perceived, on the stage or on the canvass, would now shock a school-boy. The notices of the sources of the plot, and the historical or romantic materials of the several plays, also prefixed to them, are generally drawn (as always acknowledged) from Mr. Knight's Introductions, but with constant use of Mr. Collier's valuable republication on the same subject, entitled "SHAKESPEARE'S LIBRARY, or a Collection of the Romances, Poems, or Histories used by Shakespeare, as the Foundation of his Dramas," (two volumes, octavo: London, 1843.) These notices have been frequently enlarged by prefatory observations, or other matter, suggested by the editor's general reading and recollections. IV. An Introduction has been prepared to each play, containing some brief critical notices of their several characteristics of style, versification, design, and of tone and colour of thought, together with a detailed bibliographical account of each, as to the probable date of its composi tion, the state of the text, and the variations between the several old editions. The merely bibliographical material herein contained is drawn, of course, from preceding editors, and much of it may be found in the "INTRODUCTIONS" to the several plays, by J. P. Collier, in his edition. But the whole has been re-cast for this purpose,-partly because I often dissented from the conclusions of the editors (Mr. Collier, for instance) to whom I was most indebted for my facts, but chiefly because I wished to present the separate evidence, as to each play, in the same point of view and with the same object, as parts of a single inquiry, and that not one of purely antiquarian curiosity, but as tracing out Shakespeare's intellectual history and character, by gathering from various and sometimes slight and circumstantial or collateral points of testimony, the order and succession of his works, assigning, so far as possible, each one to its probable epoch, noting the variations or differences of style and of versification between them, and in some cases (as in ROMEO AND JULIET, HENRY V., and HAMLET) the alterations and improvements of the same play by the author himself, in the progress of his taste and experience; thus following out, through each successive change, the luxuriant growth of his poetic faculty and his comic power, and, finally, the still nobler expansion of the moral wisdom, the majestic contemplation, the terrible energy, the matchless fusion of the impassioned with the philosophical, that distinguished the matured mind of the author of HAMLET, of LEAR, and of MACBETH. As this part of the work is that which has most interested the editor, and on which he has bestowed most study and thought, it is of course that part of his own contribution to Shakespearian Literature which he regards as of chief value. Better judges than himself may perhaps decide that his inquiries have added no satisfactory results beyond those formerly attained. Be this as it may, these investigations and statements have at least the merit of directing the attention of the American student to an inquiry which must be curious and interesting, as to the progress of any great and original mind, but full of instruction as it relates to the greatest and most original mind in our literature,-while the editor's conclusions, whether correct or otherwise, have been formed, if without much deference to critical authority, still as certainly without any ambition of novelty or originality, or attachment to any preconceived theory. IN ORDER OF THE PLAYS. the first collection of Shakespeare's plays, the well-known folio of 1623, published after the Poet's death, by his friends and theatrical associates, Heminge and Condell, "he" (to use their quaint phrase) "not having the fate to be the exequutor to his own writings," the plays are formally divided on the title-page into "Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies," and are severally printed, with reference to that distribution, in three distinct parts, separately paged. The first 303 pages contain those classed as "Comedies," after which the paging re-commences, but without any new title, and goes on to page 232, containing the "Histories ;"-by which, in the dramatic nomenclature of that age, dramas drawn from the chronicle history of England, or "Chronicle Histories," were alone meant, and the tragedies of Roman history are, therefore, not included in this series. After HENRY VIII. follows TROILUS AND CRESSIDA, without any regular pagination, as if accidentally omitted and inserted subsequently to the printing of the rest of the volume, or as though the editors were in doubt (as well they might be) how to class so anomalous a drama. The "Tragedies," including CORIOLANUS, JULIUS CESAR, and ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, fill the third part-the paging again beginning and going on to page 398. The several parts and plays follow each other in the order given in a "Catalogue" prefixed to the volume, a fac-simile of which, as it appears in its original typography, is here given. |