( 24 )
On comparing two of the quarto editions of King Richard III. I found that there were in the latter no leſs than twenty-ſix errors of omiſſion; and indeed errors of omiſſion are, I believe, more frequent than almoſt any other in the ancient copies of this author. I have proved in various inſtances, that when a word was omitted or corrupted in the firſt folio, the editor of the ſecond either left the paſſage as he found it, or cured the defect at random, and according to his fancy, in thoſe plays of which we have quarto copies, where the true word, which in fact was omitted or corrupted, may be found.[1] There cannot therefore be the ſmalleſt doubt that all the emendations made by this editor in the other plays alſo, of which there are no quarto copies, were merely conjectural. Being ſuch, they ſtand preciſely on the ſame ground with the emendations ſuggeſted by any later editor or commentator; and as they are often very injudicious in conſequence of the editor's extreme ignorance of Shakſpeare's phraſeology and metre, they ſtand frequently on a worſe ground, and have a leſs title to be adopted.
- ↑ Pref. to the late edition, pp. xiv. xv. xxvii. n. 4; xxx. xxxi.
The
