-the vainly remorseful prayer of the murderer, with Hamlet's fiendish paroxysm of cool malice as he watches him on his knees, (one of the most significant touches in the whole piece) --and, last of all, the fiery haste and terrible impressiveness of the scene in the Queen's chamber, which contains the slaughter of Polonius, the fearfully earnest reproof administered to the guilty mother, the apparition of the murdered father, awful and portentous.

T

But in lingering over Hamlet, loth to depart, we have deprived ourselves of the opportunity of saying any thing specific in regard to the two other re-written plays. There is the less reason to regret the enforced passing by of Henry V. without minute notice, because the changes which take place on it in the augmented edition contain hardly any thing that is particularly characteristic. But it is a pity to leave unused the store of materials for illustrative remark, which are presented by the complex and laborious alterations made on The Merry Wives ' of Windsor.' Mr Knight's examples and elucidations are apt and full; but we should have liked to push a little further some speculations which had been suggested by him, and by a close comparison of the two editions. We have space for only two remarks. First, then, the discrepancies in several passages, and particularly in the versified scenes towards the end of the play, are among the most curiously instructive instances of the sort. In the next place, the extent of those discrepancies is so great, and the passages, as given in the older edition, are so correct in sense and metre, and seemingly so faithful to some original or other-as to make it surprising how Mr Collier, if determined to disbelieve that the discrepancies could be accounted for by a re-writing, should not have perceived that blundering will not account for them, and have manfully maintained, that, like such passages in Hamlet, they were written for the nonce by some inferior dramatist.

With neither of the topics which have here been taken up for specific examination, was it either proper or possible to attempt dealing exhaustively. The state of the text is emphatically a question of particulars; and the duty devolving on us has been merely that of endeavouring to exhibit in a summary manner, and to illustrate by occasional reference to examples, the relations in which, as to this point, the editions before us stand towards each other, towards their modern predecessors, and towards the ancient copies. The history of the re-written dramas, again, involves speculations so complex, that our limits have scarcely enabled us to set down more than a strong declaration of opinion.

It will be right to add an advice to the students of the poet, to master for themselves this interesting and peculiarly instructive department in the criticism of his works. The materials for the study are not difficult of access. Every thing that is indispensably necessary lies within narrow limits. All is contained in the two recent editions in the reprint of the old Hamlet made in 1825, (and repeated, by-the-by, at Leipzig,)—in the useful Twenty Plays' of Steevens—and in the reprints of the Shakespeare Society, which are still in progress, and in which it would be well that the Hamlet could be included.

An analysis of the merits of the two editions, as compared both with each other and with their predecessors, has been the main business of this paper; and the closeness with which the examination has been conducted makes it needless to add much in the way of general estimate. The joint labours of Mr Collier and Mr Knight have not only put at the command of the poet's readers almost every thing of real worth which had been done for him by others, but (it may safely be asserted) have gone several long steps in advance. The contributions of the two have not been of the same kind; but each has his peculiar merits, and each will find readers by whom his edition will be thought better than the other. From the opinions which we have incidentally expressed, it will have already been inferred where, upon the whole, our preference lies.

The value of Mr Collier's edition is great; but it is chiefly valuable as a storehouse of materials for others. It will be more useful to the bibliographer or the future editor, than to the student who desires to be guided towards the formation of just critical opinions of his own. The editor has performed well the duties which he himself holds to be of paramount obligation: but he is blind to the importance of other duties, which in the present state of criticism, and of our acquaintance with Shakspeare, an enlightened editor will believe to fall imperatively within his province.

On the other hand, both in plan and in execution, Mr Knight's edition, as a whole, appears to us not only to be worthy of representing, in its application to Shakspeare, the improved criticism of our times; but to be singularly valuable as a suggestive and instructive text-book for the study of the poet's works.

ART. III.-1. The English Universities. From the German of V. U. A. HUBER. An abridged Translation. By FRANCIS W. NEWMAN. Three volumes, 8vo. London : 1843.

2. The Oxford University City and County Herald, of Feb. 15,

1845.

It

·TH HE early history of the University of Oxford is obscure. appears to have consisted originally of a collection of teachers, united by no condition beyond mutual convenience, and subject to no discipline except the spiritual power of the Bishop of Lincoln, the diocesan, and the temporal jurisdiction of the authorities of the town. It was the interest of all parties, that each man's pupils should reside under his roof. Hence arose the boarding-houses, at first called Inns and Hos telries, and afterwards Colleges and Halls. The masters of these houses were the rulers of the little scholastic world. They selected a rector or principal to keep order among themselves, who afterwards received the name of Chancellor. But the important step, and that which raised Oxford from a Collection of Schools into a University, was their uniting for the purpose of ascertaining the progress of their pupils, and granting to them certificates of proficiency and licences to teach. These became, in time, the modern degrees of Bachelor and Master; the first of which gave the applicant merely a limited power of lecturing; the second, which was at first synonymous with Doctor, authorized him to teach generally, to preside at the disputations which were then the tests of knowledge, and to be Master of a House.

