reason for this opinion is that if the Play had been long a popular one, and had been frequently represented, the printer or publisher would have had many opportunities of procuring a more accurate copy than that from which the edition of 1603 was made. The errors of this edition, and the manifest haste with which it was printed, seem to show that the Play had been acted only a short time before, and that the publisher went to press with the first copy he could obtain, however imperfect. This supposition is favored by the expression in the Stationers' Register, 'as it was lately acted,' which would hardly have been used of a play which had long been popular. . . .

After a careful examination of Q,, and a comparison of the Play as there exhibited with its later form, we have arrived at a conclusion which, inasmuch as it is conjectural, and based to a large extent upon subjective considerations, we state with some diffidence. It is this:-That there was an old play on the story of Hamlet, some portions of which are still preserved in Q,; that about the year 1602 Shakespeare took this and began to remodel it for the stage, as he had done with other plays; that Q represents the Play after it had been retouched by him to a certain extent, but before his alterations were complete; and that in Q, we have for the first time the Hamlet of Shakespeare. It is quite true, as Knight has remarked that in the Quarto of 1603 we have the whole 'action' of the Play; that is to say, the events follow very much the same order, and the catastrophe is the same. There are, however, some important modifications even in this respect. The scene with Ophelia which in the modern Play occurs in III, i, is in the older form introduced in the middle of II, ii. Polonius is Corambis in the older Play, and Reynaldo is Montano. The madness of Hamlet is much more pronounced, and the Queen's innocence of her husband's murder much more explicitly stated, in the earlier than in the later Play. In fact, the earlier Play in these respects corresponds more closely with the original story. In the earlier form it appears to us that Shakespeare's modifications of the Play had not gone much beyond the Second Act. Certainly in the Third Act we find very great unlikeness and very great inferiority to the later Play. In fact, in the First, Third, and Fourth Scenes there is hardly a trace of Shakespeare, and in the Second, which is the scene where the Play is introduced, there are very remarkable differences. The Fourth Act, in language, has very little in common with its present form, and in the First Scene of the Fifth Act there are still some traces of the original Play. In the Second Scene of this Act the dialogue between Hamlet and Horatio is not found, and the interview with Osric in its old dress may fairly be put down to the earlier writer. The rest of the scene is much altered, and of course improved, and wherever these improvements come it strikes us with irresistible force that in comparing the later with the earlier form of the Play we are not comparing the work of Shakespeare at two different periods of his life, but the work of Shakespeare with that of a very inferior artist. If any one desires to be convinced of this, let him read the interview of Hamlet with his mother in the two Quartos of 1603 and 1604. Going backward, we come to the Second Act, and here the First Scene is so imperfectly given in Q, that it is impossible to say what it really represented. Here and there a line occurs as it now stands, but on the whole it is very defective, and appears to have been set down from memory. The opening of the Second Scene is changed, and in Q, seems to belong to the original Play; on the other hand, the speeches of Corambis (Polonius) and Voltemar (Voltimand) are nearly verbatim the same as the later edition. The rest of the scene is altered and much improved. The First Act is substantially the same in the two editions, allowing for

the extremely imperfect and careless manner in which it is given in Q, The First Scene is fairly rendered; the speeches of Marcellus and Horatio being, so far as they go, almost word for word the same as in Q2, where the dialogue is expanded. In the Second Scene the speeches are very imperfect, and it is difficult to say how far they represent the earlier or the later Play; Hamlet's soliloquy is sadly mutilated, as if written down in fragments from memory, but in the interview with Horatio the early Quarto agrees closely with the later. The Third and Fourth Scenes are badly reported, but otherwise contain the groundwork of the present Play; and Hamlet's address to the Ghost is given almost verbatim, as is the dialogue which follows. In the Fifth Scene the order of the dialogue is slightly altered, but not materially changed, and Hamlet's soliloquy after the Ghost's disappearance is very much mutilated. The interview with Marcellus and Horatio is but little altered. In conclusion, we venture to think that a close examination of Q, will convince any one that it contains some of Shakespeare's undoubted work, mixed with a great deal that is not his, and will confirm our theory that the text, imperfect as it is, represents an older play in a transition state, while it was undergoing a remodelling, but had not received more than the first rough touches of the great master's hand.'

