nsane lunes_" as in the double epithet, "dangerous,
unsafe." It is, in fact, equivalent to "insane madness;" and, moreover,
drags in quite needlessly a very unusual and uncouth word.

In p. 481. we have the last word of the following passage--

"I never saw a vessel of like sorrow,
So fill'd and so becoming,"--

converted into "_o'er-running_." This may possibly be the correct reading;
but, seeing that it is immediately followed by the words--

" . . . in pure white robes,
Like very sanctity,"

I question whether "becoming" is not the more natural expression.

"There weep--and leave it crying,"

is made--

"There _wend_--and leave it crying,"

which I submit is decidedly wrong. I will not be hypercritical, or I might
suggest that in that case the words would have been "_thither_ wend;" but I
maintain that the change is contrary to the _sense_. The spirit of Hermione
never could have been intended to say that the _child_ should be left
_crying_. She would rather wish that it might _not cry_! The meaning, as it
seems to me, is, that Antigonus should _weep_ over the babe, and leave it
while so _weeping_.

In p. 487. the words "missingly noted" are altered to "_musingly_ noted,"
which is a very questionable improvement. Camillo, _missing_ Florigel from
court, would naturally _note_ his absence; and he may have _mused_ over the
causes of it, but there could be no necessity for _musing_ to note the fact
of his absence: and I cannot help thinking that the word _missingly_ is
more in Shakspeare's style.

I cannot subscribe at all to the alteration in p. 492. of the word
"unrolled" to "enrolled." To be enrolled _and placed_ in the book of virtue
is very like tautology; but I conceive Shakspeare meant Autolycus to wish
that his name might be _unrolled_ from the company of thieves and gypsies
with whom he was associated, and transferred to the book of virtue.

I am entirely at issue with the old corrector upon his _emendation_ in p.
498.:

" . . . Nothing she does or _seems_,
But smacks of something greater than herself;"

he says, ought to be: "Nothing she does or _says_." And how does MR.
COLLIER explain this misprint? Why, by stating that formerly "says" was
often written "saies." Now, I cannot for the life of me discover why the
word "saies" should have been mistaken for "seems," any more than the word
"says." But surely the phrase, "nothing she does or seems," is far more
poetica