It was not without much consideration that we determined to adopt the
spelling of the nineteenth century. If we had any evidence as to
Shakespeare's own spelling, we should have been strongly inclined to
adopt it, but to attempt to reproduce it, by operating by rule upon the
texts that have come down to us, would be subjecting Shakespeare's
English to arbitrary laws, of which it never yet was conscious. This
argues no want of education on the part of Shakespeare; for if Lord
Bacon himself had rules for spelling, they were but few, as we may
easily perceive by inspection of his works published under his own eye.
But if we have not Shakespeare's own spelling to guide us, what other
spelling shall we adopt? Every student of Shakespeare has now an easy
opportunity of acquainting himself with the text of F1, by means of Mr
Booth's excellent reprint, and we are certain that not one of them will
consider the spelling of that volume intrinsically better than that of
our day. Rather more like Shakespeare's it certainly is, but we doubt
whether much is gained by such approximation, as long as it is short of
perfect attainment. Moreover, in many of the Plays there is a competing
claim to guide our spelling, put forward by an array of Quartos, of
earlier date than F1. To desert F1 for these, where they exist, would be
but an occasional, and at best an uncertain means of attaining the lost
spelling of Shakespeare, while the spelling of our volume would become
even more inconsistent than that of F1 itself. Add to this; there are
places, though, as has been seen, not many, where we have had to leave
the reading of F1 altogether. How then shall we spell the correction
which we substitute?