Page images
PDF
EPUB

Right Honourable the Lord Montecute," anno 1591, August 15 to 21 (Nichols, iii. 90-96). "Mundaie, August 17. On Munday, at eight of the clock in the morning, her Highnes took horse, with all her traine, and rode into the parke: where was a delicate bowre prepared, under the which were her Highnesse musicians placed, and a crossebowe by a Nymph, with a sweet song, delivered to her hands, to shoote at the deere, about some thirtie in number, put into a paddocke, of which number she killed three or four, and the Countess of Kildare one.

"Then rode her Grace to Cowdray to dinner, and aboute six of the clocke in the evening, from a turret, sawe sixteen buckes (all having fayre lawe) pulled downe with greyhoundes, in a laund. All the huntinge ordered by Maister Henrie Browne, the Lorde Montague's third sonne, Raunger of Windsore Forest."

Had Shakespeare read this account, or does he allude in any way to it? The hunting scene in Henry VI. bears date probably 1592-3. That before us in Love's Labour's Lost belongs very likely (at least in the opening of IV. i.) to the revised version. Furnivall suggests this in his 1904 edition of the play (p. vi., footnote). So that Shakespeare probably had read it, but the fact of his disregarding those useful theatrical accessories of music and bowers shows also that probably he was in nowise guided by it; or he rejected them as unworthy of a place in a hunting-scene. They would have come in very handily as a mode of entertaining those inhospitably-treated "girls of France."

I had thought at first that the hunting-shooting picture in Love's Labour's Lost was meant rather to represent French than English sport. But with this account, done according to Windsor ways, that idea must be dismissed. In Henry VI. it seems to be fair enough stalking, and the mention of the "noise of the cross-bow," as likely to frighten the game, shows that the deer were getting a chance. Even at Cowdray we see that "fair law" was recognised on the second occasion. But when the queen shoots, the time when we would like to see sport at its highest and best, with the doubtful number of kills, and

d

the "put into a paddock," it is butchery of the first degree. It is very little better for his Highness of Wurtemburg at Windsor.

My reason for dwelling upon this is that Shakespeare seemed to me to be reproving, or to be wishing to reprove, as though condemning a new un-English form of hunting. In the play the King at any rate is mounted. In real life we know Queen Elizabeth was devoted to every form of the chase,

properly so called. But are not the words "play the murderer" (line 8) chosen with some such purpose of reproach? Again, it is "mercy to kill" (line 24), and all the following lines of the Princess's speech, are very plain-spoken against the brutal mutilation that must have taken place. It is even a detested crime, for the sake of glory, to spill the poor deer's blood. Pity shouldn't let her do it. It is only for praise. I should like to think that Shakespeare condemns these methods, perhaps of French origin, as unsportsmanlike.

SOME TEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

Before enumerating the passages in the following text, wherein I have varied in my readings from the generally received text, that of the Globe Shakespeare, which is that of the Cambridge edition, I must venture on one or two remarks. I am not inclined to accept absolutely the statement of Furness and others that there is but one original text-that of the 1598 Quarto. Some consideration must be given to the well-known statement of the editors of the Folio, which, if words have any meaning, imply that they had access to reliable "copy," whether prompter's or manuscript, it is unsafe to guess. No doubt they lay claim to (the words need not be requoted) more, very much more, than they have executed, when they profess to have cured and made perfect all the maims and deformities of the stolen and surreptitious texts (Quartos) before the public. But the debt due to them is incalculable, and as a rule, where there is a choice of reading and where opinion is about equally divided as to their merits, or even where it is not obviously in favour of the Quarto, my vote would be for

the Folio version. Sidney Lee says (Life, p. 307, ed. 1899): "The Quarto text of Love's Labour's Lost, Midsummer-Night's Dream and Richard II., for example, differ very largely, and always for the better, from the Folio texts." Where it is for the better, it is of course accepted; but that it is "always for the better" reads to me like a slip of the pen from that reliable authority. For Midsummer-Night's Dream, it is, I believe, a verity; but it is too sweeping an assertion for Love's Labour's Lost. The text of the former Quarto is exceptionally excellent. Furnivall, in his edition of Love's Labour's Lost Quarto merely says: "Its text is earlier, if not better, than that of the First Folios which was printed from it." I have not made use of Furnivall's Introduction to Griggs' facsimile. I thought it better to make independent comparison of the two texts, with the help of the Cambridge edition collation. I will give the readings where I differ from the Cambridge edition (1863); following the Folio where they follow the Quarto. Punctuation and obvious usual misprints, or archaic spellings, are not dealt with here. I place the Folio in the first column, the Quarto (or Cambridge) in the second.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Most of the variations in the above lists are unimportant. Any that seem to need it have received attention in the notes. Not a few of them, such as "unpeeled," would never be accepted unless by those strongly biassed in favour of the Quarto. In those instances, so far as they go, they favour the authority of the Folio; but for a full test of their respective merits in this play it will be necessary to lay two other lists before the reader -where the Folio corrects the Quarto and vice versa. I have not culled trifling misprints for these lists, except here and there for examples, or where distinctly misleading, or liable to mislead.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »