No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Critics have generally considered the 1622 quarto of Othello as an acting version, and have classified it as one of the so-called “good” quartos of Shakespeare. Although it appeared in print much later than the others, it partakes of some of their general resemblances: the retention of oaths, reduction by cutting, the presence of more complete and less sophisticated stage directions, and also of numerous word variants. Many scholars have regarded the Q 1 with mild suspicion, partly because the Folio editors ignored it, and partly because it appears to differ in several particulars from the other good quartos. These peculiarities center about its stage directions, oaths, act and scene divisions, date of publication, its cuts—particularly those of the Willow Song and context—and the evidences of its use as a prompt copy. On these accounts, textual critics have regarded the Q, though admittedly “good,” as distinctly inferior to the folio; and the numerous hypotheses that have appeared show that scholars are far from agreement in explaining the facts. The authoritativeness of the text of any Shakespearean quarto depends largely upon the conditions of its publication. Possibly some of the peculiarities of Q 1 of Othello may be explained—and thus the authority of the text further vindicated—by associating it with a new group of quartos, published contemporaneously.
1 Printed by N.O[kes] for Thomas Walkley of Britain's Burse, 1622. Entered in the Stationers' Register October 6, 1621. See Arber's Transcript, iv, 59; also A. W. Pollard, Shakespeare's Folios and Quartos (London, 1909), 79.
2 This is one of a series of articles growing out of a thesis at West Virginia University.
3 Cf. R. Crompton Rhodes, Shakespeare's First Folio (New York, 1923), 107; also H. H. Furness, ed., Othello, second variorum edition (Philadelphia, 1886), 342; A. W. Pollard, op. cit., 44, 79.
4 Rhodes, op. cit., 108; E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare (Oxford, 1930), i, 459 (Designated hereafter as Chambers); Pollard, op. cit., 79; etc. Bibliography in Chambers (Vol i only is referred to in this paper), 127.
5 Especially Richard III, (1597), 2 Henry IV. (1600), Hamlet (1604), Lear (1608), Troilus and Cressida (1609), and Othello (1622). See J. D. Wilson et al., Studies in the First Folio, Shak. Ass'n., (London, 1924), 58 ff.
6 The last was Troilus and Cressida in 1609.
7 See Chambers, 238 ff., 240, 241, 379, 415, 459; Rhodes, op. cit., 59–63; William S. Walker, A Critical Examination of the Text of Shakespeare (London, 1860), i, 213 ff.
8 See Chambers for review of recent scholarship on this subject. Lines peculiar to each text: Richard III., F, c. 230, Q, c. 40; 2 Henry IV., F, c. 168; Q. c. 40; Hamlet, F, c. 85, Q, c. 200; Lear, F, c. 100, Q, c. 300; Troilus and Cressida, F, c. 46, Q, c. 8; Othello, F, c. 160, Q, c. 15.
9 See Pollard, op. cit., 123 ff.; Chambers, 201, disagrees; see also Rhodes, op. cit., 106, 133 ff. Cf. his The Stagery of Shakespeare (Birmingham, 1922), 27, 314 ff.
10 E.g., Chambers, 297; H. P. Stokes in “Introduction” to Troilus and Cressida, Griggs-Furnivall facs. ed., viii.
11 E.g., Wilson et al., op. cit., 58–59.
12 Cf. The Maid's Tragedy: 2. l. 70–93 with Othello: 4.3. 37–58; 4. 3. 60–62; 5. 2. 308–310.
13 Q 1 of Othello may be: (1) an unfaithful transcript made for the nonce (Chambers, 460 and F. G. Fleay, Shakespeare Manual [London, 1873], 63); (2) a stolen version (Chambers, 162 and Fleay, op. cit., 63); (3) a privately owned presentation copy (Chambers, 162, 460); (4) an actual promptbook or allowed MS. (Rhodes, op. cit., 31 ff.; Wilson et al., op. cit., 68); (5) a prompt copy sold by the company with reservations for the F, etc.
