file

02_venus_and_adonis_1905_facsimile_page_0054.jpg

01KG8B0T06XNT64TFMTPERZ2EV

Properties

cid
bafkreib7lvktk2cwgcyv5ydbq25h44eqzdqjyio7ro3i5xp2big2o2g37y
content_type
image/jpeg
filename
02_venus_and_adonis_1905_facsimile_page_0054.jpg
height
2400
key
pdf-page-1769806521479-9wsboofc50r
page_number
54
pdf_type
born_digital
size
538880
text
The chap- book syndi- cate of1 67 J. 48 VENUS AND ADONIS a London syndicate of chap-book publishers. That curious venture brings to a close the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chapter of the bibliopolic history of the poem. The parent text. The mis- prints of The text of all the editions is based on the original version of 1^93. Each issue of subsequent date appears to reprint one or other of its near predecessors with more or less fidelity. The alterations are slight, and are due to the compositors or correctors of the press. Efforts to systematize the irregular spellings of the first issues and occasionally to remove grammatical solecisms account for most of the variations. But in a £qw instances new misprints or un- warrantable alterations in the order of words are introduced through the carelessness or presumptuous igTiorance of compositor or proof-corrector. How trifling and arbitraiy were the changes in the early editions, may be judged from the characteristic fact that in the inscription before the dedicatory epistle ' Wriothesl^^ ' in the 15-93 edition appears as 'Wriothesly' in the 1^94 edition, and as 'WriotheshV in the 1^9^ and many subsequent editions. On the whole, Field's text of 1 5-93 may be held to have adhered to Shakespeare's manuscript with reasonable closeness, but it presents defects of the sort which confutes the theory that Shakespeare himself corrected the proofs. The praises lavished on Field's press-work by Shakespearean critics of the first edition of J^e/tus and Adonis^ seem on a thorough examina- tion to require qualification. Misprints are £t^ j they do not exceed ten in all, and only one of them^ slight enough in itself, can cause the reader perplexity. In line i8y the present participle 'souring' is disguised under the unintelligible pair of words ' so wring '. The nine other misprints are ' Witin '
text_extracted_at
2026-01-30T20:55:21.479Z
text_extracted_by
pdf-processor
text_has_content
true
text_source
born_digital
uploaded
true
width
1632

Relationships