Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan (eds), The New Oxford Shakespeare: Critical Reference Edition, Vol. 1

Contents
Find Location in text

Main Text

pg 533

Modernized text and commentary:

Modern 1279–1353

Date and authorship:

Companion 522–23

Reception history:

Modern 11, 15, 37, 42, 53, 56–7, 58 1275–8

The History of Henrie the Fourth, which subsequently came to be known as 'Part One' of two plays on the reign of King Henry IV, was evidently written and first performed in 1596–7. First printed in 1598, it went through six quarto reprints before the publication of the Folio edition (hereafter jaggard), which is more editions than any other play by Shakespeare. This edition is based on a fragment of the otherwise lost first quarto of 1598 (hereafter 1short) for 1.3.199–2.3.17, and the 1598 reprint (hereafter 2short) for the rest of the text. But any consideration of the text of the play must also take account of issues raised by variants in the text of the play printed in the 1623 Folio. Most importantly, the play forces us to confront historical, theoretical, and editorial questions about censorship. Those questions centre on the play's literally largest and historically most famous character, who was also Shakespeare's most famous character during his lifetime and for decades afterward: Falstaff, the comic artist formerly known as Oldcastle.

Early Theatrical History

One of Shakespeare's most popular plays in print, 1 Henry IV seems to have been just as popular on stage. It was probably performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men at the Theatre in Shoreditch. The lease expired in 1597, but it is certain that they were still using the space for at least a year afterwards before moving to play at the neighbouring Curtain theatre. Wiggins proposes earlier performances when the Lord Chamberlain was Henry Carey, Baron Hunsdon; Hunsdon died on 23 July 1596. It is possible that the company performed the play on tour after the theatres closed in July of 1597. Later public performances would have been given at the Globe.

The play appears to have been a popular choice for private performances. As we know from a letter from Sir Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sidney, the Lord Chamberlain's Men performed this play under a title derived from the original name Shakespeare gave to Falstaff, Sir John Old Castell, at the house of the Lord Chamberlain, George Carey, 2nd Lord Hunsdon, on 6 March 1600. It was later performed under the title The Hotspur at court in 1612–13, where King James I was probably in the audience. A third private performance, this time a conflation of 1 and 2 Henry IV, took place in 1623 at Sir Edward Dering's house in Kent; Dering's manuscript survives (see williams–evans). The title Oldcastle recurs in 1631 when the King's Men performed the play at the Cockpit-in-Court, and in 1638 at the Cockpit-in-Court as part of the celebration for Prince Charles's birthday.

There is some debate about who originally played Oldcastle/Falstaff. The first performances may have had legendary clown Will Kempe or Thomas Pope in the role. Because Kempe tended to emphasize physical humour over verbal dexterity, some critics have doubted that he took the role. Pope played the comparable role of Buffone in Ben Jonson's Every Man Out of His Humour (Wiggins #1216, STC 14767). In the early seventeenth century the stout John Lowin probably took over Falstaff.

pg 534Antecedent Texts

The historical narrative of 1 Henry IV, like most other history plays, is based on Raphael Holinshed's account in Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1577; 2nd edition 1587, STC 13569). But Shakespeare also made use of John Stow's The Chronicles of England (1580, STC 23333) and The Annales of England (1592, STC 23334), and Samuel Daniel's The Ciuile Wars (1595, STC 6244 and 6244.3). In addition, some details are taken from The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth, a play originally performed by the Queen's Men in the 1580s, and not printed until 1598 (STC 13072, Wiggins #773); Shakespeare's knowledge of the earlier play must have come from witnessing, or acting in, performances of it. Likewise, the play's echoes of George Chapman's The Blinde Begger of Alexandria (Wiggins #1032) must have come from witnessing performances by the Admiral's Men (earliest performance 12 February 1596), because the play was not printed until 1598 (STC 4965). For a careful analysis of the play's sources, see bevington, 11–24.

There are, as always, verbal parallels and signs of influence from the Bible. Shakespeare presumably read William Lily's A Shorte Introduction of Grammar (1549, STC 15611, and reprints) while he was a student. Other verbal echoes come from William's grandson John Lyly's Euphues (1578, STC 17051, and reprints), and from less popular and less predictable books: Thomas Kyd's Soliman and Perseda (1592, STC 22894, Wiggins #799), and three books by Thomas Nashe: Pierce Penilesse (1592, STC 18371–3), Christs Teares over Ierusalem (1593–4, STC 18366–7), and The Vnfortunate Traueller (1594, STC 18380–1).