So great was the popularity of this tragedy that in the year following the publication of Q, another edition was issued. This THIRD QUARTO is not, correctly speaking, a new edition. It is merely a reprint of the Second Quarto. The title-pages of the two editions are identical except in date. The CAMBRIDGE EDITORS say that it was printed from the same forms as Q2, and differing from it no more than one copy of the same edition may differ from another.' In this assertion I think the range of books should be restricted to the Elizabethan printing-offices; the differences that are often found between two copies of the same edition issued in those early days are matters of common experience. But in modern times two copies of the same edition, 'printed from the same forms,' would hardly, perhaps, vary as much from each other as Q, varies from Q2. For instance, I have found the following changes (be it remembered that I have collated Ashbee's Facsimiles, not the originals):

In V, ii, 154, the addition of 'might' in Q, 'drove over' a word in each succeeding line of the speech. The lines, in this passage, therefore, do not correspond in the two Quartos.

That eight out of twelve should occur in the last scene of the last Act is note. worthy. They are all trifling in quality, and may stand in numbers, yet in reck

VOL II-3

oning none.' When it is considered that these twelve are all the variations to be found in more than two thousand lines, the quantity approximates the infinitely small, and may be neglected; practically, therefore, Q, is identical with Q2, and if the work of collation for this edition were to be repeated Q, would be omitted from

the list.

HALLIWELL says: If the initials I. R. [in the imprint of both Q, and Q2] are those, as is most likely, of James Roberts, there must have been some friendly arrangement between him and Ling respecting the ownership of the copyright, which certainly now belonged to the latter, as appears from the following entry on the books of the Stationers' Company:

[1607.] 19 Novembris.

John Smythick Entred for his copies vnder th[e h]andes of the wardens, these bookes followinge Whiche dyd belonge to Nicholas Lynge [No] 6 A booke called HAMLETT. .. vjd Accordingly, after this date all succeeding Quartos were published by John Smeth

wicke.

The FOURTH QUARTO appeared in 1611. On its title-page it is called 'The Tragedy of Hamlet,' instead of The Tragicall Hiftorie of Hamlet,' as the preceding Quartos have it. Otherwise, it is the same (Coppie' is here spelled Coppy'), except the imprint, which reads: Printed for John Smethwicke, and are to be fold at his shoppe | in Saint Dunstons Church yeard in Fleetstreet. | Vnder the Diall. 1611.

It is, perhaps, worth while to note here some variations which occur in two dif ferent copies of this same edition:

In every instance ASHBEE'S facsimile agrees with the Editor's copy. The first four of these variations occur on the same page; and all add one more to the numberless proofs that in the old printing-offices the sheets were corrected while going through the press. The copy of the Cambridge Editors is therefore the older of the two it may be but by a few minutes. The unfortunate (or should we not say fortunate?) inference to be drawn from such facts as these points to the uselessness of minute collation.

The copy which has been used for the present edition formerly belonged to George Daniel, and was secured at the sale of Sir William Tite's library in 1875.

There is a FIFTH QUARTO, undated, whereof the title-page reads: The Tragedy | of | Hamlet | Prince of Denmarke. | Newly Imprinted and inlarged, according to the true and perfect Copy laftly Printed. | By | William Shakespeare. | London, | Printed by W. S. for Iohn Smethwicke, and are to be fold at his Shop in Saint Dunftans Church-yard in Fleetftreet: | Vnder the Diall.

This edition MALONE (Var. 1821, ii, 652) believes was printed in 1607, because in that year the transfer to John Smethwicke was made in the Stationers' Registers, in the entry just quoted. For the same reason HALLIWELL thinks that it was 'possibly printed about 1609.' But the CAMBRIDGE EDITORS say: 'We are convinced, however, that the undated Quarto was printed from that of 1611,'-a conviction to which, I think, all will come who carefully examine the collation recorded in the first volume of this edition. The spelling of the undated Quarto constantly inclines to the more modern usage, e. g. Sundayes instead of Sondaies; thereunto instead of there-vnto, &c. &c. Even the title-page is much more modern than that of Q1, e.g. Copy instead of Coppy; London instead of At London; Shop instead of shoppe; Dunstan instead of Dunston; Church-yard instead of Church yeard.

These are all the Quartos that appeared during Shakespeare's lifetime, and before the publication of the First Folio; consequently, they are all that possibly derived their texts from original sources. All subsequent Quartos are but reprints of these, with the spelling more and more modernized as years go on, with some manifest misprints in the earlier Quartos corrected, and with a natural percentage of errors of their own. They are generally called the Players' Quartos,' and their dates will be found in the Bibliography in this volume. The Quarto that immediately followed Q, or the undated Quarto, is the Quarto of 1637; the CAMBRIDGE Editors added this to their list of Quartos, whereof the variations are recorded in their notes, under the symbol Q.

