Shakespearean prompt-books of the seventeenth century.Shakespearean prompt-books of the seventeenth century, vol. 6 (Smock Alley Othello) William Shakespeare Editor G. Blakemore Evans
Issued in portfolios. The prompt-books are reproduced in collotype facsimile.University Press of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 1980 Print copy consulted: UVa Library call number PR 2757 .E9 1960 v.6
Shakespearean prompt-books of the seventeenth century
Prepared for the University of Virginia Library Electronic Text Center.
All quotation marks retained as data.
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.
The images exist as archived TIFF images, one or more JPEG versions for general use, and thumbnail GIFs.
Keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Center scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
Library of Congress Subject Headings 1960-1980 English drama; prose; non-fiction LCSH 24-bit color; 400 dpi March 1997 corrector Catherine Tousignant, Electronic Text Center
Vol. VI: Part i
Introduction to the Smock Alley Othello
Collations Edited by
G. Blakemore Evans A Publication of
The Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville
PR 2757.E9 1960 V.6 Pt.1
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF VIRGINIA Copyright 1980 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
First published 1980
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
Shakespearean prompt-books of the seventeenth century.
- Introduction to the Smock Alley Othello ....... 1
- Collations ............................................. 13
Smock Alley Othello
THE Smock Alley Othello shares several prompt-hands with other Smock Alley prompt-books and is further linked with the Smock Alley Hamlet, Macbeth, I and II Henry IV, Henry VIII, and John Wilson's Belphegor by the appearance of six actors' names (more than in any other Smock Alley Shakespearean prompt-book), all inserted by Hand V (see below), among the prompt-calls: Joseph Trefusis (as ?Officer in I.iii, and as First Gentleman in II.i), John Totterdale (role uncertain, in I.iii), Barnes (as Sailor in II.i), Walmsley (as Second Senator in I.iii), John Freeman (as Montano in II.i), and Charles [?Ashbury] (as a Messenger in I.iii and as Third Gentleman in II.i). What appear to be two other names occur, but they have been so badly shaved in binding as to be unidentifiable: `. . . oin' (or'. . . vin'), who played the First Senator in I.iii, and `. . . ick', whose role, also in I.iii, is uncertain.
As with other Smock Alley prompt-books, the relative dating of Othello depends upon the appearance of such actors' names. Unfortunately, the evidence for assigning initial and terminal dates for actors appearing at Smock Alley is in most instances more or less conjectural, especially so because actors often seem to have moved back and forth between Smock Alley and the London theatres. W. S. Clark assigns tentative dates for five of these actors: Trefusis (c. 1675-88), Totterdale (c. 1674-88), Barnes (c. 1675-c. 1680), Walmsley (c. 1675-88), and Freeman (c.1675-82). Allan Stevenson first suggested the possible identification of `Charles' as Charles Ashbury, the son of Joseph Ashbury, himself an actor and the manager of the Smock Alley Theatre from 1675-1720, but we know nothing more definite about Charles than that he was probably associated with Smock Alley around the dates indicated by Clark for the other actors involved. Even if some kind of tentative dating may be suggested on the basis of these actors' names, such dating would probably give us only a terminus ad quem, since there is evidence that the Othello prompt-book may have been used for at least one earlier production before these particular actors took part in the play.6
Only one of the actors named, John Freeman, may perhaps help to set certain probable limits for dating the Othello promptbook, at least in so far as his connection with the production is concerned. Clark's dating for Freeman, as noted above, is "c. 1675-82," but in the light of more complete information now furnished by The London Stage (Part 1: 1660-1700) it can now be shown that Freeman was performing in London at Dorset Garden in December 1680 (1680-81 season), November 1681 (1681-82 season), and December 1683 (1683-84 season), but does not appear in London again until March 1686 (1685-86 season). This would seem to leave three probable dates for the appearance of his name in the Othello prompt-book: (1) prior to 1680, (2) the 1682-83 season, and (3) the 1684-85 season.
A choice between these three possibilities may perhaps be influenced by consideration of the Smock Alley prompt-book (manuscript) of John Wilson's Belphegor, which received its first performance, an apparently disastrous one, in Dublin. Clark and Stevenson differ on the most probable date for this production, but they are agreed that the play was produced at Smock Alley when Wilson was himself in Dublin. Stevenson advances three possible periods that would satisfy this requirement: 1677-78, 1680, and 1682-83. Clark advances 1677-78 as the date, without mentioning any other possibility. Stevenson, while admitting that 1677-78 "may have been the most suitable one," believes that 1682-83 "seems more appropriate for the whole group of actors and fits better" with a satiric allusion, which he dates as 1683 or after, to the play's failure. Among the eleven actors named in the Belphegor prompt-book, two, John Freeman and Barnes, also appear in Othello, and two other members of the Belphegor cast, George Bright and Mrs. Osborne, can, along with Freeman, be traced on the London stage (Dorset Garden) during some of the years in question. All the available evidence, detailed in the note below, tends to support Clark's claim for the years 1677-78.
The link between the Othello and the Belphegor promptbooks furnished by the common appearance of Freeman and Barnes in both, while admittedly fragile, may suggest that the two earlier terminal dates for Othello (prior to 1680 or 1682-83) are slightly more likely than the third (1684-85). Moreover, the absence of Trefusis in Belphegor and his presence in Othello, Hamlet (c. 1676-79), and I Henry IV (at least before January 1685), where his name is written in by the same hand (there Hand III) as Hand V in Othello, though again evidentially fragile, further suggests that these prompt-books may fall into a position after, but not long after, the Belphegor production, which, as I have shown above, may most probably be dated in 1677-78. In the first volume of this series, I advanced 1680-82 as a likely terminal date for the Othello prompt-book. I would now, in the light of the fuller information on Freeman and the date of the Belphegor production, suggest a terminal date for Othello either shortly before 1680 or in 1682-83, still admitting, however, what seems to me the less likely possibility of the 1684-85 season.
Before we consider further the possibility that more than one production of the play is represented in the Othello promptbook, that is, a production predating the insertion of the actors' names by Hand V, it will be necessary to discuss the main prompt-hands and, so far as possible, identify their appearance in the other Smock Alley prompt-books. R. C. Bald long ago noted that "as many as six hands are visible in the notes to Othello." There are, however, a number of notations where exact identification is at best uncertain and still other hands may well be present. Hand I is responsible for the advance prompt-calls and appears again in Macbeth as Hand III. Hand II gives the scene settings and makes occasional changes in the text, usually in connection with readings found in Q1-3 and Q (1681). It occurs again in Macbeth (Hands I and II), Hamlet (Hands I and II), Lear (Hand b, Twelfth Night (Hand I), Henry VIII (Hand I) and I Henry IV (Hand II). It is, thus, the most ubiquitous and important hand in the Smock Alley prompt-books. Hand III writes in emendations in the text and is to be distinguished from Hand IV, which also inserts emendations, by characteristics usually associated with earlier seventeenth-century hands. Hand IV appears to be later than any of the others (?eighteenth-century) and is, like Hand II, usually associated with changes made in conformity with quarto readings. Neither Hand III nor IV seems to occur elsewhere in the Smock Alley prompt-books. Hand V, which has already been mentioned in connection with the vexed problem of dating, is responsible for all the actors' names and a number of other important prompt-notes. It occurs elsewhere only in I Henry IV (as Hand III] and, possibly (see note 13), in the Belphegor prompt-book. Hand VI inserts a number of prompt-notes mostly concerned with scene settings and sound effects. The same hand also appears in Hamlet (Hand III), Julius Caesar (acting list), Macbeth (Hand IV), Merry Wives (Hand I), and, perhaps, Wilson's Belphegor (main prompt-hand).
With the main prompt-hands now established, we may return to the question postponed above: Does the Smock Alley Othello show evidence of serving for more than one production of the play? Such evidence as there is would seem to support the view that Hand V's participation in the prompt-book may indeed represent a later reworking of an earlier production. Hand V supplements or cancels prompt-notes by other hands, but his own annotations are never superseded or supplemented. The beginning of II.i shows perhaps the clearest example of Hand V's work. His addition to (or perhaps substitution for) Hand II's setting (`<Ca>stle') of `ye Shipps' and his handling of the Folio three Gentlemen, whom he reduces to two, appearing to supersede (or at least supplementing) Hand I's treatment, as well as his cancelation of prompt-notes by Hand ?III (lines 20, 49-51) and Hand VI (lines 73-74, 75), aimed at getting rid of the gun salutes (lines 55, 94), all strongly suggest a probable reworking of the scene as originally planned. But there is little here to tell us whether Hand V's revisions represent changes for a later separate production or were made as the final stage in the initial preparation of the prompt-book. Perhaps however, Hand V's cancellation of prompt-notes by hands other than Hands I and II, who may be credited with preparing the first rough draft of the prompt-book, may be taken as evidence that Hand V's work represents a distinct new production. If this is so, and I would say the evidence in II.i and elsewhere seems generally to support such a view, we must assign a date for the original production as somewhat earlier than the years associated with Hand V's intervention (i.e. shortly before 1680, 1682-83, or possibly 1684-85). How much earlier there is no certain way of knowing, but the general community of prompt-hands, particularly Hand II, with other Smock Alley promptbooks, none of which can be shown to be earlier than 1675, suggests a date in the later part of the 1670's.
The Othello prompt-book is, unfortunately, incomplete, lacking six pages (795-800, sigs. 3X5-3Y1 in F3) of the text from II.i.88 to III.iii.19 and the final page (817, sig.3Z4 in F3), containing the concluding lines of the play (V.ii.360-371), a total of 735 lines. The loss of these sections of the text makes it very difficult to determine the exact amount of cutting undertaken for the Smock Alley production (or productions). In what remains of the prompt-book, roughly around 326 lines have been marked, by one hand or another, for omission, but we can only guess at the extent of the cutting in the missing pages. Of the 723 lines lost between II.i.88 and III.iii.19, the eighteenth-century acting texts cut somewhat over two hundred lines, including the whole of II.ii (the proclamation scene), III.i (the clown scene), and III.ii (Othello giving letters to be sent to Venice). Although the Clown was originally retained in the prompt-call by Hand I at the opening of III.iv, a later hand (Hand ?III) has deleted his entry and cut lines 1-22. It seems likely, therefore, that the Clown's earlier appearance in III.i (some 30 lines) was also deleted at the same time, but whether the rest of the scene (another 28 lines) was also cut, as in the eighteenth-century acting texts, or retained, as in the Collier MS cutting, must remain uncertain. Since the amount of cutting in other parts of the Smock Alley Othello is comparatively light, we may perhaps suggest a total of about 95 lines cut in the missing six pages. This would give an over-all total of around 421 lines cut and leave a final acting version of about 2,808 lines, a stage text considerably longer than any found in the eighteenth-century acting texts and Kemble.
