the book was ready. Wynkyn de Worde has evidently printed his edition of 1498 from Caxton's edition, though he does not give any statement to this effect. Either from Caxton's, but more likely from his own, he printed in 1529 his second, in fact the third, edition of "Le Morte Darthur." The copy of this last-mentioned edition, fully described on page 7, was the one from which the variations are quoted, simply because, in the first place, the interval between 1485 and 1498 is very small; and secondly, the copy of 1489) has many deficiencies, while that of 1529 only lacks Caxton's preface, and some passages of the table of contents which can be supplied from the contents preceding the single chapters. This edition deviates considerably, not only in orthography, from Caxton's, as will be seen from the list of various readings. Words are transposed, now and then added or omitted, and obsolete ones are frequently exchanged for more modern ones. Whether these variations are introduced by the compositors or by some person who read the proof-sheets must be left undecided, but in some instances the latter seems very probable. Copland's edition of 1559, the fourth in order, is not, as one would suppose, a reprint from Caxton but from W. de Worde's edition of 1529, which, on collation, was found to agree with it word for word and line for line, but not page for page, owing to the difference in size of the woodcuts which precede each book in the two copies. About 1585 Thomas East printed his two editions either from W. de Worde or Copland. The similarity of title in Copland's and East's editions inclines me to think that Copland's is the basis. Finally, the seventh and last black-letter edition, that of Thomas Stansby, 1634, in spite of the different arrangement of the book, some arbitrary alterations and omissions, not to speak of slight differences orthographical and otherwise, is a reprint of East's folio, as the following reasons show: firstly, as already stated by Thomas Wright in his introduction, Stansby's edition wants the contents of one leaf in East's folio edition. (According to Caxton: part of chap. ii., the whole of chap. iii., and almost the whole of chap. iv. of Book XIV.)' This leaf bears in East's folio the signature Dd, 1 Th. Wright has supplied the deficient leaf from Caxton. The editor of the "Morte Arthur" of 1816, in 2 vols., leaves the passage out without mentioning this fact and has, as well as Dd,, the same catch-word, "but." It begins with the words "but by waye of kyndness and for good," and ends: "for a good horse would befeme you right well but." The coincidence of the two leaves having the same catch-word easily explains the printer's oversight, but at the same time it reveals the mechanical and careless nature of the reprint. Secondly, By the reproduction of some misprints, i.e., in Book XXI. chapter xiii. East prints: as Iefu helpe me for hys grete mygte as he is the feruaunt of Iefu both day and night." It ought to run, and so indeed Caxton prints "as Iefu helpe him," &c. Stansby has faithfully reproduced this blunder. : As to the five modern editions, three are reprinted from the edition of 1634-namely, the two 1816 and that of 1856; and two from the original Caxton, that of Southey, 1817, and that of Sir E. Strachey, 1868. The table on p. 18 gives graphically an idea of the relation of the editions to each other: On the Plate facing this page I have, for the sake of illustration, reprinted side by side short passages selected by chance from the principal editions: they will show better than a description the relation the texts bear to one another. THE PRESENT EDITION. HE present edition of Malory's "Le Morte Darthur" follows the original impression of Caxton in every respect (save that Roman type has been substituted for Black letter) with absolute fidelity, word for word, line for line, and page for page, and with some exceptions, which are stated below, letter for letter. Black letter has been retained for the chapter headings and at the close of each book, in order to relieve the monotony of the page, but it has not been thought necessary to use Caxton's type in this case. As far as the different type permitted even peculiarities are exactly imitated, e.g., at all (comp. vol. ii. p. 244). In the three-volume reprint the missing part is supplied, most likely from East's, but with the spelling modernised. The passages in question (pp. 111, 112, 113, 114 of the third volume) are marked by asterisks, but no note or remark alludes to the deficiency. VOL. II. B |