Complete Plays, The (71 page)

One of these was
Gli Heccatommithi
, 1565 (The Hundred Tales), by Giovanni Giraldi, surnamed Cinthio, which was later translated into French and was the source of
Measure for Measure
and
Othello
. Another collection was that of Matteo Bandello, whose 
Tales
, 1554-1573, translated into French by Belleforest, furnished the sources of
Much Ado About Nothing
, and perhaps
Twelfth Night
. The greatest of these collections was the
Decameron
, c. 1353, by Giovanni Boccaccio, one of whose stories, translated by William Painter in his
Palace of Pleasure
, 1564, furnished the source of
All's Well That Ends Well
. Another story of the
Decameron
was probably the source of the romantic part of the plot of
Cymbeline
. The
Merry Wives of Windsor
had a plot like the story in Straparola's
Tredici Piacevole Notte
(1550),
Thirteen Pleasant Evenings
; and
The Merchant of Venice
borrows its chief plot from Giovanni Florentine's
Il Pecorone
.

Two of Shakespeare's plays are based on English novels written somewhat after the Italian manner—
As You Like It
on Thomas Lodge's novel-poem,
Rosalynde
, and
The Winter's Tale
from Robert Greene's
Pandosto
. The
Two Gentlemen of Verona
is from a Spanish story in the Italian style, the
Diana
of Jorge de Montemayor. The
Comedy of Errors
from Plautus is his only play based on classical sources.

The Italian
novelle
emphasized situation, but had little natural dialogue and still less characterization. The Elizabethan dramatists used them only for their plots. Never did works of higher genius spring from less inspired sources.

The Plays used by Shakespeare
.—Although Shakespeare made up one of his plots, the
Comedy of Errors
, from two plays of Plautus (254-184 B.C.), the
Menaechmi
and
Amphitruo
, the rest of the plays he used for material were contemporary work. He borrowed from them plots and situations, and  occasionally even lines. With the exception, however, of one of the early histories, the plays he made use of are in themselves of no value as literature. Their sole claim to notice is that they served the need of the great playwright. None but the student will ever read them. In practically every case Shakespeare so developed the story that the fiction became essentially his own; while the poetic quality of the verse, the development of character, and the heightening of dramatic effect, which he built upon it, left no more of the old play in sight than the statue shows of the bare metal rods upon which the sculptor molds his clay.

Seven histories go back to the earlier plays on the kings of England. The Second and Third Parts of
Henry VI
are taken from two earlier plays often called the
First and Second Contentions
(between the two noble houses of York and Lancaster). The First and Second parts of
Henry IV
, and
Henry V
, are all three an expansion of a cruder production, the
Famous Victories of Henry V
.
Richard III
is based upon the
True Tragedie of Richard, Duke of York; King John upon the Troublesome Reigne of John, King of England
, the latter undoubtedly the best of the sources of Shakespeare's Histories.

King Leir and His Daughters
is the only extant play which is known to have formed the basis of a Shakespearean tragedy. Shakespeare made additions in this case from other sources, borrowing Gloucester's story from Sidney's
Arcadia
. The earlier play of
Hamlet
, which it is believed Shakespeare used, is not now in existence.

Among the comedies, the
Taming of the Shrew
is  directly based upon the
Taming of a Shrew
.
Measure for Measure
is less direct, borrowing from George Whetstone's play in two parts,
Promos and Cassandra
(written before 1578).

The existence of versions in German and Dutch of plays which present plots similar in structure to Shakespeare's, but less highly developed, leads scholars to advance the theory that several lost plays may have been sources for some of his dramas. Entries or mentions of plays, with details like Shakespeare's, dated earlier than his own plays could have been in existence, are also used to further the same view. The
Two Gentlemen of Verona
, the
Merchant of Venice
,
Romeo and Juliet
,
Hamlet
, and, with less reason,
Timon of Athens
, and
Twelfth Night
, are thought to have been based more or less on earlier lost plays.

Finally, a number of plays perhaps suggested details in Shakespeare's plays. Of plays so influenced,
Cymbeline
,
The Winter's Tale
, and
Henry VIII
are the chief. But the debt is negligible at best, so far as the general student is concerned.

To conclude, what Shakespeare borrowed was the raw material of drama. What he gave to this material was life and art. No better way of appreciating the dramatist at his full worth could be pursued than a patient perusal and comparison of the sources of his plays with Shakespeare's own work.