Marvin Rosenberg, in his interesting stage-history, The Masks of Othello (1961), has analyzed a number of the cuts in the Smock Alley PB and finds there some attempt being made to "refine" both Othello and Desdemona in accordance with the doctrine of decorum, citing Thomas Rymer's famous attack on the play and its principal characters. While I would agree that questions of decorum may play some slight part in the pattern of cutting, probably under the influence of Thomas Betterton's "heroic" conception of the role of Othello (noted by Rosenberg; see, perhaps, I.iii.273; III.iii.24, 180-183; IV.i.35-44, IV.ii. 56- 64, 161-165), I suspect that the real reason for deleting `Exchange me for a Goat' in III.iii.180-183 was more concerned with a desire to get rid of the difficult language in the following lines than with the possible indecorum in the reference to such a vulgar animal as a goat. In III.iii.345-357, Othello's famous "farewell" to his "occupation," which is reduced to some four lines, it is possible to see "refinement" at work, perhaps, in the cutting of lines 345-347, but that the latter part of the speech was cut because of an over-bombastic, rhetorical tone, unsuitable to the heroic Othello (as Mr. Rosenberg suggests) seems very questionable. The speech was left untouched in eighteenth-century acting versions and singled out for special praise by Francis Gentleman (see the Collations). More simply, I think, what is behind the cutting here, and for the most part in the remainder of the play, is a desire to shorten the play somewhat by deleting what seemed to the reviser(s) non-essential lines and passages, in two cases perhaps under the influence of Quarto 1 (see IV.iii.22-57, 88-102).  And, although one may note the occasional deletion of passages with special sexual reference (as in III.iii.345-347, IV.i.35-44, or IV.ii. 56-64), other passages equally or more explicitly sexual remain untouched. Moreover, although the eighteenth century completely deleted Othello's trance scene in IV.i, excised the character of Bianca from the play and Othello's brief appearance in V.i., each in its way, we may assume, considered offenses against aspects of the doctrine of decorum, the Smock Alley PB retains them essentially uncut. In other words, decorum or refinement in eighteenth-century terms played a very small part in the production of the Smock Alley PB.
As in the other Restoration theatre versions generally, the reviser(s) at Smock Alley either jettisoned "hard" or obsolete words and phrases (for example, I.i.16; I.ii.17, 56, 89; II.i.63-65; III.iii.287; IV.ii.30) or substituted other readings (for example, I.i.39; I.ii.17, 22; I.iii.275; II.i.8-9; V.i.22). He (or they) also shows a knowledge of the earlier quarto editions, particularly Q2-3 and possibly Q1 and Q (1681)(see I.i.110; I.ii.22; I.iii.110, 159, 261, etc.), a knowledge that argues for a close connection between the Smock Alley PB and the current London performances, which, according to the 1681 quarto, used the quarto version stemming from Q2 (1630). Since there was a continual exchange between the London theatres and Smock Alley, it is fair to assume that many of the cuts and other changes, which now appear for the first time in the Smock Alley PB, were in fact importations from London and that the Smock Alley PB preserves for us in its essentials Othello as it was performed in Restoration London. Another indication of this influence is the large number of cuts common to the Smock Alley PB and the eighteenth-century London acting versions (see the Collations), since the line of influence would certainly not be through Smock Alley. On the other hand, the Smock Alley PB has a substantial number of cuts (for example, I.ii.19-24; I.iii. 83-87; II.i.36-42; III.iii.351-357) and some twenty-eight readings (I.i.39, 159; I.ii.12, 17; I.iii.59, 258, 264, 274, 279, 374; II.i.8-9, 10, 34 (bis), 53, 56-57, 59, 60,66-67; III.iii.135, 137,393,455,478; IV.i.22; IV.ii.74; V.i. 14, 22) which are either unique or anticipate later editorial emendations. There is, of course, no way of determining whether at least some of these cuts or readings are really peculiar to Smock Alley or whether they represent details of the London tradition that failed to leave their mark on later stage practice.
The stage settings used for the Smock Alley Othello seem to be almost entirely stock scenes, all but one (`ye Shipps' II.i) being employed at least once in other Smock Alley Shakespeare prompt-books. They are: `Towne' (I.i); `Presence' (I.iii, IV.ii [later replaced]); `Castle' (II.i, V.i); `ye Shipps' (II.i [perhaps a rear shutter to be used with `Castle']); `Chamber' (III.iv); `Court' (IV.i [replaced]); `pallace' (IV.i); `Anti-Chamber' (IV.ii); `Bed Chamber' (V.ii [presumably the same as `Chamber' with the addition of a bed]).
1. The Smock Alley Othello promptbook is now in the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, D.C., and is here reproduced by the kind permission of the Trustees.
2. It has only recently been pointed out that `Charles' took the roles of Peto and Page in II Henry IV. Gunnar Sorelius discovered twenty-seven cuttings (from the Smock Alley Third Folio) of I Henry IV and twenty-four of II Henry IV in the Halliwell-Phillipps' scrapbooks in the Shakespeare Memorial Library in Stratford-upon-Avon (I Henry IV: Vols. I-III, VI, IX; II Henry IV: Vols. III-VI) and has published an account of what remains of these Smock Alley prompt-books (including the earlier known single fragment of I Henry IV in the Folger Shakespeare Library) in the Shakespeare Quarterly ("The Smock Alley Prompt-Books of I and 2 Henry IV," XXII (1971), 111-128). In addition to the appearance of `Charles' in II Henry IV, Trefusis played the First Carrier in II.i of I Henry IV and Powell (perhaps George Powell, son of Martin Powell, also an actor, who, with his father, appears with the United Company in 1686-87), the Second Carrier. From the Folger fragment it was already known that Longmore (who continued to play at Smock Alley into the eighteenth century) played the Chamberlain in II.i and II.ii. In the dramatis personae list for II Henry IV in the Third Folio (sig. 212v) Sorelius found the names of the actors who played the `Irregular Humorists': Poins by `Shepheard', Falstaff by `Baker', Bardolph by `Eales', Pistol by `Gilbert', `Charles', as already noted, playing Peto and Boy. Except for `Charles', none of these names appears elsewhere in the Smock Alley prompt-books. Francis Baker has long been known to have played Falstaff at Smock Alley before 1685, but this is the first evidence tying him directly to the role. Of the others, apart perhaps from `Charles' [?Ashbury] nothing is known.
3. Allan Stevenson ("The Case of the Decapitated Cast or The Night-walker at Smock Alley,"SQ, VI , 291) suggests that we might "just possibly" read the second name as `<P>ink' (i.e. William Pinkethman). Pinkethman appears in the cast of the Smock Alley Belphegor about 1677-78 (see later discussion).
4. William Smith Clark, The Early Irish Stage: The Beginnings to 1720 (1955), pp.207-209. Clark does not mention `Charles'.
5. Stevenson, p. 290.
6. Othello was produced at Smock Alley, very shortly after the Restoration, in late 1662 (see Clark, p. 61), but this production could have had no direct connection with the present prompt-book, since it could not have used a copy of the Third Folio (1663/64) as a basis for its prompt-book.
7. Ed. by William Van Lennep, 1965 (Critical Introduction by Emmet L. Avery and Arthur H. Scouten).
8. We are forced to work with such evidence as we possess, but it should be pointed out that these dates are less definite than they might seem for two special reasons: (1) because an actor can be shown to have taken part in a performance during a given season does not mean that he (or she) necessarily remained with the company throughout the season (he may have acted elsewhere, Smock Alley, for example); (2) on the other hand, the fact that his name is not associated with say the Duke's Company, or later the United Company (from the 1682-83 season on), for other performances (or indeed for any performances) during a particular season does not mean that he did not act various unrecorded roles during that season, since our records of the personnel of the London companies for any given year depend most frequently upon occasional theatre documents and actor lists (printed or manuscript) attached to published versions of the plays performed. More often than not we simply do not know who performed in the bulk of the productions for the season in question.
9. Folger MS. V.b.109 (formerly 827.1). The scribe is the same as the one responsible for copying out the missing pages in the Smock Alley Merry Wives of Windsor prompt-book, and as Eland VI in Hamlet. There are numerous textual revisions in Wilson's hand, but whether they are connected with the Smock Alley production or with the much later London production (1690) is not now clear. This prompt-book was unknown to M. C. Nahm (John Wilson's "The Cheats," 1935), who is the principal source of biographical information on Wilson.
10. Stevenson, p. 293.
11. Clark, pp. 81-82.
12. Freeman played the role of Belzebub (46 lines, of which 15 have been cut; roughly comparable to his role of Montano in Othello, 60 lines, amount of cutting uncertain because of missing pages in the prompt-book). Of Barnes, who was introduced as a `Boy' to sing a single lyric, (his part as a Sailor in Othello is even slighter, four lines), nothing is really known, although Clark (p. 207) gives "c. 1675-C. 1680" as the span of his acting career at Smock Alley. The only evidence for these dates is Clark's dating of Belphegor in 1677-78, a date which I am inclined to accept (see discussion above). All we know further is that a `Mr. Barns' (or `Barnes') turns up as a member of the United Company in London in the seasons of 1689-90 and 1690-91, at which times at least six other actors formerly associated with Smock Alley are also members of the company.
