quite as good reason for adhering strictly to the old letter in this instance as in that of then or of and. And the case is substantially the same in reference to a great many other words: in fact, I do not see how this principle of retention can consistently stop, till it shall have restored the old spelling altogether.

My own practice in this matter is, wherever any thing either of sense, or of rhythm, or of metre, or of rhyme, is involved, to retain the old forms or old spelling. For instance, the folio has eyne for eyes, and rhyming with mine; also denay for denial, and rhyming with say: it also has throughly for thoroughly, and thorough for through. Of course I should never think, probably no editor would think, of disturbing these archaisms, or such as these. Even when, as is often the case, there is no reason of metre or of rhyme for keeping them, they are essential items in the Poet's rhythm; for good prose has a rhythm of its own as well as verse. Now Shakespeare, especially in his verse, was evidently very particular and exact in the care of his rhythm and metre, and therefore of his syllables. The folio has almost numberless minute proofs and indications of this; and here, of course, the smaller the note, the more significance it bears as regards the Poet's habit and purpose. Perhaps there is no one point wherein this is oftener shown than in his very frequent elision of the article the, so as to make it coalesce with the preceding word into one syllable. So, especially in his later plays, there is almost no end to such elisions as by th', do th', for th', from th', on th', to th', &c.; and the folio has many instances of the double elision with' for with the. Now I hold, and have long held it important that, as far as practicable, these little things be carefully preserved, not only because they are essential parts of the Poet's verbal modulation, but also as significant notes or registers of his scrupulous and delicate attention to this element of his workman

ship. Yet the whole thing is totally ignored in all the recent editions that I am conversant with; all, with the one exception of Mr. Furness's latest volume, his King Lear, where it is carefully attended to. And right glad am I that it is; for, as I must think, it ought never to have been neglected.

But, in certain other points, -points where nothing of rhyme or metre or rhythm or sense is concerned, — I have pursued, and shall pursue, a somewhat different course. — It is well known to Shakespearians that the old text has some twelve or fifteen, perhaps more, instances of it used possessively, or where we should use its, the latter not being a current form in the Poet's time, though then just creeping into use. And so the English Bible, as originally printed in 1611, has not a single instance of its: it has, however, one or two, perhaps more, instances of it used in the same way. In these cases, all modern editions, so far as I know, print its, and are, I hold, unquestionably right in doing so. It is true, Shakespeare's old text has repeated instances of its, and these are more frequent in the later plays than in the earlier. And in most of these cases the folio prints it with an apostrophe, it's; though in two or three places, if not more, we there have it printed without the apostrophe.

In all these cases, whether of it or it's or its, I make no scruple whatever of printing simply its; though I sometimes call attention to the old usage in my Critical Notes. For, in truth, I can perceive no sort of sense or reason in retaining the possessive it in Shakespeare's text, or, at all events, in any presentation of it designed for common use. Yet we have some recent editing apparently taking no little credit to itself for keeping up and propagating this unmeaning and worthless bit of archaic usage; whereas the Poet himself was evidently impatient of it, as he shook himself more and more free from it, the riper he grew. Of course the same recent editing insists punctually on keeping the apostro

phized form, it's, wherever the folio prints it so. Surely there is no more reason for retaining the apostrophe here, than there is for omitting it in the numberless cases where the folio omits it; as in "like my brothers fault," and "against my brothers life." For all who have so much as looked into that volume must know that genitives and plurals are there commonly printed just alike. But, indeed, the retention of these archaisms seems to me no better than sheer idolatry or dotage of the old letter; all the arguments but those of pedantry or affectation drawing clean away from it. That an editor who stands rigidly on these points should nevertheless quite overlook other things of real weight, like those I pointed out a little before, may seem strange to some but I suspect it is all in course; for they who ride hobbies are apt to lose sight of every thing but the particular hobby they happen to be riding.

And now a word as to the ordering of the plays in this edition. The folio has them arranged in three distinct series, severally entitled Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies. The plays of the first and third series are there arranged seemingly at haphazard, and without any regard to the order of time in which they were written; those of the second or historic series, simply according to the chronological order of the persons and events represented in them; the three that were no doubt written first being thus placed after several that were of later composition. In this edition, the three series of the folio are kept distinct; but the several plays of each series are meant to be arranged, as nearly as may be, according to the chronological order of the writing. This is done merely because such appears to be the most natural and fitting principle of arrangement, and not that the Poet may be read or studied "historically"; a matter which is made a good deal of by some, but which, as it

seems to me, is really of no practical consequence whatever. Nor is it claimed that the actual order of the writing is precisely followed in every particular: in fact, this order has not yet been fully settled, and probably never will be; though, to be sure, something considerable has been done towards such settlement within the last few years.

I must not let this Preface go without expressing a very deep and lively sense of my obligations to Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY. The work of preparing this edition was set about in good earnest on the 23d of April, 1873, and has been the main burden of my thought and care ever since. From that time to the present, a frequent and steady correspondence, of the greatest use and interest to me, has been passing between Mr. Crosby and myself. The results thereof are in some measure made apparent in my Critical Notes, and still more in the foot-notes; but, after all, a very large, if not the larger, portion of the benefit I have received is not capable of being put in definite form, and having credit given for it in detail. Indeed, I owe him much, much in the shape of distinctlyusable matter, but more in the way of judicious counsel, kindly encouragement, and friendship steadfast and true.

CAMBRIDGE, August 2, 1880.