[
1
] There are two plays at least which have plots probably original with Shakespeare—
Love's Labour's Lost
and
The Tempest
. Both of these draw largely, however, from contemporary history and adventure, and the central idea is directly borrowed from actual events.

[
2
] It is not unlikely that it was the second edition published in 1595 by Richard Field (Shakespeare's printer) that the poet read.

CHAPTER IX

HOW SHAKESPEARE GOT INTO PRINT

The Elizabethan audiences who filled to overflowing the theaters on the Bankside possessed a far purer text of Shakespeare than we of this later day can boast. In order to understand our own editions of Shakespeare, it is necessary to understand something, at least, of the conditions of publishing in Shakespeare's day and of the relations of the playhouses with the publishers.

The printing of Shakespeare's poems is an easy tale,
Venus and Adonis
in 1593, and
The Rape of Lucrece
in 1594, were first printed in quarto by Richard Field, a native of Stratford, who had come to London. In each case a dedication accompanying the text was signed by Shakespeare, so that we may guess that the poet not only consented to the printing, but took care that the printing should be accurate. Twelve editions of one, eight of the other, were issued before 1660. The other volume of poetry, the Sonnets, was printed in 1609 by Thomas Thorpe, without Shakespeare's consent. Two of them, numbers 138 and 144, had appeared in the collection known as
The Passionate Pilgrim
, a pirated volume printed by W. Jaggard in 1599. No reëdition of the Sonnets appeared till 1640.

With regard to the plays it is different. It is first  to be said that in no volume containing a play or plays of Shakespeare in existence to-day is there any evidence that Shakespeare saw it through the press. All we can do is to satisfy ourselves as to how the copy of Shakespeare's plays may have got into the hands of the publishers, and as to how far that copy represents what Shakespeare must have written.

The editions of Shakespearean plays may be divided into two groups,—the separate plays which were printed in quarto[
1
] volumes before 1623, and the First Folio of Shakespeare, which was printed in 1623, a collected edition of all his plays save
Pericles
. Our text of Shakespeare, whatever one we read, is made up, either from the First Folio text, or in certain cases from the quarto volumes of certain plays which preceded the Folio; together with the attempts to restore to faulty places what Shakespeare must have written—a task which has engaged a long line of diligent scholars from early in the eighteenth century up to our own day.

The Stationers' Company
.—In the early period of English printing, which began about 1480 and lasted up to 1557, there was very little supervision over the publishing of books, and as a result the competition was unscrupulous. There was a guild of publishers, called  the Stationers' Company, in existence, but its efforts to control its members were only of a general character. In 1557, however, Philip and Mary granted a charter to the Stationers' Company under which no one not a member of the Stationers' Company could legally possess a printing press. Queen Mary was, of course, interested in controlling the press directly through the Crown. Throughout the Elizabethan period the printing of books was directly under the supervision of Her Majesty's Government, and not under the law courts. Every book had to be licensed by the company. The Wardens of the company acted as licensers in ordinary cases, and in doubtful cases the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, or some other dignitary appointed for the purpose. When the license was granted, the permission to print was entered upon the Register of the company, and it is from these records that much important knowledge about the dates of Shakespeare's plays is gained.

The Stationers' Company was interested only in protecting its members from prosecution and from competition. The author was not considered by them in the legal side of the transaction. How the printer got his manuscript to print was his own affair, not theirs.

Many authors were at that time paid by printers for the privilege of using their manuscript; but it was not considered proper that a gentleman should be paid for literary work. Robert Greene, the playwright and novelist, wrote regularly in the employ of printers. On the other hand, Sir Philip Sidney, a contemporary  of Shakespeare's, did not allow any of his writings to be printed during his lifetime. Francis Bacon published his essays only in order to forestall an unauthorized edition, and others of the time took the same course. Bacon says in his preface that to prevent their being printed would have been a troublesome procedure. It was possible for an author to prevent the publication by prosecution, but it was scarcely a wise thing to do, in view of the legal difficulties in the way. Nevertheless, fear of the law probably acted as some sort of a check on unscrupulous publishers.

