Mr. White reserves for a first volume (not yet published) his notices

of Shakspeare's life, his remarks upon the text, and other general

introductory topics. In the second volume, he gives us an excellent copy

of the Droeshout portrait, the preliminary matter of the Folio of 1628,

with notices of the writers of commendatory verses thereto prefixed, and

of the principal actors who performed parts in Shakspeare's plays. We

notice particularly his discussion of the authorship of the verses

signed J.M.S. as a good example of the delicacy and acuteness of his

criticism. Though he has the great authority of Coleridge against him,

we think that he has constructed a very ingenious, strong, and even

convincing argument against the Milton theory. Each play is preceded

by an Introduction, remarkably well digested and condensed, giving an

account of the text, and of the sources from which Shakspeare helped

himself to plots or incidents. We cannot but commend highly the

self-restraint which marks these brief and pithy prefaces, and the

pertinency of every sentence to the matter in hand. The Germans, (to

whom we are undeniably indebted for the first philosophic appreciation

of the poet,) being debarred by their alienage from the tempting

parliament of verbal commentary and conflict, have made themselves such

ample amends by expatiations in the unfenced field of aesthetics and

of that constructive criticism which is too often confined to the

architecture of Castles in Spain, that we feel as if Dogberry had

charged us in relation to them with that hopelessly bewildering

commission to "_comprehend_ all vagrom men" which we have hitherto

considered applicable only to peripatetic lecturers. Mr. White wisely

and kindly leaves us to Shakspeare and our own imaginations,--two very

potent spells to conjure with,--and seems to be aware of the fact, that,

in its application to a creative mind like that of the great Poet, the

science of teleology may sometimes find itself as much at fault as it so

often is in attempting to fathom the designs of the Infinite Creator.

Rabelais solves the grave problem of the goodliness of Friar John's nose

by the comprehensive formula, "Because God willed it so"; and it is well

for us in most cases to enjoy Shakspeare in the same pious way,--to

smell a rose without bothering ourselves about its having been made

expressly to serve the turn of the essence-peddlers of Shiraz. We yield

the more credit to Mr. White's self-denial in this respect, because

his notes prove him to be capable of profound as well as delicate and

sympathetic exegesis. Shakspeare himself has left us a pregnant satire

on dogmatical and categorical esthetics (which commonly in discussion

soon lose their ceremonious tails and are reduced to the internecine dog

and cat of their bald first syllables) in the cloud-scene between Hamlet

and Polonius, suggesting exquisitely how futile is any attempt at a

cast-iron definition of those perpetually metamorphic impressions of the

beautiful, whose source is as much in the man who looks as in the thing

he sees. And elsewhere more directly,--Mr. White must allow us the old

reading for the sake of our illustration,--he has told us how

"Affection,

Master of passion, sways it to the mood

Of what it likes or loathes."

We are glad to see, likewise, with what becoming indifference the matter

of Shakspeare's indebtedness to others is treated by Mr. White in his

Introductions. There are many commentators who seem to think they have

wormed themselves into the secret of the Master's inspiration when they

have discovered the sources of his plots. But what he took was by right

of eminent domain; and was he not to resuscitate a theme and make it

immortal, because some botcher had tried his hand upon it before, and

left it for stone-dead? Because he could not help throwing sizes, was he

to avoid the dice which for others would only come up ames-ace?

Up to the middle of 1854,[C] there had been published in England and on

the Continent eighty-eight complete editions of Shakspeare in English,

thirty-two in German, six in French, and five, more or less complete,

in Italian. Beside these, his works had been translated into Dutch,

(1778-82,) into Danish, (1807-28,) into Hungarian, (1824,) into Polish,

(1842,) and into Swedish (1847-51). The numerous American editions are

not reckoned in this statement; and, to give an adequate notion of the

extent of the Shakspeare-literature, we should add that the number of

separately-printed comments and other illustrative publications already

exceeds five hundred. No other poet except Dante has received such

appreciation,--and not even he, if we consider in Shakspeare's case the

greater bulk of the works and the difficulty of the language. After so

many people had used their best wit and had their say, could there be

any unconsidered trifle left for a new editor? Could the sharpest eyes

find more needles in this enormous haystack? We do not pretend to have

examined the whole of this polyglot library, nay, but for Herr Sillig,

we had never heard of most of the books in it, but we are tolerably

familiar with the more important English editions, and with some of the

German comments,[D] and we must say that the freshness of many of Mr.

White's observations struck us with very agreeable surprise. We are

not fond of off-hand opinions on any subject, much more on one so

multifarious and complex as this,--we are a great deal too ready with

them in America, and pronounce upon pictures and poems with a _b'hoyish_

nonchalance that would be amusing, were it not for its ill consequence

to Art,--but we love the expression of honest praise, of sifted and

considerate judgment, and we think that a laborious collation justifies

us in saying that in acute discrimination of aesthetic shades of

expression, and often of textual niceties, Mr. White is superior to any

previous editor.

[Footnote C: _Die Shakspere-Literatur bis Mitte_ 1854. Zusammengestellt

und herausgegeben von P.H. SILLIG. Leipzig. 1854.]

[Footnote D: Among which (setting aside a few remarks of Goethe) we are

inclined to value as highly us anything Tieck's _Essay on the Element of

the Wonderful in Shakspeare_.]

In proof of what we have said, we will refer to a few of the notes which

have particularly pleased us, and which show originality of view.

(_Tempest_, Act ii. Sc. 2.)

"'_Nor scrape_ trenchering, _nor wash, dish_.'

"Dryden, Theobald, Dyce, Halliwell, and Hudson would have 'trenchering'

a typographical error for 'trencher,' which they introduce into the

text. Surely they must all have forgotten that _Caliban_ was drunk,

and, after singing 'firing' and 'requiring,' would naturally sing

'trenchering.' There is a drunken swing in the original line which is

entirely lost in the precise, curtailed rhythm of--

'_Nor scrape_ trencher, _nor wash dish_.'"

Other editors had retained "trenchering," but none, that we know, ever

gave so good a reason for it. Equally good is his justification of

himself for omitting Theobald's interpolation of "Did she nod?" in "Two

Gentlemen of Verona," Act i. Sc. 1. Other examples may be found in the

readings, "There is a lady of Verona here," (same play, Act iii. Sc. 1);

"Yet reason dares her _on_," (_Measure for Measure_, Act iv. Sc. 4);

"Hark, how the villain would _glose_ now," (same play, Act v. Sc. 1);

"The forced fallacy," (_Comedy of Errors_, Act ii. Sc. 1); in the note

on "Cupid is a good hare-finder," (_Much Ado_, Act i. Sc. 3); the

admirable note on "Examine those men," (same play, Act iii. Sc. 1); the

readings, "Out on thee! Seeming!" (same play, Act iv. Sc. 1); "For I

have only silent been," (ibid.); "Goodly Count-Confèct," and note, (same

play, Act iv. Sc. 2); the note on "I do beseech thee, remember thy

courtesy," (_Love's Labor's Lost_, Act v. Sc. 1); on "Mounsieur Cobweb,"

and "Help Cavalery Cobweb to scratch," (_Mid. Night's D_., Act iv. Sc.

1); on "Or in the night," etc. (same play, Act v. Sc. 1); on "Is sum of

nothing," (_Merchant of Venice_, Act iii. Sc. 2); on "Stays me here at

home unkept," (_As you like it_, Act i. Sc. 1); on "Unquestionable

spirit," (same play, Act iii. Sc. 2); on "Move the still-piecing air,"

(_All's Well_, etc., Act ii. Sc. 2); and on "What is not holy," (same

play, Act iv. Sc. 2). We have referred to a few only out of the many

instances that have attracted our notice, and these chiefly for their

bearing on what we have said of the editor's refinement of appreciation

and originality of view. The merely illustrative and explanatory notes

are also full and judicious, containing all that it is important the

reader should know, and a great deal which it will entertain him to

learn. In the Introductions to the several plays, too, we find many

_obiter dicta_ of Mr. White which are excellent in their clearness of

critical perception and conciseness of phrase. From that to the "Comedy

of Errors" we quote the following sentence:--

"Concerning the place and the period of the action of this play, it

seems that Shakspeare did not trouble himself to form a very accurate

idea. The Ephesus of "The Comedy of Errors" is much like the Bohemia of

"The Winter's Tale,"--a remote, unknown place, yet with a familiar and

imposing name, and therefore well suited to the purposes of one who, as

poet and dramatist, cared much for men and little for things, and to

whose perception the accidental was entirely eclipsed by the essential.

Anachronisms are scattered through it with a profusion which could only

be the result of entire indifference,--in fact, of an absolute want of

thought on the subject."--Vol. III. 189.

We think this could not be better said, if only we might supplant

"things" with the more precise word "facts"; for about _things_

Shakspeare was never careless. It is only that deciduous foliage of

facts which every generation leaves heaps of behind it dry, and dead,

that he rustles through with eyes so royally unconcerned. As a good

example of Mr. White's style, we should be inclined to cite the

Introduction to "Love's Labor's Lost," from which we detach this single

crystal:--

"It is ever the ambitious way of youthful genius to aim at novelty of

form in its first essays, while yet in treatment it falls unconsciously

into a vein of reminiscence; afterward it is apt to return to

established forms, and to show originality of treatment."

The temptation which too easily besets an editor of Shakspeare is to

differ, if possible, from everybody who has gone before him, though but

as between the N.E. and N.N.E. points in the circumference of a hair. We

do not find Mr. White guilty in this respect for what he has done, but

sometimes for what he has left undone in allowing the Folio text to

remain. The instance that has surprised us most is his not admitting

(_As You Like it_, Act iv. Sc. 1) the reading,--"The foolish _coroners_

of that age found it was Hero of Sestos," instead of the unmeaning one,

"_chroniclers_." He has been forced, for the sake of sense, to make some

changes in the Folio text which seem to us quite as violent, and we

cannot help thinking that the gain in aptness of phrase and coherence of

meaning would have justified him in doing as much here. He admits, in

his note on the passage, that the change is "very plausible"; but adds,

"If we can at will reduce a perfectly appropriate and uncorrupted word

of ten letters to one of eight, and strike out such marked letters as

_h_, _l_, and _e_, we may re-write Shakspeare at our pleasure." Mr.

