Shakespeare's Sonnets Reconsidered [antikvár]

Note to the New EditionButler's book on Shakespeare's Sonnets appeared in October 1899 under the title Shakespeare's Sonnets reconsidered.) and in fart rearranged; with introductory chapters.) notes., and a re-print oj the original 1609 edition.Butler states in his Preface (p. xii, post) that for his reprint of the 1609 edition he followed Mr. Tyler's facsimile. This is a facsimile in photo-lithography which was published in 1886 by C. Praetorius ; it is no. 30 of the Shakspere-Quarto facsimiles and has an introduction by Thomas Tyler. For the new edition a photographic reproduction from the Grenville copy in the British Museum has been substituted for Butler's type facsimile. This has some marks on it in ink which, of course, appear in the facsimile, but which are sufficiently extraneous not to confuse the reader.In the facsimile of the edition of 1609 printed with the first edition of this book " A Lover's Complaint " is omitted ; in this edition it is given. Further, Butler gave, in his facsimile, the number of each sonnet in his re-arrangement after the Q number ; this has not been done in the present edition, but two comparative tables of the Sonnets in Q and in Butler's re-arrangement are added.Otherwise the present edition is a faithful reprint of the first, with the correction of numerous misprints and mistakes of quotation and reference, and with the addition of a few notes gleaned from Butler's papers.1927.H.F.J.A.T.B.Preface to the First EditionI was led to take up the thorny questions which Shakespeare's Sonnets so abundantly raise, by the appearance of two articles in the Fortnightly Review for December 1897 and February 1898. In the first of these, Mr. William Archer, inclining to the theory that the Mr. W. H. of Thorpe's prefatory address was William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (which involves that the Sonnets were mainly inspired by him), showed how baseless was the contention that most, or indeed any, of them were addressed to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. In the second of the articles above referred to, Mr. Sidney Lee, inclining to the theory that many of the Sonnets were addressed to Lord Southampton, showed how baseless was the contention that Mr. W. H. could have been Lord Pembroke, and declared him to have been a mere go-between, who procured the copy for Thomas Thorpe, the publisher.Convinced that neither Mr. Archer nor Mr. Lee had made out a case, except in so far as each of them was destructive of the other, and fired by the success which, I believe, the simple method of studying text much and commentators little, had obtained for me as regards the Odyssey, it occurred to me that the Sonnets off^ered a problem on which the same method might be hopefully tried. My mind was a blank in respect of them, for it was many years since I had given them any attention ; I resolved, therefore, that as soon as my translation of the Iliad was off my hands, I would treat the Sonnets much as I had done the Odyssey, and as a preliminary measure began to commit them all to memory. By September 1898 I had them at myix