evertheless differ only in the mutual exchange of place in two letters:
these verbs are _secure_ and _r_ecu_s_e; the first implying _assurance_,
the second _want of assurance_, or refusal. Hence any sentence would
receive an opposite meaning from one of these verbs to what it would from
the other.

Let us now refer to the opening scene of the Fourth Act of _King Lear_,
where the old man offers his services to Gloster, who has been deprived of
his eyes:

"_Old Man._ You cannot see your way.

_Gloster._ I have no way, and therefore want no eyes;
I stumbled when I saw: full oft 'tis seen
Our means _secure_ us, and our mere defects
Prove our commodities."

Here one would suppose that the obvious opposition between _means_ and
_defects_ would have preserved these words from being tampered with; and
that, on the other hand, the _absence_ of opposition between _secure_ and
_commodious_ would have directed attention to the real error. But, no: all
the worretting has been about _means_; and this unfortunate word has been
twisted in all manner of ways, until finally "the old corrector" informs us
that "the printer read _wants_ 'means,' and hence the blunder!"

Now, mark the perfect antithesis the passage receives from the change of
_secure_ into _recuse_:

"Full oft 'tis seen
Our means recuse us, and our mere defects
Prove our commodities."

I trust I may be left in the quiet possession of whatever merit is due to
this restoration. Some other of my humble _auxilia_ have, before now, been
coolly appropriated, with the most innocent air possible, without the
slightest acknowledgment. One instance is afforded in MR. KEIGHTLEY'S
communication to "N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 136., where that gentleman not
only repeats the explanation I had previously given of the same passage,
but even does me the honour of requoting the same line of Shakspeare with
which I had supported it.

I did not think it worth noticing at the time, nor should I now, were it
not that MR. KEIGHTLEY'S {593} confidence in the negligence or want of
recollection in your readers seems not have been wholly misplaced, if we
may judge from MR. ARROWSMITH's admiring foot-note in last Number of "N. &
Q.," p. 568.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

* * * * *

SHAKESPEARE'S USE OF THE IDIOM "NO HAD" AND "NO HATH NOT."

(Vol. vii., p. 520.)

We are under great obligations to the REV. MR. ARROWSMITH for his ver