White has already admitted that "_chroniclers_" is not _perfectly_

appropriate in admitting that the change is "very plausible"; and he has

no right to assume that the word is uncorrupted,--for that is the very

point in question. As to the disparity in the number of letters, no one

familiar with misprints will be surprised at it; and Mr. Spedding, in

the edition of Bacon already referred to, furnishes us with an example

of blunder[E] precisely the reverse, in which one word of eight letters

is given for two of ten, (_sciences_ for _six princess_,)--the printer

in both cases having set up his first impression of what the word was

for the word itself. Had this occurred in Shakspeare, instead of Bacon,

we should have had a series of _variorum_ notes like this:--

[Footnote E: Bacon's Works, by Ellis, Spedding, & Heath. Vol. III. p.

303, _note_.]

"That _sixpence_ was the word used by our author scarcely admits of

doubt. From a number of parallel passages we select the following:--

'Live on _sixpence_ a day, and earn it.'--_Abernethy_.

'I give thee sixpence? I will see thee and-so-forthed

first!'--_Canning_.

'Be shot for _sixpence_ on a battlefield.'--_Tennyson_.

'Half a crown, two shillings and _sixpence_.'--_Niemand's Dictionary_.

Moreover, we find our author using precisely the same word in the

'Midsummer Night's Dream':--

'Thus hath he lost sixpence a day during his life.'" JONES.

"Had the passage read '_two_ princes,' we might have thought it genuine;

since 'the two kings of Brentford' must have been familiar to our great

poet, and he was also likely to have that number deeply impressed on

his mind by the awful tragedy in the tower, (see _Richard the Third_,)

where, it is remarkable, precisely that number of royal offspring

suffered at the hands of the crook-backed tyrant. The citation from

Niemand's Dictionary, by the Rev. Mr. Jones, tells as much in favor of

_two princes_ as of _sixpence_; for how could the miseries of a divided

empire be more emphatically portrayed than in the striking, and, as it

seems to me, touching phrase, HALF _a crown?_ Could we in any way read

'_three_ princes,' we should find strong support in the tradition of

'the three kings of Cologne,' and in the Arabian story of the 'Three

Calenders.' The line quoted by Thomson, (Shakspeare, by Thomson, Vol.

X. p. 701.) 'Under which King Bezonian, speak or die!' (though we agree

with him in preferring his pointing to the ordinary and meaningless

'Under which King, Bezonian,' etc.) unhappily can throw no light on the

present passage till we know how many King Bezonians are intended,

and who they were. Perhaps we should read _Belzonian_, and suppose a

reference to the Egyptian monarchs whose tombs were first explored by

the intrepid Belzoni. The epithet would certainly be appropriate and in

Shakspeare's best manner; but among so many monarchs, a choice of two,

or even three, would be embarrassing and invidious." BROWN.

"As for the 'Three Calenders,' there can be no reasonable question that

Shakspeare was well acquainted with the story; for that he had travelled

extensively in the East I have proved in my 'Essay to show that Sir

Thomas Roe and William Shakspeare were identical'; and that he was

familiar with the Oriental languages must be apparent to any one who has

read my note on '_Concolinel_' (_Love's Labor's Lost_, Act iii. Sc. 1).

But that 'six princes' is the true reading is clear from the parallel

passage in "Richard the Third," which I am surprised that the usually

accurate Mr. Brown should have overlooked,--'Methinks there be Six

Richmonds in the field.'" ROBINSON.

"I was at first inclined to the opinion of the late Mr. Robinson, but

maturer consideration has caused me to agree with the eloquent and

erudite Jones. There is a definite meaning in the word _sixpence_; and

a similar error of the press in Lord Bacon's 'Advancement of Learning,'

where the context shows that _sixpences_ and not _sciences_ was the word

intended, leads me to suspect that the title of his _opus magnum_ should

be _De Augmentis Sixpenciarum_. Viewing the matter as a political

economist, such a topic would have been more worthy of the Lord

Chancellor of England; it would have been more in accordance with what

we know of the character of 'the meanest of mankind'; and the exquisite

humor of the title would tally precisely with what Ben Jonson tells us

in his 'Discoveries,' under the head _Dominus Verulamius_, that

'his language _(where he could spare or pass by a jest)_ was nobly

censorious.' Sir Thomas More had the same proneness to merriment,

a coincidence the more striking as both these great men were Lord

Chancellors. A comic stroke of this description would have been highly

attractive to a mind so constituted, and might easily escape the notice

of a printer, who was more likely to be intent upon the literal accuracy

of the Latin than on the watch for extraordinary flights of humor."

SMITH.

But we must return from our excursion into an imaginary _variorum_,

delightful because it requires no eyesight and no thought, to the more

serious duty of examining the notes of Mr. White. We have mentioned a

single instance in which we differ with him as to the propriety of a

fanatical adherence to the text of the Folio of 1623. We differ, because

we think that sense is not all that we have a right to expect from

Shakspeare,--that it is, indeed, merely the body in which his genius

creates a soul of meaning, nay, oftentimes a double one, exoteric and

esoteric, the _spiritus astralis_ and the _anima caelestis_. Had the

passage been in verse, where the change might have damaged the rhythm,

--had it been one of those ecstasies of Shakspearian imagination,

to tamper with which because _we_ could not understand it would be

Bottom-like presumption,--one of those tempests of passion where every

word reeks hot and sulphurous, like a thunderstone new-fallen,--in any

of these cases we should have agreed with Mr. White that to abstain was

a duty. But in a sentence of lightsome and careless prose, and where the

chances are great that the word to be changed is the accident of the

printer and not the choice of the author, we say, give us a text that is

true to the context and the aesthetic instinct rather than to the Folio,

even were that Pandora-box only half as full of manifest corruptions as

it is.

In the "Two Gentlemen of Verona," (Act iii. Sc. 1,) Mr. White prefers,

"She is not to be fasting in respect of her breath," to "She is not to

be _kissed_ fasting in respect of her breath,"--an emendation made by

Rowe,[F] and found also in Mr. Collier's Corrected Folio of 1632. We

cannot agree with him in a reading which seems to us to destroy all the

point of the passage.

[Footnote F: Mr. Dyce says the word supplied by Rowe was "fasting," a

manifest slip of the pen, and worth notice only as showing how easily

errors may be committed.]

In Dumain's ode, (_Love's Labor's Lost_, Act iv. Sc. 3,) beginning,

"On a day, (alack the day!)

Love, whose month is ever May,"

Mr. White chooses to read

"Thou, for whom Jove would swear

Juno but an Ethiop were,"

rather than accept Pope's suggestion of "ev'n Jove," or the far better

"great Jove" of Mr. Collier's Corrected Folio,--affirming that "the

quantity and accent proper to 'thou' make any addition to the line

superfluous." We should like to hear Mr. White read the verse as he

prints it. The result would be something of this kind:--

Thou-ou for whom Jove would swear,--

which would be like the 'bow-wow-wow before the Lord' of the old

country-choirs. To our ear it is quite out of the question; and,

moreover, we affirm that in dissyllabic (which we, for want of a better

name, call iambic and trochaic) measures the omission of a half-foot

is an impossibility, and all the more so when, as in this case, the

preceding syllable is strongly accented. Even had the poem been meant

for singing, which it was not, for Dumain reads it, the quantity would

be false, though the ear might more easily excuse it. Such an omission

would be not only possible, but sometimes very effective, in trisyllabic

measures,--as, for instance, in anapests like these,--

"'Tis the middle of night by the castle clock,

And the owls have awakened the crowing cock,"--

where iambs or spondees may take the place of the first or second foot

with no shock to the ear, though the change of rhythm be sensible

enough,--as

'Tis th[)e] d[=e][=e]p midnight by the castle clock,

And [)o]wls have awakened the crowing cock.

We quite agree with Mr. White and Mr. Knight in their hearty dislike of

the Steevens-system of versification, but we think that Coleridge (who,

although the best English metrist since Milton, often thought lazily and

talked loosely) has misled both of them in what he has said about the

pauses and retardations of verse. In that noblest of our verses, the

unrhymed iambic pentameter, two short or lightly-accented syllables

may often gracefully and effectively take the place of a long or

heavily-accented one; but great metrists contrive their pauses by the

artistic choice and position of their syllables, and not by leaving

them out. Metre is the solvent in which alone thought and emotion can

perfectly coalesce,--the thought confining the emotion within decorous

limitations of law, the emotion beguiling the thought into somewhat of

its own fluent grace and rebellious animation. That is ill metre which

does not read itself in the mouth of a man thoroughly penetrated with

the meaning of what he reads; and only a man as thoroughly possessed

of the meaning of what he writes can produce any metre that is not

sing-song. Not that we would have Shakspeare's metre tinkered where it

seems defective, but that we would not have palpable gaps defended as

intentional by the utterly unsatisfactory assumption of pauses and

retardations. Mr. White has in many cases wisely and properly made

halting verses perfect in their limbs by easy transpositions, and we

think he is perfectly right in refusing to interpolate a syllable, but

wrong in assuming that we have Shakspeare's metre where we have no metre

at all. We are not speaking of seeming irregularities, of lines broken

up by rapid dialogue or cut short by the gulp of voiceless passion, nor

do we forget that Shakspeare wrote for the tongue and not the eye, but

we do not believe he ever left an unmusical period. Especially is this

true of passages where the lyrical sentiment predominates, and we beg

Mr. White to reconsider whether we owe the reading

"All overcanopied with luscious woodbine"

(instead of _lush_)

to the printers of the Folio or to Shakspeare. Even if we accept

Steevens's "whereon" instead of "where" in the first verse of this

exquisite piece of melody, and read (as Mr. White does not)

"I know a bank whereon the wild thyme grows,"

it leaves the peculiar _lilt_ of the metre unchanged. The varied

accentuation of the verses is striking; and would any one convince

himself of the variety of which this measure is capable, let him try to

read this passage, and the speech of Prospero, beginning "Ye elves of

hills," to the same tune. In the verses,

"And ye that on the sands with printless foot

Do chase the ebbing Neptune, | and do fly him

When he comes back,"

observe how the pauses are contrived to echo the sense and give the

effect of flux and reflux. Versification was understood in that day as

never since, and no treatise on English verse so good, in all respects,

as that of Campion (1602) has ever been written. Coleridge learned from

him how to write his "Catullian hendeca-syllables," and did not better

his instruction.[G]

[Footnote G: For the comprehension of the laws of some of the lighter

measures, no book is so instructive as Mother Goose's Melodies. That

excellent lady was one of the best metrists the language has produced.]

