composition with cowardice, when they (the traitors and cowards) have lost and forfeited themselves? Treason and cowardice are undoubtedly the two offences which the king intends to brand with his indignation. "Foes" is quite inadmissible.
In Act II. Scene 1—Gadshill, talking in a lofty vein of his high acquaintances, says, "I am joined with no foot land-rakers, no long-staff, six-penny strikers; none of these mad, mustachio, purple-hued maltworms; but with nobility and tranquillity; burgomasters and great oneyers; such as can hold in; such as can strike sooner than speak," &c. The change of "tranquillity" into sanguinity, as proposed by the MS. corrector, we dismiss at once as unworthy of any consideration. "Oneyers" is the only word about which there is any difficulty; and it has puzzled the bigwigs. Theobald reads "moneyers"—that is, officers of the mint—bankers. Sir T. Hanmer reads "peat owners." Malone reads "onyers," which, he says, means public accountants; "To settle accounts is still called at the exchequer to ony, and hence Shakespeare seems to have formed the word onyers. Johnson has hit upon the. right explanation, although he advances it with considerable hesitation. "I know not," says he, "whether any change is necessary; Gadshill tells the chamberlain that he is joined with no mean wretches, but with burgomasters and great ones, or, as he terms them in merriment, by a cant termination, great oneyers, or, great one-eers—as we say privateer, auctioneer, circuiteer. This is, I fancy, the whole of the matter." That this is the true explanation, or very near it, and that no change in the text is necessary, is proved beyond a doubt by the following extract from the writings of one whose genius, while it elevates the noblest subjects, can also illustrate the most small. "Do they often go where glory waits them, and leave you here?" says Mr Swiveller, alluding to Brass and his charming sister, in Dickens' Old Curiosity Shop. " 'O, yes, I believe they do,' returned the marchioness, alias the small servant; 'Miss Sally's such a one-er for that.' 'Such a what?' said Dick, as much puzzled as a Shakespearean commentator. 'Such a one-er,' returned the marchioness. After a moment's reflection, Mr Swiveller determined to forego his responsible duty of setting her right—[why should he have wished to set her right? she was right; she was speaking the language and illustrating the meaning of Shakespeare]—and to suffer her to talk on; as it was evident that her tongue was loosened by the purl, and her opportunities for conversation were not so frequent as to render a momentary check of little consequence. 'They sometimes go to see Mr Quilp,' said the small servant, with a shrewd look: 'they go to a many places, bless you.' 'Is Mr Brass a wunner?' said Dick. 'Not half what Miss Sally is, he isn't,' replied the small servant." Here is the very word we want. Shakespeare's "oneyer" is Dickens' one-er or wunner—that is, a one par excellence, a one with an emphasis—a top-sawyer—and the difficulty is resolved. Set a thief to catch a. thief; and leave one peat intellectual luminary to throw light upon another. After Mr Dickens' lucid commentary, "oneyer" becomes quite a household word, and we suspect that the MS. corrector's emendation will scarcely go down. He reads, "burgomasters and great ones,— yes such as can hold in." "This will never do," to quote a favourite aphorism, and literary canon of the late Lord Jeffrey, when speaking of the Lake School of poetry.
Act II. Scene 4.—The complacency with which Mr Collier sets the authority of his MS. corrector above that of the other commentators on Shakespeare, is one of the most curious features in his literary character. The following is an instance of his margin-olatry. "Rowe," says Mr Collier, "seems to have been right (indeed, the emendation hardly admits of doubt) in reading tristful for 'trustful' in Falstaff's speech, as we learn from the alteration introduced in the folio 1632. 'For Heaven's sake, lords, convey my tristful queen.'" As if the authority of Rowe, or of any other person, was not, to say the least of it, just as good as that of the anonymous corrector, who, by the blunders into which he has fallen, has proved himself signally disqualified for the task
