Chapter 1
Introduction
The two earliest printed versions of Othello, the Quarto of 1622 (Q) and the Folio of 1623 (F), were not the very first texts of the play, for a manuscript in Shakespeareâs hand must have preceded them. In this study of âthe texts of Othelloâ I suggest that Shakespeare (like other dramatists of the period) wrote a first draft or âfoul papersâ1 and also a fair copy, and that these two authorial versions were both copied by professional scribes, the scribal transcripts serving as printerâs copy for Q and F. So the âtextsâ of my title refer not to two but, in the first instance, to six versions of the play, which it will be convenient to designate A (foul papers) and Aa (scribal copy taken from the foul papers), B (authorial fair copy) and Bb (scribal copy), and Q and F. The six texts might then be arranged in a family tree, growing from left to right:
Unfortunately textual relationships can turn out to be almost as complicated as human relationships. As will appear, Qand F are not entirely independent strains, since F shows signs of âcontaminationâ directly from Q, a cross-fertilisation as unwelcome (from the editorâs point of view) as are other kinds of incest.
The six early texts are the most important ones, but they are not the end of the story. I shall have to keep an eye on the Second Quarto (Q2, 1630) and later printed editions â especially Arden 3, the third version of the play to be published in The Arden Shakespeare. Arden 3 follows Arden 1 (edited by H.C. Hart in 1903) and Arden 2 (edited by M.R. Ridley in 1958), and is the âonly begetterâ of The Texts of âOthelloâ: that is, the two studies of Othello were planned as companion volumes, each self-sufficient and yet each lacking much detailed information found only in the other.
To return to the six early texts: four of the six have perished and cannot be inspected, so it may seem that I propose to build on insecure foundations. To some extent this is true, though not more true than in the case of any other editor of Othello. Every editor has to explain the provenance and transmission of his text or texts, whatever the number of lost intermediate versions. I have a significant advantage over previous editors of the play if, as I would like to think, I have identified the scribe of Bb, a man with quite distinctive scribal habits that can be checked in surviving manuscripts: this identification, if correct, solves dozens of textual problems in Othello and brings not only Bb but also B into sharper focus, which, in turn, throws new light on A and Aa. Four of the six texts may have disappeared, but the editorâs task is far from a hopeless one. On the contrary, what with the new information that follows about the publisher of Q (chapter 3), the scribe of Bb (chapter 6), and about Shakespeareâs often illegible writing (chapter 8), we are in a good position to rub away the film of old theories and to see the textual problems of Othello more clearly. As might be expected, some of these problems are not peculiar to Othello: the argument has to be tested against other Shakespearian texts, and opens up larger issues. In the first place this is a study of the texts of one play, but at the same time the reader should be prepared to reconsider some of the basic assumptions of our textual criticism of Shakespeare.
This, then, is a book that has much in common with J. Dover Wilsonâs The Manuscript of Shakespeareâs âHamletâ and the Problems of its Transmission (Cambridge, 2 vols, 1934), being similarly concerned to track down scribes, compositors, the sources of error, etc., even though in some ways more wide-ranging â for instance, in its archival dimension, and in the use made of the âPavier quartosâ and the Crane manuscripts. Like Dover Wilsonâs book, it has a âdetectiveâ interest as the evidence accumulates and is gradually fitted together. I can only hope that, though not endowed with Dover Wilsonâs skills, I communicate the excitement of such work, and that readers will understand the need to master so much textual detail. The words, after all, are the words of Shakespeare, even if the hands are the hands of Aa or Bb, or of compositors B and E. If it turns out (among other things) that some of Shakespeareâs most sublime poetry has been mislined and consequently misread for centuries (chapter 10), for that reason alone the effort should be worthwhile.
Having introduced my aims and hinted at some conclusions, I have two other introductory duties. First, to describe Q and F, and to outline some of the extraordinary differences of the two texts; and, second, to provide a preliminary survey of recent editorial thinking about these two texts.
The Quarto was entered in the Stationersâ Register on 6 October 1621. âThomas Walkley Entred for his copie vnder the hands of Sir George Buck, and Master Swinhowe warden, The Tragedie of Othello, the moore of Venice ⊠vjdâ.2 Q, printed the same title, and added âAs it hath beene diuerse times acted at the Globe, and at the Black-Friers, by his Maiesties Seruants. Written by William Shakespeare. [Ornament] London, Printed by N.O. for Thomas Walkley, and are to be sold at his shop, at the Eagle and Child, in Brittans Bursse. 1622â. Q collates A2, BâM4, N2, and consists of forty-eight leaves; after an epistle, âThe Stationer to the Readerâ signed âThomas Walkleyâ, the text follows on pages numbered 1 to 99.
