of imposition upon the credulous reader-that of silent emendation at the mere whim of the editor. The stage-directions of the old copies, and especially of the First Folio, which is in most cases the only canon to which we may appeal with any show of authority, should be held as sacred as the text itself, and not departed from, or added to, without critical cause and due announcement. For this reason, the stage business, even to the single word "Exit" when it stands as a line by itself, should be scrupulously numbered in the reference canon. The same, too, of the line of type, whenever it occurs, denoting act and scene; for this is only found in half the plays in the Folio, and where it exists it is as much a part of the record as any other phrase. If the Folio and Quartos were numbered as suggested, every line of type (except the head-lines and the catch-words, which belong to the printer and not to the stage copy) being consecutively noted, from "Actus Primus. Scena Prima" to "Finis," reference to every jot and tittle of the original text would be simplicity itself. How much easier to say "Tempest, F,, 2936" or ", Q2, 3153," Hamlet than to give a reference to act, scene, and line (which, as we have seen, helps little or not at all in the old copies), or to devise such barbarous constructions as these-in the effort to be precise: 66 “Com. of Err. Fo. 1623, p. 88 (misprint for 86) col. 1, 1. 24.” 'What, will the Line stretch out to' th' cracke of Doome." Besides the line-numbers, every reprint of an old text (except of course page-for-page fac-similes) should denote on one margin the beginning of each page and column of the Folios or signature-leaf of the Quarto. For the Folio, it suffices to print the brief indication in full-faced (Clarendon) type behind a single bracket, thus, [218a. by common consent signifies the first column of page 218. To fix the signature-leaf of the Quartos requires a somewhat more conventional treatment, for the last leaf of each signature is generally unsigned. I observe among authorities a want of uniformity as to this class of references which will be found briefly mentioned in a foot-note. In the New Shakspere Society's reprints, Dr. Brinsley Nicholson denotes the eight pages of a signature thus: B − B v -B 2 B 2 v B 3 B 3 v B 4-B 4 v (or at least, in his Henry V., Qi and F1. texts, he should do so, but by error the last leaf repeats "B 3" and "B 3 v," which is confusing), and he marks the end of the old page, not the beginning as is most natural and usual. Mr. Furnivall has a way of his own-as he has in most things, and a pretty good way it is apt to be-and he marks the signature pagination, at the beginning of each page, through the four leaves, thus: sig. B-sig. B, back-sig. B 2-sig. B 2, back-sig. B 3-sig. B 3, back-leaf B 4-leaf B 4, back. But, on the whole, I prefer the simpler notation of Dr. Nicholson, when set in the right place at the head of the page and not at the tail. It seems to me, as I hope it will seem to you, that the critical reader, however humble the sphere of his criticism, has a right to a simple but uniform and immutable reference-standard. He needs, in the first place, a Canon, and in the second, the means of readily consulting it by means of a uniform system of line-notation covering the whole of the authoritative text. He needs, it is undeniable, a great deal else-and Time may eventually produce from the well-stored wallet at his back reprints of all the Folios, line-numbered as herein suggested, and produced with all the perfection of the new photozincographic processes to which we owe the delicate reproductions of pen-drawings which have supplanted engravings in the pages of Puck and Life. There is, or should be, no excuse nowadays for blurred and misty reprints of old texts. The marvellous accuracy of reproduction which can give us the 799 pages of Skeat's Etymological Dictionary in a perfectly clear reduced form, and spread before us with microscopic perfection the eight column blanketsheet of a daily newspaper in the compass of 44x6 inches, is certainly capable of doing better work than the blotchy and slovenly impressions that come to us between the covers of the Griggs-Prætorius Quarto fac-similes.* The chief merit of the suggestion now put forth is, however, that it is not necessary to wait for some new Lionel Booth or Howard Staunton to give us a reference reprint that will command our following. It would suffice for the inauguration of a lasting reform if the leading Shakespeare Societies of England, Germany, and America should, through a conference of delegates or otherwise, agree upon a canon and a systematic notation, so that henceforth the texts published under the sanction of each Society should conform to the adopted standard, which should follow the text of the Third Period Grenville copy in the British Museum. Our own Society is in a position to set the ball in motion, by incorporating the new notation in its now issuing Bankside Edition of the parallel texts of all the plays found in Quarto form anterior to the First Folio, which is certainly the first and most complete comprehensive series of critical parallel texts as yet attempted. And the main object of this paper is to draw from our members an expression of their views on the subject, in order that the individual editors of the several volumes of the Bankside Shakespeare may, under the direction of the Society, as a whole, pursue their labors in perfect accord, and with acceptable results. A. A. ADEE. A STUDY IN "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING." UCH Ado About Nothing was the first of a series of brilliant comedies. It was printed originally in 1600 M in the form of a quarto, by V. S. (Valentine Sims) for Andrew Wise and William Aspley. It is entered in the Register of the Stationer's Company on the 23d of August in that year. A previous reference to it, and the first we have "Any subscriber willing to undertake the hanging or burning of a photo-lithographer or two-to encourage the others—should apply to F. J. FURNIVALL." (Corrections to Praetorius's Hen. V., Q1, 1600.) of the play, is in the same Register under date of 4th August, 1600, when it is "to be staied." There are two facts which enable us to form a very accurate opinion as to the date of the play. As it was published in Aug., 1600, and had, as the title-page informs us, "been sundrie times publikely acted," it must have been written previous to that time. The other fact is - Francis Meres in his "Palladis Tamia,"* printed in Sept., 1598, a book that contains the most complete and accurate account of Shakespeare's writings up to that time, makes mention of twelve of the plays as being well known. In this list Much Ado About Nothing is not mentioned. To be sure, this is only negative evidence, but Meres has proven himself so exact and well informed a bibliographer, that it is not likely he would have omitted this play if it had been in print. I think, therefore, we can assign as the date of the play sometime before Sept., 1598, and Aug., 1600. Of the earlier editors whose opinion on this subject is of value, Steevens and Malone both thought the play was written in 1600. The later editors generally accept that year. Mr. H. P. Stokes thinks "1599 or in the succeeding year."+ None of the plays have come down to us in a more perfect condition than Much Ado About Nothing. In the Quarto we have it almost exactly as it came from the author's own hand, printed doubtless from the original manuscript in the possession of, and belonging to, the Globe Theatre Company. In the Folio we have it as it was acted in his own theatre, under his own supervision, and with the revisions as to stage directions, distribution of speeches, etc., which would be suggested by his experience both as an actor and as a stage manager. The connection between dramatic writers and the theatre at that time was so intimate that most all dramatists were actors as well. We know that Shakespeare, Marlowe, Lodge, * Cf. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, "Outlines, etc," 2d edition, pp. 503–506. Ingleby, "Centurie of Prayse," pp. 21-23. + "Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays," p. 75. Wilson, Munday, and many others both wrote and played, and this certainly appears to have been the rule. "From the time that Shakespeare had the superintendence of a play-house, that is, from the year 1603," as Henslowe's Diary abundantly and everywhere proves, "the play itself was the property of the company, and exposed to any alterations and 'additions,' which, while they 'made' it on the stage, might 'mar' it. . for all future ages." The variations between the text of the Quarto and that of the Folio are not many or of great importance. The number of lines in each proves this, the Quarto having 2556, the Folio 2679. The lines of the former are longer, contain more words than those of the latter. This accounts for most of the difference. The Folio has no material addition to the text as found in the Quarto. The only two variations worthy of consideration consist of the omission of two passages, which are found in the Quarto, and which were unquestionably in Shakespeare's Ms. The first of these is: ". 66 or, in the shape of two counties at once, as a Germaine from the waste downward, all Slops, and a Spaniard from the hip upward, no dublet."* Malone encloses this passage in brackets and makes this comment: "Or, 'in the shape,' etc., to 'no dublet' were omitted in the Folio, probably to avoid giving any offence to the Spaniards, with whom James became a friend in 1604." Halliwell-Phillipps quotes this and then adds: " Capell ingeniously suggests that the passage was omitted because the Spanish match was on foot in 1623, but there is no doubt the First Folio was in type before that year." Richard Grant White differs from Malone. "That part of the allusion to the aping of foreign fashions that time out of mind has been characteristic of the English race is found only in the Quarto. It seems not to have been stricken * Lines 1165-1167 inclusive. Reference is to Bankside Edit. of this play. The English of that day took their fashions in dress from the Continental nations. Cf. Bishop Hall's " Quo Vadis, or a Censure of Travel," Vol. XII., Sec. 22. + Halliwell-Phillip ps Edition, Vol. 4, p. 119. |