14 Thomas Walkley of Britain's Burse and Francis Constable of Paul's Churchyard. Walkley received his freedom on January 29, 1618/19 (See Arber, op. cit., iii, 684) and enjoyed a busy career until 1645. Thereafter his publication was sporadic. A book entry appears under his name as late as April 13, 1661. Cf. Roxburghe Club, Transcript of S. R., 1640–1708, ed. G. E. B. Eyre (London, 1913), ii, 291. See H. R. Plomer, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers who were at work in England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1641–1667 (London, 1907), 187. Also William H. Peet, Publishing and Bookselling (London, 1930), 132, note.
15 Walkley's business location until c. 1630 was “at the signe of the Eagle and Childe in Brittains-Bursse.” Here he sold the quartos discussed in this chapter. Later he moved near to Whitehall, then to the “signe of the flying Horse, between Brittains Bursse, and Yorke House,” and still later to the “Golden Pestle and Mortar betweene Yorke House and Charing Cross.”
16 The Scornful Lady, published by Myles Partrich in 1616, is occasionally included in the following discussion. It differs from the Burse quartos proper in having been performed by the Children of the Queen's Revels. See the original title page; also E. K. Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, iii. 230.
17 See P. A. Daniel et al., Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, variorum ed., 4 vols. (London, 1904), i, for fundamental textual criticism based on careful collation. (This work is referred to throughout as B. and F.)
18 See Roxburghe Club, op. cit., i, 290: transferred to Moseley very late, February 22, 1647/8.
19 See H. A. Evans ed., in “Introduction” to Othello, Griggs-Furnivallfacs. ed., xi.
20 Act of 1606: 3 Jacques, i, c, 21: See Gerald D. Nokes, A History of the Crime of Blasphemy (London, 1928). “In 1605 all the courts of record at Westminster were empowered to entertain proceedings instituted by common informers for the recovery of penalties of £10 for profanity on the stage.”
21 I.e., Othello, Philaster, and The Maid's Tragedy.
22 See Chambers, 136: On May 3, 1619, a letter from the Lord Chamberlain to the Stationers' Company directed that none of the King's Men's plays should be printed without “some of their consents.”
23 See “Preface” to Humphrey Moseley's edition of the Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1647. For the contrary view, see Pollard, op. cit., 117–123. Cf. also the preface to Q 1. Troilus and Cressida (1609), which suggests a manuscript source other than the King's Men.
24 See note 20.
25 Unfortunately, the records of the Revels Office during the second decade and Sir George Buc's administration are missing. See the fragments in Frank Marcham ed., The King's Office of the Revels 1610–1622, Fragments of Documents & c. (London, 1925). During the third decade Herbert extended the jurisdiction of his office. See J. P. Collier, Eng. Dram. Poetry and Annals of the Stage, revised ed. (1879), i, 480 ff.
26 Hawkins secured The Maid's Tragedy, A King and No King, Philaster, and Othello. For his connection with the second folio syndicate, see R. M. Smith, “The Variant Issues of Shakespeare's Second Folio, etc.,” in Lehigh University Publications, ii, No. 3 (March, 1928).
27 Perhaps, moreover, the desire to duplicate the policy of the F editors of 1623, whose precedent was noteworthy, or the fact that Herbert's régime was becoming continually more strict, made the deletion of oaths a necessary business expedient. Certainly oaths no longer colored the discourse of the stage, and as long as phrases like “As it hath beene diverse times acted at …” appeared on title pages, it is not unlikely that an attempt was made to bring the printed work in line with the contemporary dramatic version. The Jonson folio of 1616, however, permitted all oath to remains.
28 See Chambers, 239.
29 The examples include chiefly oaths that were modified or completely eliminated in subsequent editions. Words that a typesetter or hasty editor may have considered as oaths and consequently changed also appear in the tables. Oaths missed by the editors of the various reissues—not many, to be sure—received no comment in the collations of the variorum (cf. B. and F., i) and hence are not considered here. I have paid no attention to minor oaths which the censor usually permitted.
30 Line numbering based on Furness, op. cit.
31 The original MS. may have read: “Zouns, away!”
32 Probably “O God, Iago!” in the original. Desdemona has used the oath before (3. 4. 92 and 4. 3. 114). Q 1 capitalizes the word and the F makes a substitution (“Alas”) that is a common replacement for oaths. (cf. 3. 3. 126, 5. 2. 148, etc.) The “good,” moreover, may have been in anticipation for the same word two lines below.