A copy of this Quarto I have been unable to procure; where, therefore, it is cited in the Textual Notes in vol. i, it is followed by an asterisk to indicate that it is taken at second-hand from the Cambridge Edition. The lack of this Quarto is the less to be regretted, since to judge by the Textual Notes of the Cambridge Edition only slight differences are to be perceived between it and my copy of the Quarto of 1676, which was evidently printed from it; where the Cambridge Editors cite Q, I have generally had occasion to cite Q'76. I have just referred to my copy' of 1676; I speak thus, because there are decided variations at times between it and the copy used by the Cambridge Editors. It is hardly worth while to occupy valuable space with a list of these varias lectiones in two unimportant editions. The list would be interesting only to those who possess copies of the edition, and it would be a pity to deprive such of the harmless pleasure of hunting these variations down, which can readily be done by comparing the Textual Notes in this edition with those of the Cambridge Editors; and to all others the list would be weary, flat, stale, and unprofitable. Perhaps such discrepancies would never have been noted even by the present Editor were it not that in the dull monotony of collating, which becomes at times almost mechanical, such a trifling novelty as the detection of a difference between two copies of the same edition becomes by contrast wildly exciting. When Q'76 agrees with any of the other Qq, it is not noted.

THEOBALD, throughout his Shakespeare Restored, refers to an edition of 1703 by the accurate Mr John Hughs.' Of this edition the CAMBRIDGE EDITORS say that it is different from the Players' Quarto of 1703, and is not mentioned in Bohn's edition of Lowndes's Bibliographers' Manual. No copy of it exists in the British Museum, the Bodleian, the library of the Duke of Devonshire, the Capell collection, or any other to which we have had access.' Mr WINSOR, of the Boston Library, has noted that there are two editions of 1703, both with the same title, but one much less correctly printed than the other; the test-word is Barnardo,' the last word on p. I; in the inferior edition it reads Bornardo. Neither of these editions is that of

the accurate Mr Hughs.' would be faction instead of of the Qq, in I, iii, 109. I mention this in the hope that it may some day lead to the discovery of a copy which at present certainly appears to be rarer than Q,.

The test-word for his edition (which I have never seen)

fashion,' II, ii, 329, or else Roaming instead of 'Wrong'

In the four Folios we have virtually one and the same text, and it is clearly a different one from the Quartos. COLLIER thinks that if the Hamlet in the First Folio were not composed from some now unknown Quarto, it was derived from a manuscript obtained by Heminge and Condell from the theatre. The Acts and Scenes are marked only in the First and Second Acts, after which no divisions of the kind are noticed, and where the Third Act commences is merely matter of modern conjecture. Some large portions of the Play appear to have been omitted for the sake of shortening the performance.' 'Certain portions are found in the Folio which are not in the Second and succeeding Quartos, but we have the evidence of the First Quarto that they were originally acted, and were not, as has been hitherto imagined, subse quent additions.'

In the Textual Notes I have not always recorded a typographical peculiarity of the Second Folio, which I do not remember ever to have seen noted: it is the frequent omission of the apostrophe in such cases of elision as wheres Polonius;' whats the news;' 'Happily hes the second time come to them;'Ide fain know that; the apostrophe is almost invariably omitted before ''tis,' but not always; for instance, it is both present and absent in the line, 'That he is mad 'tis true: Tis true, tis pity.' I have looked in vain for any rule or system that may have guided the printer; it was apparently spasmodic carelessness or indifference.

WHITE: The text of Hamlet is distinguished rather by a very few striking and important corruptions than by many of minor import. In fact, there is hardly a passage in the tragedy, excepting that in the First Scene about the stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,' that can give trouble to a reader intent only upon the enjoyment of his author, which, considering the style of the work, and the vicissitudes of the stage and the printing-office to which its text was subjected, is remarkable.

HALLIWELL: My sad and strong belief is that we have not the materials for the formation of a really perfect text; and that now at best we must be contented with a defective copy of what is in many respects the most noble of all the writings of Shakespeare. It is always asserted that the great dramatist was indifferent to literary fame, and that it is to this circumstance the lamentable state in which so much of his work has descended to us is to be attributed. Other views may, indeed, for a time have prevented a diligent attention to the publication of his writings; but there is nothing to show that he had not meditated a complete edition of them under his own superintendence while in his retirement at New Place. It would be a more reasonable supposition that the preparation of such an edition was prevented by his untimely death.

CAMBRIDGE EDITORS: In giving all the passages from both Folio and Quarto, we are reproducing, as near as may be, the work as it was originally written by Shakespeare, or rather as finally retouched by him after the spurious edition of 1603.

FLEAY (Shakespeare Manual, p. 41): I should place the first draft in 1601, the complete play in 1603. I have little doubt that the early Hamlet of 1589 was written by Shakespeare and Marlowe in conjunction; and that portions of it can be traced in Q,, as Corambis.