The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 1 of 9]: Introduction and Publisher's Advertising

In Short

This book serves as the scholarly cornerstone for a definitive Victorian-era attempt to reconstruct the genuine text of five early Shakespearean plays: The Tempest, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Measure for Measure, and The Comedy of Errors. By systematically collating Folios and Quartos, the editors aim to strip away centuries of accumulated printing errors and editorial conjecture. It is an essential document for those interested in the history of English literature and the painstaking, often invisible, labor of preserving a legacy against the drift of time.

The Story

The "story" of this volume is the struggle between the original, unblotted manuscripts of the Elizabethan stage and the subsequent degradation of the printed word. The narrative begins with the editors’ commitment to a standard of absolute transparency. They reject the "Procrustean" tendencies of previous scholars, such as Pope or Hanmer, who often altered Shakespeare’s language to fit their own private senses of rhythm or decorum. The editors document how the very first printed editions—the Folios—were frequently compromised by printers' negligence or by theatrical transcripts that deviated from the author's intent.

As the book progresses, it maps the history of editorial intervention. We see a succession of figures—Pope, Theobald, Johnson, Steevens, and Malone—each wrestling with the text. The editors provide a critical history of these men, noting how even the most brilliant scholars, like Dr. Johnson, were often hampered by their own indolence or the limitations of their era’s research. The volume exposes how these past editors often "baited the hook" for subscribers with promises of purity while frequently indulging in wild, unverified conjectures.

The arc of this editorial labor is one of refinement. The editors demonstrate that the path to a "true" Shakespeare is not through flash or ingenious guesswork, but through the dull, methodical collation of every available variant. They reveal that in many cases, a reading previously dismissed as an error was actually a legitimate, if archaic, usage. The volume concludes by presenting the results of this labor in the form of notes, which serve as a map for the reader to navigate the textual uncertainties. By the end, the editors acknowledge that total restoration is an ideal they can only approach, not reach. They offer their work not as a final, immutable decree, but as a transparent foundation that allows the reader to see the materials—the Folios, the Quartos, and the history of corrections—out of which the final text is constructed. It is a story of humility in the face of genius, where the goal is to disappear as editors so that the original voice of the dramatist might finally be heard clearly.

How It Unfolds

The Editorial Mission The editors establish their primary mandate: to compare all existing early versions of the plays and record every deviation. They commit to showing the reader exactly where the text has been altered and why.

The Critique of Prior Eras The narrative examines the history of Shakespearean scholarship, exposing the inconsistencies and vanity of past editors. It reveals how Pope and others claimed to have collated texts they barely touched, prioritizing their own reputations over accuracy.

The Complexity of Metre The editors delve into the technical evolution of English verse, arguing that modern ears—conditioned by later, stricter systems of prosody—frequently misread Shakespeare’s more fluid, archaic rhythms. They provide evidence that many perceived "errors" are actually intentional metrical licenses.

The Reconstruction of Authority The book tracks the transition from the Folio editions to the modern era, detailing the specific, often petty rivalries between critics like Steevens and Malone. It highlights the importance of using archival research to solve textual mysteries rather than relying on guesswork.

The Final Presentation The volume concludes with the practical application of these principles, providing a structured apparatus for the accompanying plays. This section serves as an invitation for the reader to participate in the critical process by weighing the evidence themselves.

The People

The volume is populated by a cast of editors and literary figures whose personalities leave their mark on the pages. William George Clark and John Glover serve as the guiding, authoritative voices—men of the university, committed to a standard of modesty and scientific precision. They contrast sharply with the "Oxford Editor," Sir Thomas Hanmer, whom they depict as an amateur of "lively fancy" who tinkered with Shakespeare as a mere leisure activity. Dr. Samuel Johnson appears as a figure of towering intellectual stature, yet one ultimately limited by his own "constitutional indolence" and failing eyesight. Edward Capell is noted for his industrious, if unappreciated, efforts, while the rivalrous Steevens and Malone emerge as the most diligent, if sometimes acrimonious, of the older school. These men are not merely historians; they are the gatekeepers of Shakespeare, and their conflicting goals—whether to "correct" him, "restore" him, or "exhibit" him—drive the drama of the book’s intellectual history.

In Its Own Voice

"It is impossible to repair the injuries already done him; too much time has elaps'd, and the materials are too few."

Pope’s own words are used here to demonstrate the fatalistic, yet often dishonest, attitude he held toward the possibility of a correct text.

"There is no doubt that a system of versification has taken root among us very different from that which was in use in the earlier days of our poetry."

The editors explain here why modern readers frequently struggle with the seemingly irregular rhythm of Shakespeare’s lines.

"The truth seems to be that it is of very varied excellence, differing from time to time according to the state of the MS. from which it was printed."

This assessment clarifies the varying quality of the early Folios, which the editors must then work to reconcile.

What It's Really About

This book is fundamentally an argument for the necessity of intellectual humility in the study of art. It explores the tension between the desire for a "perfect" or "clean" text and the messy, historical reality of how literature is transmitted. It raises deep questions about authorship: if a text is corrupted by its first printers and then "fixed" by hundreds of years of editors, where does the author’s original intent reside? The volume argues that the truth is not found in a finished, polished product, but in the process of investigation itself. It asserts that to truly understand Shakespeare, one must be willing to confront the "errors" and uncertainties that define his history rather than smoothing them away for the sake of modern comfort.

Why Read It Today

Readers who enjoy the "detective work" behind literature will find this volume fascinating. It is a behind-the-scenes look at how the definitive versions of the plays we study today were forged. You will experience the thrill of seeing how a single word—like "neif" or "lunaties"—can be the subject of massive scholarly debate, revealing the layers of human error that separate us from the 16th century.

However, be aware that this is a dense, academic work. The writing is steeped in the conventions of 19th-century philology; it assumes a high level of comfort with early modern English and the technical terminology of textual criticism. You will encounter lengthy lists of variants, footnotes on footnotes, and references to obscure 18th-century squabbles. It does not offer a modern, simplified reading experience. Yet, for those who value the preservation of our cultural heritage, it provides a profoundly honest look at the fragility of literature. You will come away with a new respect for the "dull duty" of the scholar and a realization that every word of Shakespeare we read today was, at one point, the subject of a hard-won battle for accuracy. It is a book for the patient, the curious, and those who believe that the history of a text is just as important as the story it tells.