passages which have been thought obscure and which are therefore changed in the ordinary editions, but in many others (actually many, but comparatively few) the typographical corruption of which is undeniable, I have myself proposed conjectural emendations of the text. If I have been successful where others have failed, or have detected errors of the press which have escaped the eyes of my predecessors in this field of labor, it will be only a reasonable consequence of the experience of some years in the editorial room of a leading journal, where, of course, the examination and preparation of manuscript and the conjectural correction of typographical errors is a matter of daily occurrence: -an advantage possessed, I believe, by no one of Shakespeare's editors or commentators, except in a measure by Zachary Jackson and Mr. Charles Knight; the former of whom, a printer, seems to have had no qualification for his task, except the knowledge of his craft; while the latter, a publisher, was so misled by his blind reverence for the first folio, as to devote his exertions chiefly to the defence of its manifest corruptions; which is the more to be regretted because in the few cases in which he ventured on conjectural emendation he was eminently successful. If, on the contrary, it should prove that the passages in which I have proposed emendations need no change, or that the suggestions of others are more acceptable than mine, I should be the first to rejoice; for my sole desire in this matter is the integrity of Shakespeare's text.

In the course of the volume there are many corrections brought forward from the labors of all the commentators, from Rowe to the Poet's last learned and discriminating verbal critic, the Rev. Alexander Dyce. All these, except when I have expressly opposed them, or characterized them as only plausible, have, in my opinion, an undeniable claim to a place in the text, as acceptable corrections of palpable typographical errors; and obviously needed as they, or at least the majority of them, are, they as well as the readings of the first folio which are shown to be clearly comprehensible, are not to be found in any of the current editions of Shakespeare's works. Some of these will doubtless be opposed upon the plea of conservatism. Many will exclaim, 'Do not disturb the old readings: the old text is consecrated!' This feeling must win our respect in all cases, and command our sympathy and co-operation in those in which it really applies to Shakespeare's words, as they are given to us in the authentic edition. But such cases as the last are of extremely rare occurrence; and the veneration which Shakespeare's readers think is awakened in their minds by his words, is, in these cases, as in many others, excited by needless or indefensible changes introduced into his text by Pope, or Warburton, or Johnson, or Capell, or Malone, or other less distinguished editors, or even by accident, and the venerability of which is perhaps a hundred, perhaps fifty years of age.

An example will make this clear. In Antony

and Cleopatra, Act II. Sc. 2, Antony, speaking of his frampold wife, says:

"So much uncurbable her garboils, Cæsar,

Made out of her impatience," &c.

But in all the editions in ordinary use by the present and last generations, the first line is printed,

"So much uncurable her garboils, &c.

It so appears in Chalmers' Edition, in Singer's, in Moxon's, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Collier and Mr. Knight have restored the reading of the original, which indeed was not disturbed until the present century. Why it was disturbed is a mystery. "Garboils" means 'brawlings,' uproars,' 'tantrums,' and is translated, 'barbuglio,' 'ripetto,' in the Italian Dictionary of Shakespeare's contemporary, Florio. What

most people would call the old text probably came into being through the agency of some over wise compositor, who, able to understand only the last syllable of this word, supposed Fulvia to need a plaster upon her person rather than a restraint upon her passions; and so changed "uncurbable" into uncurable in some prominent edition, which was followed blindly for a quarter of a century.

Our conservatism too often consists in mere tenacity of that to which we have been accustomed. It is one thing to shrink from touching Shakespeare's text, but quite another to hesitate to remove the

words of Pope or Warburton, or others of inferior name, in order to restore those which appear in the authentic copy, or to substitute others more in accordance with the tone of Shakespeare's thought, the phraseology of his time, and the trace of the letters in the corrupted text. The conservatism which loves and venerates that which is right the more because it is old, appeals to the strongest and purest feelings of the human heart; it is not only virtue in the good, but wisdom in the wise. But that sort of conservatism which clings to a hoary evil merely because it has grown old in wrong, is equally vicious and foolish; for it not only perpetuates wrong, but provokes and almost justifies that innovation, which will root out all that is old,-the good with the evil. Let us shun such conservatism in editing the works of Shakespeare, if we would not see his thoughts diluted to the taste of the feeblest palates, and his phraseology tortured out of its antique, but never antiquated, grace and grandeur by the reforming hands whose ruthless strength such a course would provoke to action. Such are the feelings with which I have come to the critical study of Shakespeare's text, and which have influenced the character of the succeeding pages; and hence it is that in many passages, which seem to me beyond all question corrupt, although they have been printed and read without a question for generations, I have not hesitated to point out the error and the remedy which occurred to me, while at the same

time I merely suggest my corrections for the consideration of my fellow-students.

The quotations are given at greater length than is usual in works of verbal criticism, because this volume is not especially addressed to critics, who are supposed to know the context of all passages the reading of which is in dispute; and as to others, in the words of Mrs. Jameson-in the Preface to her delightful Characteristics of Women, which I read for the first time just before writing this letter—“ it "the memory fail at the moment to recall the lines "or the sentiment to which the attention is direct"ly required, few like to interrupt the course of "thought, or undertake a journey from the sofa or "the garden seat to the library, to hunt out the vo"lume, the play, the passage for themselves."

The antiquarian style of editing has been opposed and ridiculed by many. I cannot give it my highest respect, especially when it tempts a man of Mr. Dyce's taste into such needless displays of reading of worthless books as abound in his otherwise admirable recent publication, in which instance upon instance from old volumes in all modern languages is heaped upon Shakespeare's text without illustrating it. But this is only the abuse of that which has its use. Mr. Dyce's own reading, as well as that of his predecessors, has thrown light on many passages in the works of Shakespeare and our elder dramatists; and in the recent discussions upon the authority of the emendations in Mr. Collier's folio, a