- cid
- bafkreid6jp4wzr3fz3owz3v4ddep2npirq2bepf4rctve7lok7h45slwa4
- content_type
- image/jpeg
- filename
- 06_poems_pericles_facsimiles_1905_oxford_page_0173.jpg
- height
- 2400
- key
- pdf-page-1769752375874-oon84g8atr8
- ocr_model
- mistral-ocr-latest
- page_number
- 173
- size
- 525496
- text
- 34
LUCRECE
**The text of 1607.**
‘pollution’ (1157), where the word rimes with ‘confusion’ and ‘conclusion’, is another orthographical error.¹
The text of the late impressions of the 1594 edition was followed in the editions of 1598, 1600, and 1607. A few changes were introduced by the corrector of the press in each revision, but all were trivial and mainly affected the spelling, the capital letters, and the contractions. The fourth edition of 1607, despite the commendation which Thomas Heywood bestowed on its printer, Nicholas Okes, introduces some new misprints of bad eminence (e.g. l. 993, ‘time’ for ‘crime’; l. 1024, ‘unsearchfull’ for ‘uncheerful’). These were slavishly adopted by succeeding printers. In the imprint, the words ‘Printed by N. O.’ appear as ‘Printed be N. O.’
**The alterations of 1616.**
Somewhat more extensive alterations marked the fifth edition, printed by T[homas] S[nodham], and published by Roger Jackson, in 1616. This edition was described on the title-page as ‘Newly Revised’, and bore for the first time the new title of *The Rape of Lucrece* instead of the *Lucrece* of the earlier issues. Shakespeare’s name also appeared for the first time on the title-page. Traces of the hand of an unskilful editor are apparent. A new list of ‘contents’, which preceded the ‘Argument’ in the preliminary pages, collected together in a slightly abbreviated form twelve marginal notes which were distributed through the text of the poem, and supplied a running analysis of the story. The earlier marginal notes were numbered in the text; but the
¹ ‘Pollution’ is only used thrice elsewhere by Shakespeare. In two cases—in *Twelfth Night*, i. 2. 49, and *Measure for Measure*, ii. 4. 183—it is rightly spelt ‘pollution’ (in the First Folio). But in the third place where it occurs—in *Love’s Labour’s Last*, iv. 2. 46—it is farcically misused by Goodman Dull for ‘allusion’, and is misspelt ‘polusion’ in both the First Quarto and the First Folio. The misspelling there seems deliberately introduced by way of ridicule of popular ignorance. In a serious context ‘pollution’ was alone recognized by careful writers or printers.
- text_extracted_at
- 2026-01-30T06:14:07.385Z
- text_extracted_by
- ocr-service
- text_has_content
- true
- text_images_count
- 0
- text_source
- ocr
- uploaded
- true
- width
- 1750