teenth century Folios, the Globe edition, and that of Delius.
As compared with the text of the earlier editions of Hudson's
Shakespeare, it is conservative. Exclusive of changes in spelling,
punctuation, and stage directions, very few emendations by eighteenth
century and nineteenth century editors have been adopted; and these,
with every variation from the First Folio, are indicated in the textual
notes. These notes are printed immediately below the text so that a
reader or student may see at a glance the evidence in the case of a
disputed reading and have some definite understanding of the reasons for
those differences in the text of Shakespeare which frequently surprise
and very often annoy. A consideration of the more poetical, or the more
dramatically effective, of two variant readings will often lead to rich
results in awakening a spirit of discriminating interpretation and in
developing true creative criticism. In no sense is this a textual
variorum edition. The variants given are only those of importance and
high authority.

The spelling and the punctuation of the text are modern, except in the
case of verb terminations in _-ed_, which, when the _e_ is silent, are
printed with the apostrophe in its place. This is the general usage in
the First Folio. Modern spelling has to a certain extent been followed
in the text variants; but the original spelling has been retained
wherever its peculiarities have been the basis for important textual
criticism and emendation.

With the exception of the position of the textual variants, the plan of
this edition is similar to that of the old Hudson Shakespeare. It is
impossible to specify the various instances of revision and
rearrangement in the matter of the Introduction and the interpretative
notes, but the endeavor has been to retain all that gave the old edition
its unique place and to add the results of what seems vital and
permanent in later inquiry and research.

While it is important that the principle of _suum cuique_ be attended to
so far as is possible in matters of research and scholarship, it is
becoming more and more difficult to give every man his own in
Shakespearian annotation. The amount of material accumulated is so great
that the identity-origin of much important comment and suggestion is
either wholly lost or so crushed out of shape as to be beyond
recognition. Instructive significance perhaps attaches to this in
editing the works of one who quietly made