Уильям Шекспир - The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 1 of 9]

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,’ 1 1 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. 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.

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.

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 1 2 2 See page xxi . . 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 2above subsequent conjecture, and secondarily to F 3and F 4; but a reference to our notes will show that the authority even of F 2in correcting is very small. Where we have Quartos of authority, their variations from F 1have 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. IV. 1.

‘Neif,’ which is spelt ‘niefe’ in Qq F 1, becomes ‘newfe’ in F 2, ‘newse’ and ‘news’ in F 3F 4.

And finds his trusty Thisby’s mantle slain. V. 1.

F 1omits ‘trusty.’ F 2makes 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 conjectures, the causelessness of the blunders warning us off the hope of restoring, by general principles or by discovery of causes of error.

For example: in the Midsummer Night’s Dream , I. 1, Or else it stood upon the choice of merit, the reading of the Folios, is certainly wrong; but if we compare the true reading preserved in the Quartos, ‘the choice of friends,’ we can perceive no way to account for the change of ‘friends’ to ‘merit,’ by which we might have retraced the error from ‘merit’ to ‘friends.’ Nothing like the ‘ductus literarum,’ or attraction of the eye to a neighbouring word, can be alleged here.

Hence though we have admitted conjectures sometimes, we have not done so as often as perhaps will be expected. For, in the first place, we admit none because we think it better rhythm or grammar or sense, unless we feel sure that the reading of the Folio is altogether impossible. In the second place, the conjecture must appear to us to be the only probable one. If the defect can be made good in more ways than one equally plausible, or, at least, equally possible, we have registered but not adopted these improvements, and the reader is intended to make his own selection out of the notes.

For example, in the Merry Wives of Windsor , II. 3. 80, we have assumed Mr Dyce’s conjecture, ‘Cried I aim?’ to be the only satisfactory reading of a passage decidedly wrong; but in the same play, IV. 1. 63, ‘Woman, art thou lunaties?’ as the error may equally possibly be evaded by reading ‘lunacies’ with Rowe, and ‘lunatics’ with Capell, we have retained the error.

The well-known canon of criticism, that of two readings ‘ceteris paribus’ the more difficult is to be preferred, is not always to be applied in comparing the readings of the Folios. For very frequently an anomaly which would have been plausible on account of its apparent archaism proves to be more archaic than Shakespeare, if the earlier Quartos give the language of Shakespeare with more correctness. Ex. Midsummer Night’s Dream , III. 2: ‘Scorn and derision never come in tears’ Qq; ‘comes’ Ff; and in the same play, IV. 1: ‘O how mine eyes do loath’ Q 1, altered to ‘doth loath’ in Q 2F 1, and restored, evidently by a grammatical reviser, to ‘do loath’ in F 2F 3F 4. Again, I. 1: ‘what all but he do know,’ Qq, is altered to ‘doth know’ in Ff.