As the Third Series of the Arden Shakespeare nears completion, James C. Bulman’s King Henry IV, Part 2 rounds out the second tetralogy after over twenty years—T. W. Craik’s Henry V, the first edition of the new series to appear, was published in 1995. For a play that offers no clear, or easily argued, authoritative version (with all the problematic connotations attached to such an adjective), Bulman has produced a smartly conflated edition. Moreover, comparing Bulman’s text with Qa, the 3.1 additions from Qb, and his sensible substitutions from F, I have not found a single textual error. Bulman departs from the trend of single-text editing, and has cautiously reimagined each textual variant and commentary note, often avoiding editorial acrobatics in favor of simplicity. An involved discussion of textual issues in an appendix evaluates Qa, Qb, and F as potential copy texts; here Bulman conclusively supports recent scholarship that attacks a foul paper/promptbook dichotomy, and distances himself from his editorial predecessors’ reliance on such classifications. Paul Werstine has eloquently argued for the need to reevaluate a misguided use of “foul papers” and “promptbooks,” staple terms of the New Bibliographers (430). Bulman is firm in his stance supporting Werstine, perhaps more so than Werstine himself, arguing that “the only way by which scholars could be absolutely certain that a text was set from some kind of authorial draft or fair copy would be if the printer’s copy and the resulting print were both to survive” (440). Bulman’s commentary notes are exhaustive, and he highlights many previously unnoted moments of chronicle history influence. His introduction refuses to apologize for 2 Henry IV’s supposed shortcomings and argues for it as “an independent play” (3), both in how scholars should examine it and in how Shakespeare conceived of the tetralogy. The previous Arden editor, A. R. Humphreys, posited in his edition that we should assume that “Shakespeare envisaged two plays, both of which would deal with the traditional story of the Wild Prince,” as evidenced by the play’s sources (xxvii). Bulman counters with his own narrative of Shakespeare’s compositional timeline. He suggests that the original Henry IV play was planned to end with the Battle of Shrewsbury, but 2 Henry IV took shape only when

中文翻译：

---

亨利四世国王，第 2 部分编辑。詹姆斯·C·布尔曼

随着雅顿莎士比亚的第三系列接近完成，詹姆斯 C. 布尔曼的国王亨利四世，第 2 部分完善了二十多年后的第二部四部曲——TW Craik 的亨利五世，新系列的第一版，于 1995 年出版. 对于一部没有明确或容易争论的权威版本（这种形容词带有所有有问题的含义）的戏剧，布尔曼制作了一个巧妙的混编版本。此外，将布尔曼的文本与 Qa、来自 Qb 的 3.1 添加以及他从 F 中明智的替换进行比较，我没有发现任何文本错误。Bulman 背离了单一文本编辑的趋势，谨慎地重新构想了每个文本变体和注释，通常避免编辑杂技以求简洁。附录中对文本问题的深入讨论评估了 Qa、Qb、和 F 作为潜在的复制文本；在这里，布尔曼最终支持最近的学术研究，该学术研究反对论文/提示书二分法，并与他的编辑前辈对此类分类的依赖保持距离。保罗·韦斯汀 (Paul Werstine) 雄辩地主张需要重新评估对“犯规论文”和“提示书”的误导使用，这些是新书目编纂者 (430) 的主要术语。Bulman 坚定地支持 Werstine，也许比 Werstine 本人更坚定，他认为“学者可以绝对确定文本是从某种作者草稿或公平副本中设置的唯一方法是，如果印刷者的副本和由此产生的印刷品都可以生存”（440）。布尔曼的评论是详尽无遗的，他强调了许多以前未被注意到的编年史影响的时刻。他的介绍拒绝为 2 亨利四世的所谓缺点道歉，并认为它是“一部独立的戏剧”（3），无论是学者应该如何研究它，还是莎士比亚如何构思四部曲。Arden 的前任编辑 AR Humphreys 在他的版本中假设我们应该假设“莎士比亚设想了两部戏剧，这两部戏剧都将处理野王子的传统故事”，正如该剧的来源 (xxvii) 所证明的那样。布尔曼用他自己对莎士比亚作曲时间线的叙述来反驳。他建议亨利四世最初的剧本计划以什鲁斯伯里战役结束，但 2 亨利四世仅在 Arden 的前任编辑 AR Humphreys 在他的版本中假设我们应该假设“莎士比亚设想了两部戏剧，这两部戏剧都将处理野王子的传统故事”，正如该剧的来源 (xxvii) 所证明的那样。布尔曼用他自己对莎士比亚作曲时间线的叙述来反驳。他建议亨利四世最初的剧本计划以什鲁斯伯里战役结束，但 2 亨利四世仅在 Arden 的前任编辑 AR Humphreys 在他的版本中假设我们应该假设“莎士比亚设想了两部戏剧，这两部戏剧都将处理野王子的传统故事”，正如该剧的来源 (xxvii) 所证明的那样。布尔曼用他自己对莎士比亚作曲时间线的叙述来反驳。他建议亨利四世最初的剧本计划以什鲁斯伯里战役结束，但 2 亨利四世仅在