In the nineteenth and twentieth century , the focus of the editors was on the recreation of a “pure text”, which was intended by the writer. These editors wanted to protect Shakespeare from textual pollution. As opposed to this pract ice, the editing of Shakespearean plays in a postmodern age embraces contamination, hybridity , heterogeneity , and self-negation. Some editors are rejecting the notion of consistency in the editing of Shakespearean plays. They do not find it necessary to ma ke the correction of details like place, action, speech prefixes, and stage directions. Inconsistency is more interesting and revealing for them. Poststructuralism has banished the concept of individual intentionality along with the concept of the autonomo us subject. When the editors ask what Shakespeare intended when he wrote his plays, the meanings that the editors give could be contradictory . Shakespearean plays were shaped by multiple pressures like court, city authorities, actors and audiences in the playhouse, censorship and printing house practices. Postmodernism is associated with pluralism, relativism, recognition of differences and a rejection of grand narratives. When an editor edits a text, one alternative from available alternatives is chosen. I f the editor of a Shakespearean play offers an authoritative and reliable version of his play , then that text would not be postmodern because the meaning of the text would be made stable. A plurality of meanings is expected in a postmodern edition. This ed ition would allow the readers to play with a wide range of possible words, actions, and stage directions and construct their own play . However, an edition of a Chetan Sonawane  Page 213 Shakespearean play that leaves everything open could become formless and unusable. Readers would need something tangible to grasp within a particular edition. One should not expect an infinite range of textual and dramatic possibilities in the text. What is expected is a greater range of editions than are presently available. I wish to examine the pr oblem of how and to what degree, a Shakespearean edition in the “postmodern age ” can negotiate with the concerns of postmodernism