tion, "this bisson multitude,"13 and for me because I have adopted it. The present edition differs from the former as much in the notes as in the text,-the changes made in the text having necessitated equal changes in the notes, which are now more than twice as numerous as before. In marking how the text varies from the old copies, I have not thought it needful to mention such alterations as "thou art" to "thou'rt" (or vice versú), "he will" to "he'll" (or vice versa), "I would" to "Id" (or vice versa), &c.; and where the old copies have a plural noun with a singular verb I have silently substituted (except in particular cases) a plural verb ; -in all which minutia the old copies are quite inconsistent.14 13 Coriolanus, act iii. sc. 1. “The folio,” observes Mr. Grant White ad l., "has the extravagant misprint this Bosome-multiplied,' which yet remained uncorrected till the discovery of Mr. Collier's folio of 1632, and which-so stolidly tenacious is hide-bound conservatism of its mumpsimus-has since then found defenders."-In The Parthenon for Nov. 1st, 1862, p. 848, the late Mr. W. W. Williams, a critic of no ordinary acuteness, speaking of the “ridiculous blunders in the old copies" of Shakespeare, writes thus; "He [the reader] may not know that, when he finds Hamlet addressing the Queen of Denmark as 'good mother,' the earliest authority makes him apostrophize her as 'coold mother,' and a subsequent one as 'could smother;' that, in the same play, 'the dreadful summit of a cliff' is printed 'the dreadful sonnet of a cliff,' suggestive of cadence, but scarcely of a precipice; and that 'the life-rendering pelican' is presented as 'the life-rendering Politician' · -a sturdy patriot, ready to 'die upon the floor' of an ornithological House of Commons. Our little friend, the temple - haunting martlet,' in Macbeth, appears as 'the temple-haunting Barlet,'— -one of those rare visitants to our shores of which we have not even a stuffed specimen in our museums. That 'white beards' should be transformed into white bears' need create no alarm, for one may detect the conjuration as one reads. But there was an old word 'bisson' = blind, whose presence was not so readily recognised. When, in Coriolanus, Menenius humorously calls blind eyes 'bisson conspectuities,' the revered folio favours us with 'beesome conspectuities,'-a thrilling epithet, but certainly misplaced; and when Coriolanus alludes with patrician scorn to the bisson multitude,' he is made to vent his sarcasm in Bosome-multiplied'-a compound more curious than caustic-which was 'explained' by Malone, and has since found a chivalrous defender." 14 This Preface was already in the hands of the printer when a long article on the Cambridge Shakespeare appeared in The Times newspaper for Sept. 29, 1863,-a portion of the critique running thus ; -To the last volume is appended a Glossary, wherein the language of the poet, his allusions to customs, &c. are fully explained. In preparing this edition I have been greatly assisted by the late Sydney Walker's Shakespeare's Versification, &c., and "We should not, however, insist on such inaccuracies as these, were they not accompanied by other errors systematically committed, not from oversight, but from choice. It is well known, for example, that the word its was only coming into use in Shakespeare's time. Milton hardly ever used it; the translators of the Bible also avoided it. Shakespeare for the possessive case of it sometimes wrote its, sometimes his, and sometimes it. An example of this last is the line,-"The innocent milk in it most innocent mouth;' and again,—‘Go to it grandam, child, and it grandam will give it a plum.' When it therefore appears in Shakespeare as the equivalent of its, there is a philological interest attached to it which we should expect that the editors of what professes to be a scholarly edition of the plays would respect. Instead of this, they modernize Shakespeare's grammar, and insist upon his writing its where in accordance with the usage of the time he wrote it. So again, verbs ending in t and d constantly throughout the original editions of Shakespeare's works are found making their second person singular in ts or ds instead of t'st and d'st. This form we find in Burns. In one of his most celebrated songs, addressing a little bird on the banks of Doon, he says,-Thou minds me o' departed joys.' When the form occurs in Shakespeare, the editors have determined to ignore it and to modernize it. Another habit of Shakespeare's is to use a noun plural with a verb singular. Every one will remember the song in Cymbeline in which we hear of the springs, on chaliced flowers that lies.' Now such a grammatical construction as this is frequent in the plays," &c. 1. With respect to "it" and "its."-In the above-cited passage of King John, act ii. sc. 1, I retain (with Malone, Mr. Collier, &c.) the "it" of the folio; and my reason for doing so is obvious enough from the nature of the passage; "Do, child, go to it' grandam, child; Give grandam kingdom, and it' grandam will There's a good grandam." But in the above-cited line of The Winter's Tale, act iii. sc. 2, "The innocent milk in it most innocent mouth,' I substitute "its" for "it;" because, unless I were indifferent about preserving consistency, I could not retain "it" in that line, and yet in another passage of the same play, act i. sc. 2, print with the folio (the only authority for the text of The Winter's Tale), "How sometimes nature will betray it's folly, It's tenderness, and make itself a pastime," &c. To me, who firmly believe-nor am I singular in the belief-that not one of his Critical Examination, &c.,-works which undoubtedly form altogether the most valuable body of verbal criticism on our poet that has yet appeared