As for instance, "Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet;" it would hardly do to say that Sisera "flew away on his feet." There is not an instance in all the Bible or in Shakespeare of such a use of the word, often as there is occasion for it, if it were English; and indeed both Bible and Shakespeare do not together furnish a dozen instances of the use of the word in any sense.

ACT V. SCENE 4.

"York. Speak, Winchester; for boiling choler chokes The hollow passage of my poison'd voice."

Can there be any doubt that "poison'd," is a misprint for prison'd, as Pope suggested? I think that it should have been received into the text; and cannot imagine a reason for its rejection.

* Judges, iv. 15.

KING HENRY VI. PART II.

ACT I. SCENE 1.

"Glos. And hath his highness in his infancy Crowned in Paris in despite of foes?"

Steevens obviated the difficulty in these lines, by reading,

"And hath his highness in his infancy

Been crown'd in Paris," &c.,

which is the generally received text.

Mr. Collier laudably

endeavors to avoid so great a change as the insertion of a word and the elision of a syllable, by reading,

"And was his highness in his infancy

Crowned," &c.

But this change, though better, is almost equally great. It seems plain to me that for 'hath' we should read had. King Henry, when he ascended the throne, was not only a minor, but a child of tender years, under the guardianship of Gloster and Beaufort, who, from motives of policy, had him crowned in France as king of France. Gloster, enumerating all that he and his uncle have done to preserve the kingdom of France to the English crown, asks,

"Or hath [have] mine uncle Beaufort and myself
With all the learned council of the realm

Studied so long, sat in the council house
Early and late, debating to and fro

How France and Frenchmen might be kept in awe,
And had his highness, in his infancy,

Crowned in Paris, in despite of foes?

And shall these labours and these honours die?" &c.

That is, 'have we studied, and sat in council, and had his highness crowned in Paris, only to lose our labor?'

SCENE 3.

Enter Peter, and others, with Petitions.

1 Pet. My masters, let's stand close; my lord protector will come this way by and by, and then we may deliver our supplications in the quill.

Thus this passage stands in all editions; but "in the quill" is obscure. Mr. Singer and Mr. Dyce suggest "in the quoil," i. e., 'in the coil, or confusion,' which is quite possibly the needful word. "In the sequel," proposed in Mr. Collier's folio, only shows the poverty of the resources, external and internal, of the proposer.

ACT IV. SCENE 1.

"Cap. Cut both the villains' throats;-for die you shall The lives of those which we have lost in fight

Be counterpoised with such a petty sum."

This passage, evidently corrupt, was amended by reading the last line,

"Cannot be counterpoised with such a petty sum;"

the term, applied to a malevolent, or at least a mischievous character on the old stage. The character bore a dagger, as Harlequin bears and has ever borne a sword of lath.

"Rage" has here no meaning, and is shown by the context to be a misprint for rags, to which it is changed in Mr. Collier's folio.

Whose see is by a civil peace maintain'd:

Whose beard the silver hand of peace hath touch'd;
Whose learning and good letters peace hath tutor❜d;
Whose white investments figure innocence,
The dove and very blessed spirit of peace,-
Wherefore do you so ill translate yourself,

Out of the speech of peace, that bears such grace,
Into the harsh and boist'rous tongue of war?
Turning your books to graves, your ink to blood,
Your pens to lances, and your tongue divine
To a loud trumpet, and a point of war?"

This is the reading of all the recent editions. But can any one read the whole speech, remember that the Archbishop had personally taken up arms, and doubt for a moment that "graves" is a misprint for greaves, as Steevens pointed out, and that we should read,

"Turning your books to greaves, your ink to blood?"

The change in Mr. Collier's folio of "a point of war" to แ report of war" is insufferable. "A point of "A point of war" is as intelligible as a point of etiquette or a point of law. Sir Walter Scott makes a trumpeter, in Old Mortality, I believe, blow "a point of war."

"Archb. He cannot so precisely weed this land

As his misdoubts present occasion.

His foes are so enrooted with his friends,

That plucking to unfix an enemy,

He doth unfasten so and shake a friend,

So that this land, like an offensive wife," &c.

It is with great reluctance that I even suggest any change in the text of the original folio, when it is at all comprehensible; but I believe that "He doth unfasten so," is a misprint for "He doth unfasten too." The phrase, as it stands, may be construed so as to make the two lines mean, "That plucking to unfix an enemy, he doth thus unfasten and shake a friend." But this is not consistent with the intent of the passage, in which the Archbishop says, that Henry's foes are "enrooted with his friends; so, that, like the sower in the parable of the tares and the wheat, to which the allusion is plain,—he cannot pluck up one without rooting out the other at the same time. The tares and the wheat in the one case, the enemy and the friend in the other, would be displaced together. I believe that Shakespeare wrote,-that he could not have avoided writing:

"His foes are so enrooted with his friends,
That plucking to unfix an enemy,

He doth unfasten too, and shake a friend."

I do not believe that Shakespeare would have strung