- cid
- bafkreicumc4kih7ifxg2p4daujvrwqcuqgjcdajror4otkky73tydvype4
- content_type
- image/jpeg
- filename
- 06_poems_pericles_facsimiles_1905_oxford_page_0597.jpg
- height
- 2400
- key
- pdf-page-1769752605336-lccghq7c47a
- ocr_model
- mistral-ocr-latest
- page_number
- 597
- size
- 511320
- text
- 34
PERICLES
works of 1709 (as well as in the reissue of 1714), based his text on that of the Fourth Folio and included *Pericles* and the six spurious pieces. Rowe attempted for the first time to distinguish the verse from the prose, and he made a few verbal emendations. But he did not go far in the elucidation of the text. Pope and the chief eighteenth-century writers excluded *Pericles*, together with the spurious plays, from their editions of Shakespeare’s works. Although Theobald did not reprint the piece in his edition of Shakespeare (1733), he was a careful student of it, as manuscript notes by him in extant copies of the 1630 and 1635 editions amply show (see Nos. XLIX and LXV *infra*).
The two editions of 1734.
Two rival reprints in 12mo of the Fourth Folio version of *Pericles* appeared in London in 1734, independently of any collective edition. One of these (‘Pericles Prince of Tyre by Shakespear,’ sixty pages) was printed and published by R. Walker at the Shakespear’s Head. The other (‘Pericles Prince of Tyre By Mr. William Shakespear,’ sixty-seven pages) was ‘printed for J. Tonson and the rest of the Proprietors’. To Tonson’s edition was prefixed an advertisement by William Chetwood, prompter at the Drury Lane Theatre, challenging Walker’s pretensions to print this and other of Shakespeare’s plays ‘from copies made use of at the Theatre’; Chetwood denounced Walker’s text as ‘useless, pirated, and maimed’. But Tonson’s version is little better than his rival’s. *Pericles* was not republished again until Malone printed it (in 1780) with all the doubtful pieces in his ‘Supplement to Johnson and Steevens’ edition of 1778’. Malone for the first time recovered the verse from the prose of the early version, and by somewhat liberal emendations rendered most of the text readable and intelligible.
Malone’s revised text.
It was at the suggestion of Dr. Richard Farmer that
- text_extracted_at
- 2026-01-30T06:20:47.155Z
- text_extracted_by
- ocr-service
- text_has_content
- true
- text_images_count
- 0
- text_source
- ocr
- uploaded
- true
- width
- 1750