In "Measure for Measure," (Act i. Sc. 1,) in this passage,--

"what's open made

To justice, that justice seizes: what knows the law

That thieves do pass on thieves?"

does Mr. White believe the "that" and "what" are Shakspeare's? Does he

consider

"To justice, that justice seizes: what knows the law"

an alexandrine,--and an alexandrine worthy of a student and admirer of

Spenser? Should we read it thus, we should dread Martial's sarcasm of,

_Sed male cum recitas_. We believe that Shakspeare wrote

"What's open made

To Justice, Justice seizes; knows the Law

That thieve do pass on thieves?"

We have pointed out a passage or two where we think Mr. White follows

the Folio text too literally. Two instances we have noted where he has

altered, as we think, for the worse. The first is (_Tempest_, Act iii.

Sc. 3) where Mr. White reads,

"You are three men of sin whom Destiny

(That hath to instrument this lower world

And what is in't) the never-surfeited sea

Hath caused to belch you up,--and on this island

Where man doth not inhabit; you 'mongst men

Being most unfit to live. I have made you mad."

The Folio reads, "Hath caused to belch up you"; and Mr. White says in

his note, "The tautological repetition of the pronoun was a habit,

almost a custom, with the Elizabethan dramatists." This may be true,

(though we think the assertion rash,) but certainly never as in

this case. We think the Folio right, except in its punctuation. The

repetition of the "you" is emphatic, not tautological, and is demanded

by the whole meaning of the passage. Ariel is taunting the persons

she addresses, with the intention of angering them; and the "you" is

repeated, because those highly respectable men cannot at first bring

their minds to believe that such unsavory epithets are addressed to

them. We should punctuate thus, following the order of the words in the

Folio,--

"Hath caused to belch up,--you! and on this island,

Where man doth not inhabit;--you 'mongst men

Being most unfit to live. I have made you mad."

In the "Comedy of Errors," (Act ii. Sc. 2,) Adriana, suspecting her

husband of unfaithfulness, says to him,--

"For, if we two be one, and thou play false,

I do digest the poison of thy flesh,

Being strumpeted by thy contagion.

Keep, then, fair league and truce with thy

true bed;

I live distained, thou undishonored."

Such is the reading of the Folio. Mr. White reads,

"I live distained, thou one dishonored."

But we cannot help thinking that the true reading should be,

"I live distained, though undishonored,"

which is a less forced construction, and coincides with the rest of the

passage,--"I am contaminate through thee, though in myself immaculate."

In "As You Like it," (Act ii. Sc. 3,) Mr. White (with the Folio and some

recent editors) calls the Duke's wrestler, "the _bonny_ priser of the

Duke." The common reading is "bony," which seems to us better, though

we believe _brawny_ to be the word intended. We likewise question

Mr. White's explanation of the word _priser_, which, he says, "is

prize-fighter, one who wins prizes." One who "fights for prizes" would

have been better; but we suspect that the word is more nearly akin

with the French _prise_ (in the sense of _venir aux prises_) than with

_prix_. We should prefer also "Aristotle's ethicks" (_Taming of the

Shrew_, Act i. Sc. 1) to the ordinary "Aristotle's checks," which is

retained by Mr. White. In "Much Ado about Nothing," (Act ii. Sc. 1,) we

have no doubt that Mr. Collier's corrector is right in reading "_sink_

apace," though Mr. White states authoritatively that Shakspeare would

not have so written. It is only fair to Mr. White, however, to say that

he is generally open-minded toward readings suggested by others, and

that he accepts nearly all those of Mr. Collier's Corrected Folio on

which honest lovers of Shakspeare would be likely to agree. In comparing

his notes with the text, our eye was caught by a verse in which there

seems so manifest a corruption that we shall venture to throw down the

discord-apple of a conjectural emendation. In the "Merchant of Venice,"

(Act iii. Sc. 2,) where Bassanio is making his choice among the caskets,

after a long speech about "outward shows" and "ornament," he is made to

say that ornament is,

"in a word,

The seeming truth which cunning _times_ put on

To entrap the wisest."

We find it hard to believe that _times_ is the right word here, and

strongly suspect that it has stolen the place of _tires_. The whole

previous tenor of the speech, and especially of the images immediately

preceding that in question, appears to demand such a word.

We have said, that we considered the style and matter of Mr. White's

notes excellent. Indeed, to the purely illustrative notes we should

hardly make an exception. There are two or three which we think in

questionable taste, and one where the temptation to say a sharp

thing has led the editor to vulgarize the admirable Benedick, and to

misinterpret the text in a way so unusual for him that it is worth a

comment. When Benedick's friends are discussing the symptoms which show

him to be in love, Claudio asks,

"When was he wont to wash his face?"

Mr. White annotates thus:--

"That the benign effect of the tender passion upon _Benedick_ in this

regard should be so particularly noticed, requires, perhaps, the remark,

that in Shakspeare's time our race had not abandoned itself to that

reckless use of water, whether for ablution or potation, which has more

recently become one of its characteristic traits."

Now, if there could be any doubt that "wash" means _cosmetic_ here, the

next speech of Don Pedro ("Yea, or to _paint_ himself?") would remove

it. The gentlemen of all periods in history have been so near at least

to godliness as is implied in cleanliness. The very first direction in

the old German poem of "Tisch-zucht" is to wash before coming to table;

and in "Parzival," Gurnamanz specially inculcates on his catechumen the

social duty of always thoroughly cleansing himself on laying aside his

armor. Such instances could be multiplied without end.

In annotating Shakspeare, it would, perhaps, be asking too much of

an editor to give credit to its first finder for every scrap of

illustration. The immense mass of notes already existing may, perhaps,

be fairly looked upon as a kind of dictionary, open to every one,

and the use of which implies no indebtedness. Mr. White, in general,

indicates the source whence he has drawn, though we have sometimes found

him negligent in this respect. He says, in the Advertisement prefixed to

his second volume, "that in every case, where no such credit is

given for a restoration, a conjecture, or a quotation, the editor is

responsible for it; and as he is disinclined to the giving of much

prominence to claims of this sort, he has, in those cases, merely

remarked, that 'hitherto' the text has stood thus or so." We have not

been at the trouble of verifying every one of Mr. White's "hithertos,"

but we did so in two plays, and found in "Midsummer Night's Dream" four,

and in "Much Ado" two cases, where the reading claimed as a restoration

occurred also in Mr. Knight's excellent edition of 1842. These

oversights do not affect the correctness of Mr. White's text, but they

diminish our confidence in the accuracy of the collation to which he

lays claim.

The chief objection which we have to make against Mr. White's text is,

that he has perversely allowed it to continue disfigured by vulgarisms

of grammar and spelling. For example, he gives us _misconster_, and

says, "This is not a mis-spelling or loose spelling of 'misconstrue,'

but the old form of the word." Mr. Dyce insisted on the same

cacographical nicety in his "Remarks" on the editions of Mr. Collier and

Mr. Knight, but abandons it in his own with the artless admission that

_misconstrue_ also occurs in the Folio. In one of the Camden Society's

publications is a letter from Friar John Hylsey to Thomas Cromwell, in

which we find "As God is my jugge";[H] but we do not believe that _jug_

was an old form of _judge_, though a philological convict might fancy

that the former word was a derivative of the latter. Had the phrase

occurred in Shakspeare, we should have had somebody defending it as

tenderly poetical. We cannot but think it a sacrifice in Mr. White that

he has given up the _whatsomeres_ of the Folio. He does retain _puisny_

as the old form, but why not spell it _puisné_ and so indicate its

meaning? Mr. White informs us that "the grammatical form in use in

Shakspeare's day" was to have the verb govern a nominative case!

Accordingly, he perpetuates the following oversight of the poet or

blunder of the printer:--

[Footnote H: _Suppression of the Monasteries_, p. 13.]

"What he is, indeed,

More suits you to conceive, than _I_ to speak of."

Again, he says that _who_, as an objective case, "is in accordance with

the grammatical usage of Shakspeare's day," (Vol. II. p. 86,) and that,

"considering the unsettled state of minor grammatical relations in

Shakspeare's time," it is possible that he wrote _whom_ as a nominative

(Vol. V. p. 393). But the most extraordinary instance is where he makes

a nominative plural agree with a verb in the second person singular,

(Vol. III. p. 121,) and justifies it by saying that "such disagreements

... are not uncommon in Shakspeare's writings, and those of his

contemporaries." The passage reads as follows in Mr. White's edition:--

"A breath thou art,

Servile to all the skiey influences

That dost this habitation where thou keep'st

Hourly afflict."

Hanmer (mistaking the meaning) read _do_. Porson objected, on the ground

that it was _thou_ and not _influences_ which governed _dost_. Porson

was certainly right, and we wonder how any one could ever have

understood the passage in any other way. The mediaevals had as much

trouble in reconciling free-will with judicial astrology as we with the

divine foreknowledge. A passage in Dante, it appears to us, throws light

on the meaning of the Duke's speech:--

"Lo cielo i vostri movimenti inizia;

Non dico tutti; ma posto ch' io 'l dica

Lume v' è dato a bene ed a malizia,

E libero voler che, se fatica

Nelle prime battaglie col ciel dura,

Poi vince tutto se ben si notrica."

_Purg._, Cant. xvi.

_Cielo_ is here used for the influence of the stars, as is clear from a

parallel passage in the "Convito." Accordingly, "Though servile to all

the skyey influences, it is thou, breath as thou art, that dost hourly

afflict thy body with the results of sin." But even if this be not the

meaning, is Mr. White correct in saying that _influence_ had no plural

at that time?[I] Had he forgotten "the sweet _influences_ of Pleiades"?

