The _1611_ text shows
a more consistent use in certain passages of emphasizing capitals,
and at places its punctuation is better than that of _1633_.
a more consistent use in certain passages of emphasizing capitals,
and at places its punctuation is better than that of _1633_.
John Donne
the omission of the first marginal note even in
copies where all the rest are given), that _1633_ was printed from
_1625_, but it is clear that the editor compared this with earlier
editions, probably those of _1611-12_, and corrected or amended
the punctuation throughout. My collation of _1633_ with _1611_ has
throughout vindicated the former as against _1621-5_ on the one hand
and the later editions on the other. [1] Of mistakes other than of
punctuation I have noted only three: l. 181, thoughts _1611-12_;
thought _1621-33_. This was corrected, from the obvious sense, in
later editions (_1635-69_), and Grosart, Chambers, and Grolier make
no note of the error in _1621-33_. l. 318, proportions _1611-12_;
proportion _1621_ and all subsequent editions without comment. l. 415,
Impressions _1611_; Impression _1612-25_: impression _1633_ and all
subsequent editions. All three cases are examples of the same error,
the dropping of final 's'.
In typographical respects _1611_ shows the hand of the author more
clearly than the later editions. Donne was fastidious in matters of
punctuation and the use of italics and capital letters, witness the
_LXXX Sermons_ (1640), printed from MSS. prepared for the press by the
author. But the printer had to be reckoned with, and perfection was
not obtainable. In a note to one of the separately published sermons
Donne says: 'Those Errors which are committed in mispointing, or
in changing the form of the Character, will soone be discernd, and
corrected by the Eye of any deliberate Reader'.
The _1611_ text shows
a more consistent use in certain passages of emphasizing capitals,
and at places its punctuation is better than that of _1633_. My
text reproduces _1633_, corrected where necessary from the earlier
editions; and I have occasionally followed the typography of _1611_.
But every case in which _1633_ is modified is recorded.
Of the _Second Anniversarie_, in like manner, my text is that of
_1633_, corrected in a few details, and with a few typographical
features borrowed, from the edition of _1612_. The editor of _1633_
had rather definite views of his own on punctuation, notably a
predilection for semicolons in place of full stops. The only certain
emendations which _1612_ supplies are in the marginal note at p.
234 and in l. 421 of the _Second Anniversarie_ 'this' for 'his'. The
spelling is less ambiguous in ll. 27 and 326.
[Footnote 1: _1621-25_ abound in misplaced full stops which
are not in _1611_ and are generally corrected in _1633_. The
punctuation of the later editions (_1635-69_) is the work of
the printer. Occasionally a comma is dropped or introduced
with advantage to the sense, but in general the punctuation
grows increasingly careless. Often the correction of one error
leads to another. ]
The subject of the _Anniversaries_ was the fifteen-year-old Elizabeth
Drury, who died in 1610. Her father, Sir Robert Drury, of Hawsted in
the county of Suffolk, was a man of some note on account of his great
wealth.
copies where all the rest are given), that _1633_ was printed from
_1625_, but it is clear that the editor compared this with earlier
editions, probably those of _1611-12_, and corrected or amended
the punctuation throughout. My collation of _1633_ with _1611_ has
throughout vindicated the former as against _1621-5_ on the one hand
and the later editions on the other. [1] Of mistakes other than of
punctuation I have noted only three: l. 181, thoughts _1611-12_;
thought _1621-33_. This was corrected, from the obvious sense, in
later editions (_1635-69_), and Grosart, Chambers, and Grolier make
no note of the error in _1621-33_. l. 318, proportions _1611-12_;
proportion _1621_ and all subsequent editions without comment. l. 415,
Impressions _1611_; Impression _1612-25_: impression _1633_ and all
subsequent editions. All three cases are examples of the same error,
the dropping of final 's'.
In typographical respects _1611_ shows the hand of the author more
clearly than the later editions. Donne was fastidious in matters of
punctuation and the use of italics and capital letters, witness the
_LXXX Sermons_ (1640), printed from MSS. prepared for the press by the
author. But the printer had to be reckoned with, and perfection was
not obtainable. In a note to one of the separately published sermons
Donne says: 'Those Errors which are committed in mispointing, or
in changing the form of the Character, will soone be discernd, and
corrected by the Eye of any deliberate Reader'.
The _1611_ text shows
a more consistent use in certain passages of emphasizing capitals,
and at places its punctuation is better than that of _1633_. My
text reproduces _1633_, corrected where necessary from the earlier
editions; and I have occasionally followed the typography of _1611_.
But every case in which _1633_ is modified is recorded.
Of the _Second Anniversarie_, in like manner, my text is that of
_1633_, corrected in a few details, and with a few typographical
features borrowed, from the edition of _1612_. The editor of _1633_
had rather definite views of his own on punctuation, notably a
predilection for semicolons in place of full stops. The only certain
emendations which _1612_ supplies are in the marginal note at p.
234 and in l. 421 of the _Second Anniversarie_ 'this' for 'his'. The
spelling is less ambiguous in ll. 27 and 326.
[Footnote 1: _1621-25_ abound in misplaced full stops which
are not in _1611_ and are generally corrected in _1633_. The
punctuation of the later editions (_1635-69_) is the work of
the printer. Occasionally a comma is dropped or introduced
with advantage to the sense, but in general the punctuation
grows increasingly careless. Often the correction of one error
leads to another. ]
The subject of the _Anniversaries_ was the fifteen-year-old Elizabeth
Drury, who died in 1610. Her father, Sir Robert Drury, of Hawsted in
the county of Suffolk, was a man of some note on account of his great
wealth.
