New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-29
SHAKESPEARE.
MR.. WILLIAM Adds wRIGTTS REISSUE OF
THE CAMBRIDGE EDITION.

wright. III Is long SlHcc tnc llSl euIOiOh, pun
lished in 1868, became scarce book and dear
one; copies selling in London for about $50 ana
in New-York for, l dare say, twice that sum:
the effect Of a voyage across the Atlantic being
often TO double the price of book. 1t was, never
theleSs, essentially q students edition, the cam
bridge Shakespeare: for the collector 1t had no
particular attraction except from its scarcity,
which, to many collectors, is attraction enough
Tie editors of the first volume Of the first ell
ton were Mr.. William George Clark ana MT
John Glover. The Preface is signed W. IT, T.
and j. G. Then Mr. Glover dropped out, anu
Mr. Wright became associated with Mr.. clark, ana
the two completed the edition. SO Tar had Mt
lovers share in II been forgotten that the initials
j. g., signed to the reprinted Preface, were a
puzzle.
Among all the hundreds and thousands Of edi-
lions Of Shakespeare, this Cambridge edition is
the one which every serious student of the text
must possess. 1t is the edition which gives
a history of the text: which records
in a concise and convenient way, all the readings
of each of the four Folios, of the Quartos where
they exist, and Of ell subsequent editions that
have any claim to De critical. To these are
added conjectural emendations, collected or sug-
gested by the Cambridge editors. The student is
thus supplied with complete View of the exist
ing materials out of which the text has been
constructed. The novelty IF the plan, said Mr.
Clark and Mr.. Glover, modestly will exempt
us from all suspicion of a design 10 supersede. or
even compete with, the many able and learned
editors who have preceded us in the same field.
This is, in other words critical edition with
respect TO the text only. OF criticism in the
commoner sente. of exposition, or Of attempts
at the Interpretation of hard passages there is
none.
1t will he seen, therefore. that the question
whether the text actually given be in all cases
the best, is less important than in ordinary cdi-
tions, because, in all cases. the materials for con-
structng such text he prefers supplied
in full TO the readar. The rule the editors of
1868 adopted for their text was stated by them
with some lack of eXplicitness. They began by
saying that the basis Of all texts Of Shakespeare
must be the Folio of l623. That is true only
with reference to plays of which there is 10
authentic Quarto The editors do, indeed make an
exception in favor of the QuartOs hut with rather
curious limitations: Where have Quartos
of authority their variations from the first Folio
have been generally accepted, except where they
are manifest errors. and where the text Of the
tire passage seems TO Ike Of an inferior recenson
TO that of the Folio" Then, "when the Folios
are all obviously wrong. and the Quartos also fail
us, we have introduced into the text several con-
icctural lamentations" The result is that the
reader can never he quite sure what is actually
put before him. The editors have admitted con-
lectures they tell us, sometimes" ; not often.
perhaps, will be expected Their limitations
upon their own discretion are of the most strin-
gent character We admit none because we think
it better rhythm or grammar or sense, unless We
feel 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
The first canon is sound, though expressed with
needless severity. The second is indefcnsible eX-
cept on the theory l suggested above, viz that
as the materials OF text here the text itself
matters less; which is true for the student, not
true for the general reader. The editors say :" If
the defect can be made good in more ways than
equally plausible or, at least, equally possible.
we have registered but not adopted these improve
ments, and the reader is intended TO make his
own selection ont of the notes" In other words,
if there be one confessedy bad reading and two
good ones, the confessedly bad is retained in the
text and the two good are relcgated TO the bottom
Of the page.
This principle did not escape criticism on the
first appearance of the Cambridge Shakespeare,
but Mr.. Wright, in his Preface TO the Second
Edition. adheres to it substantially. His state
ment is: Il have followed substantially the
rules laid down in the Preface to the First Edi-
ton. although I have exercised my Judgment"
which he spells judgement" in occasionally de-
parting from them, and in applying them more
strictly than the original editors of the first vol
ume found it necessary to do If Mr.. Wright
had simply said he had used his best judgment in
forming the best text he could, we should have
known what he meant. AS it stands, his modilca
ton Of the original uncertainty leaves us more
uncertain still.
The most eminent Of the critics who censurcd
the Cambridge method Mr.. Dyce. In the
Preface to his second edition t1SGG). that ac-
compished editor speaks OF the Cambridge Shake
speare as one in which, whatever its merits III
other respects the editors adhere pasSim to the
corruptions of the old copies with pertinacty
akin to that of Mr. Knight, before his super
stitious devotion to the first Folio had lost some
thing of its fervor" Mr.. Dyce adds In short,
l now believe that an exact reprint OF the old
text with its multifarious errors forms more
valuable contribution TO literature than a semi
corrected text, which, purged here and there Of
the grossest blunders, continues STILL almost in
every page, TO offend against sense and metre. y
These wise counsels' Mr.. Wright has not seen
fit to adopt. | suppose no editor likes to be lee
tured by another, to submit himself TO the
censorship Of another. The days when the edi-
tors of Shakespeare revilcd each other in choice
Mllinxsgate are past but editor is still human
being. Mr.. Dyce's authority is nevertheless such
that, apart from the good sense Of his advice,
Mr.. Wright need not have been ashamed to ac-
cept it, Mr. Dyce had himself undergone a
process of conversion His first edition, published
in 1857, showed him among the most conscrva-
tive Of editors lie suffered multitudes Of doubt
full readings to retain place in the text; giving
the less doubtful in the notes, much as Mr.. Wright
still does. In his second edition he used his
judgment; saying:
III the most eminent classical scholars in edit
ing the dramas of antiquity have not scruped
frequently to employ conjecture for the restora-
ton Of the text, l cannot understand why an
editor of Shakespeare-whose plays have come
down 70 us no less dsligured by corruption than
II