NEW READINGS IN SHAKESPEARE.
NO. III—CONCLUSION.
Before finishing the business of the old MS. corrector, we may be permitted to dispose of a case, very small, indeed, but somewhat personal to ourselves, and arising out of these discussions. In Notes and Queries, p. 169 (August 20, 1853), the following remark occurs: "The critic in Blackwood disclaims consulting Notes and Queries; and it is, no doubt, a convenient disclaimer." Good Notes and Queries, we simply regretted that it was not in our power to consult your pages when writing our first article on the New Readings. We wished to have been able to confirm, or rather to complete, a reference to you which Mr Singer had made in his Vindication of Shakespeare. But unfortunately your volumes were not at hand; for you need scarcely be told that we provincials cannot always readily command the wisdom which emanates from your enlightened circle. But why was it "a convenient disclaimer?" Good old ladies, you surely cannot think that we would purloin your small savings; we would sooner rob the nest of a titmouse. No, no; believe us, we have no heart for that. We did, however, at first, fear that we had inadvertently picked a small morsel—perhaps its little all—out of the mouth of a sparrow; and our heart smote us for the unintentional unkindness. We were prepared to make any amends in our power to the defrauded little chirper. We have been at some pains to discover in what we may have wronged any of your mild fraternity, provocative of the polite insinuation implied in your epithet "convenient," and we find that we are as innocent as Uncle Toby with his fly. We have not hurt, even undesignedly, a single hair upon your buzzing head.
We had no doubt, at first, that our offence must have been the expression of some little hint about Shakespeare in which we had been anticipated by Notes and Queries. And accordingly, insignificant as the point might be—still knowing what a small nibble is a perfect fortune to that minute fry—we were prepared to acknowledge publicly their priority of claim to anything we might have said, and to stomach their not very handsome appellative as we best might. But how stands the case?—thus. Some time near the beginning of August, Icon asks Notes and Queries—"Has any one suggested, 'Most busy, when least I do?'—(Tempest, iii. i.), The 'it' seems surplusage." (The complete line, we should mention, is—"Most busy, least when I do it.") That is a very plain question, and Notes and Queries answers it, at first, correctly enough—"Yes," says he, "this reading was proposed in Blackwood's Magazine for August;" that is, some time before the query was put. Notes and Queries then goes on to say—"But Icon will also find the same reading with an anterior title of nearly three years, together with some good reasons for its adoption, in Notes and Queries, vol. ii. p. 338." Here, then, we had no doubt that we had been anticipated, and were quite ready to make restitution; for Notes and Queries' answer seems decisive. But stop a little; just give him time to get his ideas into disorder, and we shall see what will turn up. He goes on to say—"In the original suggestion in Notes and Queries, there is no presumption of surplusage; the word 'it' is understood in relation to labours." So that this is the position of Notes and Queries: he is asked—Has the word "it" ever been left out of a certain line in Shakespeare? Yes, answers he, it was left out in a reading proposed in our volumes three years ago, and identical with one lately published in Blackwood—the only difference, he adds, sotto voce, between the two readings being, that in ours the word "it" is not left out, while in Blackwood's it is!
So that, after all, our whole offence consists in not having been anticipated in this reading by Notes and Queries. But we cannot help that. Why should he punish us for his own want of sagacity? We appeal to an impartial public to take up the cause of in-
