University of Virginia Library

The 1785 Variorum Shakespeare
by
William C. Woodson

Initially during the last quarter of the eighteenth century George Steevens dominated the editing of Shakespeare, but following the publication of his 1778 Variorum he announced his intention never "to appear again as editor of Shakespeare. . . . Ingratitude and impertinence from several of the booksellers have been my reward for conducting two laborious editions, both of which are sold."[1] As his successor he nominated his protege Edmond Malone, whose plans for a new edition were announced in the Gentleman's Magazine of August, 1783. Then simultaneously buttressing his eminence as a Shakespearean and technically keeping his promise to Malone to leave the field open to him, Steevens engaged Isaac Reed to edit anew the 1778 Variorum. Reed worked quickly and produced in 1785 a ten volume Shakespeare, with minimal changes in the commentary and presenting what has been called a "careless reprint" of the 1778 text.[2] To all appearances the 1785 Variorum is of negligible importance in the transmission of the text and generally it is discounted as having little bibliographical importance; both these assumptions, however, need examination.

Regarding the text, my experience with Macbeth for the New Variorum shows that Reed introduced new readings from both Steevens and Malone. Moreover, the substantive emendations indicate that Reed did not serve Steevens exclusively or at all times faithfully. The following are the substantive

changes from 1778 in Macbeth, here arranged by contributor:[3]

Steevens

• 1. summer-seeding lust 4.3.86 (1912); summer-seeming, Ff, V1778. A new note by Steevens credits Blackstone with the conjecture and implies Steevens' responsibility for the 1785 text: "I have paid the attention to this conjecture which I think it deserves by admitting it into the text."
• 2. hearing should not latch them 4.3.195 (2037); catch them, Rowe i, V1778. A new note by Steevens accepts the Folio reading.
• 3. ignorant present 1.5.58 (409); ignorant present time, Pope i, V1778. Steevens' note in 1778 doubting the emendation is reprinted.

Malone

• 1. if trembling I inhibit 3.4.105 (1381); inhabit, Ff, V1778. Whereas Steevens' note doubting the reading of 1778 is reprinted, a new note by Malone strongly argues for "inhibit".
• 2. Enter Rosse and Angus 1.2.55 (66); Enter Rosse, V1778. Steevens argued against the presence of Angus in 1778 and again in 1785; in his editions of 1793 and 1803 he repeated his argument and removed Angus from the text. Reed, in following Malone's new note and restoring the Folio stage direction, deliberately contradicts Steevens.
• 3. cleanse the stuff'd bosom of that perilous stuff 5.3.44 (2266); foul bosom, V1778. Steevens' note accepting "foul" appeared in 1778 and Reed printed it in 1785; but at the same time Reed added a new argument by Malone for restoring the Folio reading. Curiously Steevens printed "stuff'd" in 1793 and 1803, although he introduced new arguments against it in the commentary.

Reed

• 1. As when the sun 'gins his reflection 1.2.25 (44); whence, Ff, V1778. In 1778 the catch line from the text that began the commentary note printed "when", an error that was repeated in the catch line of the 1785 commentary. But also in 1785, "when" has crept into the text. This may be of course a compositorial error which escaped Reed in the proofing, and it should be added that the Furness Variorum does not record it as an emendation.

Of the eighty accidental variants, ten are primarily errors in putting commas for periods or vice versa; the rest are changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, some of which were no doubt suggested by Malone and Steevens, in whose later editions they also appear.

If the 1785 Variorum thus has a place in the transmission of the text of Macbeth, the edition also has another order of importance, for it marks a new phase in the history of Shakespeare editions and in the lives of the most prominent editors at the turn of the eighteenth century. That the 1785 Variorum exacerbated the quarrel between Steevens and Malone has been recognized before and attributed to the 1785 notes in which Malone challenged Steevens; indeed it was over difficulties that arose in responding

to the notes that Steevens broke off correspondence with Malone.[4] Steevens never bridged the quarrel and undertook his 1793 edition by most accounts to prevent reissue of Malone's 1790 Shakespeare. Yet more importantly the 1793 edition would give Steevens his own forum for responding to Malone and the opportunity to remove from his text the changes suggested by Malone in 1785. The importance of the 1785 Variorum, then, is that it drew Steevens back into editing, and so indirectly helped in perfecting the variorum concept. The edition of 1785 was followed by Malone's of 1790, Steevens' of 1793, 1803, and 1813, and Malone's in 1821, which was used by Furness Sr. in developing his variorum series.[5]

Steevens would have delighted to see his dominance as a Shakespearean editor continue into the nineteenth century. As a perusal of Jaggard's Shakespeare Bibliography will show, Steevens' text was frequently reprinted until the reign of Victoria. Because of Steevens' death in 1800, his 1793 Variorum provided the basic text for the 1803 and 1813 editions, as well as for the popular Chalmers' and Boydell pictorial editions.[6] The 1793 text was based on liberal principles of emendation, provocatively set forth in the Advertisement. When Charles Knight complained in his Pictorial edition (1843) against Steevens' editorial high-handedness, his hope to displace Steevens included the realization that Steevens "was received for nearly half a century as the standard text" (VIII, 392). In the chain of events that led to Steevens' remarkable dominance of the commercialization of Shakespeare in the nineteenth century, the 1785 Variorum has a minor but essential place.

Notes