Textual Introduction: True Tragedy of Richard the Third

The Quarto

The textual history of The True Tragedy of Richard the Third is based on a small sample size, which includes four surviving quarto editions, from which all subsequent editions are drawn. Those subsequent editions include three nineteenth century editions, a twentieth century facsimile, and one non-peer-reviewed digital edition published in 2005. The twentieth century facsimile, edited by W.W. Greg, offers important insights on the state of the quarto texts and their disagreements.

The True Tragedy of Richard the Third was entered into the Stationers’ Register on June 19, 1594, with the following commentary: Entred for his copie vnder mr warden Cawoods hand an enterlude intituled. The Tragedie of Richard the Third wherein is showen the death of Edward the ffourthe, wth the smotheringe of the twoo princes in the tower. with a lamentable end of Shores wife and the Coniunction of the twoo houses of Lancaster and yorke (Stationer’s Register Register B, fol. 309b) This sole Q text, printed by Thomas Creede to be sold by William Barley, at his shop in Newgate Market, neare Christ Church doore (Title Page), survives in copies currently held at the Folger Shakespeare Library (Washington, DC), the Huntington Library (San Marino, CA), Yale University’s Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (New Haven, CT) and at the University of Texas at Austin’s Harry Ransom Center (Austin, TX). The Ransom Center text (hereafter Ransom) serves as copy-text for both Greg’s facsimile edition and for this QME modern edition; the Ransom text is the most complete extant copy.

Of the other extant quartos, the Huntington text has served as the copytext for some previous editions. This text was previously property of one Mr. Rhodes of Lyons Inn (Singer 379), and James Boswell used it to produce his edition. Later, the text was housed in the Devonshire Collection in the Chatsworth Library before it was acquired by the Huntington (Greg v). Greg notes that this text is missing the title page and first leaf (A2–A3), and several following leaves are somewhat damaged, while the two missing leaves of print have been supplied in remarkably fine pen-drawn facsimile, presumably the work of nineteenth-century British Museum facsimilist John Harris (Greg v). Furthermore, as Greg notes, the Huntington text features an uncorrected outer forme in sheet B (Greg v); these corrections appear in the Ransom copy, but not the Folger.

The Folger copy traces its provenance to a Mr. Charles H. Kalbfleisch, from whom the text was purchased by Henry Clay Folger in 1902. This text is a copy of the Huntington, with some minor variations and damage (Greg v).

The Ransom text was formerly owned by Carl Howard Pforzheimer Senior, and was purchased in 1986 by the University of Texas at Austin as part of a larger collection, now held in the Carl H. Pforzheimer Library at the Harry Ransom Center. The Ransom catalogue notes that the first leaf of the edition is blank but aside from that, this edition is complete. Greg consulted this edition when it was still owned by Pforzheimer, and refers to interpolations from this text as coming from The Pforzheimer Copy.

The Yale University Beinecke Library edition is not listed by Greg as one of the extant copies of this play, but is identical to the Ransom text.

Later Editions

The play was reproduced in three distinct editions in the nineteenth century, edited by James Boswell the Younger, Barron Field, and William Hazlitt respectively.

Boswell’s 1821 edition was based on the copy of Mr. Rhodes of Lyon’s Inn, which is now the Huntington text. Boswell, editorial successor to Edmond Malone, published a New Variorum edition, minus title page and first leaf, which indicates that he worked from an incomplete copy. Boswell notes this elision with ellipses and begins 64 lines into the play, with Truth’s Full two and twenty years (Boswell). Boswell offers his edition without emendation or gloss, and faithfully reproduces his copy text (Greg vii). At the close of the edition he presents brief commentary which notes the likelihood of Shakespeare’s familiarity with The True Tragedy and suggests it was written by the same playwright as Locrine (Boswell 299).

Field’s 1844 edition for the Shakespeare Society was, like Boswell’s, based on the copy in the Devonshire Collection (now the Huntington copy). Unlike Boswell’s, Field’s text includes title page and prologue, so the missing text was gleaned from facsimile pages (Greg viii). Field’s was the most detailed edition of The True Tragedy when it was published, with periodic glossing and suggested emendations, all of which are considered in this edition’s collation. Field notes in his introduction that he has refrained from enforcing the play’s meter, given Q’s frequent substitution of prose for verse (Field vi); he essentially presents a supplemented Huntington transcription. This fidelity to the Huntington copy also means that Field, like Boswell, does not propose scene breaks or numbering. Field questions Boswell’s theory of a shared author with Locrine, but suggests no alternative theory of authorship (Field viii).

