 | |  |
Notes
Thomas Lounsbury, The Text of Shakespeare (1906), esp. chapters V and VI; Hans Schmidt, Die Shakespeare Ausgabe von Pope (Giessen Diss.), Darmstadt, 1912. James Sutherland, "The Dull Duty of an Editor," discusses Pope's work as editor of Shakespeare, providing thereby a general antidote to the kind of assumption Lounsbury and Schmidt have encouraged us to hold. Sutherland's discussion is based on the Pope-Theobald opposition rather than on textual analysis. My discussion I see as a reinforcement of Sutherland's view, which appeared first in Review of English Studies, XXI (1945), 202-215, and has been reprinted in Essential Articles for the Study of Alexander Pope, ed. Maynard Mack (1964), pp. 630-649.
The last date at which each word was used previous to Pope's edition is given here, followed by the first date after 1725. "eld" 1637, 1740; "bolted" 1640, 1791 (Pope's Odyssey, 1725); "budge" 1663, 1768; "gyves" 1704, 1774; "fitchew" 1688 (fitcholl), 1752 (fitcher); "sometime" 1678 (pub. 1700), 1786; "rood" 1609, 1801; "witch" 1647, 1812.
The case of "neif" (woman-slave) is also cited by Lounsbury as evidence. The meaning which Pope gives to "neif" is found in Bailey, the etymology in Stephen Skinner, Etymologicon Linguae Anglicanae, 1671; Pope used the latter authority on two other occasions, as is indicated by the following notes: Utis, an old word yet in use in some counties, signifying a merry festival, from the French Huit, octo, ab A.S. Eahta Octavae Festi Alicujus. Skinner (Pope, III, p. 322). Jymold, or rather gimmald, which signifies a ring of two rounds. Gemellus, Sk. (Pope, III, p. 464).
Schmidt, p. 33. "Without a doubt he has come to the right conclusion in many cases where he followed the quartos. He has investigated the value of the different quarto editions as little as he has investigated that of the folios. His treatment of Rom. and Shr. proves this. The means and manner in which he used the quartos showed his idea of "the dull duty of an editor." He did not use these editions systematically and thoroughly but only occasionally. Some striking examples may show this. Frequently in Lear there are entire lines in the quartos which are not to be found in the folios and Rowe. Pope neither incorporates them into his text nor refers to them in his annotations: thus II 4, 18, 19, IV 2, 53-59, IV 2, 62-68, 69 (Albany. What news?), IV 7, 33-36, 79, 80, 86-98, V 1, 11-13, 18, 19, V 3, 39, 40, 55-60, 205-222. On the other hand in the quarto editions of Lear words and lines are missing which are to be found in the folios and Rowe. Pope followed his predecessor Rowe without explaining the quarto variations to the reader: thus II 1, 97 (of that consort), II 4, 21, 45-53, 94, 95, 99, 136-141, III 4, 17, 18, 26, 27, 37, 38, 51 (through flame), 57, III 6, 12-15, 84, IV 1, 6-9, IV 6, 163-168." Lounsbury comes to a similar conclusion but is not as specific in his examples.
There are two minor exceptions to this statement: Lear, II, 2, 146 and V, 3, 48. (The line numbering is always taken from the Furness Variorum Editions, unless otherwise indicated.)
For example, Pope's text reads:
That art incestuous: caitiff, shake to pieces
Thou art incestuous; caitiff, to pieces shake (Lear, III, 2, 54-55; Pope, vol. III, p. 57)
This quotation is taken from King Lear, 1608 (Pied Bull Quarto), Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles No. 1, London, 1939. Pope seems to have had access to the other 1608 Quarto, called Quarto 2 in the Variorum edition. There are not any material differences between the two quartos in the instances given, however, and so Q1 will be used here.
Some other examples of incomplete restorations of the quarto text are: III, 6, 17-54, where Pope leaves out lines 23-28, 32-33, 39-44, 45-47, 51-52; IV, 2, 31-50, lines 39, 42, 48; IV, 3, lines 18-19, 27-28, 31; V, 1, 23-28, line 28.
This discussion sets aside the justice and taste of Pope's omissions. It is merely an attempt to show that Pope's collation was much stricter than has been previously thought.
Rowe's text, second edition (1714) is used here, since it was the main source of Pope's edition.
It is not likely that Pope could have seen and accepted this word "cur'd" in Act IV, scene 7, line 79 and another passage taken from the quarto, V, 1, 23-28, with a space of forty lines between them, without also seeing and rejecting IV, 7, 86-97, V, 1, 13-14, and V, 1, 19-20. The last case, for instance, is only three lines before the passage he takes into his text.
These readings are given as they appear in Pope's text. The italicized words are taken from the quarto except for line 55, which is Pope's independent emendation. The spelling, punctuation, and verse form are often different in the quarto.
The number of quarto readings taken by Pope into his text of Lear are as follows: Act I, 36; Act II, 29; Act III, 32; Act IV, 38; Act V, 28.
Schmidt, p. 33. "When Pope found an evidently corrupt reading in Rowe, he more frequently made changes of his own than checked the quartos."
For instance, Schmidt notices that Pope placed an independent reading in his text of King Lear, III, 3, 12: . . . . I will look for him and privily relieve him Pope; seek qq.; look ff. Rowe This is pure preference on Pope's part, however; he shows that he is collating the quarto by taking a reading from it in the previous sentence, lines 11-12: . . . . there is part of a power already landed; we must incline to the king. qq. Pope; footed ff. Rowe
Pope had access to both the 1605 Quarto (called q3 in the Variorum) and the 1611 Quarto (q5). There is evidence that he used both; for example, q3 is the source of Pope's change in III, 4, 55, and IV, 5, 146; q5 is the source in III, 1, 38 and IV, 6, 29. They are considered together here, since the difference between them is not important in this discussion.
The statistics of Pope's use of the Hamlet quartos are: Act I, 50 adoptions; Act II, 55; Act III, 54; Act IV, 55; Act V, 70.
| | |