Early Printed Texts

The publisher Andrew Wise entered the play in the Stationers' Register on 25 February 1598. In 1597–1600 he published four Shakespeare history plays, Richard II, Richard III, and the two Henry IV plays: with the exception of 2 Henry IV, these were some of Shakespeare's most successful quartos. Wise is discussed at length in the Textual Introduction to Richard II. The record of his entitlement to 1 Henry IV names the play 'The historye of Henry the iiijth', adding the further wording of the quarto title page (see 'Early Editions' below), but with some differences: it does not include 'betweene the King and Lord', and the title page's 'humorous conceits' are here 'conceipted mirthe'. Of the first quarto (STC 22279a), only the four leaves comprising Sheet C of a single copy survive. The fragment, in the Folger Shakespeare Library, was inferably published by Wise, and its typography establishes that it was printed by Peter Short. It is usually referred to as Q0, but was designated Q1 in jowett; in this edition it is referred to as 1short. The earliest fully surviving quarto (STC 22280) was printed by Short for Andrew Wise, and is made up of eighty pages, designated A1r–K4v (2short). Jackson and Zimmerman disagree as to whether 2short was set by two compositors or one. The title (sig. A1r) is followed by a blank verso and then seventy-eight pages of the play. It is an uncommonly clean-printed text, though comparison with 1short demonstrates that at 2.3.17 the compositor omitted the word 'fat' and made various minor changes to spelling and punctuation. A few press variants have been identified, primarily by Hinman (see Table 1).

pg 536Table 1. Press variants in 2short

State a

State b

E Outer: Sig. E1r

2.5.246

lions, to you

lions to, you

E Outer: Sig. E2v

2.5.340

Harrie now,

Harrie, now

F Outer: Sig. F1r

3.1.44

sonne?

sonne,

H Outer: Sig. H4v

4.3.71

Pagesfollowed

Pages followed

In 1599 Simon Stafford printed another edition for Wise. There is no basis for the title's claim that the play was 'Newly corrected by W. Shakespeare'. Matthew Law bought Wise's publication rights on 25 June 1603, as is noted in an entry in the Stationers' Register on 25 June 1603; this entry records the joint title of the two Henry IV plays as 'Henry the 4.', adding on a new line 'the firste parte'. Law published a quarto printed by Valentine Simmes in the following year. Further quartos were issued by Law, printed in turn by John Windet (1608), William White (1613), and Thomas Purfoot (1622). Each quarto was set from the previous one, with the usual accretion of intended corrections and unintended errors. The Folio text is based on the 1613 quarto, which was evidently annotated with reference to an authoritative manuscript.

pg 535

fig.2  Title-page of the second edition of 1 Henry IV (1598), Huntington Library, A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland & Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640, revised by W. A. Jackson, F. S. Ferguson, and Katharine F. Pantzer, 3 vols. (London, 1976, 1986, 1991)STC 22280. Writing on the title-page underneath the title and subtitle indicates that this text was 'Collated & Perfect[ed]' by William Spencer Cavendish, the 6th Duke of Devonshire, in 1827. Cavendish bought the majority of his Shakespeare collection from John Philip Kemble, an actor and theatre manager who was also made it a habit to 'collate and perfect' his quartos, and leave a note with his initials and date on each title-page. The top of the page has been cropped (both Kemble and Cavendish cut up their early copies of Shakespeare texts and mounted the leaves into individual frames in a misguided attempt at preservation). The Devonshire collection was sold by Victor Cavendish to Henry Huntington. This edition of 1 Henry IV was believed to be the first quarto until mid-nineteenth century when James Halliwell discovered sheet C of an earlier quarto (also believed to have been printed by Peter Short in 1598, A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland & Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640, revised by W. A. Jackson, F. S. Ferguson, and Katharine F. Pantzer, 3 vols. (London, 1976, 1986, 1991)STC 22279a) in the binding of Principal Rules of the Italian Grammer (1567, A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland & Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640, revised by W. A. Jackson, F. S. Ferguson, and Katharine F. Pantzer, 3 vols. (London, 1976, 1986, 1991)STC 24022) by William Thomas in the Folger Shakespeare Library.

