us can do is to add somewhat, perhaps a very, very little, to the building that others have worked upon and helped to rear; and if we are to begin by a clean sweeping away of what others have done, that so our puny architecture may have a better chance of being seen, is it not possible that the sum of our own doings, as time shall foot it up, will prove a minus quantity?

Certainly changes in the old text of Shakespeare ought not to be made without strong and clear reasons: and after they have been so made, stronger and clearer reasons may arise, or may be shown, for unmaking them. Very well; be it so. But such reasons are not to be nonsuited by unreasonable explanations, by superfine glozings, and rhetorical smokings. The cacoethes emendandi and the cacoethes explanandi are alike out of place, and to be avoided. I have already quoted the phrase "absolute necessity," now so often used by the ultraists of textual conservatism. phrase seems to bind the thing up very tightly: yet, even with those who urge it most strongly, it is found to have, in effect, no firm practical meaning; at least not a whit more than the phrase "strong and clear reasons." To illustrate what I mean :

This

Mr. Furness, in his King Lear, iii. 6, prints "This rest might yet have balm'd thy broken sinews"; thus rejecting Theobald's reading, "broken senses," for the old text: and he does this on the ground that "the change is not absolutely necessary." Yet, in ii. 4, he prints "To be a comrade of the wolf, and howl necessity's sharp pinch!" thus substituting howl, from Collier's second folio, for owl, the old reading. And I think he shows strong and clear reasons for the change. But, strictly speaking, I can see no absolute necessity for it some tolerable sense can be made, has been made, out of the old text. Nay, more; the change, in this case, as it seems to me, does not come so near being abso

lutely necessary as in the case of Theobald's senses. I must needs think that owl yields, of the two, a better and more fitting sense in the one place than sinews does in the other. Nevertheless, in the instance of howl, Mr. Furness seems to me to make out a clear case; to justify the change triumphantly; this too without any approach to overstrained refinement; insomuch that I should henceforth never think of printing the passage otherwise than as he prints it. So, be it that absolute necessity is the true rule, have we not here a pretty good instance of that rule being "more honour'd in the breach than the observance"?

And I think the same argument will hold even more strongly touching another reading which he adopts from the same source. It is in i. 1, where he prints "It is no vicious blot, nor other foulness," instead of the old reading, “no vicious blot, murther, or foulness." Here the need of the change, to my thinking, is not so exigent nor so evident as in either of the former cases, especially the first: a good deal, I think, can here be said in defence of the old reading: at all events, I can nowise understand how the absolute necessity that rules out senses can consistently rule-in howl and nor other. But Mr. Furness, with all his austere and, as I must think, rather overstrained conservatism, so commands my respect, that I accept his judgment in both the latter cases, though dissenting from him altogether in the first; herein following, as I take it, the absolute necessity which he practises, and not the one which he preaches. And indeed so many men preach better than they practise, that it is decidedly refreshing to meet, now and then, with one who reverses this order, and makes his practice come out ahead.

Of course this point might easily be illustrated at almost any length. For the old text has hundreds of cases substantially parallel with those I have cited; cases where, in my judg

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 may 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