ment, there are strong and clear reasons for textual changes made or proposed by former Shakespearians, but where the new school, with their canon of "absolute necessity," hold on to stark corruptions, and then make up for their textual strictness with the largest exegetical license. Yet I have never caught any of these bigots (so I must term them) of the old letter finding fault when we, of a somewhat more liberal bent, have adopted any corrections which they have themselves proposed. Here, as, to be sure, is very natural, their "absolute necessity" smiles itself into an aspect practicable enough.

For, in truth, several of them seem equally intent on finding reasons for condemning corrections that others have made, and for proposing or approving new corrections; and their wrong-headed, perhaps I should say pig-headed, ingenuity in both parts of the business is sometimes ludicrous, sometimes otherwise. So, for instance, one of them has lately approved, and another adopted, a new reading in The Tempest, i. 2: "Urchins shall forth at vast of night, that they work all exercise on thee"; where both the old and the common reading is, "Urchins shall, for that vast of night that they may work, all exercise on thee." Here, of course, for gives the sense of duration, or prolonged action; which is just what the occasion requires. For it is well known that urchins were wont to go forth, and work, or play, during the vast of night, anyhow; this was their special right or privilege; and Prospero means that, during that time, he will have them exercise their talents on Caliban. In my poor opinion, therefore, both the approver and the adopter of the forecited change have thereby, so far as one instance can tell against them, earned an exclusion, or a dismissal, from the seat of judgment in questions of that sort. However, when any of these gentlemen offer us, as they sometimes do, corrections that can show strong and clear reasons, I, for

one, shall be happy to prefer their practice also to their preaching; and if they see fit to frown their preaching upon me, I have but to laugh back their own practice upon them so, if they can stand it, I can.

But there is one thing which I feel bound to set my face against, however insignificant that setting may be. It is this. Of course there are a great many plain cases of textual corruption, where, notwithstanding, a full and perfect certainty as to the right correction is not to be attained. These often try an editor's labour and judgment and patience to the uttermost. But it is an editor's business, in such cases, to sift and weigh the whole matter with all possible care, to make up his mind, and do the best he can. This is a tedious and painful, as also, in most cases, a thankless process. So a custom has lately been started, for editors, when on this score any "doubts or scruples tease the brain," to shirk the whole matter, to shift off the burden upon others, and to dodge all responsibility and all hazard of a wrong decision, by sticking an obelus in to note the corruption; thus calling the reader's attention to his need of help, and yet leaving him utterly unhelped. This is indeed "most tolerable and not to be endured." It is, in effect, equivalent to telling us that they know more than all the previous editors, yet do not know enough for the cause they have undertaken, and so have no way but to adjourn the court.

There is one other topic upon which I must say a few words. - It is somewhat in question how far the spelling and the verbal forms of the old copies ought to be retained. Mr. White, following the folio, prints murther for murder, fadom for fathom, and in some cases, if I rightly remember, moder for mother. Now there seems to me just as much reason for keeping the two latter archaisms as for keeping the first; that is to say, none at all. Herein, however, Mr. White is at least consistent; which is more than can be said of some

other recent editing; though I admit that in this instance consistency is not a jewel. And Mr. Furness, in the Preface to his King Lear, announces that hereafter he shall adhere to the old form, or old spelling, of then for than, as also of the antique concessive and for an. In an edition like his designed chiefly for students and scholars, there may be some reason for this which does not hold in the case of editions looking to general use; yet even that appears to me somewhat more than doubtful. Mr. Furness urges that Spenser always uses then for than, and that none of his modern editors think of substituting the latter. But Spenser manifestly took pains to give his language a special air or smack of antiquity, and so made it more archaic than the general usage of his time. Moreover, Spenser is now very little read, if at all, save by scholars and students; and, if I were to edit any portion of him for common use, I should make no scruple of printing than, except in cases where then might need to be kept for the rhyme.