fig.2  Title-page of the second edition of 1 Henry IV (1598), Huntington Library, STC 22280. Writing on the title-page underneath the title and subtitle indicates that this text was 'Collated & Perfect[ed]' by William Spencer Cavendish, the 6th Duke of Devonshire, in 1827. Cavendish bought the majority of his Shakespeare collection from John Philip Kemble, an actor and theatre manager who was also made it a habit to 'collate and perfect' his quartos, and leave a note with his initials and date on each title-page. The top of the page has been cropped (both Kemble and Cavendish cut up their early copies of Shakespeare texts and mounted the leaves into individual frames in a misguided attempt at preservation). The Devonshire collection was sold by Victor Cavendish to Henry Huntington. This edition of 1 Henry IV was believed to be the first quarto until mid-nineteenth century when James Halliwell discovered sheet C of an earlier quarto (also believed to have been printed by Peter Short in 1598, STC 22279a) in the binding of Principal Rules of the Italian Grammer (1567, STC 24022) by William Thomas in the Folger Shakespeare Library.

TWO-SPEECH TYPE LINES

A particular feature of 1short and 2short that demands an editorial response is the printing of a short speech, or the beginning of a longer speech, on the same type-line as the end of the previous speech. Most examples are in prose, so the overall intent was not to indicate verse lines, as was later to be the practice of Ben Jonson. Of the copy texts in these volumes, only King Lear presents this feature more frequently: in the 1608 quarto there are between three and four instances of twospeech type lines for every one in 1 Henry IV. In King Lear the two-speech type lines are strongly associated with other kinds of space saving, especially the setting of verse as prose; we therefore treat them as an unplanned intervention by the printer, and normalize the layout. But 1 Henry IV was not beset by such spacing difficulties. The surviving sheet C of 1short, which contains two examples of two-speech type lines, is not conspicuously mislined, and does not show any unambiguous signs of space shortage. It does, however, contain an unusual design feature: a stage direction occupying the right-hand side of four type lines bracketed opposite two short speeches to the left at 2.3.8–9. The two-speech type lines share this principle of the divisible type line. The same principle is reflected also in the unusual number of mid-scene entrances printed on the same type line as the end of the preceding speech. These are all associated aspects of the quartos' mis-en-page, irrespective of whether the characteristics derive in some way from the copy manuscript or are more specifically designed for the printed book. We preserve these features in this edition.

The Renaming of Roles

The most unusual aspect of the text is its replacement of Shakespeare's original character names. Most notably, 'Oldcastle', which is extensively documented as the name used in early performances and even in later revivals, was replaced with 'Falstaff' (Taylor, 'Fortunes'). The closest contemporary account for the name changes comes from Doctor Richard James in the dedicatory epistle 'To my noble friend Sr henry Bourchier' (Bodleian Library, MS James 34: also British Library, Add. MS 33785).1 James notes that

ye person with which he [i.e. Shakespeare] vndertook to playe a buffone was not Falstaffe, but Sr Jhon Oldcastle, and that offence beinge worthily taken by personages descended from his [title,] as peradventure by manie others allso whoe ought to haue him in honourable memorie, pg 537the poet was putt to make an ignorant shifte of abusing Sr Jhon Falstaffe or Fastolphe, a man not inferior [of] Vertue though not so famous in pietie as the other, whoe gaue witnesse vnto the truth of our reformation with a constant and resolute martyrdom. . .

(Quoted in Taylor, 'Richard James'.)

A secondary and independent account of the name change appears in Rowe's edition in 1709: 'this part of Falstaff is said to have been written originally under the name of Oldcastle; some of that Family being then remaining, the Queen was pleas'd to command him to alter it' (I, ix).

Two shadows of the original name survive in the printed text: the reference to 'my old lad of the castle' (1.2.35), and an instance where the meter requires three syllables (as provided by 'Oldcastle') rather than the two of the text's 'Falstaff' (2.3.14). Evidently Shakespeare was made to change the name of the character in response to a complaint by Sir William Brooke, who had inherited Oldcastle's title Lord Cobham. Brooke was Lord Chamberlain as of August 1596, and so had overall responsibility for the censorship and control of theatre through the dependent office of Master of the Revels.

While it is agreed that the name of the character was revised, scholars are still debating popular contemporary opinions of Oldcastle and his status as a proto-Protestant martyr, as well as the nature of the portrayal, and reasons why Cobham might object to it (see especially Kastan, Bevington, Poole). These debates fall outside the purview of the present Textual Introduction, except as they pertain to the editorial decision of how to name the character originally known as Sir John Oldcastle, but identified in print as Falstaff. The section titled 'Editorial Approaches to the Text' addresses our approach to the issue.

