printed"! a passage in _Troilus and Cressida_, Act. v. Sc. 3.,
where Cassandra and Andromache are attempting to dissuade Hector from going
to battle, is thus given:

"_And._ O be perswaded: doe not count it holy,
To hurt by being iust; it is lawful:
For we would count giue much to as violent thefts,
And rob in the behalfe of charitie."

Deviating from his usual practice, Mr. Knight makes an omission and a
transposition, and reads thus:

"Do not count it holy
To hurt by being just: it is as lawful,
For we would give much, to count violent thefts,
And rob in the behalf of charity."

with the following note; the ordinary reading is

"'For we would give much _to use_ violent thefts.'"

_To use thefts_ is clearly not Shakspearian. Perhaps _count_ or _give_
might be omitted, supposing that one word had been substituted for another
in the manuscript, without the erasure of the first written; but this
omission will not give us a meaning. We have ventured to transpose _count_
and omit _as_:

"For we would give much, to count violent thefts."

We have now a clear meaning: it is as lawful because we desire to give
much, to count violent thefts as _holy_, "and rob in the behalf of
charity."

Mr. Collier also lays aside his aversion to vary from the old copy, and
makes a bold innovation: he reads,--

"Do not count it holy
To hurt by being just: it is as lawful,
For us to give much count to violent thefts,
And rob in the behalf of charity."

Thus giving his reasons: "This line [the third] is so corrupt in the folio
1623, as to afford no sense. The words and their arrangement are the same
in the second and third folio, while the fourth only alters _would_ to
_will_." Tyrwhitt read:

"For we would give much to use violent thefts,"

which is objectionable, not merely because it wanders from the text, but
because it inserts a phrase, "to _use_ violent thefts," which is awkward
and unlike Shakspeare. The reading I have adopted is that suggested by Mr.
Amyot, who observes upon it: "Here, I think, with little more than
transposition (_us_ being, substituted for _we_, and _would_ omitted), the
meaning, as far as we can collect it, is not departed from nor perverted,
as in Rowe's strange interpolation:

"For us to count we give what's gain'd by thefts."

The original is one of the few passages which, as it seems to me, must be
left to the reader's sagacity