The author of a play was, however, really less interested than the manager who had bought it. The manager of a theater seems, from what evidence we possess, to have believed that the printing of a play injured the chances of success upon the stage. The play was sold by the author directly to the manager, whose property it became. Copies of it might be sold to some printer by some of the players in the company, by the manager himself, or, in rarer cases, by some unscrupulous copyist taking down the play in shorthand at the performance. When a play had got out of date, it would be more apt to be sold than while it was still on the stage. In some cases, however, the printing might have no bad effect upon the attendance at its performances.

During the years before 1623, seventeen of Shakespeare's plays were published in quarto. Two of these,
Romeo and Juliet
and
Hamlet
, were printed in two very different versions, so that we have nineteen texts of Shakespeare's plays altogether published before the First Folio. A complete table of these  plays with the dates in which the quartos appeared follows:—

1594. Titus Andronicus. Later quartos in 1600 and 1611.
1597. Richard II. Later quartos in 1598, 1608, and 1615.
1597. Richard III. Later quartos in 1598, 1602, 1605, 1612, and 1622.
1597. Romeo and Juliet. Later quartos in 1599 (corrected edition) and 1609.
1598. I Henry IV. Later quartos in 1599, 1604, 1608, 1613, and 1622.
1598. Love's Labour's Lost.
1600. Merchant of Venice. Later quarto in 1619. (Copying
on the title-page the original date of 1600, however.)
1600. Henry V. Later quartos in 1602 and 1619. (Dated on the title-page, 1608.)
1600. Henry IV, Part II.
1600. Midsummer Night's Dream. Later quarto in 1619. (Dated, however, 1600.)
1602. Merry Wives of Windsor. Later quarto in 1619.
1603. Hamlet.
1604. Second edition of Hamlet. Later quartos in 1605 and 1611.
1608. King Lear. Later quarto in 1619. (Title-page date, 1608.)
1608. Pericles. Later quartos in 1609, 1611, and 1619.
1609. Troilus and Cressida. A second quarto in 1609.
1622. Othello.

These are all the known quartos of Shakespeare's plays printed before the Folio. They represent two distinct classes. The first class (comprising fourteen texts) of the quartos contains good texts of the plays and is of great assistance to editors. The second (comprising five texts), the first
Romeo and Juliet, Henry V, Merry Wives
, the first
Hamlet
, and
Pericles
,  is composed of thoroughly bad copies. Two of this class were not entered on the Stationers' Register at all, but were pure piracies. Two others were entered by one firm, but were printed by another. The fifth was entered and transferred on the same day. Of the fourteen good texts, twelve were regularly entered on the Stationers' Register, and the other two were evidently intended to take the place of a bad text. It is evident, therefore, that registry upon the books of the Stationers' Company was a safeguard to an author in getting before the public a good text of his writings. It also indicates that the good copies were obtained by printers in a legal manner, and so probably purchased directly from the theaters, whether from the copy which the prompter had, or from some transcript of the play. The notion that all plays were printed in Shakespeare's time by a process of piracy is thus not borne out by these facts.

The five bad quartos deserve a moment's attention. The first of these,
Romeo and Juliet
, printed and published by John Danter in 1597, omits over seven hundred lines of the play, and the stage directions are descriptions rather than definite instructions. The book is printed in two kinds of type, a fact due probably to its being printed from two presses at once. Danter got into trouble later on with other books from his dishonest ways. The second poor quarto,
Henry V
, printed in 1600, was less than half as long as the Folio text, and was probably carelessly copied by an ignorant person at a performance of the play. The third, the
Merry Wives of Windsor
, was pirated through the publisher of
Henry V
, John Busby, who assigned his  part to another printer on the same day. As in the case of
Romeo and Juliet
, the stage directions are mere descriptions. No play of Shakespeare's was more cruelly bungled by an unscrupulous copyist. The first edition of
Hamlet
in 1603 was the work of Valentine Sims. While the copying is full of blunders, this quarto is considered important, as indicating that the play was acted at first in a much shorter and less artistic version than the one which we now read. For eight months of 1603-1604 the theaters of London were closed on account of the plague, and Shakespeare's revision of
Hamlet
may have been made during this time. At any rate, the later version appeared about the end of 1604. The last of these pirated quartos,
Pericles
, was probably taken down in shorthand at the theater. Here, unfortunately, as this play was not included in the First Folio, and as all later quartos were based on the First Quarto, we have to-day what is really a corrupt and difficult text. Luckily, Shakespeare's share in this play is small.