Two associated changes needed less extensive intervention: the names 'Harvey' and 'Rossill' were replaced with 'Peto' and 'Bardolph'. The original names most probably referred to the historical figure of Sir William Harvey, the Earl of Southampton's stepfather, and Sir John Russell, who had opposed the Lord Chamberlain's Men's proposal for a new theatre (Jowett, 'Thieves'). Lady Elizabeth Russell, the influential widow of John Russell, and fellow staunch opponent of plans to build the Blackfriars Theatre, may have seen the original names in 1 Henry IV as 'a satirical swipe at the combined Cecil–Cobham–Russell family union' and combined political forces with William Brooke and the Cecils in order to encourage the expurgation of all three potentially incendiary names (Laoutaris, 233).

There is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that the reformed manuscript used as printer's copy was prepared by a scribe. jowett presents a thirteen-point argument in favour of scribal copy, beginning with MacDonald P. Jackson's studies of Shakespeare's spelling preferences: Shakespeare generally prefers 'between' while the quarto prefers 'betwixt'; Shakespeare generally prefers 'pray thee' while the quarto prefers 'prithee' (Jackson, 'Two Shakespeare Quartos', 'The Manuscript Copy'). jowett's additional points cover topics that range from the wording of stage directions to the avoidance of Shakespearean contractions and verb forms. jowett points out that it is likely that the play was copied out in order to produce a clean text implementing the systemic revisions of character names.

The Line of Transmission from 2short to jaggard

The jaggard text is based on 6law, and belongs to the category of lightly annotated texts, meaning that the copy of 6law on which the printing was based had been marked up with reference to an authoritative manuscript. jowett suggests that it may have been an 'idiosyncratically literary' transcript, perhaps of the company playbook. The changes in jaggard include a very thorough expurgation of the dialogue: the rate of expurgation for 1 Henry IV is 1 per 50 lines, while the rate of expurgation in the heavily annotated Richard II is only 1 per 100 lines. As Barbara Mowat has demonstrated, such expurgation was often literary, rather than theatrical, particularly by the 1620s.2 pg 538jaggard also inserts act and scene divisions, and makes changes to stage directions and speech prefixes. The scene divisions, in particular, are strong evidence of a literary transcript (Taylor, 'Post-Script', in Reshaped). Importantly, jaggard replaces Russell with Gadshill at 2.5.146, 148, and 152; this change has been accepted by editors operating with the theory that Shakespeare may have intended one character instead of two, and then confused the names. In addition, jaggard introduces common contractions and elisions where 2short presents expanded forms, most notably in tavern scenes where a more informal use of language would be expected. It is the policy of this edition to treat elisions in jaggard that establish regular meter as modernizations; these are recorded as such in the text notes. Though there are not the 'sprinklings of authority' Jowett and Taylor identified in Richard II, jaggard does offer a handful of readings that are difficult to explain as compositorial changes (see for example 1.3.65, 1.3.126, and 1.3.133). As jowett notes, some of these changes appear clustered together early on in the text. As we know from other texts, annotations, like errors, tend to be found in clusters.

There are some less intelligible changes at the beginning of 1.2. jaggard moves Poins's entrance to the beginning of 1.2 (he does not enter until 1.2.83 in 2short). Though editors have suggested that the listing of Poins here shows that the play was not annotated with an authoritative manuscript, the listing all of the roles in a scene in the first entry directions is a characteristic that locally at least might have been found in the manuscript behind Folio 1 Henry IV.

Editorial Approaches to jaggard

jowett argued in favour of many of the changes in jaggard. This accords with the 1986–7 Oxford Shakespeare's more general position that Shakespeare's plays were revised by agents including Shakespeare himself, and that those revisions must be carefully considered and accepted where viable. Subsequent editors have argued that there is no proof of Shakespeare's personal involvement. As a consequence, the variants in jaggard do not warrant serious consideration in those editions.

