« ПретходнаНастави »
ever, as originally stated (see Notes and Emendations, Introduction, p. iv.), the alterations here enumerated cannot much exceed 3000. Those omitted are probably (though nothing to that effect is said) only corrections of what are called literal errors, or such misprints as rather disfigure than injure the sense. Among them, however, are such as the alteration of dambe into daub in the passage quoted above from the beginning of the First Part of Henry the Fourth, which is mentioned in the Notes and Emendations, though passed over in the List. It would be more satisfactory if everything were given.*
IV. THE SHAKESPEARIAN EDITORS AND
The four Folios were the only editions of the Plays of Shakespeare brought out in the seventeenth century; and, except that the First, as we have seen, has a Dedication and Preface signed by Heminge and Condell, two actors belonging to the Blackfriars Theatre, nothing is known, and scarcely anything has been conjectured, as to what superintendence any of them may have had in passing through the press. The eighteenth century produced a long succession of editors :—Rowe, 1709 and 1714; Pope, 1725 and 1728; Theobald, 1733 and 1740; Hanmer, 1744; Warburton, 1747; Johnson, 1765; Steevens, 1766; Capell, 1768; Reed, 1785; Malone, 1790; Rann, 1786-1794. The editions of Hanmer, Johnson, Steevens, Malone, and Reed were also all reprinted once or oftener, for the most
* Nearly the same views in most respects which I had announced in the North British Review in 1854, both on the Shakespearian text and on the new readings supplied by Mr Collier's MS. annotator, are ably advocated in an article in the Edinburgh Review, No. 210, for April 1856. The writer refers to a paper, which I have not seen, in a number of the North American Review for the preceding year, as containing “by far the best and most thoroughly reasoned discussion” of the subject with which he had met.
part with enlargements; and all the notes of the preceding editions were at last incorporated in what is called Reed's Second Edition of Johnson and Steevens, which appeared, in 21 volumes 8vo, in 1803. This was followed in 1821 by what is now the standard Variorum edition, also in 21 volumes, which had been mostly prepared by Malone, and was completed and carried through the press by his friend Mr James Boswell. We have since had the various editions of Mr Knight and Mr Collier, from both of whom, in addition to other original research and speculation, both bibliographical and critical, we have received the results of an examination of the old texts more careful and extended than they had previously been subjected to. New critical editions by the late Mr Singer and by Mr Staunton have also appeared within the last few years ; and there are in course of publication the Cambridge edition by Mr Clark and Mr Wright, and another since commenced by Mr Dyce, besides the magnificent edition by Mr Halliwell, which is to extend to 20 volumes folio.
The list of commentators, however, includes several other names besides those of the editors of the entire collection of Plays; in particular, Upton, in “Critical Observations," 1746; Dr Zachary Grey, in " Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes," 1755; Heath, in “A Revisal of Shakespeare's Text," 1765; Kenrick, in a “Review of Johnson's Edition,” 1765, and “Defence of Review," 1766; Tyrwhitt, in “Observations and Conjectures,” 1766; Dr Richard Farmer, in “Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare," 1767; Charles Jennens, in annotated editions of King Lear,” 1770,—“Othello,” 1773,
Hamlet,” 1773,—“Macbeth,” 1773,—and “Julius Cæsar," 1774; John Monck Mason, in “ Comments on the Last Edition of Shakespeare's Plays," 1785, and “Further Observations," 1798; A. Beckett, in "A Concordance to Shakespeare, to which are added three hundred Notes and Illustrations,” 1787; Ritson, in “The Quip
Modest," 1781, and “ Cursory Criticisms," 1792; Whiter, in “ A Specimen of a Commentary,” 1794; George Chalmers, in “ Apology for the Believers in the Shakespearian Papers,” 1797, and “Supplemental Apology," 1799; Douce, in “Illustrations of Shakespeare and of Ancient Manners,” 1807; Reverend Joseph Hunter, in “Illustrations of the Life, Studies, and Writings of Shakespeare,” 1844; and Reverend Alexander Dyce, in “ Remarks on Mr Collier's and Mr Knight's Editions," 1844, and "A Few Notes on Shakespeare,” 1853. To these names and titles may be added the Reverend Samuel Ayscough's “Index to the Remarkable Passages and Words made use of by Shakespeare,” 1790; “A Complete Verbal Index to the Plays of Shakespeare,” in 2 vols., by Francis Triss, Esq., 1805; and Mrs Cowden Clarke's "Complete Concordance to Shakspere," 1847. Finally, there may be mentioned Archdeacon Nares's “ Glossary of Words, etc., thought to require Illustration in Shakespeare and his Contemporaries,” 1822.*
