works where the language has not become obsolete, and where allusions to the manners, customs, or occurrences of the author's own age are not to be discovered. The pages of Shakespeare are replete with forgotten allusions and obsolete phraseology, as any one may ascertain from a careful perusal of such scenes as we meet with at the commencement of "Much Ado about Nothing," and in several other plays. Criticism on the works of Shakespeare may be classed into three principal divisions : I. PHILOLOGICAL, including the grammatical construction used by the poet, idiomatic phraseology, explanations of obsolete words, and the systems of metre. II. PHILOSOPHICAL, including every kind of æsthetic or psychological commentary. III. HISTORICAL, including inquiries into the sources of the plots, local and contemporary illustration of realities (not words), costume, and all that relates to history, geography, chronology, &c. It is no dishonour to the labours of the elder critics or modern editors to admit that much remains to be done in each of these departments, especially in the first, before an earnest inquirer can form a Shakespearian library in which all his difficulties shall be solved, or at least intelligently discussed. The consideration of the subject is not irrelevant to the preface of a work treating on a branch of criticism on which we require less information than on almost any other. It is my desire to combat the belief that these studies are unnecessary, whatever direction they may take. If we select any play, the "Merry Wives of Windsor," for example-a very unfavourable one for the purposes of my argument, no play being better annotated in the variorum edition-we shall find amongst the unexplained words and phrases, not noticed by Mr. Collier or Mr. Knight: 1, possibilities; 2, fault; 3, marry trap; 4, veneys; 5, fico; 6, intention; 7, yellowness; 8, are you avis'd of that; 9, meddle or make; 10, gally-mawfry; 11, Good even and twenty, the comma being erroneously placed after even; 12, his wife's frailty; 13, sith; 14, admittance; 15, aqua-vitæ ; 16, foin; 17, traverse; 18, punto; 19, stock; 20, reverse; 21, distance; 22, Montant; 23, clapperclaw; 24, laid; 25, having; 26, tire-valiant; 27, whiting-time; 28, buck-washing; 29, make a shaft or a bolt on't; 30, slighted; 31, thrumm'd hat; 32, rag; 33, come off; 34, urchins; 35, tricking; 36, mince; 37, lewdsters; 38, scut; 39, orphan heirs of fixed destiny; 40, hodge-pudding. All these are either obsolete, used in senses not known at the present day, or require explanation, owing to the peculiar manner in which they are 1 This list might be greatly increased, and the selecting only those words unexplained by both the Editors above-mentioned renders it more limited than if we were speaking merely of one edition; Mr. Knight having notes on many passages passed over without remark by Mr. Collier, and vice versa. But, taking a very low average, and supposing only sixty in each play are still left without necessary annotation, we have upwards of two thousand obsolete words and phrases in Shakespeare left without any explanation by the two latest and best Editors. introduced. The reader must, however, bear in mind I am not by this implying any censure on the meritorious editions of Mr. Knight and Mr. Collier. Both contain many excellencies, and both have added greatly to our previous knowledge; they are, indeed, the only editions that have appeared for many years, possessing good claims to originality; but it will, I think, be evident that much remains to be done that can fairly be demanded by an intelligent inquirer. It is with the earnest hope that the explanatory study of the plays of Shakespeare, if I may so express myself, may not be suffered to remain neglected, these few observations have been advanced. There is now an appropriate medium for the publication of any researches in this direction in the "Papers" of the Shakespeare Society, a periodical which has undoubtedly contributed much valuable information to the departments of biography and literary criticism, however much its utility may have been questioned by those who expect uniform excellence, a perfection not attained by any miscellany of the kind. We must not apply the motto, Ex uno disce omnes; for, even in the best works, time will discover imperfections on the surface, and haply sweep them away. How much more, then, must a magazine, formed from a mass of stray and gratuitous contributions, however skilful the Editor, be subject to the admission of essays which perplex rather than satisfy. Notwithstanding the liability to this defect, the series is a most valuable one to the Shakespearian student, and would, I sincerely believe, be far more important, would they who have the opportunity bestow their attention on those passages of the works of our great poet which have not yet been satisfactorily explained. There is another division of criticism, extremely important to an Editor, which is unquestionably still in its infancy: I allude to the grammatical construction of the English language in Shakespeare's time, especially of the colloquial speech so much employed by the great poet. Gifford was the only critic who had really paid any attention to the subject; for all that his successors, Dyce, Collier, and others, have accomplished, is the explanation of certain grammatical idioms previously misunderstood. None of these writers, however, have attempted to analyze the results of their reading into a system; and many of the most usual constructions in Elizabethan grammar are evidently unknown. I may mention, as an example, a well-known passage in the Tempest— "You are three men of sin, whom destiny where, if Mr. Collier had known that the duplication of the pronoun is the rule, not the exception, in particular constructions, he would scarcely have thought the second you in this passage had "crept into the old text by mere inadvertence." None of the Editors of Shakespeare, as far as I can find, have explained this and other grammatical rules of a similar description; yet surely it should be necessary for an Editor to have a knowledge of the grammatical construction of the language in which the author wrote. The language of Elizabeth's time differed very much in its construction from that used in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Here is a field of criticism, which requires the labour of many students for many years. The materials are scattered, but not unattainable; and a collection of idiomatic phrases and peculiar constructions would soon lead to a glimpse of the system, the history of the formation of which should be collected from the time of the departure of the terminal contractions (the representatives of the vowel terminations of the AngloSaxon), in the fifteenth century. Passing over a very important department, that of philosophical criticism, which has the advantage of employing the pens of some of the most able writers of the present day, we may turn to that curious branch of inquiry which is the subject of the present volume, and which indirectly illustrates the history of the poet's mind, in exhibiting to us the simple materials from which his wonderful dramas were constructed. The original tales used by Shakespeare, chiefly consisting of translations, have been collected by Mr. Collier in his "Shakespeare's Library," 1842. The work of M. Simrock will form an appropriate supplement to that excellent collection, and although, perhaps, he has too frequently entered into discussions that can scarcely be considered illustrative of Shakespeare, there is a great deal of curious matter in his Remarks, which will repay perusal. The |