the "But who comes here" of the Folio into "Who is here?" The metre all through the Quartos is so careless, that these corrections merit consideration. Perhaps we do the editor of the editio princeps too much honour-considering his usual practices—in supposing that he here for once had regard to the metre. His substitution of "Who is here?" for "But who comes here?" may be only one of the many purely wilful alterations of the text which he has allowed himself. Especially he has altered and omitted much in Lear's mad speeches (Act IV. sc. vi.), not understanding the context. Lear mistakes Gloster for Goneril, and is astonished at her white beard, which reminds him of his own. "Ha! Goneril! with a white beard! They flattered me like a dog; and told me I had the white hairs in my beard, ere black ones were there." The poet cannot have added this in the Folio text: it must have been in the original. For if the Quartos omit "with a white beard and substitute "ha! Regan!" apparently because it is followed by the plural, "They flattered," &c., the sense is entirely destroyed. Farther on (1. 51) we miss "change place and," and the whole sentence becomes meaningless. Lastly, the Quartos leave out the passage, "Plate sin... accuser's lips" (1. 103-8), and so destroy the evidently personal bearing of the following words, "Get thee glass eyes," on the blind Gloster, whom Lear, in the omitted passage, directly addresses as my friend.'

Act IV. sc. vii. 1. 61 is omitted in the Quartos, "not an hour more nor less," with which the poet concludes the preceding sentence, "Fourscore and upwards." These words are not intended to define the time more exactly, but as an indication of Lear's slowly and partially returning reason. As the whole forms only one verse, it is probable that the poet wrote it so originally. It is evident from considerations of metre, that the words, "And machination ceases," Act V. sc. i. (1. 46), which are omitted in the Quartos, were in the original text, for they are almost indispensable as a conclusion to the whole passage.

Act V. sc. iii. The Quartos leave out the words, "Dispose of them, the walls are thine (1. 77), whereby the sense of the preceding passage is rendered incomplete. When Regan yields not

only all her possessions, but her own person also to Edmund, it was necessary that the poet should speak clearly at first, and not have afterwards added to the Folio text the words which are omitted in the Quartos. The editor seems no more to have understood the metaphor, "the walls are thine," than he afterwards (1. 90) understood Goneril's scornful ejaculation, "An interlude," and therefore he simply omitted it. Farther on we miss the words, "What safe and nicely I might well delay" (1. 145) in the Quartos, which contain the object (or accusative clause) of the verbs disdain' and 'spurn' in the following line. The mutilated sentence is completely meaningless. Not much better, in regard to omissions, is the treatment of a following passage (1. 225-6), where the nobleman enters with the bloody knife which he has drawn from Regan's deathwound. There the words, "O, she's dead," are suppressed; and Albany's question, "Who dead? speak, man," is cut down to "Who, man speak." This correction was never made by the poet, but could only originate in the carelessness with which the Quartos were printed. Neither could Shakspere have added afterwards (1. 256) the words referring to Cordelia's supposed suicide, "that she fordid herself," merely because they are not in the Quartos. Lastly, the words (1. 283) "This is a dull sight," in which Lear laments the weakness of his eyesight, which prevents his at once recognizing his friend Kent, are omitted. Perhaps their meaning was no clearer to the editor of the Quartos than it has been to many commentators and translators since. Capell partly explained the words, and amended the versification, by altering it to "This sight of mine is a dull sight." The editor of the Quartos found it simpler to omit it.

From the gaps in the Quarto text, which we have proved to be real omissions from the original text, and not later additions in the Folio, we turn to the gaps in this latter. It is easier to explain their cause, for they are much more considerable in extent-about 220 verses altogether. Their object is merely to shorten the drama, which may have proved too long for representation. The reason of these cuts in the Folio is, that it was edited from a later theatre MS. So far then all is clear. The more complicated question which we have to consider is, whether this abridgment was made with or

