THE first edition of King Lear was published in 1608; its title was as follows: Mr. William Shake-speare his True Chronicle History of the Life and Death of King Lear, and his three Daughters. With the unfortunate Life of Edgar, Sonne and Heire to the Earle of Glocester, and his sullen and assumed Humour of Tom of Bedlam. As it was plaid before the King's Majesty at White-Hall, uppon S. Stephens Night; in Christmas Hollidaies. By his Majesties Servants playing usually at the Globe on the Banck-side. Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at his Shop in Paul's Church-yard at the Signe of the Pied Bull neere St. Austins Gate, 1608.' Two other editions were published by Butter in the same year; and there are found slight variations in each (besides the omission of the place of sale in the title-page), which indicate that they were not printed from the same types used in the first edition, and that they were not identical reprints. They were each collated by Steevens and Malone, and subsequent editors have pointed out minute differences between them; upon the whole, these differences have not been found of importance in determining the text; we therefore, in referring to the original text, speak generally of the quartos. It is remarkable that a play of which three editions were demanded in one year should not have been reprinted till it was collected in the folio of 1623. Other of the plays, which were originally published in a separate form during the poet's life-time, were frequently reprinted before the folio collection. For example; of Richard II. there were three editions published in years succeeding that in which it was first printed; of Richard III., four; of Romeo and Juliet, three; of Henry IV., Part I, five; of lienry V., two; of The Merry Wives of Windsor, one; of Hamlet, three. Whether Lear was piratical, or whether a limited publication was allowed, it is clear, we think, that by some interference the continued publication was stopped. Davies, in his "Dramatic Miscellanies," has expressed an opinion, founded upon the circumstance that Shakspere's less perfect efforts were often republished and this not, that Lear was not popular. This argument is worthless; for it must be remembered that other of Shakspere's most perfect efforts, such as Macbeth, were not published at all till they were collected in the folio. In the folio text of Lear, as compared with the text of the quarto, there are verbal cor rections and additions and omissions; but in the quarto text of that play the metrical arrangement is one mass of confusion. Speech after speech, and scene after scene, which in the genuine copy of the fo.io are metrically correct, are, in the quarto, either printed as prose, or the lines are so mixed ogether without any apparent knowledge in the editor of the metrical laws by which they were constructed, that it would have been almost impossible, from this text alone, to have reduced thero to anything like the form in which they were written by the author. This circumstance appears to us conclusive that these quarto copies could not have been printed from the author's manu script; and yet they might have been printed from a genuine playhouse copy. It is to be remarked that, in all the quarto editions, which it would appear from various collateral circumstances were not printed under the superintendence of the author, the metrical arrangement is, in the same way, more or less defective; and we may judge from this, that in the stage copies the pauses of the blank verse were either disregarded as a guide for the actors, or that the printed copies were produced from a report made in some way or other by persons present at the representation, or by the repetition of the players themselves, who would not mark those pauses. It will be observed that there is a remarkable particularity in the title of the quartos of Lear: "As it was plaid before the King's Majesty at White-Hall, uppon S. Stephens Night; in Christmas Hollidaies." In the entry at Stationers' Hall, Nov. 26, 1607, the same particularity occurs: "As yt was played before the King's Majestie at Whitehall, upon St. Stephen's night at Christmas last." From the somewhat ostentatious precision with which Butter mentious this circumstance, may it not be conjectured that he obtained a copy, used upon that occasion, from some one of the players-perfect to a certain extent, but stili not the author's copy! These considerations may at first sight appear unimportant, but they are of some consequence in determining the value of a text. The modern text of King Lear is essentially that of the folio. There are passages, indeed, which the editors have restored from the quartos; and we admit the importance of preserving those passages, upon the principle that not a line which appears to nave been written by Shakspere ought to be lost; but, in other respects, the text of the folio is infinitely superior to that of the quartos, and the editors for the most part have abided by it. But they have sometimes made up a text out of both copies, and sometimes, arbitrarily as we think, preferred the text of the quartos to that of the folio. Our copy is literally that of the folio, except that where a passage occurs in the quartos which is not in the folio, we introduce such a passage, printing it, however, in brackets. It would have been wearisome, and, in a certain degree, useless, to have noticed all the differences between the folio and the quartos; but we notice the very few instances in which we adopt the text of the quartos and not that of the folio; and the instances also in which, adopting the text of the folio, we differ from the editors who have preferred that of the quarto. The text of the folio, in one material