The word occurs in this form not only in our version of the Bible,

but in that of Cranmer, and in the "Breeches" Bible. So in Chapman's

"Byron's Conspiracy," (Ed. 1608, B. 3,)

"Where the beames of starres have carv'd

Their powerful _influences_."

[Footnote I: Mr. White cites Dr. Richardson, but the Doctor is not

always a safe guide.]

Mr. White repeatedly couples together the translators of the Bible and

Shakspeare, but he seems to have studied their grammar but carelessly.

"_Whom_ therefore ye ignorantly worship, _him_ declare I unto you," is a

case in point, and we ought never to forget our danger from that dusky

personage who goes about "seeking _whom_ he may devour." At a time

when correction of the press was so imperfect, one instance of true

construction should outweigh twenty false, and nothing could be easier

than the mistake of _who_ for _whom_, when the latter was written

_wh[=o]_. A glance at Ben Jonson's English Grammar is worth more than

all theorizing. Mr. White thinks it probable that Shakspeare understood

French, Latin, and Italian, but not--English!

The truth is, that, however forms of spelling varied, (as they must

where both writers and printers spelt phonographically,) the forms of

grammatical construction were as strict then as now. There were some

differences of usage, as where two nominatives coupled by a conjunction

severally governed the verb, and where certain nouns in the plural were

joined with a verb in the singular,--as _dealings, doings, tidings,

odds_, and as is still the case with _news_. It is not impossible that

the French termination in _esse_ helped to make the confusion. We have

in the opposite way made a plural of _riches_, which was once singular.

Some persons used the strong preterites, and some the weak,--some said

_snew, thew, sew_, and some _snowed, thawed, sowed_. Bishop Latimer

used the preterite _shew_, which Mr. Bartlett, in his "Dictionary of

Americanisms," pronounces to be the _shibboleth_ of Bostonians. But such

differences were orthoepic, and not syntactic.

We regret Mr. White's glossological excursions the more because they are

utterly supererogatory, and because they seem to imply a rashness of

conclusion which can very seldom be laid to his charge as respects the

text. He volunteers, without the least occasion for it, an opinion that

_abye_ and _abide_ are the same word, (which they are not,) suggests

that _vile_ and _vild_ (whose etymology, he says, is obscure) may

be related to the Anglo-Saxon _hyldan_, and tells us that _dom_ is

Anglo-Saxon for house. He pronounces _ex cathedrâ_ that _besides_ is

only a vulgar form of _beside_, though the question is still _sub

judice_, and though the language has contrived adverbial and

prepositional forms out of the distinction, as it has, in the case of

the compounds with _ward_ and _wards_, adverbial and adjectival ones.[J]

He declares that the distinction between _shall_ and _will_ was

imperfectly known in Shakspeare's time, though we believe it would not

be difficult to prove that the distinction was more perfect in some

respects than now. We the less value his opinion on these points as he

himself shows an incomplete perception of the difference between _would_

and _should_. (See Vol. V. pp. 114, 115, "We _would_ now say, 'all

liveliness,'" and "We _would_ now write, 'the traits of,'" etc.) He says

that the pronunciation _commandèment_ was already going out of use two

centuries and a half ago. Mr. Pegge speaks of it as a common Cockneyism

at the beginning of this century. Sometimes this hastiness, however,

affects the value of an elucidatory note, as where he tells us that a

principality is "an angel of the highest rank next to divinity" [deity],

and quotes St. Paul, breaking off the passage at the word in question.

But St. Paul goes on to say _powers_,--and there were, in fact, three

orders of angels above the principalities, the highest being the

Seraphim. An editor should be silent or correct, especially where there

is no need of saying anything.

[Footnote J: It is singular, if the _s_ be a corruption, that the

Germans should have fallen into the same in their _vorwärts_ and

_rückwärts_. We are inclined to conjecture the _s_ a genitival one,

supplying the place of a missing _of_ and _von_ respectively. We

formerly said, "of this side," "of that side," etc.; but the idiomatic

sense of _of_ is so entirely lost, that Mr. Craik (_English of

Shakspeare_) actually supposes _o'clock_ and _o'nights_ to be

contractions of "_on_ the clock," "_on_ nights," and that, although we

still say habitually, "_of_ late," "_of_ old." The French use of _de_,

and the Italian of _di_, is parallel. The Italians have also their

_avanti_ and _davante_, and no one forgets Dante's

"Di quà, di là, di su, dí giù, gli mena."

]

But it is after Mr. White has been bitten by the _oestrum_ of

Shakspearian pronunciation that he becomes thoroughly contradictory of

himself, especially after he has taken up the notion that "Much Ado

about Nothing" is "Much Ado about Noting," and that the _th_ was

not sounded in the England of Shakspeare. After that, his theory of

rhetorical variety seems to become that of Geoffroy, "_dire, redire, et

se contredire_." First he tells us, (Vol. II. p. 94,) that "the old form

'murther' should be retained because it is etymologically correct, and

because it was the uniform orthography of the day, [a hasty assumption,]

_and the word was pronounced in accordance with it_." Next, (in order to

sustain his anti-_th_ theory,) he says, (Vol. III. p. 227,) that "the

last syllable of 'murder,' then written _mur_th_er_, _seems to have been

pronounced somewhat like the same syllable_ of the French _meurtre_."

He assures us (Vol. III. p. 340) that _raisin_ was pronounced as we now

pronounce _reason_, and adds, "The custom has not entirely passed

away." Certainly not, as any one who knows Thackeray's "Mulligan of

Ballymulligan" is aware. But Mr. White (having forgotten for a moment

his conclusion that _swears_ was anciently _sweers_) quotes (Vol. V. pp.

399-400) from the "Haven of Health" as follows:--"Among us in England

they be of two sorts, that is to say, great _Raysons_ and small

_Raysons_" (the Italics are our own). In "Love's Labor's Lost," he

spells Biron _Birone_, (Chapman spelt it _Byron_,) as being nearer the

supposed pronunciation of Shakspeare's day; but finding it rhyming with

_moon_, he is obliged also to assume that _moon_ was called _mown_, and

is severe on Mr. Fox for saying _Touloon_. He forgets that we have other

words of the same termination in English for whose pronunciation Mr. Fox

did not set the fashion. The French termination _on_ became _oon_ in

_bassoon, pontoon, balloon, galloon, spontoon, raccoon_, (Fr. _raton_,)

_Quiberoon, Cape Bretoon_, without any help from Mr. Fox. So also

_croon_ from (Fr.) _carogne_,--of which Dr. Richardson (following

Jamieson) gives a false etymology. The occurrence of _pontoon_ in

Blount's "Glossographia," published before Mr. Fox was born, shows the

tendency of the language.[K] Or did Mr. Fox invent the word _boon_?

[Footnote K: Let us remark, in passing, that the spellings "Berowne,"

"Petruchio," and "Borachio" are strong indications that the manuscript

copies of the plays in which they occur were dictated to an amanuensis.]

The pronunciation of words in Shakspeare's time is a matter of no

particular consequence, except that it may be made the basis of

conjectural emendation. This consideration gives the question some

importance, and, as error is one of those plants which propagate

themselves from the root, it is well to attempt its thorough eradication

at the outset.

Autolycus sings,--

"If tinkers may have leave to live,

And bear the sow-skin _bowget_;

Then my account I well may give,

And in the stocks _avouch it_."

Upon this Mr. White has the following note:--

"'The sow-skin bowget':--i.e. budget; the change of orthography being

made for the sake of the rhyme; about which our early writers, contrary

to the received opinion, were very particular. Even Ben Jonson, scholar

and grammarian as he was, did not hesitate to make radical changes in

orthography to obtain a perfect, in place of an imperfect rhyme. The

fact is important in the history of our language." (Vol. V. pp. 398-9.)

Readers of our older literature are familiar with what the early writers

of treatises on poetry say upon this subject, concerning which, under

the head of _licentia poetica_, they give some rather minute directions.

But we think Mr. White's expression "_radical_ changes" a little strong.

The insurmountable difficulty, however, in the way of forming a decided

judgment, is plain at the first glance. You have not, as Dr. Kitchener

would say, caught your hare; you have no standard. _Quis custodiet ipsos

custodes_? How shall you determine how your first word is pronounced?

and which of two rhyming words shall dominate the other? In the present

instance how do we know that _avouch_ was sounded as it is now? Its

being from the French would lead us to doubt it. And how do we know that

_bowget_ was not pronounced _boodget_, as it would be, according to Mr.

White, if spelt _budget_? Bishop Hall makes _fool_ rhyme with _cowl_.

That _ou_ was sometimes pronounced _oo_ is certain. Gill (of whom

_infra_) says that the _Boreales_ pronounced _wound, waund_, and _gown,

gaun_ or _geaun_.

Mr. White supposes that _ea_ was sounded like _ee_. We are inclined to

question it, and to think that here again the French element in our

language has made confusion. It is certain that _ea_ represents in many

words the French _e_ and _ai_,--as in _measure_ and _pleasure_. The

Irish, who were taught English by Anglo-Normans, persist in giving

the _ea_ its original sound (as _baste_ for _beast_); and we Northern

Yankees need not go five miles in any direction to hear _maysure_ and

_playsure_. How long did this pronunciation last in England? to how

many words did it extend? and did it infect any of Saxon root? It

is impossible to say. Was _beat_ called _bate_? One of Mr. White's

variations from the Folio is "bull-baiting" for "bold-beating." The

mistake could have arisen only from the identity in sound of the _ea_

in the one with _ai_ in the other. Butler, too, rhymes _drum-beat_ with

_combat_. But _beat_ is from the French. When we find _least_, (Saxon,)

then, rhyming with _feast_, (French,) and also with _best_, (Shakspeare

has _beast_ and _blest_,) which is more probable, that _best_ took the

sound of _beest_, or that we have a slightly imperfect rhyme, with the

[=a] somewhat shorter in one word than the other? We think the latter.

