i. 2. 145. Considering the carelessness with which a plural demonstrative pronoun was used with reference to a singular noun and vice versa, we have not altered the reading of the old editions in order to accommodate the construction to modern rule. [See note (iv)] to Love's Labour's Lost.
i. 2. 259. The misprint in Rowe's second edition remained uncorrected by Pope, Theobald, Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson. Capell in correcting the error made another by writing 'her' for 'the.' He printed his edition not from any former text, but from a manuscript of his own writing.
Another instance of the facility with which a misprint which makes sense escapes correction is found in ii. 1. 4, where 'put,' a misprint for 'pull' in the Variorum of 1821, was retained by many subsequent editors, Mr Collier, Mr Singer, &c.
i. 2. 278. Mr Grant White believes the whole of the foregoing scene to be by some other hand than Shakespeare's. Coleridge and Sidney Walker also held that large portions of the play were not from the master's hand. It appears to us impossible to discriminate, as in Henry the Eighth and The Two Noble Kinsmen, what parts were due to Shakespeare and what to another hand. The feeblest scenes of this play seem to have been touched by him. The probability is that he worked, in this case, not with, but after, another.
ii. 1. 403. Pope inserts from the old play:
'[Sly speaks to one of the servants.
Sly. Sim, when will the fool come again?