The other early text of Othello was published in the Folio collection of 1623; placed third from the end, it precedes Antony and Cleopatra and Cymbeline. Like Q it has the title The Tragedie of Othello, the Moore of Venice. It occupies thirty pages, printed in double columns; on the last page, after âFINISâ, it gives a list of âThe Names of the Actorsâ (Fig. 4).
According to Charlton Hinmanâs Through Line Numbering,3 F â one of Shakespeareâs longest texts â contains 3,685 lines, about 160 lines more than Q. Fâs 160 additional lines include more than thirty passages of 1 to 22 lines; amongst Fâs most interesting additions we may note Roderigoâs account of Desdemonaâs elopement (1.1.119â35), Desdemonaâs Willow Song (4.3.29â52, 54â6, 59â62) and Emiliaâs speech on marital fidelity (4.3.85â102).
âApart from passages in which the texts are divergentâ, said W.W. Greg,4 âQ has only some five half-lines that are not in F.â A slight understatement, but it remains true, I think, that âthe F omissions are trifling and doubtless due to errorâ.5 In addition, it has been estimated, Q and F diverge in about a thousand readings (hence the need for a more systematic scrutiny of âthe texts of Othelloâ than has appeared to date). The figure depends on how we define divergence; if differences of punctuation are included the figure would be much higher. Whatever their precise number, the many variants of the play pose editorial problems of exceptional complexity, equalled (in the Shakespeare canon) only by Hamlet and King Lear.
Both Q and F were press-corrected, which added yet more variants.6 The press corrections may but need not restore manuscript readings, since proof-readers sometimes examined the first âpullsâ or rough proofs without checking the printerâs copy, i.e. sometimes corrected without authority.
More than fifty oaths, printed by Q, were deleted in F or replaced by less offensive words. Editors used to assume that F was purged because of the Act of Abuses, 1606, which prohibited profanity and swearing, but we now know that some scribes omitted profanity for purely âliteraryâ reasons and that not only prompt-books but even private transcripts were purged. On the assumption that the profanity stems from Shakespeare, modern editors revert to Qâs readings. If more QF variants could be shown to point back to a single cause, as with Fâs purgation of profanity, the editorâs task would be easier: as will appear, the identification of the scribe of Bb helps us to make some progress.
Both Q and F divide the play into acts and scenes. Q numbers only Acts 2, 4 and 5, and one scene (2.1); F numbers the acts and scenes as in modern editions, except that Fâs 2.2 combines two scenes (2.2 and 2.3 in Arden 3). Nevertheless, scene divisions are marked in Q with the usual Exeunt, and in effect Q initiated the divisions adopted by all subsequent texts. Q however, was the first of Shakespeareâs âgood quartosâ to be divided into acts, and its act divisions (like Fâs) may have no authority.
The stage directions in Q and F âhave a common basisâ (Greg7). Qâs are more complete, and, said Greg, âmight all have been written by the authorâ; some give essential information that could not have been inferred from the dialogue. I list some of Qâs more revealing stage directions, adding Fâs (if any) in square brackets.8 1.1.80 âBrabantio at a windowâ [âBra.Aboueâ, speech prefix]; 157 âEnter Barbantio in his night gowne, âŠâ [âEnter Brabantio, âŠâ]; 1.3.0 âEnter Duke and Senators, set at a Table with lights and Attendantsâ [âEnter Duke, Senators, and Officersâ]; 124 âExit two or threeâ; 170 âEnter Desdemona, Iago, and the restâ [â⊠Iago, Attendantsâ]; 2.1.0 âEnter Montanio, Gouernor of Cypres, âŠâ [âEnter Montano, âŠâ]; 55 âA shotâ; 177 âTrumpets withinâ; 196 âthey kisseâ; 2.3.140 âEnter Cassio, driuing in Roderigoâ [â⊠pursuing Rodorigoâ]; 152 âthey fightâ; 153 âA bell rungâ; 3.3.454 âhe kneelesâ; 465 âIago kneelesâ; 4.1.43 âHe fals downeâ [âFalls in a Traunceâ]; 210 âA Trumpetâ; 5.1.45 âEnter Iago with a lightâ [âEnter Iagoâ]; 5.2.0 âEnter Othello with a lightâ [âEnter Othello, and Desdemona in her bedâ]; 17 âHe kisses herâ; 82 âhe stifles her. / Emillia calls withinâ [âSmothers her./ Emilia at the dooreâ]; 123 âshe diesâ; 195 âOth. fals on the bedâ; 232 âThe Moore runnes at Iago. Iago kils his wifeâ; 249 âshe diesâ; 279 â⊠Cassio in a Chaireâ [âCassioâ]; 354 âHe stabs himselfeâ; 357 âHe diesâ[âDyesâ].