V. THE MODERN SHAKESPEARIAN TEXTS. No modern editor has reprinted the Plays of Shakespeare exactly as they stand in any of the old Folios or Quartos. Neither the spelling, nor the punctuation, nor the words of any ancient copy have been retained unaltered, even with the correction of obvious errors of the Press. It has been universally admitted by the course that has been followed that a genuine text is not to be obtained without more or less of conjectural emendation: the only difference has been as to the extent to which it should be carried. The most recent texts, however, beginning with that of Malone, and more especially those of Mr Knight and of Mr Collier (in his eight volume edition), have been formed upon the principle of adhering
* Of this important work a new edition, with large additions, has lately been announced as in preparation.
ti ITETERX, I shall be satisfied. Such DE I Tears to me, would at once STIR ENI: We speak, indeed, of the
SS fe the month of a carern; but here *** 2. ami entrance, but an entrance
22 à : TR TT pie name of the aperture by IVY cave is its entrance, which, when we
STTİR 38 ve sent to its mouth; but the oppas puslarai honn either in prose
T***de or in the loosest colloquial * N * start of the entrance of a Det vastzsäg. Dagning the mouth, would * XL S Lasa ve hare the entrance to ** Abat Dowbere the mouth
sr pietical personification, SY SAMSN、高速 ... si e muinsputable than that the
re" and - her own children's Auk berperananceThis is what
2 ste perstirely demand. 24 i 2 m ser "her lips" may be yleen Am Pemur lines before, would
Xin water objection to it than show at the time the hea of - her lips” one piel von waren" another. !" painr be understood
TASA or of that, whatever
De 23 of which has given rise the
per i Ry, trans, entrants, as HAI14 a fi Ozze's fint inclination the ainussing or presiding over the soil; and hence such conjectures as that of Monk Mason,—“the thirsty Erinnys of this soil,"—which has been adopted in many editions, and which might mean that the Spirit of Discord should no more daub either her own lips with the blood of her own children, or the lips of the soil with the blood of the children of the soil. The circumstance of the word Erinnys being a Shakespearian araç deyóuevov, or not elsewhere found, would make it more likely to have been mistaken by the printer. So also might be interpreted “the thirsty Genius of this soil," as proposed in the First Edition of the present work.
* byl 3** ***pay herings the least plausibility viva A **** ******* Thalaid: "I presume the
in the Art NTT shall no more stain it W ***** **** A his sina coarered by thirsty
for million e Is January 1730, in Nichols's er du hand en de tell what happen Bodenth Century, II. 402.
But to both these readings there is this objection, which I apprehend must be held to be fatal. On the one hand, the epithet thirsty, standing where it does, seems clearly to bind us to understand that the lips described as to be no more daubed, or moistened, were those, not of the soil, but of the imaginary personage (the Erinnys or the Genius) to whom the performance of the act of daubing is attributed; on the other, the people could not be called the children of either the one of these personages or the other. And I do not think it would be
possible to find any other mythological personage who could, more than either of these two, be represented as at once the owner of the lips and the parent of the children. It may be added that against "the thirsty Genius" this objection is of double force; inasmuch as, Genius being always conceived to be a male, the “her lips” (as well as “ her own children”) would in that case have of necessity to be understood as signifying the lips (and children) of the soil,—which would leave the epithet "thirsty" without meaning.
I do not think, therefore, that there is any other known reading which can compete with that of the Dering MS. The bosom of the soil, or ground, or earth, is one of the commonest and most natural forms of figurative expression, and is particularly natural and appropriate