The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 2 of 9]

by William Shakespeare

On comparing these two Quartos we find that they correspond page for page, though not line for line, except in the first five pages of sheet G. The printer’s errors in Fisher’s edition are corrected in that issued by Roberts, and from this circumstance, coupled with the facts that in the Roberts Quarto the ‘Exits’ are more frequently marked, and that it was not entered at Stationers’ Hall, as Fisher’s edition was, we infer that the Roberts Quarto was a pirated reprint of Fisher’s, probably for the use of the players. This may account for its having been followed by the First Folio. Fisher’s edition, though carelessly printed, contains on the whole the best readings, and may have been taken from the author’s manuscript.

The First Folio edition was printed from Roberts’s Quarto, which we have quoted as Q₂.

4. The Merchant of Venice. Two Quarto editions of this play were published in the same year; (1) that generally known as the ‘Roberts Quarto,’ our Q₁, bearing the following title-page:

The | excellent [History of the Mer|chant of Venice.| With the extreme cruelty of Shylocke | the Iew towards the saide Merchant, in cut|ting a iust pound of his flesh. And the obtaining | of Portia, by the choyse of | three Caskets.| Written by W. Shakespeare. | Printed by J. Roberts, 1600.

and (2) that known as the ‘Heyes Quarto,’ which we have called Q₂, whose title-page is as follows:

The most excellent | Historie of the Merchant | of Venice. | With the extreame crueltie of Shylocke the Iewe | towards the sayd Merchant, in cutting a iust pound | of his flesh: and the obtayning of Portia| by the choyse of three | chests. | As it hath beene diuers times acted by the Lord | Chamberlaine his Servants.| Written by William Shakespeare. At London, | Printed by I. R. for Thomas Heyes, | and are to be sold in Paules Church-yard, at the | signe of the Greene Dragon. | 1600. |

Different opinions have been entertained as to the respective priority of these two editions. Johnson and Capell both speak of the Heyes Quarto as the first. On the other hand, in the title-page of the Roberts Quarto, now at Devonshire House, J. P. Kemble, to whom the whole collection of Dramas belonged, has written ‘First edition.’ ‘Collated and perfect, J. P. K. 1798.’ And on the opposite page he has copied the following ‘entry on the Stationers’ Registers.’ ‘July 22, 1598. (James Roberts) A booke of the Merchaunt of Venyse, otherwise called the Jewe of Venyse. Provided that it be not printed by the said James Roberts or any other whatsoever without leave first had from the ryght honourable, the Lord Chamberlen—39. b.’ This shows that he had examined the question. He possessed moreover a copy of the Heyes Quarto, also collated by him and found perfect.

Mr Bolton Corney in Notes and Queries (2nd ser. Vol. x. p. 21), has shown that there is at least a strong probability in favour of the precedence of the Roberts Quarto. We have therefore decided to call the Roberts Quarto Q₁, and the Heyes Q₂.

In a critical point of view the question is of little or no consequence. After a minute comparison of the two, we have come to the conclusion that neither was printed from the other. We are indebted sometimes to one and sometimes to the other for the true reading, where it is very improbable that the printer should have hit upon the correction. For example, Act ii. Sc. 8, line 39, the Roberts Quarto, sig. E. 1. recto, has ‘Slubber not business...’ while the Heyes Quarto, sig. D. 4. recto, has ‘Slumber....’ On the other hand, Act iii. Sc. 1, line 6, the Heyes Quarto, sig. F. 2. recto, has ‘gossip report,’ the true reading, while the Roberts Quarto, sig. F. 2. verso, has ‘gossips report.’ Other instances might be brought to prove that neither edition is printed from the other. But there is reason to think that they were printed from the same MS. Their agreement in spelling and punctuation and in manifest errors is too close to admit of any other hypothesis. We incline to believe that this common MS. was a transcript made from the author’s. It is certain, for instance, that the MS. had ‘veiling an Indian beauty’ (Act iii. Sc. 2, line 99), and it is equally certain that ‘beauty’ was not the word Shakespeare meant. Other examples of common errors derived from the MS. will be found in our footnotes, and our readers may investigate the question for themselves.

Q₁ seems to have been printed by a more accurate printer or ‘overseen’ by a more accurate corrector than Q₂, and therefore cœteris paribus we have preferred the authority of Q₁.