Most editors rely on comparing the changes in the jaggard version of 1 Henry IV to the changes in the jaggard version of Richard II, a much more thoroughly annotated text. In comparison to Richard II, Folio 1 Henry IV does not look very authoritative: jaggard only rarely reverts to a correct reading in 2short (or 1short) that had been corrupted in subsequent quartos, it does not always correct other errors, its variants in the to-be-spoken text that are not attributable to compositorial intervention offer no reading that editors have considered to be an equal or better alternative, and it does not routinely add entrances and exits where a modern reader would expect them. All of this is true, and yet, there are some disjunctions between the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it by most editors. Richard II provides a model for a relatively heavily annotated version of a play, but this play is not exemplary of all annotation. By setting it as the standard for annotation that is authorial, scholars risk committing the same type of error made by Greg and other new bibliographers in determining good from bad quartos, and theatrical from non-theatrical texts (categories recently and thoroughly deconstructed by Werstine). The potential mistake lies in the assumption that thorough annotation was standard and that annotation not qualifying as thorough must yield to an all-encompassing explanation or must be dismissed as insignificant. We know very little about what the printing house agents were instructed to do during annotation or why. By focusing on changes that are beyond the scope of a compositor, this edition aims to reveal the process and scope of annotation, and to provoke scholars to new questions about its purpose, method, and consequences. As has been noted, the annotator seems to have been far more vigilant in removing profanity than in correcting error.

This Edition

Because a manuscript was clearly consulted in preparing the copy for jaggard, the play is treated by this edition as a 'lightly annotated text'. Our decision to consider seriously some of the readings pg 539that appear in jaggard is consistent with the 1986–7 Oxford Shakespeare, but separates us from other editions. The Reference edition seeks to make the temporal layers of the text visible with design elements that indicate added and deleted text, and with Marginal Notes highlighting changes that were the result of annotation. (These devices, and our overall policy for treating such texts, are explained at length in the Textual Introduction to Richard II.) The marginal text focuses on changes in jaggard that go beyond the scope of a compositor, rather than focusing exclusively on changes that were most likely made by Shakespeare himself. We consider the marginal text as authoritative, in the sense of having the authority of the manuscript and the various agents who may have been involved with it, rather than authorial, coming solely from Shakespeare himself. In this text, the following categories of change appear in the margin: the introduction of act and scene divisions, expurgation of oaths, added stage directions, variants to words and phrases in the to-be-spoken text that go beyond the normal scope of a compositor, common elisions and contractions in verse passages that provide correct metrical pronunciation, and common elisions and contractions in prose passages that provide a more informal tone as expected of the tavern scenes. In both the Reference and Modern texts we give priority to the act–scene divisions introduced in jaggard, which have traditionally formed the basis for critical and scholarly reference to the play and nowhere cut across the underlying scene divisions.

Oldcastle versus Falstaff

Arguably the most important editorial decision for 1 Henry IV is what to call the characters Oldcastle/Falstaff, Harvey/Peto, and Rossill/Bardolph. The three name-sets are similar in terms of their textual foundations and their basis in the politics of early modern theatre, and are treated alike in this edition. Hence, as in other editions, where we read Falstaff, we also read Peto and Bardolph. But Oldcastle/Falstaff is the most prominent and widely debated of the three, and is the case that demands further comment here. We believe that it is so important to represent both Falstaff and Oldcastle that it necessitates the breaking of our own rules about how to name characters. In the Reference edition, we follow our policy of removing censorship. All mentions of the character are restored to 'Oldcastle'. In the Modern version of the text, the character remains 'Falstaff', because this is the contemporary dominant name of this character. It is indeed part of the history of the character that he has evolved into Falstaff. The decision to retain Falstaff is shared by all major editions except the 1986–7 Oxford edition, and does not require further comment. The decision to emend in the Reference edition is the one that scholars found 'controversial' in the 1986–7 Oxford Shakespeare, and thus requires a longer explanation.

One of the major criticisms of the decision in 1986 is that the restoration of 'Oldcastle' went beyond restoration of censorship and crossed a boundary into the text. In responding to the claim that restoring 'Oldcastle' was akin to restoring oaths, David Bevington claimed that restoring the name 'Oldcastle':

involves a shift of names that does not represent the fictional narrative. The solution loses sight of what a character's name is for. It destroys an understood correspondence between a fictional character and the verbal sign used to signify that character. It obtrudes the literary and textual work of the editors into the fictional space of Shakespeare's plays, where a character's name must exist primarily as a contract between dramatist and audience on the identity of the character in question.