13. The London Stage (Part l: 1660-1700), ed. William Van Lennep, 1965) furnishes the following information: (1) George Bright first appears on the London stage (Dorset Garden) in 1678-79 (April 1679), then in 1679-80 (June 1680), 1681-82 (November 1681; January 1682), 1682-83 (November 1682; May 1683), 1683-84 (December 1683; March 1684); (2) Mrs. Osborne first appears on the London stage (Dorset Garden) in 1671-72 (September 1671; January 1672; August 1672), then in 1672-73 (November 1672; March 1673; May 1673); 1674-75 (November 1674), 167576 (July 1676), 1677-78, (September 1677),1679-80 (February, 1680), 1681-82 (November 1681, twice; January 1682) 1682-83 (May 1683), 1684-85 (August 1685). This evidence, coupled with that on Freeman, suggests that the second and third dates for the Belphegor production are unlikely, first, because, though Bright and Mrs. Osborne appear to have been absent from the London stage in 1680-81, Freeman was performing at Dorset Garden in those years (December 1680 and January 1681); and, second, because, though Freeman was apparently available for Smock Alley in 1682-83, Bright and Mrs. Osborne (Bright particularly) were acting in London during that season. We are left, therefore, with the earliest proposed date (1677-78). For this date the evidence as far as Freeman and Bright are concerned is negative (i.e., there is no record of their performance in London at this time), but Mrs. Osborne's London record shows that she could have been playing at Smock Alley at any time between October 1677 and January 1679.
14. Apart from the appearance of Freeman and Barnes in both casts there are perhaps two other slender connecting links between the Othello and Belphegor prompt-books: (1) the main prompt-hand in Belphegor may be the same as Hand VI in Othello (I am much less sure of this than I was formerly, see Vols. I and IV of this series, pp. 17 and 3 respectively); (2) in both instances where Barnes' name appears in the prompt-calls in Belphegor (pp. 36, 37), it appears to be inserted by a hand different from the main prompt-hand. This second hand may be, though again I cannot be sure, the same as Hand V in Othello the hand responsible for Barnes' and the other actors' names, where Hand V also inserts an actor's name into another hand's advance call (see I.ii.79-82, I.iii. (opening), II.i.1-5).
15. Stevenson (p. 284) is wrong when he argues that Francis Baker, who played Falstaff (see note 2), was in London by 1683. He interpreted literally a misprint in the actors' list of Edward Ravenscroft's Dame Dobson (1684; acted May 1683 at Dorset Garden) that assigned the role of Mrs. Francis to `Mr. Baker' instead of, as properly, to Mrs. Baker. Van Lennep (The London Stage, Part I, p. 319) silently corrects the error.
16. General Introduction, Vol. I, Part i, pp. 19-20. A single unique agreement at III.iii.362 between the Smock Alley PB and the 1681 quarto edition of Othello (see the Collations) is perhaps suggestive but does not in itself rule out a date before 1681 for the version of the Smock Alley PB connection with Hand V. There is possibly some influence of Q(1681) at III.iii.135, where its error might lead to Hand II's unique emendation.
17. "Shakespeare on the Stage in Restoration Dublin," PMLA, LVI (1941), 373.
18. See particularly I.i.159; I.iii.342 (and IV.iii.25); III.iv. (opening s.d.); V.ii. (opening).
19. I have come to the belated conclusion that Hands I and II in Hamlet and Macbeth, Hand I in Lear, Twelfth Night, and Henry VIII, and Hand II in Othello and I Henry IV are in fact all the same hand. This conclusion, of course, vitiates my treatment of this hand in the Smock Alley Hamlet and Macbeth prompt-books (Vols. IV and V) of this series and telescopes what, in the General Introduction (Vol. I, p. 17), I called Hands A and C. I should also add here that what I treat as Hands III and VII in Hamlet are, I now believe, a single hand. I apologize for what I now consider to be these serious errors, but anyone who has tried to disentangle seventeenth-century hands, especially prompt-book hands, will, I trust, feel more sorrow than anger.
20. See the Collation at III.iii.422; III.iv.60-67; IV.i.152-163, 177-186, 225; IV.ii (setting), 168; V.ii (setting), 222-226, 243- 248.
21. Although the reason for the loss of these four leaves can only be guessed at, it seems highly likely that the agent of loss here, as elsewhere in the Smock Alley prompt-books, was Halliwell-Phillipps. Since the last page of Othello (817) in F3 was the recto of the first page (818) of Antony and Cleopatra, it is almost certain, when the Smock Alley F3 was broken up by Halliwell-Phillipps and the plays bound separately, that this page was included with Antony and Cleopatra (now lost). The Smock Alley Macbeth and Hamlet offer an exactly analogous case (see Vol. V, Part i, p. I of this series). The other six missing pages (795-800) were most probably either (1) detached for special exhibition purposes and never reassembled (compare the treatment of four leaves in the Smock Alley Macbeth) or (2) cut up into fragments and pasted into one of Halliwell-Phillipps' many scrapbooks (compare the scandalous treatment of the Smock Alley I and II Henry IV referred to above in Note 2). Someday, we may still hope, all four leaves may be recovered. Professor Gunnar Sorelius (see note 1) has kindly assured me that the missing leaves are not lurking in the Stratford or Folger Halliwell-Phillipps' scrapbooks.
22. The Clown appears in the cast list in the 1681 Player's Quarto as played by Joseph Haines in a performance associated with Drury Lane in January of 1675. So far as I know, there is no evidence of his omission on the London stage during the seventeenth century (his omission in an incomplete MS cast list of c. 1690-91 is inconclusive; see The London Stage, I, 387).
23. The Smock Alley Othello PB has been compared throughout in matters of staging, cutting, additions, etc. with five eighteenth-century acting versions and one from the early nineteenth century, as well as with the Collier MS (see the Collations). Using Alfred Hart's figure of 3,229 as the total number of lines in an uncut Othello text (R.E.S., VIII , 21), we may offer the following rough estimates of comparative length: Smock Alley PB, 2,808 (cutting 421 lines); 1755 Witford edition (Covent Garden), 2,384 (cutting 845); John Palmer PB for 1766 (in a copy of the Hitch-Hawes 1761 edition), 2,363 (cutting 866); anonymous 1755 PB (in a copy of the Witford 1755 edition), 2,266 (cutting 963); 1764 Garland-Exshaw edition (Drury Lane), 2,315 (cutting 914); Bell's acting edition (Drury Lane, 1773), 2,429 (cutting 800); J. P. Kemble's acting edition (Covent Garden, 1804), 2,539 (cutting 690). Occasional references are made to a 1770 acting edition with Drury Lane and Covent Garden casts for 65 and to the R. Butters edition (c. 1788; Covent Garden). The Collier MS (in a copy of the Second Folio, 1632) suggests cutting only about 293 lines in all, 83 of these falling in the central missing section of the Smock Alley PB.
24. Rosenberg leaves the impression that Rymer's criticism of Othello might have had some direct influence on the cutting in the Smock Alley PB. Considering the date of the Smock Alley PB (not later than 1684-85) and the date of Rymer's critique in A Short View of Tragedy (1692), any such direct influence seems impossible. See also an earlier article by Rosenberg on Othello on the eighteenth-century stage in SP, LI (1954), 75-94.
25. The last part of line 357 (`Othello's Occupation's gone.') is wrongly included as part of the cut by Rosenberg.
26. These cuts, which more or less follow the Q1 text (1622), may, of course represent an earlier stage tradition and thus indicate no necessary connection with Q1. The scene is even more heavily cut in the eighteenth-century acting texts and Kemble (see Collations).
27. In V.i the last three lines (34-36) are marked for cutting, mainly, I suggest, because of textual difficulties (particularly in F3).
28. See notes 16 and 26.
29. See the list of Smock Alley stage settings in Vol. I, Part i, of this series (pp. 23-24). The recent discovery of parts of the Smock Alley I Henry IV and II Henry IV (see note 2) makes it possible to add three scenes to the above list: I Henry IV, `chamber of State' (I.i. [replaced]); `Stable' (II.i); `Camp' (IV.i, iii; also II Henry IV, IV.i).
30. Compare `Chamber without ye Bed' in Smock Alley Merry Wives, I.iv, and Smock Alley Hamlet, II.i.
THE act, scene, and line numbering is that of the Globe text (1911 ed.). Angle brackets are used to indicate (1) missing words or letters; (2) illegible words or letters; (3) doubtful or conjectural readings. The following abbreviations are employed:
- Bell..........................acting version of Othello (Drury Lane) as printed in Bell's Shakespeare (1773), Vol. I
- Butters.......................acting version (Covent Garden) published by R. Butters (c. 1788)
- Collier MS....................the Collier-Perkins Second Folio (1632), now in the Huntington Library
- F.............................here used for the Third Folio (1664)
- Kemble........................J. P. Kemble's acting version (Covent Garden) published in 1804
- Palmer PB.....................prompt-book prepared by John Palmer (for King's and Haymarket) in 1766 (in a copy of the Hitch-Hawes 1761 ed.); cited only where it differs from 1755
- PB............................Smock Alley Othello promptbook, now in the Folger Shakespeare Library
- Q.............................used to refer, with appropriate designation, to the several seventeenth-century quarto editions of Othello
- 1755..........................acting version (Covent Garden) published by T. Witford in 1755
- 1755 PB.......................anonymous prompt-book, now in the Birmingham Shakespeare Library (in a copy of the Witford, 1755, text); cited only where it differs from 1755
- 1764..........................acting version (Drury Lane) published by Halhed Garland (London) and John Exshaw (Dublin) in 1764
- 1770..........................acting version (Drury Lane and Covent Garden casts for 1765) published `for the Proprietors' in 1770
(opening) Towne / [line]] Hand II. 1755, 1764, Bell, Kemble give the scene as `a Street in Venice' (after Theobald); Palmer PB adds: `4 B-Letter's / 1 with Cries / Balcony PS. / / Ryalto 1:st gr.' ( indicates "whistle for change of scene"; '1:st gr., means first groove and refers to the position for the `Ryalto' scene).
16 certes,] Circled and crisscrossed. Pope irons out the line by omitting `For' before `certes', but the change here is almost certainly to get rid of an archaic word.
21 A fellow . . . wife] Circled and crossed through. The beginning of 20-24 is damaged by having been glued down and then separated. Deletion is an obvious way of getting rid of a famous crux. 1764, Bell, Kemble also delete, but adopt `a fellow' in place of F `a Florentine' in 20; 1755 reads `--(the Florentine's / A fellow almost damn'd in a fair phyz;)--'; Palmer PB alters 1755 to `--(a Florentine / A fellow . . . phyz;)--'; 1770 reads as 1755 but adds `fair' before `fellow'.
25-26 Wherein the . . . he,] Circled and crossed through. The line in the left margin is an off-print from p. 789. All 18th-century acting texts and Kemble cut 24 (`Unlesse . . .')-31; so also Collier MS.