Hazlitt’s 1875 edition was part of an anthology expanding on John Payne Collier’s 1843 Shakespeare’s Library. This series anthologized texts that were thought to be peripheral to or sources for Shakespeare’s plays, and The True Tragedy was proposed as a potential volume in Shakespeare’s personal library, or at least as something he may have known. Hazlitt presents this edition with a brief introduction to justify its inclusion, and reproduces Field’s preface, edition, and glosses. Hazlitt offers minor editorial intervention, including proposed solutions to line readings Field annotated as unintelligible (Field 63-64). Hazlitt further accepts an emendation that Bosworth conjectures and Field notes but does not incorporate (But time permits not now ).

In 1929, Greg produced the only 20th-century edition of the play as a reprint for the Malone Society. This reproduction of the Ransom text is the most exhaustive available collection of collation notes between the various editions. Greg’s text publishes three pages in facsimile (A3r, C3v, I2r) from the Ransom text, and notes variance between Ransom and Huntington. Greg also offers a useful list of Irregular and Doubtful Readings that considers conjectures from Boswell, Field, and Hazlitt (Greg ix).

Modern editions of The True Tragedy have been non-existent, and no critical edition has been produced before the current text. One modern-spelling, non-peer-reviewed online edition exists as part of the ElizabethanAuthors.org collection. This edition, published in 2005, was transcribed by Ramon Jimenez and edited for the internet by the late Robert Brazil, sparingly glossed. Some emendations, such as Boswell’s suggestion for the substitution of Stygian for studient are noted in the commentary (Brazil), but are not incorporated into Brazil’s text.

The Current Edition

The copy text for this edition is, of necessity, the only early publication: the 1594 quarto (STC 21009). There are four known surviving copiesheld at the Folger Shakespeare Library, the Harry Ransom Center, the Henry E. Huntington Library, and the Beinecke Library., of which this edition takes the Harry Ransom Center copy as the basis for the old-spelling transcription.An old-spelling text prepared by edited by Jennifer Roberts-Smith and Dimitry Senyshyn for QME and encoded in the ISE mark-up language has been converted to TEI, checked against the Harry Ransom Center copy, and carefully remediated by the LEMDO Team to align with the LEMDO Encoding Guidelines for semi-diplomatic transcriptions. Roberts-Smith and Senyshyn propose scene breaks and numbering in the old-spelling edition, which has been followed for the most part. One major divergence from these proposals has been to specifically designate the section previously called Scene 1 in Roberts-Smith and Senyshyn as Prologue. Truth, Poetry, and the Ghost of Clarence do not appear again, and it is logical to treat this intervention as a framing device, even if they do not appear again in those guises at the play’s close. By separating this scene from the remainder of the play, this edition works to highlight the function of these allegorical characters as external to the historical figures. Similarly, the shift in tone that occurs after Richmond’s acclamation recommends a further emendation. Four characters speak in the final 60 lines of the play—two messengers, the Mother Queen, and princess Elizabeth—and if we follow Roberts-Smith’s suggestion that the messengers are portrayed by the same boys who played Truth and Poetry (Roberts-Smith and Senyshyn 198), it makes sense to designate this section as an Epilogue. Roberts-Smith and Senyshyn maintain the epilogue content as part of their scene 23. By adopting an epilogue, this edition is structured differently from the old-spelling transcription of Q on which it is based: Roberts-Smith and Senyshyn’s play covers scenes 1-23, and the current edition’s scene numbers are prologue, 1-22, epilogue. This edition’s scene 1 corresponds to scene 2 from the old-spelling edition.

This edition intervenes in the text of Q most strongly in its treatment of verse and prose. This approach builds on scholarship offered by McMillan and MacLean, which suggests that throughout Edward IV’s death scene, much of its overly long, unstructured verse might be feasibly read as prose. As they note, mislineation begins on A4r and continues seriatim through B4v, over nine pages. Another burst of over a page runs from the final 21 lines on F3v through F4r, and there is another complete page on G1a, and it shifts suddenly from verse at the end of F4r and (correctly) into prose at the top of F4v, which suggests a change in compositors (McMillan and MacLean 113). This mislineation is common to both The True Tragedy and The Famous Victories, both of which were printed by Thomas Creede.

While the printing error may be consistent between the two plays printed by Creede, McMillin and MacLean suggest the designation of these speeches as verse in The True Tragedy is more likely due to scribal error than printing error or authorial decision, and there is little reason to suggest that these scenes require verse. It is far easier to imagine such errors produced by an individual employed to take dictation rather than by a compositor working from the author’s copy, and—should we believe familiar stories that Q was produced from memorial reconstruction—it seems a simple matter to mishear pauses in prose as end-stops for verse (McMillin and MacLean 115). This mnemonic and aural interference would also account for minor puzzling errors, like the use of Hapc for Haute, Casbe for Catesby, and Marcus for Marquess. Ultimately, McMillin and MacLean’s conclusions on the text’s provenance, lineation, and versification are largely persuasive, and they inform this edition’s willingness to reformat prose and verse where such edits are thought to be necessary.

