Shakespeare’s Authorship Through the First and Second Quarto and the First Folio
Shakespeare was a well-renowned English playwright and poet during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras. His plays and poems are studied thoroughly in literary scenes, showing that his work has lived on throughout history and that he was successful in his craft. The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is one of Shakespeare’s most well-known and influential plays to date. However, despite the version we have today, the text of Romeo and Juliet has undergone three different editions before reaching the finished work we possess now. These versions include the first quarto, printed in 1597; the second quarto, printed in 1599; and finally, the First Folio, printed in 1623. According to Elizabeth Ford, ‘the consequence of the reordering of Romeo and Juliet is the dispersal of notions of authorship within the concepts of writing and performance on Shakespeare’s stage, and the shift is from seeing Shakespeare in terms of texts to understanding the complex dynamics between playwright, actor, and audience.’ (Ford, 2010) From Ford’s understanding, there is now a different perspective on how the play is formed and the implications this has for Shakespeare as an author during the Elizabethan era and as an author in the 21st century. However, despite Shakespeare’s authorial journey through the versions of Romeo and Juliet, we have neglected the significant editing that these versions have undergone and the implications of the play in that context. In this essay, I will discuss these three different versions of Romeo and Juliet and how the changes throughout them influenced the text and Shakespeare’s authorship.
To understand Shakespeare as an author and his works as literary texts, we must first comprehend the history of the text. The First Quarto of Romeo and Juliet was written in 1597, and after the launch of the second quarto, it became known as the ‘bad’ or ‘foul’ quarto. The main reason for this is that it seemed to lack certain aspects of the text. While some might claim it ‘lacks Shakespearean literacy,’ the release of the first quarto is said to be merely a memorial from the memory of one or two actors from The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. As readers, it is quite challenging and obscure to read, especially when going through the prologue, due to the way it has been printed. When the first quarto was released, it had been printed by John Danter, an English printer and a notorious pirate, which is how the bad quarto came into existence. However, looking at Shakespeare’s authorship and his more renowned pieces, we can see – particularly later when examining the second quarto – that these different printers had a substantial influence on his texts and plays. We also notice that his name is not explicitly mentioned in the text; we can draw two conclusions from this decision: the first is his choice to remain anonymous as a playwright to some extent. The second conclusion that can be inferred is that he wanted his audience to believe that the works being released were not his original creations to avoid implicating him in the mistakes present in this text.
Regarding the first quarto as a body of Shakespearean literature, we can tell that it was put together haphazardly, not just through the writing of words but because some characters are not given proper names in certain parts of the play and are only described by their positions. However, the changes in later versions of the play, along with the scrutiny it would have faced at the time, especially given Shakespeare’s position as an author, would have been immense. Even though there were no mentions of Shakespeare’s name on the title page, Romeo and Juliet would have already been witnessed by a large audience, implicating him in the errors of the first quarto. In John Jowett’s research on the matter, he states that ‘David Farley-Hills describes the copy for the first quarto as a redaction based on the copy of the first manuscript for the second quarto’ (Jowett, 1998). From this observation, we can consider the first quarto as an unfinished and unpolished work of Shakespeare’s disseminated through an actor's imperfect memory. Due to the nature of the text, it alters how we should perceive it, as part of theatrical performance and the printing process, rather than simply as a literary text like the rest of the quartos, but still a piece of Shakespearean literature for comparison. A significant change in the quartos is also related to the printers. Considering how the first quarto was printed, it might be safe to suggest that Shakespeare had initially written this quarto as a draft and not as something meant for public publication, but rather as a rough draft for the actors of the play, which may have been leaked to the public by John Danter.