from the pen of an individual. Though not relying implicitly on the former work for Shakespeare's dramas was originally printed from his own manuscript, there is something passing strange in the reviewer's unqualified assertion that Shakespeare "sometimes wrote its, sometimes his, and sometimes it." 2. The statement that "verbs ending in t and d constantly throughout the original editions of Shakespeare's works are found making their second person singular in ts or ds instead of t'st or d'st," is disproved by the following passages, which half-an-hour's cursory examination of the early copies has enabled me to adduce; "Thou cut'st my head off with a golden axe." Romeo and Juliet, act iii. sc. 3. "Thou want'st a rough pash," &c. The Winter's Tale, act i. sc. 2. "And if thou want'st a cord," &c. King John, act iv. sc. 2. "Mett'st thou my posts?" Antony and Cleopatra, act i. sc. 5. "And start so often when thou sitt'st alone." "Nay, Hall, if Percy be alive, thou get'st not my sword." First Part of King Henry IV. act ii. sc. 3. Id. act v. sc. 3. "If thou get'st any leave of me, hang me." Sec. Part of King Henry IV. act i. sc. 2. "Which, like a usurer, abound'st in all." Romeo and Juliet, act iii. sc. 3. "Thou find'st to be too busy is some danger." Hamlet, act iii. sc. 4. "And, England, if my love thou hold'st at aught." "When thou hold'st up thy hand." Midsummer-Night's Dream, act iii. sc. 2. "And give the letters which thou find'st about me." King Lear, act iv. sc. 6. "Thou spend'st such high-day art in praising him." "There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st," &c. Id. act v. sc. 1. 3. As to "a noun plural with a verb singular:"-Where the rhyme requires it, as in the case of the above-cited song in Cymbeline, act ii. sc. 3, what concerns the metre of Shakespeare, I yet regard it as an incomparably better authority than the History of English Rhythms by Dr. Guest, who, if he has not a proneness to seek "those springs On chalic'd flowers that lies," an editor must necessarily follow the old copies: but I cannot think that, except where a rhyme is in question, or where some low character happens to be speaking, an editor is called upon to offend his readers by presenting them with nouns plural to verbs singular; for though it is certain that "such a grammatical construction is frequent in the plays" (i. e. in the old copies of the plays), it is also certain that there is no lack in those plays of plural nominatives to plural verbs. In the same article apud The Times the reviewer seems decidedly to approve of the reading printed (not merely, as he tells us, "proposed") by Capell in The Merry Wives of Windsor, act i. sc. 4; according to which Simple, while describing Slender, says, "he hath but a little whey-face, with a little yellow beard, a cane-coloured beard." Now, the folio, which alone preserves the complete and corrected text of that comedy, exhibits the passage literatim thus; "he hath but a little wee-face; with a little yellow Beard: a Caine colourd Beard;" while the quartos, which contain only an imperfect text of the first sketch of the play, have in the corresponding passage, 'Quic. . . . . . And he has as it were a whay coloured beard. ..... Sim. Indeed my maisters beard is kane colored;" which passage of the quartos suggested to Capell his emendation.-When the reviewer objects to the received reading, "a little wee face," that it 'gives two epithets of size which mean the same thing," he cannot be aware how common the use of "wee" after "little" was formerly; and is even in our own day, I myself, on many occasions, having heard the lower classes in the north of England and in Scotland apply the double epithet "little wee" both to persons and to things. Again, when the reviewer affirms that the folio's having "wee face" hyphened "is a principal argument in favour of Capell's reading," he writes very hastily indeed; for in old books the hyphen is often introduced with strange impropriety (see note 39, p. 424 of this vol., and my note on the words "thin bestainèd cloak" in King John, act iv. sc. 3); and just as wee-face" is hyphened in the folio ed. of The Merry Wives of Windsor, so “wee-man" is hyphened in the quarto ed. of Heywood's Fair Maid of the West,-in a passage which is itself a host against Capell's emendation; "Bes. And where dwelt he? Clem. Below here in the next crooked street, at the signe of the Leg. Hee was nothing so tall as I, but a little wee-man, and somewhat hucktbackt." First Part, p. 14, ed. 1631. out, seems to admit, every sort of irregularity in the versification of the Elizabethan dramatists, and, to a considerable extent, to mix up their metrical systems with those not only of the older English but also of the Anglo-Saxon poets. This would render him an unsafe guide for an editor of Shakespeare, even if he did not occasionally give, as examples of certain kinds of versification, lines which he either misquotes, or lines which are manifestly corrupted. E. g. Hist. of Eng. Rhythms, vol. i. p. 37; "Let pity not be believed: there | she shook | The holy water from her heavenly eyes.' Lear, 4. 3." A passage found only in the quartos, and certainly not to be depended upon. Vol. i. p. 197; "With such holiness: can you do | it?' Corrupted, and all but nonsense. [Sec. Part of] H. 6, 2. 1." Vol. i. p. 218; "Is | my kinsman: whom | the king | hath wrong'd\.' R. 2, 2. 2." One of the hobbling lines in a speech which has suffered most cruelly from the transcriber or printer. Vol. i. p. 219; "But hast thou yet latch'd the Athenian's eyes With the love juice: as | I bid | thee do|? Misquoted. The old copies read "With the love-juice, as I did bid thee do." Vol. i. p. 221; "Nay if you melt: then I will she | run mad.' M. N. D. 3. 2." 1 H. 4, 3. 1." |