remarkable. In his work "περὶ θαυμασίων ἀκουσμάτων," he mentions Lipara, one of the Æolian Islands, lying to the north of Sicily, and nearly in the course of Shakspeare's Neapolitan fleet from Tunis to Naples. Among the πολλὰ τερατώδη found there, he tells us:

"Ἐξακούεσθαι γὰρ τυμπάνων καὶ κυμβάλων ἦχον γέλωτα τε μετὰ θορύβου καὶ κροτάλων ἐναργῶς. λέγουσι δέ τι τερατωδέστερον γεγονέναι περὶ τὸ σπήλαιον."

If we compare this with the aerial music heard by Ferdinand (Tempest, I. 2.), especially as the orchestra is represented by the genial burin of M. Retsch in the fifth plate of his well-known sketches (Umrisze), it will appear probable that Shakspeare was acquainted with the Greek writer either in the original or through a translation. As far as I am aware, this has not been observed by any of the commentators.—From The Navorscher.

J. M.

Coincident Criticisms.—I shall be obliged if you will allow me through your pages to anticipate and rebut two charges of plagiarism. When I wrote my Note on a passage in The Winter's Tale ("N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 378.), I had not seen the Dublin University Magazine for March last, containing some remarks on the same passage in some respects much resembling mine. I must also declare that my Note on a passage in All's Well that ends Well ("N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 426.) was posted for you some time before the appearance of A. E. B.'s Note on the same passage ("N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 403.). The latter coincidence is more remarkable than the former, as the integrity of the amended text was in both notes discussed by means of the same parallel passage. Apropos of A. E. B.'s clever Note, permit me to say, that though at first it appeared to me conclusive, I now incline to think that Shakspeare intended Helen to address the leaden messengers by means of a very hyperbolic figure: "wound the still-piecing air that sings with piercing" is a consistent whole. If, as A. E. B. rightly says, to wound the air is an impossibility, it is equally impossible that the air should utter any sound expressive of sensibility. The fact of course is, that the cannon-balls cleave the air, and that by so cleaving it a shrill noise is produced. The cause and effect may, however, be metaphorically described, by comparing air to Bertram. I believe it is a known fact that every man who is struck with a cannon-ball cries out instinctively. Shakspeare therefore might, I think, have very poetically described the action and effect of a cannon-ball passing through the air by the strong figure of wounding the air that sings with the piercing which it is enduring.

In concluding this Note, I beg to express what is not merely my own, but a very general feeling of disappointment in respect of Mr. Collier's new edition of Shakspeare. To it, with a new force, may be applied the words of A. E. B. in "N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p. 296.:

"But the evil of these emendations is not in this instance confined to the mere suggestion of doubt; the text has absolutely been altered in all accessible editions, in many cases silently, so that the ordinary reader has no opportunity of judging between Shakspeare and his improvers."

That Mr. Collier should be the greatest of such offenders, is no very cheering sign of the times.

C. Mansfield Ingleby.

Birmingham.

Dogberry's Losses (Vol. vii., p. 377.).—I do not know whether it has ever been suggested, but I feel inclined to read "lawsuits." He has just boasted of himself as "one that knows the law;" and it seems natural enough that he should go on to brag of being a rich fellow enough, "and a fellow that hath had lawsuits" of his own, and actually figured as plaintiff or defendant. Suppose the words taken down from the mouth of an actor, and the mistake would be easy.

John Doe.

THE CŒNACULUM OF LIONARDO DA VINCI.

I have in my possession a manuscript critique on the celebrated picture of The Last Supper by Lionardo da Vinci, written many years ago by a deceased academician; in which the writer has called in question the point of time usually supposed to have been selected by the celebrated Italian painter. The criticisms are chiefly founded on the copy by Marco Oggioni, now in the possession of the Royal Academy of Arts.

Uniform tradition has assumed that the moment of action is that in which the Saviour announces the treachery of one of his disciples "Dico vobis quia unus vestrum me traditurus est." Matth. xxvi. 21., Joan. xiii. 21., Vulgate edit.; and most of the admirers of this great work have not failed to find in it decisive proofs of the intention of the painter to represent that exact point of time.

The author of the manuscript enters into a very detailed examination of the several groups of figures which compose the picture, and of the expression of the heads; and he confesses his inability to find in them anything decisively indicating the period supposed to be chosen. He remarks that nine at least of the persons, including the principal one, are evidently engaged in animated conversation; that instead of that concentrated attention which the announcement might be supposed to generate, there appears to be great variety of expressions and of action; and that neither surprise nor indignation are so generally prominent, as might have been expected. He inclines to think that the studied diversity of expression, and the varied attitudes and gestures of the assembled party, are to be regarded as proofs of the artist's efforts to produce a powerful and harmonious composition, rather than a natural and truthful representation of any particular moment of the transaction depicted by him.

The work in question is now so generally accessible through the medium of accurate engravings, that any one may easily exercise his own judgment on the matter, and decide for himself whether the criticism be well founded.

It must be borne in mind that the subject had long been a familiar decoration of conventual refectories before the time when Lionardo brought his profound knowledge of external human nature, and his unsurpassed powers of executive art, to bear on a subject which had before been treated in the dry, conventional, inanimate manner of the Middle Ages. The leading features of the traditional picture are retained: the long table, the linen cloth, the one-sided arrangement of the figures, the classic drapery, and the general form and design of the apartment, are all to be found in the earlier works; and must have been considered, by observers in general, far more essential to the correct delineation of the scene than any adherence to the exact description of it in any one of the Evangelists. But as the subject was usually introduced into refectories for the edification of the brethren assembled with their superior at their own meals, it does not seem likely that the treachery of Judas should have been intended to be the prominent action of the picture. It was a memorial of the institution of the Eucharist, although the Christ was not represented as dispensing either bread or wine. In such a case, if any particular