Again: All students of Shakespeare know that the folio has many instances of God buy you, the old colloquial abridgment of God be with you, which has been still further shortened into our Good bye. Probably, in the Poet's time, the phrase was sounded God bwy you. Here I see no other, or no better, way to keep both sense and sound, and rhythm also, than by printing God b' wi' you; and so in this edition I always print, or mean to print. Would Mr. Furness, in this instance also, retain the old form or spelling buy? The phrase, I believe, does not occur in King Lear, so that he had no occasion there for making any sign of his thought on the subject. The phrase occurs twice in Hamlet, first in ii. 1, and again in ii. 2; and there he prints "God be wi' you and "God be wi' ye"; but on some points his views have changed since his superb edition of that play was issued. Whatever his purpose may be, I cannot but think there is

quite as good reason for adhering strictly to the old letter in this instance as in that of then or of and. And the case is substantially the same in reference to a great many other words: in fact, I do not see how this principle of retention can consistently stop, till it shall have restored the old spelling altogether.

My own practice in this matter is, wherever any thing either of sense, or of rhythm, or of metre, or of rhyme, is involved, to retain the old forms or old spelling. For instance, the folio has eyne for eyes, and rhyming with mine; also denay for denial, and rhyming with say: it also has throughly for thoroughly, and thorough for through. Of course I should never think, probably no editor would think, of disturbing these archaisms, or such as these. Even when, as is often the case, there is no reason of metre or of rhyme for keeping them, they are essential items in the Poet's rhythm; for good prose has a rhythm of its own as well as verse. Now Shakespeare, especially in his verse, was evidently very particular and exact in the care of his rhythm and metre, and therefore of his syllables. The folio has almost numberless minute proofs and indications of this; and here, of course, the smaller the note, the more significance it bears as regards the Poet's habit and purpose. Perhaps there is no one point wherein this is oftener shown than in his very frequent elision of the article the, so as to make it coalesce with the preceding word into one syllable. So, especially in his later plays, there is almost no end to such elisions as by th', do th', for th', from th', on th', to th', &c.; and the folio has many instances of the double elision with' for with the. Now I hold, and have long held it important that, as far as practicable, these little things be carefully preserved, not only because they are essential parts of the Poet's verbal modulation, but also as significant notes or registers of his scrupulous and delicate attention to this element of his workman

ship. Yet the whole thing is totally ignored in all the recent editions that I am conversant with; all, with the one exception of Mr. Furness's latest volume, his King Lear, where it is carefully attended to. And right glad am I that it is; for, as I must think, it ought never to have been neglected.

But, in certain other points, — points where nothing of rhyme or metre or rhythm or sense is concerned, — I have pursued, and shall pursue, a somewhat different course. — It is well known to Shakespearians that the old text has some twelve or fifteen, perhaps more, instances of it used possessively, or where we should use its, the latter not being a current form in the Poet's time, though then just creeping into use. And so the English Bible, as originally printed in 1611, has not a single instance of its: it has, however, one or two, perhaps more, instances of it used in the same way. In these cases, all modern editions, so far as I know, print its, and are, I hold, unquestionably right in doing so. It is true, Shakespeare's old text has repeated instances of its, and these are more frequent in the later plays than in the earlier. And in most of these cases the folio prints it with an apostrophe, it's; though in two or three places, if not more, we there have it printed without the apostrophe.

In all these cases, whether of it or it's or its, I make no scruple whatever of printing simply its; though I sometimes call attention to the old usage in my Critical Notes. For, in truth, I can perceive no sort of sense or reason in retaining the possessive it in Shakespeare's text, or, at all events, in any presentation of it designed for common use. Yet we have some recent editing apparently taking no little credit to itself for keeping up and propagating this unmeaning and worthless bit of archaic usage; whereas the Poet himself was evidently impatient of it, as he shook himself more and more free from it, the riper he grew. Of course the same recent editing insists punctually on keeping the apostro