e first Folio and some
of the Quartos of separate plays, and from the following passage of his
preface it might have been inferred that he had diligently collated them
all:

'This is the state in which Shakespeare's writings be at present; for
since the above-mentioned folio edition [_i.e._ F4], all the rest have
implicitly followed it without having recourse to any of the former, or
ever making the comparison between them. It is impossible to repair the
injuries already done him; too much time has elaps'd, and the materials
are too few. In what I have done I have rather given a proof of my
willingness and desire, than of my ability, to do him justice. I have
discharg'd the dull duty of an editor, to my best judgment, with more
labour than I expect thanks, with a religious abhorrence of all
innovation, and without any indulgence to my private sense or
conjecture. The method taken in this edition will show itself. The
various readings are fairly put in the margin, so that every one may
compare 'em, and those I prefer'd into the text are constantly _ex fide
codicum_, upon authority.'

This passage, as any one may see who examines the text, is much more
like a description of what the editor did _not_ do than of what he did.
Although in many instances he restored, from some Quarto, passages which
had been omitted in the Folio, it is very rarely indeed that we find any
evidence of his having collated either the first Folio or any Quarto,
with proper care. The 'innovations' which he made, according to his own
'private sense and conjecture,' are extremely numerous. Not one in
twenty of the various readings is put in the margin, and the readings in
his text very frequently rest upon no authority whatever. The glaring
inconsistency between the promise in the preface and the performance in
the book may well account for its failure with the public.

It would, however, be ungrateful not to acknowledge that Pope's
emendations are always ingenious and plausible, and sometimes
unquestionably true. He never seems to nod over that 'dull labour' of
which he complains. His acuteness of perception is never at fault.

What is said of him in the preface to Theobald's edition is, in this
point, very unjust[6].

'They have both (_i.e._ Pope and Rymer[7]) shown themselves in an equal
_impuissance_ of suspecting or amending the corrupted passages, &c.'

Pope was the first to indicate the _place_ of each new scene; as, for
instance, _Tempe