"
Can the wit of man suggest any other explanation than that the
editing of the Folio was carelessly done; out of the best quartos and
MSS. in the theatre for acting purposes, and,--if the players did not
lie in what they "often said," and if they kept the originals,--out
of some MSS. received from Shakspere? Whether the two players
themselves threw into the press, after some hasty botchings, whatever
materials they had, or whether they employed an Editor, a very
wretched Editor, or Editors, or whether the great Author, Bacon,
himself was his own Editor, the preparation of a text was infamously
done. The two actors, probably, I think, never read through the
proof-sheets, and took the word of the man whom they employed to edit
their materials, for gospel. The editing of the Folio is so
exquisitely careless that twelve printer's errors in a quarto of
1622, of Richard III, appear in the Folio of 1623. Again, the Merry
Wives of the Folio, is nearly twice as long as the quarto of 1619,
yet keeps old errors.
How can we explain the reckless retention of errors, and also the
large additions and improvements? Did the true author (Bacon or
Bungay) now edit his work, add much matter, and go wrong forty-seven
times where the quarto was right, and go right twenty times when the
quarto was wrong? Did he, for the Folio of 1623, nearly double The
Merry Wives in extent, and also leave all the errors of the fourth
quarto uncorrected?
In that case how negligent was Bacon of his immortal works! Now
Bacon was a scholar, and this absurd conduct cannot be imputed, I
hope, to him.
Pages:
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194