Part 22 (1/2)

Estimated number of extant copies

It is difficult to estimate how many copies survive of the First Folio, which is intrinsically the lish literature, and extrinsically is only exceeded in value by some half-dozen voluraphical interest It seems that about 140 copies have been traced within the past century Of these fewer than twenty are in a perfect state, that is, with the portrait _printed_ (_not inlaid_) _on_ the title-page, and the flyleaf facing it, with all the pages succeeding it, intact and uninjured (The flyleaf contains Ben Jonson's verses attesting the truthfulness of the portrait) Excellent copies in this enviable state are in the Grenville Library at the British Museum, and in the libraries of the Duke of Devonshi+re, the Earl of Crawford, the Baroness Burdett-Coutts, and Mr A H Huth Of these probably the finest and cleanest is the 'Daniel' copy belonging to the Baroness Burdett-Coutts

It measures 13 inches by 825, and was purchased by its present owner for 716 pounds 2s at the sale of George Daniel's library in 1864 Soes, but are unimpaired in other respects There ree at various points

Reprints of the First Folio

A reprint of the First Folio unwarrantably purporting to be exact was published in 1807-8 {311} The best reprint was issued in three parts by Lionel Booth in 1861, 1863, and 1864 The valuable photo-zincographic reproduction undertaken by Sir Henry James, under the direction of Howard Staunton, was issued in sixteen folio parts between February 1864 and October 1865 A reduced photographic facsiible, appeared in 1876, with a preface by Halliwell-Phillipps

The Second Folio The Third Folio The Fourth Folio

The Second Folio edition was printed in 1632 by Thomas Cotes for Robert Allot and Williaures as publisher on different copies To Allot Blount had transferred, on Novehts in the sixteen plays which were first licensed for publication in 1623 {312a} The Second Folio was reprinted from the First; a few corrections were es were arbitrary and needless Charles I's copy is at Windsor, and Charles II's at the British Museum The 'Perkins Folio,' now in the Duke of Devonshi+re's possession, in which John Payne Collier introduced forged emendations, was a copy of that of 1632 {312b} The Third Folio--for the most part a faithful reprint of the Second--was first published in 1663 by Peter Chetwynde, who reissued it next year with the addition of seven plays, six of which have no clai Shakespeare's works 'Unto this ie of 1664, 'is added seven Playes never before printed in folio, viz: Pericles, Prince of Tyre The London Prodigall The History of Thomas Ld Cromwell Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobhaedy of Locrine' The six spurious pieces which open the volume were attributed by unprincipled publishers to Shakespeare in his lifetime

Fewer copies of the Third Folio are reputed to be extant than of the Second or Fourth, owing to the destruction of many unsold impressions in the Fire of London in 1666 The Fourth Folio, printed in 1685 'for H

Herringman, E Brewster, R Chiswell, and R Bentley,' reprints the folio of 1664 without change except in the way of ; it repeats the spurious pieces

Eighteenth-century editors

Since 1685 some two hundred independent editions of the collected works have been published in Great Britain and Ireland, and hteenth-century editors of the collected works endeavoured with varying degrees of success to purge the text of the nuood taste or good sense required it, the lost text of the conte to a due co-ordination of the results of the efforts of the eighteenth-century editors by their successors in the present century that Shakespeare's work has becoeneral readers unversed in textual criticism, and has won from them the veneration that it merits {314}

Nicholas Rowe, 1674-1718

Nicholas Rowe, a popular drae I, was the first critical editor of Shakespeare He produced an edition of his plays in six octavo voluht volumes followed in 1714, and another hand added a ninth volume which included the poe traditions which were in danger of perishi+ng without a record His text followed that of the Fourth Folio The plays were printed in the same order, except that he transferred the spurious pieces fro to the end Rowe did not compare his text with that of the First Folio or of the quartos, but in the case of 'Romeo and Juliet' hethrough the press, and inserted at the end of the play the prologue which is met with only in the quartos He made a few happy emendations, sos of the First Folio; but his text is deformed by ht induced him, however, to prefix for the first time a list of _dramatis personae_ to each play, to divide and number acts and scenes on rational principles, and to , punctuation, and grammar he corrected and modernised

Alexander Pope, 1688-1744

The poet Pope was Shakespeare's second editor His edition in six quarto volue Sewell, with an essay on the rise and progress of the stage, and a glossary, appeared in a seventh volume Pope had few qualifications for the task, and the venture was a conised Shakespeare's native genius, deemed his achievement deficient in artistic quality Pope claimed to have collated the text of the Fourth Folio with that of all preceding editions, and although his work indicates that he had access to the First Folio and some of the quartos, it is clear that his text was based on that of Rowe His innovations are numerous, and are derived from 'his private sense and conjecture,' but they are often plausible and ingenious He was the first to indicate the place of each new scene, and he improved on Rowe's subdivision of the scenes A second edition of Pope's version in ten duodecimo volue as well as Pope's There were few alterations in the text, though a preliht quartos Other editions followed in 1735 and 1768 The last was printed at Garrick's suggestion at Birham from Baskerville's types

Lewis Theobald, 1688-1744