respect, differs considerably from that of the quartos. Large passages which are found in the quartos are omitted in the folio: there are, indeed, some lines found in the folio which are not in the quartos, amounting to about fifty. These are scattered passages, not very remarkable when detached, but for the most part essential to the progress of the action or to the development of character. On the other hand, the lines found in the quartos which are not in the folio, amount to as many as two hundred and twenty-five; and they comprise one entire scene, and one or two of the most striking connected passages in the drama. It would be easy to account for these omissions, by the assumption that in the folio edition the original play was cut down by the editors; for Lear, without the omissions, is one amongst the longest of Shakspere's plays. But this theory would require us to assume, also, that the additions to the folio were made by the editors. These comprise several such minute touches as none but the hand of tho master could have superadded. One example will suffice. In the storm scene, when Lear and the Fool find the hovel, Lear says to him In, boy; go first.-You houseless poverty, Nay, get thee in. I'll pray, and then I'll sleep " Upon this passage Johnson has a note:-"These two lines were added in the author's revision, and are only in the folio. They are very judiciously intended to represent that humility, or tenderness, or neglect of forms, which affliction forces on the mind." But Johnson did not think so favourably of the omissions in the folio; although he has expressed an opinion that they were the omissions of the author. Of some lines in Act III., Scene VI., he says, "The omission of them in the folio is certainly faulty yet I believe the folio is printed from Shakspere's last revision, carelessly and hastily performed, with more thought of shortening the scenes than of continuing the action." We cannot willingly yield to the belief that Shakspere "carelessly and hastily" performed any part of his work; and, especially, that he yielded to this carelessness and haste in the revision of a tragedy which, takon altogether, "may be judged to be the most perfect specimen of the dramatic art existing in the world." Let us examine the matter, therefore, a little more in detail. In the first and second acts the omissions are very slight. In the opening of the third act we lose a spirited description of Lear in the storm-" tears his white hair," &c. But mark,-it is description; and the judgment of Shakspere in omitting it is unquestionable, for he subsequently shows Lear in action under precisely the same circumstances. In the sixth scene of the same act is omitted the imaginary trial of Regan and Goneril, "I will arraign them straight." Was this a passage that an author would have thrust out carelessly and hastily? It is impossible, as it would be presumptuous were it possible, unhesitatingly to assign a motive for this omission. The physical exertion that would be necessary for any actor (even for Burbage, who we know played Lear) + to carry through the whole of the third act might have been so extreme as to render it expedient to make this abridgment; or, what is more probable, as Kent previous to this passage had said, "All the power of his wits have given way to his impatience," the imaginary arraignment might have been rejected by the poet, as exhibiting too much method in the madness. The rhyming soliloquy of Edgar, with which this scene closes, might have been spared by the poet without much compunction. The second scene of the fourth act, in which Albany so bitterly reproaches Goneril, is greatly abridged. In its amplified state it does not advance the progress of the action, nor contribute to the development of the characters. The whole of the third scene of that act is also omitted. It is one of the most beautifully written of the play; and we should indeed regret had it not been preserved to us in the quartos. But let it be borne in mind that the greater part of the scene is purely descriptive; and, exquisite as the description is, particularly in those parts which make us better understand the surpassing loveliness of Cordelia's character, we cannot avoid believing that the poet sternly resolved to let the effect of this wonderful drama entirely depend upon its action. Tieck puts the rejection of this scene upon another groundthat it introduced some complexity into the tragedy, and described events, such as the return of the French king, and the sojourn of Lear in Dover without seeing his daughter, which have no influence upon the future conduct of the poem. The subsequent omissions, to the end of the drama, are few and unimportant. The period of the first production of Lear may be fixed with tolerable certainty. We do not mean to say that the precise year of its first performance can be ascertained, any more than the precise day. To Malone "it seems extremely probable that its first appearance was in March or April, 1605." To Dr. Drake "it appears more probable that its production is to be attributed to the close of the year 1604." Here Malone and Drake are at issue upon a question of three months; when the facts which we really know about the matter give us a range of three years. The first certain fact, which we collect from the registers of the Stationers' Company, is that Lear was played before King James, at Whitehall, upon St. Stephen's night, in the year 1606-that is, on the 26th of December. Here is the Limit in one direction. In the other direction we have the publication in 1603, of Harsnet'a We shall have occasion subsequently to advert to this opinion of Lear from a great poet-Shelley. "And his whole action he could change with ease, |