29-30 and on . . . Heathen)] Circled and crossed through. See 25-26, above, for 18th-century acting texts, Kemble, and Collier.
31 By Debitor, and Creditor.] Circled and a colon placed after F `calm'd' at the end of 30.
36-41 [line] / <Bra>bantio / <a>boue / [line]] Hand I. This call, though probably earlier, duplicates that at 20-21.
39 justice ought] Hand III alters F `just terme am Affin'd' to `justice ought' [or `aught'] by altering F `ter' to `ice', deleting the rest of the line, and adding `ought' after it. 1755, 1764, Bell read the line as `If I in any just term am assign'd' (`If' from Pope; `assign'd' from Q1).
40-41] The ink blots on these lines do not indicate any deletions. The page is again damaged at the beginning of 42-43.
48 old, Casheer'd.] Some hand has inserted a comma after F `old' (as in Rowe). 1755, 1764 cut 43-60; Bell, Kemble, 43-58; Collier MS, 43-57.
53 lin'd their] Some hand crosses out F `in' following `lin'd' (a reading found only in F3-4).
72 on's] The ink blot again seems to be accidental.
82-84] A hole in the page affects the beginning of these lines.
87 Your heart is burst,] Circled and crossed through. Butters edition (c. 1788) cuts as in PB; 1755, Bell cut 86 (`for . . .')87; Kemble, 86-89 (`put . . . Ewe'); 1764, curiously, retains the whole speech. Gentleman (Bell) remarks about 88-89 (`Even . . . Ewe.'): "The lines distinguished by italics, for sake of decency, should be omitted, though usually spoken."
102 Brabantio / servants] Hand I. Point of entrance marked with a crossed line at 160. Palmer PB calls for `3 Serv:ts / w: t Lights'.
104-106] The ink blot on these lines is again accidental.
110 service, you] Some hand crosses through F `and' before `you', following the reading of Q1-3, Q (1681). 1755, Bell cut 107-111 (`. . . Ruffians,'); Kemble, 108 (`Because . . .')-114. Gentleman (Bell), as "an eligible means of avoiding an offence to decency," suggests cutting 107-119.
159 Sagitary by the] Some hand inserts, with a caret, `by' after F `Sagitary'. Apparently the reviser takes F `Lead' as `Led'. Kemble adopts `Sagittar', the Q1 reading.
168-173 [line] / Cass<io> / [line] / Cashi<o> [crossed through] / [line]] Hand I first wrote `Cash<o>' (this is the first call for the character); Hand II then crossed it out and wrote `Cass<io>' above. Hand I's form probably represents the common pronunciation of Cassio's name. The point of entrance is marked with a crossed line at I.ii.33. Palmer PB gives Cassio `3 Serv:ts / w:t Lights'; Kemble, at I.ii.33, has `Enter Servants with torches, Cassio, Giovanni, and Luca.'.
(opening)] PB indicates no change of scene, nor does Butters. 1755, 1764, Bell give the setting as `another Street before the Sagittary' (Theobald, after Rowe); Kemble gives `Another Street.'. Palmer PB does not delete the 1755 setting but adds: `0 / French / Town / 1 st Gr.' (this failure to delete the 1755 setting, when a new setting is substituted, is regular in Palmer PB).
4 times] The ink blot on `times' is an off-print from the facing page (788).
12 the Magnifico] Some hand crosses through F `That' before `the'.
16-19 [line] / <Br>abantio / <Rod>origo / <Off>icers / [line]] Hand I. Point of entrance marked with crossed line at 54. Palmer PB's call substitutes `Servants' for `Officers'.
17 liberty] Hand I crosses through F `Cable' and substitutes `liberty' after it.
19-24 `Tis yet . . . reach'd.] Circled. The deletion of these lines would seem to be somewhat later work than Hand I's `liberty' at 17, above, since Hand I also makes a substitution in 22 (see below).
22 height] Hand I crosses through F `Siege' and substitutes `height' (the reading of Q1-3, Q (1681)) above. The 18th-century acting texts, and Kemble retain F `Siege'.
40-44 The Gallies . . . already.] Circled. 1755, 1764, Bell, Kemble cut 40-44 (`It . . . already.').
56-62 [line] / <Duk>e / <Sena>tors / <Offic>ers / [line]] Hand I. Palmer PB calls for `Duke / Senators / Behind'. 1755, 1764, Bell replace F `Officers' with Q1 `Attendants' in the opening s.d. at I.iii, bringing an `Officer' on at 9; Kemble gives the opening s.d. at I.iii as `The Duke, Gratiano, Lodovico, seven other Senators, and Marco, in waiting, discovered.' and at 9 gives `Enter Paulo, and a Sailor'; 1764 has `Enter Sailors.' at 9.
63 <Totterd>ell / <W>almsly 2 / < >oin i Tref: &c: / < >ick] Hand V. The readings `< >oin' and `< >ick' are uncertain. See the Introduction, p. 2, for what is known or conjectured about these actors. Presumably, the actors here named are to play the characters entering at the beginning of scene iii. `< >oin' and `<W>almsly' can be assigned as `1. Sen.' and `2. Sen.' and probably Trefusis as the Officer (at 12). This would seem to leave `<Totterd>ell' as the Duke, but such an assignment for Totterdale at this point in his career would seem unlikely. Clark (Early Irish Stage, 1955, p. 76) gives Totterdale the role of an officer, but the order of the PB entry would seem to support Trefusis' claim to that role. Perhaps, however, the `&c:'after Trefusis' name implies that he and others came on to "swell the scene" as other Senators and Officers. Whether the mysterious `< >ick' should be interpreted as the remains of an actor's name is not at all certain. Under other circumstances I would propose `<mus>ick', but there seems no reason to open scene iii with music of any kind.
79-82 [line] /Salor / Mr Barnes / [line]] Hands I and V. Point of entrance marked with crossed line at I.iii.13. Bald (p. 373) suggests that the hand in `M' Barnes' may not be the same as that in the prompt-note at 63, above, but I can see no cause for questioning their identity. Palmer PB calls for `Messengers / Sailors / a Letter', though it (as well as 1755, Bell) omits the Sailor's cry within (also 1764, Kemble) and gives his later speech (14-16) to a Messenger; Kemble, 1764 retains 14-16 for the Sailor.
85, 87, 88 till . . . obey] Some hand has traced over in ink the F `ti' in `till', `obe' in `obey', and the second `e' in `therewith'.
89 about my side] Crossed through.
91 Cass.] Hand I crosses through F `Officer.' and assigns the speech to `Cass.'. So also, 1755, 1764, Bell, Kemble. The line drawn at the end of this line to the right margin, and there crossed, does not appear to have any function.
(opening) / Presence.] Hand II. Clark (Early Irish Stage, p.74) interprets `Presence' as meaning "a presence chamber with a chair of state." 1755, 1764, Bell give the setting as `the Senate-house' (after Rowe); Palmer PB gives ` Saloon. 3:d gr. / Table / 8 Chairs / 1 Great Do. / Lights / Pen Ink &c' ( is another symbol for "whistle for a change of scene"); 1755 PB also uses the whistle symbol for a change of scene; Kemble gives `A council-chamber' (after Capell).
(opening) Mesinger / [line] / Charles / [line]] Hands I and V. For `Charles' (? Ashbury), who is to play the role of the Messenger, seethe Introduction, p. 2.
4-11 Brabantio / Othello / Cassio / Rodorigo / Officers] Hand I. Point of entrance marked with crossed line at 47. Palmer PB, in its call, substitutes `Gents' for F `Officers' and crosses out `Cassio' in the actual entry, though including him in the call; Kemble substitutes `Giovanni, and Luca' for F `Officers'.
10-12 I doe . . . sense.] Bracketed. 1755, 1764, Bell, Kemble cut 10-12, including also the Sailor's cry within; 1755 PB cuts everything down to Brabantio's entrance at 48.
14 Barnes Saylor.] Hand V inserts `Barnes' before F `Saylor.'. See above, I.ii.79-82.
18-30 `Tis a . . . profitlesse.] Circled. 1755, 1764, Bell, cut 17-18 (`This . . . Reason.'), 19 (`when . . .')-30; Kemble cuts 19 (`when . . .')-31; Collier MS cuts 21-30. See 10-12 for 1755 PB.
32 s.d. cha: [line] / Messenger.] Hand V inserts `cha:' and a line above F `Messenger.'.
59 1. Sen.] Some hand (probably Hand II) has inserted `1.' before F `Sen.'; 1755, Bell retain the F speech-prefix, probably meaning "Senators"; Q1-3, Q (1681), and 1764 read `All.'; Kemble assigns to `Duke.'.
63 Being] The ink blot on `in' in F `Being' is an off-print from the prompt-note on the facing page (790).
66] Below this line, left bottom margin, some hand has written an apparently meaningless `there'.
83-87 For since . . . Battle,] Circled. The ink lines in the right margin here and above appear to be meaningless, in part an off-print from the facing page (790).
89 your] The ink blot on `ur' of F `your' is accidental. The same is true of F `you' in m 8.
94 Maiden never] The F comma after `Maiden' has perhaps been deleted (so in Q1-3, Q (1681), Kemble).
110 1. Sen.] Presumably the same hand (Hand ?II) as at 59 has inserted `1.' before F `Sen.', as in Q1-3, Q(1681). 1755, Bell, Kemble cut 107-110 (`. . . him. / But') and continue 110-114 (`. . . affordeth?') to the Duke; 1764 cuts 106-110 (`To . . . him. / But').
125-130 [line] / <De>sdimona / <Ia>go: / <Atte>ndants / [line]] Hand I. Point of entrance marked with crossed line at 170. Palmer PB calls for `Desde: / Iago / Roder: / [double line]' (although not marked Roderigo must have exited with Iago at 121, as in Bell, Kemble).
142 Such was my Processe,] Crossed through. Part of a larger cut in 1755, 1764, Bell (139-145 [`. . . shoulders.']), which is replaced by: `Of battles bravely, hardly, fought; of victories / For which the conqueror [conquerors 1764] mourn'd, so many fell: / Sometimes I told the story of a siege, / Wherein I had to combat, Plagues and Famine [famines 1764]; / Soldiers unpaid; fearful to fight, / Yet bold in dangerous mutiny.' (authorship unknown); F lines restored in Kemble.
159 sighs] Hand IV crosses through F `kisses' and substitutes `sighs' (the reading of Q1-3, Q (1681)) following it. So 18th-century acting texts and Kemble (following Pope).