This edition considers context as well as meter when reformatting verse and prose. The heightened prologue between Truth and Poetry is clearly verse, for instance, befitting the allegorical natures of these characters, and the prologue was reformatted accordingly. In subsequent scenes, however, we find ourselves less burdened by versical interpretation and consequently reformat some verse as prose. The first scene proper, for instance—Edward IV’s death scene—is arranged as verse in Q, for no purpose and with very little metrical support. If dictated prose text from this first scene was misheard by a scribe and recorded as verse, the misformatted verse makes sense. Of course, the case for reformatting is not always clear, and many segments are treated as uncertain, as in Roberts-Smith and Senyshyn’s old-spelling edition. Similarly, verse scenes that feature lines in excess of 15 syllables were also considered for restructuring, as verse lines of fourteen syllables were rare after the 1560s unless used for antique effect (as in Clyomon and Clamydes), and verse lines longer than fourteen syllables were effectively non-existent. Ultimately, the first three proper scenes were reformatted to prose: the death of Edward IV (); the introduction of Shore’s wife (); and the introduction of Richard (). After this point, with the entrance of the young king, the scribe or compositor shifted to prose and maintained greater consistency for the remainder of the play.

With the general emendation of verse to prose, moments of verse remaining in the text become particularly salient, and seem to indicate significant semantic transformation. These moments of verse mark heightened emotion, (as in the young duke of York’s lamenting departure from his mother in ), moments of imperiousness (as when Richard speaks to the imprisoned Rivers in , and Rivers’ subsequent adoption of verse in his own defense in ), or moments of status-conscious performance (as in Richard’s first crowned entrance in , and Richmond’s first speeches after arriving in England ). Couplets appear periodically in these verse passages, often (as is conventional) to close a scene, and, notably, in the Mother Queen’s final epilogue speech, which begins in prose but features several couplets in its regular rhyme as she begins speaking about Queen Elizabeth I.

Aside from these emendations to versification, the text here is presented with only minor textual changes. The scribal mishearings nominated above (Casbe/Hapc/Marcus) are adjusted throughout. The curious case of the archbishop of York being erroneously referenced in speech headings and stage directions as Cardinall is similarly addressed and explained in commentary. The few occasions where line readings are suggested or words substituted are outlined in the collation notes and commentary.

Notable Emendations

While I have made efforts to maintain the overall tone of The True Tragedy as it appears in Q, there are several line readings that required greater attention. Each of the following emendations are noted in the collation as well as often in the commentary.

Names and Speech Headings

This edition features standardized character and location names, sometimes different from what is presented in Q. Some characters, such as Sir Richard Haute, are erroneously represented in Q as Hapc for no apparent benefit, so each reference to him is corrected to Haute. Similarly, Breton politician Pierre Landais appears in the play as Peter Landoyse, a conventional early modern transliteration that was useful for actors’ pronunciation. His name has been altered in this modern edition to redirect readers back to thinking historically. The character referred to by both The True Tragedy and Shakespeare as Blunt is more properly Sir James Blount, and is rendered as such. The Lord Marquess Dorset is (at least in his first scene) consistently called Marcus, a scribal mishearing that this edition has chosen to emend. The innkeeper, who is referred to as Oste in the Q text (as well as in 19th-century editions), has been standardized to Host, which—while eliminating some of the rustic charm of the address—clarifies the character’s role for modern readers. Finally, given the several different titles by which he is addressed (prince, king, etc.), Edward V (the elder prince in the Tower) is always referred to in speech headings and stage directions as Edward V. For the ease of the modern reader, too, I have standardized regal names: Edward the fourth is adjusted to Edward IV, for example. I have followed this standard for later in-text references to Edward V, Richard III, Henry IV, and Henry VII.

The spelling of geographical locations, too, have been updated to reflect that which will be familiar to the modern reader, which includes Thérouanne and Tournai (corrected from Turwin and Turney), Morlaix (Morle and Morles), Boulogne (Bullen), Atherstone (Aderstoe), and Brittany (Brittaine). Almost all of these changes (excepting Atherstone, which still scans) appear in prose passages so disrupted meter is not a concern.

