{"id":3417,"date":"2023-04-25T09:29:44","date_gmt":"2023-04-25T08:29:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/folio400.com\/?post_type=phernalia&p=3417"},"modified":"2023-04-25T10:00:31","modified_gmt":"2023-04-25T09:00:31","slug":"very-good-or-starke-naught-the-university-of-glasgows-first-folio","status":"publish","type":"phernalia","link":"https:\/\/folio400.com\/phernalia\/very-good-or-starke-naught-the-university-of-glasgows-first-folio\/","title":{"rendered":"Very good \u2026 or starke naught? The University of Glasgow\u2019s First Folio"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
In September 1856, the wealthy Glasgow insurance broker William Euing (1788-1874) received the latest acquisition for his growing library of musical books, Bibles and bibliographical treasures. It was a copy of the 1623 First Folio, sent to him from London by the (some say) notorious antiquarian, bookseller, literary scholar and Shakespearean editor James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps (1820-1889).<\/p>
The letter that Halliwell sent with the book makes entertaining reading:<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
I have much pleasure in sending you the first folio which is neither \u201cragged nor rotten\u201d<\/em> but for a low priced book in remarkably fine condition generally. I had three copies. For my best Mr Russell Smith gave me no less than one hundred & forty pounds. The present one sent you is my second best. My other although wanting title & all the preliminary leaves is as useful to me for working purposes as the best, & indeed in some respects more so as it is no such great consequence if it gets an ink blot \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAnnotations within the University of Glasgow First Folio<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat is so important and frankly enjoyable about our copy is that one of the copies that make it up was annotated by a contemporary owner who evidently saw the plays being performed in the late 1620s by Shakespeare\u2019s very own company, the King\u2019s Men. The names of the principal actors are accompanied by comments that seem to suggest that the annotator knew – or at least had seen – some of the actors. ‘Know’ is written in by the name of Robert Benfield and Joseph Taylor, ‘by eyewittnesse’ by that of John Lowin, and ‘by report’ underneath Richard Burbage. The annotater knew of William Ostler by \u2018hearsay\u2019, and \u2018so too\u2019 (i.e. also by hearsay) Nicholas Tooley, John Underwood, William Eccleston and Nathan Field. The name of William Shakespeare, which heads the list, is accompanied by the intriguing comment ‘Least for making’ \u2013 probably to be interpreted as meaning that Shakespeare acted in the plays least of all since he was busy writing and producing them.<\/p>
\u00a0<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe annotations continue in the first section of the book. Interspersed occasionally with leaves from another copy, the pages throughout \u2018The Tempest\u2019, \u2018The Two Gentlemen of Verona\u2019 and \u2018The Merry Wives of Windsor\u2019 are heavily and consistently marked. The most obvious evidence of attentive reading is in frequent underlining and bracketing. Besides this, the notation ‘ap’ (possibly an abbreviation of ‘approbo’ i.e. \u2018I approve\u2019) is the reader’s key marginal device, used to highlight sections of particular interest. Much to our delight, the reader also occasionally adds comments to the text as well, showing us their appreciation (or otherwise) of the plays. The leaves have unfortunately been cropped in binding making some of the marginalia difficult to decipher, but there is enough to give us a sense of the annotator\u2019s enjoyment of Shakespeare. A comment in the \u2018Merry Wives\u2019, for instance, accurately sums up Ford’s mistrust of his wife as being ‘a good jealous mans dilemma’. Best of all are the summary verdicts at the end each play: The Tempest is liked ‘pretty well’, but on the other hand \u2018The Two Gentlemen of Verona\u2019 is ‘starke naught’; The Merry Wives of Windsor is lauded as ‘very good; light’. Alas, the copy changes again at this point, recommencing momentarily at the end of \u2018Much Ado about Nothing\u2019 (\u2018bon fort bon\u2019) and making a brief reappearance for three leaves of \u2018Love\u2019s Labours Lost\u2019. Thereafter, our annotated copy disappears, and although there are occasional marks and sporadic marginalia by later readers, there is nothing so rich as these early annotations.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t