MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.

ACT I. SCENE 1.

Slender accuses Pistol of having picked his pocket of two Edward shovel-boards," that cost him two shillings. Shovel-board is a game which is noticed by Strutt, but with regard to which the editors and commentators known to me furnish no information. Mr. Collier, in his edition of Shakespeare-not his recent one-volume abominationsays that it is "not yet discontinued, as it is not unfrequently played by the lower orders in the coal trade." The game survived in the vicinity of New-York, till within fifteen or twenty years past, among a similar class of persons. It is now, I believe, no longer known; and I think that the last shovel-board on this side of the water disappeared with the destruction of the place in which I first saw the game-the Eagle Tavern, under Brooklyn Heights, near where the South Ferry landing now is. I little thought, when, at about ten years of age, I strolled away from home one afternoon, with a playmate, now distinguished as an inventor and in the higher mechanics, as he was then for his quickness at computation, and his unerring hand and eye, and yielding to our curiosity, we approached this forbidden. place (for it was deservedly in bad repute), and, leaning through a window, saw coarse and brawny men playing at this strange game, that I was acquiring material for a

note on the works of him, whose name, even then, I had learned to speak with boyish reverence.

I saw the game played several times afterward, and once was tempted, with the same companion, to try it myself. It was played with some variation from the rules and even the materials for the game as described by Strutt. The board, which stood about three feet from the floor, was about twenty feet long, and two and a half wide. It was surrounded by a trough, to prevent the weights from falling to the ground. The top was very smooth, and covered with fine white sand. The weights were of brass, and of various sizes, weighing from half a pound to a pound and a half— much heavier, it will be observed, than Slender's broad shillings. The object of the game was to drive these weights beyond a certain mark toward the further end of the board, without sending them over the edge into the trough. He who shoved his weight nearest the end, without its falling over, was the victor. To place a weight half way over the edge was the highest success, except to knock away and replace an opponent's weight in that position, which a first-rate player would frequently do. Not to put the weight beyond the line alluded to, was to be 'distanced.' The game required great accuracy of eye and steadiness of hand,--much more than ten-pins, which has entirely replaced it.

"Slen. I keep but three men and a boy yet, till my mother be dead." Upon this, Warburton remarks:

"As great a fool as the poet has made Slender, it appears, by his boasting of his wealth, his breeding, and his courage, that he knew how to win a woman. This is a fine instance of Shakespeare's knowledge of human nature."

One would like to be a woman for a few minutes to

have the privilege of calling Warburton a brute, and feel amply justified in so doing, by this coarse libel on the sex. But the gross misrepresentation of Shakespeare involved in it, justifies an indignant protest on the part of every one of his readers, of either sex. Where, through the whole wide range of his drama, does he show a woman, worthy of the name, won by a boast of wealth, breeding, and courage? Nowhere. Slender gets on finely by his boasting, does he not! And Fenton, because he is poor and is not a braggart, is utterly eclipsed by his wealthy, vaunting rival! Out on such villainous perversion of the poet's meaning-such low views of human nature ! Shakespeare had no such grovelling ideas of womanhood. The knowledge of human nature which we recognize in the works of him who seems to have penetrated by an instinct, and at a glance, the heart of ail humanity, is but an exponent of our own intellectual and moral standard. He holds the mirror up, not only to Nature, but to our natures; and Warburton's praise of his own degraded interpretation of this passage, as a "fine instance of Shakespeare's knowledge of human nature," speaks equally for inferiority of his moral tone, and the dulness of his intellectual perception.

SCENE 3.

"Fal. I am glad I am so acquit of his tinder box: his thefts were too open: his filching was like an unskilful singer: he kept not time." Nym. The good humour is to steal at a minute's rest."

Thus the original: but "a minute's rest" is evidently a misprint for "a minim's rest," as Langton suggested long ago, and as the corrector of Mr. Collier's folio conjectured. The likening of Bardolph's practice of his vocation to that of "an unskilful singer," who "kept not time," is suffi

cient evidence of this. The typographical error is one which might very easily occur.

Fal. She discourses, she carves, she gives the leer of invitation."

I have noticed elsewhere the reading craves instead of "carves," proposed by Jackson and Mr. Collier's folio. Mr. Hunter and Mr. Dyce show, conclusively, by numerous quotations from contemporary literature, that 'carves' was used in Shakespeare's day, in an amorous, or, at least, propitiatory sense. There is no need, and, therefore, no justification for the change.

ACT II. SCENE 1.

"Host. My hand, bully: thou shalt have egresse and regresse: said I well and thy name shall be Broome. It is a merry knight. Will you go An-heires?"

Thus the original folio; but this name Broome, kills Falstaff's pun about brooks o'erflowing with liquor; and, as in the surreptitious quarto of 1602 the name is printed Brook, that alias has been adopted in all modern editions. But it is to be remarked that in the authentic copy of the play, frequently as the name occurs, it is invariably given, "Broome." Now it is almost impossible that Brook could have been so often, and without exception, misprinted Broome; but it is quite probable that Bourne, which means the same as Brook (for instance

"We twa hae paidl't i' the bourn,")

should have been mistaken in manuscript for Broome. Mr. Collier's folio makes the change to Bourne; and though the world will give up Master Brook unwillingly, there seems to be no reasonable doubt, that he should yield place to Master Bourne.

Of all the many proposed emendations of the last two incomprehensible words in the original of this passage, Hanmer's mynheer, so ably sustained by Mr. Dyce, is the only one which appears to me at all satisfactory. There can be little doubt that "An heires" is a misprint for minheires, a word well suited to the mouth of mine Host.

SCENE 2.

"Ford. O! understand my drift.

She dwells so securely on the excellency of her honour, that the folly of my soul dares not present itself; she is too bright to be looked against."

Mr. Collier's folio in reading "the folly of my suit," instead of "the folly of my soul," seems to correct a not improbable misprint. But what need of any change whatever? Surely a hopeless passion for the chaste wife of another, may well be called the folly of a man's soul.

ACT III. SCENE 5.

"Fal. By the Lord, a buck basket," &c.

Thus, the surreptitious quartos of 1602 and 1619; the authentic folio and the quarto of 1630 giving," Yes, a buck basket." The change was consequent upon a statute made after the accession of James I., which interdicted oaths &c. on the stage. In this way many passages were modified, and some entirely omitted in the first folio: as, for instance, Falstaff's remark in the fifth Scene of the fourth Act of this play :

"Well, if my wind were but long enough to say my prayers, I would repent;"

which, in the folio, stands tamely, on account of the law in question,