171 my] The ink blot on `y' in F `my' is an off-print from a MS correction on the facing page (793).
191 I had . . . it.] Crossed through.
202-203 When remedies . . . depended.] Circled. Part of a larger cut in 1764, Bell, Kemble, all of which cut 195-220 (`For your . . . humbly'), though Kemble retains 198 (`I have done, my Lord.'); 1755, 1770 retain this couplet, but cut 195 (`For your sake (Jewell)'), 206-220 (`. . . humbly'), adding Q1-3, Q (1681) `Into your favour_' following 201 (after Pope); 1755 also cuts 196-205; Collier MS cuts 204-220 (`. . . humbly').
206-209 What cannot . . . grief.] Partly circled. For 18th-century acting texts and Kemble, see note on 202-203.
212-219 He beares . . . eare.] Bracketed. For 18th-century acting texts and Kemble, see note on 202-203.
223-226 And though . . . you:] Partly circled. Cut in 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
258 which] Hand III deletes F `y' in `why' and interlines `ich' above.
261 Your voies [sic] Lords,] Hand II crosses through F `Let her have your voyce.' and substitutes, to the right, `Your voies Lords,' (from Q1-3, Q (1681)). The 18th-century acting texts and Kemble also adopt Q1 here and add Q1-3, Q(1681) `beseech you, let her will / Have a free way.' in place of F `Vouch with me heaven,'.
264-269 or to comply / with heat] Hand II substitutes these words, to the right of 263-264, for F 264-269 (`Nor to . . . me.'), which appear to have been circled in two stages: first 264-265. second 266-269 (F `you' has been separately crossed through in 267). 1764, Bell cut 264-265; 1755 retains 264-269 (reading `distinct' [after Theobald] for F `defunct' in 265); Kemble cuts 262-275; Collier MS cuts 264-266.
273 Let Housewives . . . Helme,] Crossed through by Hand ?II. Cut in all 18th-century acting texts and Kemble; Collier MS cuts 269-275.
274 may] Hand II crosses through F `And' and substitutes `may' to the left. With the cutting of 273 some change was necessary; 18th-century acting texts substitute `Let'.
275 reputation.] Hand IV substitutes `reputation.' for F `Estimation.', following Q1-3, Q(1681). Collier was the first editor to adopt the Q1 reading.
279 1. Sen.] Presumably the same hand as at 110 (Hand ?II) has inserted `1.' before F `Sen.'. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble follow Q1-3, Q (1681) in continuing 279 to the Duke; Dyce, aside from PB, first assigned the line to the First Senator.
292 1. Sen.] The same hand (Hand ?II) as at 279 has inserted `1.' before F `Sen.', as in Q1-3, Q (1681). 18th-century acting texts and Kemble, except 1764, cut 292; 1764 assigns as in F; Collier MS cuts the speech.
300 and direction] Twice crossed through, first in light brown ink, second in a darker ink (the same as in 275 above).
322-340 'tis in . . . will.] Circled and crisscrossed. `Cut' (Hand ?III) has been placed, in right margin, opposite 322 and repeated opposite 339 below. So Bell; 1755, 1764, Kemble retain 322-323 (` 'tis . . . thus.'); Collier MS cuts 323-330 (`Our . . . wills.'). Gentleman (Bell), on this part of the scene, remarks that it "is very much, and very properly, reduced, from its original prolixity."
342 Act] Hand ? places `Act' in right margin, an advance warning call for interact music. The same hand makes the same notation at IV.iii.25 and does not seem to appear elsewhere in PB. The little addition problem in shillings and pence in the right margin below `Act' would appear to be an occasional jotting without any obvious theatrical connection.
363-370 [line] /act re<ady> / [line]] Hand V repeats the `Act' call at 342. Palmer PB places `Act' at 382.
373 My cause is hearted;] Circled by Hand III. See next note.
374 thou hast] Hand III alters `ine' in F `shine' to `ou' and `th' in F `hash' to `st'. Q1-3, Q (1681) read `shine has'.
410 ring. [line]] Hand V's call for interact music.
(opening) ye Shipps] Hand V perhaps substitutes this scene setting for Hand II's `<Ca>stle.' (written over something else?) Just below. Clark (p. 74) considers `ye Shipps' as a rear shutter added to the `Castle' scene. Hand II places the symbol `' (=whistle for a change of scene) inside the left rule opposite `<Ca>stle.', preceding the F opening s.d. 18th-century acting texts give the scene as `The Capital City of Cyprus.', but Palmer PB gives `Port Tunis / 2: gr. PS'. `Port Tunis' is obviously a scene adapted from some other play and means that the suggested Cyprus setting of 1755 was not employed. Kemble gives the setting as `A Platform before the Town'.
(opening s.d) Freem. Trefuse & Cha: [`Cha:' crossed through]] Hand V writes in the actors' names above the F s.d. `Enter Montano, and Gentlemen.'. For the actors involved (Freeman, Trefusis, and Charles (?Ashbury)), see the Introduction, p. 2. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble cut everything down to Cassio's entrance at 43. For an explanation of the deletion of `Cha:', see 1-5, below. Gentleman (Bell) notes: "The Second Act commonly begins here [i.e. with Cassio's entrance at 43]; yet we think that the scene which precedes, as originally written, should be retained, as it contains some fine passages, and raises a pleasing proper anxiety, for Othello's safety."
1-5 [line] / <Gen>tleman [Hand I] / <Cha>rles [Hand V] / [line]] Hand I calls for the F entrance of `a Gentleman' at 19, but Hand V, who had originally brought `Cha:' on at the beginning of the scene as one of two Gentlemen, decides to bring on only one (Trefusis) and to use `Charles' to play the F Third Gentleman, who enters at 19 (thus his deletion of `Cha:' above), and assigns the Second Gentleman's speech at 10 to the First Gentleman. The Second Gentleman is thus entirely omitted.
8-9 can weather it] Hand III substitutes this phrase for F 8-9 (`when Mountains . . . Morties.'), which has been circled (`when' separately crossed through).
10 1.] Hand V alters F `2.' to `1.' See 1-5, above.
13-17 The wind-shak'd . . . Flood.] Circled, but `Stet.' placed in left margin, opposite 13-14, by Hand ?IV. Collier MS cuts 10-19.
15-17 [line] / <Ca>ssio / [line]] Hand I. Point of entrance marked with a crossed line at 42.
19. s.d. cha:] Hand V writes `cha:' above `Gentleman' in the F s.d. See 1-5, above. `cha:' thus speaks the lines assigned to the Third Gentleman in F.
20 < >ns ready [crossed through]] Reading uncertain, probably `Guns ready' (Hand ?III). The gun salutes (55 and 94), at one time included in PB, seem to have been cut out (see deletion of 56-57 and prompt-note at 75), probably by Hand V. 1755, 1770, Kemble retain the gun salutes; Palmer PB deletes only the first (55); 1764, Bell (as in PB) cut them both.
22] A badly shaved prompt-note, of which the last letter seems to be `s' (possibly `ts'), appears in the left margin, possibly `<shou>ts' (?Hand III).
25-30 [line] / <Gen>tleman / <Ch>arles / [line]] Hands I and V. Compare 1-5. Point of entrance (as the Third Gentleman) marked with a crossed line at 52. Since Charles as the Third Gentleman has been brought on earlier at 19 and has three speeches and is marked for a second entrance at 52, he must be supposed to exit at some point after his third speech (31-34 (` . . . Tempest.')), perhaps after `Like a full Souldier.' (36), but no exit is marked. The situation is complicated by the cutting of 36-42 (`Let's . . . Arrivancy.'). See 36-42, below.
34 With a foule] Some hand has interlined, with a caret, `a' above F `With foule'.
34 heaven] Some hand has deleted the final `s' in F `heavens' (following Q1-3, Q (1681)).
34 <*> to speak wth.in] Hand V places this note in the bottom left margin, below 34, as an advance call for F `Within. A Sail, a sail, a sail.' at 51. The asterisk before `to' is conjectural, nothing remaining but two ink marks (the corner of the page has been torn away at this point); but see the note at 49-51.
36-42 Let's to . . . regard.] Heavily circled and partly crossed through. The cutting seems to have been done in at least two, perhaps three, stages: 39-40 (`. . . regard.') partly circled; 39-42 (`Come . . . Arrivancy.') crossed through; 36-42 completely circled. `regard.' in 40 is heavily smudged with ink and some letter or letters, now illegible, seem to follow it; probably, however, it is an off-print from p. 795 (now missing).
39-42 Disdimona / Iago / Rodorigo / Emilia] Hand I. Point of entrance marked with crossed line at 82.
43 the Isle,] F `warlike' has been crossed through after `the' (following Q2-3, Q ( 1681 )); Q1 reads `worthy'.
49-51 * / Shout. [deleted]] The asterisk is Hand V's; the deleted `Shout.' probably Hand III's. A circular line (crossed at the end) has been drawn from the asterisk to indicate its application to the cry of `A Sail' within at 51; see the note on 34.
53 3d Gent.] Hand V inserts `3d' before F `Gent.'. Q1-3, Q (1681) introduce a `Messenger' at 51, who also speaks the F call from `Within.'. Only Bell and Kemble, among the acting texts, all of which begin the scene with Cassio's entrance at 43, introduce a special speaker for 53-54 (Bell: `a Gentleman'; Kemble: Antonio); the others assign 53-54 to `Gent.', one of the `Gentlemen' entering with Cassio and Montano at 43.
56-57 Gent. They do . . . least.] Circled; before 56-57 were marked for deletion, Hand V assigned the speech to First Gentleman by inserting `1' before F `Gent.'. Q1-3, Q (1681) assign to Second Gentleman. Palmer PB, 1764, Bell, Kemble cut as in PB.
57 Trefusis / [line]] Hand V's call for re-entry of First Gentleman at 65, (point of entrance marked with crossed line).
59 1 Gent.] Hand V inserts `1' before F `Gent.'. Assigned to Second Gentleman in Q 1-3, Q ( 1681).
60 wedded] Hand III changes F `wiv'd?' to `wedded' (or possibly `weded') by altering `iv'd?' to `edded' (or `eded').
