and refute them; only to enhance the value of his critical skill.

XII. He may find out an immodest or immoral meaning in his author; where there does not appear to be any hint

that way.

XIII. He needs not attend to the low accuracy of orthography or pointing; but may ridicule such trivial criticisms in others.

XIV. Yet, when he pleases to condescend to such work, he may value himself upon it; and not only restore lost puns, but point-out such quaintnesses, where perhaps the author never thought of it.

XV. He may explane a difficult passage, by words absolutely unintelligible.

XVI. He may contradict himself; for the sake of shewing his critical skill on both sides of the question.

XVII. It will be necessary for the profess'd critic to have by him a good number of pedantic and abusive expressions; to throw-about upon proper occasions.

XVIII. He may explane his Author, or any former Editor of him; by supplying such words, or pieces of words, or marks, as he thinks fit for that purpose.

XIX. He may use the very same reasons for confirming his own observations; which He has disallowed in his adversary.

XX. As the design of writing notes is not so much to explane the Author's meaning, as to display the Critic's knowledge; it may be proper, to shew his universal learning, that He minutely point out, from whence every metaphor and allusion is taken.

XXI. It will be proper, in order to shew his wit, especially if the critic be a married man, to take every opportunity of sneering at the fair sex.

XXII. He may misquote himself, or any body else, in order to make an occasion of writing notes; when He cannot otherwise find one.

XXIII. The Profess'd Critic, in order to furnish his quota to the bookseller, may write NOTES OF NOTHING; that is, Notes, which either explane things which do not want explanation; or such as do not explane matters at all, but merely fill-up so much paper.

XXIV. He may dispense with truth; in order to give the world a higher idea of his parts, or of the value of his work.

XXV. He may alter any passage of his author, without reason and against the Copies; and then quote the passage so altered, as an authority for altering any other.

I will quote one example from Edwards' Glossary, intended to show Warburton's mistakes in interpreting individual words. In "The Taming of the Shrew," III, ii, where Petruchio is preparing to carry Katherina away with him, he says, "Grumio, my horse." Grumio answers, either blunderingly or jokingly: "Ay, sir, they be ready; the oats have eaten the horses." Because of this passage, Warburton actually defines oats as "a distemper in horses." Edwards comments: "I hope, Mr. Warburton takes care to keep his horses from this dangerous distemper."

An interesting judgment upon the work of Edwards is the following by Richard Grant White:

Edwards's book, written in an ironical vein, was directed chiefly against Warburton, whose conceit, arrogance, and ignorance of his author's language it thoroughly and most serviceably exposed. But Edwards did more than demolish Warburton. His critical acumen, his taste and good sense, and his quick and sure apprehension of Shakespeare's thought, give him a conspicuous place among those who have been of real service in the preservation and elucidation of Shakespeare's text. His Canons remain, e converso, un

disputed to this day; and the volume in which they are embodied will long retain its interest and its value.

The great ingenuity and freedom of conjecture displayed by Warburton produced a few very helpful emendations. I give two examples.

At the close of "A Midsummer-Night's Dream” the human characters go out and Robin Goodfellow enters. His first words in our accepted text are:

Now the hungry lion roars,

And the wolf behowls the moon ;

The word behowls is Warburton's emendation for beholds in the early texts.

In "II Henry IV," II, ii, Poins is reading aloud a letter of Falstaff and commenting upon it. In the text of Neilson

he says:

"John Falstaff, knight,"-every man must know that, as oft as he has occasion to name himself; even like those that are kin to the King, for they never prick their finger but they say, "There's some of the King's blood spilt." "How comes that?" says he, that takes upon him not to conceive. The answer is as ready as a borrower's cap, "I am the King's poor cousin, sir."

Ll. 118-127.

The word borrower's is Warburton's emendation for the bor (r) owed of the early editions.

With the edition of Warburton and the comments upon it of the witty Edwards, I end this survey. In closing I wish to call attention to the constant popularity of Shakespeare's plays in contrast with those of other playwrights. Not a single Elizabethan dramatist except Shakespeare was 1 Edition of Shakespeare in 12 volumes, Vol. I, Boston, 1865, p. cclxxv

brought out before 1750 in a modern annotated edition. A critical edition of Beaumont and Fletcher appeared in 1750, for which six of the plays and parts of two others were edited and annotated by Theobald before his death in 1744. We noted in the previous paper that for a time in the seventeenth century Beaumont and Fletcher even surpassed Shakespeare in general favor. The first scholarly edition of Ben Jonson came out in 1756. But in the present survey we have found that eight critical editions of Shakespeare appeared before 1750.

THE PROPER TREATMENT OF SHAKESPEARE'S TEXT

A GREAT difficulty in interpreting Shakespeare lies in the fact that his text is filled with obsolete words and turns of speech, and allusions to former modes of life and thought. Unless one is very familiar with the life, the favorite conceptions, and the language of the Elizabethan period, one will mistake for corruptions what are only usages of that age, or daring uses peculiar to Shakespeare himself.

In 1875 the late Dr. C. M. Ingleby laid down three canons or rules which he thought ought to govern an editor of Shakespeare in his treatment of the text.1 These canons are wholly admirable; but that excellent scholar, it seems to me, has implied a number of things that ought to be brought out in express form. I think, also, that additional canons are needed. I have therefore drawn up nine of them. In these I try to set forth what seems to me to be the proper treatment of Shakespeare's text. I make free use of Ingleby's three canons, sometimes quoting his exact language; and my indebtedness to him is much greater than my quotations indicate.

Canon I. An editor's first duty is to explain the text. Only as a last resort should any alteration of the text, any emendation be proposed.

II. Only through a wide and accurate knowledge of contemporary writings, of Elizabethan ideas, and of the details 1 Shakespeare Hermeneutics, London, Trübner, 1875, 105 ff.