10 Notas de Clark & Wright para Titus Andronicus (1865)
Recuperamos, del texto digitalizado The Works of Williams Shakespeare editado por Clark and Wright (1865) disponible en Google Books, las diez notas editoriales elaboradas por Clark & Wright para el texto de Titus Andronicus:
n. I. The Quartos have no distinction of act or scene here or elsewhere. After Exeunt comes immediately a stage direction Sound Trumpets, manet Aloore. The first Folio, after Aflus Sccunda, has Flourish. Enter Aaron alone. The Editor of the second Folio seeing the impropriety of introducing Aaron alone with a flourish of trumpets, omitted the word Flourish. Capell was doubtless right in supposing that it had been displaced from the end of the last scene.
Johnson is of opinion that this scene ought to continue the first act.
n. I. 134. Mr Collier, reading 'fhese,' says, 'The Quartos give the text correctly.' The Quarto of 1611 has ' their.'
In. I. 170. In the copy of Theobald's edition before us, which belonged to Warburton, the latter has written 'Mr Warburton' opposite Theobald's note in defence of his emendation, thereby claiming for himself the merit of the conjecture. But in his own edition he retains the old reading 'castle,' while in a note he assigns the emendation to Theobald, and ridicules him for adopting it. Theobald first proposed it in a letter to Concanen (Nichols' Illustrations, 11. 220),
III. 1. 277, 278. Perhaps the original MS. had as follows : 'And thou, Lavinia, shalt be imployd, Beare thou my hand sweet wench betweene thy teeth.' The Author, or some other corrector, to soften what must have been ludierous in representation, wrote 'Armes' above 'teeth' as a substitute for the latter. The printer of.the first Quarto took 'Armes' to belong to the first line, and conjecturally filled up the lacuna with 'in these,' making, also, an accidental alteration in the position of ' thou.' Then a corrector of the second Quarto, from which the first folio was printed, made sense of the passage by substituting ' things' for ' Armes.'
III. 2. S1. The first Folio has: 'An. Come, take away:'
The second: 'And: Come take away:'
The third and fourth: ' And, Come, take away;'
thus continuing the speech to Marcus. Rowe omitted 'And,' and the true reading was not restored before Capell.
Mr Collier, in his second edition, says: 'In the Folio of the Earl of Ellesmere, this speech has no prefix ; but the conjunction ' And' for And. was mistakenly put before ' Come." Mr Staunton however tells us that there is a full stop after 'And,' and that though not in italics the word is clearly meant for Andronicus.
Iv. 1. 46. Mr Dyce says that Theobald omitted the words ' Help her:' but this is a mistake. They are retained by Theobald, and by every other editor we know of.
Iv. 2. 100. 'Seems' is an error of Johnson's own printer. In h\a note on the passage, he conjectures that 'scorns' is the true reading, without knowing that it was to be found in every edition previous to his own. For an instance of similar carelessness, see Note v1. to The Third Part of King Heury VI.
Iv. 2. 178. Mr Collier, in his Appendix to Coleridge's Lectures, states that his MS. corrector substitutes 'thrive' for 'feed' in this line, while, in the note to his second edition of Shakespeare, he says that the substitution is made in the next line, ' Ihrh'e on curds, &c.'
In 1v. 4. 37, we have assigned a reading to the MS. corrector, because we find it in Mr Collier's one-volume edition, though he has not mentioned it elsewhere.
In Iv. 4. 113, he gives, in the Appendix to Coleridge's Lectures, and in his second edition of Shakespeare, ' Then go incessantly, and plead 'fore him,' as the reading of the MS. corrector, while in the one- volume edition he gives, on the same authority, 'Then go successfully, and plead 'fore him.' We have left unnoticed other discrepancies, where, as is usually the case, they were unimportant to the sense. We mention the fact once for all, in order to defend ourselves from the charge of inaccuracy. Indeed, it is on this ground alone that we ever call attention to those errors of our predecessors, which are, in themselves, venial and unimportant.
1v. 4. 8. Steevens says that the first Folio here has ' the law.' It is 'law' in every copy which we have been able to consult.
v. 3. 72,73. Mr Collier mentions that the correction 'Lest' for 'Let' was also made by Southerne in his copy of the fourth Folio. The further correction, which is due to Capell, was claimed by Steevens, and is frequently given to him by modern editors. The corruption was perhaps due to a copyist or printer, who, not seeing that 'Let' was miswritten for 'Lest,' yet felt that the words 'Let Rome, &c.' were not suitable to Marcus, and gave them to a Roman lord, at a guess. The Editor of the first Folio, or some corrector of the Quarto from which he printed, thinking the words not suitable to a Roman, gave them to a Goth, It may be however that the four lines ' Let Rome herself were intended to be spoken by a Roman lord after M arcus had stabbed the Emperor. Perhaps they were an after-thought of the author and written at the foot of the page, and the printer of the first Quarto, thus misled, inserted them in the middle of Marcus's speech. In so doubtful a case we have acquiesced in what may be considered the received text.
Cambridge; Printed At The University
También hemos podido localizar, gracias al servicio de Google, una copia digitalizada del primer complete "virtual Variorum" denominado Globe Edition.
Artículo de Jose Saiz Molina, publicado el 03 Apr 2009 en © 2004 - 2009, Shakespeare.uv.es| Volver |