July 10.
Critical Digest of various Readings in the Works of Shakspeare.—There is much activity in the literary world just now about the text of Shakspeare: but one most essential work, in reference to that text, still remains to be performed,—I mean, the publication of a complete digest of all the various readings, in a concise shape, such as those which we possess in relation to the MSS. and other editions of nearly every classical author.
At present, all editions of Shakspeare which claim to be considered critical, contain much loose information on readings, mixed up with notes (frequently very diffuse) on miscellaneous topics. This is not in the least what we require: we need a regular digest of readings, wholly distinct from long debates about their value.
What I mean will be plain to any one who is familiar with any good critical edition of the Greek New Testament, or with such books as Gaisford's Herodotus, the Berlin Aristotle, the Zurich Plato, and the like. We ought to have, first, a good text of Shakspeare: such as may represent, as fairly as possible, the real results of the labours of the soundest critics; and, secondly, page by page, at the foot of that text, the following particulars:
I. All the readings of the folios, which should be cited as A, B, C, and D.
II. All the readings of the quartos, which might be cited separately in each play that possesses them, either as a, b, c, d; or as 1, 2, 3, and 4.
III. A succinct summary of all the respectable criticisms, in the way of conjecture, on the text. This is especially needed. The recent volumes of Messrs. Collier, Singer, and Dyce, show that even editors of Shakspeare scarcely know the history of all the emendations. Let their precise pedigree be in the last case recorded with the most absolute brevity; simply the suggestion, and the names of its proposers and adopters.
IV. To simplify this last point, a new siglation might be introduced to denote the various critical editions.
Such a publication should be kept distinct from any commentary; especially from one laid out in the broad flat style of modern editors. Mr. Collier's volume of Emendations, &c., for instance, need not have occupied half its present space, if he had first denoted his MS. corrector by some short symbol, instead of by a lengthy phrase; and, secondly, introduced his suggestions by some such formularies as those employed in classical criticisms, instead of toiling laboriously after variations in his style of expression, till we are wearied by the real iteration which lies under the seeming diversity.
There should be none of this phrasework in the digest which I recommend. If indeed it were found absolutely necessary to connect it with a commentary, then arrange the two portions of the