On several occasions, speech headings have been corrected to reassign lines that make greater sense for the narrative. Q, for instance, calls for Morton the serving-man to thank Shore’s wife for the liberation of his son, while this line should clearly be spoken by the Citizen whose son she liberated (). Similarly, when Richard is approached by Percival, Buckingham’s servant, Percival’s manner of speech is so familiar as the Page’s that we must assume Percival’s lines were intended for the Page, whom Richard subsequently asks to introduce him (). Later in the play, the surprise appearance of Catesby as the archbishop of York’s servant is also illogical and likely is evidence of the doubling of these roles (Greg xii), so this single Catesby line has been identified as a messenger (). The curious case of an additional speech heading () for Richard, which appears in the middle of a soliloquy, has been omitted, with explanatory notes in commentary. Finally, the messenger that approaches Stanley as he meets with Richmond, only moments after Richard has dismissed a watch captain has encouraged the conflation of these roles so it is the captain who returns to give warning (). This emendation seems to abide by the strictures of an early modern theatre company with a limited number of actors and a penchant for doubling.

Foreign languages

Field offers a strong initial translation of the two Latin phrases found in the play (one of which is spoken twice), and offers to modernize the phrasing to be clear to a modern reader. In preparing this edition I have consulted with Dr. Cillian O’Hogan of the University of Toronto’s Centre for Medieval Studies to confirm that Field’s translations were sufficient. For both the revenge statement () and the quotation from Seneca (), Dr. O’Hogan has proposed slight adjustments.

Compositorial errors

This edition amends typographical errors in Q, most of which have been corrected in earlier editions. These are it it () and my my (), both of which have had the redundant repetition erased. The word bewith appears in Q and Boswell aptly corrects this to bewitch (), followed here. One suggested reading from proposed compositorial errors is new to this edition. The word napping () is rendered in all 19th-century editions as nipping, due to damage to the Q page. This edition posits (following Greg’s transcription of the word as napping) that this is a far stronger sense of the word, which has been misread in all other editions aside from Greg.

Textual Variance

There is only minor textual variance between extant Q copies of The True Tragedy, and all 19th-century editions essentially build on one another. On two occasions, however, variance between extant quartos was notable enough to warrant a decision: Greg’s suggested emendation of attainted () in place of the nonsense word attected (a stronger reading than potential alternatives affected or attested), and has been adopted. Secondly, in a rare word variance between the Q texts, Ransom presents the phrase who hath the king made protector during the minority of the young prince? (), whereas Huntington and Folger offer who hath the king made protector during the innormity of the young prince? While Boswell, Field, and Hazlitt all gloss innormity as Not within legal age to reign, it is not nearly as clear a reading as the Ransom Q’s minority, which appears to be a stop-press correction.

Clarifications

Several other clarifications, suggested or adopted by past editors, have been adopted here. One such change—first conjectured by Boswell and Field before Hazlitt’s adoption—is But time permits not now to tell thee all my mind (), adjusted from the nonsensical But time permits now to tell thee all my mind. Other clarifications have also been adopted, including climbed () for clind (Field); content () for concent (Boswell; reading declined by Field and Hazlitt); sorceress () for sorrerresse (Boswell); and arm me () for Army (Greg). Beyond these earlier interpretations, the following notable clarifications are proposed in this edition. Other emendations include places are furnished () to clarify places are furnish.

Bloodsucker () is proposed for blood succour, which, despite appearing particularly modern, is a valid period reading, and improves the sense of the line that characterizes Richard as a parasite. The line The cause I am arrested this is () is garbled, but is amended here with the substitution of thus for this. Buckingham’s curse that Richard be more tormented than Exeon is a reading that has persisted through each 19th-century edition; this edition amends Ixion (), the mythological figure referenced. Similarly, the puzzling line where Richard considers raging fiends In studient lakes is ingeniously illuminated by conjecture from Boswell, who proposes Stygian lakes (Boswell; ) as a more immediate reference. Boswell’s suggestion has been adopted here. Richard’s query of his advisors, asking hard ye nothing appears a clear point of emendation to heard ye nothing (), to improve the sense. Similarly, Richard’s complaint of traitors that spoils our conflex is improved by a minor adjustment to complex (), meaning unification. Landais’ declaration that tis is all I desire to see might suggest a Breton accent, but given that there are no other built-in accents elsewhere in the play, we have chosen to follow Field’s emendation and defer to this is all () in its place. Similarly, the difficult line Shall hall have the happy landing again suggests a potential Welsh accent for Richmond, but with no further evidence elsewhere, this line has been corrected for clarity to Shall have the happy leading ().

Summary

With only four extant Q copies, The True Tragedy has a limited selection from which to assess the quality of the text. The text is, as Greg notes, in a rather chaotic state (Greg vii), with several verse sections better served in prose, and with the necessity to read a verse line of up to seven feet at times to justify it as verse. Several verse-prose mislineations are likely the result of space-saving attempts by the printers, while others appear to be scribal mishearings. Verse-prose confusion proves most disruptive to the reader in Q form, as there are few typesetter’s errors to disrupt the reader. Ultimately, in these instances, regularity of rhythm and end-rhyme help make the decision about whether prose should be converted to verse, so unless changes markedly improve the reading experience, they have been disregarded.