2. Certain genuine Shakespeare plays had been excluded or overlooked, then "inserted in the only positions available at the eleventh hour" (Pollard, pp. 124-5).

3. The general arrangement of the plays had been dictated by considerations peculiar to the editors, and to the exclusion of the author's point of view (pp. 123-8).

4. In several cases it presented versions of the plays actually inferior to what had already appeared in some of the early quartos (p. 128).

5. Some of the plays were properly divided into acts and scenes, others only into acts, and others were without any division whatever. Even so important a work as Hamlet was divided only up to Act II, sc. 2; all the remainder being left undivided (p. 124).

6. Some had "small pains spent on them," others were edited with extreme care; one most carefully edited being that which Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch mentions as being most disfigured by other men's "botch work" (pp. 125-8).

7. In some cases the usual stage directions were given, in others these were replaced by "literary notes intended to help the reader to understand the play" (p. 125).

This does not by any means exhaust its defects; but everything about it bespeaks the confusion due to the absence of the only hand which could have given effective guidance. The editors regretted that the author had not lived to "oversee" the publication of his plays, and the sincerity of their regret has found an echo in the writings of almost every reputable Shakespearean in modern times. To anyone who will spend a couple of hours in the study of Mr. Pollard's work, and in weighing the pronouncements of our best authorities upon the later Shakespeare plays, the idea that the author of the plays was alive and in possession of his faculties in the years preceding the publication of the First Folio will be utterly unthinkable.

Nine years after the publication of the First Folio. the Second Folio (1632) made its appearance, and as to its general character we shall again quote from Mr. A. W. Pollard's work on the Folios and Quartos:

The actual editors of the successive Folios, probably in each case the printer's ordinary correctors of the press, took a humble but not too timorous view of their functions. They subjected the spelling of the First Folio to a continuous modernization, and various slight grammatical or syntactical irregularities are smoothed away. All this was, of course, of the nature of what we are pleased to call emendation. There is not the slightest reason to believe that any new original sources were brought into use for improving the text. (Otherwise) they would have been vaunted on the title-page. It is not until we come

...

down as late as Dr. Johnson that we find any clear recognition of the superiority of the First Folio over the later ones [my italics]. We now know that the Second Folio was a reprint from the First. . . . Each editor . . made certain changes to which he drew attention (p. 153).

(Quoting from Mr. C. Alphonso Smith, of Louisiana State University :)

...

Passages in the First Folio that one might think even a child might have rectified are left by the editors of the Second Folio. . . . The Second Folio ... attempts to render more bookish the unfettered syntax of the First (p. 156).

(Quoting from Dr. Howard Furness :)

Where the Second Folio corrects the First, [the corrections] are insignificant, and are not beyond the chance corrections of a good compositor, who, however, sometimes overshot the mark (p. 157).

It is obvious that the [1632] emendation was done at haphazard, and that many glaring misprints passed unnoticed (p. 158).

Briefly, we may say that in 1632 there was a distinct effort made to improve the work of the First Folio, that the effort only succeeded where improvement was easyin minor editorial details-that even here it failed badly in many respects, that it left all the fundamental defects untouched, and produced a volume distinctly worse on the whole than the very faulty one it was intended to supersede.

In addition, we have to suppose, on the Derby theory, that for the last thirty years of his life "Shakespeare did not produce a single new play or poem, and that what he had produced even in the ten previous years were mainly incomplete works that others dealt with pretty much as they liked. Finally, we have to suppose that England's greatest sonneteer, after penning sonnets during many years, stopped suddenly when his father-in-law died, and for nearly forty years stubbornly refused to compose another sonnet.

One naturally would not wish to be wanting in respect to a great scholar and an earnest investigator; but, from the point of view of chronology, we are bound to say that the Derby theory asks us to accept views almost as preposterous as anything contained in the old Stratfordian creed. "It is hopeless. There is no other word for it." Derby did not die till 1642.

J. THOMAS LOONEY

66

THE PASSING OF EMPIRE

POSSIBLY the observer in remote parts of the Empire sometimes sees the broad outline and general movement of affairs more clearly than those in the thick of the fray. Does the average Englishman at home notice what appears to us so clear, that the word "Empire " is disappearing from our political terminology; and if so, does he realize what that means? When Mr. Lloyd George and General Smuts spread the Dominion status out to tempt De Valera, they refrained as far as possible from using the expression Empire," referring to "the community of British nations," the Commonwealth of British nations," even to "the League." Ireland was invited to be "a partner in the British Commonwealth," and only in such stereotyped expressions as "unity of the Empire," which could hardly be avoided, was the now discredited, once glorious word permitted to creep in. One remembers a time, some fifteen years ago, when we all began to avoid the words "Colonial' or "English," substituting "British" for the latter and for the former racking our brains for suitable synonyms When I first came to South Africa I exercised similar tact, until I found the English-speaking community rather proud than otherwise to call themselves colonial-born; and here in Rhodesia we desire passionately to have the right to rank as such. As for " Empire," you will still meet here men who speak the word with solemnity and reverence. We are obviously an old-fashioned lot of people.