As this selection shows, Q supplies more detail than F, and F lacks many directions that one would expect from a prompt-book: sound effects, stage movement and lighting are all neglected. On the other hand, Q is sometimes vague (âtwo or threeâ, âand the restâ) and omits some essential equipment (Desdemonaâs bed) â quite like other Shakespearian texts that supposedly derive from foul papers. Some of Qâs unusual phrasing can be matched in the stage directions in other plays (cf. p. 161).
Next, a quick survey of editorial thinking about the provenance and transmission of Q and F. Opinions have differed, and my summary is meant to highlight the differences, without pretending that this is a survey of all the possibilities.
(1) E.K. Chambers, 1930. âQ and F are both good and fairly well-printed texts; and they clearly rest substantially upon the same originalâ. F was âprinted from the original and Q from a not very faithful transcript, without a few passages cut in representation. It must have been an early transcript, in view of the profanities. Whether it was made for stage purposes or for a private collector one can hardly say.⊠The Q stage directions may well be the authorâs, but the transcriber might have added some marginal notes for action, not in F.â
(2) Alice Walker, 1952, 1953. Q âwas a memorially contaminated text, printed from a manuscript for which a book-keeper was possibly responsible and based on the play as actedâ; F âwas printed from a copy of the quarto which had been corrected by collation with a more authoritative manuscript.â
(3) W.W. Greg, 1955. âQ appears to have been printed from a transcript, perhaps of the foul papers ⊠The date of the transcript is unlikely to have been earlier than 1620â. Greg agreed, following Miss Walker, that F was printed from a copy of Q collated with a manuscript. The manuscript, he thought, was probably the prompt-book, prepared by a scribe. Hence âwe get a picture of two different scribes struggling with, and at times variously interpreting, much and carelessly altered foul papers â perhaps even of alterations made by the author or with his authority after his draft had been officially copiedâ.
(4) Fredson Bowers, 1964. âDr. Walkerâs case (though correct) is not nearly so copious or rigorous in its evidence as to make for an acceptable demonstrationâ. Concluded that âonce the necessary compositor studies have been made, the rigorous application of this evidence ⊠may hopefully lead to a final determination of disputed printed versus manuscript copy in the Folioâ.
(5) J.K. Walton, 1971. Argued that F Othello was not printed from corrected Q(as Miss Walker had claimed), but from a manuscript.
(6) Stanley Wells, 1987.9 âQ represents a scribal copy of foul papers. F represents a scribal copy of Shakespeareâs own revised manuscript of the playâ.
âThere must have existed a transcript by Shakespeare himself
Here we may pause to pick out some of the more interesting differences. Chambers, Greg, etc., consider Q a good text; Miss Walker thinks it contains âa solid core of variant readings only explicable as memorial perversions.â Chambers dates the Q transcript âearlyâ (i.e. before 1606), and Greg iateâ, not earlier than 1620. Chambers, Walker and Greg assume that there was only one authorial text, Wells that there were two. The F manuscript puzzles some of the commentators, including Greg who confesses that he has âslipped into thinking of the manuscript that lies at the back of F as the prompt-bookâ, but notes some evidence to the contrary. Wells observes that Fâs stage directions âare not strongly theatrical âŠ. Particularly striking is the total absence from F of music cuesâ; unusual spelling and punctuation suggest that âanother hand intervenedâ between Shakespeareâs transcript and Fâs printed version.
One other difference deserves immediate attention. J.K. Waltonâs The Quarto Copy for the First Folio of Shakespeare (1971) received mostly neutral or unfavourable reviews,10 yet his rebuttal of Miss Walkerâs theory gradually won support.
(7) Rich...