One of the very words adduced by Mr. White (_yeasty_) is spelt _yesty_

in the Folio. But will rhymes help us? Let us see. Sir Thomas Wyat

rhymes _heares_ and _hairs_; Sir Walter Raleigh, _teares_ and

_despairs_; Chapman, _tear_ (verb) with _ear_ and _appear_; Shakspeare,

_ear_ with _hair_ and _fear_, _tears_ with _hairs_, and _sea_ with

_play_; Bishop Hall, _years_ with _rehearse_ and _expires_, and _meales_

with _quailes_. Will Mr. White decide how the _ea_ was sounded? We think

the stronger case is made out for the [=a] than for the _ee_,--for

_swears_ as we now pronounce it, than for _sweers_; though we fear our

tired readers may be tempted to perform the ceremony implied by the verb

without much regard to its orthoëpy.

Mr. White tells us that _on_ and _one_ were pronounced alike, because

Speed puns upon their assonance. He inclines to the opinion that _o_ had

commonly the long sound, as in _tone_, and supposes both words to have

been pronounced like _own_. But was absolute identity in sound ever

necessary to a pun, especially in those simpler and happier days?

Puttenham, in his "English Poesy," gives as a specimen of the art in

those days a play upon the words _lubber_ and _lover_, appreciable

now only by Ethiopian minstrels, but interesting as showing that the

tendency of _b_ and _v_ to run together was more sensible then than

now.[L] But Shakspeare unfortunately rhymes _on_ with _man_, in which

case we must either give the one word the Scotch pronunciation of _mon_,

or Hibernicize the other into _ahn_. So we find _son_, which according

to Mr. White would be pronounced _sone_, coquetting with _sun_; and Dr.

Donne, who ought to have called himself Doane, was ignorant enough to

remain all his life Dr. Dunn. But the fact is, that rhymes are no safe

guides, for they were not so perfect as Mr. White would have us believe.

Shakspeare rhymed _broken_ with _open_, _sentinel_ with _kill_, and

_downs_ with _hounds_,--to go no farther. Did he, (dreadful thought!) in

that imperfect rhyme of _leap_ and _swept_, (_Merry Wives_,) call the

former _lape_ and the latter (_Yankicè_) _swep'_? This would jump with

Mr. White's often-recurring suggestion of the Elizabethanism of our

provincial dialect.

[Footnote L: Everybody remembers how Scaliger illustrated it in the case

of the Gascons,--_Felices, quibus vivere est bibere_.]

Mr. White speaks of the vowels as having had their "pure sound" in the

Elizabethan age. We are not sure if we understand him rightly; but have

they lost it? We English have the same vowel-sounds with other nations,

but indicate them by different signs. Slight changes in orthoëpy we

cannot account for, except by pleading the general issue of custom. Why

should _foot_ and _boot_ be sounded differently? Why _food_ and _good_?

Why should the Yankee mark the distinction between the two former words,

and blur it in the case of the latter, thereby incurring the awful

displeasure of the "Autocrat," who trusses him, falcon-like, before his

million readers and adorers? Why should the Frenchman call his wooden

shoe a _sabot_ and his old shoe a _savate_, both from the same root?

Alas, we must too often in philology take Rabelais's reason for Friar

John's nose! With regard to the pronunciation of the vowels in Queen

Bess's days, so much is probable,--that the _a_ in words from the French

had more of the _ah_ sound than now, if rhymes may be trusted. We find

_placed_ rhyming with _past_; we find the participle _saft_ formed

from _save_. One relic of this occurs to us as still surviving in

that _slang_ which preserves for us so many glossologic

treasures,--_chauffer_,--_to chafe_, (in the sense of angering,)--_to

chaff_. The same is true of our Yankee _ch[)a]mber, d[)a]nger_, and

_m[)a]nger_, cited by Mr. White.

If we have apprehended the bearing of Mr. White's quotation from

Butler's English Grammar, we think he has misapprehended Butler. We wish

he had not broken the extract off so short, with an _etc_. What did

Butler mean by "_oo_ short"? Mr. White draws the inference that _Puck_

was called _Pook_, and that, since it was made to rhyme with _luck_,

that word and "all of similar orthography" were pronounced with an _oo_.

Did our ancestors have no short _u_, answering somewhat to the sound of

that vowel in the French _un_? We have little doubt of it; and since Mr.

White repeats so often that we Yankees have retained the Elizabethan

words and sounds, may we not claim their pronunciation of _put_ (like

_but_) and _sut_ for _soot_, as relics of it? If they had it not, how

soon did it come into the language? Already we find Lord Herbert of

Cherbury using _pundonnore_, (_point d'honneur_,) which may supply Dr.

Richardson with the link he wants between _pun_ and _point_, for the

next edition of his Dictionary. Alexander Gill, head-master of St.

Paul's School and Milton's teacher, published his "Logonomia Anglica" in

1621, a book which throws more light on the contemporary pronunciation

of English than any other we know of. He makes three forms of _u_:

the _tenuis_, as in _use_,--the _crassa brevis_, as in _us_,--and the

_longa_, as in _ooze_. The Saxons had, doubtless, two sounds of _oo_,

a long and a short; and the Normans brought them a third in the French

liquid _u_, if they had it not before. We say _if_, because their organs

have boggled so at the sound in certain combinations, ending in such

wine-thick success as _piktcher, portraitcher_.

"On earth's green _cinkcher_ fell a heavy _Jew_!"

That the _u_ had formerly, in many cases, the sound attributed to it by

Mr. White, we have no question; that it had that sound when Shakspeare

wrote "Midsummer Night's Dream," and in such words as _luck_, is not so

clear to us. We suspect that form of it was already retreating into the

provincial dialects, where it still survives.

Another of Mr. White's theories is that _moon_ was pronounced _mown_.

Perhaps it was; but, if so, it is singular that this pronunciation

is not found in any dialect of our language where almost every other

archaism is caught skulking. And why was it spelt _moon_? When did

_soon_ and _spoon_ take their present form and sound? That _oo_ was not

sounded like _o_ long is certain from Webbe's saying, that, to make

_poore_ and _doore_ rhyme with _more_, they must be written _pore_ and

_dore_. Mr. White says also that _shrew_ was pronounced _shrow_, and

cites as parallel cases _sew_ and _shew_. If New England authority be

worth anything, we have the old sound here in the pronunciation _soo_,

once universal, and according both with Saxon and Latin analogy.

Moreover, Bishop Hall rhymes _shew_ with _mew_ and _sue_; so that it

will not do to be positive.

We come now to the theory on which Mr. White lays the greatest stress,

and for being the first to broach which he even claims credit. That

credit we frankly concede him, and we shall discuss the point more fully

because there is definite and positive evidence about it, and because

we think we shall be able to convince even Mr. White himself that he is

wrong. This theory is, that the _th_ was sounded like _t_ in the

word _nothing_, and in various other words, at the beginning of the

seventeenth century. This certainly seems an unaccountable anomaly at

very first sight; for we know that two sounds of _th_ existed before

that period, and exist now. What singular frost was it that froze the

sound in a few words for a few years and left it fluent in all others?

Schoolmaster Gill, in his "Logonomia," already referred to, gives an

interesting and curious reason for the loss from our alphabet of the

Anglo-Saxon signs for the grave and acute _th_. He attributes it to the

fact, that, when Henry VII. invited Wynken de Word over from Germany

to print for the first time in English, the foreign fount of types was

necessarily wanting in signs to express those Saxon sounds. Accordingly,

the form _th_ was required to stand for both. For the Germans, he says,

call _thing, Ding_, and _father, Vater_.[M] In his alphabet he gives

_though_ and _thistle_ as expressing the two sounds, which is precisely

consonant with present usage. On page 152, speaking of the difficulties

of English pronunciation to a foreigner, he says, "Etenim si has quinque

voculas, _What think the chosen judges_? quid censent electi judices?

rectè protuleris, omnem loquendi difficultatem superâsti." Ben Jonson in

his Grammar gives similar examples, and speaks also of the loss of the

Saxon signs as having made a confusion. It is certain, then, at least,

that Shakspeare did not pronounce _thing, ting_,--or, if he did, that

others did not, as we shall presently show.

[Footnote M: Praefatio, p. 6. We abridge his statement.]

Most of Mr. White's arguments in support of his opinion are theoretic;

the examples by which he endeavors to sustain it tell, with one

exception, against him. That exception is his quoting from one of

Shakspeare's sonnets the rhyme _doting_ and _nothing_. But this proves

nothing (noting?); for we have already shown that Shakspeare, like all

his contemporaries, was often content with assonance, where identity

could not be had, in rhyming. Generally, indeed, the argument from

rhymes is like that of the Irishman who insisted that _full_ must be

pronounced like _dull_, because he found it rhyming with _b[)u]ll_. Mr.

White also brings forward the fact, that _moth_ is spelt _mote_, and

argues therefrom that the name of the Page Moth has hitherto been

misconceived. But how many _th_ sounds does he mean to rob us of? And

how was _moth_ really pronounced? Ben Jonson rhymes it with _sloth_ and

_cloth_; Herrick, with _cloth_. Alexander Gill tells us (p. 16) that it

was a Northern provincialism to pronounce _cloth_ long (like _both_),

and accordingly we are safe in believing that _moth_ was pronounced

precisely as it is now. Mr. White again endeavors to find support in the

fact that _Armado_ and _renegado_ are spelt _Armatho_ and _renegatho_

in the Folio. Of course they were, (just as the Italian _Petruccio_ and

_Boraccio_ are spelt _Petruchio_ and _Borachio_,) because, being

Spanish words, they were so pronounced. His argument from the frequent

substitution of _had_ for _hath_ is equally inconclusive, because we

may either suppose it a misprint, or, as is possible, a mistake of the

printer for the Anglo-Saxon sign for _th_, which, as many contractions

certainly did, may have survived in writing long after it was banished

from print, and which would be easily confounded with _d_. Can Mr.