without the concurrence of the poet; whether it was made by him or by his players. In the course of representation, the drama apparently proved to be longer than desirable. In this case it appears at first sight most natural that the poet who had written it for his own company, being himself also an actor, should himself abridge it. But, on the other hand, we must take into consideration the indifference with which Shakspere allowed the company for which he wrote to do as they pleased with his plays. He seems never to have troubled himself about their fate or literary future; so it is most likely that he bestowed no personal care on his' King Lear when it was re-arranged for performance. He must have left his MS. entirely to those whom it most concerned, namely, the actors at the Globe Theatre. This appears still more probable when we remember that, at the time that King Lear was abridged, Shakspere had ceased to be an active member of the theatre, and, separated from the company and far from London, was enjoying a quiet life at Stratford. We may presume from the appearance of the Quartos in 1608, and from their title-pages, that King Lear was then still being performed entire. At that time even Shakspere was probably no longer an actor, but was living on his rents at Stratford. Is it probable that at that time, or later-for the play may have been abridged later the actors would have applied to the absent, distant author, to fit his drama for scenical representation? Particularly as this would appear to them to be such a simple process that they could easily undertake it themselves. This drama was, like all Shakspere's other dramas, their property, which they could treat as they pleased. The manner in which it has been treated to fit it for the stage, strengthens our conviction that we see here the work of the actors and not of the poet. Had Shakspere, in the leisure of his Stratford life, re-examined his drama with a view to altering it, his revision would have left deeper traces on it than is the case. People have always endeavoured to discover these traces in the numerous or innumerable-minute differences between the Folio and the Quarto text. But after our previous investigations have placed the real relations of the two texts in the right light, the only possible trace of this possible revision is the omissions in the Folio.

Also, it is very doubtful whether the actors would have thanked the poet for a complete revision of the text, such as has been presumed. We saw in the case of Richard III. what awful confusion the restudying of a text, altered in a thousand particulars from the original, would introduce among the actors. piece had long been studied in its older form. in accordance with this supposition, we had to prove in the representation of King Richard III., would be repeated in the case now under consideration. The actors did not want a revised text of King Lear, but only one somewhat abridged.

Especially when the
The difficulty which,

Having weighed the external evidence against Shakspere's participation in the abridgment of King Lear, let us proceed to examine the internal evidence. Especially we must consider whether these omissions are effected in the poet's own manner, or whether they are repugnant to the spirit of his dramatic art. Also whether they are not specially so with regard to this work. As a whole, it is evident that care has been taken to spare as much as possible, and only to cut out such passages as are merely ornamental, and are not necessary for the plot, or for the development of the characters. But there is a great difference between the actors' idea of what is necessary, and the poet's. The actors see in the play merely a certain number of leading and secondary characters to be divided amongst them, and to be separately studied according to the taste of the individual. The poet views his play as an edifice, out of the architectural structure of which no part can be taken without damaging the whole building. Shakspere himself certainly did not consider any part of his King Lear superfluous; if he had, he would not have written it. Let us now consider the passages which are supposed to be not indispensable, that is, the passages which are omitted in the Folio text.

The explanatory scene Act I. sc. i. remains intact, but the second

At first this consideration decided me, like other editors of Shakspere, to ascribe to our poet a participation in this part of the arrangement of the Folio text. On closer examination, I found this view to be untenable, and was com. pelled to abandon it. I remark this in passing, that I may not be reproached with the inconsistency of the Introduction to my edition of King Lear with the view taken in the present article.

scene betrays another than the poet's hand in its abridgment. Not only is Gloster's speech rendered incomplete through the omission (1. 91-93), Edm. "Nor... earth"; but the touching expression of paternal affection for his unjustly suspected son is ruthlessly struck out. Just as inconsequently "as of... Come, come" is omitted in the same scene (1. 137-143). When Edmund says, "I promise you, the effects he writes of, succeed unhappily," he must necessarily add, to gain his point, what this evil omen consists in, which is to instil anxiety into his brother's mind.

Short as it is, the interlude which forms the introduction to the next scene was not short enough for the actors (Act I. sc. iii.). In cutting out (1. 17-21), "Not to be... abused", Goneril's speech, "Whose mind and mine, I know, in that are one ", is cut short by the omission of "Not to be overruled". Thus the unfortunate audience do not know in what respect Goneril's mind is one with Regan's. In Goneril's last speech also (1. 25-6), the words "I would

...

. speak"-are omitted; and they contain the weighty resolution that she would take an opportunity of telling her father her mind unreservedly.

In Act I. sc. iv. the actors have indeed retained Lear's request to his fool that he would teach him the difference between a sweet and a bitter fool; but they omit the answer which the fool makes to this request. Such an oversight can hardly be attributed to Shakspere. Perhaps, however, the answer was omitted on account of the satire contained in it, especially in the second part, on the monopolies of the great lords and ladies of the court, which might have given much offence (1. 135-150), "That lord... snatching". But more of the fool's speech was cut out than was required by the censor, whose influence is so visible in the dramas of that time. Farther on in the same scene "I would... father" (1. 223-8) is omitted, and consequently there is no motive for Lear's passionate question "whether any one would tell him who he was". He pays no attention either to the fool's remarks, the first of which-"Lear's shadow"-remains, and the second of which—" Which they will make an obedient father"-has been swept away with the rest in the Folio.

Act II. sc. ii. The players have cut out the passage-" His fault