Thus grew up the form of university government which still exists. It is a mixed exclusive constitution. The Chancellor forming the monarchial element, the Heads of the Houses the aristocratic, and the other Masters and Doctors the democratic. The excluded, and, as is generally the case in exclusive governments, the larger part of the community, are the under-graduates and bachelors.

As the Heads of Houses were almost always ecclesiastics, and therefore deprived of lineal heirs, and separated by their habits from their collaterals, the houses must, from the beginning, have passed from owner to owner by way of succession rather than of inheritance. This suggested their incorporation. Recourse was had to the Crown, which exercised its prerogative in early times far more readily than it does now. The celebrity of Oxford attracted founders and benefactors. Large buildings were erected, and extensive estates attached to them. Corporations aggregate, consisting of master, fellows, and scholars, were created, who

VOL. LXXXI. NO. CLXIV.

2 B

were to enjoy their endowments, partly for the advancement of learning, and partly as instruments of perpetual prayer for their founders' souls. Such was the origin of Colleges.

The houses of education to which no property, beyond the land on which they stood, was attached, became the existing Halls, in which the Principal, by charter or by prescription, is a corporation sole.

Partly for purposes of education, and partly as a weapon in their constant contests with the town's people, the members of the houses obtained a charter incorporating them as a University, which, according to the custom of those times, was frequently repeated, and at length was solemnly confirmed by Parliament.

There exist, therefore, in Oxford, one corporation aggregate, the University, which includes among its members all the members of the other corporations; eighteen corporations aggregate, consisting of the members of the Colleges; and five corporations sole, consisting of the Principals of the Halls.

It does not appear that the Colleges have made much direct exercise of the right, which is incident to a corporation, of making by-laws, or, in Oxford language, statutes. Those which they received from their founders they have retained-we will not say obeyed; for the greater part of the Colleges violated their statutes systematically, and in many respects unavoidably. But the University, from the time of its incorporation, and perhaps from an earlier period, enacted statutes for the government of its own members as members of the University, and for the government of the Halls. With the internal government of the Colleges it has not ventured to interfere.

For several centuries statutes continued to be passed, often for mere temporary purposes, often inconsistent, and, from the absence of printing, little known, and frequently lost. After several ineffectual attempts had been made by his predecessors, Laud, while Chancellor, succeeded in reducing these rude materials into a consistent whole. With the assistance of a committee appointed by the University, he framed the code called the Caroline statutes. It was enacted by the heads of the houses, doctors, and masters, approved by Laud, and confirmed by the Crown.

By these statutes, the legislative power of the University was materially restricted. The right to explain, and of course, by implication, the right to repeal any statute sanctioned by the Crown, is refused, unless the consent of the Crown be previously obtained. An absolute negative is given to the Chancellor, and also to the Vice-chancellor, and also to the two Proctors. And the House of Convocation, consisting of doctors and masters, by

which every new statute must be passed, has no power of initia tion or amendment. It can deliberate only on proposals made to it by the heads of houses, called, in consequence of their weekly meetings, the Hebdomadal Board, and must accept or reject them unaltered. When we add that, except by special permis+ sion of the Chancellor, the discussions are in Latin, it may be inferred that Convocation is not a place for debate.

By the Caroline statutes, all persons above the age of sixteen must, previously to matriculation, subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles of 1562; and every candidate for a degree must subscribe the three articles of the thirty-sixth Canon. By these three articles, this subscriber asserts-1st, the King's supremacy; 2dly, That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering bishops, priests, and deacons, contains nothing contrary to the Word of God; and 3dly, That he allows the Articles of 1562, and acknowledges all and every the Articles therein contained to be agreeable to the Word of God. The Canon requires the subscription to be in these words, I, A B, do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these three articles, and to all things ⚫ that are contained therein.' The Vice-chancellor is empowered to require any person in holy orders to repeat his subscription, and on his refusal or neglect, after the requisition has been thrice made, to banish him from the University.

The matriculation subscription is unexplained by any words. The Vice-chancellor usually states to the applicant for matricu lation, that it merely signifies that he is a member of the Church of England. But he has no authority to declare this to be its true interpretation, and it is obviously open to several others. It may be an expression of universal belief that is, that the subscriber believes every portion of what he has subscribed or it may express belief general though not universal that is, that the subscriber generally assents to the Articles, though he doubts, or even denies, some comparatively unimpor tant portions or it may express no belief at all, but be a mere declaration of conformity-a mere engagement not to oppose the doctrines of the Articles, leaving their truth undecided.

The subscription on degrees is unambiguous. Every loophole through which a tender conscience might escape, is carefully guarded. The subscription is fraudulent if the subscriber thinks, or even suspects, that the Book of Common Prayer, or of ordination, contains a sentence contrary to the Word of God. It is fraudulent even if it be merely reluctant; suspiria denotantur. The subscriber asserts that willingly, and ex animo, he acknow·ledges all and every the Articles, that is, all collectively, and every one of them separately, to be agreeable to the Word of