A literal reprint of an old author may be of value in two ways:  the orthography may in certain cases indicate the ancient pronunciation, or it may put us on a scent which shall lead us to the burrow of a word among the roots of language.  But in order to this, it surely is not needful to undertake the reproduction of all the original errors of the press; and even were it so, the proofs of carelessness in the editorial department are so glaring, that we are left in doubt, after all, if we may congratulate ourselves on possessing all these sacred blunders of the Elizabethan typesetters in their integrity and without any debasement of modern alloy.  If it be gratifying to know that there lived stupid men before our contemporary Agamemnons in that kind, yet we demand absolute accuracy in the report of the phenomena in order to arrive at anything like safe statistics.  For instance, we find (Vol.  I. p. 89) “ACTUS SECUNDUS, SCENA PRIMUS,” and (Vol.  III. p. 174) “exit ambo,” and we are interested to know that in a London printing-house, two centuries and a half ago, there was a philanthropist who wished to simplify the study of the Latin language by reducing all the nouns to one gender and all the verbs to one number.  Had his emancipated theories of grammar prevailed, how much easier would that part of boys which cherubs want have found the school-room benches!  How would birchen bark, as an educational tonic, have fallen in repute!  How white would have been the (now black-and-blue) memories of Dr. Busby and so many other educational lictors, who, with their bundles of rods, heralded not alone the consuls, but all other Roman antiquities to us!  We dare not, however, indulge in the grateful vision, since there are circumstances which lead us to infer that Mr. Halliwell himself (member though he be of so many learned societies) has those vague notions of the speech of ancient Rome which are apt to prevail in regions which count not the betula in their Flora.  On page xv. of his Preface, he makes Drummond say that Ben Jonson “was dilated” (delated,—­Gifford gives it in English, accused) “to the king by Sir James Murray,”—­Ben, whose corpulent person stood in so little need of that malicious increment!

What is Mr. Halliwell’s conception of editorial duty?  As we read along, and the once fair complexion of the margin grew more and more pimply with pencil-marks, like that of a bad proof-sheet, we began to think that he was acting on the principle of every man his own washerwoman, —­that he was making blunders of set purpose, (as teachers of languages do in their exercises,) in order that we might correct them for ourselves, and so fit us in time to be editors also, and members of various learned societies, even as Mr. Halliwell himself is.  We fancied, that, magnanimously waving aside the laurel with which a grateful posterity crowned General Wade, he wished us “to see these roads before they were made,” and develope