University of Virginia Library

I

Thanks to some surviving correspondence, the events leading up to the publication of the 1785 edition may be examined in more detail than has been possible. In 1783, with the urging of Dr. Farmer, Isaac Reed accepted the task of re-editing the 1778 variorum from his friend George Steevens, who for reasons not entirely clear had elected to retire "forever" from editing Shakespeare. He had edited Twenty Plays from the Shakespearean quartos in 1766, and he assisted Dr. Johnson in bringing out the 1773 variorum, which he revised in 1778. Edmond Malone became his protégé during the preparation of the 1778 edition, to which Malone published a two volume Supplement in 1780. Malone praised Steevens in his 1780 Preface, specifically extolling his mentor's achievement as a textual editor: because of the "diligent collation of all the old copies . . . and the judicious restoration of readings, the text of this author seems now finally settled" (p. iii). Despite his praise for the text, however, Malone suggested a number of textual changes in his 1780 notes, which were meant to supplement the 1778 edition. Malone's criticism of the 1778 text grew more pointed in his 1783 Second Appendix to the 1778 edition, for by this time Malone had completed a full historical collation of all the plays, something to which Dr. Johnson and Steevens had only pretended. Malone to be sure remained openly courteous to Steevens' 1778 edition, actually praising it in the Preface as an "excellent edition" (p. iii). Yet part of the explanation for Steevens' early retirement at the age

of forty-seven could have been his aversion to the mounting criticism of his text.

Whatever his reasons, Steevens stepped down as the reigning editor and transferred full responsibility to Reed. Although the transfer is competently described by Nichols and Prior, the uncatalogued correspondence by Steevens in the Folger Library actually preserves some of the crucial letters. Steevens wrote Malone on November 28, 1782, announcing that "I never mean again to appear Again as Editor of Shakespeare; nor will such assistance as I may be able to furnish go towards any future gratuitous publication of the same Author. Ingratitude and impertinence, from several of the Booksellers, have been my reward for conducting Two laborious editions, both of which except a few copies, are already sold." On April 15, 1783, Steevens again wrote to Malone, this time to let him know that Reed had been given full responsibility for the 1785 edition: "I return my best thanks for your communication, and, with your leave, will put it into the hands of Mr. Reed, to whom I had already given up your former sheets to be used at his discretion. As to his future publication, I am determined not to see a line of it till I purchase the whole. I shall not therefore become answerable for the reception or rejection of a single note that may be offered." The sheets to which Steevens refers are the proofs of Malone's 1780 Supplement and the 1783 Second Appendix, which had recently been published. Steevens continues the letter by encouraging Malone to prepare his own edition: "there is no man more capable of conducting one than yourself. I have done with the pursuit, and shall abstain even from troubling Mr. Reed with a syllable of advice in the course of his undertaking." In his Literary History (V, 441-442), Nichols records a similar letter from Steevens describing his intention to give Reed full control of the edition:

Thus there can be no doubt that Steevens made a careful and public decision to give Reed a free hand with the edition, and that he had no desire to be regarded as the editor of the 1785 variorum.

Reed already was an accomplished editor, with much of his experience coming from his edition of Dodsley's Old Plays. Steevens asked him in 1778 to edit the manuscript of The Witch, and a brief perusal of Reed's bibliography in the Dictionary of National Biography discloses that he had seen thirty-two volumes through the press before the 1785 variorum. Steevens moreover had praised Reed's editorial assistance in his 1778 Preface, writing that "no man is more conversant with English publications both ancient and modern, or more willing to assist the literary undertakings of others" (p.

239). Consequently, Professor Sherbo's belief that Reed had insufficient experience to edit Shakespeare simply disregards his obvious qualification for the task. The charming letter by which Steevens made the transfer of his materials to Reed was written April 9, 1783: "I send you the fixtures of the old shop, together with as much of the good will of it as lies in my power to bestow. You will probably inherit all the custom, except Mr. Malone's, who intends to "froth & lime" at a new house to which it seems he hath got a license." Steevens evidently hoped that the 1785 edition would establish Reed in the Shakespeare franchise; little could he have known that the appearance of Reed's edition would place his text under the long shadow of his former protégé, Malone.

Reed meanwhile publicly accepted full responsibility for the editorial work, as we learn from the draft of a letter he wrote in response to Ritson's critique of the 1785 edition (The Quip Modest; A Few Words . . . Occasioned by a Republication . . . Revised and Augmented by the Editor of Dodsley's Old Plays, 1788):

Reed to be sure is intent on defending Steevens from the innuendo Ritson launched, that the 1785 notes signed Editor were actually written by Steevens; but in doing so, Reed also independently confirms Steevens' testimony, that Reed absolutely controlled the edition.

In view of this correspondence it is not surprising that most of the marginalia in the surviving printer's copy turns out to be in Reed's autograph. Although he was able to tip in most of Malone's clipped proof sheets and many of the new manuscript notes, he also transcribed many notes from Malone's 1780 and 1783 proof sheets, as well as a considerable number from the other contributors, including Ritson's critique of the 1778 edition (Remarks, Critical and Illustrative, 1783), and John Monck Mason's Comments on the Last Edition of Shakespeare's Plays, 1785. Mason's comments became available late in the preparation of the 1785 edition and they appear only in the last volumes. Reed's most amazing transcriptions, however, are of George Steevens' new notes, most of which in fact are in Reed's hand.

Despite the confidence shown in him by Steevens, Reed voiced serious anxiety about his performance as editor in his Advertisement to the 1785 edition:

Reed's profession of modesty was not merely a mannered convention, however, since he had not proofed the 1785 sheets very well at all, and allowed many compositorial changes in the text to stand, as I reported in volume 31, and as he implies in his letter to Ritson already quoted. Nevertheless, he received two hundred pounds from the booksellers, according to the cash receipt in the Folger Library (Mss.a.167), "for revising an Edition of the Works of Shakespeare."

Malone warned Reed early on that Steevens had not corrected the 1773 errata in the 1778 edition and inquired if he might not wish to make these changes as subsequent volumes were coming through the press:

This letter indicates Malone's keen interest in the progress of the 1785 edition as it was being printed, his recognition of Reed as the editor, and evidently his access to the 1785 proof sheets. These proof sheets would also let him know, before the entire edition was published, the fate of his 1780 and 1783 notes, as well as the disposition of the new notes he was providing to Reed. Malone's serial reading of the 1785 edition would give him increasing discomfort, and he virtually stopped contributing new notes mid-way through the printing of the edition.

Reed's labors were completed late in 1785 and the edition was advertised in The Whitehall Evening Post, December 17-20, 1785, as "this day" being published. Despite Reed's apology for the editorial flaws in the 1785 edition, the publication was well received in the Critical Review, 62 (1786):

The review continued in the next volume: "We must now pursue Mr. Reed in his improvements . . ." (p. 17). Malone's notes were singled out for approval, and notice was also given to the fact that Steevens gave some new notes. The positive reviews, however, did not deceive Steevens, who knew that Reed not only had botched the correcting of the proofs but also had introduced some fanciful readings of his own. Steevens confessed as much to Malone: "I was so heartily sickened by these Volumes of innaccuracy, that you will find little in them that can be of service to you. I shall never go throughout our Author again with diligence, till he appears in a more questionable shape" (Folger, undated). Joseph Ritson's critique of the 1785 edition observed that Reed even had omitted an errata list, and he offered one of his own devising (The Quip Modest, pp. iii-iv).