128. VIII. FEB. 19, 1921.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 159 SNUFF: '-PRINCE'S MIXTURE" (12 S. viii. 69). Xamed after the Prince of Wales (George IV.). "Sir Richard's Mixture" was named after Sir Richard Puleston of Emral. E. E. C. 'The Soverane Herbe,' by W. A. Penn (Richards) 1901, records that the Regent, afterwards George IV., used a compound of rappee scented with attar of roses, which is still sold as "Prince's Mixture." Another famous mixture of the same period was Taddy's "37 ", which to be without was a sign of social degeneration. It is said the numeral used arose from the number of [votes accorded at a meeting where the loaerits of various snuffs were being dis- fcussed. A majority of 37 was given to Taddy's and a few for other makes. ARCHIBALD SPARKE. LONDON COACHING AND CARRIERS' INNS 3N 1732(128. viii. 61, 84, 102, 116). " Stop- port " is undoubtedly Stockport. Until a few years ago no Cheshireman would ever have pronounced the name in any other way. "A Stoppot chaise " is two women riding sideways on one horse. The pillion was called a " Stopport horse." JOSEPH C. BRIDGE. I am much obliged to MR. KENYON for jointing out that by "Stopport," Stockport ind not Southport was indicated. MR. KEN vox's note has put me in mind )f the case of " Eastborn " whose carrier tarted each week from the Greyhound in Southwark (ante, p. 85). As in the Memoirs of William Hickey,' 1918, ii. 82, Sastbourne is described in July,. 1776, as 'only an insignificant fishing town con- sisting of about eight or ten scattered louses," it would be curious to know what class of goods were carried forty years earlier. One suspects "run " goods largely, and Hickey makes it abundantly clear that
- he excellent claret he and his friends un-
expectedly enjoyed there was of such origin. J. PAUL DE CASTRO. 0n Hi* Ti-mpi-fit : being the Firnt Volume, of a New Edition of th< V or 1^ of Shakespeare. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by Sir A. Quiller-Couch, and J. Dover Wilson. (Cam bridge University Press, 7*. 6d.) k 'E are the debtors of those who summon us to ?-read * The Tempest ' and feel again the spell of !ie magic story, which can enthral the imagination . a child and provide wise men with material for speculation and research. It is memorable that at the close of life the riches of experience had taught, its writer to achieve the work that holds most delicrht for simple minds. The charm that it can exercise over the unlearned makes it the worthier theme for the study of great scholars, and the suggestion of apology with which the Cambridge Press offers its new edition is unnecessary. The General Introduction from the pen of Sir A. Quiller-Couch applies to the whole series, and contains a summary of the evolution of criticism with regard to Shakespeare the gradual stages by which his name, from being merely that of a play- wright, came to represent "a book." Only as a book could he have survived the Puritans, but survival did not imply established fame. The name of Shakespeare had no impressive quality for Pepys, and the whole record shows that it was the stolid assurance of the Victorians that exalted him to his present pinnacle ; the fulness of appreciation remaining for their successors. There is a valuable article on the textual criticism of the plays which suggests the wide field for labour that lies before the Shakespearean student. With this basis of knowledge, Folid enough to give a footing to independence, the Editors frankly present the plays in book form for the modern English reader, as distinguished from the Elizabethan playgoer, because, as they explain, " a play-book is a very different thing from a moving audible pageant." As a result certain unfamiliar stage-directions make their appearance, most noticeable (and most susceptible of criticism)- in their interpretation of Miranda's manners as a listener in Act I. In this, however, no more license is claimed than a play-goer willingly accords to every actor, and the effect throughout is wholly to the advantage of the reader, who may now pursue his way unchecked by obscure passages that, in the past, have claimed a reference to Notes. Few readers of 'The Tempest,' probably, think of it as a play at all. Some will regard it as a fairy story, some as a parable, some as the vehicle of its- author's philosophy of life, while to others it is merely the background of three marvellous symbolic figures. (Strangest among its attributes perhaps is its power to hold a mind like that of Kenan and to- provoke from him his most grotesque experiment. By showing us what Caliban and Prospero and Ariel became in other hands he pays involuntary tribute to their creator.) There is possibility of too much explanation in a field that gives scope for many theories and Sir A. Quiller-Couch practises an admirable reserve in his prefatory pages. He gives little space to the question (so fascinating to Shakespearean scholars in the nineteenth century)' of the Sources from which suggestion for the play was drawn. Perhaps indeed in his resentment at the excessive labouring of such points by earlier com- mentators he errs a little by indifference. Lovers of 'The Tempest' will not seriously imagine that it owes anything to 'The Fair Sidea,' yet it is interesting to know that the English 'and the German dramatist seized at the same time on the same suggestion of a plot. And if, as every lover of ' The Tempest ' must, we seek to draw a little closer to the mind of Shakespeare, we welcome evidence as to his choice of books. We are the richer because * The Tempest ' shows its that he was a careful reader of Montaigne. And to some minds
