Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

when writing these. (2) A closely related class due to a confusion of a with n, u, and other minim-letters. This is to be explained by Shakespeare's habit of neglecting to close the top of the a, thus leaving it a virtual u or n. (3) What may be called e:d misprints. These are very common, and are important as proving that Shakespeare wrote the 'English' and not the 'Italian' hand which we now employ, since the only difference between e and d in the 'English' style was one of size, a difference which Shakespeare was not careful to observe. It is probable that something like half the corruptions in the Shakespearian texts may be attributed to this cause. (4) e:0 misprints. The chief difference between these two letters, in 'English' script, is that the e is linked with the letter following and the o is not; they are therefore very liable to be confused when a writer is working quickly. (5) o:a misprints. Most of these occur in cases where a minim-letter follows the a or o, and are probably due to a trick of the pen by which the upright of the a became detached from the body of the letter, so as to give something which might be taken for oi or or.

To these main classes should be added mistakes due to confusion between long-headed letters of various kinds (e.g. f, long s, l, t), and between tailed letters such as g, y, h, errors likely to occur in printing from any 'English' hand, as indeed are some of those mentioned above.

All this has an important bearing upon the question of textual corruption; and our lists of spellings and misprints give us a scientific instrument for dealing with it. The spellings are quite as useful as the misprints since unless we have some idea of the letters which Shakespeare actually wrote on paper, it is often impossible to see how the compositor went wrong. When a passage in the text lies under strong suspicion of corruption, the suspect word or phrase should first of all be written out in Shakespearian script and Shakespearian spelling. This done, the right reading will quite often leap to the eye, since the trouble is generally caused by a simple minim or e:d misprint, or perhaps may be just a question of misdivision of a word. If the corruption proves a stubborn one, other classes of misprint must be brought to bear upon the problem, and various combinations of letters tried. Finally the results of this application of the principle of the ductus litterarum must be put to the literary test, by reference to the context, and by the aid of the New English Dictionary which will supply, or withhold, contemporary support for the suggested reading. But the literary criterion, though of course essential, should not be brought in until the last stage, when bibliography and palaeography have done their work. The basis of the whole business, in short, is the handwriting of Shakespeare; and that it is now possible not only to imagine but actually to write this hand is due to the researches of Sir Edward Maunde Thompson.

By the aid of these new tools, time-honoured textual cruxes have been attacked and fresh ones brought to light in the present edition, so that a number of emendations will be suggested in the notes to each play. As, however, the method is here employed for the first time, and has therefore yet to receive the general approval of scholars, no emendations have been admitted into the text itself, unless (a) the original reading makes nonsense of a crucial dramatic passage, so that there is virtually a hole which requires filling up; (b) the editors feel assured that no alternative to the reading they propose is possible; or (c) the reading which appears exceedingly likely on palaeographical or bibliographical grounds has already been suggested by some previous critic of repute. Corrupt passages of importance, whether emended or otherwise, will be marked with an obelisk in the text, the original spelling being given in some cases to enable the reader to follow out the problem for himself. Every departure from the original text will be recorded in the notes at the end of the volume. And the facsimile of a passage from the 'Shakespearian' scene in the Sir Thomas More manuscript is given in this volume to illustrate the kind of writing in which the plays were first penned.

7. Verse-arrangement.

Owing chiefly to the practice of marginal revision the old texts frequently give us passages of verse incorrectly divided or printed in prose. Many of these passages have been rectified by previous editors, but we have found that a certain amount still remains to be done. On the other hand, the reviser is not always Shakespeare, and lines of prose (generally designed to cover a 'cut') are liable to be found embedded in the verse. Not infrequently editors have tinkered at these in the vain effort to fit them into the metrical context. We have left them alone, as prose, or with the line-arrangement which the original gives them; for, lament them as we may, they are of interest as bibliographical evidence.

8. Notes and Glossary.

The notes at the end of each volume will be mainly textual, though occasionally they will deal with the elucidation of quibbles (to which special attention has been given) and of other passages which cannot conveniently be grouped alphabetically in the glossary. In preparing both notes and glossary the editors have attempted to take full advantage of the opportunities now open to Shakespearian scholars in those two noble compilations, issued by the University of Oxford, Shakespeare's England and The New English Dictionary. D. W.

[graphic][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »