Deride and play upon his amorous humours,
Though he but apishly doth imitate

The gallant'st courtiers, kissing ladies' pumps,
Holding the cloth for them, praising their wits,
And servilely observing every one

May do them pleasure; fearful to be seen

With any man, though he be ne'er so worthy,

That's not in grace with some that are the greatest.

Thus courtiers do, and these he counterfeits;

But sets no such a sightly carriage

Upon their vanities, as they themselves;

And therefore they despise him for indeed
He's like the zany to a tumbler,

That tries tricks after him, to make men laugh."

Often, however, the term zany is used by itself without any direct reference to the clown or fool. But in these cases it still retains its distinctive meaning, carrying with it the notion not only of mimicry, but of apish and abortive mimicry. This usage both of noun and verb might be easily illustrated from the literature of at least two centuries, from Milton, Dryden, and their contemporaries, as well as from the pages of the Elizabethan poets and prose writers.

In

These examples might easily be multiplied. going through Mr. Dyce's glossary we have marked a considerable number of imperfect explanations, and some few defective references. But any notice of these must be left for the present, our space being already exhausted. Some sections of the glossary are moreover altogether weak, such as the explanation of Shakespeare's references to plants and flowers. But for these Mr. Dyce relies for the most part on Mr. Beisly, who has written a special work on the subject, but who, judging from the extracts, cannot be a very safe guide.

Mr. Dyce also carries to some excess the questionable plan of illustrating the meaning of important archaic words from later dictionaries instead of from the literature of the time. Apart from these slight drawbacks, the glossary as a whole is exceedingly well executed, and will prove most useful to students of Shakespeare. Good as it is, however, what we have said will serve to show that something better may still be produced. Notwithstanding the prolonged and industrious labours of the critics in the wide field of Shakespearian literature, there is still a scantling of valuable grain for gleaners following in the wake of the early reapers who have gathered in the main harvest.

NEW SHAKESPEARIAN INTERPRETATIONS.1

MR. GLADSTONE, in his "Essay on the Place of Homer in Education," notices the tradition of a certain Dorotheus, who spent the whole of his life in endeavouring to elucidate the meaning of a single word in Homer, and seems to suggest that the time thus occupied was not altogether wasted. Without going quite so far as this, most critics will probably agree in his general conclusion, "that no exertion spent upon any of the great classics of the world, and attended with any amount of real result, is thrown away". Unfortunately, the greatest classic in the literatures of the world affords as much scope for this kind of labour as any of his reputed peers, not excepting the object of Mr. Gladstone's critical devotion. The oldest and most authoritative editions of Shakespeare are, it is well known, crowded with verbal errors, textual corruptions, and metrical obscurities. They include, indeed, almost every species of literary and typographical confusion which haste, ignorance, and carelessness in the multiplication and fortuitous printing of manuscript copies could produce. After a century and a half of critical labour embracing three great schools of editors and

1 Shakespeare: The First Collected Edition of the Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare. A Reproduction in Exact Fac-Simile of the Famous First Folio, 1623, by the newly discovered Process of Photo-Lithography. Under the superintendence of H. Staunton. London, 1866.

Edinburgh Review, Oct., 1872.

commentators, the text of these dramas is only now partially purged from the obvious blots and stains that disfigure the earliest editions. And it is only within the last ten years that the results of this prolonged critical labour have been condensed, and exhibited in a thoroughly scientific shape, by the acute and learned editors of the Cambridge Shakespeare.

By means of this most useful and scholarlike edition, any cultivated and intelligent reader may form some estimate of the net result and general value of Shakespearian criticism. A comparison of the best modern readings with those of the Quartos and Folios will show in what numberless instances the text has been corrected, amended, and even restored. Those who have never made such a comparison would be surprised to find how many familiar phrases and passages, some too regarded as peculiarly Shakespearian, are due to the happy conjectures of successive textual scholars. Rowe and Pope, the first critical editors, being themselves poets, are peculiarly felicitous in their suggested emendations. But even the more prosaic Theobald's singleminded and persistent devotion was surprisingly successful in the same direction. His labours were, however, still more fruitful in restoring neglected readings from the First Folio which neither of his predecessors had consulted with any care. The first school of critics, indeed, brought native sagacity rather than minute or accurate learning to the task of clearing up the difficulties of Shakespeare's text. They satisfied themselves with correcting the more obvious misprints of the Folios, and endeavouring to relieve, by conjectural emendations, some of their corruptest passages.

The second school of editors, represented by Capell,

Stevens, and Malone, were diligent students of the Elizabethan literature, and found no difficulty therefore in explaining many words and phrases that had perplexed and baffled their predecessors. For elucidating the obscurities of the text, they relied more on illustration than on conjectured emendation. Many passages which the early editors, through ignorance of Elizabethan manners, usages, and allusions, had regarded as corrupt, were amply vindicated from the charge by the more exact and minute knowledge of the later. The third, and more recent schools of editors and critics, represented by Knight and Collier, Dyce and Staunton, while combining the distinctive excellences of the previous schools, have specially developed what may be regarded as the most fruitful branch of Shakespearian criticism-that of apt and illuminating illustrations from contemporary literature. The researches of Knight, Dyce, and Staunton in particular have satisfactorily explained many phrases and allusions regarded by previous editors as hopelessly ambiguous and obscure, if not altogether unintelligible. While thus working in the right direction, the modern school has, however, exemplified afresh the conflict between authority and criticism which must always prevail with regard to an original text, at once so important and so defective as that of Shakespeare's dramas. Mr. Knight, in his admiration of the First Folio, yielded a somewhat exclusive deference to authority. Mr. Collier, again, partly no doubt from the accident of possessing the Perkin's Folio, went to the other extreme, becoming the champion of conjectural emendation in its most licentious forms. Mr. Dyce and Mr. Staunton hold the balance comparatively even, but in the hands of the