question; but his reputation as one who has fathomed the deeps of Shakespeare, who has "plucked out the heart of his mystery," is gone for ever. In blackletter and antiquarian lore, he can hardly have a rival; but there are few real lovers of Shakespeare who do not hold a closer commune with the spirit of their master. Among his editors, may be named Charles Knight, who, with vastly fewer advantages in the field of Shakesperian literature, must now be placed far before his rival editor as a true Shakesperian scholar. Charles Knight would never have said, when Hamlet chides himself because he "lacks gall to make oppression bitter," that "it was not oppression but crime which was to be punished (!) by him." Charles Knight would never have supposed that Hero's flesh was tainted to the soul, sooner than he would have made a score of other blunders in the appreciation of Shakespeare's poetry and humor which appear in Mr. Collier's recent publication. But with regard to this passage, it should be noticed that a change is not imperatively necessary. The adjectives are not really synonymous; and a comma between them is all that is required to give a clear and appropriate sense. Read, "which may season give To her foul, tainted flesh." Taint does not always reach foulness in degree, but it does imply previous purity; whereas many things are foul from the beginning and in their very essence. Leonato says that Hero's nature, once pure, had been tainted to the utmost degree of impurity. Kem. God's my life, where's the Sexton! let him write down the Prince's officer Coxcombe," &c. This apparently hopeless confusion in the original text, is thus happily corrected in Mr. Collier's folio. "Const. Come, let them be opinion'd. Sex. Let them be bound. Borach. Hands off, Coxcombe! Dogb. God's my life," &c. William "Kem." is the abbreviation of Kempe. Kempe was the first Dogberry; and the original folio, having been in part printed from a copy marked for the stage, gives in this instance and in some others, the name of the actor instead of that of the character. Dogb. Dost thou not suspect my place? Dost thou not suspect my years-O that he were here to write me down-an ass;-but, masters, remember, that I am an ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass:-No, thou villain, thou art full of piety, as shall be proved upon thee by good witness. I am a wise fellow; and, which is more, an officer; and, which is more, a householder; and, which is more, as pretty a piece of flesh as any is in Messina; and one that knows the law, go to: and a rich fellow enough, go to; and a fellow that hath had losses; and one that hath two gowns, and every thing handsome about him:Bring him away. O, that I had been writ down-an ass.' Could there be a stronger proof of incapacity to appreciate that peculiar and inimitable humor which Shakespeare has exhibited in Dogberry and a few such characters, than an attempt to make the consequential Constable speak "by the card" in this blundering out-burst of pompous indignation? And yet the corrector of Mr. Collier's folio would have him say "a fellow that hath had leases," instead of "a fellow that hath had losses"! Mr. Singer's severe remarks upon this evidence of incapacity are entirely justifiable. But this wretched and presumptuous change has yet found defenders, (what folly is so foolish as to be without them!) on the ground that, as Dogberry is boasting, it is inconsistent for him to mention his misfortunes. Let Sir Walter Scott answer such a purblind argument as this. He was guiltless of deliberate comment upon Shakespeare; but he opens the introduction to Quentin Durward thus: "When honest Dogberry sums up and recites all the claims which he had to respectability, and which, as he opined, ought to have exempted him from the injurious appellation conferred on him by Master Gentleman Conrade, it is remarkable that he lays not more emphasis even upon his double gown (a matter of some importance in a certain ci-devant capital which I wot of), or upon his being 'a pretty piece of flesh as any in Messina,' or even upon the conclusive argument of his being a rich fellow enough,' than upon his being one that hath had losses. "Indeed, I have always observed your children of prosperity, whether by way of hiding their full glow of splendor from those whom fortune has treated more harshly, or whether that to have risen in spite of calamity is as honorable to their fortune as it is to a fortress to have undergone a siege,-however this be, I have observed that such persons never fail to entertain you with an account of the damage they sustain by the hardness of the times. "I therefore put in my proud claim to share in the distresses which only affect the wealthy; and write myself down, with Dogberry, 'a rich fellow enough,' but still 'one who hath had losses."" Walter Scott and human nature at the back of the authentic folio, against an anonymous and, as his labors show, a blundering tamperer with the text of Shakespeare! LOVE'S LABORS LOST. ACT I. SCENE 1. Biron. [Reads.] Item, "That no woman shall come within a mile of my court."-Hath this been proclaim'd? Long. Four days ago. Biron. Let's see the penalty. [Reads.] "On pain of losing her tongue."-Who devis'd this penalty! Long. Marry, that did I. Long. To fright them hence with that dread penalty. Biron. A dangerous law against gentility." Thus the original. At first "gentility" seems in this place an unintelligible word, which Mr. Collier's MS. corrector very plausibly changes to, "A dangerous law against garrulity." But it should be remarked that Biron is not one of those who approve of these regulations; and that he does not yet consider himself strictly bound by them. Thus, in his first speech in this scene, he says: "I can but say their protestation over; So much, dear liege, I have already sworn, Which, I hope well, is not enrolled there :" &c. and again, "I only swore to study with your grace." He finds fault with this law which has the lingual penalty; and it should be noticed that it is the law, and not the penalty, which he says is dangerous against gentility. He evidently means that the exclusion of ladies, involving, as it does, the loss of their refining and subduing influence upon the manners, is "a dangerous law against gentility." There is no justification for a change in the original text. A thorough examination of the context will often, as it has done in this case, show the propriety of a phrase in that text, which to one who looks at the phrase alone will seem obscure. "King. A letter from the magnificent Armado. Biron. How low soever the matter, I hope for high words. Long. A high hope for a low having; God grant us patience! Biron. To hear? or forbear hearing? Long. To hear meekly, sir, and to laugh moderately; or to forbear both." For "a low heaven" in the original, Theobald judiciously proposed "a low having;" but the succeeding speech of Biron obviously needs correction. Biron knowing Armado's affectation of magnificence, says that how low soever the matter of his letter may be, they may hope for high words. Longaville then asks, "a high hope for a low having ?" and at the prospect exclaims "God grant us patience!" Biron then asks Longaville,—[patience for what], "to hear or to forbear laughing" [at what you do hear?] Hearing' is an evident and an easy misprint for laughing,' as Steevens well suggested. Longa |