wretched musical entertainment,' The Camp, the authorship of which is now universally assigned to Thomas Tickell), and his text is certainly superior to that of the plays as separately published. Even in the case of The School for Scandal, where the Dublin edition in some cases corresponds more closely to Sheridan's early drafts, of which portions have been preserved to us, Moore's text is greatly preferable, and as Sheridan's letter to Ridgway shows that he had himself at times tried to tinker at the play, it is reasonable to believe that Moore had authority for his alterations. In any case there are few men whose judgment on what Sheridan was likely to have written is more to be respected. In this edition, therefore, Moore's text has been followed, but in the matter of proof-reading Moore himself was probably no more careful than Sheridan, and here and there obvious corrections have been made. Thus in Act III. Sc. 2 (last line of p. 50) all editions that have been consulted inform us that Julia is coming too,' where coming to' is an emendation made certain by Jerome's inquiry, What, does she come to?' in The Duenna (p. 158). So on p. 92 the exclamation 'Hah!—no faith,' attributed to Sir Lucius by the first edition and Moore, as if he were accusing Faulkland and Absolute of breaking their appointment, must surely be read as 'Hah!-No, faith!' to introduce the 'I think I see them coming' by which it is followed. That in Sir Oliver's remark (p. 227), 'I hate to see prudence clinging to the green suckers of youth,' 'suckers' has been printed instead of 'succours,' and that in the closing tag the dear maid' is made to 'waive' instead of to 'wave' her 'beauty's sway,' are alterations for which no apology is needed, though not all editors have been at the pains to make them. In Sir Peter's remark at the opening of Act III., 'I don't see the jet of your scheme,' the substitution of 'gist' for the old-fashioned 'jet' is less excusable. But in a recent separate edition of this play, and a very good one, 'jet' has been replaced by 'jest,' and to avoid such a confusion in any reader's mind it seemed better to give up the old form. In a popular edition, to mark small corrections such as these by footnotes would be pedantic, but readers may be assured that editorial meddling has been confined to what is absolutely necessary. A. W. P. |