(Bevington, 108)

Here Bevington assumes that the 'fictional narrative' has a fixed form different from the one Shakespeare originally provided, that the 'verbal sign' for a character is a single and unalterably fixed entity, and that the editorial emendation conflicts with the textual form that he places under the name of 'Shakespeare'. None of these assumptions is compelling in the light of the agreed understanding that Shakespeare wrote 'Oldcastle' without constraint, and that under a specific constraint he altered it to 'Falstaff'.

pg 540But, as Gabriel Egan has observed, Taylor 'could have argued more simply that Oldcastle was undoubtedly in the first performances (else his descendants would not have known to complain) and these were the arbitrary goals the project aimed toward' (Egan, 173). In the case of this edition, the question of why the names were changed or what Shakespeare's original intent was or how it might have evolved in response to various pressures is not the sole focus. As elsewhere, for instance in the use of Marginal Notes, the Reference edition aims to make visible the annotation, editing, and censorship process that the play underwent. The New Oxford Shakespeare prioritizes the pre-censorship names in Reference and the more familiar Falstaff, Peto, and Bardolph in Modern. Each edition is presented in accordance with its overall aims in relation to its readers. The decision of the 1986–7 Oxford Shakespeare has been widely criticized, but it also encouraged a considerable volume of scholarly work. Kastan has insisted that the name 'Falstaff' is 'the mark of the play's existence in history', and that the play 'is not autonomous and self-defined but maddeningly alive in and to the world' (165). But these comments depend not on the fixed identifier 'Falstaff' but the duality 'Oldcastle/Falstaff'. The name 'Falstaff' is so dominant in our culture as to have all but obliterated the name 'Oldcastle'. Overall, the New Oxford Shakespeare gives visibility to all of the historical forms of the text.

Editions Cited

1short

The Historie of Henry the fourth (running title), printed by Peter Short for Andrew Wise (London, [1598]), Sheet C.

2short

The History of Henrie the Fourth; With the battell at Shrewsburie, betweene the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henrie Hostpur of the North. With the humorous conceits of Sir Iohn Falstalffe, printed by Peter Short for Andrew Wise (London, 1598).

3wise

The History of Henrie the Fourth; With the battell at Shrewsburie, betweene the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceits of Sir Iohn Falstaffe, printed by Simon Stafford for Andrew Wise (London, 1599).

4law

The History of Henrie the Fourth, With the battell at Shrewsburie, betweene the King, and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceits of Sir Iohn Falstalffe, printed by Valentine Simmes for Matthew Law (London, 1604).

5law

The History of Henry the fourth, With the Battell at Shrewseburie, betweene the King, and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceites of Sir Iohn Falstalffe, printed by John Windet for Matthew Law (London, 1608).

6law

The History of Henrie the fourth, With the Battell at Shrewseburie, betweene the King, and Lord Henrie Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceites of Sir Iohn Falstaffe, printed by William White for Matthew Law (London, 1613).

7law

The Historie of Henry the Fourth. With the Battell at Shrewseburie, betweene the King, and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceits of Sir Iohn Falstaffe, printed by Thomas Purfoot for Matthew Law (London, 1622).

8sheares

The Historie of Henry the Fourth: with the battell at Shrewesbury, betweene the King, and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the north. With the humorous conceits of Sir Iohn Falstaffe, printed by John Norton for William Sheares (London, 1632).

9perry

The Historie of Henry the Fourth: with the battell at Shrewsbury, betweene the King, and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the north. With the humorous conceites of Sir Iohn Falstaffe, printed by John Norton for Hugh Perry (London, 1639).

pg 541

dering

Copy of The History of King Henry the Fourth, after 1598 (N.d. MS Folger Shakespeare Library V.b.34, Washington, DC).

bevington

Henry IV, Part One, ed. David M. Bevington Oxford (Oxford, 1987).

cowl–morgan

The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, ed. R. P. Cowl and A. E. Morgan, Arden1 (London, 1914).

davison

The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, ed. P. H. Davison, New Penguin (Harmondsworth, 1968).

daniel

King Henry IV, Part I: From the Acting Copy with Remarks by G[eorge] D[aniel] (1830).

hemingway

Henry the Fourth, Part I, ed. Samuel Burdett Hemingway (London, 1936).

hinman

Henry the Fourth, Part I, 1599, ed. W. W. Greg and Charlton Hinman, Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles (Oxford, 1966).

humphreys

The First Part of King Henry IV, ed. A. R. Humphreys, Arden2 (London, 1960).

t. johnson

K. Henry IV with the Humours of Sir John Falstaff. A Tragi-comedy, in The Works of Mr William Shakespear (London, 1710).

jowett

The History of Henry the Fourth, in wells–taylor.