Despite the trite and foolish saying, "What's in a name?" there is a good deal of significance in these fashions in words. "Colonial" disappeared because the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders had lost the colonial feeling and had a real national consciousness stirring in them. Less happy than the other Dominions in possessing two white races, each with a tradition of national independence behind it, South Africa has not yet settled down into the mould which will turn out a South African nation. There is race consciousness and pride in South Africa, but we are still working towards the race fusion and national solidarity which is the ideal. It is, therefore, General Smuts who is rather ahead of us in political conceptions when he lays down the canons of Dominion status.

This is his view as given to De Valera. He speaks of a great circle of equal States," and goes on to say that

66

once within that circle no basis of interference by Great Britain exists

. as your relations with Great Britain will be the concern not of the British Government but of the Imperial Conference, of which Great Britain will be only one of seven members, any issue between you and the Imperial Government will be for the Imperial Conference to decide. You will be a free member of a Great League . . . and the Conference will be the forum for thrashing out any question which may arise between members. This is the nature and constitutional practice of Dominion freedom.

...

As a pendant to this, compare the following paragraph from The Round Table: *

Now the Conference of Prime Ministers and representatives is recognized as a body which formulates the policy of the Empire, particularly in foreign -affairs, but also in other Imperial matters, while the British Government becomes charged with the duty of carrying out that policy in the intervals between the assembling of the Conference, subject to such consultation as is possible through resident or visiting Ministers or the cables and the mails. From now on policy is a matter for the people of the Empire, and the British Government will occupy a position somewhat similar to that of the President of the United States, whose foreign policy, to be effective, requires the consent and co-operation of the Senate-in our case, of the Dominions.

It is known that the Conference decided to make no pronouncement on the question of a possible constitutional change in the Empire and the setting up of an Imperial body with representatives from all Dominions and executive powers. Many schemes for such a body have been put forward, and none have found favour in the Dominions, even when they have originated there. The main stumblingblocks have always fallen under two heads: first, the difficulty of giving representative powers to men who must operate at such a distance from their own countries. More than one Dominion Prime Minister has come back from a triumphant career in England to find himself much out of favour at home, and it is not at all impossible that an Imperial representative might be dispatched by a government which had disappeared by the time he arrived. Secondly, the Dominion Parliaments do not see their way to voting money to be spent by any other body, even by a super-Parliament on which they have equal representation. These are, very broadly, the two main problems— distance and finance-which have militated against the formation of any central Imperial super-Government.

But if General Smuts and The Round Table are to be believed, the super-Parliament has come into existence.

*The Round Table, September 1921, p. 736.

The Conference is now the Imperial Cabinet, and as Cabinets must have an executive, the British Government is to act in that capacity. Foreign policy is to be "formulated there, and inter-Imperial questions of any kind are to be decided by "voices"-that is, by the votes of the seven equal partners, Great Britain, Ireland, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

The Round Table has always been identified with the policy of centralization, and when the necessarily temporary expedient of the Imperial War Cabinet, in which any Dominion statesman might be included, was resorted to, the writers of this school, and a good many others who follow their cue blindly, acclaimed this as an immense step towards solution of the Imperial problem. It was a step towards recognizing the rights of the Dominions, but when the war ended the situation reverted in all but form to the old position. War, which resolved all problems into one-how to beat the Germans-made the co-operation of the Dominions a fairly simple matter, but with peace (or what goes by that name) come trooping back the old difficulties and differences of view. So far as these can be composed by consultation, the Conference is the right place for their ventilation, but when it comes to the formulation of policy and the taking of decisions, the Conference is impossible.

Cabinets do not work through votes on resolutions, yet this is the fixed procedure in the Conference, which enables a dissenting State to record its opinion. Thus, when the resolution regarding the civil rights of Indians in the Dominions was passed, South Africa registered a dissenting vote. When Great Britain, India and New Zealand wished to adopt certain proposals of the Shipping Commission, Australia, Canada and South Africa dissented. Does The Round Table suggest that it is the duty of Great Britain to carry out the decisions of the majority vote in the Conference? Or will only unanimous decisions be effective? In that case, what will become of urgent questions on which opinion is divided? Supposing a point between Ireland and Great Britain is decided against the latter, will she still have the duty of carrying this decision into effect?

The claims put forward are quite inconsistent with the methods adopted. Question after question after discussion was "referred to the Dominion Parliaments," or "recommended," and where controversy was keen the differences of opinion were made clear and no "decision