of his predeceſſor the ground-work of his own (never collating but where difficulties occurred) ſome deviations from the originals had been handed down, the number of which are leſſened in the impreſſion before us, as it has been conſtantly compared with the moſt authentic copies, whether collation was abſolutely neceſſary for the recovery of ſenſe, or not. The perſon who undertook this taſk may have failed by inadvertency, as well as thoſe who preceded him; but the reader maybe aſſured, that he, who thought it his duty to free an author from ſuch modern and unneceſſary innovations as had been cenſured in others, has not ventured to introduce any of his own.
It is not pretended that a complete body of various readings is here collected; or that all the diverſities which the copies exhibit, are pointed out; as near two thirds of them are typographical miſtakes, or ſuch a change of inſigniſicant particles, as would crowd the bottom of the page with an oſtentation of materials, from which at laſt nothing uſeſul could be ſelected.
The dialogue might indeed ſometimes be lengthened by other inſertions than have hitherto been made, but without advantage either to its ſpirit or beauty; as in the following inſtance:
Lear. No.
Kent. Yes.
Lear. No, I ſay.
Kent. I ſay, yea.
Here the quartos add:
Lear. No, no, they would not.
Kent. Yes, they have.
