The Press.
London, England, 1856-05-03 00:00:00

THE TEXT OF SHAKESPEARE

WE have said that the main question raised by the
Edinburgh reviewer in the article on the text of
Shakespeare is—ln what light are we to regard the
MS. corrections in Mr. Collier's folio? The re-
viewer, inclining to the supposition that the corrector
had portions of the authentic text before him, and
that he transcribed from them in the most pains-
taking way, but with occasional slips, remarks on
these suppositions :
If they be true, or approach the truth, then it follows
that the text of the corrector must in future be received as
that of the dramatist. The burden will be thrown in each
instance on those who contest it.

This conclusion is so monstrous, that the grounds
on which it is founded must be subject to close
scrutiny ; for if we are to receive the text of the
corrector as authentic, and as precluding all conjec-
tural emendation, we shall be in a much worse con-
dition than if we had to begin with the first folio de
novo, as we shall have to contend not only with cor
ruptions on corruptions, but with "authoritative"
changes which throw us back from sense to non-
sense, and from what Shakespeare really wrote to
what ignorance and presumption has supposed he
might have written. The folio corrector will be exalted
into a kind of Pope, and the most obvious abuses
and contradictions will be sheltered under an asser-
tion of his infallibility.
The looseness of the reviewer's language makes it
extremely difficult to grapple with him. Suppose
we adduce glaring blunders which the corrector has
never touched, the force of the cases, how numerous
soever, may be evaded by the saving clause, that the
corrector had only " portions of the authentic text
" before him ; " or suppose it be shown, as in the
passage from T imon of Athens noticed in our last
article, that corruptions of the text have been
corruptly altered, we may be reminded of the ob-
servation that the corrector made "occasional slips,
" deviations, and misconceFtions." Even if we meet
this critic on his own ground, and agree that partial
authority should be conceded to the corrections, he
is prepared with a denial of any right of " private
judgment" whatever. We must take all the
corrections or none. Even Mr. Collier is not, in
the reviewer's opinion, sufficiently strong on this
point :
If they [the corrections] possess any well-founded
claim, it must be because they are presumably authentic ;
and if the great majority are presumably authentic, by
what right does Mr. Collier make his selection, and say,
because this or that change does not please myself, I
therefore pronounce it unauthentic? It is the old fallacy
of at once admitting authority, and then admitting private
judgment to control it.

The reviewer cannot understand tie position taken
up by Mr. Dyce, that though many of the corrections
are ignorant, tasteless, and wanton, yet some of them
" require no authority to recommend them, because
" common sense declares them to be right." This
statement is plain and sensible enough, but it throws
the reviewer into a state of ludicrous perplexity. He
actually asks, what has "common sense to do with
" the matter?" The opinion of competent critics on
the value of particular corrections he regards as
wholly beside the question. He returns to his first
position—the corrections must be authoritative or
conjectural : if they are the former, we must take them
in the mass without question ; if the latter, they are
of no value at all, however common sense may
approve them.

The reviewer is. however, sadly at fault in other
parts of his article. He deprecates the "bit-by-bit
discussion" which would examine the corrections in
detail, as tending to end only "in hopeless and end-
" less controversies of individual taste; " yet it is
by particular instances that he attempts to establish
the authority of the corrections ; and, with that con-
tempt for logic, and even consistency, which charac-
terises his essay, he tells us at its close that—
No end of controcoray has been established. We have
acquired an additional guide, but we are unable to sav how
far he is a safe one. We have a new authority which we
dare not disregard, and yet dare not iutplicitly
How otherwise than by " common sense "—by that
highest kind of it, we mean, which is trained and
disciplined to a particular pursuit by long observation
and close study—can we hope to discriminate in
these corrections between what " we dare not dis-
regard," yet " dare not implicitly follow"? If we
voluntarily cast aside that guide, what other have we
to trust to How, indeed, exceptiby the exercise of
this kind of common sense, can we determine
whether the corrections are of any value at all
For it is to be observed that their value, or even
their "authority," rests on internal evidence alone.
They do not come to us from a worm-eateu chest