New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-20
THE BANKSIDE SHAKESPEARE.
aTHE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR


THE BANKsIDE SHAKESPEARE Edited by ArrLE-
Tox MORGAN. The Comedies. Histories and Trage-
dies OF Mt william Shakespeare presented at the
Globe and Blackfriars Theatres, circa 1591-l023
Being the text furnished the Players, in parallel
pages with the first revised fso text. with critical
irtroductions svo, PIP. 900. Tho Shakespeare Sc
cicty OF Now-Ysrk.
The edition Of Shakespeare Of which this vol
ume, containing The Merry Wives of Windsor
forms the commencement has been undertaken
by the Shakespeare Society of New-YorlS for tile
purpose Of illustrating the growth OF Shaespearas
plays, by bringing together the quarto and first
folio rcvisions OF them Mr.. Appleton Morgan,
the president of the Shakespeare Society furnishes
an interesting introduction to "The Merry Wives
of Windsor" in which he examines the genesis
of the play, the much-dscussed Falstaf question,
and the evidence which appears to him 70 warrant
the theory that the quarto version OF l6G2 repre-
sents the play as Shakespeare originally wrote
it, and that the ! 623 folio shows it as developed
by accrctions which it had received during twenty
years Of stage representation, and chiefly through
the creative fancy Of the players themselves
Into the question Of the genesis Of Shakespeares
Falstaff we shall not enter, merely observing that
Mr.. Morgans hypothesis in regard to the agency OF
Queen Elizabeth in the matter seems to us no better
supported by any authentic records than the ma
default of verifable facts, spring percnnially
around the whole host Of Shakespeare problems
The other thcory--that Of the way in which the
play grew-strilses us as more ingenious than
credible Why Mr. Morgan should be anxious
to make it appear that the finished play was
more the work of any number Of unknown
hands than of the titular author is question
in no way explained by the fact that this
Shalycspcarean student has been working for years
on the same general lines 1t is wholesome
and safe scientific axiom never TO accept
far-fetched or difficult explanation Of phenomena
until all the natural and simple explanations have
been exhausted. Now, the natural and simple
explanation of the differences between the quarto
and frst-folio editions of the play is, that
Shakespeare himself made the additions and
alterations. This view is reinforced by
the statement of the frst-folio editors ieminges
and Condell, concerning the state of the final
manuscript received by them from Shakespeare
and it is not q little significant that in order
to buttrcss his own far-fetched hypothesis, Mr.
Morgan is compelled-without rhyme or reason
to set aside this statement OF the rsfolio editors
as being of no value
more unlikely procedure than that gined
by Mr.. Morgan it would be difficult TO conceive
In the first place. it is to be noted that by far
the greater number Of the additions and alterations
are distinctly in the nature of improvements On
Mr. Morgan's theory, therefore, the implication
must be that indefinite number Of unknown,
or very little KNOWN players were competent
to improve ShalSespeares text. More than this the
theory degrades Shakespeare, not only by making
him appear mere rough outline draughtsman
but represents him patiently tolerating the
most sweeping teXtual changes, made at will by
the players. 1t is true that Mr. Morgan, in
another work suggests the possibility that Shake
speaPe may have in way supervised these
changes; but we cannot see that this makes the
case much better No student Of Shakespeare
to-day would stand out for the immaculateness
of the plays, of course 1t must be freely con-
coded that the Elizabethan players were accus-
toned to gags and interpretations such as would
astOnish a modern playwright. But when all
reasonable allowance is made for such liberties
we still a very long way from readiness to
admit that the differences between the quarto
and frst-folio versions of the play represent
mainly foreign aecretions that is, changes not
made by Shakespeare.
There never can be any certainty in experiments
at separating the Shakespearean from the nom
Shakespearean in the plays, argues Mr.. Morgan:
therefore the student is at perfect liberty to
take away as much as he pleases from Shakespeare
This argument is, we maintain, faulty. The in
herent presumption must always be in favor of
the authenticity of the latest versions Of the text
AS to the earliest, we know that Shakespeare
did not prepare, for that matter, authorize,
them. We know also that as George the Third said,
there is sad stuff" in them. But nobody has
ever yet shown any criterion for the genius of
and the ssumption-adopted with
curious facility by generations of critics-that
everything which is not excellent is to be con-
demned Interpolation, really rests upon no
rational foundation Shakespearc's genius was
so comprehensive that he
seemed to be
Not one but all mankinds, epitome'
He wrote for every class. of intelligence
and apprehension. 1t is not therefore incredible
that he should have consciously and purposely de-
scended sometimes as far below the average line as
at other times he rose above it. When critics say
that sucrand such lines not worthy Of Shake
speare," it seems to us they manifest strangely
narrow estimate Of the master. When they I'M
dertake to distinguish between what is his writing
and what has been added to his writing, by gaug-
ing the intellectual force and value OF the matter
they are very dangerously occupied ard very
liable TO deceive themselves and all who trust to
their exegesis.
In the present case however, there is certain |
unity and harmony between the new parts of the |
hrs-folio version which goes far to justify the con-
clusion that if Shakespeare did not himself make
all the additions in the first instance, he adopted
and gave them his mprimatur before Heminges |
and Condcll entered upon their work. Most GER
tainly they do not suggest the loose, haphazard |
process relied upon by Mr.. Morgan TO explain the |
growth of the play The president of the New
York Shakespeare Society is an enthusiastic stu
dent and shrewd, ingenious critic. He has, how
ever, launched literary undertaking the very
form Of which is strong incentive TO indulgence
in that conjectura line Of commentary which has
spoiled so many editions of Shakespeare and in
creased the general students difficulties by CON-
polling him to discriminate carefully IN reading
the commentators as in Analysing the author him. |
self. No doubt the temptations to speculation are
powerful In eyervthing that concerns Shake |