kind.” To which Dyce fitly replies, “But it is evident from what precedes, that the two ladies have just been telling their husbands and Sir Hugh how they had served Falstaff.” P. 89. Disguised like Herne, with huge horns on his head. - This line is wanting in the folio. As something of the kind is plainly needful to the sense, the line has been justly introduced from the quartos. P. 91. That silk will I go buy:- [Aside.] and in that trim Shall Master Slender steal my Nan away.-The old copies have time instead of trim, which is White's reading. Theobald changed time to tire, and is followed by Dyce. Singer prints trim. ACT IV., SCENE 5. P. 93. Ay, sir; like who more bold.- So the folio, except that it has a (:) after sir. The quartos 1602, 1619, have "I tike, who more bold." I here quote the two old readings merely for the purpose of noting that, Farmer having proposed "Ay, Sir Tike," that strange reading has commonly been adopted. Singer's last edition has it. See foot-note 7. -- P. 93. Run away with by the cozeners. So Collier's second folio. The old copies lack by. P. 94. Well, if my wind were but long enough to say my prayers, I would repent. The words to say my prayers, omitted in the folio, were restored from the quartos by Pope. The omission was probably in consequence of the statute against profaneness. ACT IV., SCENE 6. P. 96. That neither singly can be manifested Without the show of both; wherein fat Falstaff Hath a great share. - The folio lacks wherein, and has scene instead of share. The former is supplied from the quartos 1602, 1619, and the latter corrected by Verges. Instead of great share, the quartos have mightie scare. Walker would read therein instead of wherein. P. 97. And, in the lawful name of marrying. Walker "suspects" this should be marriage; which was often used as a trisyllable. I suspect Walker is right. ACT V., SCENE 2. P. 98. Remember, son Slender, my daughter. So the second folio. The first omits daughter. Not in the quartos 1602, 1619. ACT V., SCENE 3. P. 99. And the Welsh devil, Hugh. So Capell. The folio has Herne instead of Hugh. Not in the quartos 1602, 1619. ACT V., SCENE 5. P. 102. You ouphen-heirs of fixed destiny, The old editions have Attend your office and your quality. "orphan heires," which Dyce retains. White also retains it; but, notwithstanding his argument on the subject, I still have to confess myself totally unable to conceive what orphan heirs, as applied to fairies, can mean. Warburton changed orphan to ouphen, which yields, I think, an intelligible and fitting sense. Singer adopts it. See foot-note 7. — I must add, that throughout this scene the folio prefixes Qui. and Qu. to the speeches of the Fairy Queen. But, however those prefixes may have crept in, it is certain that Anne Page was to perform that part. This is clear from iv. 6: To-night at Herne's oak, just 'twixt twelve and one, This is conclusive, except upon the supposal that, as Anne had another part to play in the scene, she may have shifted that part off upon some other person, in order to hide her ulterior doings. White follows the quartos in assigning her speeches to Mrs. Quickly. The question, after all, is not very easy to decide; but, upon the whole, I prefer the arrangement adopted by the majority of editors, Dyce among them. P. 102. Cricket, to Windsor chimneys shalt thou leap : Where fires thou find'st unraked and hearths unswep, There pinch the maids as blue as bilberry. — The old copies have unswept instead of unswep. As the speech is evidently meant to be in rhyme, Walker proposed unswep, which he regards as an old form of unswept. And the reading is, I must think, rather approved by the strained attempts of others to make the lines rhyme; Collier's second folio having “Criket, to Windsor chimneys when thou'st leapt,” and Singer, "Cricket, to Windsor chimneys shalt thou, having leapt.” P. 103. Rein up the organs of her fantasy.— So Warburton. The old copies have Raise instead of Rein. Raise up can nowise be made to yield a sense that will cohere with the context or the occasion. See foot-note II. P. 103. In seat as wholesome as in state 'tis fit.—The old copies have state instead of seat. Walker notes upon the passage, "We ought probably to read 'In seat as wholesome,' referring to the healthy situation of the castle"; and Lettsom, his editor, adds, "Hanmer, with his usual acuteness, saw this, and in consequence read site, which is an Elizabethan, though not, I think, a Shakespearian word." P. 105. See you these, husband? do not these fair oaks ; Become the forest better than the town? So the second folio the first, "these faire yoakes," which some editors still prefer. White reads "these fairy oaks"; Dyce, as in the text. P. 106. What, a hodge-pudding?-It does not well appear what hodge-pudding means; something, perhaps, in the line of a hodgepodge. Pope reads "a hog's-pudding," and Collier's second folio, "a hog-pudding." Dyce, in his Glossary, asks, “Does this mean something akin to haggis?" P. 109. And this deceit loses the name of craft, Of disobedience, or unduteous guile. - So Collier's second folio. The old copies have title instead of guile. Dyce changes title to wile; not so good, it seems to me, as guile. MEASURE FOR MEASURE. FIRST IRST printed in the folio of 1623; and no other authentic contemporary notice of it has reached us. The stronglymarked peculiarities of the piece in language, cast of thought, and moral temper, have invested it with great psychological interest, and bred a special desire among critics to connect it in some way with the author's mental history, with some supposed crisis in his feelings and experience. Hence the probable date of the writing was for a long time argued more strenuously than the subject would otherwise seem to justify; and, as often falls out in such cases, the more the critics argued the point, the further they were from coming to an agreement. And, in truth, the plain matter-of-fact critics have here succeeded much better in the work than their more philosophical brethren; which aptly shows how little the brightest speculation can do in questions properly falling within the domain of facts. 66 In default of other data, the critics in question based their arguments upon certain probable allusions to contemporary matters; especially on those passages which express the Duke's fondness for the life removed," and his aversion to being greeted by crowds of people. Chalmers brought forward also the very pertinent fact of a long-sleeping statute having been revived in 1604, which punished with death all divorced or divorcing persons who married again while their former husbands or wives were living. This circumstance, he thinks, might well have suggested what is said by the Duke: - We have strict statutes and most biting laws, - |