In annotating Shakspeare, it would, perhaps, be asking too much of an editor to give credit to its first finder for every scrap of illustration.  The immense mass of notes already existing may, perhaps, be fairly looked upon as a kind of dictionary, open to every one, and the use of which implies no indebtedness.  Mr. White, in general, indicates the source whence he has drawn, though we have sometimes found him negligent in this respect.  He says, in the Advertisement prefixed to his second volume, “that in every case, where no such credit is given for a restoration, a conjecture, or a quotation, the editor is responsible for it; and as he is disinclined to the giving of much prominence to claims of this sort, he has, in those cases, merely remarked, that ‘hitherto’ the text has stood thus or so.”  We have not been at the trouble of verifying every one of Mr. White’s “hithertos,” but we did so in two plays, and found in “Midsummer Night’s Dream” four, and in “Much Ado” two cases, where the reading claimed as a restoration occurred also in Mr. Knight’s excellent edition of 1842.  These oversights do not affect the correctness of Mr. White’s text, but they diminish our confidence in the accuracy of the collation to which he lays claim.

The chief objection which we have to make against Mr. White’s text is, that he has perversely allowed it to continue disfigured by vulgarisms of grammar and spelling.  For example, he gives us misconster, and says, “This is not a mis-spelling or loose spelling of ‘misconstrue,’ but the old form of the word.”  Mr. Dyce insisted on the same cacographical nicety in his “Remarks” on the editions of Mr. Collier and Mr. Knight, but abandons it in his own with the artless admission that misconstrue also occurs in the Folio.  In one of the Camden Society’s publications is a letter from Friar John Hylsey to Thomas Cromwell, in which we find “As God is my jugge";[H] but we do not believe that jug was an old form of judge, though a philological convict might fancy that the former word was a derivative of the latter.  Had the phrase occurred in Shakspeare, we should have had somebody defending it as tenderly poetical.  We cannot but think it a sacrifice in Mr. White that he has given up the whatsomeres of the Folio.  He does retain puisny as the old form, but why not spell it puisne and so indicate its meaning?  Mr. White informs us that “the grammatical form in use in Shakspeare’s day” was to have the verb govern a nominative case!  Accordingly, he perpetuates the following oversight of the poet or blunder of the printer:—­

[Footnote H:  Suppression of the Monasteries, p. 13.]

            “What he is, indeed,
  More suits you to conceive, than I to speak of.”