Prolusions; or, select Pieces of antient Poetry,-- compil'd with great Care from their several Originals, and offer'd to the Publick as Specimens of the Integrity that should be found in the Editions of worthy Authors,-- in three Parts; containing, I. The notbrowne Mayde; Master Sackvile's Induction; and, Overbury's Wife: II. Edward the third, a Play, thought to be writ by Shakespeare: III. Those excellent didactic Poems, intitl'd -- Nosce teipsum, written by Sir John Davis: with a Preface.

London: Printed for J. and R. Tonson..., 1760. FIRST AND ONLY EDITION. 8vo, 181 x 110 mms., pp. [iv], xi [xii blank], 23 [24 - 26 notes], 23 [24 -26 notes], 13 [14 - 15 notes, 16 blank], 93 [94 - 101 notes, 102 blank], [6], 81 [82 - 84 notes], contemporary calf, spine ornately gilt in compartments, black leather label; front joint slightly cracked, upper rear joint very slightly cracked, but a good copy with the armorial bookplate of Hugo (1738-1808) master of the royal staghounds in 1770 and 1772 as well as fox-hunting, a sport that he effectively transformed, and he was unanimously hailed as the foremost fox-hunter in the kingdom. He was also MP of Quarn Hall. � Capell's edition was one of the first books printed in England to omit catchwords and to be printed on wove paper. Capell's rigorous editorial standards have more in common with modern textual criticism than the editorial attitudes of most of his contemporaries; his was the first text of Edward III to be published since 1599, though it seems unlikely that Shakespeare wrote it, even in part. Capell published his edition of Shakespeare in 1767 - 1768; his editorial procedures there and in Prolusions are the starting-point for modern editions of Shakespeare. The distinguished Shakespearian (and it was Capell who coined the word "Shakespearian") scholar, Alice Walker, in a superb commentary on Capell, concluded of his work, that "A lifetime's work on the methods to be used in editing our best authors, had, in fact, qualified Capell to speak with authority on many subjects, and his opinions were neither rashly formed nor lightly held. Nonetheless he has never had the general recognition he merits. It is understandable that contemporaries with less exacting standards should find it easier to scoff at his aims than to emulate them, but it is less understandable that his originality and perception should still receive so little attention" (Proceedings of the British Academy, 46 [1960], 131 - 145).