Transcript
General queries
1[.] Collation notes on scene division. {1} I think that I have been more bothered and changed my mind more often about this than about anything!
It seems to me that in considering the text of Sh. (not the modern texts), all… read more
Transcript
General queries
1[.] Collation notes on scene division. {1} I think that I have been more bothered and changed my mind more often about this than about anything!
It seems to me that in considering the text of Sh. (not the modern texts), all that matters is whether there is (or is meant to be) a division or whether the new scene is continuous. I don’t feel that it really matters in the least what number the different editors assigned to the scene. Therefore eventually I settled on the form ‘New scene. Pope+: not divided F1–Rowe’—or whatever it might be.
Pope–Johnson’s scene divisions being of course on the ‘classical’ model—a new scene whenever there is a change in the persons on the stage (servants &c not counting), there are always more than in modern arrangements, but the difference does not seem to me to signify anything whatever as regards text or even stage-representation.
2. Yes. This is the intention (more or less!), though I dare say I have not been quite consistent.
At any rate Cap.(+) does mean that the reading is literally Capell’s and that all others follow it substantially though not necessarily literally (note that some may follow Cap. literally, but I regard this as unimportant, the point which does matter being whether the reading is supported in general (and so far as the question at issue is concerned) by the later editors.
But I’m not sure that I have been consistent as regards (Cap.)+ and (Cap.+) and must consider this. I have as you will have noticed sometimes given such a thing as (Cap.), Mal.+. This means that Capell gave the reading substantially and Mal. and later people give it liter-ally. Often such notes imply that one ed says ‘Exit a Servant’ another ‘Exit an Attendant’ an-other ‘Exit a Serving-man’ {2}—Now I have probably varied between
(Pope+), Mal.+
(i.e. = a reading actually introduced by Malone but substantially the same as one introduced by Pope) and
(Pope–Cap.), Mal.+.
Which is best? {3}
—————
These are replies to two of the three queries in MCKW A4/12. The sheet was probably returned to McKerrow with MCKW A4/14.
{1} Cf. Prolegomena, pp. 69–70.
{2} ‘Often such notes … a Serving-man’ is written at the foot of the page as a replacement for the following cancelled passage in the body of the text: ‘(A common case is the word ‘Servant’ in S.D.’s. Owing presumably to the gradual change over to female domestics the mod. editors generally seem to feel it necessary to say ‘serving-man’ when they mean male servants. Some eds. however tend to use ‘Servant’ or ‘Attendant’, meaning of course the same thing!).’
{3} Walker has written ‘this’ in the margin beside the latter alternative.
read less