Moving on to the second quarto, which is seen as the ‘better’ of the two quartos, we as readers can see significant changes in the text. First and foremost, one of the most significant changes we can deduce between the two versions is that the second quarto’s title is The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet. This further supports the evidence mentioned by Jowett that the first quarto was a mismatched copy of the second quarto since the title of the first quarto is The Most Excellent Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet, which takes away from the sorrow that follows in the play. To touch on that point, the reason these titles are mismatched may be attributed to how it was conveyed to the printer from recollection. Observing the history of the second quarto, it was published in 1599 and was edited and printed by Thomas Creede, who sought to correct the previous ‘mistakes’ of the first quarto. Compared to Danter, Creede was known as ‘one of the best printers of his time.’ Due to this, when studying the second quarto, we can say that ‘it is, therefore, the text from which all subsequent editions derive.” (Cantrell and Williams, 1957) For example, in the first quarto, during the entry of Sampfon and Gregoire – who are properly named in the second quarto – they are referred to as the ‘Servent-men of the Capulets,’ not giving them first names, which could be the first difference in many examples that occur throughout the first quarto compared to the second. From this, we can deduce that the second quarto was specifically made to be read as a play rather than a novel-like book. We see less confusion among characters that we found in the first quarto due to them having proper names and less generalised descriptions of their occupations. When comparing these changes, we see that they have generally been made through the edits of two separate compositors, one of whom was Thomas Creede. We could consider Shakespeare as the main compositor of this redefined text; however, another separate editor may be the printer who took part in this process or someone close to Shakespeare who could have assisted in the editing process. Acknowledging the presence of this separate compositor leads us to recognise that Shakespeare is not the sole author of Romeo and Juliet. The nature of Romeo and Juliet as a play, according to E. Pearlman, was said to be more ‘occasional, improvisational, and perhaps more collaborative than has generally been allowed.’ (Pearlman, 1994) This furthers the implications that Shakespeare would have had others collaborating with him when writing this text. Although he might be the primary author of the concept of the text, he might have had help with the composition. Moving on to the prologue of the play, the second quarto has been simplified much more than what we see in the first quarto.
Q1: “Two household friends alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From civil broils broke into enmity,
Whose civil war makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes,
A pair of star-crossed lovers took their life,
Whose misadventures, piteous overthrows –
Through the continuing of their fathers’ strife
And death-marked passage of their parents’ rage –
Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here we want, we’ll study to amend.”
The second quarto is reworded in more depth and is slightly different from the first.
Q2: “In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life,
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife.
The fearful passage of their death-marked love,
And the continuance of their parents’ rage –
Which but their children’s end naught could remove –
Is now the two hours of traffic to our stage.
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.”
It is also important to note that the second quarto is approximately 800 lines longer than the first quarto, sitting at around 2,200 lines. This supports the idea that the first quarto serves as a recollection of Shakespeare’s play; therefore, some elements may have been missed when compiling the previous body of work. In research by Paul L. Cantrell and George Walton Williams, they provide evidence for this change in names. They demonstrate that in the second quarto, ‘proper names in stage directions generally appear in distinguishing type on 35 signatures.’ (Cantrell, Williams, 1957)
Not only are proper names added to this version of the play, but we can also see a difference in the way some words are spelled. “Prof. Pollard and Prof. Wilson’s chief proof for the first revision is the difference in Q1 of the spelling of Capulet: Capolet, with Capulet being used in I i–II vi, and Capolet in the remaining part of the play. (Hjort, 1926) Nevertheless, it is safe to say that the second quarto emerged after Shakespeare realised the mistakes of the first quarto. Hjort also demonstrates, based on research conducted by Prof. Pollard and Prof. Wilson, that the second quarto reflects Shakespeare’s own manuscript as it appeared after his second revision. (Hjort, 1926) Therefore, when it comes to the second quarto, we can be confident that we have been presented with a complete text of Shakespeare that better reflects his authorship.
With the conjunction of the first and second quarto, we are given Shakespeare’s final body of work presented in the First Folio, published in 1623. The first folio was published several years after Shakespeare's death and was edited by Henry Condell and John Heminges, highlighting those with whom Shakespeare was affiliated. Both Condell and Heminges were actors for the playing company Shakespeare wrote for. These two actors provided us with an enduring version of Shakespeare’s complete works; however, according to T.H. Howard Hill, ‘two men who gave us Shakespeare have been conveniently pushed to the background and forgotten.’ (Hill, 1984) This indicates that authorship usually goes to those who have written the work or, in this case, conceptualised the idea. It could be argued that although Romeo and Juliet is primarily attributed to Shakespeare, the number of times it has been edited has not granted the editors any recognition. With the previous versions of Shakespeare’s work—focusing primarily on Romeo and Juliet—it is clear that Shakespeare was not as established as an author when the first folio was released. The primary evidence for this statement is shown in the portrait of the author on the title page, which is displayed in a large rectangle rather than the small oval usually found in most works. The placement of this portrait opens two avenues for Shakespeare’s viewership; the first is with the people, as they were the ones who filled the theatre to watch his plays when he was still alive. The other readership it addresses is the aristocracy, as Shakespeare’s work is of high standing, and his authorship is legitimate. We can see that the other versions of Romeo and Juliet did not feature this portrait, although they did include a prologue that is no longer part of the text. What can be inferred from this editorial decision is that the text was so well-known and established at that point that there was no need to explain it. An alternative explanation for the decision to extract the prologue could be the authors’ desire to omit the story, allowing for a more elaborate reading experience. Elaborating on that point, the first folio has now been made into a collection of Shakespeare’s texts to be read through the ages rather than a simple play for re-enactment.
