Some of the editors interpret "scale," 'to disperse ;' but granting the word that ford in the place it holds? it may be that they have serves his purpose, he will venture to use it, old as it is. Can there be the least doubt that Theobald was right in changing one letter, and reading,

meaning, what sense does it afMenenius tells the people that heard his story; but, since it

Lead their successes as we wish our own;

That both our powers, with smiling fronts encountering,
May give you thankful sacrifice!"

This invocative prayer to the gods is nonsense as it now stands; but the very obvious correction proposed by Warburton and supported by Mr. Dyce, removes all difficulty. Read,

Lead their successes," &c.

"Ye Roman gods,

ACT II. SCENE 1.

"Men. I am known to be a humorous patrician, and one that loves a cup of hot wine with not a drop of allaying Tyber in't; said to be something imperfect in favouring the first complaint."

Mr. Collier's folio suggests, with reason, that we should read "without a drop of allaying Tiber," and, "the thirst complaint." Common sense will not set the latter word aside because Mr. Singer has discovered that "thirst' was sometimes provincially pronounced and spelt first and furst." Shakespeare does not make Menenius talk like a West of England ploughboy. In the same Scene, the suggestion of empiric physic, for "empirickqutique" of the original, in the speech of Menenius, is one which will be gladly received from the folio. "Teach" of the old copy is also, without a doubt, misprinted for touch, in the following passage:

"Sic. This, as you say, suggested

At some time when his soaring insolence
Shall touch the people," &c.

SCENE 3.

In the generally received text, Coriolanus, as he stands in the Forum to ask the voices of the citizens for the consulship, disgusted with the task, exclaims:

"Why in this wolfish togue should I stand here?" &c.

"Togue" is "tongue" in the original; but that is evidently a misprint. "Wolfish" has given much trouble to the commentators. Mr. Collier's folio suggests woolless as a substitute; and the conjecture has some plausibility, because in the previous Scene Coriolanus is spoken of as refusing to put on "the napless vesture of humility." To this reading however, which is received on the ground that Coriolanus was like a wolf in sheep's clothing, and not like a sheep in wolf's clothing, the Hon. George Lunt thus objects:

"It is true, that the wolf covered himself with a sheep-skin; and if this covering had really converted him into a sheep, Mr. Collier might have the benefit of his interpretation. But although I shall not argue with Mr. Collier that sheep skin is not naturally sheep's clothing, yet I do hold that, as when a man wears a borrowed garment, it is taken to be and is called his garment, so, though the sheep skin was naturally sheep's clothing, yet, by the appropriation, it was pro hac vice, more appropriately wolf's clothing, and, therefore, a

-'woolvish toge,'

and, therefore, Shakespeare so wrote it."

But where is the propriety, especially the poetic propriety, of calling the sheep skin "wolf's clothing," merely because the wolf wore it? The moment it became wolf's clothing, that moment it ceased to be a disguise, and lost all significance; and, besides, 'wolfish' means not 'belonging to a wolf,' but like a wolf.' But here is an objection by the same gentleman, not so easily answered.

"When it is considered that the gowns of the Romans were,

in fact, fabricated of wool,-to say that a wollen gown is woolless, because it is insidiously alleged to have been napless, or for any other reason why-involves a gratuitous absurdity, of which I, for one, do not believe Shakespeare to have been capable."

Unquestionably, Shakespeare would never have called a woollen toga "woolless ;" and the new reading cannot be accepted.

But since neither "wolfish" "wolfish" nor woolless give a consistent meaning, let us look at the original line, the context, and the other passages of the play, which have a bearing upon this one. The word in the corrupted text seems to have misled all the commentators upon the passage. They evidently regard Coriolanus when standing for the consulship, as feeling, what our border-men call, 'wolfish about the head and shoulders.' But the text affords no support for this opinion. Coriolanus feels contempt for the people he derides the custom, and thinks that it belittles him to conform to it. What Brutus says of him shows no ireful feeling on his part, but merely that he thought the ceremony very small business.

"I heard him swear,

Were he to stand for consul, never would he
Appear i' the market-place, or on him put
The napless vesture of humility;

Nor, showing (as the manner is) his wounds
To the people, beg their stinking breaths."

Act II. Sc. 1.

Coriolanus himself says, on a previous occasion,

"I'd rather have one scratch my head in the sun,
When the alarum were struck, than idly sit

To hear my nothings monster'd."

Act II. Sc. 2.

It makes him shame-faced to go through this foolery.

When told that he must, according to precedent, speak to the people, he replies,

"I do beseech you,

Let me o'erleap that custom; for I cannot

Put on the gown, stand naked, and entreat them,
For my wounds' sake, to give their suffrage:" &c.

Cor. To brag unto them,-Thus I did, and thus ;—
Show them the unaching scars which I should hide,
As if I had receiv'd them for the hire

Of their breath only."

Ibid.

There is nothing either of a wolf in sheep's clothing or a sheep in wolf's clothing in all this. He regards the custom as contemptible,-foolish. The same feeling appears when he stands in the Forum; and there he says to a citizen, with a sneer, "I have here the customary gown." So again, when he has received the "most sweet voices" of the people and is told by the Tribunes and Menenius to go to the Senate-house to be invested, he asks:

"May I change these garments?

Sic. You may, sir.

Cor. That I'll strait do, and, knowing myself again, repair to the Senatehouse."

He looks upon the ceremony as a preposterous piece of folly, and thinks that the vesture of humility makes a patrician appear ridiculous. ridiculous. "Wolfish" we have seen, too, is