n as the Poet's
last presentment of his work, lies in the fact that there are passages
in it which are not in the Quarto, and are very plainly from his hand.
If we accept these, what right have we to regard the omission from the
Folio of passages in the Quarto as not proceeding from the same hand?
Had there been omissions only, we might well have doubted; but the
insertions greatly tend to remove the doubt. I cannot even imagine the
arguments which would prevail upon me to accept the latter and refuse
the former. Omission itself shows for a master-hand: see the magnificent
passage omitted, and rightly, by Milton from the opening of his _Comus_.

'But when a man has published two forms of a thing, may we not judge
between him and himself, and take the reading we like better?'
Assuredly. Take either the Quarto or the Folio; both are Shakspere's.
Take any reading from either, and defend it. But do not mix up the two,
retaining what he omits along with what he inserts, and print them so.
This is what the editors do--and the thing is not Shakspere's. With
homage like this, no artist could be other than indignant. It is well to
show every difference, even to one of spelling where it might indicate
possibly a different word, but there ought to be no mingling of
differences. If I prefer the reading of the Quarto to that of the Folio,
as may sometimes well happen where blunders so abound, I say I
_prefer_--I do not dare to substitute. My student shall owe nothing of
his text to any but the editors of the Folio, John Heminge and Henrie
Condell.

I desire to take him with me. I intend a continuous, but ever-varying,
while one-ended lesson. We shall follow the play step by step, avoiding
almost nothing that suggests difficulty, and noting everything that
seems to throw light on the character of a person of the drama. The
pointing I consider a matter to be dealt with as any one pleases--for
the sake of sense, of more sense, of better sense, as much as if the
text were a Greek manuscript without any division of words. This
position I need not argue with anyone who has given but a cursory glance
to the original page, or knows anything of printers' pointing. I hold
hard by the word, for that is, or may be, grain: the pointing as we have
it is merest chaff, and more likely to be wrong than right. Here also,
however, I change nothing in the text, only suggest in the notes. Nor do
I remark on any of the pointing where all that is require