kastan

King Henry the Fourth Part One, ed. David Scott Kastan, Arden3 (London, 2002).

kittredge

The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, ed. George Lyman Kittredge (Boston, 1940).

mack

The History of Henry IV, ed. Maynard Mack, Signet Shakespeare (New York, 1965).

mowat–werstine

Henry IV, Part 1, ed. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, New Folger Library Shakespeare (New York, 1994).

walter

King Henry IV, Part One, ed. J. H. WalterLondon, (1961).

weil–weil

The First Part of King Henry IV, ed. Herbert Weil and Judith Weil, New Cambridge (Cambridge, 1997).

williams–evans

The History of King Henry the Fourth, as Revised by Sir Edward Dering, Bart., ed. George Walton Williams and G. Blakemore Evans (Charlottesville, VA, 1974).

wilson

The First Part of the History of Henry IV, ed. J. Dover Wilson, New Shakespeare (Cambridge, 1946).

Other Works Cited

Clegg, Cyndia Susan, '"By the choise and inuitation of al the realme": Richard II and Elizabethan Press Censorship', SQ 48:4 (1997), 432–48.

Craven, Alan C., 'The Compositors of the Shakespeare Quartos Printed by Peter Short', Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 65 (1971), 393–7.

Honigmann, E. A. J., Shakespeare: The 'Lost Years' (Manchester, 1985).

Honigmann, E. A. J., 'Sir John Oldcastle: Shakespeare's Martyr', in John W. Mahon and Thomas A. Pendleton eds., 'Fanned and Winnowed Opinions': Shakespearean Essays Presented to Harold Jenkins (London, 1987), 118–32.

Honigmann, E. A. J., The Texts of 'Othello' and Shakespearian Revision (London, 1996; New York, 1996).

Jackson, MacDonald P., 'The Manuscript Copy of the Quarto (1598) of Shakespeare's 1 Henry IV', N&Q 231 (1986), 353–4.

Jackson, MacDonald P., 'Two Shakespeare Quartos: Richard III (1597) and 1 Henry IV (1598)', SB 35 (1982), 173–91.

James, Richard, manuscript, c. late 1625–1636, quoted in Taylor, 'Fortunes'.

pg 542Jowett, John, 'The Thieves in 1 Henry IV', RES 38 (1987), 325–33.

Jowett, John, 'The Transformation of Hal', N&Q, ns 34 (1987), 208–10.

Jowett, John, and Gary Taylor, 'Sprinklings of Authority: The Folio Text of Richard II', SB 38 (1985), 151–200.

Kastan, David Scott, '"Killed with Hard Opinions": Oldcastle, Falstaff, and the Reformed Text of 1 Henry IV', in Thomas L. Berger and Laurie E. Maguire eds., Textual Formations and Reformations (Newark, DE, 1998), 211–30.

Laoutaris, Chris, Shakespeare and the Countess (New York, 2014).

Long, William, 'Stage-directions: A Misinterpreted Factor in Determining Textual Provenance', TEXT 2 (1985), 121–37.

Poole, Kristen, 'Saints Alive! Falstaff, Martin Marprelate, and the Staging of Puritanism', SQ 46:1 (1995), 45–75.

Shaaber, M. A., 'Problems in the Editing of Shakespeare's Text', English Institute Essays 1947 (New York, 1948), 97–116.

Taylor, Gary, 'The Fortunes of Oldcastle', SSu 38 (1985), 85–100.

Taylor, Gary, 'William Shakespeare, Richard James and the House of Cobham', RES 38 (1987), 334–54.

Walker, Alice, 'The Folio Text of 1 Henry IV', SB 6 (1954), 45–59.

Wilson, John Dover, 'The Copy for Hamlet, 1603', The Library, 3rd series, 9 (1918), 153–85.

Wilson, John Dover, 'The Origin and Development of Shakespeare's Henry IV', The Library, 4th series, 26 (1945), 2–16.

Zimmerman, Susan, 'The Uses of Headlines: Peter Short's Shakespearian Quartos 1 Henry IV and Richard III', The Library, 6th series, 7 (1985), 218–55.

Notes

1 Taylor argues for a date of 1633–4 for the James manuscript ('Richard James', pp. 335–42).

2 For a fuller discussion of Mowat's argument about literary expurgation, see the present Textual Introduction to Othello.

logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out