63-65 One that . . . Ingeniver.] Bracketed and crisscrossed. Cut in 18th-century acting texts; retained in Kemble, but with Q1's reading of 65 (`Does beare all excellency:'; Q2-3, Q (1681) substitute `an' for `all').
66-67 1 Gent. 'Tis one . . . Generall. / Ha's had] Hand V inserts `1' before F `Gent.' and deletes F speech-prefix `Cas.', giving the following lines to First Gentleman (in Q1-3, Q (1681) the lines are assigned to the Second Gentleman). Palmer PB follows the Quarto arrangement here, but assigns simply to `Gent.' at 66 as in F.
69-72 As having . . . Beauty / letting go] Circled in two parts: 69-70 (`The . . . Keel,'); 71-72 (`do . . . Natures,'), thus retaining part of 71 (`As having sense of Beauty'). 18th-century acting texts and Kemble cut 69-70.
73 (Exit)] Added, to right, by Hand V to indicate exit of First Gentleman (Trefusis) following 73 (`. . . Desdemona.').
73-74 Ready to cry a sayle [Hand V] /a sale / a sale [both Hand VI; crossed through]] Both Hand V's and Hand VI's notations are intended as advance calls for 94, which occurs on one of the missing pages (495) (see below under 88). See also next entry.
75 Guns / Redy [both crossed through]] Hand VI. The deletion of Hand VI's call for 94 is connected with both Hand V's revised call at 73-74 and Hand ?III's deleted call at 20. See 20, above, for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
76-81 Whose footing . . . Spirits.] Bracketed. Cut in 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
84 You men . . . knees.] Crossed through. Cut in 1764, Bell, Kemble.
85-87 and the . . . round.] Crossed through (85) and bracketed (86-87).
88 What tidings . . . Lord?] Following this line, the last on page 794 of F, the Smock Alley PB lacks three leaves (pages 795-800, sigs. 3X5-3Y1), beginning again on page 801 (sig. 3Y2) at (`I give . . . thee,'). Possible reasons for the loss of these leaves are discussed in the Introduction, p. 7, note 21. It is difficult to assess the amount of cutting, or other changes, made in PB. See the Introduction, pp. 7-8, for further discussion. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble omit, among other smaller cuts, II.i.125-145 (`Come . . . best.'), 229-253 (`When . . . already'), II.ii (the proclamation scene), III.i (the clown scene), and III.ii (Othello giving letters to be sent to Venice); in addition, Palmer PB cuts II.iii.1-11 (omitting the entrance of Othello and Desdemona and bringing Cassio on at 11 with Iago) and, 1755 PB cuts II.i 94-96 (`Within.] A sail . . . news.'). Collier MS cuts about 83 lines in all, including II.i. 125-146 (`me? Iago. I am . . . indeed?') and III.i.1-31. On the omission of III.i, Gentleman (Bell) remarks: "Shakespeare has furnished, at the beginning of the third act, a very trifling, non-essential scene, of two pages, to gratify the peculiar taste of his audiencies [sic], but which is now most justly rejected, the act beginning much better here [i.e. III.iii]." Gentleman, however, objects to the omission of II.iii. 205-207 (`My blood . . . way.'), commenting: "We think, the following lines of the original should be retained, as beautiful and significant."; they were restored in Kemble.
24 His Bed . . . Shrift,] Circled. Kemble omits this line; 18th-century acting texts cut 20-26 (`Assure . . . suit:').
34 s.d. Enter Othello, and Iago.] The crossed line to the left of F `Iago.' indicates point of entrance; the advance call was on the missing page (800).
47-50 His present . . . face.] Apparently bracketed, although the heavy ink smudge, perhaps an off-print from the missing page 800, makes it difficult to be sure.
106 why cost thou eccho] Hand IV crosses through F `Alass,' interlines, with a caret, `why dost' above F `thou', and crosses through ` 'st' in F `eccho'st' (the reading thus follows Q2-3, Q (1681)). 1755, Bell read `why, by heav'n thou echo'st' (after Pope); 1764 reads `by heav'n, thou echo'st'; Kemble reads `By heaven, he echos' (following Q1).
114-115 As if . . . conceit,] Circled.
121-124 For such . . . rule.] Bracketed. Cut in 1764.
135 free: From] Hand II inserts `From' after F `free:'. Q1-3 read `free to,"; Q (1681) reads `free too,'. Hand II's addition implies the Q1-3 reading of the line, omitting the colon after F `that'. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble adopt the Q1-3 reading (first editorially inserted by Rowe). Hand II's emendation makes easier sense than Q1's `to'.
137 Place] Hand ?II deletes the first `a' in F `Palace'.
138-141 who has . . . lawful?] Circled and crisscrossed. Cut in 18th-century acting texts and Kemble; also in Collier MS.
146-148 (As I . . . not)] Circled and crisscrossed through.
180-183 Exchange me . . . inference.] Circled. Cut in 18th-century acting texts and Kemble; also in Collier MS.
187-189 Nor from. . . me.] Circled.
211 He thought 'twas witchcraft.] Circled.
217-221 But I . . . not.] Circled in two stages: first, 218-220 (`. . . Suspition.'), in a lighter brown ink; second, 217-221. Neither cut makes good sense in terms of Iago's next speech (222-224).
228-238 As (to . . . repent.] Circled, but marked `stent' by Hand ?IV.
238 Farewell,] The following F `farewell:' has been crossed through (also omitted in Q1-3, Q (1681)).
240 Set on . . . observe.] Crossed through, but marked `stet' (by Hand ?IV) immediately to the left of the line. Marvin Rosenberg (The Masks of Othello , p. 265) suggests that `stet' more likely refers to lines 187-189 above.
261-263 Though that . . . Fortune.] Circled.
265-268 Or for . . . her.] Circled.
273-277 Yet 'tis . . . quicken.] Circled. Cut in 18th-century acting texts and Kemble; also in Collier MS.
287 handkerchief's] Hand IV crosses through F `Napkin is' and interlines above, with a caret, `handkerchief's'. 1764 reads as in PB; Bell reads `handkerchief is'.
290 handkerchief] Hand ?II (the ink appears to be different from that in 287) crosses through F `Napkin:'and interlines above, with a caret, `handkerchief'. The crossing through of `Napkin:' may represent an original attempt (by Hand ?III) to convert `Napkin:' into `kercher', thus reading `handkercher'. It may be noticed that Hand II fails to alter `Napkin' in 321. Q1 alone among the early texts uses `handkercher' for `handkerchief', first in 306-307. 1764 reads as in PB; Bell reads `handkerchief here' (Hanmer first read `napkin here' and is followed by 1755).
329 I did say so.] Crossed through. Cut in 18th-century acting texts as part of a longer cut (326-329).
338 senc had I, of] Hand ?III alters the `t' in F `sent' to `c' and alters F `in' to `of'. F `sent' is an error inherited from F2 (F1 reads `sense'); Hand ?III's reading as a whole follows Q1-3, Q (1681). 1764, Kemble read as in PB; 1755, Bell retain F `in' (all, of course, correct F `sent').
345-347 I had . . . known.] Circled.
351-357 Farewell the neighing . . . Farewell:] Partly circled. Gentleman (Bell) would obviously have disapproved of this and the above cut: "This impassioned rhapsody, is extremely striking and beautiful. Shakespeare, herein, as well as through the whole Act, has poured forth a flood of genius."
362 hadst better] Some hand (?Hand IV) crosses through F `bin' after `hadst'; PB thus reads as Q (1681). 1755 reads the line as: `Thou hadst better have been born a dog, a dog, Iago,'; 1764 reads: `Thou had'st better been born a dog, a dog, Iago,'; Bell reads: `Thou hadst better have been born a dog, Iago,'; Kemble reverts to F.
363 Then answer . . . wrath.] Crossed through.
366 Or woe . . . life.] Crossed through.
370 On horrors . . . accumulate,] Crossed through.
386 her name] Hand II crosses through F `My' and interlines above, with a caret, `her' (following the reading of Q1-3, Q (1681); part of some lines lacking in Q1). 18th-century acting texts and Kemble read as in PB (Pope first adopted the Q2 reading).
393 May, and will.] Some hand has crossed through F `I' following `and'. PB here would seem to anticipate Pope's emendation of F1 (Q1-3, Q (1681) read: `nay, I will.'), which is adopted by 18th-century acting texts; Kemble adopts the Q reading.
422 [line] / Desdemon / Emilia ] Below 422, in left margin and beneath the bottom rule, Hand V has inserted an advance call for Desdemona and Emilia which duplicates Hand I's call at 424-427 (except for the deleted `Clown') near the top of the second column on page 804.
424-427 [line] / Disdmona / Emilia / Clown [crossed through] / [line]] Hand I. Point of entrance marked with a crossed line at 479. See opening of III.iv for the cutting of the Clown.
439 Chamber Sene] Hand VI. Perhaps the only example of an advance call for a change of scene in PB (see III.iv.168). The presumed need for it may be explained by the considerable confusion in PB over the opening of III.iv (see below).
439 Oth:] Hand I corrects the obviously wrong speech-prefix `Cassio.' peculiar to F3 (i.e. F).
444 Now doe . . . true.] Crossed through.
446-450 'Tis gone . . . tongues.] Partly circled. Before the cut was indicated Hand ?III had altered F `the hollow' to `thy hollow' in 447 (following in part the reading of Q1-3, Q (1681), `thy hollow Cell'). Kemble reads as PB in 447; 18th-century acting texts (except Bell) follow F; Bell reads "th' unhallowed cell' (following Warburton). The heavy blot opposite 449, in right margin, is an off-print from the facing page (805).
455 Ne're knew retiring] Hand II crosses through F `keeps' and interlines above, with a caret, `knew'. 18th-century acting texts (following Rowe) adopt Q2-3, Q (1681), reading `feels' (Q1 omits 453-460 [`Iago. Like . . . Heaven,']); Kemble cuts 453-460 (`Like . . . up.'); Collier MS reeds `knows'.
470 Not with . . . bountious,] Crossed through.
478 Now thou art] Hand II crosses through F `thou' after `art and interlines above, with a caret, `thou' following `Now'.
(opening) Othello: Scena Quarta. ] Hand I places an advance call for Othello to the left of F `Scena Quarta.' and `' to the right. Point of entrance marked with a crossed line at 31.
