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 {75} apparatus as in
Arnold's edition of _Thucydides_: the _variae lectiones_ in the middle of
the page, and the comment in a different type below it. But I repeat, it
would be better still to give us the digest _without_ the comment. All
would go into one large volume. And it cannot be doubted that such a
volume, if thoroughly well done, would furnish at once a sort of _textus
receptus_, and a critical basis, from which future editors might commence
their labours. It would also be an indispensable book of reference to all
who treat of, or are interested in, the poet's text. Such, I say, would be
its certain prospects if the editor were at once an accurate, painstaking
scholar, and a man of true poetical feeling. The labour would be great, but
so would be the reward. It is only what the ablest scholars have proudly
undertaken for the classics, even in the face of toils far more severe.
Would that Mr. Dyce could be roused to attempt it!