S"* S. No 53., Jan. 3. '57.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



Compare the date of Miss Howe's letter with 

 the burial entry, and we ascertain with certainty 

 that Fejf Hughes, the actress and mistress of 

 Prince Rupert, died in October, 1719. 



Of Mrs. Hughes there is an excellent portrait 

 by Lely at Lord Jersey's, at Middleton in Ox- 

 fordshire ; and of Ruperta, her daughter by Prince 

 Rupert, and the mother of Sophy Howe, there is 

 a characteristic full length by Kneller at Lord 

 Sandwich's, at Hinchinbrooke. She is dark, and 

 like what Prince Rupert was when old. 



Peter Cunningham. 



Kensington. 



THE DISPUTANTS ON SHAKSPERE. 



" It had bene a thing, we confesse, ivorthie to haue beiie 

 wished, that the author himself e had liu'd to haue set forth, 

 and ouerseen his owne writings." — lohn Heminge, Henrie 

 Coudell. 



Aspiring to act the moderator between certain 

 disputants on the fidelity and typographic correct- 

 ness of the Shahespeai-e of 1623, as printed by 

 Isaac Jaggard and Edward Blount, I submit to 

 the consideration of those who mahe the fray, and 

 of those who lament it, the brief remarks of some 

 eminent critics on the principles of editorship, and 

 on the delicate process of emendation ; together 

 with the repeated admission made by one of the 

 contemporaries of Shakspere that errors of the 

 press are unavoidable, and emendations therefore 

 often requisite. 



I firmly believe that both parties are actuated 

 by the same motive : I believe they are both 

 anxious to give us the text of the plays as Shak- 

 spere left it — but they differ on many points. 

 Now it seems desirable that every editor of the 

 dramatist should publish, in due form, his editorial 

 canons. We should then have the argument in 

 smaller compass — should be led to compare ideas, 

 and to reflect on principles — and might award 

 praise or censure with more discrimination. 



The remarks on editorship shall now be intro- 

 duced. No attempt has been made to ijicrease 

 the mass. I have been satisfied with giving, from 

 the most accessible sources, what seemed to claim 

 transcription on the score of brevity and per- 

 tinency. 



" Qu83 adhuc disputavi, ea ad illam fere partem consilii 

 mei pertinent, quod statui conservare quantum in me est, 

 Horatii verba, ordinemque poematum, ut ea ex antiquis 

 libris ad nos pervenere. — Nisi ita mollis, ita liquida, ita 

 clara, ita unica sit emendatio, plane uti dubitare homini 

 rerum perito non liceat, modestise nostrse et bonorum li- 

 brorum integritati potius ita consulamus, ut in margine, 

 quid nobis videatur, indicemus. Dici non potest, quam 

 facile sit hie falli, labi, corrumpere quod emendare velis." 

 — J. M. Gesnerus, 1752. 



"I have discharged the dull duty of an editor [of 

 Shakspere], to my best judgment, with more labour than 

 I expect thanks, with a religious abhorrence of all in- 

 novation, and without anj' indulgence to my private 



sense or conjecture. — The various readings are fairly put 

 in the margin, so that every one may compare them ; and 

 those I have preferred into the text are constantly ex fide 

 codicum, upon authority." — Alexander Pope, 1725. 



" His genuine text [i. e. the text of Shakspere] is for 

 the most part religiously acUiered to, and the numerous 

 faults and blemishes, purely his own, are left as they 

 were found. Nothing is altered but what bj' the clearest 

 reasoning can be proved a corruption of the true text, and 

 the alteration a real restoration of the genuine reading." 

 — Lewis Theobald, 1733. 



"As the corruptions [of the text of 1623] are more 

 numerous and of a grosser kind than can well be con- 

 ceived but by those who have looked nearly into them ; 

 so in the correcting them this rule hath been most strictly 

 observed, not to give a loose to fancy, or indulge a licen- 

 tious spirit of criticism, as if it were fit for any one to 

 presume to judge what Shakespeare ought to have written, 

 instead of endeavouring to discover truly and retrieve 

 what he did write." — Sir Thomas Hanmek, 1744. 



" The whole a critic can do for an author who deserves 

 his service, is to correct the faulty text, to remark the 

 peculiarities of language, to illustrnte the obscure allu- 

 sions, and to explain the beauties and defects of sentiment 

 or composition ; and surely, if ever nuthor had a claim to 

 this service, it was our Shakespeme." — William War- 

 burton, 1747. 



" That manj' passages [in Shakspere] have passed in a 

 state of depravation through all the editions is indubitably 

 certain ; of these the restoration is only to be attempted by 

 collation of copies or sagacity of conjecture. — As I prac- 

 tised conjecture more, 1 learned to trust it less ; and after 

 I had printed a few plays, resolved to insert none of my 

 own readings in the text. Upon this caution I now con- 

 gratulate myself, for everj' day encreases my doubt of my 

 emendations." — Samuel Johnson, 1765. 



The extract from Gesner, while it refers to 

 Horace alone, is quite as applicable to an English 

 classic. It is a capital summary of editorial duties. 

 The other remarks are copied from the prefaces 

 to the plays of Shakspere ; and there cannot be 

 much temerity in asserting that the writers have 

 rather shown their acquaintance with the ars 

 CBiTiCA, and courted public favour by the pre- 

 tence of editorial fidelity, than fairly described 

 their own proceedings. 



Now come the promised remarks on errors of 

 the press, which were all made by the same per- 

 son in the years 1620, 1623, and 1628. 

 [ To the reader. ] 



" Of such errours as haue escaped in the presse, I haue 

 thought good to collect onely those, which may bee sup- 

 posed likely to trouble the reader in his way, the rest 

 being few, and but literall, I hope shall eyther passe 

 vnobserued, or excused." — Horce subseciuee, 1620. 8vo. 



" The printer to the discreet and curious reader. 

 " After so much as you. haue read heere, vttered in 

 their iust commendation [i e. the author and translator], 

 let it be my minute, to be heard in a line or two for my 

 selfe : which is, that you would be pleased not to lay my 

 faults on them. I will neither pretend badnesse of copy, 

 or his absence, whose prouince it w^as to correct it ; but 

 pray the amendment of these few escapes (as you finde 

 them here-vnder noted,) before you begin to reade : with 

 hope of j'our pardon, the rather, because it hath beene 

 mj' care they should be no more." — Gvzman de Alju- 

 rache, part I. 1623. Folio. 



