_Coincident Criticisms._--I shall be obliged if you will allow me through
your pages to anticipate and rebut two charges of plagiarism. When I wrote
my Note on a passage in _The Winter's Tale_ ("N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p.
378.), I had not seen the _Dublin University Magazine_ for March last,
containing some remarks on the same passage in some respects much
resembling mine. I must also declare that my Note on a passage in _All's
Well that ends Well_ ("N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 426.) was posted for you
some time before the appearance of A. E. B.'s Note on the same passage ("N.
& Q.," Vol. vii., p. 403.). The latter coincidence is more remarkable than
the former, as the integrity of the amended text was in both notes
discussed by means of the same parallel passage. _Apropos_ of A. E. B.'s
clever Note, permit me to say, that though at first it appeared to me
conclusive, I now incline to think that Shakspeare intended Helen to
address the _leaden messengers_ by means of a very hyperbolic figure:
"wound the still-piecing air that sings with piercing" is a consistent
whole. If, as A. E. B. rightly says, _to wound the air_ is an
impossibility, it is equally impossible that the air should utter any sound
expressive of sensibility. The fact of course is, that the cannon-balls
_cleave_ the air, and that by so cleaving it a shrill noise is produced.
The cause and effect may, however, be metaphorically described, by
comparing air to Bertram. I believe it is a known fact that every man who
is struck with a cannon-ball cries out instinctively. Shakspeare therefore
might, I think, have very poetically described the action and effect of a
cannon-ball passing through the air by the strong figure of _wounding the
air that sings with the piercing which it is enduring_.
In concluding this Note, I beg to express what is not merely my own, but a
very general feeling of disappointment in respect of MR. COLLIER'S new
edition of Shakspeare. To it, with a new force, may be applied the words of
A. E. B. in "N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p. 296.:
"But the evil of these emendations is not in this instance confined to
the mere suggestion of doubt; the text has absolutely been altered in
all accessible editions, in many cases _silently_, so that the ordinary
reader has no opportunity of judging between _Shakspeare_ and his
improvers."
That MR. COLLIER should be the greatest of such offenders, is no very
cheering sign of the times.