THE HAMLET PASSAGE 183 
made in the face of the statement on the title-page that the edi- 
tion is “enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according 
to the true and perfect Coppie.” 
Without entering into argument, I must, though anticipating 
a date by two years, simply state the significance of these facts.* 
When James I came to the throne, the royal maintenance and 
appareling of the Blackfriars Boys ceased. In January, 1604, 
they were put on an exact level with the public theatres. The 
cause of grievance to the public theatres being thus removed, the 
continuance of Shakespeare’s attack thereafter would have been 
pointless and absurd,—an attack upon a mere historical foe. 
Hence it was omitted from the 1604 edition—Which incidentally 
_ indicates that that edition was, as it claimed to be, printed from 
“the true and perfect copy” as Shakespeare and his company then 
wished it. It was likewise omitted from Q, (1605), Q, (1611), 
QO, (undated, but after 1611), and was never printed until the 
1623 folio, which aims to preserve to literature and history the 
plays of Shakespeare from their most authentic source. I have 
no doubt that the 1623 folio text was from the original manu- 
script containing minor changes made from time to time for the 
stage. This passage containing the attack, crossed out and not 
acted after the death of Elizabeth, was restored in the folios as a 
part of the original play. 
In the 1604 and later quartos, just enough of the original mat- 
ter is retained to make the transition from the necessary talk 
about the players to the matters of dramatic concern expressed 
in Hamlet’s, “It is not very strange” &c. It is clear that the part 
retained was kept solely for this transitional step.” 
We no longer need to rely upon the four-line summary in the 
1603 quarto as sole proof that the complete passage (315-345) 
was in the play as originally acted; for, as seen, the passage in its 
. 
2 
— 
ra 
‘ 
c 
: 
| 
rr < 
i eae, 
p. 129, Dr. Tanger has as clear a 
statement as can well be made on 
the awkward gap caused by the 
omission (325-45). His conclu- 
*The matter is taken up fully in 
proper chronological order, com- 
plete work, vol. I, chap. XVI. 
*See Dr. Gustav Tanger, The 
First and Second Quartos and the 
First Folio of Hamlet (New Shake- 
speare Society Publications, Series 
I, Nos. 8 and 9, 1880), 109-97. On 
sion, however, that this part was 
left out by accident is an unfor- 
tunate guess. 
207 
