« PreviousContinue »
i. 2. 488 nor] now Wagner conj.
144 riches] no riches Wagner conj.
146 bound] boundary Wagner conj.
243 And we perform] Are by that destiny to perform Wagner conj. 239 you, his friend,] you his friends Wagner conj.
Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA.
i. 3. 45 note, add Sweet life! and sweeter love Seymour conj.
ii. 7. 52 thou best likest] thee best likes Wagner conj.
iii. 2. 77 such] much Wagner conj.
iv. 4. 197 statue] stated Wagner conj.
v. 4. 88 deliver] give or bring or take Wagner conj. arranging as Capeli.
MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.
ii. 1. 196 An-heires] my hearts Halliwell conj.
iv. 6. 50 name] way Wagner conj.
51 give...ceremony] join our hearts in ties of ceremony Wagner conj.
MEASURE FOR MEASURE.
i. 1. 1 Escalus] Now hear our purpose, Escalus Seymour conj.
13 As...any] As any, most enrich'd by art and practice Seymour conj.
36 As if] om. Seymour conj.
48 Now] No Wagner conj.
76 Duke. I thank...well] om. Seymour conj.
78 and] as Seymour conj.
81 instructed] instructed, and would learn Seymour conj.
i. 2. 151 fault and] vaunt and Wagner conj.
183 should] shou'dst Seymour conj.
i. 3. 2 dribbling] dribbing Schmidt conj.
i. 4. 42. from the seedness] forms the seed,―next Wagner conj.
ii. 2. 62 Become] Becomes Seymour conj. 71 of] to Seymour conj.
ii. 4. 6 swelling] smelling Seymour conj.
14 and tie] yea, tie Seymour conj.
52, 53 had...took] would...take Seymour conj.
89 that] this Seymour conj., beginning the parenthesis at no other.
103 longing I have] long I have Wagner conj.
110 So] om. Seymour conj.
160 race] rage Wagner conj.
iii. 1. 83 As...dies] As doth a giant dying Seymour conj.
iv. 4. 29 By] For Seymour conj.
v. 1. 21 wrong'd...maid] wronged-I would fain say maid or wrong'd-I fain would have said maid Seymour conj.
63 As] That Seymour conj.
COMEDY OF ERRORS.
ii. 1. 41 in thee] of thee Nares conj.
v. 1. 156 gates] gate Johnson's Dict. (s. v. Abbess).
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
THE main rules which we proposed to ourselves in undertaking this Edition are as follows:
1. To base the text on a thorough collation of the four Folios and of all the Quarto editions of the separate plays, and of subsequent editions and commentaries.
2. To give all the results of this collation in notes at the foot of the page, and to add to these conjectural emendations collected and suggested by ourselves, or furnished to us by our correspondents, so as to give the reader in a compact form a complete view of the existing materials out of which the text has been constructed, or may be emended.
3. In all plays of which there is a Quarto edition differing from the received text to such a degree that the variations cannot be shown in foot-notes, to print the text of the Quarto literatim in a smaller type after the received text.
4. To number the lines in each scene separately, so as to facilitate reference.
5. To add at the end of each play a few notes, (a) to explain such variations in the text of former editions as could not be intelligibly expressed in the limits of a foot-note, (b) to justify any deviation from our ordinary rule either in the text or the foot-notes, and (c) to illustrate some passage of unusual difficulty or interest.
6. To print the Poems, edited on a similar plan, at the end of the Dramatic Works.
An edition of Shakespeare on this plan has been for several years in contemplation, and has been the subject of much discussion. That such an edition was wanted seemed to be generally allowed, and it was thought that Cambridge afforded facilities for the execution of the task such as few other places could boast of. The Shakespearian collection given by Capell to the Library of Trinity College supplied a mass of material almost unrivalled in amount and value, and in some points unique; and there, too, might be found opportunities for combined literary labour, without which the work could not be executed at all. At least, if undertaken by one person only, many years of unremitting diligence would be required for its completion.
The first step towards the realization of the project was taken in the spring of 1860, when the first act of Richard the Second was printed by way of specimen, with a preface signed 'W. G. Clark' and 'H. R. Luard,'* where the principles, on which the proposed Edition should be based, were set forth with the view of obtaining opinions as to the feasibility of the plan, and suggestions as to its improvement.'
All the persons who answered this appeal expressed their warm approval of the general plan, and many favoured us with suggestions as to details, which we have either adopted, or at least not rejected without careful and respectful consideration.
Since our work was commenced, we have learned that the need of such an Edition has presented itself, independently, to the minds of many literary men, and that a similar undertaking was recommended as long ago as 1852, by Mr Bolton Corney, in Notes and Queries, Vol. VI. pp. 2, 3; and again by a correspondent of the same journal who signs himself 'Este,' Vol. VIII. p. 362.
* A third editor was afterwards added. Mr Luard's election to the office of Registrary compelled him to relinquish his part, at least for the present; and the first volume, consequently, is issued under the responsibility of two editors only.
This concurrence of opinion leads us to hope that our Edition will be found to supply a real want, while, at the same time, the novelty of its plan will exempt us from all suspicion of a design to supersede, or even compete with, the many able and learned Editors who have preceded us in the same field.
We will first proceed to explain the principles upon which we have prepared our text.
A. With respect to the Readings.
The basis of all texts of Shakespeare must be that of the earliest Edition of the collected plays, the Folio of 1623, which, for more easy reference, we have designated F*. This we have mainly adopted, unless there exists an earlier edition in quarto, as is the case in more than one half of the thirty-six plays. When the first Folio is corrupt, we have allowed some authority to the emendations of F, above subsequent conjecture, and secondarily to F, and F1; but a reference to our notes will show that the authority even of F, in correcting is very small. Where we have Quartos of authority, their variations from F1 have been generally accepted, except where they are manifest errors, and where the text of the entire passage seems to be of an inferior recension to that of the Folio. To show that the later Folios only corrected the first by conjecture, we may instance two lines in Midsummer Night's Dream:
Give me your neif, Mounsieur Mustard Seed. 'Neif,' which is spelt 'niefe' in Qq F,, becomes 'newfe' in F,, 'newse' and 'news' in F.F..
And finds his trusty Thisby's mantle slain. v. 1.
F, omits trusty.' F, makes up the line by inserting 'gentle.' Where the Folios are all obviously wrong, and the Quartos also fail us, we have introduced into the text several conjectural emendations; especially we have often had recourse to Theobald's ingenuity. But it must be confessed that a study of errors detracts very much from the apparent certainty of