We have been minute in criticizing this part of Mr. White’s notes, because we think his investigations misdirected, the results at which he arrives mistaken, and because we hope to persuade him to keep a tighter rein on his philological zeal in future.  Even could he show what the pronunciation of Shakspeare’s day was, it is idle to encumber his edition with such disquisitions, for we shall not find Shakspeare clearer for not reading him in his and our mother-tongue.  The field of philology is famous for its mare’s-nests; and, if imaginary eggs are worth little, is it worth while brooding on imaginary chalk ones, nest-eggs of delusion?

Life is short and Shakspeare long.  We believe the pronunciation of Shakspeare’s day to have been so qualified with perfectly understood provincialisms as to have allowed puns and rhymes impossible now.  It is not eighty years since you could tell the county[N] of every country member of Parliament by his speech.  Speculations like Mr. White’s would be better placed in a monograph by themselves.  We have subjected his volumes to a laborious examination such as few books receive, because the text of Shakspeare is a matter of common and great concern, and they have borne the trial, except in these few impertinent particulars, admirably.  Mr. Dyce and Mr. Singer are only dry commonplace-books of illustrative quotations; Mr. Collier has not wholly recovered from his “Corr. fo."-madness; Mr. Knight (with many eminent advantages as an editor) is too diffuse; and we repeat our honest persuasion, that Mr. White has thus far given us the best extant text, while the fulness of his notes gives his edition almost the value of a variorum.  We shall look with great interest for his succeeding volumes.

[Footnote N:  Mr. White is mistaken in thinking that to say “my country” for “my county” was a peculiarity of Shallow.  It was common in the last century in England.  He is wrong also in thinking that he was restoring a characteristic vulgarism in aleven.  Gabriel Harvey uses it, and says there is no difference in sound between that and a leaven.]

* * * * *

In the introductory part of this article, we said that it was doubtful if Shakspeare had any conscious moral intention in his writings.  We meant only that he was purely and primarily poet.  And while he was an English poet in a sense that is true of no other, his method was thoroughly Greek, yet with this remarkable difference,—­that, while the Greek dramatists took purely national themes and gave them a universal interest by their mode of treatment, he took what may be called cosmopolitan traditions, legends of human nature, and nationalized them, by the infusion of his perfectly Anglican breadth of character and solidity of understanding.  Wonderful as his imagination and fancy are, his perspicacity and artistic discretion are more so.  This country tradesman’s son, coming up to London, could set high-bred wits,