none the less an ill-favoured thing.

Not such, however, was the spirit of the editors; and all the changes of
importance from the text of the Quarto I receive as Shakspere's own.
With this belief there can be no presumption in saying that they seem to
me not only to trim the parts immediately affected, but to render the
play more harmonious and consistent. It is no presumption to take the
Poet for superior to his work and capable of thinking he could better
it--neither, so believing, to imagine one can see that he has been
successful.

A main argument for the acceptance of the Folio edition as the Poet's
last presentment of his work, lies in the fact that there are passages
in it which are not in the Quarto, and are very plainly from his hand.
If we accept these, what right have we to regard the omission from the
Folio of passages in the Quarto as not proceeding from the same hand?
Had there been omissions only, we might well have doubted; but the
insertions greatly tend to remove the doubt. I cannot even imagine the
arguments which would prevail upon me to accept the latter and refuse
the former. Omission itself shows for a master-hand: see the magnificent
passage omitted, and rightly, by Milton from the opening of his _Comus_.

'But when a man has published two forms of a thing, may we not judge
between him and himself, and take the reading we like better?'
Assuredly. Take either the Quarto or the Folio; both are Shakspere's.
Take any reading from either, and defend it. But do not mix up the two,
retaining what he omits along with what he inserts, and print them so.
This is what the editors do--and the thing is not Shakspere's. With
homage like this, no artist could be other than indignant. It is well to
show every difference, even to one of spelling where it might indicate