White find an example of _dod_ for _doth_, where the word could not be

doubtful to the compositor? The inability of foreigners to pronounce the

_th_ was often made a source of fun on the stage. Puttenham speaks of

_dousand_ for _thousand_ as a vulgarism. Shakspeare himself makes Caius

say _dat_, and "by my _trot_"; and in Marston's "Dutch Courtezan," (Act

ii. Sc. 1,) we find Francischina, (a Dutch woman,) saying, "You have

brought mine love, mine honor, mine body, all to _noting_!"--to which

her interlocutrix answers, "To nothing!" It is plain that Marston did

not harden his _th_s into _t_s, nor suppose that his audience were in

the habit of doing so. How did Ben Jonson pronounce the word? He shall

answer for himself (_Vision of Delight_).--

"Some that are proper find signify o'thing,

And some another, and some that are _nothing_."

But perhaps he pronounced _thing, ting_? If _he_ did, Herrick as surely

did not, for he has

"Maides should say, or virgins sing,

Herrick keeps, as holds, _nothing_,"

where the accent divides the word into its original elements, and where

it is out of the question that he should lay the emphasis on a bit of

broken English. As to the _h_s which Mr. White adduces in such names as

_Anthony_ and such words as _authority_, they have no bearing on the

question, for those words are not English, and the _h_ in them is

perhaps only a trace of that tendency in _t_ to soften itself before

certain vowels and before _r_, as _d_ also does, with a slight sound of

_theta_, especially on the thick tongues of foreigners. Shakspeare makes

Fluellen say _athversary_; and the Latin _t_ was corrupted first to _d_

and then to _dth_ in Spanish. The _h_ here has not so much meaning as

the _h_ which has crept into _Bosporus_, for that is only the common

change of _p_ to _f_, corresponding to _v_ for _b_. So when Mr. White

reads _annotanize_ rather than _anatomize_, because the Folio has

_annothanize_, we might point him to Minsheu's "Spanish Dictionary,"

where, in the earlier editions, we find _anathomia_. In _lanthorn_,

another word adduced by Mr. White, the _h_ is a vulgarism of spelling

introduced to give meaning to a foreign word, the termination being

supposed to be derived from the material (horn) of which lanterns were

formerly made,--like _Bully Ruffian_ for _Bellerophon_ in our time, and

_Sir Piers Morgan_ for _Primaguet_ three centuries ago. As for _t'one_

and _t'other_, they should be _'tone_ and _'tother_, being elisions

for _that one_ and _that other_, relics of the Anglo-Saxon declinable

definite article, still used in Frisic.

We have been minute in criticizing this part of Mr. White's notes,

because we think his investigations misdirected, the results at which he

arrives mistaken, and because we hope to persuade him to keep a tighter

rein on his philological zeal in future. Even could he show what the

pronunciation of Shakspeare's day was, it is idle to encumber his

edition with such disquisitions, for we shall not find Shakspeare

clearer for not reading him in his and our mother-tongue. The field of

philology is famous for its mare's-nests; and, if imaginary eggs are

worth little, is it worth while brooding on imaginary chalk ones,

nest-eggs of delusion?

Life is short and Shakspeare long. We believe the pronunciation of

Shakspeare's day to have been so qualified with perfectly understood

provincialisms as to have allowed puns and rhymes impossible now. It is

not eighty years since you could tell the county[N] of every country

member of Parliament by his speech. Speculations like Mr. White's would

be better placed in a monograph by themselves. We have subjected his

volumes to a laborious examination such as few books receive, because

the text of Shakspeare is a matter of common and great concern, and

they have borne the trial, except in these few impertinent particulars,

admirably. Mr. Dyce and Mr. Singer are only dry commonplace-books of

illustrative quotations; Mr. Collier has not wholly recovered from his

"Corr. fo."-madness; Mr. Knight (with many eminent advantages as an

editor) is too diffuse; and we repeat our honest persuasion, that Mr.

White has thus far given us the best extant text, while the fulness of

his notes gives his edition almost the value of a _variorum_. We shall

look with great interest for his succeeding volumes.

[Footnote N: Mr. White is mistaken in thinking that to say "my country"

for "my county" was a peculiarity of Shallow. It was common in the last

century in England. He is wrong also in thinking that he was restoring a

characteristic vulgarism in _aleven_. Gabriel Harvey uses it, and says

there is no difference in sound between that and _a leaven_.]

* * * * *

In the introductory part of this article, we said that it was doubtful

if Shakspeare had any conscious moral intention in his writings. We

meant only that he was purely and primarily poet. And while he was

an English poet in a sense that is true of no other, his method was

thoroughly Greek, yet with this remarkable difference,--that, while the

Greek dramatists took purely national themes and gave them a universal

interest by their mode of treatment, he took what may be called

cosmopolitan traditions, legends of human nature, and nationalized them,

by the infusion of his perfectly Anglican breadth of character and

solidity of understanding. Wonderful as his imagination and fancy are,

his perspicacity and artistic discretion are more so. This country

tradesman's son, coming up to London, could set high-bred wits, like

Beaumont, uncopiable lessons in drawing gentlemen such as are seen

nowhere else but on the canvas of Titian; he could take Ulysses away

from Homer and expand the shrewd and crafty islander into a statesman

whose words are the pith of history. But what makes him yet more

exceptional was his utterly unimpeachable judgment, and that poise of

character which enabled him to be at once the greatest of poets and so

unnoticeable a good citizen as to leave no incidents for biography. His

material was never far-sought; (it is still disputed whether the fullest

head of which we have record were cultivated beyond the range of

grammar-school precedent!) but he used it with a poetic instinct which

we cannot parallel, identified himself with it, yet remained always its

born and question-less master. He finds the Clown and Fool upon the

stage,--he makes them the tools of his pleasantry, his satire, and even

his pathos; he finds a fading rustic superstition, and shapes out of

it ideal Pucks, Titanias, and Ariels, in whose existence statesmen and

scholars believe forever. Always poet, he subjects all to the ends

of his art, and gives in Hamlet the churchyard-ghost, but with the

cothurnus on,--the messenger of God's revenge against murder; always

philosopher, he traces in Macbeth the metaphysics of apparitions,

painting the shadowy Banquo only on the o'erwrought brain of the

murderer, and staining the hand of his wife-accomplice (because she was

the more refined and higher nature) with the disgustful blood-spot that

is not there. We say he had no moral intention, for the reason, that,

as artist, it was not his to deal with the realities, but only with

the shows of things; yet, with a temperament so just, an insight so

inevitable as his, it was impossible that the moral reality, which

underlies the _mirage_ of the poet's vision, should not always be

suggested. His humor and satire are never of the destructive kind; what

he does in that way is suggestive only,--not breaking bubbles with

Thor's hammer, but puffing them away with the breath of a Clown, or

shivering them with the light laugh of a genial cynic. Men go about to

prove the existence of a God! Was it a bit of phosphorus, that brain

whose creations are so real, that, mixing with them, we feel as if we

ourselves were but fleeting magic-lantern shadows?

But higher even than the genius, we rate the character of this unique

man, and the grand impersonality of what he wrote. What has he told

us of himself? In our self-exploiting nineteenth century, with its

melancholy liver-complaint, how serene and high he seems! If he had

sorrows, he has made them the woof of everlasting consolation to his

kind; and if, as poets are wont to whine, the outward world was cold

to him, its biting air did but trace itself in loveliest frost-work of

fancy on the many windows of that self-centred and cheerful soul.

* * * * *

NEW PUBLICATIONS

For the Quarter ending December 31, 1858.

Life in a Risen Saviour. By Robert S. Candlish, D.D. 12mo. 75 cts.

Philadelphia. Lindsay & Blakiston.

Life of Lord Timothy Dexter, etc. By Samuel L. Knapp: 16mo. 50 cts.

Boston. J.E. Tilton & Co.

Principles of Social Science. By H.C. Carey. Vol. 2. 8vo. $2.50.

Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott & Co.

The Motherless Children. Play and Study. By Mrs. Madeline Leslie. 12mo.

Each 75 cts. Boston. Shepard, Clark, & Brown.

Agnes; a Novel. By the Author of Ida May. 12mo. $1.25. Boston. Phillips,

Sampson, & Co.

Courtship and Matrimony, with other Sketches. By Robert Morris. 12mo.

&1.25. Philadelphia. T.B. Peterson & Brothers.

A History of East Boston, with Biographical Sketches of its Early

Proprietors. By Wm. H. Sumner, A.M. 8vo. $4.50. Boston. J.E. Tilton &

Co.

An Elementary Grammar of the Italian Language. Progressively arranged

for the Use of Schools and Colleges. By G.B. Fontana. 12mo. $1.00.

Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

A Journey Due North; being Notes of a Residence in Russia in the Summer

of 1856. By G.A. Sala. 16mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.

Brief Expositions of Rational Medicine; to which is prefixed, The

Paradise of Doctors, a Fable. By Jacob Bigelow, M.D. 18mo. cloth. 50

cts. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Lectures to Children. Second Series. By Rev. John Todd. 32mo. cloth. 60

cts. Springfield. Hopkins, Bridgman, & Co.

Man upon the Sea; or a History of Maritime Adventure, Exploration,

and Discovery. By Frank B. Goodrich. 8vo. $3.00. Philadelphia. J.B.

Lippincott & Co.

Mizpah. Prayer and Friendship. By Lafayette C. Loomis. 12mo. $1.25.

Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott & Co.

In and Around Stamboul. By Mrs. E. Hornby. 12mo. $1.25. Philadelphia.

Lindsay & Blakiston.

Davenport Dunn. By Charles Lever. Vol. 1. 50 cts. Philadelphia. T.B.

Peterson & Brothers.

A Grammar of the German Language. By Adolph Douai. 12mo. $1.25. Boston.

Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Sir Walter Raleigh and his Times, with other Papers. By Charles

Kingsley. 12mo. $1.25. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.

Plain Words to Young Men. By Aug. Woodbury. 12mo. 75 cts. Concord, N.H.

E.C. Eastman.

The Works of Charles Dickens. A New Edition. Pickwick Papers. 2 vols.

12mo. Nicholas Nickleby. 2 vols. 12mo. Martin Chuzzlewit. 2 vols. 12mo.

The Old Curiosity Shop. 2 vols. 12mo. $1.25 per vol. Boston. Ticknor &

Fields.

The Household Edition of the Waverley Novels. The Betrothed, 2 vols.