(opening s.d.) 1-37 s.d. Enter Desdemona . . . sorrow. Enter Othello. Chamber [crossed through]] The handling of these lines in PB presents unusual complications. Originally the scene appears to have been planned by Hand I to include lines 1-37, even keeping the role of the Clown (see Hand I's call at III.iii.424-427, where `Clown' has been later crossed through by ?Hand V). Then some other hand has marked, by circling, 1-37 for cutting, including the opening s.d., an arrangement that makes no sense, as Hand I had recognized by calling for Othello's entrance at 31 (F [i.e., F3] wrongly enters Othello after 37). The next step seems to be the deletion of 1-22, by crisscrossing, with a line added below 22. The same hand then wrote `Cut out' (right of left rule opposite F opening s.d.), and `Cut' (left of left rule opposite F 23), deleted (by circling) F `and Clown.' in opening s.d., and crossed through F `Exit Clo.' at 22. The scene thus begins with the entrance of Desdemona and Emilia at 23, contrary to Hand I's original intention. The identity of the hand here involved is uncertain (Hand ?VI), but it is the same hand, presumably, that writes in `Enter 0th' to left of center rule at 31. Hand VI places `Chamber/ Here', to left of center rule, preceded by a crossed line opposite 24. At the same time Hand VI deletes Hand II's `Chamber.', to left of center rule, below 38 and following F `Enter Othello.' (also crossed through by Hand ?I). Hand IV at some point in this process places `[line] / Stent / [line]', to left of center rule, opposite 29. The final intentions are clear, but the order in which the various notations were made is uncertain. 1755, Bell give the setting as `an Apartment in the same Castle'; 1764, as `another Apartment in the same Palace' (following Theobald); Kemble, as `Another Apartment in the Castle'; Palmer PB adds below the 1755 setting ` Wainsc: cham: 2d. gr.' and exits Emilia after 33, re-entering her at 99; PB also uses the whistle symbol for a change of scene. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble begin the scene (as in PB) at 23; so also Collier MS.
40 A sequester . . . Prayer,] Crossed through.
51 and sorry] Crossed through.
60-67 Iago / Cassio [Hand I] / a Han<dke> / rchei<fl / [line] [Hand V]] Hand V adds a call for a Handkerchief to Hand I's advance call for Iago and Cassio (entrance marked with a crossed line at 106).
77 would heaven] Some hand crosses through F `the' before `heaven'. 1764 reads substantially as in PB; 1755, Bell, Kemble adopt substantially the F1 reading `would to heav'n'; Q1-3, Q (1681) read `would to God'.
79 startingly] Some hand corrects F3's error (`staringly') by interlining above, with a caret, a `t' after F `r'.
111-112 That by . . . Almes.] Bracketed. Also cut (including the second half of 110) in 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
141-142 Either from . . . Spirit:] Partly circled; 141 crossed through. The cutting here is not very clear; probably 142 (`Hath . . . Spirit:') was meant to be retained; the first part of 141 is very faintly marked but for sense must be included in the cut. See next entry for later acting texts.
142-154 and in . . . falsely.] Circled in two stages: 142-143 and 144-154, the cutting of 142-143 being the second stage. 1755 cuts 141- 142 (`or . . . him'; omitting F `Either' in 141), 145-154 (`Tis...falsely.'); Palmer PB cuts 141-154 (`Either... falsely.') as in PB; 1764, Bell cut 141-154 (`or . . . falsely.'; omitting F `Either' in 141); Kemble cuts 141-142, 145-148 (`'Tis . . . pain.'), 150-154 (`Beshrew . . . falsely.'); Collier MS cuts 145-154 (` 'Tis . . . falsely.').
168] Something illegible, perhaps `<C>ourte, (compare the original setting for IV.i), appears in the left margin below the crossed line for Bianca's entrance. The notation appears to have been crossed through.
177-182 [line] / act ready / [line]] Hand V's advance warning call for interact music. Palmer PB places `Act' at 122.
178 in a . . . time] Crossed through. Since 18th-century acting texts and Kemble omit the character of Bianca entirely, they also omit the remainder of this scene (168-201). Gentleman (Bell) comments on the omission: "The Third Act ends better here, without introducing Cassio and his female cypher."
183 to, woman] Crossed through.
201 ring] Hand V's call for interact music.
(opening) pallace ] Hand VI writes `pallace' across Hand II's setting `Court'; the symbol for "whistle" is Hand II's. 18th-century acting texts (except Palmer PB) give the setting as `a Court before the Palace' (following Theobald); Palmer PB notes `Continue SCENE' (i.e. the `Wainsc: cham:' of III.iv; 1755 PB also implies no change of scene); Kemble gives `An Apartment in the Castle'. 18th-century acting texts cut the opening parts of this scene heavily: 1755 cuts 26-29 (`. . . blab.'), 35-36 (`we say . . . be-lye her.'), 37-210 (`Handkerchiffe . . . no body.'); Palmer PB (including the cuts in 1755) also cuts 3-8 (`Or . . . Heaven.'), 23 (`I: . . . now. ), 36-37 (`that's fulsome:'); 1755 PB and Kemble cut everything through 215; 1764 cuts 3-8 (`Or . . . Heaven.'), 23 (`I: . . . now.'), 26-29 (`. . . blab.'), 34-215 (`With her? . . . fouler.'); Bell cuts as in 1764, except for the last cut, which in Bell is 35-210 (`lie on her? . . . no body.'). Gentleman (Bell) has two notes on the beginning of Act IV: "It does Shakespeare great service to begin the Fourth Act here, as the six original pages which precede, are tedious, confused, trifling, and often indecent: the Moor has already been sufficiently wrought on; besides, the character of Othello, as it now stands, is as much as very great spirit and acting powers can go through; more must sink the ablest performer." And: "We think beginning the Act at this line  would save delicacy a blush or two, and be, in that sense, an improvement." The first note is attached to the beginning of the scene and is confusing, since Bell begins with line 1 (see above for the cutting in Bell).
6-8 It is . . . Heaven.] Bracketed. See IV.i. (opening) for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble; Collier MS cuts 7-8.
22 ill] Some hand has altered F `a' to `i'. Pope ii emended to `ill' and is followed by Bell.
23 That's not . . . now:] Crossed through. See IV.i (opening) for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
35-44 we say . . . Handkerchiffe?] Circled and crisscrossed. Originally, only parts of these lines were cut and the marking is confused. Apparently the first version read: `I tremble at it. It is not words that shakes me thus, (pish): is't possible. Confesse? Handkerchiffe?'. See IV.i. (opening) for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble; Collier MS cuts 25-36 (`lie on her? . . . be-lye her.') and 40-42 (`Nature . . . Instruction.').
73-76 [line] / Cassio / [line]] Hand I. Point of entrance marked with a crossed line at 100. No exit is marked for Cassio following his first entrance at 49.
130 Have you scoar'd me:] Crossed through. Cut in Collier MS. It is possible that the final word in this line (`well.') is also meant to be cut, but it is not crossed through. See IV.i (opening) for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
149 Before me:] Crossed through. See IV.i (opening) for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
150-151 'Tis such . . . one:] Crossed through. See IV.i (opening) for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
152-163 [line] / <Lod>ouico / <Desd>emona / <Atte>ndants / [Hand I] / <let>ters. [Hand V] / [line]] Hand V adds a property note to have the `Instrument' called for at 231 ready. Point of entrance marked with a crossed line at 225.
177-186 [line] / <Trum>pett / <rea>dy. / [line]] Hands II and V. See 225 below.
225 Sound here * Trumpet / Sounds] Hand V interlines `Sound here.*'above F s.d.; Hand II places `Trumpet / Sounds', parallel, across right rule. The two notations are separated by Hand I's crossed line (see 152-163). Palmer PB includes `Trumpets' in the advance call for Lodovico, etc. and calls for a `Flourish' at 225 (as in PB), in addition to the printed s.d. (common to all 18th-century acting texts) `A trumpet within.' (from Theobald); 1755 PB adds `Trumpet / ready' at opening of scene end `Trumpett at 223.
226 Tr: Oth.] Hand II places `Tr:' before, and a little above, the F speech-prefix. `Tr:' must stand for `Trumpet', but the reason for the notation is unclear.
226 same] Crossed through.
249-252 [line] / Othello / Emilia / [line]] Hand I. Since this advance call is for the beginning of IV.ii, no point of entrance is marked.
(opening) Presence [crossed through] Anti-Chamber] Hand V crosses out Hand II's setting `Presence' and substitutes, following, `Anti-Chamber'. 18th-century acting texts (except Palmer PB) give the setting as `an Apartment in the Palace' (after Theobald); Palmer PB substitutes ` / Plain Cham.' for the 1755 setting; Kemble gives `Another Apartment in the Castle'. 1755 PB uses the whistle symbol to signal a change of scene.
1 Disdimona / Emilia] Hand I, to left of center rule (the `m' in `Emilia' has an extra minim stroke). Point of entrance marked with a crossed line at 23.
22 A Closset . . . Secrets,] Crossed through.
30 Your Mystery, your Mystery;] Crossed through. Q (1681) reads `Your Mistress, your Mistress;', a nonsense reading, which suggests that `Mystery' was not understood; hence the cut in PB.
42 the heavy day] Crossed through.
44-45 If happely . . . An] Some hand, probably the same as that in 22, 30, 42, seems to have lightly crossed through F `happely' and mended F `I' in `If and F 'A' in `An'.
55 at, Oh.] Hand ?IV adds `,Oh.' following F `at.', converting F period into a comma. The reading follows, in part, Q1-3, Q (1681), which reads `at--oh, oh,'. 18th-century acting texts read (following Rowe) `at--'; Kemble cuts 53-56 (`but . . . well:').
56-64 Yet could . . . hell.] Crossed through. See above, 55, for Kemble.
80 committed? Impudt: Strum= / pett.] Hand II adds the Q1-3, Q ( 1681) reading following F `committed?', as do 18th-century acting texts and Kemble (following Theobald).
84 other] Crossed through. 1764, Bell, Kemble cut 83-85.