Additionally, looking at the significance of Shakespeare’s first folio and reflecting on the history of folios in the Elizabethan era, folios were typically reserved for high-standing texts, such as religious and historical works. Consequently, we can deduce that Shakespeare’s text held the highest esteem to be made into a folio, especially when viewed from a modern perspective. Furthermore, the first folio is considered the most perfected version of all the texts. According to Charlton Hinman, ‘the first folio is thus the prime textual example for what we value most in literary art.’ (Hinman, 1953) Hinman touches on the significance of this final product due to its assembly and composition; it is a combination of some of Shakespeare’s manuscripts, with certain texts transcribed from his plays, which were later edited. The importance Shakespeare gained after publishing the first folio transcended that of a playwright and poet, evolving into a national figure enduring through the ages. Thus, the first folio is primarily a means to solidify Shakespeare’s authorship and present the version that is most ‘Shakespeare-like’ through the edits of external sources. The advent of the first folio shapes how we understand Shakespeare’s intentions for the text and how he intended for the audience to engage with it. Shakespeare’s writing in this first folio spans from comedies to tragedies, although he is more well-known for his tragic touch in plays. According to the publishers, the first folio provides more authentic versions of the plays Shakespeare wrote. However, it was published when Shakespeare could no longer correct the texts being released. Moreover, without the publication of the first folio, as modern readers, we might not have encountered Shakespeare in the way we know him today.
When looking at the first and second quartos, although they are the same play and have the same centralised plot, we must view them not only as different versions but also as different entities. The first quarto is a derivative of a script made for the actors to use and is written explicitly for acting purposes. It is mainly seen as a theatrical version of the Romeo and Juliet manuscript. However, the second quarto is primarily the derivative of ‘foul’ papers, although it has redeemed itself in the eyes of the public and rectified the previous ‘mistakes’ of the first quarto. Due to a constant shift in versions, the text of Romeo and Juliet could be the result of three centuries' worth of editorial decisions. Shakespeare’s authorship could be viewed as unstable, if that is the case. Although the first quarto was under heavy scrutiny, it has interestingly traversed through time and therefore is different rather than ‘foul’. The best way to consider the first and second quartos, as well as the first folio, is as different stages of Shakespeare’s career more than anything else.
Reference List:
Howard-Hill, T. H. (1984). Shakespeare’s Compilers [Review of They Gave Us Shakespeare. John Heminge & Henry Condell, by C. Connell]. Shakespeare Quarterly, 35(2), 245–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/2869945
Ford, E. (2010). Will Kemp, Shakespeare, and the Composition of “Romeo and Juliet.” Early Theatre, 13(2), 162–175. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43498974
PEARLMAN, E. (1994). Shakespeare at Work: “Romeo and Juliet.” English Literary Renaissance, 24(2), 315–342. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43447434
Cantrell, P. L., & Williams, G. W. (1957). The Printing of the Second Quarto of “Romeo and Juliet” (1599). Studies in Bibliography, 9, 107–128. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40371198
Hjort, G. (1926). The Good and Bad Quartos of “Romeo and Juliet” and “Love’s Labour’s Lost.” The Modern Language Review,21(2), 140–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/3714706
Hinman, C. (1954). The Proof-Reading of the First Folio Text of “Romeo and Juliet.” Studies in Bibliography, 6, 61–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40371120
Hill, R. F. (1958). Shakespeare’s Early Tragic Mode. Shakespeare Quarterly, 9(4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/2867129
Jowett, J. (1998). Henry Chettle and the First Quarto of “Romeo and Juliet.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 92(1), 53–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24304558