KING RICHARD THE SECOND BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, THE FIRST QUARTO, 1597. A FACSIMILE IN PHOTO-LITHOGRAPHY BY WILLIAM GRIGGS, FROM THE COPY IN THE POSSESSION OF HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY PETER AUGUSTIN DANIEL. LONDON: PRINTED BY W. GRIGGS, HANOVER STREET, PECKHAM, S.E. 1890. 43 SHAKSPERE QUARTO FACSIMILES, With Introductions, Line Numbers, &c., by Shakspere Scholars, Issued under the superintendence of Dr. F. J. Furnivall. 18. Richard II. 1597. Q1. Mr. Huth's copy. 19. Richard II. 1608. Q3. 20. Richard II. 1634. Q5. 30. Sonnets and Lover's Com- 31. Othello. 1622. Q1. (N. 34. King Lear. 1608. Q2. (N. Butter.( 35. Lucrece. 1594. Q1. 36. Romeo and Juliet. n.d. Q4. 37. Contention. 1594. Q1. (For 2 Henry VI.) 38. True Tragedy. 1595. Q1. (For 3 Henry VI.) 39. The Famous Victories of Henry V. 1594. Q1. 40. The Troublesome Raigne of King John. Part I. 1591. Q1. 41. The Troublesome Raigne of King John. Part II. 1591. Q1. 42. Richard III. 1602. Q3. 43. Richard III. 1622. Q6. [Shakspere Quarto Facsimiles, No. 17]. iii RICHARD II. Q1, 1597 (DEVONSHIRE COPY). PR2750 820 1597a MAI ма Two Facsimiles of Q1 are included in this series of Shakespeare Quartos: one, issued in 1888, made from the copy in the possession of Mr. Henry Huth; the other, now given, made from the copy belonging to his Grace, the Duke of Devonshire. For the texts of both, with their marginal markings, the Revd. W. A. Harrison is solely responsible: this part of the work was done long before it was placed in my hands. Mr. Harrison began his work with the Duke of Devonshire's copy and presently discovered that it differed in many places, and generally for the better, from the readings of QI recorded in the foot-notes of the Cambridge Shakespeare, which were derived from the copy of Q1 in the Capell collection. This led him to examine the text of Mr. Huth's copy, and he found that that also varied in places from both the Devonshire and Capell copies, and possessed a few corrections found in neither. Under these circumstances, and as even a single correction of the text in so important an edition as QI has its value, it was thought well to add Mr. Huth's copy to this series: this by his liberal permission has been done, and, as stated above, the facsimile made from it was issued in 1888, with a brief prefatory notice by Mr. Harrison, reserving his general Introduction to the Play for the facsimile of the more important Devonshire QI now given. Ill health, however, and the pressure of other duties have denied him the leisure needed for this task, and by his desire and at Dr. Furnivall's request I have undertaken to supply his place. Before proceeding with the general consideration of the Play it may be as well to set before the reader the result of Mr. Harrison's discoveries, and I have accordingly made out a complete list of the variations of the Devonshire, the Huth and the Capell copies of QI, arranging them, as in the somewhat similar case of the Lear Q1, in columns shewing the state of each sheet in all three copies. They are as follows: Signatures E, F, G, H, and K appear to be in the same state in all three copies. It will be seen from this list that, while no absolutely new reading has been discovered, the authority of the first edition has been obtained for several which were in dispute: it is this which constitutes the importance of Mr. Harrison's discoveries; for "authority," as no editor needs to be reminded, is a potent factor where the recension of Shakespeare's text is concerned, and has sometimes played most fantastic tricks with it: obviously preferable readings receiving but scant courtesy where "authority" has barred the way. Editors, however, are not to blame if they are chiefly guided by it; they do but their duty in defending their texts against the assaults of irresponsible freelances who indulge in "Notes and Conjectural Emendations"; yet sometimes one feels that a little judicious boldness would have been advisable, and that the ingenuity displayed in establishing an error on "authority" would have been better employed on the other side. In the present case there is something quite pathetic in the contemplation of the endeavours which have been made to justify some of the readings which appear in the "Uncorrected" column of the above list; the supreme authority for their correction having remained till now unknown. Listen to Malone contending for "cheere " in Act I. Scene ii, ll. 67-70: Alack, and what shall good old York there see, But empty lodgings and unfurnish'd walls, Unpeopled offices, untrodden stones? And what cheer there for welcome, but my groans ?] Thus the first quarto, 1597; in those of 1598 and 1608, and in the folio which appears to have been printed from the last mentioned quarto,* hear was substituted in the fourth line for cheer; an alteration which was adopted in all the subsequent copies, till the true reading was noticed in the Appendix to my former edition. This passage furnishes an evident proof of the value of first editions, and also shows at how very early a period the revisers of Shakespeare's pieces began to tamper with his text, under the notion of improving it, or of correcting imaginary errors of the press; of which kind of temerity the edition of his Lucrece in 1616 is a very remarkable instance. Groans occuring in this passage, the reviser conceived that the word in the former part of the line where it is found, must have been hear, which gives a clear and plausible meaning; but certainly not that intended by Shakspeare. Mr. Steevens has rightly interpreted, in a preceding note, the words— unfurnish'd walls; but neither he nor any other editor has taken any notice of the word offices in this passage, which requires to be particularly explained, because it is immediately connected with the word cheer, and shows that the original reading [cheere] is the true one. * An error; the folio being printed with the aid of the quarto of 1615, (Q4), which also has "heare." |