103-104 have I . . . water.] Crossed through. This cut makes nonsense of F `nor answers' preceding the cut. Perhaps the Q1-3, Q (1681) reading `nor answer haue I none' may have influenced the PB reviser here. To make sense, however, the `s' on F `answers' should have been deleted, thus making `answer' a verb parallel to F `weep'. 1755, 1764, Kemble cut 103-104 (`I cannot . . . water.'); Palmer PB, Bell cut 103-105 (`I cannot . . . remember,') and insert `go' after F `Aemilia,' in 102 (Bell also omits F `And' in 106); Collier MS cuts 103-104 (`nor . . . water.'). 1755 PB (allowing for lines already cut in 1755) seems to be unique in cutting 95-96, 111-112, 116-117 (` . . . bear it'), 120 (`a beggar . . .'), 121, 125-127 (`. . . whore?'), 131-132, 138-140, 141-142 (`that . . . And'; reading `Oh that heav'n would'), 144 (`Ev'n . . west!').
136-138 [line] / Drum [crossed through] / Trumpit / Redy / [line]] Hand VI calls for `Drum' and `Trumpit' (see 168 below); he then crosses through `Drum' and places `Redy' below `Trumpit'.
161-165 I cannot . . . humour:] Very lightly circled; part of 163 (`that . . . earn,') crossed through. 1755, 1764, Bell, Kemble, and Collier MS cut 161-164 (`I cannot . . . me.').
168 Sound here [Hand V] * Sound here / Beat [Hand VI]] Hand VI's `Sound' seems to be written over some other word. Since Hand VI deleted his own call for `Drum' at 136-138, Hand VI's `Beat' should have been deleted also, though from the prompter's point of view the important deletion was `Drum'. 1755, 1770 call for `Trumpets' here (after Rowe), but Palmer PB deletes the direction. Collier MS calls for "Musicke.'.
171-175 [line] / Othello / Lodouico / Desmona / Emilia / [line]] Hand I (the names are bracketed to the right). Point of entrance marked with a crossed line at 252.
184-252] The occasional inks marks in these lines are off-prints from the facing page (810).
22-57 Aemi. I have . . . men.] Bracketed and crisscrossed. Q1 omits 31-53 (`I have . . . next.'), 55-57 (I call'd...men.). 1755, Bell, Kemble cut 19-106 (`Des. So would . . . mend.'); 1764 cuts 19-60 (`my love . . . said so,').64- 104 (`Des. Would'st thou . . . us to.'); Collier MS cuts 64-83, 85-86 (`and as . . . for.'). PB calls for no change of scene at the beginning of IV.iii, nor do 18th-century acting texts, except Palmer PB, which calls for `Castle / ' and 1755 PB, which uses the whistle symbol to call for a change of scene; Kemble gives the setting as `The Castle Gates'. Gentleman (Bell) remarks of this heavy cut: `There are two pages judiciously curtailed from the latter part of this scene.'
25 Act] Some hand writes `Act' in right margin opposite 25; compare I.iii.342.
59 [line] / (act) ready / [line]] Hand V. Palmer PB calls for `Act' at IV.iii.1. Compare I.iii.367-370.
65 heavenly] Crossed through. See IV.iii.22-57 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
66 heavenly] Crossed through. See IV.iii.22-57 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
73-74 for a . . . nor] Circled. See IV.iii.22-57 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
74 nor Caps,] Crossed through. See IV.iii.22-57 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
74 or] Some hand has crossed out `n' in F `nor'. See IV.iii.22-57 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
75 all] Crossed through. Q1-3, Q (1681) also omit `all'. See IV.iii. 22-57 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
88-102 (Say, that . . . have?] Circled. Q1 omits 87-104. See IV.iii. 22-57 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
106 ring] Hand V.
(opening) <Ca>stle.] Hand II. 18th-century acting texts (except Palmer PB) give the setting as `a Street before the Palace' (following Theobald); Palmer PB gives `Dome Town / / carpet on'; Kemble gives `A Street' (after Rowe). 1755 PB notes `Ring --'.
14 Lives] Some hand (Hand ?II) alters F `Live' to `lives' by interlining an `s', with a caret, above.
22 soft] Some hand (Hand ?II) alters F `so' to `soft' by interlining `ft' above. 18th-century acting texts expand the Q1-3, Q (1681) reading `be't so' to `be it so'; Kemble reverts to F. PB here anticipates Dyce's conjecture.
34-36 And your . . . spotted.] Bracketed. 1755 cuts 28-36, 39-44, 46, 49-53; Palmer PB further cuts 38, 45 (`Nobody come!'); 1764 cuts 28, 29 (`It is even so.'), 31-36, 38-44, 46-52; Bell cuts 28, 29 (`It is even so.'), 31-36, 38-44, 47, 49-53; Kemble cuts 28, 29-36 (`It . . . spotted.'), 38-44, 46-52. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble remove Othello from the scene and, except for 1755 and Butters, delay the entrance of Lodovico and Gratiano until 65.
46 in his shirt] Crossed through. Only 1755 (and Butters) retains this line, but like PB, omitting `in his shirt'. 18th-century acting texts including 1755 and Butters, give a s.d. (based on Q1-3, Q : `Enter Iago with a light.') describing Iago's appearance: `Enter Iago, in his shirt, with a light and sword.' (following Rowe and Theobald); Kemble gives the s.d. as: `Enter Iago in his night-gown, with a naked sword, and a light.'.
60 a Chair redy] Hand VI. See 98.
67-68 Chaire [crossed through]] Hand II's call for a `Chaire', crossed through by Hand VI.
73 I'le bind . . . shirt.] Circled. 1755, Kemble cut 58-59 (`Oh . . .help.'), 73-88 (` . . . Light:'), 91-110, 116-125; 1764, Bell cut 58-59 ( Oh... help.), 73-88 (`... Light:'), 91-110, 115-125. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble omit Bianca, as elsewhere.
82 Lend me . . . for] Crossed through; F `a' following `for' is partly crossed through, but its retention is necessary for the sense. See 73 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
87-93 [line] / Othello / Disdi: / mona / [line]] Hand I. Call for the beginning of scene ii; hence no crossed line to mark entrance.
96 Oh a. . . Chair.] Crossed through.
98 a Chair / here] Hand VI.
98 Oh that's . . . Chair.] Crossed through. Despite Hand VI's prompt-note at 67-68 and 98, the deletion in 96 and 98 of the references to a chair may point to a later decision to omit the chair, as in 18th-century acting texts and Kemble. Perhaps the reference in 82 to the chair was overlooked when the other references were deleted.
111 <E>nter / Emella] Hand VI. F omits Emilia's entrance; PB follows Q1-3, Q (1681).
114 bed] Hand II places `bed' in right margin; compare 67-68, above.
(opening) / Bed / Chamber] The symbol for whistle and `Chamber' are in Hand II; `Bed,' in a different ink, is in Hand V. 18th-century acting texts, except Palmer PB and Kemble (substantially), give the setting as: `a Bedchamber: Desdemona is discovered asleep in her bed' (following Rowe); Palmer PB gives `Pearl Ch. / / Arm'd Chair. / Toilet / 2 Carpets';, 1755 PB begins Act V with this scene, noting, at the end of the last scene: `End / Act / 4th'.
27 and Grace,] Crossed through.
38-43 [line] / <E>milia / Doore / [line]] Hand I. This is a call for Emilia to speak within at 83, the point at which she is to begin to speak being marked with a *.
83 *] See above, 38-43.
94-85 wer't good? . . . again,] Crossed through.
168-213] A tear in pages 815 and 816, from the bottom left, up through 168, has damaged the text in most of these lines.
204-209 I am . . . Reprobance.] Circled; 205-206 have been separately crossed through. A short line appears after `Reprobance.' and another short line after 198 (`Oth. Oh, oh, oh.') above, suggesting perhaps a tentative cutting of 198-209 (see 229-231, below). 1755 cuts 218-225 (`Come . . . Moor,') [1755 PB additionally cuts 227-229 (`. . . it')], 230-231 (`She . . . husband.'); 1764 cuts 205-206 (`Thy . . . twain.'), 215 (`I . . . hand:'), 218-225 (`Come . . . Moor,'), 230-231 (`She . . . husband.'); Bell cuts 205-206 (`Thy . . . twain.'), 208, 218-225 (`Come . . . Moor,'), 230-231 (`She . . . husband.'); Kemble cuts 206-209 (`Did . . . Reprobance.'), 218-225 (Come . . . Moor,'), 230-231 (`She . . . husband.').
222-226 [line] / a foyle for Ot<hello> / read<y> / [line]] Hand V. This is an advance reminder that once Montano has taken Othello's sword, a second sword (`foyle') must be ready for Othello to produce at 252-254.
229-231 He begg'd . . . husband.] Short horizontal lines have been placed at the beginning of 229 and 231 suggesting perhaps the cutting of 229 (`Villanous Whore.') through 231 (`. . . husband.'); compare 204-209, above. See 204-209 for 18th-century acting texts and Kemble.
246-248 What did . . . willow.] Circled. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble make the same cut. See IV.iii.22-57.
252-259 < > / <la>st / <sc>ene / [line]] Hand ?IV. Some word, of which only a trace remains, was written above `<la>st'; perhaps the word is `the'. The rationale for this prompt-note is not clear, unless it is a reminder that apart from those actors already on stage and those entering at 282, the other members of the company will no longer be needed.
269-359] A tear in pages 815-816 from the bottom, right, up through 269, has damaged the text toward the end of the second column.
274 thine] Some hand seems to have doctored the `h' in F `thine'.
276-280 Even like . . . Fire.] Bracketed. 1755, 1770, Bell, Butters cut the last half of 276 (`O cursed, cursed Slave!'). On 277-280, Gentleman (Bell) remarks: "Though the marked lines afford a fine transition of expression, yet, as they convey very horrid ideas, we could wish them omitted." Kemble did not take the hint.
313 most heathenish, and most grosse.] Crossed through. 18th-century acting texts and Kemble cut as in PB. Some hand, however, suggests a larger cut by placing horizontal lines after 309 and 313 indicating a proposed cut of 310-313.
348-351 Of one . . . gumme.] Partly circled.
360-371] Page 817 (sig. 3Z4), containing the concluding lines of the play (360-371), is missing from PB; the verso of sig. 3Z4 is the first page of Antony and Cleopatra . 1755, 1764 cut 357, 360-361 (`This . . . heart.'); Palmer PB further cuts 361-359 (`Oh Spartan . . . hid.'); Bell cuts 357-361 (`Oh bloudy . . . heart.') Kemble cuts 357-359 (`Oh bloudy . . . kiss.'), adding `O, Desdemona!' after 356, 361-365 (`Oh Spartan . . . hid.').