|
In Shakespearean scholarship, a bad quarto is a quarto-sized publication of one of Shakespeare’s plays that is considered spurious, that was pirated from a theatre without permission by someone in the audience writing it down as it was spoken. Or it would be written down later by an actor or group of actors, which, according to the theory, has been termed “memorial reconstruction”. In this way the quarto derives from performance, and since it lacks a direct link to the author’s original manuscript, it is a text that would be expected to contain corruptions, abridgments and paraphrasings.〔Jenkins, Harold. “Introduction”. Shakespeare, William. ''Hamlet''. Arden Shakespeare (1982) ISBN 1-903436-67-2. page 19.〕〔 Duthie, George Ian. “Introduction; the good and bad quartos”. ''The Bad Quarto of Hamlet''. CUP Archive (1941). pp. 1 — 4〕 This is in contrast to a “good quarto”, which is considered to be a text that is authorized; one that may have been printed from the author’s manuscript, or a scribal copy or prompt copy based on the author’s manuscript.〔 Duthie, George Ian. “Introduction; the good and bad quartos”. ''The Bad Quarto of Hamlet''. CUP Archive (1941). pp. 5 — 9〕 "Bad quartos" are considered to include the first quartos of ''Romeo and Juliet'', ''Henry V'', ''The Merry Wives of Windsor'', and ''Hamlet''.〔 Duthie, George Ian. “Introduction; the good and bad quartos”. The Bad Quarto of Hamlet. CUP Archive (1941). pp. 1 — 4〕 The concept has expanded to include quartos of plays by other Elizabethan authors, including Peele’s ''The Battle of Alcazar'', Greene’s ''Orlando Furioso'', and the collaborative script, ''Sir Thomas More''.〔Erne, Lukas. ''Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist''. Cambridge University Press. (2013) ISBN 9781107029651 p. 223〕〔Maguire, Laurie E. ''Shakespearean Suspect Texts: The 'Bad' Quartos and Their Contexts.'' Cambridge University Press (1996). ISBN 9780521473644 p. 79〕 The bad quarto theory has been accepted, studied and expanded by many scholars, but there are scholars who do not accept it,〔Irace, Kathleen. ''Reforming the "bad" Quartos: Performance and Provenance of Six Shakespearean First Editions.'' University of Delaware Press (1994) ISBN 9780874134711 p. 14.〕〔Richmond, Hugh Macrae. ''Shakespeare’s Theatre: A Dictionary of His Stage Context.'' Continuum (2002) ISBN 0 8264 77763. p. 58 〕〔Jolly, Margrethe. The First Two Quartos of Hamlet: A New View of the Origins and Relationship of the Texts. McFarland (2014) ISBN 9780786478873 〕〔McDonald, Russ. ''The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents.'' Macmillan (2001) ISBN 9780312248802 p. 203〕 and those, such as Eric Sams,〔Sams, Eric. ''The Real Shakespeare; Retrieving the Early Years, 1564 — 1594''. Meridian (1995) ISBN 0-300-07282-1〕 who consider the entire theory to be without foundation. Jonathan Bate states that “late twentieth- and early twenty-first century scholars have begun to question the whole edifice.”〔(Bate, Jonathan. "The Case for the Folio" ). (2007) Playshakespeare.com〕 ==Origins of the Bad Quarto theory== The concept of the “Bad Quarto” as a category of text was created by bibliographer Alfred W. Pollard in his book ''Shakespeare Folios and Quartos'' (1909). The idea came to him in his reading of the address by the editors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, that appears at the beginning of Shakespeare’s First Folio. This address is titled, “To the Great Variety of Readers.” In this address Heminges and Condell refer to “diuerse stolne, and surreptitious copies” of the plays. It had been thought that that reference was generally to quarto editions of the plays. Pollard, however, claims that Heminges and Condell meant to refer only to “bad” quartos, and Pollard lists as “bad” the first quartos of ''Romeo and Juliet'' (1597), ''Henry V'' (1600), ''The Merry Wives of Windsor'' (1602), ''Hamlet'' (1603), and ''Pericles'' (1609). Pollard points out that the texts contained “badness”, but also that there was badness in those who pirated the plays.〔De Grazia, Margreta. “The essential Shakespeare and the material book.” Orgel, Stephe and others, editors. ''Shakespeare and the Literary Tradition''. Courier Corporation (1999) ISBN 9780815329671. page 51.〕 The scholar W. W. Greg, worked closely with Pollard; he published the bad quarto of ''The Merry Wives of Windsor'',〔() Greg, W. W. editor. ''Shakespeare’s Merry Wives of Windsor'', 1602. Oxford; At the Clarendon Press (1910)〕 which is a work that is significant in the history of the “bad quarto” theory. In that book, Greg describes how he thinks the text may have been copied, and identifies the actor who played the role of “Host” as the culprit, and Greg gives the process the actor perhaps used the term “memorial reconstruction,” a phrase that has been taken on by other scholars.〔Pollard, Alfred W. ''Shakespeare folios and quartos: a study in the bibliography of Shakespeare's plays'', 1594-1685. University of Michigan Library (1909).〕〔Erne, Lukas. ''Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist''. Cambridge University Press (2013) ISBN 9781107029651. p. 221〕 For Shakespeare, the First Folio of 1623 is the crucial document; of the thirty-six plays contained in that collection, eighteen have no other source. The eighteen other plays had been printed in quarto form at least once between 1594 and 1623; but since the prefatory matter in the First Folio itself warns against earlier texts, which are termed "stol'n and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by frauds and stealths of injurious impostors", eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors of Shakespeare tended to ignore the quarto texts in favor of the Folio. It was at first suspected that the bad quarto texts represented shorthand reporting, a practice mentioned by Thomas Heywood:〔In the Prologue to his 1605 play ''If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody''.〕 reporters would surreptitiously take down a play's text in shorthand during a performance, thus pirating a popular play for a competing interest. But W. W. Greg and R. C. Rhodes argued instead for an alternative theory: since some of the minor speeches varied less than those of major characters, their hypothesis held that the actors who played those minor roles had reconstructed the play texts from memory — giving an accurate report of the parts they themselves had memorized and played, but a less correct report of the other actors' parts. The idea caught on among Shakespeare scholars. Peter Alexander added ''The First Part of the Contention Betwixt the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster'' (1594) and ''The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York'' (1595), the earliest versions of ''Henry VI, Part 2'' and ''Henry VI, Part 3,'' to the roster of bad quartos; these were previously thought to be source plays for Shakespeare's later versions of the same stories. The concept of the bad quarto was extended to play texts by authors other than Shakespeare, and by the second half of the twentieth century the idea was widely being used.〔Halliday, ''Shakespeare Companion'', p. 49.〕 However, by the end of the century, considerable doubt had been cast on the concept of memorial reconstruction by the work of Laurie Maguire, then at the University of Ottawa. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「bad quarto」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|