following suggestions made by W. Sidney Walker in his Critical Remarks on Shakespeare's Versification (1854). At IV. iv. 6 I print "sentry"; Johnson adopted "sent'ry," which was not followed; I have shown that the Folio word "centery" is probably only another form of " sentry." At Iv. ii. 68 I practically adopt the pointing of my Oxford Shakespeare, 1891, which shews that "mew" of the Quartos is an interjection. At IV. iii. 35 I believe I have been the first editor who has ventured to print "mate and make," the reading of Quarto I, instead of "mate and mate" of Quarto 2, and at III. iv. 78 "Pellicock's hill" of the Quartos, instead of "Pillicock-hill" of the Folio and Rowe. At 1. ii. 146 I print "Fut" of the Quartos instead of "Tut," introduced by Jennens in 1770. At I. ii. 21 I, with some hesitation, retain the word "to" ("shall to the legitimate"), the reading of both Quarto and Folio, instead of adopting, as most editors do, "top," the suggestion of Edwards in his Canons of Criticism, 1758, first printed in Capell's edition, 1768. As I think a certain sense can be obtained I am unwilling to change the text. At v. iii. 270 I follow Quarto I and read "murderous traitors." Johnson and Jennens follow Quarto 2, and read "murdrous traitors." I prefer the form I print to "murderers, traitors," the reading of the Folio.

I venture to make a few suggestions in notes to I. ii. 166 ("dissipation of cohorts"); IV. ii. 8 ("When I informed him, then "); IV. iii. 19, 20 (“ her smiles and tears were like a better way "); IV. vii. 35 (" quick, cross lightning"); II. i. 55 ("gasted by the noise I made").

In the year 1608 there appeared two editions of King Lear, which in the present edition I have described

as Quarto I and Quarto 2; the first of these editions bore the following title:-" M. William Shakspeare, HIS True Chronicle Historie of the life and death of King Lear and his three Daughters. With the unfortunate life of Edgar, sonne and heire to the Earle of Gloster, and his sullen and assumed humor of TOм of Bedlam: As it was played before the Kings Maiestie at Whitehall vpon S. Stephans night in Christmas Hollidayes. By his Maiesties seruants playing vsually at the Gloabe on the Bancke-side. LONDON, printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul's Church-yard at the signe of the Pide Bull neere St. Austins Gate, 1608."

The title of the second edition runs as follows:-" M. William Shake-speare, HIS True Chronicle History of the life and death of King Lear, and his three Daughters. With the vnfortunate life of EDGAR, sonne and heire to the Earle of Glocester, and his sullen and assumed humour of TOм of Bedlam. As it was plaid before the Kings Maiesty at White-Hall, vppon St. Stephen's night, in Christmas Hollidaies. By his Maiesties seruants, playing vsually at the Globe on the Banck-side. Printed for

Nathaniel Butter, 1608."

That these two Quarto editions of King Lear, and these only, appeared in 1608 was first definitely determined by the Cambridge editors, Mr. W. G. Clarke and Mr. W. Aldis-Wright in the first edition of their great work, the Cambridge Shakespeare, 1866. Before that date it was vaguely supposed that three or more editions of the play were published in 1608, the great differences in the several copies of the Pide Bull edition having induced that belief.

The elaborate collation by the Cambridge editors of

six copies of that edition established the fact, that though of these six copies only two are alike in all respects yet they all represent but one edition.1

The labours of the Cambridge editors also first gave us the means of proving that this Pide Bull edition was the earlier of the two Quartos, and that the N. Butter edition was little more than a reprint of it. The editors, however, did not arrive at this conclusion till their work was in print, and consequently in the first edition of the Cambridge Shakespeare we find in its footnotes the Pide Bull edition always designated as Q 2 and the N. Butter edition as QI. They pointed out, however, this error in their Preface to the play, and the matter has been finally set right in the second edition of the Cambridge Shakespeare, 1892, where in the footnotes the notation Q I represents the Pide Bull edition and Q 2 the N. Butter edition. The six copies of QI collated by the Cambridge editors, with the notation adopted by them, are as follows:

6. QI (Bodl. 2). Copy in Bodleian Library, wanting title.

1 Mr. Halliwell Phillipps, in his Preface to the "Ashbee Facsimile of the Pide Bull Quarto," mentions the existence of twelve copies of this Quarto, adding, "No two copies have yet been found which agree with each other.'

In my footnotes (collations)" QI one copy " or " some copies" indicates that there is a variation in one or in more of these six Quartos.

The Cambridge editors accounted for the great variations of the copies of the "Pide Bull" edition on the theory that before all the sheets of the edition were worked off corrections were made at press, and that subsequently the corrected and uncorrected sheets were bound up indiscriminately. In 1885, Mr. P. A. Daniel, in his Preface to this Quarto, issued in Dr. Furnivall's Shakspere-Quarto Facsimiles, first clearly demonstrated in print the truth of this theory, examining sheet by sheet the several copies of the Quarto; and further was able to show that the N. Butter edition, giving as it does sometimes the corrected and sometimes the uncorrected read ings of the Pide Bull edition, was in fact merely a reprint of that edition, and could not possibly owe its origin to an independent MS. source. Its position as second in the race, and of inferior authority, may therefore be considered as now definitely established. It nevertheless contains some valuable corrections of the Pide Bull text, which have not been traced to any known copy of that edition, and it is on the whole far better printed, a position not very difficult of attainment, for the Pide Bull edition is perhaps the very worst specimen of the printer's craft that ever issued from the Press. Whether the publication of this Quarto edition of the play was sanctioned by the author, or by the company for whom it was written, is quite unknown; the following entry in the Stationers' Registers under date 26th November 1607, is our earliest notice of it :

"John Busby Nathaniel Butter Entred for their

copie under thhandes of Sir George Buck, knight, and Thwardens, A Booke called. Master William Shakespeare his 'historye of Kinge Lear' as yt was played before the kinges maiestie at Whitehall vppon Sainct Stephens night at Christmas last, by his maiesties servantes, playinge vsually at the 'Globe' on the Banksyde" (vide Arber, iii. 366). Sir George Buck was Master of the Revels. Would his authority extend to sanctioning the publication of "stolne and surreptitious copies" of plays that passed his office? I must leave the reader to settle that question with Messrs. Heminge and Condell, under whose authority the plays were given to press in 1623, "cured and perfect of their limbes," in the First Folio. In relation to the text of the Folio version, the two Quarto editions may for all practical purposes be considered as one text. This text differs from that of the Folio in a large number of small verbal alterations, but whether they are to be considered as representing the author's original draught, or a revision. of it by the author himself, or by others, it is impossible to say with any certainty; but of the superiority of the Folio text there can be no doubt. The chief value of the Quarto text is that it preserves nearly three hundred lines not found in the Folio, but undoubtedly the work of Shakespeare's hand. Were they additions to his first draught? or being portions of this first draught, were they purposely omitted in the Folio version? These questions cannot be answered with any certainty. On the other hand, the Folio version gives us some hundred and ten lines which are not found in the Quartos, and again no one can positively assert that they were additions to the original draught or were knowingly omitted in the Quartos.