spared. I have not busied myself with tasks befitting editors of entire works, such as collating texts with every possible copy, arbitrating upon every different reading, or even amending obviously corrupt ones; though the latter abound in every edition, and the temptation to notice them is great. On the other hand, where readings were disputed, I have not failed to pay attention to the dispute, and make such conclusion as seemed best. I first perused the plays in succession, pen in hand, marking everything as it struck me; then made the selection from the marked passages, on re-perusal; and finally compared my text with that of the latest editions, and added the critical and explanatory notes. I felt some hesitation with regard to such of the notes as contain encomiums from celebrated writers; fearing that passages thus distinguished might throw a slur on the rest. But I reflected, that approbation in those cases does not imply the reverse in the others; that the mere fact of selection conveys the tacit approbation which the selector may be qualified to give; and above all, that poets like Beaumont and Fletcher can "speak for themselves," and readers be often quite willing that they should do so. I must add, that though omissions, for obvious reasons, have been abundant, not a word has been altered. Above all, I must observe, that of the passages needing rejection, not a particle has been spared. The most cautious member of a family may take up the volume at random, and read aloud from it, without misgiving, in circles the most refined. |