HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 3439 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 2951-end ed. Hardin A. Aasand
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
3439 Laer. O {treble woe} <terrible woer,>5.1.246
1843 col1
col1
3439 treble woe] Collier (ed. 1843) : “The folio introduces a strange corruption here, of which some modern editors have taken no notice, but have quietly adopted the reading of the quartos. The folio, 1623, reads, ‘O! terrible wooer;’ and it is followed by the three later folios. Our text is that of the quartos, 1604, &c.”
1858 col3
col3 = col1 +
3439 treble woe] Collier (ed. 1843) : “The folio introduces a strange corruption here, of which some modern editors have taken no notice, but have quietly adopted the reading of the quartos. The folio, 1623, reads, ‘O! terrible wooer;’ and it is followed by the three later folios, but in the corr. fo. 1632 [i.e. the forged Perkins F2], the words are made those of the 4tos, ‘Oh! treble woe.’”
1860 Walker
Walker
3439 treble woe] Walker (1860, 1:186): <p. 186>“woes, I think, not woe.” </p 186>

Walker
3439 treble woe] Walker (1860, 3:271): “Fol., woer. Woes, I conjecture. (The folio has also terrible before woer, which alone would confute Knight’s treble, I.2)[note 8].
<n>8 Lettsom (apud Walker, 1860, 3:271, n. 8): “Mr. Knight, in his recent Stratford Shakespeare, has renounced this with several other absurdities of the first folio. It is whimsical enough, that the quartos, which in this line correctly read treble or the folio’s terrible, in the very next line read double for the folio’s correct treble. I mention this, that they may not be trusted too confidently for woe in preference to woes. The Old Corrector [the name that Collier gave to the supposed source of the emendations] reads treble woe.”</n>
1860- mWhite
mWhite: Walker
3439 treble woe] White (ms. notes in Walker, 1860, 3:271, n. 8) : “So in his [Knight’s] 2nd Ed. Pictorial.”
1866 dyce2
dyce2 = Walker
3439 treble woe
1872 del4
del4
3439 treble woe] Delius (ed. 1872): “Für treble woe der Qs. liest die Fol. terrible woer, was sogar Rowe noch beibehielt. —In der folgenden Zeile haben die Qs. double für treble.” [“For treble woe of the Qs., the Folio reads terrible woer, which even Rowe preserves.—In the next line, the Qs. have double for treble.”]
1877 v1877
v1877 : Walker (subst. Walker & LETTSOM) +
3439 treble woe] Furness (ed. 1877): “I think it likely that either the r in woer of F1 is a misprint for s, or else the compositor mistook the s in the MS from which he set up. Moreover, the plural somewhat avoids the cacophony of the singular: ‘Oh, treble woe.’”
1885 macd
macd
3439 treble woe] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “The Folio may be right here: —’Oh terrible wooer!—May ten times treble thy misfortunes fall’&c.”
1890 irv2
irv2 ≈ v1877
3439 treble woe] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “I have adopted here Walker’s conjecture (followed by Furness [v1877]). Qq. print woe (which is universally followed), Ff. wooer (which is evidently wrong). But as Furness very justly remarks: [cites v1877 note]”
1993 dent
dent ≈
3439 treble woe] Andrews (ed. 1993): “triple.”
3439