« PreviousContinue »
THE TEXT CAREFULLY RESTORED ACCORDING TO
THE FIRST EDITIONS; WITH INTRODUCTIONS,
NOTES ORIGINAL AND SELECTED, AND
A LIFE OF THE POET;
REV. H. N. HUDSON, A.M.
REVISED EDITION, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES.
IN TWELVE VOLUMES.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by
NOYES, HOLMES, AND COMPANY,
UNIVERSITY PRESS :
JOHN WILSON AND SON, CAMBRIDGE.
THE TRAGEDY OF KING RICHARD III.
The earliest notice we have of this play is an entry in the Sta. tioners' Register by Andrew Wise, dated October 20, 1597, and running thus : “ THE TRAGEDY OF King RICHARD THE THIRD, with the death of the Duke of Clarence.” The same year was published a quarto pamphlet of forty-seven leaves, the title-page reading as follows : “ The Tragedy of King Richard the Third ; containing his treacherous plots against his brother Clarence, the pitiful murder of his innocent nephews, his tyrannical usurpation, with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserved death : As it hath been lately acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlain his servants. At London : Printed by Valentine Simms for Andrew Wise, dwelling in Paul's Church-yard, at the sign of the Angel. 1597.” In this edition the author's name was not given. The play was issued again in 1598, the title-page being the same, except the addition, • By Williain Shakespeare," and the substitution of Thomas Creede for Valentine Simms. There was a third issue by the same publisher in 1602 ; which, though merely a reprint of the former, claimed in the title-page to be “ newly augmented.” By another entry at the Stationers', bearing date June 27, 1603, it appears that Wise transferred his riglit in the play to Matthew Law, who published a fourth edition in 1605, and a fifth in 1613. Three other issues of the same text are also known to have been made in quarto, the several dates being 1624, 1629, and 1634 ; and there is some reason to think that an edition was put forth in 1622, though no copy of that date is kuown to be extant.
Of these eight editions, all except the first two purport to be “ newly augmented ;” which, as the text was the same in them all, would seem to infer that the publishers understood the play to have received certain additions, and wanted to have it thought that their copies included them. Accordingly, in the folio of 1623