we can among the various readings set forth in the foot-notes, where they are all, of course, to be found. But the question is very material; for, if the conjecture be correct, the whole value of this second edition, as far as the study of the progressive changes in Shakspere's style is concerned, is taken away; and not of this play only, but of all the others which were not printed till after his death. If Richard III. has undergone this kind of manipulation by some nameless transcriber or editor, so may The Comedy of Errors, the Two Gentlemen of Verona, King John, the three parts of Henry VI., As You Like It, Twelfth Night, All's Well, Measure for Measure, Julius Cesar, Othello, Macbeth, Anthony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, Timon of Athens, the Tempest, Cymbeline, the Winter's Tale, and Henry VIII. And our mechanical tests will be quite defeated. For, in counting the number of lines marked by some distinctive feature, we shall include an indefinite number whose features have been altered according to the taste, not of Shakspere, but of some transcriber or editor, of whom we know nothing but that he flourished before 1623. The order of priority indicated by rhyme, stopped line, double ending, alexandrine, short line, and the rest, may be changed altogether by the action of this unknown agent.

I call the conjecture bold, because it is not supported either by any tradition concerning this particular play or by any known custom among the contemporary editors of Shakspere; not one of whom, so far as we know, did more than hand the manuscript to the printer, and leave him to make of it what he could or would. Nevertheless, I hold the judgment of the Cambridge editors to be weighty enough to deserve careful investigation. For which purpose, not knowing the particular grounds on which it rests, I propose to begin by setting out all the differences between the first Quarto and the first Folio, in which the reading of the Folio seems to be open to any such definite objection as would justify us in saying that the alteration cannot have been made by Shakspere. I say 'definite objection,' because, as the question is, what changes his taste underwent as he advanced in the practice of his art, we must not begin by assuming that of two given readings he could not have liked best the one which we like least. When the cases thus selected are before us, I propose

to inquire further with regard to each whether the apparent fault of the reading in the Folio may not be accounted for by some ordinary error of the press, or by one of those accidents which, if not strictly speaking ordinary, are nevertheless very likely to happen, where a manuscript or printed book, brimful of corrections inserted between the lines or in the margin or on separate slips, is sent to the printer by way of copy, and left to its fate. These being set aside, the rest, which cannot be thus accounted for, will include all the evidence upon which the conjecture is based; and if they exhibit a considerable number of alterations which we cannot conceive to have been made by Shakspere and can conceive to have been made by a transcriber or editor of average intelligence (for we are not to forget that there are mistakes which the critic is as unlikely to make as the author himself), we must make up our minds to accept and encounter this new difficulty, and remember, while we number up and compare the distinctive peculiarities of his several plays, that many of their peculiarities (and we can never know how many) are perhaps not his at all, but some would-be improver's.

Before entering on the inquiry I shall only observe, by way of caution, that, as all the inserted passages, and a great many of the corrections, are admitted to be Shakspere's own, and as we have no external evidence of the intervention of any other corrector, the presumption in all cases (till special reason be shown to the contrary) must be that the altered reading was that which he preferred.

I.

ALTERATIONS IN THE FOLIO RICHARD III. WHICH CANNOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY SHAKSPERE.1

1.

I. i. 60. "These, as I learn, and such like toys as these
Have moved his Highness to commit me now."

Here the Folio reads Hath for Have.

The figures refer to the act, scene, and line in the Cambridge edition, where the passage will be found. The quotations at head of each article are from the first Quarto.

2.

I. i. 64. "My Lady Grey, his wife, Clarence, 'tis she
That tempers him to this extremity."

Here the Folio reads:

"That tempts him to this harsh extremity."

I think the reading of the Quarto is probably what Shakspere wrote; because tempers is more likely to have been corrupted into tempts than the reverse. I find that the third and fourth Quartos read :

the rest,

"That temps him to this extremity;"

"That tempts him to this extremity."

The mistake may have arisen from the use in the MS. of the contracted form of per. Tempers,' written with the contraction, may have been mistaken by the transcriber or printer for 'tempts': the corrector reformed the metre by inserting 'harsh.' But this is a correction which the author himself might have made if he found the imperfect line in the copy which he was correcting, and did not remember what he had originally written. There is not much to choose between the two lines.

