the Library of Trinity College supplied a mass of material
almost unrivalled in amount and value, and in some points unique; and
there, too, might be found opportunities for combined literary labour,
without which the work could not be executed at all. At least, if
undertaken by one person only, many years of unremitting diligence would
be required for its completion.

The first step towards the realization of the project was taken in the
spring of 1860, when the first act of _Richard the Second_ was printed
by way of specimen, with a preface signed 'W. G. Clark' and 'H. R.
Luard,'[1] where the principles, on which the proposed Edition should be
based, were set forth with the view 'of obtaining opinions as to the
feasibility of the plan, and suggestions as to its improvement.'

All the persons who answered this appeal expressed their warm approval
of the general plan, and many favoured us with suggestions as to
details, which we have either adopted, or at least not rejected without
careful and respectful consideration.

Since our work was commenced, we have learned that the need of such an
Edition has presented itself, independently, to the minds of many
literary men, and that a similar undertaking was recommended as long ago
as 1852, by Mr Bolton Corney, in _Notes and Queries_, Vol. VI. pp. 2, 3;
and again by a correspondent of the same journal who signs himself
'Este,' Vol. VIII. p. 362.

This concurrence of opinion leads us to hope that our Edition will be
found to supply a real want, while, at the same time, the novelty of its
plan will exempt us from all suspicion of a design to supersede, or even
compete with, the many able and learned Editors who have preceded us in
the same field.

We will first proceed to explain the principles upon which we have
prepared our text.

A. _With respect to the Readings._

The basis of all texts of Shakespeare must be that of the earliest
Edition of the collected plays, the Folio of 1623, which, for more easy
reference, we have designated F1[2]. This we have mainly adopted, unless
there exists an earlier edition in quarto, as is the case in more than
one half of the thirty-six plays. When the first Folio is corrupt, we
have allowed some authority to the emendations of F2 above subsequent
conjecture, and secondarily to F3 and F4; but a reference to our notes
will show that the authority even of F2 in correcting is very small.
Where we have Quartos of authority, their variat