THE ARDEN SHAKESPEARE THE ARDEN EDITION OF THE WORKS OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE All's Well That Ends Well: edited by G. K. Hunter Antony and Cleopatra: edited by M. R. Ridley As You Like It: edited by Agnes Latham The Comedy of Errors: edited by R . A. Foakes Coriolanus: edited by Philip Brockbank Cymbeline: edited by J. M . Nosworthy HAMLET Hamlet: edited by Harold Jenkins Julius Caesar: edited by T . S. Dorsch King Henry IV, Parts I & 2: edited by A. R . Humphreys King Henry V: edited by J. H. Walter King Henry VI, Parts I, 2 & 3: edited by Andrew S. Cairncross King Henry VIII: edited by R. A. Foakes Edited by King John: edited by E. A. J. Honigmann King Lear: edited by Kenneth Muir HAROLD JENKINS King Richard II: edited by Peter Vre King Richard Ill: edited by Antony Hammond Love's Labour's Lost: edited by Richard David Macbeth: edited by Kenneth Muir Measure for Measure: edited by J. W. Lever The Merchant of Venice: edited by J ohn Russell Brown The Merry Wives of Windsor: edited by H. J. Oliver A Midsummer Night'S Dream: edited by Harold F. Brooks Much Ado About Nothing: edited by A. R . H umphreys Othello: edited by M. R. Ridler Pericles: edited by F. D. Hoeniger The Poems: edited by F. T. Prince Romeo and Juliet: edited by Brian Gibbons The Taming of the Shrew: edited by Brian Morris The Tempest: edited by Frank Kermode Timon of Athens: edited by H . J. Oliver Titus Andronicus: edited by J. C. Maxwell Troilus and Cressida: edited by K. J. Palmer Twelfth Night: edited by J. M. Lothian and T. W. Craik The Two Gentlemen of Verona: edited by Clifford Leech METHUEN The Winter's Tale: edited by J. H. P. Pafford LONDON AND NEW YORK ~s.\7jJ 71 HAMLET INTRODUCTION 75 Press correction Q2 as the most authoritative text, is based primarily upon it. Extant copics of the Folio show press correction on eight pages of Earlier editors, who tcnded to follow F, still ofcourse incorporated Hamlet; but whatever the bibliographical interest of Ihis, it is of from Q 2 or its descendants passages which F lacks; and since scant te'xtual significance. The corrector was evidently less can. some at least of these were apparently cut before the foul papers ccrncd with accuracy than tidiness. He attended to obvious mis~ were transcribed (see abovc, p. 43), it is as well to recognize that prints and little typographical faults like turned letters a nd inked th e edi torial tradition fmm Rowe on has always included things quads; but it is apparent that he neither checked proofwilh copy which, though indubitably of Shakespeare's composition, wcrc nor made any serious attempt to discover or emend errors. Three probably nevcr spoken on the stage. In sccking to present the limes wrong or defective punctuation is put rigbt ; occasionally playas Shakespeare wrotc it rallier than as it was shortened and spelling is alLererl, most notably when the maimed burial rights adapted for pcrun·mance I do no morc than follow tradition. morc properly become rite.s (V .i.2I2). The only genuinely sub­ Even those who insist that a play is created only in the lheatre stantive variant is the correction of lalu to thanke at IJ. ii. 83. The would hardly, I think, prefer the contrary procedure ; and those existence in the uncorrected state of a page: set by Compositor E who like to imaginc that some passages were cut by Shakespeare and containing one wrong word-division and one rejected spell ing himself! will not quarrel with their rctention. While foll owing (a sunder, Crocodile) which also occur in Q2 is important as Q 2'S fuller version, I naturally include also anything pre~ rved corroborating the usc OfQ2. t Full details of the variants are given in F which I take 10 havc hcen lost from Q2; btl t all words and in Hinman, i.30I- 4. phrases in F which I judge 10 be playhou~e additions to the dialogue (sec above, pp. 62- 3) I omit.. Some readers may regret 4· THE EDITORIAL PR O BLEM AND THE PRESENT T~XT the disappearance of some words - like the exclamations '0 Vengeance' at II. ii. 577 and 'Ecsta!;y' at m. iv. 142 - whieh have The tex tual situation discusscd above confronts an cditor with the become part of the familiar text; but an editor who sees no reason following complications. Of three texts, each of the last two, for attributing them to Shakespeare while recognizing that they though largely substantive, owes something to its prcdecessor, often disturb metreftfrdT'lllnatic..scnSG-or-bgth.J: ' crnatiVC )' while the first, the only wholly independent text, has all the but to reject thel"ft Yct decision is sometimcs diJ(jeult as with unreliability of a memorial reconstruction. Q 2, the onc which IV. ii . '29, 'hide Fox, and all after alid v:tt"'18 , laue 1, a touch') ; stands closcst to the author, lcaves obscure a number ofpassases and where words occurring in F only arc more easily attributable which arc n o t rep re~e nted in the ",9..llrr1.wtiiiii ilr. 1fieseincludC to Shakespeare tha n to the actors (as with III. i. 32, 'lawful ( some, though not all'0)flnc Tamous cruxes (cf. above, p. 55). On espials) I accep' 'he yrobabjli'y of omissipJ1 bY-the Q2 the other hand, F contains passages not in Q 2 whieh are certainly composItors.. - ­ I authentic as well as incidental additions almos t as certainly On 01ea.'i.'iumption that F inherits from a corrected quarl.o:-Tt\ spl.ll'iou s. In thc matter of variant rcadings, since F as well as Qr might in theory be expected to give the bettcr text. Sometimes, } reflects playhouse deviation from the Shakespearean original, agreement bctween thcse two does not authenticate a reading I. But st.'C abovc, p. 43 , n. I, pp. 55- 6. against Q2; and in view (}f Q 2'S partial dcpendence on QI, 2. For ruller justificOltion see SB, X III, 3'-47, esp. 4:2 - 3. Thc ucmon ~Slralion there ofthcall·ical accretiOIls hall, I think, been generally accepted . Some r('cr:nl a~'1"eernCnt he tween those two, especially in the first act, does not cditors (notably H oy, but a1:s0 in part Evans) have ai rcOldy 1xC.II pcrsuadw to authenticale a reading against I" . M oreover, with 1~ also de­ drop lhcm. The sole articulate ubjector to their omission - 0 11 th t ground thai pendent on Q2, agreement even between the two good texts what arises in performance- becumes an integral part of" the play - should in affords no guarantee, and it is obviously possible for all three texts logic wckollic with them F's cuts and cast-reductions (to say nothing of its memorial corruptiuns). No doubt he will approvc the Penguin c:ditor's in­ [0 be wrong together. The most famous instance of this is the dU!lion of an added piece of dialogue known only to the I'cported text Q" word pollox ( I '~ Pol/ax) at I. i. 66; but the crux at l. iii . 74, 'ofa most pcrhaJ>!i evcn sbare the pleasure of one reviewer in being thws given ' morc se lcc,', may be another. Hamiel ' for his money than ever before. Thc metaphysical qucstion uf what This edition, l.ike mos t others sincc Dover Wilson established lJamlel is is not one to be gone into here. Hul there may be something: to be said I. C( above, p. 66. for idemifying Shake:spc1lrc'S Hamlet with whatlhcre is evidence to believe thai Shakespeare wrote. , \ ~V 6 HAMLET \~ (.; INTROD UCTION ~p 77 as has been shown (pp. sg-60) , it does; but its reliability is of sidera tion in future tha n they havc always had; but the ques­ course no hig her than that of the manuscript it draws upon ; and tioned readings here are certainly defen sible and en·or nO more / si nce ulis was evidentl y at a greater remove froIll the aULOgra ph, than possible. Some textual scholars busy themsr.lves with calcula­ its 'corrocri ns' were in fact often corruptions, while the actual tions of the probable number of errors ; but sobering as stati stics process ofcorrectIng and per aps Iransc ri'bmgy; however carried may be, since they cannot locate the errors they presume, they Qut , gave opportunit y for more. Where variants appear to be in­ hardly authorize much looscning ofeditorial restraint. 1 It remains IdifIcrcnt lh«~ belief that Q2 rests on the foul papers naturally true that, even though F cannot corroborate Q2 in what it may \ gives it preference. ut the editor must be eclectic ; every va...riillJ.t­ have derived from it, agreement between them will more oftcn imposes upon him the lOesca)~ es . ¥-D hQicc... My be due to their both being rig ht than to the handing on of a juagmcnt WI1 0 te n confirm that of my predecessors but will mistake. [n some cascs, howevcr, as at I. iii. 74 (where all three occasionally go against it, as when I unhesitatingly follow Q2 at texts cha llenge if they do not positively defy both sense and #Il.ii.553 (her ) and F a t v.i.78 (o'rt O.1Jices) . uch decilions will metre) what most prevents editorial intervention is the laek of usuallY... be defeuded i" Ihc notes. Upon occasIon 0 1 variants any proposal for a plausible alternative.