33 The original probably had, “Nay, by this hand. …”
34 Line numbering based on B. and F.
35 Expressions like “God bless your majesty” were allowed to remain in all editions of the play. Other oaths common to all issues are: “for God's sake” (2. 2. 148); “Upon my faith” (3. 2. 73); '“SFoot” (5. 3. 59); etc.
36 See note 25.
37 This play never reached Hawkins. Moseley issued Q 2 (1648) and Q 3 (1649) after the publication of his folio (1647). Oaths appear especially in the soldier scenes: e.g., Devitry's speech in 5. 1. 30, “By the bread of God Man. …” Other oaths are: ‘“SFoot,” ‘“SBlood,” “Zounds,” etc. The F of 1679 copies almost exactly Walkley's Q 1, the only noticeable difference, aside from spellings, being the repetition of the scene heading “I, i” as a substitute for “I, ii.” The F is in error.
38 Aside from the more common ones, the following deserve attention:
| 1.1.300 God save you | 3.1.105 Jesus | 5.2.259 God forbid |
| 1.2.67 God help all | 3.1.109 God bless you | 5.2.272 God grant |
| 2.1.82 God pardon her | 4.1.29 God forgive me | 5.3.60 God quit you, sir |
| 2.2.89 God keep him | 4.1.143 I thank God | 5.3.65 'Foot |
| 2.2.120 Pray God | 5.1.127 God bless my issue | 5.4.17 Ud's foot |
| 3.1.35 God save you both | 5.2.116 God give you joy | 5.4.28 For God's sake |
| 3.1.104 Help, Help for God's sake | 5.2.195 God give you joy | 5.4.29 Oh, God |
| 5.2.230 pray God | 5.4.129 Bless you |
39 The Custom of the Country, appearing only in the Beaumont and Fletcher folios of 1647 and 1679, probably represents an edited text, although two oaths escaped the editor: '“Death” and “good God, that. …”
40 Several variations exist: e.g., Q Othello relies upon large initial capital letters at the beginning of Acts 1 and 3 to indicate division. Act 2 has both the large initial capital and the legend. Only one scene label appears: “Scoena i” of Act 2. (cf. Pollard, op. cit., 79). Thierry and Theodoret is divided as follows: Act. i., Sc. i.; Act. i., Sc. 2.; Act. 2., Sc. i.; Act. 3., Sc. i; Act. 4., Sc. i.; Act. 5., Sc. i.
41 See E. H. C. Oliphant, The Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher (Oxford, 1927), 500 ff.; C. M. Gayley, Beaumont the Dramatist (New York, 1914).
42 See Pollard, op. cit., Introduction and chap. 1.
43 Compare their title pages: A King and No King: Q 1 (1619), “Acted at the Globe;” Q 2 (1625), “Acted at the Blacke Fryars.” The Maid's Tragedy: Q 1 (1619), “as it hath beene divers times acted at the Blacke-friers;” Q 2 (1622), the same. Philaster: Q 1 (1620), “at the Globe;” Q 2 (1622), “at the Globe, and Blacke-Friers.” Thierry and Theodoret: Q 1 (1621), “at the Blacke-Friers.” Othello: Q 1 (1622), “at the Globe, and at the Blacke-Friers.”
44 Especially the cuts, typical stage directions, significant interjections of “O, o, o,” various unsophisticated speech-headings, and an obvious lack of literary revision. For the significance of the “O, o, o” interjections, see J. D. Wilson, Essays and Studies, x, 37; Chambers, 414 ff. Cf. the F and Q of Othello at 4.2.65–66 and 5.1.81.
45 Evidence is not wanting to show that Suckling's Aglaura, published by Walkley in 1638, was produced late the previous year at court and at the Blackfriars. (See D.N.B., lv, 142). Massinger's The Picture, also one of Walkley's, bears the legend: “Acted, at the Globe and Black-Friers.” Walkley seems to have had business relations with the King's Men throughout his career as publisher.
