The Shakespeare-Expositor. Thomas Keightley

own experience. I must, however, previously notice the rather curious fact, that these four sources of error, which I had traced out in our printed works, are all, and no other, acted upon by that, in my mind, most able of the German critics, J. Olshausen, in that chef d'œuvre of criticism, his Comment on the Book of Psalms, thus showing how universal they are.

      7.

      Omission.—If any one will examine a proof-sheet as it comes from the hands of a compositor, he will find abundant instances of this source of error. One would think that such could hardly escape the author's eye; and yet, in the edition of Ben Jonson's plays corrected by himself, almost the only errors detected by the editors have been those of omission; and a few more have, I think, escaped them. I may add that the words supplied by them seem to me to be almost invariably the very words which had been omitted. In Notes and Queries (3 S. vii.) there is a list of the principal errata in the reprint of the First Folio, in 1808; and the far larger portion of them are omissions which can easily be supplied. From my own experience in the case of reprints, I can further assert that corrections of this kind are by no means a matter of hap-hazard; for where I have supplied the words I supposed lost or altered I have almost invariably found, on referring to the original edition, that I had hit on the exact word. As an instance, in a late reprint of Akenside's Poems, the following line occurs in the Hymn to the Naiads:

      Your sultry springs, through every urn.

      Here I at once corrected salutary, and on looking at the original edition I found I was right. Yet, had this correction been made in Shakespeare, we know how it would have been disputed. As to omissions I can give the following instances. In a reprint (Lond. 1816) of Fletcher's Purple Island, we find (xii. 74, 85) the following lines:

      Thus with glad sorrow did she plain her.

      In th' own fair silver shines and borrow'd gold.

      Each line being short, I read in the first "sweetly plain her," and in the second one and "fairer borrow'd gold," and on looking at the original 4to I found I had supplied the poet's very words. In Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose, the following line is in all the MSS. and editions,

      She hadde a gay mirrour,

      which is evidently a foot short. I read 'She had in hand,' and on looking at the original I found en sa main.

      It is not often that proofs have been read more carefully than were those of my edition of Milton's Poems, both by myself and by others; and yet, in the reprint of the text, in one place (Par. Lost, x. 422) it will be found that the word to is missing, thus destroying the metre; and yet none of us perceived it.

      A far stronger case is the following. Never apparently was a work edited with greater care than Mr. Panizzi's edition of Bojardo and Ariosto; and yet in the Orlando Innamorato, II. xxiv. 54, the concluding couplet of the stanza is printed thus:

      Persa ho mia gioia, e'l mio bel Paradiso,

      Per lui che tardo giunse a darmi.

      Here a reader, who has even but the slightest knowledge of Italian, will see at once that the word avviso has been omitted at the end of the second line; and yet this escaped not merely the printer's reader, who, even if ignorant of the language, might be supposed to have missed the rime, but the lynx-eyed editor himself, not only in the proof, but in the fair sheets which he was evidently in the habit of examining most carefully. The more I think of this error the more I feel astonished at its occurrence, a thing for which I cannot in any manner account; the following, however, is nearly a parallel. In a most carefully edited Greek Testament (Lond. 1837), in 1 Cor. xi. 23, three important words are omitted! Need we, then, wonder at omissions in Shakespeare?

      The omission is generally, as in these cases, of single words, from noun to interjection, all parts of speech included, and also of single letters or syllables. It is rather curious, too, that when a word has been repeated by the poet it is sometimes omitted by the printer. Thus "What wheels? what racks? what fires?" W. T. iii. 2, is printed, "What wheels? racks? fires?" There is another instance in the same play, and many in the other plays. In Chaucer the instances are numerous. Addresses, as sir, my lord, etc., are sometimes left out, as also are pray, now, only, and others which are not absolutely necessary for the sense—and even two or more words; in all which cases the omission is indicated by the defect of metre. This the reader will do well to keep constantly in mind. For an example see on Tam. of Shrew, i. 1. It is surprising how often the negative particle is wanting in these plays of Shakespeare's. I have discovered its absence in between twenty and thirty places, not one-half of which had been observed by preceding editors. But not merely single words have been left out by printers; want of rime or want of connexion shows that entire lines have been omitted. Mr. Collier observes that three lines are wanting in various places of the Variorum Shakespeare; and such being the case in the present century, we need not wonder at so many having been passed over by the original printers. The reader will find about two dozen such cases noticed in my Edition and in the following pages, not one-half of which had been observed by preceding editors. Shakespeare himself furnishes the following remarkable instance. In Com. of Err. ii. 2, the three last folios omit the two lines beginning with "Wear gold and no man," etc. Nares gives in his Glossary (v. Portingall) a curious instance of the omission of a line, which escaped the author's own notice in the proof-sheet. So also in Massinger's Unnatural Combat, lines are wanting in two places, though he himself must have read the proofs. In 2 Hen. VI. iv. 1, there is a line wanting in the folio, to recover which we are actually obliged to go to the original play of The Contention, etc.

      Parts of lines, generally the latter part, are also often wanting, but not so often as it may seem; for short lines, and also over-long lines, generally are caused by malarrangement of the text. The main cause, however, of these losses is the ill-usage to which the manuscripts seem to have been subjected in the part of the theatre in which they were kept, and the careless treatment of them by those who had occasion to use them. Hence in some places the writing may have been obliterated by ink-blots, in others effaced by friction, or by damp or dust; while sometimes a part of a leaf may have been torn away. We must remember that a large number of Shakespeare's plays were lying thus exposed to ill-usage, probably in the property-room of the Globe or Blackfriars, for a space of from twenty to thirty years.

      The parts most likely to have thus sustained injury must have been those nearest the edges of the page; and hence the part effaced would be the beginning of the line or the end of it; and as the lines run evenly at the beginning, while they are of irregular length, the effacement at the beginning would be in general of mere monosyllables, as I, in, with, and, &c., while that at the end might be of several words, at times even of half a line. In the beginning, too—as will be seen in the notes on Merchant of Venice, iv. 1, As You Like It, ii. 7, and elsewhere—more than one word has been sometimes effaced. In the case of entire lines or large parts of lines, the cause may have been their position at the top or bottom of the page, and their consequent proximity to the edge.

      It is rather strange that I should have been—as I believe I am—the first to notice this very simple and natural mode of accounting for the losses in the text. The number of these losses which I have, or seem to have, detected in the beginnings is over seventy, those at the ends more than double that number. As they are all supplied in my Edition, and noted in the following pages, the reader will have ample occasion for ascertaining whether my theory is correct or not. I will here, however, give a couple of instances.

      In faith, my lord, you are too wilful-blame.

      1 Hen. IV. iii. 1.

      Here the critics are perplexed with "wilful-blame," which is a compound without example; but let us suppose that the poet wrote "wilful-blameable," and that the final letters had been effaced, we get a compound term of which examples are numerous. The other is,

      And made him stoop to the water. 'Tis wonderful.

      Cymb. iv. 2.

      In the following pages it will be seen that occasionally I attempt to supply the losses of lines and parts of lines. It will