and Cleopatra, Act II. Sc. 2, Antony, speaking of his frampold wife, says:

"So much uncurbable her garboils, Cæsar,

Made out of her impatience," &c.

But in all the editions in ordinary use by the present and last generations, the first line is printed,

"So much uncurable her garboils, &c.

What

It so appears in Chalmers' Edition, in Singer's, in Moxon's, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Collier and Mr. Knight have restored the reading of the original, which indeed was not disturbed until the present century. Why it was disturbed is a mystery. "Garboils" means 'brawlings,' 'uproars,' 'tantrums,' and is translated, 'barbuglio,' 'ripetto,' in the Italian Dictionary of Shakespeare's contemporary, Florio. most people would call the old text probably came into being through the agency of some over wise compositor, who, able to understand only the last syllable of this word, supposed Fulvia to need a plaster upon her person rather than a restraint upon her passions; and so changed "uncurbable" into uncurable in some prominent edition, which was followed blindly for a quarter of a century.

Our conservatism too often consists in mere tenacity of that to which we have been accustomed. It is one thing to shrink from touching Shakespeare's text, but quite another to hesitate to remove the

words of Pope or Warburton, or others of inferior name, in order to restore those which appear in the authentic copy, or to substitute others more in accordance with the tone of Shakespeare's thought, the phraseology of his time, and the trace of the letters in the corrupted text. The conservatism which loves and venerates that which is right the more because it is old, appeals to the strongest and purest feelings of the human heart; it is not only virtue in the good, but wisdom in the wise. But that sort of conservatism which clings to a hoary evil merely because it has grown old in wrong, is equally vicious and foolish; for it not only perpetuates wrong, but provokes and almost justifies that innovation, which will root out all that is old,—the good with the evil. Let us shun such conservatism in editing the works of Shakespeare, if we would not see his thoughts diluted to the taste of the feeblest palates, and his phraseology tortured out of its antique, but never antiquated, grace and grandeur by the reforming hands whose ruthless strength such a course would provoke to action. Such are the feelings with which I have come to the critical study of Shakespeare's text, and which have influenced the character of the succeeding pages; and hence it is that in many passages, which seem to me beyond all question corrupt, although they have been printed and read without a question for generations, I have not hesitated to point out the error and the remedy which occurred to me, while at the same

time I merely suggest my corrections for the consideration of my fellow-students.

The quotations are given at greater length than is usual in works of verbal criticism, because this volume is not especially addressed to critics, who are supposed to know the context of all passages the reading of which is in dispute; and as to others, in the words of Mrs. Jameson-in the Preface to her delightful Characteristics of Women, which I read for the first time just before writing this letter-" it "the memory fail at the moment to recall the lines "or the sentiment to which the attention is direct"ly required, few like to interrupt the course of "thought, or undertake a journey from the sofa or "the garden seat to the library, to hunt out the vo"lume, the play, the passage for themselves."

The antiquarian style of editing has been opposed and ridiculed by many. I cannot give it my highest respect, especially when it tempts a man of Mr. Dyce's taste into such needless displays of reading of worthless books as abound in his otherwise admirable recent publication, in which instance upon instance from old volumes in all modern languages is heaped upon Shakespeare's text without illustrating it. But this is only the abuse of that which has its use. Mr. Dyce's own reading, as well as that of his predecessors, has thrown light on many passages in the works of Shakespeare and our elder dramatists; and in the recent discussions upon the authority of the emendations in Mr. Collier's folio, a

knowledge of the inferior literature of Shakespeare's day can be, and has been, used with great effect upon the pretensions of that volume. I will here, by way of illustration, and because, having mislaid my memorandum, it escaped me in the preparation of my own argument against Mr. Collier's folio and of this volume, mention a forgotten passage which is of much value in Shakesperian literature. You will remember that in the Merry Wives of Windsor, Act I. Sc. 3, Falstaff says of Mrs. Ford, "I spy en"tertainment in her: she discourses, she carves, "she gives the leer of invitation." The corrector of Mr. Collier's folio, being unable, like most people nowadays, to apprehend the force of the phrase "she carves," changed it to "she craves;" and so did Zachary Jackson thirty-five years ago. But Mr. Hunter and Mr. Dyce have quoted from authors of Shakespeare's day, several instances of the use of the word, in the sense of 'propitiating.' They do not, however, arrive at the exact meaning; and Mr. Dyce remarks: "whatever was its exact nature it would "appear*** to have been a sort of salutation which "was practised more especially at table." But the reappearance of my forgotten memorandum enables me to show exactly what this sort of carving was, and how it was performed. In the satirical description of A very Woman, which occurs among the Characters appended to Sir Thomas Overbury's Wife-and it is one of the most graphic, quaint and pungent among them the description of the married part of her life begins thus: "Her lightnesse gets her to swim at

"top of the table, where her wrie little finger be"wraies carving; her neighbors at the latter end "know they are welcome, and for that purpose she

quencheth her thirst." Sig. E. 3, Ed. 1632. Carving, then, was a sign of intelligence, made with the little finger as the glass was raised to the mouth. It is remarkable, by the way, that ladies do this now-a-days infinitely more than gentlemen. Is it possible that the trick has survived, while its meaning is lost? But the value of this passage to the Shakesperian scholar is, that it shows the ignorance of the corrector of Mr. Collier's folio with regard to a word and a custom in vogue at the date of the edition on which he made his changes; and therefore furnishes another incontestable proof of the much later date of his labors, and of his unfitness for them.

A few of the following pages are devoted to an examination of the grounds upon which authority can be claimed for Mr. Collier's notorious and curious volume. I need not point out to you that this is not, and does not attempt to be, a detailed approval or disapproval of such of the changes in the text of that volume as have been made public by Mr. Collier, but is purely an argument which aims to show, that those emendations were made in such a way and at such a time that, as to their authority, they are utterly without any claim upon our deference. I have been both publicly and privately censured by Shakesperian enthusiasts for too great consideration towards Mr. Collier, even when most severe upon the changes which he advocates.

But