46 Entered to Blount on August 7, 1618 (Arber, op. cit., iii) without any record of a subsequent transfer to Walkley, it appeared in 1619, prefaced by an interesting and perhaps significant dedication: “To the Right Worshipful and Worthy Knight Sir Henry Nevill: Worthy Sir,—I present, or rather return unto your view, that which formerly hath been received from you, hereby effecting what you did desire. To commend the work in my unlearned method were rather to detract from it than to give it any lustre. It sufficeth it hath your worship's approbation and patronage, to the commendation of the authors, and encouragement of their further labours; and thus wholly committing myself and it to your worship's dispose, I rest, ever ready to do you service, not only in the like, but in what way I may.—Thomas Walkley.” The reference to their “further labours” must have foreshadowed the publication of other works. Beaumont had died in 1615. This Q resembles a prompt copy in its stage directions, which refer to property, action, and sounds.
47 See note 12.
48 See B. and F., i, 4 ff.
49 Ibid., i, 245 ff.
50 Ibid., i, 117 ff. These scenes are 1.1; 5.4; 5.5.
51 The rewritten scenes are almost prose, though printed in an irregular poetic form. Approximately 150 lines are saved by the condensation of material. To account for the alterations in this version is difficult. They may be revisions for a special performance, or the additions to a pirated fragment, or the attempt to complete a theatrical MS. that had been deprived of front and back pages. The modified parts speak less unkindly of the Spanish prince, alter the ending somewhat, and include two directions for music (vide the Q, pp. 3 and 63)—all of which may point distinctly to a revival. In 1620, England was negotiating with Spain over the prospective marriage of Prince Charles. See E. M. Albright, Dram. Pub. in England, 1580–1640, (New York, 1927), 164 ff.; Chambers, 213; F. G. Fleay Biographical Chronicle of the Eng. Drama (London, 1891), 189; W. J. Lawrence, “The Riddle of ‘Philaster‘” in L.T.L.S., 17 Nov., 1921—summarized in Year's Work in Eng. Stud. (1920–21), ii, (1922), 97; E. H. C. Oliphant, op. cit., 201.
52 See B. and F., i, 133.
53 See E. K. Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, iv, 125 ff.
54 Ibid., iii, 225: a question of revision in Cupid's Revenge.
55 See Tucker Brooke ed., Shakespeare of Stratford (New Haven, 1926), 110.
56 Q supplies properties: 1.1.175; 5.1.57; 5.2.2; 5.2.345–346; calls for noises and effects: 2.1.66; 2.1.203; 2.2.179; 4.1.230; indicates movements and direction of action: 2.1.129; 2.2.178; 3.3.513; 3.3.528; 5.2.22, 156, 248, 291, 313, 430; etc.
57 E.g., 2.2.56; “She slips behind the Orras”; 2.2.86: “They kisse”; 3.1.158: “He gives him a letter”; 3.1.244: “He draws his sword.” Cf. 2.2.148: “Enter Galatea from behind the Orras” (other eds. have “hangings”); 2.2.148: “Exeunt ambo” (other eds. have “in several ways”); etc. in Q 1 of Thierry and Theodoret, which was reprinted almost verbatim in the F of 1679, the following are typical: “Loude Musicke, A Banquet set out”; “aside”; “Enter Thierry, and Ordella, as from bed”; “Behind the state stabs Theodoret”; “Pulls off her vaile, lets fall his sword”; “draws a knife”; “Enter Thierry, on a bed, with Doctors and attendants”; “dies both.”
58 On the basis of contrasts in early and late versions of other plays, it would seem that the revised scenes are undoubtedly later than the context. Cf., however, note 51, reference to W. J. Lawrence.
59 See Furness, op. cit., 339; also Pollard, op. cit., 79. Hawkins wrote extensive prefaces to most of his editions.
60 See The Tragedie of Othello, Bankside Shak. ed., ix (New York, 1890), “Introduction,” 38; H. A. Evans, op. cit., xi.
61 Walkley was probably on friendly terms with the syndicate; at least he is indebted to Blount (the chief of the four partners) for the MS. of A King and No King, which he published a short time before the Othello. For modern attitudes toward Blount, cf. Rhodes, op. cit., 13, 48 ff.; Sidney Lee, “Edward Blount—an Elizabethan Bookseller,” Bibliographica, i (1895). See also note 46.
62 See A. W. Pollard, The Foundations of Shak. Text (London, 1923). “The chances are favorable to our believing that the prompt copies that furnished the basis for some of these good quartos were in the actual manuscript autograph of Shakespeare, etc.”
63 See R. Crompton Rhodes, op. cit., 31.