3.

I. i. 74. "Heard ye not what an humble suppliant
Lord Hastings was to her for his delivery ?”

The Folio reads:

"Lord Hastings was for her delivery?"

Here the Folio is evidently wrong. But the error may have arisen from an inter-linear correction misunderstood. The corrector, who evidently disliked lines of twelve syllables,-I do not call this an alexandrine,—meant, I think, to strike out 'to her.' But if the correction was not clearly made, or if the printer was careless, it might easily happen that 'her' was left instead of 'his.'

4.

I. ii. 19. "Than I can wish to adders, spiders, toads,
Or any creeping venomed thing that lives."

Here occurs an alteration which is hard to account for. The Folio reads:

:

"Than I can wish to wolves, to spiders, toads,
Or" &c.

It can hardly have been Shakspere's, as it stands. But can it have been a correcting editor's or transcriber's? It is difficult to imagine a motive for such a change; so difficult, whatever amount of stupidity we may credit the corrector with, that I am inclined rather to suspect that it has been an unfinished correction of the author's own. There seems to be nothing to induce another man to alter anything. But Shakspere himself on reading the passage over may perhaps have observed that, the particular act which calls forth the curse being one of open violence and not of secret treachery, there is an incongruity in wishing to the actor the fate of "creeping venomed things," and he may have meant to alter it by the substitution of wolves and noxious creatures of that kind. But as it will be seen hereafter that there are reasons for thinking that the correction of this play was never completed (and this is not one of the parts upon which most has been done), we may also suppose that the substitution of wolves for adders represents only the beginning of an intended alteration which was left unfinished,

If it be thought extravagant to suppose that Shakspere would not have completed the correction when he was about it, inquire of our poets what they do when they cannot quite make up their minds on the instant how to finish a passage which they have begun.

It is true indeed that, even upon this supposition, the occurrence of this alteration detracts considerably from the authority of the Folio; but our present question is, how far does it go to prove the intervention of some one who was not the author?

5.

I. ii. 39. "Unmannered dog, stand thou when I command." The Folio reads standst for stand. An error undoubtedly, but not the error of a corrector.

6.

I. ii. 60. "Thy deed inhuman and unnatural

Provokes this deluge most unnatural."

The Folio reads deeds, without altering Provokes. An error again ; but of somebody's carelessness. I suppose deed is the right reading.

7.

I. ii. 75. "Vouchsafe, divine perfection of a woman,

Of these supposed evils to give me leave

By circumstance but to acquit myself.

Anne. Vouchsafe, defused infection of a man,

For these known evils but to give me leave

By circumstance to curse thy cursed self."

Here the Folio changes evils in the second line to crimes, of a man to of man in the fourth, and For to Of in the fifth

The first correction was no doubt for the sake of the metre, and I suppose it was for the sake of the metre that evils was not changed to crimes in fifth line. It could not have been done without some further alteration; and as the necessary alteration could have involved no difficulty for the author, it must be admitted to be more like the work of a corrector who was not the author; although the corrector of this play, whoever he was, has shown himself quite capable of dealing with such a difficulty. The omission of the article in the fourth line was probably an oversight.

But why change For to Of, in the fifth line? All the Quartos have For: and to curse a man of an evil is not English. Did the corrector mean to change curse into accuse? In some respects it fits the place better. 'Accuse' answers better to acquit' in the speech before, and 'excuse' in those after.

8.

I. ii. 200. “Glou. But shall I live in hope?

Ann. All men, I hope, live so.

Glou. Vouchsafe to wear this ring.

Ann. To take is not to give.

Glou. Look how this ring encompasseth thy finger," &c.

Here we have in the Folio a change which Shakspere certainly

could not have intended :-
:-

"Rich. But shall I live in hope?

Ann. All men, I hope, live so.

Vouchsafe to wear this ring.

Rich. Look how my ring encompasseth thy finger," &c.

That the ring was given to Anne by Richard, and not to Richard by