I
have accepted Professor Norton as the sole author of the
commentary.
have accepted Professor Norton as the sole author of the
commentary.
John Donne
The three first _Satyres_ Dr.
Grosart printed from Harleian MS. 5110 (_H51_); and he used
other sources for the poems he ascribed to Donne. It cannot
be said that he always recorded accurately the readings of
the manuscript from which he printed. I have made no effort to
record all the differences between Grosart's text and my own.
The description of the editions which Grosart gives at ii, p.
liii is amazingly inaccurate, considering that he claimed to
have collated 'all the early and later printed editions'. He
describes _1639_, _1649_, _1650_, and _1654_ as identical
with one another, and declares that the younger Donne is
responsible only for _1669_, which appeared after his death. ]
[Footnote 37: _The Poems of John Donne From The Text of The
Edition of 1633 Revised By James Russell Lowell With The
Various Readings of The Other Editions Of The Seventeenth
Century, And With A Preface, An Introduction, And Notes By
Charles Eliot Norton. New York. _ 1895. In preparing the
text from Lowell's copy of _1633_, emended in pencil by him,
Professor Norton was assisted by Mrs. Burnett, the daughter
of Mr. Lowell. As I could not apportion the responsibility for
the text I have spoken throughout my textual notes and remarks
of 'the Grolier Club editor' (_Grolier_ for short).
I
have accepted Professor Norton as the sole author of the
commentary. For instances where the punctuation has been
altered, and the meaning, in my opinion, obscured, I may refer
to the textual notes on _The Legacie_ (p. 20), _The Dreame_
(p. 37), _A nocturnall upon S. Lucies day_ (p. 45). But I have
cited and discussed most of the cases in which I disagree with
the Grolier Club editors. It is for readers to judge whether
at times they may not be right, and I have gone astray.
The Grolier Club edition only came into my hands when I had
completed my first collation of the printed texts. Had I known
it sooner, or had the edition been more accessible, I should
probably not have ventured on the arduous task of editing
Donne. It is based on the best text, and the editors have been
happier than most in their interpretation and punctuation of
the more difficult passages.
Professor Norton made no use of the manuscripts in preparing
the text, but he added in an appendix an account of the
manuscript which, following him, I have called _N_, and
he gave a list of variants which seemed to him possible
emendations. Later, in the _Child Memorial Volume_ of _Studies
and Notes in Philology and Literature_ (1896), he gave a
somewhat fuller description of _N_ and descriptions of _S_
(the Stephens MS. ) and _Cy_ (the Carnaby MS. ). Of the readings
which Professor Norton noted, several have passed into
my edition on the authority of a wider collation of the
manuscripts.
Grosart printed from Harleian MS. 5110 (_H51_); and he used
other sources for the poems he ascribed to Donne. It cannot
be said that he always recorded accurately the readings of
the manuscript from which he printed. I have made no effort to
record all the differences between Grosart's text and my own.
The description of the editions which Grosart gives at ii, p.
liii is amazingly inaccurate, considering that he claimed to
have collated 'all the early and later printed editions'. He
describes _1639_, _1649_, _1650_, and _1654_ as identical
with one another, and declares that the younger Donne is
responsible only for _1669_, which appeared after his death. ]
[Footnote 37: _The Poems of John Donne From The Text of The
Edition of 1633 Revised By James Russell Lowell With The
Various Readings of The Other Editions Of The Seventeenth
Century, And With A Preface, An Introduction, And Notes By
Charles Eliot Norton. New York. _ 1895. In preparing the
text from Lowell's copy of _1633_, emended in pencil by him,
Professor Norton was assisted by Mrs. Burnett, the daughter
of Mr. Lowell. As I could not apportion the responsibility for
the text I have spoken throughout my textual notes and remarks
of 'the Grolier Club editor' (_Grolier_ for short).
I
have accepted Professor Norton as the sole author of the
commentary. For instances where the punctuation has been
altered, and the meaning, in my opinion, obscured, I may refer
to the textual notes on _The Legacie_ (p. 20), _The Dreame_
(p. 37), _A nocturnall upon S. Lucies day_ (p. 45). But I have
cited and discussed most of the cases in which I disagree with
the Grolier Club editors. It is for readers to judge whether
at times they may not be right, and I have gone astray.
The Grolier Club edition only came into my hands when I had
completed my first collation of the printed texts. Had I known
it sooner, or had the edition been more accessible, I should
probably not have ventured on the arduous task of editing
Donne. It is based on the best text, and the editors have been
happier than most in their interpretation and punctuation of
the more difficult passages.
Professor Norton made no use of the manuscripts in preparing
the text, but he added in an appendix an account of the
manuscript which, following him, I have called _N_, and
he gave a list of variants which seemed to him possible
emendations. Later, in the _Child Memorial Volume_ of _Studies
and Notes in Philology and Literature_ (1896), he gave a
somewhat fuller description of _N_ and descriptions of _S_
(the Stephens MS. ) and _Cy_ (the Carnaby MS. ). Of the readings
which Professor Norton noted, several have passed into
my edition on the authority of a wider collation of the
manuscripts.
