1756. The edition of Peter Whalley, 1756, purports to be ‘collated
with all the former editions, and corrected’, but according to
modern standards it cannot be called a critical text. Not only
does it follow 1716 in modernization of spelling; alteration of
contractions: e. g., 2. 8. 69 To’a] T’a; 3. 1. 20 In t’one] Int’ one;
and changes in wording: e. g., 1. 1. 24 strengths] strength: 3. 6.
26 Gentleman] Gentlewoman; but it is evident that Whalley considered
the 1716 edition as the correct standard for a critical text, and
made his correction by a process of occasional restoration of the
original reading. Thus in restoring ‘Crane’, 1. 4. 50, he uses the
expression,--‘which is authorized by the folio of 1640.’ Again in 2.
1. 124 he retains ‘petty’ from 1716, although he says: ‘The edit.
of 1640, as I think more justly,--_Some_ pretty _principality_.’
This reverence for the 1716 text is inexplicable. In the matter of
capitalization Whalley forsakes his model, and he makes emendations
of his own with considerable freedom. He still further modernizes the
spelling; he spells out elided words: e. g., 1. 3. 15 H’ has] he has;
makes new elisions: e. g., 1. 6. 143 Yo’ are] You’re; 1. 6. 211 I am]
I’m; grammatical changes, sometimes of doubtful correctness: e. g.,
1. 3. 21 I’le] I’d; morphological changes: e. g., 1. 6. 121 To scape]
T’escape; metrical changes by insertions: e. g., 1. 1. 48 ‘to’; 4. 7.
38 ‘but now’; changes of wording: e. g., 1. 6. 195 sad] said; in the
order of words: e. g., 3. 4. 59 is hee] he is; and in the assignment
of speeches: e. g., 3. 6. 61. Several printer’s errors occur: e. g.,
2. 6. 21 and 24.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account