Page 214 - King Lear: The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare

KING LEAR, 1608 AND 1623 139

infrequent in 'bad' texts, Q 1 Lear included. The Q I
text here is thoroughly corrupt.
In the case of this play, eclecticism is obviouslyneces-
sary; and the judgements of individual editors will
differ. In preparing this volume I have carefully con-
sidered every Q/F variant. In my judgement, sometimes
Q and sometimes F is preferable. It seems to me that the
variants in the latter category are very much more
numerous than those in the former. Thus where there
appears to me to be absolutely nothing to choose between
a Q and an F reading, I must follow F. This accords with
the opinion of Chambers, who, comparing Q and F,
1
says —
There are a good many verbal variants, and where one is
clearly wrong, the better reading, except for a dozen or
score of cases, is in F. Subject, therefore, to its usual
sophistications, F must have the preference where the
variants are indifferent.
Q has had, and still has, its champions. Van Dam
2
regarded its text as superior to that of" F. Mr Ridley
based his New Temple edition (1935) solidly on Q.
Miss Walker is much drawn towards Q. The editing of
Lear is a difficult task; and the text here presented makes
no pretence to being other than tentative and provisional.
G.I.D.

In the readings and textual notes for which I am
responsible, marked '[J.D.W.]', I have endeavoured to
follow the principles above-stated, observing that they
involve the probable existence of a good many 'common
errors', i.e. errors common to Q and F. _ _ _„
J. D» W•
x
Op. cit. I, 465.
* See his monograph, The Text of'Shakespeare's 'Lear*
(vol. X of Materials for the Study of the Old English Drama,
Louvain, 1935).