reveries hardly ever assumed the firmness and consistency of thought, who was unyielding without firmness, determined without purpose, who contrived without plan and felt without acting. Hamlet himself, in the closing soliloquy of this Scene, to introduce which was evidently Shakespeare's only object in writing it, gives us the key to his indecision in that self-anatomization which is the habit of such natures. They know the action of their own minds, and burrowing in the blind heaps of speculation which press upon them, they unearth only their own hidden motives. They have an intellectual perception of the excellence of action ; but, fascinated by musings which hardly attain the dignity of contemplation, their noble purposes never take form; and, led on through a dreamy labyrinth of speculation, they die before they reach the busy day of the actual world. Sadly enough, too, they are all the while conscious that their years glide away from them and leave naught behind; and when their last day comes, they

"close their dying eyes

In grief that they have lived in vain."

"Eheu! fugaces Postume, Postume,
Labuntur anni."

SCENE 5.

66

King. That I am guiltless of your Father's death

And am most sensibly in grief for it,

It shall as level to your judgment pierce

As day does to your eye."

Johnson says that,

"It shall as level to your judgment pierce,"

which is the reading of the original, is "less intelligible" than,

"It shall as level to your judgment 'pear,"

which is the reading of the quarto of 1611, and which appears in all the modern editions except Mr. Knight's. If Johnson had not said so, it would be difficult to believe that he could say so. What can be more intelligible than that a conviction should pierce to the judgment, as level [i. e. as directly, as 'point blank'] as light does to the eye. This is clear sense and forcible comparison. But use 'pear [appear], and nonsense and confusion ensue. The lines as they stand in the authentic text assert,-'it [the conviction] shall pierce as level to your judgment, as day does [pierce] to your eye:' but use "'pear,' or 'appear,' and the assertion would be that-it shall appear as level to your judgment as day does [appear] to your eye.' But how does, or how can, day appear level to the eye? The absurdity is palpable. In the copies in general use, Johnson is followed and "'pear' is given. The original text should be restored without question.

66

King. Laertes, I must common with your grief,
Or you deny me right."

This is the text of the original folio, and also of the earliest complete quarto, 1604, yet on the authority of the quarto of 1611, "common" has been changed to commune, in all editions except Mr. Knight's. There is a note by Steevens in the Variorum about' commune' being anciently pronounced 'common,' and Mr. Knight has one to the

same effect; but how inferior is this "winnowed opinion" to that of Boswell, who, taking the word "common" in its obvious sense, remarks, "surely the word common in the folio means 'I must be allowed to participate in your grief, to feel in common with you.'" In the homeliness of the word lies the strength of the passage.

ACT V. SCENE 2.

"Ham. He did comply with his dug, before he sucked it. Thus has he (and many more of the same breed, that, I know, the drossy age dotes on) only got the tune of the time, and outward habit of encounter; a kind of yesty collection, which carries them through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions; and do but blow them to their trial, the bubbles are out."

Caldecott explains the last part of this passage thus,"which carries them (i. e. enables them to pass current) through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions (i. e., all judgments; not the simplest only, but the most sifted and the wisest)." Mr. Dyce says this is "the common interpretation of the passage," and justly adds, “to suppose that the most fond and winnowed opinions' could mean 'all judgments, not the simplest only, but the most sifted and the wisest,' is little short of insanity."

It is to be hoped that Mr. Dyce erred in supposing this to be the common interpretation of the passage. The meaning seems clear, and to be one of those very obvious significations which it is a marvel that any commentator or any educated reader could fail to apprehend. Mr. Dyce's own geading, adopted from Warburton, seems as far from the truth as Caldecott's explanation. Mr. Dyce would read, "the most fand (fanned) and winnowed opinions ;" and he

quotes good authority for the use of both 'fanned' and 'winnowed' in the same sentence.

But all this is from the purpose. Osric is a type of the Euphuist or affected courtier of Shakespeare's time, who was a hair-splitter in thought, and absurdly dainty and extravagant in expression. Therefore Shakespeare makes Hamlet describe Osric as one who ("with many more of the same breed") has "only got the tune of the time," which was "a kind of yesty collection which carries them [the Euphuists] through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions:" that is, they go through and through [they stop at no absurdity in] the most fond [affected or foolish] and winnowed [elaborately sought out] opinions. It is difficult to imagine how "opinions" could be supposed by Caldecott to mean 'judgment,' or "carries" to signify enables them to pass current. "Fond" is continually used as 'affected' or 'foolish' by the earlier English writers.

It is purposely that I do not notice in detail the corruptions of the text of this play in all the editions. To point them all out would be to write a volume. The ordinary copies, printed from the Variorum text, are a vile compound of the texts of the quartos of 1604 and 1611 and the folio of 1623. On the other hand, Mr. Knight's laudable reverence for the latter text has caused him to disregard the corruptions which evidently deform it. We need a text formed upon that of 1623 as supreme authority; but carefully corrected by the quartos.

Myself an enemy to all other joys

That the most precious square of sense possesses."

"The most precious square of sense" is a phrase not readily apprehended nowadays. Mr. Collier's folio reads, "precious sphere of sense," by which, however, nothing is gained; for the 'square of sense' is quite as comprehensible as the 'sphere of sense.' Mr. Singer goes in this instance even beyond the folio, and would read "the spacious sphere of sense." This is certainly more comprehensible than the line as it was left by Mr. Collier's MS. corrector; and the typographical error which it involves is quite possible. But although there is at least no necessity for changing "square" to sphere, the change of "precious" to spacious is more plausible. If the text be altered at all, we should read,

"That the most spacious square of sense possesses."

The original text, however, is comprehensible, and has the