Pictorial Shakespeare, 1880-1890 - eTheses Repository - University ...

201
not been token into account in the i allowing discussion of
the London production: they op only have been arrived at
towards the end of the run, Oi- during the preparations for
the tour* The management had made much of the textual "purxty"
01 the proGuction, and it se^-ms reasonable to assume tlut the
published acting edition (1864) bears a close relationship to
what v?-s spoUen on sta^u, at least in tJ.u late st£, es of
rehearse! pna dur:.n,_ the early weeks of the ono hundred ana
seven performs ices. Sxrvilarly, comparisons with Irvin^'s
text have been confined to his published edition (18c2),
despite the discrepancies in prompt-co.jioa . Irvin&'s
pro par- tion copy (Rol c,:r lion, 12 - 5h?ttuck 44) ofiers some
indications of his work on the text before the Chiswick Press
pa^e proofs oi his ovm edition were available for use in
rehearsal, and divergences of this text iror.i th, t rac.ce public
have been noteu. Irvia-_, frankly admit ted in is preiece the t
he had endeavoured "to retain all th; t w; s coup; tible .ith
the presentation of the play within a reasonable li:dt oi
time", ra' he ackno./lecged the usefulness oi Furness's ^e^
V a riorum ecition )i the plr.y, hich had appce.rec iu livl»
The Folger preparation co vjy cif j ers iron the KL2 Irviau
acting eoition in ninety-six^ instances (forty-five v:here it
omits paost'.&es or lines used in 1Lt.s. t rnc filty-oao w;, ere it
uses "i&.t^risl omitted in the edition). This cctin.^ ec>it:on,
in turii, ciffers iron the play as ^ivon, x;ith su0 ested c..to,
in the \-^> ii-. y Irvin, v ohrkespeere (Volume 1,16&L, pp.lV?-2^>:
ecdteo by Frfnk Mfrsl-ull) in oue hundred and fifteen iastinces.
The feting edition omits ninety-seven prss