16mo. The Talisman. 2 vols. 16mo. Woodstock. 2 vols. 16mo. The Fair Maid

of Perth. 2 vols. 16mo. Anne of Geierstein, or the Maiden of the Mist. 2

vols. 16mo. 75 cts. per vol. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.

The Works of William Shakspeare. Edited by Richard Grant White. 12 vols.

12mo. Vols. 2 to 5. $1.50 per vol. Boston. Little, Brown, & Co.

The Courtship of Miles Standish, and other Poems. By Henry W.

Longfellow. 12mo. 75 cts. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.

Thoughts on the Life and Character of Jesus of Nazareth. By Rev. Wm. H.

Furness, D.D. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Dolce Far Niente. By John R. Tait. 12mo. 50 cts. Philadelphia. Parry &

McMillan.

Inquiries and Suggestions in Regard to the Foundation of Faith in the

Word of God. By Albert Barnes. 12mo. 60 cts. Philadelphia. Parry &

McMillan.

Piney Woods Tavern, or Sam Slick in Texas. 12mo. $1.25. Philadelphia,

T.B. Peterson & Brothers.

Milch Cows and Dairy Farming. By Charles L. Flint. 12mo. $1.25. Boston.

A. Williams & Co.

Selections from the Writings of Fenelon, with a Memoir of his Life. By

Mrs. Follen. A New Edition. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. J. Munroe & Co.

The Wolf-Boy of China, or Incidents and Adventures in the Life of

Lyn-Pays. By Wm. Dalton. 12mo. 75 cts. Boston. J. Munroe & Co.

The Harvest and the Reapers; Home Work for All, and How to do it. By

Rev. Harvey Newcomb. 12mo. 63 cts. Boston. Gould & Lincoln.

A Service-Book for Public Worship. Prepared especially for Use in the

Chapel of Harvard University. 12mo. $1.25. Cambridge. John Bartlett.

Annual Obituary Notices of Eminent Persons who have died in the United

States in the Year 1857. By Hon. Nathan Crosby. 8vo. $1.75. Boston.

Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Willard Memoir; or Life and Times of Major Simon Willard; with Notices

of Three Generations of his Descendants, and two Collateral Branches in

the United States, etc. By Joseph Willard. 8vo. $3.00. Boston. Phillips,

Sampson, & Co.

The Demi-Monde; a Satire on Society. Translated from the French of

A. Dumas Fils. By Mrs. E.G. Squier. 12mo. 75 cts. Philadelphia. J.B.

Lippincott & Co.

Violet; or the Times we Live in. 12mo. $1.00. Philadelphia. J.B.

Lippincott & Co.

Ought American Slavery to be Perpetuated; a Debate between Rev. W.G.

Brownlow and Rev. A. Pryne, held in Philadelphia in September. 12mo.

$1.00. Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott & Co.

Practical Dissections. By R.M. Hodges, M.D. 12mo. $1.00. Cambridge. John

Bartlett.

The Mathematical Monthly. Edited by J.D. Runkle. For October and

November. 2 Nos. 25 cts. each. Cambridge, John Bartlett.

Zenaida. By Florence Anderson. 12mo. $1.25. Philadelphia. J.B.

Lippincott & Co.

The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table. By O.W. Holmes. Illustrated by

Hoppin. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Poor and Proud; or the Fortunes of Katy Redburn. By Oliver Optic. 18mo.

63 cts. Karl Kiegler; or the Fortunes of a Foundling. 18mo. 50 cts.

Walter Seyton. A Story of Rural Life in Virginia. 18mo. 50 cts. Boston.

Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Rollo's Tour in Europe. Rome. By Jacob Abbott. 12mo. 50 cts. Boston.

Brown, Taggard, & Chase.

The Four Sisters. By Frederika Bremer. Translated by Mary Howitt. 12mo.

$1.25. Philadelphia. T.B. Peterson & Brothers. This is a reprint (under

another name) of Hertha.

Journal of Conversations with Lord Byron. By the Countess of

Blessington. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Wm. Veazie.

Biography of Self-Taught Men, with an Introductory Essay. By B.B.

Edwards. 18mo. 88 cts. Boston. J.E. Tilton & Co.

The New Priest in Conception Bay. 2 vols. 16mo. $1.75. Boston. Phillips,

Sampson, & Co.

Ernest Carroll, or Artist Life in Italy. 12mo. 75 cts. Boston. Ticknor &

Fields.

Thoughts of Favored Hours upon Bible Incidents and Characters, and other

Subjects. By Josiah Copley. 18mo. 50 cts. Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott

& Co.

Shadows. By C.H. Bennett. Thin 4to. plain, 50 cts. colored, 75 cts.

Philadelphia. C.J. Price & Co.

Jessie; or Trying to be Somebody. With Illustrations. By Walter Aimwell.

16mo. 63 cts. Boston. Gould & Lincoln.

Brandon; or a Hundred Years Ago. A Tale of the American Colonies. By

Osmond Tiffany. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Stanford & Delisser.

Irving's Life of Columbus. A New Revised Edition. 3 vols. 12mo. $4.00.

New York. G.P. Putnam.

Travels in Africa. By Bayard Taylor. A New Edition. 12mo. $1.50. New

York. G.P. Putnam.

The Microscope. By Jabez Hogg. 3d Edition. 12mo. $1.50. New York. Geo.

Routledge & Co.

The Poetical Works of George Crabbe. New Illustrated Edition. 16mo.

$1.25. New York. Geo. Routledge & Co.

The German Scholar's Hand-Book. By Theodore Von Rosenthal and D.W.

Turner. 18mo. 13 cts. New York. Geo. Routledge & Co.

True to the Last; or Alone on a Wide, Wide Sea. By A.S. Roe. 12mo.

$1.25. New York. Derby & Jackson.

Minna Raymond; a Tale that might have been True. 16mo. 63 cts. New York.

Geo. Routledge & Co.

Vestiges of the Spirit History of Man. By S.F. Dunlap. 8vo. $3.50. New

York. D. Appleton & Co.

From New York to Delhi. By Robert B. Minturn, Jr. 12mo. $1.25. New York.

D. Appleton & Co.

Electron; or The Pranks of the Modern Puck. By William C. Richards.

16mo. 50 cts. New York. D. Appleton & Co.

Legends and Lyrics. A Book of Verses. By Adelaide Anne Proctor (Daughter

of Barry Cornwall). 12mo. 75 cts. New York. D. Appleton & Co.

The Laying of the Telegraphic Cable, with all its Incidents and

Anecdotes, etc. By John Mullaly. 12mo. 50 cts. New York. D. Appleton &

Co.

Rational Cosmology; or the Eternal Principles and the Necessary Laws

of the Universe. By Laurens P. Hickok, D.D. 8vo. $1.75. New York. D.

Appleton & Co.

American Eloquence; a Collection of Speeches and Addresses of the most

Eminent Orators of America. By Frank Moore. 2 vols. 8vo. $5.00. New

York. D. Appleton & Co.

Shamah in Pursuit of Freedom; or the Branded Hand. Translated from the

original Showrah, and edited by an American Citizen. 12mo. $1.25. New

York. Thacher & Hutchinson.

The Religious Aspects of the Age; being Addresses delivered at the

Anniversaries of the Young Men's Christian Union of New York in May,

1858. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Thacher & Hutchinson.

Sermons to the Churches. By Francis Wayland, D.D. 12mo. 85 cts. New

York. Sheldon, Blakeman, & Co.

Spurgeon's Gems; being Brilliant Passages from the Discourses of the

Rev. C.H. Spurgeon. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Sheldon, Blakeman, & Co.

Ernestin; or The Heart's Longings. By Aleth. 12mo. $1.25. New York.

Stanford & Delisser.

The Household Book of Poetry. Collected and edited by Charles A. Dana.

8vo. $3.50. New York. D. Appleton & Co.

The Poetical Works of Edgar A. Poe. Illustrated. 4to. cloth gilt, $6.00.

morocco, $8.00. New York. J.S. Redfield.

Memoirs of Rev. David T. Stoddard, Missionary to the Nestorians. By

Joseph P. Thompson, D.D. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Sheldon, Blakeman, & Co.

Selections from Favorite Prescriptions of Living American Practitioners.

By Horace Green, M.D., LL.D. 8vo. $2.00. New York. Wiley & Halsted.

History of the Rise and Progress of the Iron Trade of the United States,

from 1621 to 1857. By B.F. French. 8vo. $2.00. New York. Wiley &

Halsted.

The Decimal System. An Argument for American Consistency in the

Extension of the Decimal Scale to Weights and Measures, in Harmony with

the National Currency. By John H. Felton. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Wiley

& Halsted.

The Rifleman. By Captain Rafter. 18mo. 38 cts. New York. G. Routledge &

Co.

A Hand-Book of Swimming and Skating. By George Forest. 32mo. 13 cts. New

York. G. Routledge & Co.

Law and Lawyers. By Archer Polson. 32mo. 25 cts. New York. G. Routledge

& Co.

China; being The Times' Special Correspondence in the Years 1857 and

1858. Map and Portrait, 12mo. $1.25. New York. Geo. Routledge & Co.

Peasant Life in Germany. By Mrs. Anna C. Johnson. 12mo. $1.25. New York.

Charles Scribner.

K.N. Pepper and other Condiments. By Jacques Maurice. 12mo. $1.00. New

York. Rudd & Carleton.

The Boy's Book of Industrial Information. 12mo. $1.50. New York. D.

Appleton & Co.

Clarke's Microscope. A Popular Description of the most Beautiful Objects

to Observe. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. G. Routledge & Co.

Practical Sermons. By Nathaniel W. Taylor, D.D. 8vo. $1.50. New York.

Clark, Austin, & Smith.

My Lady Ludlow. By Mrs. Gaskell. 12 cts. New York. Harper & Brothers.

The Potiphar Papers. Prue and I. By Geo. Wm. Curtis. New Editions. $1.00

each. New York. Harper & Brothers.

Loomis's Philosophy. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Harper & Brothers.

Beauties of Ruskin. Selected from his Works, with a Notice of the

Author. By L.C. Tuthill. 12mo. $1.25. New York. Wiley & Halsted.

