صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

ADVERTISEMENT

TO THE

READER.

T

HE want of adherence to the old copies, which has been complained of, in the text of every modern republication of Shakespeare, is fairly deducible from Mr. Rowe's inattention to one of the firft duties of an editor *. Mr. Rowe did not print from the earliest and most correct, but from the most remote and inaccurate of the four folios. Between the years 1623 and 1685 (the dates of the first and laft) the errors in every play, at leaft, were trebled. Several pages in each of these ancient editions have been examined, that the affertion might come more fully fupported. It may be added, that as every fresh editor continued to make the text

*I must not (fays Mr. Rowe in his dedication to the duke of Somerset) pretend to have restor'd this work to the exactness of the author's original manufcripts: thofe are loft, or, at least, are gone beyond any inquiry I could make; fo that there was nothing left, but to compare the feveral editions, and give the true reading as well as I could from thence. This I have endeavour'd to do pretty carefully, and render'd very many places intelligible, that were not so before. In fome of the editions, especially the laft, there were many lines (and in Hamlet one whole scene) left out together; thefe are now all fupply'd. I fear your grace will find fome faults, but I hope they are moftly litteral, and the errors of the prefs." Would not any one, from this declaration, fuppofe that Mr. Rowe (who does not appear to have confulted a fingle quarto) had at least compared the folios with each other?

of

of his predeceffor the ground-work of his own (never collating but where difficulties occurred) fome deviations from the originals had been handed down, the number of which are leffened in the impreffion before us, as it has been conftantly compared with the most authentic copies, whether collation was abfolutely neceffary for the recovery of sense, or not. The perfon who undertook this tafk may have failed by inadvertency, as well as those who preceded him; but the reader may be affured, that he, who thought it his duty to free an author from fuch modern and unneceffary innovations as had been cenfured in others, has not ventured to introduce any of his own.

It is not pretended that a complete body of various readings is here collected; or that all the diverfities which the copies exhibit, are pointed out; as near two thirds of them are typographical mistakes, or fuch a change of infignificant particles, as would crowd the bottom of the page with an oftentation of materials, from which at last nothing useful could be selected.

The dialogue might indeed fometimes be lengthened by other infertions than have hitherto been made, but without advantage either to its spirit or beauty; as in the following inftance;

Lear. No.

Kent. Yes.

Lear. No, I fay.

Kent. I fay, yea.

Here the quartos add:

Lear. No, no, they would not,

Kent. Yes, they have.

[E3]

By

By the admiffion of this negation and affirmation, has any new idea been gained?

The labours of preceding editors have not left room for a boast, that many valuable readings have been retrieved; though it may be fairly afferted, that the text of Shakespeare is reftored to the condition in which the author, or rather his first publishers, appear to have left it, fuch emendations as were abfolutely neceffary, alone admitted: for where a particle, indifpenfably neceffary to the sense, was wanting, fuch a fupply has been filently adopted from other editions; but where a fyllable, or more, had been added for the fake of the metre only, which at first might have been irregular, fuch interpolations are here conftantly retrenched, fometimes with, and fometimes without notice. Those fpeeches, which in the elder editions are printed as profe, and from their own construction are incapable of being compreffed into verfe, without the aid of fupplemental fyllables, are restored to profe again; and the measure is divided afresh in others, where the mafs of words had been inharmonioufly feparated into lines.

The fcenery, throughout all the plays, is regulated in conformity to a rule, which the poet, by his general practice feems to have propofed to himself. Several of his pieces are come down to us, divided into scenes as well as acts. Thefe divifions were probably his own, as they are made on fettled principles, which would hardly have been the cafe, had the tafk been executed by the players. A change of fcene, with Shakespeare, moft commonly implies a change of place, but always, an entire evacuation of

the

the ftage. The cuftom of diftinguishing every entrance or exit by a fresh scene, was adopted, perhaps very idly, from the French theatre.

For the length of many notes, and the accumulation of examples in others, fome apology may be likewise expected. An attempt at brevity is often found to be the fource of an imperfect explanation. Where a paffage has been conftantly misunderstood, or where the jeft or pleasantry has been fuffered to remain long in obfcurity, more inftances have been brought to clear the one, or elucidate the other, than appear at firft fight to have been neceffary. For thefe, it can only be faid, that when they prove that phrafeology or fource of merriment to have been once general, which at prefent feems particular, they are not quite impertinently intruded; as they may ferve to free the author from a fufpicion of having employed an affected fingularity of expreffion, or indulged himself in allufions to tranfient cuftoms, which were not of fufficient notoriety to deserve ridicule or reprehenfion. When examples in favour of contradictory opinions are affembled, though no attempt is made to decide on either part, fuch neutral collections fhould always be regarded as materials for future critics, who may hereafter apply them with fuccefs. Authorities, whether in refpect of words, or things, are not always producible from the most celebrated writers; yet fuch circumftances as fall below the no

tice

* Mr. T. Warton in his excellent Remarks on the Fairy Queen of Spenfer, offers a fimilar apology for having introduced illuftrations from obfolete literature." I fear (fays he) I fhall be cenfured for quoting too many pieces of this fort. But experience has fa

[E4]

tally

tice of hiftory, can only be fought in the jeft-book, the fatire, or the play; and the novel, whofe fashion did not outlive a week, is fometimes neceffary to throw light on thofe annals which take in the compass of an age. Thofe, therefore, who would wish to have the peculiarities of Nym familiarized to their ideas, muft excufe the infertion of such an epigram as beft fuits the purpose, however tedious in itself; and fuch as would be acquainted with the propriety of Falstaff's allufion to ftewed prunes, fhould not be disgusted at a multitude of inftances, which, when

tally proved, that the commentator on Spenfer, Jonfon, and the reft of our elder poets, will in vain give fpecimens of his claffical erudition, unless, at the fame time, he brings to his work a mind intimately acquainted with thofe books, which, though now forgotten, were yet in common ufe and high repute about the time in which his authors refpectively wrote, and which they confequently must have read. While thefe are unknown, many allufions and many imitations will either remain obfcure, or lose half their beauty and propriety: "as the figures vanish when the canvas is decayed."

"Pope laughs at Theobald for giving us, in his edition of SHAKESPEARE, a fample of

all fuch READING as was never read.

But these strange and ridiculous books which Theobald quoted, were unluckily the very books which SHAKESPEARE himself had ftudied; the knowledge of which enabled that ufeful editor to explain fo many difficult allufions and obfolete cuftoms in his poet, which otherwise could never have been understood. For want of this fort of literature, Pope tells us that the dreadful Sagittary in Troilus and Creffida, fignifies Teucer, fo celebrated for his fkill in archery. Had he deigned to confult an old history, called the Deftruction of Troy, a book which was the delight of SHAKEPEARE and of his age, he would have found that this formidable archer, was no other than an imaginary beaft, which the Grecian army brought against Troy. If SHAKESPEARE is worth reading, he is worth explaining; and the refearches used for fo valuable and elegant a purpose, mérit the thanks of genius and candour, not the fatire of prejudice and ignorance. That labour, which fo effentially contributes to the fervice of true taste, deserves a more honourable repofitory than The Temple of Dullness."

the

« السابقةمتابعة »