eonge, a British Navy Chaplain, dated 1675-1679, by
which it appears that "three cheers" were given then, just as they are
now; the second, from a passage in Phaer's Translation of the "Aeneid,"
published in 1558, in which "_Excipiunt plausu pavidos_" is rendered
"The Trojans them did _chere_." And now will it be believed that
an LL.D. of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a professed student of
Shakespeare, seeks to avoid the force of these facts by pleading, that,
although Teonge speaks of "three cheers," it does not follow that there
was such a thing known in his day as a cheer; that "three cheers" was
a recognized phrase for a certain naval salute; and that "to confound
_three cheers_ with _a cheer_ would be as ignorant a proceeding as
to confound the phrases 'manning the yards' and 'manning a
yard'"?--Exactly, Dr. Ingleby,--just as ignorant; but three times one
are three; and when one yard is manned the sailors have manned a yard,
and while they are a-doing it they are manning a yard. What did the
people call one-third of their salute in 1675? And are we to suppose
that they were never led to give "one more" cheer, as they do nowadays?
And have the LL.D.s of Cambridge--old Cambridge--yet to learn that the
compound always implies the preexistence of the simple, and that "a
cheer" is, by logical necessity, the antecedent of "three cheers"?
Can they fail to see, too, as "cheer" meant originally face, then
countenance, then comfort, encouragement, that, before it could be used
as a verb to mean the _expression_ of applause, it must have previously
been used as a noun to mean applause? And finally, has an intelligent
and learned student of Shakespeare read him so imperceptively as not to
know, that, if "cheer," or any other word, had been used in his time
only as a verb, he would not have hesitated a moment about using it as a
noun, if it suited his purpose to do so? That the original text in the
passage in question, "so eloquent as a chair," is correct, we have no
doubt; but the attempt to make the introduction of "cheer" into Mr.
Collier's folio a chronological test of the good faith of its MS.
readings has failed entirely.

But Mr. Collier's accusers fall short of their aim upon other and no
less important points. It seems more than doubtful that the spuriousness
of all the marginal readings in the notorious folio and all the
documents brought forward by Mr. Collier has been established. Under
ordinary circumstances, wh