Modern scholars have carefully examined the bibliographical and certain biographical aspects of Mandeville's Travels and have provided two useful editions of this famous work. But until recently they have manifested much skepticism about the possibility of finding an Englishman who not only bears the name ‘John de Mandeville,’ but who can interpret the Liége mystery as well. George F. Warner's statement is representative: ‘… there is nothing in the circumstances of any of these bearers of the name (and, no doubt, with further search, the list might be extended) to make it at all likely that the author of the Travels was included among them; while, on the contrary, there is the strongest evidence that he must be sought on the other side of the channel.’

In 1885 Evans undertook definitely to show that the text of the first quarto of Othello was, as compared to the folio at least, quite worthless. More recent editors, on the other hand, are inclined to allow greater authority to some of the texts that precede the folio, and have not hesitated to classify the Othello as one of the “good” quartos. No detailed and analytic study, however, of this version has been made since Evans' attempt, which therefore passes in many quarters doubtless as vulgate doctrine. The present study aims at a complete classification of the variants between these two fundamental texts. In this classification scholars may differ regarding individual items, but these disagreements must be numerous and crucial essentially to alter the results. Part I consists of an enumeration of all the textual differences, and Part II of an interpretation of them with a view to evaluating the F and the Q texts.

Critics have generally considered the 1622 quarto of Othello as an acting version, and have classified it as one of the so-called “good” quartos of Shakespeare. Although it appeared in print much later than the others, it partakes of some of their general resemblances: the retention of oaths, reduction by cutting, the presence of more complete and less sophisticated stage directions, and also of numerous word variants. Many scholars have regarded the Q 1 with mild suspicion, partly because the Folio editors ignored it, and partly because it appears to differ in several particulars from the other good quartos. These peculiarities center about its stage directions, oaths, act and scene divisions, date of publication, its cuts—particularly those of the Willow Song and context—and the evidences of its use as a prompt copy. On these accounts, textual critics have regarded the Q, though admittedly “good,” as distinctly inferior to the folio; and the numerous hypotheses that have appeared show that scholars are far from agreement in explaining the facts. The authoritativeness of the text of any Shakespearean quarto depends largely upon the conditions of its publication. Possibly some of the peculiarities of Q 1 of Othello may be explained—and thus the authority of the text further vindicated—by associating it with a new group of quartos, published contemporaneously.