The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0119 Wednesday, 11 February 1998.
Date: Sunday, 08 Feb 1998 22:47:40 -0500
Subject: Re: JC: Riverside text
I am confused by recent posts which suggest that there are different
glosses of JC,IV.iii.110 in the 1974 and 1997 editions of the
Riverside. My copies of the two editions provide the same explication
-- i.e., "Brutus" = "lamb." In fact it appears that the pages on which
this text appears (p.1126 of the 1st ed. and p.1172 of the 2nd ed.) were
printed from the same plate. What's going on here? Does someone have
an uncorrected state of the first edition?
This leads me to another observation. The Riverside made almost no
changes to the texts of the plays and poems from the first edition.
Indeed, patent typos and artifacts on some pages suggest that they were
printed from the same plates.
In correspondence from Prof. Evans last summer he identified only five
textual changes from the first edition and three changes to the
commentary notes. The principal revisions in the Second Edition (other
than updating the introductory essays and appendices) are in the
introductory notes to the text to each play and poem. These are far
more compendious than formerly and reflect more recent scholarship,
albeit almost all of the recently suggested textual discoveries were
rejected by Evans. I am not suggesting that he was wrong to do so; I
am merely observing the very minimal nature of the actual text changes
in the Second Edition.
Evans letter to me noted the following changes to the text:
Ham,II.ii.73, II.ii.541, III.ii.223; KL,I.iv.137 & II.i.120. I have
since found another minor change-the addition of "[Edward]" to the
opening stage direction of 2HVI,V.iii, which is indicated in the revised
introductory note to the text of that play.
Evans also pointed out the following changes to the footnotes:
T/S,IV.ii.157; M/M,I.ii.129 & IV.i.1-6. Nothing about JC,IV.iii.110.
I would be grateful if anyone could let me know of any other amendments
to either the text or the footnotes.