Note XV.
[iv. 3. 244.] Theobald’s note is: ‘O word divine! This is the reading of all the editions that I have seen; but both Dr Thirlby and Mr Warburton concurred in reading (as I had likewise conjectured) O wood divine!’
‘Wood,’ however, is the reading of Rowe’s first edition. It was perhaps only a happy misprint, as it is altered to ‘word’ in the second.
Note XVI.
[iv. 3. 251.] As ‘suiter’ was pronounced and sometimes written ‘shooter’ (iv. 1. 101), so probably ‘suit’ was sometimes written ‘shoote,’ a word easily corrupted into ‘schoole.’
Note XVII.
[iv. 3. 285]. Although it is not necessary to omit a syllable on account of the metre, as Mr Sidney Walker seems to have thought, we have adopted one of his conjectures for the reason mentioned in [note (ix)]. A similar error, which has hitherto escaped notice, seems to occur in iv. 2. 83, where the word ‘Of,’ which in the original MS. was part of the stage direction ‘Holof.’, has crept into the text. If this hypothesis be true, it follows that the frequently recurring error of ‘Nath.’ for ‘Hol.’ is not due to the author himself, but to an unskilful corrector.
Note XVIII.
[iv. 3. 295]. Mr Dyce omits lines 295–300, For when would you...true Promethean fire; and lines 308–315, For where is...forsworn our books, which are repeated in substance, and, to some extent verbatim, in the latter part of the speech.
There can be no doubt that two drafts of the speech have been blended together, and that the author meant to cancel a portion of it; but as there also can be no doubt that the whole came from his pen, we do not venture to correct the printer’s error. We would ‘lose no drop of the immortal man.’ The error is indeed a very instructive one. It goes to prove that the first Quarto was printed from the author’s original MS.; that the author had not made a ‘foul copy’ of his work; and that he had not an opportunity of revising the proof sheets as they passed through the press.