:: :: University of Virginia Library

But see F. Bowers, Textual and Literary Criticism (1959), pp. 117-150. for an extensive survey of the problem; also, the comment of C. J. Sisson in New Readings in Shakespeare, (1956), I, 35-37.

[2]

Cf. The Malone Society's Collections Volume IV (1956), p. 2.

[3]

Rule 4, Collections Volume IV (1956), pp. 66-67.

[4]

Cf. Studies in Bibliography, VIII (1956), 116.

[5]

Cf. Rule 3, Collections Volume IV (1956), p. 66.

[6]

I.e., the state of the text which has departed least from the substantive reading of the author's manuscript. Usually this will be the uncorrected state; but when it can be shown that the author was responsible for the corrections, the corrected state would be preferred; cf. F. Bowers, The Library, 5th ser., vii (1952), 262-272.

[7]

Cf. Textual Problems of the First Folio (1953), passim, and Studies in Bibliography, VII (1955), 51-67, and VIII (1956), 95-111.

[8]

Cf. Studies in Bibliography, IX (1957), 3-20.

[9]

Cf. Rule 3, Collections Volume IV (1956), p. 66.

[10]

For examples of an editor's deductions from a study of press-work, see the Textual Introductions in Professor Bowers' edition of the Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker, I (1953), II (1955), and III (1958).

[11]

So Dr J. Gerritsen has proved: cf. Studies in Bibliography, VII (1955), 25, note 5, and p. 45.

[12]

Cf. Shakespeare Quarterly, VI (1955), 259-273 and Studies in Bibliography, XI (1958), 39-53.

[13]

Rule 7 of the Malone Society's rules for editors (Collections Volume IV (1956), p. 67) states that 'Wrong-fount letters are to be corrected, and no further notice need as a rule be taken. Under wrong-fount letters are included italic letters in a roman word or passage, and so forth. . . .'.

[14]

Rule 3, op. cit., p. 66.

[14a]

These problems are discussed in the introduction and notes of the present writer's forthcoming edition of The White Devil.

[15]

Studies in Bibliography, III (1950), 8.

[16]

It would be helpful if some form of line-numbering could be introduced.

[17]

Microfilms would be a much cheaper alternative to photostats, but, for textual work (involving constant comparison of several different works, or collation of several editions of one work or of numerous copies of one edition), they are by no means so convenient.

[18]

Cf. [Studies in Bibliography], I (1948), 61-68.

[19]

Op. cit., I, xii.

[20]

Op. cit., I, xi-xii.

[21]

The Works of John Webster (1927), I, xi.

[22]

Cf. E. J. Dobson, English Pronunciation 1500-1700 (1957), II, 694.

[23]

Cf. Studies in Bibliography, VIII (1956), 123-127.

[24]

Cf. Studies in Bibliography, VI (1954), 128-137.

[25]

Cf. W. W. Greg, The Editorial Problem (1942), p. li: 'So long as there is any chance of an edition preserving some trace, however faint, of the author's individuality, the critic will want to follow it.'

[26]

Cf. Muriel St. C. Byrne, The Library, 4th ser., IV (1923), 9-23, where it is shown that Munday's peculiar '-oo-' spellings were usually found in books printed before 1590, often found in those printed in the nineties, but seldom found in those printed after 1600.

[27]

The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare (1942), p. li.

[28]

Cf. Alice Walker, Studies in Bibliography, VIII (1956), 111: 'we should beware of supposing that, when Jaggard's compositors A and B substituted 'murther' for 'murder', as they usually plainly did, they were expressing anything more than a preference for one spelling over another'.

[29]

J. Webster, The White Devil (1612), B2v (I.ii.48-49).

[30]

Ibid., K3 (V.iii.196).

[31]

E.g., when there is no modern equivalent in sense or metrical value, or when the original spelling was meant to be dialectal or antique, or when it is necessary to retain a rhyme.

[32]

A. Brown, Studies in Bibliography, VII (1956), 20.

[33]

Textual Introduction, The White Devil (forthcoming), ed. J.R. Brown; and Alice Walker, Textual Problems (1953), pp. 9-10.

[34]

Cf. Shakespeare's Fight with the Pirates (1920), pp. 93-94.