How to Lay out a Garden. By Edward Kemp. 12mo. $2.00. New York. Wiley &

Halsted.

Blonde and Brunette; or The Gothamite Arcade. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. D.

Appleton & Co.

Swedenborg, a Hermetic Philosopher. 12mo. $1.00. New York. D. Appleton &

Co.

Fitz Greene Halleck's Poems. A New Edition. 12mo. 75 cts. 8vo. $2.00.

New York. D. Appleton & Co.

Isabella Orsini. A Historical Novel. By F.D. Guerazzi. Translated by

Luigi Monti. 12mo. $1.25. New York. Rudd & Carleton.

Vernon Grove; or Hearts as they are. 12mo. $1.25. New York. Rudd &

Carleton.

The Secret of a Life. By M.M. Bell. 18mo. 50 cts. New York. Geo.

Routledge & Co.

Illustrations to Irving's Life of Washington. Ninety Steel Plates, in a

Box. $5.00. New York. G.P. Putnam.

The Tenant-House; or Embers from Poverty's Hearthstone. 12mo. $1.25. New

York. Robert M. De Witt.

History of Frederick the Second, called Frederick the Great. By Thomas

Carlyle. 2 vols. 12mo. $2.50. New York. Harper & Brothers.

Self-Made Men. By Charles C.B. Seymour. 12mo. $1.25. New York. Harper &

Brothers.

Nature and the Supernatural, as together constituting the One System of

God. By Horace Bushnell. 8vo. $2.00. New York. C. Scribner.

Discourses on Common Topics of Christian Faith and Practice. By James W.

Alexander, D.D. 8vo. $2.00. New York. Charles Scribner.

The Theology of Christian Experience, designed as an Exposition of the

"Common Faith" of the Church of God. By George D. Armstrong, D.D. 12mo.

$1.00. New York. Charles Scribner.

The History of Prostitution; its Extent, Causes, and Effects, throughout

the World. From an Official Report to the Board of Almshouse Governors

of the City of New York. By William W. Sanger, M.D. 8vo. $3.00. New

York. Harper & Brothers.

Bitter-Sweet. A Poem. By J.G. Holland. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Charles

Scribner.

Joan of Arc; or The Maid of Orleans; from Michelet's History of France.

32mo. 50 cts. New York. Stanford & Delisser.

The Poems of William Wordsworth. Illustrated. 4to. cloth, $6.00.

morocco, $8.00. New York. Geo. Routledge & Co.

Bethlehem and the Bethlehem School. By C.B. Mortimer. 16mo. 63 cts. New

York. Stanford & Delisser.

The Ministry of Life. By Mrs. Maria L. Charlesworth. 12mo. $1.00. New

York. D. Appleton & Co.

Bertram Noel; a Story for Youth. By E.J. May. 16mo. 75 cts. New York. D.

Appleton & Co.

The Witches of New York, as encountered by Q.K. Philander Doesticks.

12mo. $1.00. New York. Rudd & Carleton.

Dust and Foam; or, Three Oceans and Two Continents. By T.R. Warren.

12mo. $1.25. New York. Charles Scribner.

History of the Christian Church. By Philip Schaff, D.D. 8vo. $2.50. New

York. Charles Scribner.

The Chronicles of the Bastile. Illustrated. 8vo. $2.00. New York.

Stanford & Delisser.

Oriental Tales of Fairy Land. 16mo. 63 cts, New York. Stanford &

Delisser.

Songs of the Woodland, the Garden, and the Sea. Elegantly illustrated.

4to. $2.00. New York. Anson D.F. Randolph.

Lyra Germanica; Second Series; The Christian Life. Translated from the

German, by Catherine Winkworth. 12mo. 75 cts. New York. Anson D.F.

Randolph.

A Little Leaven, and what it Wrought at Mrs. Blake's School. 18mo. 60

cts. Our Little Girls. By the same Author. 18mo. 40 cts. New York. Anson

D.F. Randolph.

The Babes in the Basket, or Daph and her Charge. By the Author of Timid

Lucy. 18mo. 50 cts. New York. Anson D.F. Randolph.

Tabby's Travels; or The Holiday Adventures of a Kitten. By Lucy Ellen

Guernsey, Author of Irish Amy. 18mo. 50 cts. New York. Anson D.F.

Randolph.

Kenneth and Hugh; or Self-Mastery. By "Cousin Kate," Author of Horace

and May. 18mo. 75 cts. New York. Anson D.F. Randolph.

Sunshine; or, Kate Vinton. By Harriet B. M'Keever. 16mo. 75 cts.

Philadelphia. Lindsay & Blakiston.

Quaint Sayings and Doings concerning Luther. Collected and arranged by

John G. Morris, D.D. 16mo. 75 cts. Philadelphia. Lindsay & Blakiston.

A Yacht Voyage. Letters from High Latitudes. Being some Account of a

Voyage in the Schooner-Yacht "Foam" 850 m. to Iceland, Jan Mayens, and

Spitzbergen, in 1856. By Lord Dufferin. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor &

Fields.

The Life and Times of Sir Philip Sidney. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor &

Fields.

The Emancipation of Faith. By Henry Edward Schedel, M.D. 2 vols. 8vo.

$4.00. New York. P. Appleton & Co.

Meta Gray; or, What makes Home Happy. By M.J. M'Intosh. 12mo. 75 cts.

New York. D. Appleton & Co.

"The Julia." By the Author of Vara. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Robert Carter

& Brother.

Struggles of the Early Christians, from the Days of our Saviour to the

Reign of Constantine. With an Introduction by Rev. F.D. Huntington, D.D.

18mo. 50 cts. Boston. J.P. Jewett & Co.

The Persian Flower. A Memoir of Judith Grant Perkins, of Oroomiah,

Persia. 18mo. 50 cts. Boston. J.P. Jewett & Co.

The Age of Chivalry. Part I., King Arthur and his Knights. Part II.,

The Mabinogeon, or Welch Popular Tales. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Crosby,

Nichols, & Co.

Arabian Days' Entertainments. Translated from the German. By Herbert

Pelham Curtis. 12mo. $1.25. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Hymns of the Ages, Being Selections from Lyra Catholica, Germanica,

Apostolica, and other Sources. With an Introduction by F.D. Huntington,

D.D. 4to. cloth, gilt, $3.00. morocco, $5.00. A cheap edition, $1.00.

Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Life Thoughts. Gathered from the Extemporaneous Discourses of Henry Ward

Beecher. By one of his Congregation. A fine edition, on large paper.

cloth, gilt, $2.00. morocco, $4.50. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Thorndale; or Conflict of Opinions. By William Smith. 12mo. $1.25.

Boston. Ticknor & Fields.

Christmas Hours. By the Author of The Homeward Path. 16mo. 50 cts.

Boston. Ticknor & Fields.

The Life of James Sullivan, with a Selection from his Writings. By

Thomas C. Amory. 2 vols. 8vo. $4.50. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

Dora Deane; or East India Uncle and Maggie Miller, or Old Hagar's

Secret. By Mrs. M.J. Holmes, Author of "Tempest and Sunshine." 12mo.

$1.00. New York. C. Saxton.

The Power of Prayer Illustrated in the Wonderful Display of Divine

Grace. By S.I. Prime. 12mo. $1.00. New York. C. Scribner.

The Banks of New York, their Dealers, the Clearing-House, and the

Panic of 1857, with a Financial Chart. By J.S. Gibbons. With Thirty

Illustrations. 12mo. $1.50. New York. D. Appleton & Co.

Future Life, or Scenes in Another World. By George Wood, Author of

"Modern Pilgrims." 12mo. $1.25. New York. Derby & Jackson.

While it was Morning. By Virginia F. Townsend. 12mo. $1.25. New York.

Derby & Jackson.

The Sociable; One Thousand and One Home Amusements. By the Author of the

Magician's Own Book. 12mo. $1.00. New York. Dick & Fitzgerald.

Wild Flowers, Drawn and Colored from Nature. By Mrs. C.M. Badger. With

an Introduction by Mrs. L.H. Sigourney. 4to. morocco. $12.50. New York.

C. Scribner.

The Daily Counsellor. By Mrs. L.H. Sigourney. Small 8vo. $1.50.

Hartford. Brown & Gross.

Palestine, Past and Present, with Biblical, Literary, and Scientific

Notices. By Henry S. Osborn, A.M. With Illustrations. 8vo. $3.50.

Philadelphia. James Challen & Sons.

The Mustee; or Love and Liberty. By B.F. Presbury. 12mo. $1.25. Boston.

Shepard, Clark, & Brown.

The Queen's Domain, and other Poems. By William Winter. 16mo. 63 cts.

Boston. E.O. Libby & Co.

Life Memories, and other Poems. By Edward Sprague Rand, Jr. 16mo. 63

cts. Boston. J. Munroe & Co.

Poems. By Frances Anne Kemble. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor & Fields.

Lectures and Addresses on Literary and Social Topics. By the late

Frederick W. Robertson of Brighton. 12mo. $1.00. Boston. Ticknor &

Fields.

History of the Reign of Philip Second, King of Spain. By William H.

Prescott. Vol. 3. 8vo. $2.25. Boston. Phillips, Sampson, & Co.

The Modern Cook; A Practical Guide to the Culinary Art in all its

Branches, etc. etc. By Charles Elmè Francatelli, Pupil to the Celebrated

Carême. From the Ninth London Edition. With Sixty-two Illustrations.

8vo. $3.00. Philadelphia. T.B. Peterson & Brothers.

Annals of the American Episcopal Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of

Distinguished Clergymen of the Episcopal Church in the United States.

From the Early Settlements of the Country to the Close of 1855, with an

Historical Introduction. By Wm. B. Sprague, D.D. Being the Fifth Volume

of the Annals of the American Pulpit. 8vo. $2.50. New York. Robert

Carter & Brothers.

The New Testament. Translated from the Original Greek, with

Chronological Arrangement of the Sacred Books, and Improved Divisions of

Chapters and Verses. By Leicester Ambrose Sawyer. 12mo. $1.25. Boston.

John P. Jewett & Co.