The principles upon which I have proceeded in re-editing the text
require somewhat fuller explanation. Dryden never superintended any
complete edition of his works, but on the other hand there is evidence
in his letters that he bestowed considerable pains on them when they
first passed through the press. The first editions have therefore in
every case been followed, though they have been corrected in case of
need by the later ones. But the adoption of this standard leaves
unsettled the problem of orthography, punctuation, etc. I have adopted a
solution of this which will not, I fear, be wholly agreeable to some of
my friends. Capital letters, apostrophes, and the like, will be looked
for in vain. It would, I need hardly say, have been much less trouble to
put copies of the original editions into the hands of the printers, to
bid them "follow copy," and to content myself with seeing that the
reprint was faithful. The result would have been, to a very small number
of professed students of English literature, an interesting example of
the changes which printers' spelling underwent in the last forty years
of the seventeenth century. But it would have been a nuisance and a
stumbling-block to the ordinary reader, in whose way it is certainly not
the business of the editor of a great English classic to throw stones of
offence. Where a writer has written in a distinctly archaic form of
language, as in the case of all English writers before the Renaissance,
adherence to the original orthography is necessary and right. Even in
the so-called Elizabethan age, where a certain archaism of phrase
survives, the appreciation of temporal and local colour may be helped by
such an adherence. But Dryden is in every sense a modern. His list of
obsolete words is insignificant, of archaic phrases more insignificant
still, of obsolete constructions almost a blank. If any journalist or
reviewer were to write his to-morrow's leader or his next week's article
in a style absolutely modelled on Dryden, no one would notice anything