Much of twentieth century Shakespeare scholarship was devoted to arguments as to which was the better source for modern editions – the quartos or the First Folio, published in 1623, some seven years after his death. The Folio contains 36 plays and 18 had appeared in print separately in quarto form. Without the Folio we would likely not have texts for half of his work, including Macbeth and Antony & Cleopatra. Editors would often use a quarto text and if a troublesome line or phrase made little sense, consult to Folio to see if it offered a clue as to the author’s intent. The Yale Shakespeare hewed to this model as did many others. Other editors sought to find an “ur-text” by cherry picking lines or speeches from one source or the other. Problems arose however when there was wide variance between the quarto and folio versions, as is the case with Hamlet and King Lear.
Critical option has now swung in the opposite direction and the Folios are now seen as the better expression of Shakespeare’s intent or direct revision. Jonathan Bate’s essay “The Case for the Folio” has gained wide attention and is well worth reading.
Two works by Professor Emma Smith give us the story of how the First Folio came to be (The Making of Shakespeare’s First Folio, Oxford University Press) and the book’s fascinating afterlife (Shakespeare’s First Folio: Four Centuries of an Iconic Book, also from Oxford).